Guest post: The Trudeau Paradox (Part Two)

Part I of this essay discussed the origins of Quebec nationalism and the desire of Francophone Quebecers to have their province recognized as a “distinct society” within Canada. This desire was fiercely opposed by Quebec political thinker Pierre Trudeau, who became Prime Minister of Canada in 1968. Trudeau was seen as speaking for Francophone Quebecers, and his critics would claim that he was just the first Prime Minister from Quebec to impose that province’s agenda on the rest of Canada. However, in this part we’ll see that Trudeau’s agenda was quite different from what most Francophone Quebec thinkers were advocating.

The Trudeau Paradox, Part II: Trudeau, Mulroney and the Constitution

Trudeau’s reforms, including the way he implemented bilingualism across Canada and advocated for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, were meant to undercut any sort of claim by Quebec to its distinctiveness. He supported bilingualism on a strictly individual basis, believing that if French was further reinforced across Canada it would undermine Quebec’s claim to be a distinctly Francophone majority province. Similarly, multiculturalism would make Francophone Canadians just one of many communities of many different backgrounds that exist in Canada. Enshrining the rights of all Canadians in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would further cement an overall Canadian identity, over and above any provincial identity.[1] He justified his support for government intervention such as social programs as being a way to help everyone get an equal chance to make the best use of their talents, as their circumstances were not all the same.[2]

These reforms proved controversial in many circles. However, by and large many Canadians outside Quebec came to accept them because they felt that it was what Francophone Quebecers wanted, as Pierre Trudeau claimed.[3] Many people outside Canada considered actions accepting bilingualism and French immersion as what journalist Paul Wells called the rest of the country “bending itself into pretzels” to accommodate Quebec.[4] When the Quebec government began passing legislation to enshrine French as Quebec’s official work and education language, and Quebecers voted the Parti Quebecois into office, people in other parts of Canada saw it as an action of bad faith. They were angered that, despite their willingness to accept official status for French in their provinces and enrolling their children in French immersion programs, Francophone Quebecers didn’t seem to respond to the rest of the country’s efforts to accommodate them.[5] They didn’t realize that Trudeau’s efforts were part of his attempt to undermine Quebec nationalism, particularly as advocated by the Quebec government.

The irony, as Richard Gwyn pointed out, was that Trudeau’s opposition to distinct status for Quebec put him more in line with his predecessor John Diefenbaker’s line of thinking, including Diefenbaker’s advocating the idea of “One Canada”, which was obviously far more popular outside than inside Quebec.[6] Gwyn noted that Trudeau’s individualist beliefs also meshed quite well in some respects with those of many Western Canadians,[7] as did the results of Trudeau’s 1982 constitutional reforms, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.[8] John Diefenbaker had also advanced his own Bill of Rights, which he considered an essential element of his ‘One Canada, One Nation’ philosophy.[9] Trudeau’s message came at an opportune time for many Anglophone Canadians, who had previously based much of their conception of Canada on its connection to Great Britain. With the decline of Canada’s British connections after World War II, these Anglophone Canadians were now looking for a new vision.[10]

Despite his ideas not meshing with those of most other Quebec thinkers, Quebec voters still steadily supported Trudeau throughout the 1970s, in no small part due to the fact that he was a native Quebecer, and ‘one of their own’, as former Le Devoir editor Lise Bissonnette put it.[11] However, the first referendum on Quebec separation, held in 1980, despite being decisively won by the federalists, had the Francophone vote nearly split down the middle.[12] During the referendum, Trudeau had promised Quebecers a “renewed federalism”, but patriating the Constitution without recognizing Quebec as a distinct society was seen by many Quebec Francophones as a breaking of that promise.[13] In many ways, the 1982 reforms fell short of the major suggestions for change, heavily influenced by Quebec Francophones, that Trudeau had mentioned during the campaign,[14] and were certainly not what many Francophone Quebecers were expecting.[15]

As Claude Ryan and Guy Laforest would later point out, the way in which Trudeau went about patriating the Constitution was fiercely opposed by many Quebec federalists and separatists alike, contrary to Trudeau’s claims that the majority of Quebec’s elected politicians supported what he’d done.[16] Francophone Quebecers turned against Trudeau after that, voting overwhelmingly for the Brian Mulroney Conservatives in 1984.[17] Historian Will Ferguson, who was living in small-town Quebec at the time, recounted just how strong the support for Mulroney was.[18] Several years later, at the height of the Meech Lake controversy, a long series of polls noted just how much Trudeau’s influence had diminished in Quebec, and just how little most Francophone Quebecers, including ordinary citizens, thought of him.[19]

Mulroney subsequently tried to address the anger many Francophone Quebecers felt by negotiating the Meech Lake Accord with the provincial premiers. It was fiercely opposed by Trudeau and his supporters outside Quebec, although most Francophone Quebec federalists, including many of Trudeau’s former political colleagues, supported it.[20] Trudeau’s opposition to Meech Lake helped rally the opposition of many other Canadians, such as then-Premier of Newfoundland & Labrador Clyde Wells, and proved instrumental in the Accord’s failure.[21]

In Quebec, Meech Lake’s failure was viewed with great disappointment[22] when it wasn’t seen as a rejection of the province altogether.[23] Of course, that was not what most opponents of Meech Lake meant to say. Clyde Wells, for example, was in fact quite supportive of bilingualism, although most of his supporters didn’t realize it.[24] As previously noted, many Francophone Quebecers who were Trudeau’s former colleagues had come out in favour of Meech Lake. Even a young Stéphane Dion declared that Trudeau’s defeat of Meech was “the worst constitutional error in the history of the country.”[25] As recently as 2007, as the leader of Trudeau’s former party, Dion would state that subsequent changes in Canada had given the country the “practical” advantages of Meech Lake, but without the “symbolic” advantage these changes would have had if they’d been passed as part of the Meech Lake Accord.[26]

In the Meech Lake debates, Trudeau and his supporters outside Quebec ran up against the desires of Francophone Quebecers.[27] The fallout from Meech Lake led to the 1995 referendum, and by that time most Canadians outside Quebec were fed up with the whole issue. Many Francophone Quebecers had also come to support separatism, because they felt like the rest of Canada opposed their efforts to maintain their Francophone character. It’s been suggested that Francophone Quebecers were duped by their provincial elites, but as Jeffrey Simpson pointed out that’s a dangerous argument to make when you consider the disputes other provinces, such as Alberta or Newfoundland & Labrador, have had with Ottawa.[28] Were the people of those provinces duped by their elites? Of course not!

