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.

Deciphering the Middle Kingdom (sort of...)

I really love prognosticators – honestly, I do.

Most of my personal exposure to the crystal ball comes from the yearly statements and advertisements from my provider of RESP’s (to you non-Canadians, a Registered Education Savings Plan that allows a tax-deferred account for the sole purpose of financing your child’s Frat House exploits when they go to the Ivory Tower of their choice / the one that will take them).

Of course, I know it is expensive, and that saving early and often (like voting in some jurisdictions) is the sure path to victory. But how much? Oh, please, how much?

Like latter day Delphic Oracles, the actuarial cadre declares that ceteris paribus, if the trend continues unabated, the cost of a four-year degree for your little Johnny or Sally will be the equivalent of the GDP of Slovenia – every year!

What do to?! Well, like the good sales associate says, you need to double down on the pre-authorized withdrawals, of course.

Now, all of this is based on what is, in essence, a linear path of causality. That is, the crap that you dealt with this year was three percent stinkier than last year’s manure. Now, just imagine what the olf factor of that steaming pile, amortized over 15-20 years would be?

You could increase your monthly contributions from $200 to $5000 in order to gain some piece of mind (and lose your home and other possessions in the process), but this whole strategy is predicated on one idea, that if something cost ten percent more this year, add another ten percent each and every year ad infinitum.

Well, life don’t work like that, do it?

The philosopher Bertrand Russell used to talk about the life of a turkey. For a year, each day of its life is one of relative indulgence – food, water, and care in abundance. The turkey, for 364 consecutive days, lives the Life of Reilly. Why, then, should this bird assume that Day 365 is going to be any different? But then, instead of a pail of delicious organically grown corn, Farmer Brown shows up wielding a very shiny – and very sharp – axe.

Oops.

Much of the talk about China seems to follow this same trajectory – ever upward, unfailing and unblinking. By a certain proscribed date, we will all live in the shadow of the dragon. Oooohhh. Sends shivers up the spine!

Hu Jintao’s recent visit to Washington, and all of the trees that gave their lives in order to allow commentators to expound their theories and thoughts, got me thinking about how seriously we should be taking all of this.

While former US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s oratorio about ‘knowns’,’unknowns’ and ‘known unknowns’ stands as a classic alliteration of the phenomenon (alongside former Canadian PM Jean Chretien’s “da proof is a proof” monologue), they point to a central fact of global politics and life. In my own words, everything falls into three categories: the stuff you know, they stuff you don’t know, and the stuff that you had no idea existed to begin with.

So, what’s that got to do with China? Okay, dear friends, let’s break it way down, old school.

First, the things we know:

1. China’s got an enormous crapload of people and a government that is in a hell or a rush to get where we in the West are in a very short time;

2. China has the ability to harness domestic resources (human and natural) in a way that no one else can;

3. What China does not own herself, she have a crapload of cash to pay for it.

Now, the things that we don’t know:

1. When is China going to surpass the US?

2. What will China do with their newfound status?

3. What are China’s intentions globally?

4. Will China play by the same rules as the West, or seek the West to play by her rules?

Okay, now let’s add a little flavor to the mix with the stuff that may, or may not exist – the ‘Black Swan’ stuff:

1. Can the Communist Party hold onto power? Will there be a Tiananmen part deux?

2. Will there be a peasant revolt – over living standards, over the cost of food or fuel?

3. Will a buildup of China’s military siphon off too many resources?

4. Will China’s one-child policy alter the nation just as it becomes prima inter pares?

5. What happens when affluent Chinese want more from their government?

6. What happens if the PRC government infrastructure runs itself ragged trying to shut down every website and blog that pops up, like a ‘Whack a Mole’ game on steroids?

7. What happens when the PRC, like the West’s dealings with OPEC in 1973, finds itself beholding to resource rich countries that want more clout in the global marketplace?

8. What about social cohesion? Despite the predominance of Han Chinese, there are many ethnicities in the PRC. Even outside that, the dialects are so different that many can hardly understand what their countrymen are saying – like English to French to German.