Other factors played a role as well-many Western Canadians were frustrated by what they saw as the federal government’s exclusive concentration on Quebec’s issues, which led to the rise of the Reform Party. Quebec was also seen as greedy and spoiled, due to the belief that it was getting the most federal spending and transfer payments. The controversies over Quebec’s language laws, and the Oka crisis of 1990, furthered the image of Francophone Quebecers as racist and intolerant. Of course, as Jeffrey Simpson observed, not much was made of the fact that most of the rest of the country didn’t always do much to uphold the rights of their Francophone minorities.[29]

All of this created an ugly, self-perpetuating cycle. Francophone Quebecers saw the rest of the country’s opposition to Meech Lake, recognition of Quebec’s distinctiveness and its language laws as a rejection of Quebec itself. Meanwhile, many other Canadians who saw Trudeau’s and Mulroney’s reigns as part of an unbroken effort by Quebec to impose its agenda on the rest of the country. They also saw Quebec nationalism as tantamount to not wanting to be Canadian, or only staying in Canada for the financial benefits.

At the root of it all was the Trudeau Paradox, that perception that Pierre Trudeau’s ideas were what Francophone Quebecers were looking for, and that he was part of Quebec’s attempt to impose its own agenda on the entire country. In fact, Trudeau sought to impose his own agenda, one that he thought could defeat Quebec nationalism, and one that ended up being accepted far more outside Quebec than within it, except among perhaps the province’s Anglo-Quebec minority. Trudeau’s efforts to defeat Quebec nationalism only left many Francophone Quebecers alienated, and when Mulroney tried to change the situation with Meech Lake, Trudeau and his supporters outside Quebec rallied to defeat it. When support for separatism increased up until the 1995 referendum, many Canadians outside Quebec simply came to conclude that nothing would ever satisfy the province.

As I previously noted, the last few decades have made it clear that Trudeau’s efforts to turn Francophone Quebecers away from their nationalism, and by extension to wipe out the appeal of separatism, have not succeeded. While Trudeau claimed during the Meech Lake debates that the younger generation of Quebecers did not want or need any kind of distinct status in the Constitution,[30] the results of the 1995 referendum, as well as the continued support among Francophone Quebecers for the province’s language laws, show that Trudeau was probably wrong about Francophone Quebecers’ opinions on their province’s distinctiveness. Guy Laforest has pointed out that, while it might have been easy for someone like Trudeau to maintain his Francophone character no matter where he went, but many other Francophones might not have had such an easy time of it.[31] In his days as an academic, Stéphane Dion also raised this point in support of Quebec’s language laws.[32] Nor are Quebecers the only Francophones concerned about language. Justin Trudeau got into trouble with New Brunswick Acadians when he suggested that New Brunswick should abolish its separate English and French school systems and simply create one bilingual system.[33]

It’s not hard to understand why there’s been so much misinterpretation and confusion among other Canadians as to why Francophone Quebecers have acted and voted the way they do. In an extremely insightful observation, Alan Cairns noted that many Canadians outside Quebec, both then and now, have a hard time understanding the whole concept of “two founding peoples”, particularly when one of them is primarily based in Quebec. Anglophone Canadians are the majority in the nine other provinces, in addition to being a minority in Quebec itself. This makes it a lot harder for many Anglophones to accept the whole idea of Quebec as a distinct society, particularly since they tend to view the federal government as the only one capable of speaking for all Canadians.[34]

The contradictory elements of Trudeau’s policies, particularly the ones that tied into collective group rights, also make it easier to see him as supporting a collective rights agenda. While he supported bilingualism on a strictly individual basis, the very nature of Trudeau’s efforts to enshrine bilingualism meant that he was favouring the English and French languages over others. In building support for the Charter and the 1982 reforms, Trudeau also reached out to other groups that would have particular provisions for them in the Charter, including women’s groups, multicultural groups and Aboriginal peoples.[35] People from these groups opposed the Meech Lake Accord out of concern that any recognition of Quebec would diminish the recognitions they had gained in the Charter.[36]

One can also point out just how confused the Trudeau policy was regarding Francophones outside Quebec. Francophone minorities received a greater amount of federal funding for cultural activities than did other cultural groups, something that caused an understandable resentment among the latter, particularly when the expectation among immigrant groups would be that they would have to learn English and assimilate.[37] When Trudeau came up with the idea of multiculturalism as a way of undermining the idea of biculturalism so popular in Francophone Quebec, he had to fuse it with bilingualism so that it became “multiculturalism in a bilingual framework.” This was at odds with Trudeau’s efforts to establish bilingualism across Canada, and was criticized by Francophones both inside and outside Quebec.[38] On a more basic level, the poor job Trudeau did of explaining bilingualism to Canadians and his blunt indifference to Canadians’ concerns also undermined its acceptance by the rest of the country.[39]

Thus, the Trudeau Paradox emerged in full force. Many people thought that the differences between Quebec and the rest of the country were irreconcilable, and that there’s simply no way to resolve the impasse. In Part III of this essay, we’ll see that this is not necessarily the case, and in fact Francophone Quebecers have much more in common with other Canadians than most people realize.