9. What about peer competitors? India, for example, shares a border, a history of tensions, a rapid GDP growth rate and a population that will surpass China within the next 3-4 decades.


In short, the things we think will happen, or are confident in predicting, may very well define the path we take. Far too often, however, our path gets interrupted by things we either did not consider, or things we could never have predicted (like the credit crisis...hellooo?)

One human failing is to assume that everything falls into some neat little package with a bow.

While I am more of a Hayek / Von Mises guy, I acknowledge the prescience of John Maynard Keynes' observation that "In the long run, we are all dead." More true to my upbringing would be the rough-hewn bromide about opinions being like a particular orifice in that everyone has one, and they usually stink.

In the end, I think that the safe money is that, in the short- to medium term, China will grow to a degree of prominence that we will all have to sort out how the world is going to work going forward. China, too, will have to figure out its relationships – both with its international partners and with its own citizens.

The world has an interesting way of rebalancing itself. The rise of one power usually spurs the rise of a peer competitor, or a grouping, to act as a counterbalance.

If China enjoys its own ‘unipolar moment’, I suspect that the rest of the world will, by some means, make it as shortlived as that enjoyed by the United States.

That I believe, whether or not my kid’s degree ends up costing me everything – including the clothes on my back.

Thoughts on Tucson

The tragedy in Tucson, Arizona this past weekend, like so many other similarly horrific events in life, engender a certain predictable mix of emotion. People are seized with a combination of grief and confusion.

The former serves to bring people together in common cause - to reaffirm life, and a process where our differences are resolved free of violence. The latter, unfortunately - and with equal potency - seeks to undermine that unifying affirmation.

It is human nature that we try to make sense of things that defy logic, or at least our understanding of it. We consider ourselves to be rational men and women, and would never dare to contemplate the actions of one Jared Lee Loughner, or those in our midst who have deemed it acceptable to perpetrate such violence.

Of course, the good thing about sanity is also its deficiency in dealing with resolution in such cases. That is, we are too much in control of our senses to appreciate what it is to take leave of them.

Continually, we commit the error of attempting to rationalize what defies such definitions.

Consider the discussion of what brand of political stooge Loughner was based on his reading habits. He read both the Communist Manifesto and Ayn Rand. This, of course, allows one faction to argue that he was a Marxist 'Fellow Traveller" weaned on Hegelian didactics, while others could suggest that he was a paid up charter member of the Wasilla, Alaska Hunt Club.

In this political environment, crazy means rationality directed in favour of the other side.

Left and Right both have their own particular means of doing this. After all, even in the midst of this radically outrageous event, the political discourse still needs to find a way of making the other side seem out to lunch without actually saying it.

Those to the right of Fox News will always resort to the tried and true method of lowering Old Glory from the flagpole, and wrapping themselves in the colourful banner as if it were Roman toga, or some magical talisman that has powers comparable to Harry Potter's invisibility cloak. Evil spirits and socialism begone!

Not to be outdone, those to the left of MSNBC have their own equally potent, albeit less overt, means of saying the same thing. It is the old bait and switch that Marx and Hegel introduced to the world - 'class consciousness', or essentially, 'knowing what's best for you.' It's a magical essence that only manifests itself in those who, coincidentally, agree with you unconditionally. What?! A difference of opinion?! Well, young man / lady, you lack 'class consciousness'. You must be ____________ (Your choice of crazy, uneducated, uninformed, racist, religious, or some other moniker du jour).

So, what is the answer?

Frankly, I know as much as any other person who has commented on this - and that's very little.

I have read more than one book listed among Mr. Loughner's faves. I have also read "Catcher in the Rye", which seemed to have served as the lit fuse for the shootings of a former Beatle and a sitting US President. Beyond the annoyance I have for the rather gauche act of spinning murder for political profit, I cannot say that I am moved to any great act of barbarity. Perhaps my trigger is different, and that I should avoid any tome of the "Twilight" saga or current selection of Oprah Winfrey's Book Club.