---

[1] Laforest, pages 130-139. See also McRoberts, pages 176-177, and Russell, pages 80-81.

[2] Pierre Trudeau, The Essential Trudeau, edited by Ron Graham. Toronto, Ontario: McClelland and Stewart, 1998. Pages 15-16.

[3] Jeremy Webber, Reimagining Canada: Language, Culture, Community and the Canadian Constitution. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1994. Page 160. See also Simpson, page 266, and McRoberts, page 112.

[4] Paul Wells, “Franchement: PM Stephen Harper and French Canadians.” Inkless Wells blog, December 20, 2012. Available online at http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/12/20/franchement-stephen-harper-and-french-canadians/

[5] McRoberts, page 112.

[6] Richard Gwyn, The Northern Magus: Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Canadians. Toronto, Ontario: McClelland and Stewart, 1980. Page 231. See also Cairns, page 51.

[7] Gwyn, page 277.

[8] Roger Gibbins and Loleen Berdahl, Western Visions, Western Futures: Perspectives on the West in Canada. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, 2003. Page 61.

[9] McRoberts, page 46.

[10] McRoberts, pages 111-112. See also Simpson, pages 265-266.

[11] Romney, page 285.

[12] Couture, Cardin and Allaire, page 184.

[13] Laforest, pages 15-37. See also Couture, Cardin and Allaire, page 185, and McRoberts, pages 174-175.

[14] McRoberts, pages 161-163. See also Russell, page 109.

[15] McRoberts, pages 174-175.

[16] Ryan, pages 134-138, and Laforest, pages 138-142.

[17] McRoberts, pages 178-179.

[18] Will Ferguson, Canadian History For Dummies. Mississauga, Ontario: John Wiley & Sons Limited, 2005. Page 386.

[19] Simpson, page 171.

[20] Ibid., page 170.

[21] Ibid., pages 159-162.

[22] Ryan, pages 147-148.

[23] Simpson, pages 294-296 and 302.  See also Webber, pages 179-180.

[24] Simpson, pages 169 and 173.

[25] Quoted in Robert Bourassa, Gouverner le Québec. Montreal, Québec : Fides, 1995. Page 277.

[26] Quoted in L. Ian Macdonald, “Interview With Stéphane Dion.” Policy Options Magazine, June 2010. Page 10.

[27] Laforest, pages 115-118. See also Ryan, pages 147-148.

[28] Simpson, pages 168-169.

[29] Simpson, page 166.

[30] Cited in Laforest, page 116.

[31] Laforest, pages 116-117.

[32] Stéphane Dion, “La nationalisme dans la convergence culturelle:  Le Québec contemporain et le paradoxe de Tocqueville,” in L’engagement intellectuel : Mélanges en honneur de Léon Dion, ed. by Raymond Hudon and Réjean Pelletier, pages 291-311. Sainte-Foy, Québec : Les Presses de L’Université Laval, 1991. Page 305.

[33] Alexander Panetta, “Trudeau Apologizes For Language Remarks.” Toronto Star, May 7, 2007. Available online at http://www.thestar.com/news/article/211381--trudeau-apologizes-for-language-remarks.

[34] Cairns, pages 41-43.

[35] Couture, pages 90-95. See also Cairns, pages 79-81 and 110-115, and Russell, pages 113-115.

[36] Russell, pages 134 and 143.

[37] Simpson, pages 245, 246 and 257.

[38] McRoberts, pages 129-135.

[39] Charles Taylor, Radical Tories: The Conservative Tradition in Canada. Toronto, Ontario: House of Anansi Press, 2006. Page 187.

Guest post: The Trudeau Paradox (Part One)

Once again I am happy to give over this space to Jared Milne, this time writing about the Trudeau factor.   This article is in three posts.

****

The results of last year’s provincial election in Quebec, which returned the Parti Quebecois to power, only reconfirmed the perceptions many Canadians in other parts of the country had of Quebec. They consider the province spoiled and entitled, still musing about separating from Canada despite having dominated the political agenda for nearly four decades and having received billions of dollars in transfer payments. Separation is seen simply as a way for Quebec to blackmail more power and money from the rest of the country. The province is also seen as intolerant because of language legislation like Bill 101, which many other Canadians believe restricts individual rights and freedom of choice, particularly the rights of its Anglo-Quebec minority. Past Prime Ministers like Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney and Jean Chretien are seen as having only cared about their own province, blowing off many of the concerns of other parts of Canada. All this, despite the fact that other parts of Canada have made an effort to accommodate Quebec by accepting bilingualism and enrolling their children in French immersion, which is what they thought Francophone Quebecers were looking for.

Despite these efforts by the rest of the country to accommodate Quebec, the federal government under Brian Mulroney continued to try change the Canadian constitution to that province’s satisfaction with the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords. These Accords were fiercely opposed by Pierre Trudeau, and he was strongly supported by those Canadians who viewed the accords as further pandering to Quebec. The fallout from the failures of Meech Lake and Charlottetown led to the Quebec referendum of 1995, when Quebec very nearly separated from Canada. In the aftermath of this near-disaster, many Canadians concluded that there was no satisfying Quebec, particularly when the province came within a hair of seceding from Canada. They were opposed to any kind of concessions to Quebec nationalism, which they considered separatist in and of itself, if not racist and discriminatory.

This was because of the “Trudeau Paradox”, where Pierre Trudeau’s policies were meant to turn Francophone Quebecers away from their nationalism but ended up becoming far more popular among other Canadians than they were among Francophone Quebecers. What most Canadians outside Quebec don’t realize is that the last four decades were not a continuous effort of trying to please Quebec and force Quebec’s agenda on the rest of the country. Pierre Trudeau’s time in office was dedicated to fighting Quebec nationalism.

Trudeau’s policies of bilingualism and the Charter of Rights were meant to turn Francophone Quebecers away from their nationalism and undermine any particular recognition of Quebec as the distinctly Francophone province in Canada. Trudeau had an agenda, but his was very different from the one generally expressed in Quebec. Most Canadians outside Quebec didn’t realize this and often assumed that his agenda was that of Quebec as a whole. They became upset when they saw that many Quebecers still wanting to separate, becoming convinced that nothing would satisfy them.

While Trudeau made many important and valuable contributions to Canada, he ultimately didn’t succeed in his goal of trying to convince Francophone Quebecers to abandon their nationalism. The fallout from this was one of the factors that led to Brian Mulroney becoming Prime Minister, and the failure of Mulroney’s efforts to accommodate Quebec nationalism came about in no small part due to Trudeau’s fighting Mulroney’s efforts. That, in turn, led to the re-election of the Parti Quebecois in 1994, and the near-catastrophe of 1995.

This article is divided into three parts. In this first part, I examine the origins of Quebec nationalism how it led to Francophone Quebecers seeing their province as a “distinct society” in Canada, and how it led to the desire to have that distinctiveness recognized in the Canadian Constitution. In the second part, I examine Pierre Trudeau and his response to the attempts by Francophone Quebecers to have their province recognized as distinct in the Constitution. I also examine many of the policies he implemented to undermine Quebec’s distinctiveness, and his interventions in the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords, which led to the Trudeau Paradox. In the final part, I examine the possibility of reconciliation and resolving the Trudeau Paradox, as well as the fact that Quebec has much more in common with the rest of Canada than most people realize.

The Trudeau Paradox, Part I: The Rise of Quebec Nationalism

The desire of Francophone Quebecers for their province to have its distinctiveness recognized runs very deep in Canada, and extends all the way back to Confederation itself. Some of the Anglophone Fathers of Confederation, such as John A. Macdonald and Charles Tupper, would have preferred to simply fuse all of the British North American colonies into one larger entity, erasing the colonial borders altogether. However, they knew that this was impossible, due in no small part to the presence of Lower Canada, later to become Quebec, as one of the colonies in Confederation.ⁱ Indeed, George-Etienne Cartier and the other Francophone Lower Canadian Fathers, with support from the Maritimes, were adamant that Canada be a federal country, with particular powers reserved for the provinces.ⁱⁱ From there, a broader sense developed that the English and the French were Canada’s two “founding peoples”,ⁱⁱⁱ and that Quebec needed to be recognized as a “distinct society” within Canada because the majority of one of its founding peoples was located in Quebec.^iv

Later generations of Quebec thinkers picked up on this theme. Early Quebec and Canadian nationalist Henri Bourassa spoke about a “double compact” between French-and English-speaking Canadians,^v while André Laurendeau, ,^vi Claude Ryan,^vii Christian Dufour,^viii and Stéphane Dion^ix all advocated the recognition of their province as distinct within Canada. The federal system was seen as extremely important by Quebec Francophones, particularly in that it allowed them to continue to maintain their Francophone character.^x This even extended to language, as Francophone Quebecers used the same term of “Prime Minister” to refer equally to provincial Premiers and the federal Prime Minister.^xi Unfortunately, most of these developments were overlooked by Anglophone thinkers, who developed their own ideas of how Canada should evolve.^xii

This thinking developed against the backdrop of Francophone religious, educational and cultural rights, which were thought to be implicitly guaranteed in the original Confederation debates. George-Étienne Cartier, for example, specifically referred to how the educational rights of Ontario’s Francophone Catholic minority would be specifically guaranteed along with the educational rights of Quebec’s English-speaking minority.^xiii Unfortunately, many of these rights were systematically rolled back, opposed and reduced in other parts of Canada, such as with the passing of Regulation 17 in Ontario, the opposition to bilingualism and Francophone Catholic schools in the Prairie provinces and the hanging of Louis Riel (which was heavily marked by an anti-Catholic backlash, which the largely Catholic Franco-Québécois population took as an attack on their religion and community), which led many Francophone Quebecers to believe that they could only maintain their Francophone identity and language within Quebec itself. This, in turn, gave rise to Quebec nationalism,^xiv as Francophone Quebecers tried to maintain their province’s Francophone character while also ensuring space for its Anglophone minority.^xv

In the 1960s, Prime Minister Lester Pearson set up the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, to study the various national unity questions raised by the rise of Quebec nationalism. Many of its Francophone members, especially Laurendeau, advocated the idea of “biculturalism”, or “two founding peoples”. These Francophone members felt that Canadian institutions needed to reflect the reality of the country’s two national communities, including a recognition of Québec’s distinctiveness. Areas where linguistic minorities were prominent could be recognized as “bilingual districts”.^xvi

When Quebec nationalism became a major issue in the 1960s, with Quebec nationalists believing that their province needed to be recognized as distinct in Canada, Pierre Trudeau came on the scene to oppose them. Trudeau’s individualist beliefs led him to state that Francophone Quebecers, and by extension all Francophone Canadians, could get along just fine without any kind of distinct status for Quebec. To that end, he advocated extending language rights to English- and French-speaking individuals across Canada, which would strengthen national unity. In turn, many Canadians outside Quebec came to see Trudeau as the main speaker for his province, and his policies as what Francophone Quebecers were truly looking for.^xvii