Sigmund Freud, the father of Psychoanalysis, who seemed to write off a lot of human behaviour to repressed sexual feelings, himself famously admitted that "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." In this case, political pundits and social commentators are keen to read the tea leaves, or in this case, stand in front of a painting comprising three horizontal lines and explain how it means everything from a statement about "man's inhumanity toward man" to it being some "allegory about Christ and the Resurrection." Then again, folks, maybe it's just three horizontal lines.

For me, it all comes down to what I know, and what I don't know.

I don't know what makes Jared Lee Loughner tick. I don't know what combination of life experiences, induction, influences and brain chemistry created this debased mind who killed without emotion or mercy. It's likely that I'll never know.

What I do know is that people died, people are fighting for their lives, and those closest to them are in a great deal of emotional pain.

Anyone who tells you they know more than that either has the ability to look fully into a killer's soul, or they are lying.

You decide.

If you don't like the weather, wait five minutes

Okay, so now I am on the economy rant.

Lately the chorus has been lamenting the 'fact' (notice the parentheses) that Canada's economy is lagging behind other G7 nations.

Egad, how can this be? Weren't we the calm port in a stormy sea? Weren't we the epitomy of fiscal probity in a world gone mad?

As usual, people fit the facts to their opinions, rather than vice versa. In my humble and unvarnished opinion, neither the caffeine driven cheerleaders nor the Greek Chorus tripped out on Zoloft were right. The porridge was neither too hot nor cold, Goldilocks.

At the same time we are told that we are lagging the US, Goldman Sachs now says the humble loonie will top US $1.05.

So, our GDP lagging the US indicates weakness, but a rising currency indicates strength. It's flip a coin time, folks.

The truth is this. The rest of the G7 is still priming the pump and we aren't. Face it, if you are sprinting the 100 meters, and all of your opponents have just given themselves an injection of human growth hormone, cocaine, amphetamine, bull semen or Jack Daniels, you are likely to get your clock cleaned.

We are slow on a percentage basis for two reasons:

1. Other countries dropped further in the meltdown, so their gains will register higher. C'mon folks - it's like saying that 100% of ten is bigger than 10% of one hundred.

2. Unlike our friends, we are not spending money like a drunken sailor on shoreleave. While the feds are bringing in deficit numbers that are below last year's estimates, everybody else is growing their debt, or their money supply.

In the end, the other G7 nations will no longer be able to give their motor another shot of nitrous oxide, and they'll have to deal with the fact that their reliance on those shots has burned out their pistons.

So, to sum up - how can Canada regain its title of the strongest economy in the G7?

Easy - just like we used to say about the weather in Dawson Creek, BC - If you don't like it, just wait five minutes.

Struggling with my Inner Scrooge

It's Christmas Eve, and despite the Clark W. Griswold tendencies among others in our household, we are settling in for a modest Yuletide.

Yours truly is thankful for having young children. You get to see the holiday through their eyes. Their vision can be quite dystopic after a walkpast a Best Buy or a Toys R Us, but more often than not, they get it. Most times they get it better than us old fogies.

I like my Christmas, but I don't go nuts. I seem like a Scrooge by contrast, although I think that this is unfair. There is a difference between being pragmatic and nihilistic. Unfortunately, I make comments that do not reflect well on my point.

Ok, so I put a message out on Twitter that said that $100 a barrel for oil equaled another recession. Clearly not a popular sentiment, and I personally feel bad in saying it, but I can’t help but feel as though we are going to get knocked back two years, and all of the rise in the Dow and so forth will be all for naught. Unfortunately, 140 characters leave great room for interpretation, and little for nuance. That is probably why most of the twitterati stick to commenting on the coffee they drank, the pizza they ate, and the exploits of people called "Snooki" and "The Situation". As an editors note, I have no idea who these people are, but I remember a show called "Jake and the Fatman", and I assume they are similar - solving crimes, and a rotund man driving a large gas guzzling Cadillac, or Lincoln, or whatever, but je degress.

Beyond my modest undergraduate course study in Economics, I do not profess to have any great insight that allows me to speculate in the market and short everything from soup to nuts (although with the way commodities are going, that would be fairly unwise).