The resulting “Trudeaumania”, as it was called, led to Trudeau becoming Prime Minister in 1968, and remaining in office until 1984, except for a brief period in 1979-1980. Trudeau would implement many controversial reforms during his time in office, and he would continue to influence Canadian politics for a long time after. This, and more, is the subject of Part II of this essay.

i Tupper quoted in P.B. Waite, The Life And Times of Confederation, 1864-1867. Toronto, Ontario: Robin Brass Studio Incorporated, 2001. Page 222. Macdonald quoted in Alain Noel, “The Federal Principle: Solidarity and Partnership”, in Beyond The Impasse: Towards Reconciliation, edited by Roger Gibbins and Guy Laforest. Montreal, Quebec: Institute for Research on Public Policy. Pages 241-265, quoted on page 241). 

ii Kenneth McRoberts, Misconceiving Canada: The Struggle For National Unity. Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press, 1997. Pages 10-11. 

iii Paul Romney, Getting It Wrong: How Canadians Forgot Their Past and Imperilled Confederation. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press, 1999. Pages 4, 138-139, 285-286. See also Claude Couture and Jean-François Cardien, with Gratien Allaire, Histoire du Canada: Espaces et differences. Saint-Nicolas, Québec : Les Presses de L’Université Laval, 1996. Pages 64, 215-216. See also Desmond Morton in The Illustrated History of Canada, edited by Craig Brown. Toronto, Ontario: Key Porter Books, 2002. Pages 504-505. See also Peter Russell, Constitutional Odyssey: Can Canadians Become a Sovereign People? Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press, 2004. Pages 35, 50-51. 

iv Romney, pages 142-143 and 211-212. See also McRoberts, pages 17-24, 27-35 and 258-259. 

v Couture, Cardin and Allaire, page 95. See also McRoberts, pages 19-24, and Romney, pages 143 and 211. 

vi See James Bickerton, Stephen Brooks and Alain G. Gagnon, “André Laurendeau: The Search For Political Equality and Social Justice” in Freedom, Equality, Community: The Political Philosophy of Six Influential Canadians. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1995. Pages 55-70, especially pages 61-69. See also Guy Laforest, Trudeau and the End of A Canadian Dream. Translated by Paul Leduc Browne and Michelle Weinroth. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1995. Pages 56-86, especially 67-73. 

vii Claude Ryan, Regards sur le fédéralisme canadien. Montreal, Quebec : Boréal, 1995. Pages 229-233. 

viii Christian Dufour, Lettre aux souverainistes et aux fédéralistes qui sont restés fidèles au Québec. Montreal, Québec : Les Éditions Alain Stanké, 2000. Pages 59 and 66. 

ix Stéphane Dion, Straight Talk: Speeches and Writings on Canadian Unity. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1999. Pages 138-149. 

x Claude Couture, Paddling With The Current: Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Étienne Parent, Liberalism and Nationalism in Canada. Translated by Vivien Boisley. Edmonton, Alberta: University of Alberta Press, 1998. Page 81. 

xi Dufour, page 107. 

xii Romney, pages 210-222. See also Laforest, pages 56-86.

xiii George-Étienne Cartier, “I Am Also A French Canadian.” Quoted in Who Speaks For Canada? Words That Shape A Country, edited by Desmond Morton and Morton Weinfeld. Toronto, Ontario: McClelland and Stewart, 1998. Pages 36-38.

xiv Couture, Cardin and Allaire, page 216. See also Romney, pages 203-204, 209 and 245-246. See also Alan Cairns, Charter vs. Federalism: The Dilemmas of Constitutional Reform. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1992. Page 36. See also Edmund Aunger, “Traffic Ticket Case A Truly Historic Decision.” Edmonton Journal, July 9, 2008. Available online at http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=2a50fbba-ede5-45b0-907d-26fb72d0b170&sponsor=
 
xv Dufour, pages 51-54.

xvi McRoberts, pages 88-91 and 117-120. See also Jeffrey Simpson, Fautlines: Struggling For A Canadian Vision. Toronto, Ontario: HarperCollins Publishers, 1993. Page 256.

xvii McRoberts, pages 64-74, 169, 187.

Who's the jack booted thug?

This new commercial from Wayne LaPierre of the NRA sets an all-time low.   You can be absolutely sure that this ad would not have been made if Obama and his kids were white.   I'm showing it here to demonstrate just how low the level of debate has gotten in Washington -- and how willing LaPierre is in spitting in the faces of the murdered and the survivors of Sandy Hook.   It's worth remembering when the idiot called federal law-enforced "jack booted thugs" way back in 1995, no less than the elder George Bush was so disgusted that he quit the NRA (in a hell freezes over moment).   It's about damn time someone in Congress -- or even Dubya -- gets that backbone too.

"Free to Be" -- 40 years on

For what I think will be my last post of the year, I wanted to reflect on something I heard about a couple of weeks ago -- the 40th anniversary of Free to Be... You and Me and the impact it had on a generation of kids.    Including me, who was born the year the record was first released.

To this day, it's unbelievable that a series of stories about encouraging kids to meet their own expectations rather than that of their caregivers or "society" at large would have angered so many people.   Maybe the fact it was sponsored by Ms. Magazine was a red flag in and of itself.   The topics that it raised (gender appropriate toys and sports, interracial marriages, who should do housework, etc.)  Or that Marlo Thomas got a whole cortège of celebrities to join her in the recording studio, every one of which were derided as liberals and therefore not in the so-called "silent majority" that supposedly opposed the values the book spoke of.

Who knows?   But the album and book did have a minor but still significant part in my life.   Here's my story.

Back in the winter of 1987, during my freshman year at high school, I was learning to play the clarinet, my third instrument after classical piano and church organ.   The teacher, surprised at my knowledge of music theory (I was, without being boastful, acing the theoretical tests) was even more surprised when she learned I knew the piano.

It turned out the music teacher was putting together a performance of Free to Be... You and Me using a lot of the material from the book -- and after hearing me play a few classical pieces off the cuff, tapped me for the musical accompaniment.   The TV special spawned about two years after the book was not available, but the cassette tape was, as was a book that had the sheet music.   Having a chance to go through a book I had so much fun reading back in elementary school (during my two years in special education) was fun, but listening to the tape for the first time gave me a fresh insight I could not have anticipated.   I knew who Marlo Thomas was of course -- daughter of Danny, wife of Phil Donahue  -- but I never expected to hear Alan Alda, Harry Belafonte, Rita Coolidge, Dionne Warwick and others (they didn't need to be introduced, I knew the voices, simple as that).

The acting group, across all levels of high school, was a great cast and I don't think I ever had so much fun in school up to that point.   The "work in progress" performance at school (actually two campuses since at the time the freshman and sophomore levels were in one cramped building, and the junior and senior levels at another larger but half-empty campus  -- eventually the two campuses were re-merged at the latter a couple of years later) got very favourable comments from the rest of the student body who too loved the album when they were younger.

Encouraged by that, we castmates then spent the next month rearranging the numbers into a coherent one act play and took it to a city-wide high school drama contest.   Actually we were in an "out of competition" section  because the rules stipulated an "in competition" play had to be completely original. 

There were only two plays "out of competition".   One was ours.   The other, performed first, was a two person play called Next -- the 1969 story written by Terrence McNally about a man mistakenly called to the draft board who wants out, and the female drill sergeant just as determined to sign him up   I can't remember which high school, unfortunately.    Of course, our cast watched their play from the audience -- I'm still not sure if most of us had even heard of Next before -- and to be honest the one hour battle of wits was so engaging it almost completely threw off our concentration for our performance ahead and we actually had to regroup for a few minutes before setting up the backdrop and furniture, and their cast watched ours.   Afterwards backstage all of us (including the other guys), as well as the contest's organizers,   commented at the shocking but very appropriate  juxtaposition between the two, and within the same general backdrop (the conflict in Vietnam).

It's funny in a way -- Thomas and McNally.    How two completely different stories with completely different geneses could actually compliment each other.

But that's my story about "Free to Be."    And how it reaffirmed my belief and those of my classmates in the importance of sticking to one's guns and holding your ground, whether through measured optimism or carefully directed cynicism.

If we only teach our kids or younger siblings those very simple values, then we will all be truly free.   I firmly believe that.

Happy New Year, folks ... try not to get too drunk.

Now we finally know the real price of milk, thanks to the teabags

We're all familiar with the concept of a loss leader -- a store will deliberately price key products to a price below cost, often way below cost.    This is to get people into the store to buy stuff that is overpriced.    A good example are razor handles and blades -- the sample pack is cheap, but the replacement refills are extortionist, even at club pack warehouses.    The same with food staples like milk and sugar.   We get upset when milk goes up even ten cents a 4 litre bag or jug but the price has been more or less steady the last seven or eight years and growth well below inflation.  But the price stores pay is still less than the real price of production.

But there's another a part to the problem.   Whether by marketing boards that set a cartel price (and guaranteed profit for producers) or by any of a number of farm subsidies (one kind of "corporate welfare") stores actually pay less than they otherwise would.   If they paid the true price of production, in other words break even for the farmers, food would get way more expensive than it otherwise could be.

We often think of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy for making food prices more than they should be.   But for some foods it could be way more and put many less well off consumers into greater hardship were the subsidies were not there.

But that could all change in the States as early as next Tuesday.   Among the many line items that will be affected if the US President and Congress can't agree on a fiscal plan by a week today are farm subsidies.  And if dairy producers in particular have their subsidies cut off, they'll have to either sell the milk on their own or go into a Canadian style marketing board to fix prices like OPEC does for oil, then stores will have to pay the full price.   Since stores buying the milk at the reset price would become so expensive that a loss leader price strategy would be fiscal suicide, they'll have no choice but to charge full price just to break even.

The average retail price of milk in the United States is $3.65 per US gallon (3.785 litres).   If the subsidies go, that price will skyrocket ... to eight bucks.    In other words, the real price.   (If the same applies to Canada, we're also paying only 40% of the true cost.)  To ensure a "stable" market, the Department of Agriculture would have to get into the business of buying milk -- by law, and this is a "poison pill" of sorts that was introduced in 1949 and never intended to be used -- just to try to backstop the carnage.   To stay afloat yoghurt, cheese and butter producers would have to import milk from other countries.   Including, say ... Canada?

As Yakov Smirnoff says, "What a country!!!"   The teabags -- or at least the true libertarians among them, not the fascists who want things to go back to the pre-civil rights era) are all about limiting government to the lowest level necessary.  But they don't have a problem with subsidizing the national forests, which are actually owned by the Department of Agriculture (not Interior as with National Parks or Fish and Wildlife areas, or other recreation areas owned by either Energy or Defense).   They don't have a problem with spending tons of money subsidizing the construction of toll roads that are privately owned and/or operated.   They also don't mind giving tax breaks to people who buy $100k + cars, but not to small businesses who want the ability to compete with the big guys.

So why do the TBs (yeah, really bad abbreviation) who backstop forest companies for cutting federal timber lands -- feel just fine with pissing off a major part of their base?

Actions, or the lack thereof, have consequences.    I've said it before and I'll say it again, America needs major austerity big time.   But if little people, upstream and downstream, are the victims -- then the GOP will rue the day they let the NRA buy them off because the gun nuts will get really and sorely tempted to turn their anger on the legislative, not the executive.