My great epiphany comes from the uneasy feeling that smoke usually equals fire.

Consider the recession that we were plunged into during the mid 1970’s – you know, the one a year or so after OPEC turned off the taps and caused mile long lineups at gas stations? Maybe you are old enough to remember the horrible recession that battered western economies in the early 1980’s – the one a year or two after the Tehran hostage taking caused oil to spike.

Maybe you aren’t old enough to remember those, but how about the 1991 Gulf War, and the eviction of Iraq from Kuwait. Remember the spike in oil prices, and remember the unemployment rate for the next couple of years?

I got married in 1999, and I remember at the time wondering why it seemed to cost so much to fill the car. On our honeymoon, we drove through Sherbrooke, Quebec, marveling at how we were on the verge of seeing $1.00 a liter for regular unleaded. That and 9-11, and bingo – recession.

Fast forward to our recent summer of discontent, and $120 a barrel for oil. Within weeks, the stock market was tanking, and the mammoth round of foreclosures was in full swing.

It seems rather simple.

People only have so much money, and they budget it accordingly. They have their rent or mortgage, their car payment, utilities, and various monthly bills. Those are relatively predictable. Same amount on the same day every month.

Some costs vary, like gas for your car, or food for your belly, but they stay within a predictable range – usually.

Then, in the course of a couple of months, the price of oil jumps $20 a barrel, and the price at the pump goes from 98 cents a litre to over $1.20.

First, your family SUV that used to cost $60 to fill now costs nearly $80. If the gas lasts a week, that is roughly $80 a month extra you are spending. Of course, that is bad enough, but maybe you heat with oil, and filling that tank for your furnace is an extra $150. Then, you notice that your milk and bread are each 15-20% higher, on account of all of the transportation costs and such.

All told, about $250 dollars a month extra has come out of your wallet just to afford what you always had. Problem is, you don’t have the coin.

You try to cut back, but not driving a car means not having a job. Not buying bread and milk means malnutrition, and not buying heating oil means chipping icicles off the tip of your nose. Just as birds gotta fly and fish gotta swim, you gotta eat and you gotta heat and you gotta go to work, so you suck it up.

Maybe you start to use up your savings – assuming you have them. Then, you start using those wonderful slivers of plastic that will let you have what you need, and all for a paltry 21 percent interest rate. This lasts until you engage in the time honoured tradition of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Bills go in a hat, and you draw them out, one by one, to see who wins the grand prize of being paid on time.

In the meantime, no extra cash means no shopping, or dining out – no movies, no vacations, no nothing.

Everybody who earns their living selling stuff you can’t afford no finds themselves pounding the pavement.

The virtuous circle of the economy now resembles a death spiral out of one of those World War II fighter pilot epics.

Eventually, as in every correction of commodity prices, when fear overtakes greed, the price drops, and people pick up the pieces. Unfortunately, people’s lives – and finances – don’t find their equilibrium as quickly as the price of crude.

Suburbia was ground zero for the foreclosure tsunami, and suburbia depends on cars. While this does not excuse those dubious lending practices and heavy speculation, it was still the catalyst for collapse. I mean, maybe Uncle Bernie smoked and drank too much, and maybe he was 80 pounds overweight, but sneaking up behind him and yelling “Boo!” was probably not a helpful thing to do, and was the one-way ticket to a gurney in the ICU at County General.

Oil costs $10 a barrel more than it did this summer. That means I pay an extra dime for every litre of gas I pump – and so does everyone else. Double that increase, and you will have transported us back to the summer of 2008.

Recession – part deux.

Anyway, that seems like an inappropriate way to book off the day before Christmas, and yet...

The holiday is about redemption - and second chances. It's also about the important things - friends, family, and the quality of this mortal coil, and not the quantity of the junk we amass.

As depressing as things can be, if you have people in your life who love you and respect you, the ever changing number at the gas pump or the stock ticker is merely background noise - mere milliseconds of triumph or tragedy in the longer marathon of life.

We may see tougher times ahead, but as in the past, people of good will will always find a way.