Fasten your seat belts.   If DC goes off the cliff next week, then the real fun begins.

When will Scalia just shut up?

Antonin "Nino" Scalia, the current dean of the US Supreme Court and a very staunch conservative, has always had a way with words especially in the opinions he authors for the majority or in dissent.   There is no question he is a champion of free speech and expression -- he has often sided with liberals on such issues as flag burning and song parodies.

He has also been further to the right than even many in the right on issues such as airplane and maritime accidents -- his sentiment, which is carried by the Court as a whole, is that international treaties on shipping give passengers the same treatment as cargo and therefore mandatory payouts to families should be no different (in most cases, an accidental death of this nature results in reparations as little as $12,000 per head).

He has never made a secret of his opinion that homosexuals pose a grave threat to the so-called "morals" of America.   This has indeed been his long standing position over 25 years.

But just days after the Court agreed to hear and consolidate two appeals -- one, California's legal appeal of the Ninth Circuit striking down Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban (that is, a legal appeal in the sense that California is only asking for the court to uphold the law itself even though Governor Jerry Brown openly opposes it); and two, a gay couple challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act which denies spousal benefits to same sex couples even in states that allow gay marriage or recognize same sex common law partnerships -- Scalia got into an argument with a student at Princeton, in front of 800 others.

The student, a freshman named Duncan Hosie, is eighteen and openly gay -- asked if Scalia was at least willing to reconsider his on the court record harsh comments.   Said Hosie:

I think there is a fundamental difference between arguing the Constitution does not protect gay sex, which is a defensible and legitimate legal position I disagree with, and comparing gays to people who commit murder or engage in bestiality.  Do you have any regret or shame for drawing these comparisons you did in your dissents?

 Scalia remained unrepentant:

If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against these other things?  Of course we can. I don’t apologize for the things I raised. I’m not comparing homosexuality to murder. I’m comparing the principle that a society may not adopt moral sanctions, moral views, against certain conduct. I’m comparing that with respect to murder and that with respect to homosexuality.  It's an argument by way of reductio ad absurdim.  It’s a type of argument that I thought you would have known…. I’m surprised you aren’t persuaded.

Is this an issue about religion -- an apologist for the Vatican?   Hardly.   If that was the case, a lot of court decisions would have gone his way.   But the Catholics on the Court are as diverse as Catholics are -- indeed, any religious grouping is -- in America.

At the present time, the Court is composed of six Catholics and three Jews -- the first time ever that SCOTUS has no Protestants at the Marble Temple.  Besides Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito are almost certain to vote no on gay marriage.  I think the latter is a given, since he famously said at the appeals level in the Pennsylvania case 20 years ago that ultimately upheld abortion rights although also severely curtailed them -- that while he agreed with the majority the state had gone too far with mandatory spousal notification, the courts had no business in overturning laws even if they were patently stupid.

I also think it's pretty obvious that the three Jewish justices will vote for gay marriage.   Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan have consistent liberal records so that's a no brainer.

One of the other Catholics, Sonia Sotomayor, will almost certainly vote for gay marriage too.

So with the balance 4-3, once again, it comes down to the two swing votes.    Kennedy is a conservative on most criminal matters but on social issues has tended to lean left.    A yea vote would put it over the top.   But it is not at all clear how he'll vote on this issue.    Chief Justice Roberts has also proven to be a conservative -- but he voted to uphold "Obamacare" earlier this year, to the shock of just about everyone.

It's okay to have one's opinions.   But to express them so openly, outside of the courtroom, morally disqualifies Scalia from participating in consideration.    It can be tricky having an eight member bench, since in case of a tie the appeals court holding is what stands.   But if Roberts can be persuaded, then gay marriage would win whether it's 5-4 or 4-4.   Then anything Scalia has said, no matter how much he has a right to that opinion, won't matter at all.

And I think that's a good thing.   For as another conservative but very open minded former Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision that upheld Roe v. Wade, "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code."

Exactly.

UPDATE 7:20 PM EST, 0020 GMT Friday):  A couple of clarifying additions.  Also, the more I think about Scalia's comments, the more of a pinhead he is showing himself to be.   If Rush Limbaugh was labelled as such by no less than Bill O'Reilly then Scalia deserves at least as much derision.

Canada's F-35 -- the $46 billion dollar boondoggle

Later today, the Amsterdam based accounting firm Kynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler (KPMG ™) will issue a report regarding the proposed procurement of 65 Lockheed-Martin F-35-A Lightning II fighter jets for the Canadian Air Force.   If media previews are to be believed, the program will be way higher than the $9 billion originally claimed by PMS and Co.   Higher than the $30 billion suggested some time ago by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.   (And who knows how much the Auditor General, Canada's top accountant, will say it is when he files his findings in an upcoming quarterly report).

KPMG will say that the actual cost of the jets, including maintenance over a projected 36 year life cycle will, in fact, be anywhere from $40 to $46 billion.   At an original sale price of $75,000,000 per pop, plus about $9 billion in maintenance costs the government originally claimed, we're looking at a boondoggle that is 3.5 to 4 times originally budgeted.    Worse, the Canadian share of maintenance contracts will be only $9 billion, most of the rest will likely go to the States.    Keep in mind the $75 mill was the original price -- current estimates are actually about $150,000,000 off the shelf; which jumps to about $250,000,000 with weapons systems attached plus adaptations for Canada's very harsh climate both winter and summer.

Military contracts gone out of control has been the bane of too many governments both left and right.   One thinks of relatively "minor" infractions over the years such as the feds providing infrastructure money for building overpasses for highways that were originally decades away from being built (the roads often later tolled despite commitments from the provinces not to do so, were later fast-tracked due to safety issues on arterial roads, inclement micro-climates, or both).