Merry Christmas and a Happier New Year from the shores of Cole Lake!

Thoughts on Conrad Black

As I write, Lord Conrad Black is nearing the first week of his newly gained, albeit tentative, freedom.

Black is a man who engenders a great deal of emotion and passion. He is certainly not a man for whom the words 'neutral' or 'equivocating' apply. To have accomplished what he has in life - writing acclaimed biographies, building a global media powerhouse, and frequently commenting on public issues - it would be difficult to approach life with aloofness and dispassion.

Of course, when one lives much of their lives in the public spotlight, they become, in a sense, a public commodity. They transform into something that is more image than flesh and blood. They also become a tableau, a screen upon which one projects their own hopes, fears, joys and pain.

Of the people who have expressed an opinion on the guilt or innocence of Conrad Black, scarcely one out of a thousand have stood within one hundred feet of the man, let alone traded a couple of bon mots. The reaction is not to a man, but to a representation of what our basic predispositions and prejudices happen to be toward his persona.

I began a correspondence with Lord Black a year before he was sent to Coleman. A little over a year ago, while on a family vacation, I took a detour to that institution, where he graciously hosted me one afternoon. While I consider myself a friend, I would not go so far as to label myself a confidante, nor do I wish to discuss the nature of what we spoke of - after all, friendship by its definition implies respect and discretion.

What I can say is that Conrad Black is a remarkable man - both as a public persona and as a mere mortal. Having the opportunity for even a cursory glance of the human behind the projection gave me a real sense of what motivates this individual who has generated as much ink as he has distributed in his career.

There are those who debate whether his fight for exoneration is legitimate, but such discussions are largely irrelevant. The position is predetermined before the debate begins, and neither side has the benefit of knowing a man's heart and his motivations.

My opinion?

When a man has a healthy respect and estimation of himself, his family and loved ones, and when his reputation - not status, reputation - means more than money, it would be self-delusional to protest one's innocence where it does not exist. When one's passion is history, there is an implicit understanding that the truth - somehow, somewhere - always reveals itself. An attempt at subterfuge would only provide a temporary salve.

I believe that Conrad Black is an innocent man. I also believe that his understanding of history and society demands that he fight vigorously for his name to be cleared. I also believe that the physical separation from his family and loved ones, combined with his first hand look at the US justice system - flaws and all - merely reinforces this desire.

While I do not know for certain what the outcome of this process will be, I feel somewhat confident that the next time I see Conrad Black, it will not be in a crowded prison reception area with a couple of armed guards standing nearby.

Random thoughts on the American hegemon

Mark Twain once observed that even if history does not repeat itself, it does tend to rhyme. Even when pundits describe the current economic situation as ‘unprecedented’, there are still comparisons made to the Great Depression of the 1930’s. The one thing, however, that seems to garner universal agreement, is the idea that things shall never be the same again. True, we may be greeted by different singers and different orchestral arrangements, but, alas, the song remains the same.

If one wishes to make an educated guess on what the remained of the 21st century will look like, Peter Clarke offers one in his book, “The Last Thousand Days of the British Empire.” After the First World War, Britain stood at the apex of its power, which had been gradually been building for three centuries, and yet, within three decades, it would rest at its nadir, and the global order underwent changes the scope of which had not been seen since the end of the Napoleonic Wars, and the Concert of Europe.

Britain would enter this process more powerful than any other nation on earth, and would leave it a nation relegated to a second tier status, behind the United States and the Soviet Union. A mixture of economic decline, war, indebtedness, the rise of competing powers, and the cost of maintaining control over vast swaths of territory was a powerful and poisonous cocktail that drained the resources of a country, and the energy of her people. The real damage, was in fact, psychological. After winning global wars, and proudly proclaiming that “the sun shall never set on the British Empire”, it was a humiliation that would scar Britons for more than a generation. The end of Empire Preference and the move toward the EEC can very much be seen in the context of a people struggling with an unsure future at the same time as coming to terms with their past.

The United States now finds itself in a similar set of circumstances. The rise of China, India, and Brazil, along with a more strident Russia creates the nascent stages of a new economic multipolarity. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are the better part of a decade old, with no real signs of a positive resolution. The US government has, through a combination of banking bailouts, exponential spending increases, and good old fashioned porkbarrelling, increased its liabilities to an alarming level – something that is bound to worsen as the Baby Boomers begin to collect Social Security and use Medicare. On top of this is the maintenance of a military that receives more money than those of the next dozen or so nations combined – a military that continues to deploy forces to places like Korea and Germany, where operations first began when today’s retirees were still in diapers.

Naysayers will argue that America is resilient due to its resources and its exceptionalism, due in part to its people and their industry. They will also counter that everyone will suffer if America suffers. This is true, to a point.

Britain did not fall into complete oblivion, and neither will America. And yes, the American people are remarkably adaptable and enduring. These qualities, however, are not genetically predetermined by what passport one holds, or what flag one salutes. America is great, but it does not have a monopoly on greatness. That all of the nations of the world will suffer in such an environment is also correct, but the question is not whether everyone falls together. Rather, it is who bounces back, how soon, and how high?

In the post World War II era, the United States and the Soviet Union bounced back the quickest, and the highest. The question in 2009 is who will do it this time?

Stronach's vision

Based on the headlines in the Saturday papers, it appears that Frank Stronach’s vision for Opel / Vauxhall is pretty much what I predicted, although I have to confess that I had a little better tool than a crystal ball.

First, despite his Austrian origins, Stronach is fiercely proud of being Canadian. His bankrolling of the “Next Great Prime Minister” program does telegraph his intent, as does his daughter’s choice of a career in politics. Belinda’s time in Ottawa was, admittedly, controversial, and she has as many naysayers as fans, but clearly she was raised in a household where service in Parliament was considered noble, and that speaks to pride of citizenship as well.

One can also look at many of the former politicians, Liberal and Tory alike, who have served in various capacities at Magna – from the board of directors to positions within the firm.

My own anecdote comes from my association with Sinclair Stevens and the Commonwealth Advantage campaign. One success was to convince Magna to locate a parts manufacturing plant in a particular Commonwealth jurisdiction where the Japanese automakers outsourced a lot of their manufacturing for their domestic market.

What I know is that Magna is a company run by a Canadian nationalist who understands the importance of the Commonwealth as a trading and investment network. This is why I think that the odds of them using the Vauxhall and Opel brands to crack into Canada and other Commonwealth markets is remarkably high.

This would be good news for GM dealers in Canada who now face being mothballed, auto workers who face working for a company that is majority controlled by Washington and an American union and that needs to cut operations, and for British autoworkers who fear the future of the Vauxhall plants at Ellsmere Ports and Luton.

Mind you, I do need a crystal ball for that prediction…

Where can I invest in a Vauxhall franchise?

At present, there is much to-and-fro –ing over the fate of the once mighty General Motors, and, of course, of the fates of those so closely aligned with it.

Every report on the proposed restructuring of GM involves major stakes being held by the United Auto Workers and the US government. While Ottawa and Queen’s Park are bound to pony up some cash, their influence in the new company will be marginal. That fact may become painfully clear when layoffs and plant closures are on the table.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to discern that a company that is controlled mostly by Washington and an American trade union will not look to north of the border to exact the necessary cuts. After all, we see how good President Obama’s assurances over the application of the “Buy American” clause in their stimulus bill were.

Yes, the demise of GM could potentially lead to the demise of the Canadian industry – or maybe its rebirth?

As we speak, there is a very good chance that Magna may end up taking over GM’s European operations – including the Opel, Vauxhall, and Saab brands.

Maybe I am a bit naïve, but if an American dominated company wants to pull manufacturing out of Canada, and a Canadian company now controls car brands that are, on the whole, more energy efficient, and technologically advanced than their North American cousins, it seems like a no brainer.

If the Yanks close a GM plant in Canada, let the federal and provincial governments do what it takes to help Magna retool the lines, and start manufacturing Opels, Vauxhalls and Saabs for the North American market.

My dad once owned a Vauxhall that he purchased used from the GM dealer in Verona, Ontario. They have sold them here before, and they could do it again.

Besides, nothing warms my heart like seeing a rebirth of a proud Commonwealth brand!

The Commonwealth, Conrad Black, and a canoe...

I must confess that I have neglected this journal for quite some time. What I have noticed about life, or at least my own specifically, is that it does not progress at a steady pace, but, like some rollercoaster from hell, it stops and starts with dramatic rapidity.

Nevertheless, there are some things that I want to share.

First, it looks like a paper I wrote some time ago is being included in an edited work. Dr. Mark Baimbridge, of the University of Bradford, in England, is editing a collection called “Britain in a Global World”. I was asked if a paper I wrote on the prospects for Canada – UK trade could be included. Naturally, I said yes, although it is hard for me to believe that my essay is worthy of this project. I hope it is a success for the sake of Dr. Baimbridge and those involved.

Second, I have had some passing interest in the elections for the European Parliament on June 4th. Because of my writing on Commonwealth trade, I have had occasion to meet with, discuss, and make friends with several British MP’s and MEP’s from the various UK parties. Although, as a Canadian, I really have no opinion on who should win, or whether Britain should define its EU status, it is a matter of some satisfaction that one of the parties has actually put the thesis of my book in their manifesto. Two gentlemen from that party, from whom I have had many communications over the past couple of years, look as though they will be elected to the European Parliament next week. While I hope they succeed, I sincerely hope it is not at the expense of sitting MEP’s from other parties who are equally enthusiastic about the idea, and for whom I have a great deal of admiration.

Lastly, I want to mention the recent news concerning the US Supreme Court’s agreement to hear the appeal of the conviction of Conrad Black. I have read a lot of to and fro concerning this development. Sadly, a lot of it devolves into a commentary on Lord Black’s persona, rather than the facts of the case. That is bad enough, in itself, but even worse when much of the opinion is based on heresay and third- and fourth-hand opinion.

Almost three weeks to the day of the Supreme Court’s decision, I was in Florida. I had taken a side trip to Coleman, and had a very interesting and pleasant visit with Conrad Black for a couple of hours. Lord Black is a keen proponent of the Commonwealth, and has written on the subject, and my association with him came from this shared interest. We have corresponded over the years on primarily this topic, and was glad to have an opportunity to sit down with him and talk about a range of topics.

Despite what the chattering classes say, I have always found him to be a very open and accessible to talk with. Personally, I have seen more arrogant and conceited behaviour on the streets of the town I work in and live near than I have ever seen from Lord Black.

He’s a smart man, well read and with a prodigious handle on the English language. Call it intimidating or impressive, but arrogant? Not on your life. This supposedly ‘elitist’ man, even before the court proceedings at Chicago, didn’t think it beneath himself to associate with the grandson of an eastern Ontario dairy farmer.

As someone who considers himself a friend of Conrad Black, I can only hope that the Supreme Court’s willingness to entertain an appeal brings him one step closer to a vindication.

Anyhow, at present, beyond the usual activities of home and hearth, work, and politics, I am about half-way through the first draft of a manuscript. It is fiction this time, which I am finding both easier and more challenging – if that makes sense. It has political overtones, and is meant to be funny, so we’ll see if it actually accomplishes that feat.

Spring is a time of new beginnings at Cole Lake, and thoughts turn to the warm days of summer – of boating and barbeques, of good friends and long sunsets.

This weekend marks the third anniversary of my grandfather’s passing. His grandfather originally settled our land, and I was honoured to become the 5th generation to carry on. What stands out for me were the times he would take me canoeing around the shores of the lake. When it gets warmer, I think I’ll dig that same canoe out and take my kids on that same trip. It seems like the best memorial I can think of.

Boy, I guess President Obama 'learned' Stephen Harper a thing or two...

During the last federal election, on October 7, 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper did an interview with CBC’s Peter Mansbridge about the unfolding economic crisis. In particular, he asked the PM about the impact that a collapsing stock market was having on Canadians – from retirees living off their RRSP investments, to virtually everyone else whose financial plans for their golden years were put in a tail spin.

Harper said many things about the situation, but what seized the ire and anger of the left was the observation that “there’s probably some great buying opportunities emerging in the stock market as a consequence of all this panic.”

Liberals and New Democrats were apoplectic over what they considered to be such an insensitive and callous remark.

Now, we learn that US President Barack Obama pretty much said the same thing yesterday:

“In comments that gave a temporary lift to battered stock prices, Mr. Obama also said there were "potentially good deals" to be found at the market's current depressed levels.”

Now, gauging how Taliban Jack, among others, will try to square the reality of words first uttered by the evil Mr. Harper now passing the lips of the sainted Mr. Obama, is already being contemplated. Kelly McParland’s blog in the National Post has already covered it better than I could, and I will not go further.

My point is that many Canadians who have an unnatural antipathy of all things Conservative, need to reconcile a lot of logical conflicts.

Case in point. When President Obama came to Ottawa, many on the left were waxing on about the possibility that he could ‘influence’ Harper. Like a messiah performing a laying of hands, our Prime Minister would be transformed and illuminated.

We may never know how much influence Obama had on Harper, but a curious thing happened after Barack returned from Ottawa. His team presented a budget to Congress that included a number of new initiatives.

On the floor of the Congress, underneath the klieg lights, and before millions of American television viewers, he delivered an address that included the following:

“To preserve our long-term fiscal health, we must also address the growing costs in Medicare and Social Security. Comprehensive health care reform is the best way to strengthen Medicare for years to come. And we must also begin a conversation on how to do the same for Social Security, while creating tax-free universal savings accounts for all Americans.”

Excuse me? Tax Free Savings Accounts? As in TFSA’s? As in last year’s federal budget? As in the kind of account that my own wife already opened weeks ago and has a small balance? That kind of account?

Looking on the bright side, it appears to be a win-win proposition.

Those who answer in polls that they would rather have Obama as Prime Minister than Stephen Harper can rest easy that Mr. Obama is exerting all of this 'influence', while those of us who like Harper can rest assured that Mr. Obama's 'influence', in many cases, was simply a rehash of the PM's playbook.

3 1/2 Weeks

Today marks the first day in three weeks that I feel somewhat human. An innocent case of the sniffles carried into our home by my precocious daughter manifested itself into a wonderful lung infection for yours truly. After two visits to the doctor, antibiotics, sinus medication, Halls cough drops and the magical elixir called Buckley's (I won't say how many bottles), I am almost to the point which I have associated with the word 'normal' (highly subjective, of course).

The last interesting thing I did was participate in what was known as an 'Agenda Camp'. The public broadcaster in Ontario, TVO, has a current affairs program called "The Agenda With Steve Paikin". A live broadcast took place on January 19th from Queen's University on the subject of Agriculture and the Rural Economy. Leading up to the broadcast, was this event - a day-long session on the 18th - of which I had a chance to participate.

My contribution to the broadcast was a six second soundbite at the beginning of the broadcast, which I enjoyed from my sick bed.

My hope is that viewers really took some insight on the challenges that farmers and the agrifood sector face.

The one point I tried to make during one of the sessions was that, according to Pulitzer Prize winning author Jared Diamond - in his book 'Collapse', the average North American farmer has increased his / her productivity to the point where they produce enough surplus to feed 120 people.

We talk about productivity losses in various sectors of the economy, but we actually have not experienced one with farmers - yet.

My question was what if farmers in Canada and the US can't feed 120 non-farmers a piece? What if their productivity dropped by 5 or 10 per cent?

The modern urban economy and lifestyle only functions because people can buy food rather than have to grow it themselves. Civilizations, in the Western sense, only took off because some people were freed from having to scrounge for nourishment, and could do other things, like build roads, bridges, etc.

If farmers are unable, for any number of reasons, to maintain, or even preserve their ability to feed more than themselves, a lot of doctors, lawyers, mechanics, engineers, and the like will have to grow it themselves.

Where will we be then?