But this goes way beyond that.   The Air Force is our first line of military defence -- not just against hostile régimes such as North Korea (which finally has succeeded in launching a three stage rocket, putting the Canadian and American West Coasts firmly in the Kim dynasty's sights) -- but also against the current and equally ominous threat of terrorists who are fighting for some kind of "nation" but actually neither have a country nor can have something taken away from them that which they have already renounced.

Of course, this branch of the military, perhaps even more so than the other two (Army and Navy) needs to have the best possible equipment.    We as civilians should demand nothing less for our courageous men and women.

But as on the civilian side of all matters fiscal, we need to also insist not just on value for money (a single engine fighter jet is a cockamamie idea for the obvious reason) but also that midstream and back-ended costs are properly calculated and budgeted for.   In the present circumstance, it also requires the manufacturer warranty any unexpected repairs and for an extended period, for all or most of the anticipated life cycle.   If the plane is sold more or less as is, then it becomes a bill of goods.

The fact that the purchase decision for this particular plane was made almost totally untendered (by the previous Liberals who started the ball rolling, unfortunately) is bad enough.   But the Con government couldn't just blame things entirely on their predecessors    Despite growing evidence that the maintenance costs were much higher than claimed, indeed were getting more and more expensive as time went on, the executive kept sticking to the lower figure.

If the government misrepresented the truth in Parliament then they are in contempt of the national legislature.   In that case, Harper has to have the guts to say "I'm sorry."   Two simple words.    If Michael McCain of Maple Leaf Foods ™ could do so on tainted meat products, then the PM has a duty to do so on something far more grave than that -- nothing should be more important to the duties of our head of government than national security.    I'm not talking about going public the launch codes for our non-nuclear (which all of them are) missiles.   That of course, should be a closely guarded secret.   I'm talking about transparency of the kind that ensures we have the confidence that what we are buying for the military is the best equipment at the best price.

I'm not the only one who's suggested this but we need to start all over, albeit on a fast track process, and have bureaucrats from a non-military department go through the potential bidders and pick what is truly the best one -- just as we did for the Navy procurement program recently.

This is one hell of a Christmas present.   In this case, we get stuck with a huge lump of coal -- pretty much all the coal mines in the country's production for several years worth.   If no one's minding the store on this file, who knows what big surprise lies ahead next?

Immigration "reforms" actually regressive

We're starting to see the fallout from the Con government's proposed changes to immigration policy.   And while I agree that such policies need a reboot every now and then to meet current trends (and to a lesser extent, changes in social morés), what is shaping up to be what we'll be stuck with for at least the next twenty years is anything but promising.

For one thing, I see absolutely no evidence that the provinces were consulted.    This is a huge warning flag since immigration is supposed to be a shared responsibility between the federal and provincial governments.   In a world of extremely tight budgets, it is well and proper that the provinces should have the lead role in determining their respective needs for certain types of workers (Alberta, obviously, needs energy  and agricultural workers; while Ontario requires people in high tech and health care companies as well as for forests and mines).   This is because it's the high value and high paying jobs that generate the most revenues for the sub national governments.

There does appear to be some sense in reducing the weighting on proficiency in either English or French (although there should be some competency in one or both languages if not outright fluency).

But there appear to be no changes in the settlement monies to the provinces for regular class immigrants.   The amounts offered (about $5000 per capita in Québec and $3400 in the other provinces) don't even begin to cover the upfront costs.   The provinces have every right to demand a bigger slice of the pie and to increase their role in the selection process with agreements renegotiated more frequently (say, every five years or so instead of decades) and more transparently with legislative review.

As well there also doesn't appear (still) to be any fiscal arrangements to help legitimate refugees settle other than the "good offices" of local social groups as well as international NGOs such as the Red Cross-Red Crescent alliance and the Salvation Army.   And if that's not bad enough, the Cons are changing the list of what are considered "safe countries of origin" -- those where the receiving country believes that a "well founded fear of persecution" never or almost never exists.

These include, amongst others, the 27 European Union members, the US and Australia, among others.   But among the proposed list are some Central American countries which while nominally are democracies (finally) still have pretty bleak (and that is being mild) human rights records -- especially against women, Native North Americans and journalists.    Also are countries in Africa which have well known abuses against minorities and women even if they too have democratized.

And let's not forget, there are still many countries where the mere fact that one is LGBT is cause for persecution as well as prosecution.   True, there are many Canadians who have major personal moral qualms about alternative lifestyles but are at least willing to be tolerant of them.    What lies ahead possibly is a situation not unlike the "Voyage of the Damned" where this country indirectly participated in the Holocaust by sending a boatload of European Jews back to the other side of the pond because of widespread prejudice here at the time, including very prominently from "monarchist women's" groups.

Those on the so-called "safe list" will still get a Singh hearing but will not be able to appeal a negative decision to the Refugee Appeals Board; instead they will have to go directly to the Federal Court of Appeal (which normally handles such issues as claims for disability pensions denied by the CPP, patent and copyright disputes, and appeals for worker's comp for federal public servants).   Most lawyers will tell you that a "federal case" can be way more costly to prepare than a provincial civil trial and legal aid even more difficult to obtain than for the provincial courts or tribunals.    Most refugees therefore will just go home, or maybe even "forum shop" to another country that doesn't share "black lists" with Canada.

But lastly, it's not heartening to hear that the "investor" class is getting the short shaft.   While there have been some families who have "bought" citizenships as a matter of convenience in case things go really wrong in their home countries (think Mainland China, for instance, which keeps regressing on human rights) most have put their money here on good faith, creating jobs and on the presumption that they would get a fast track to naturalization.     Now, it seems, many of them are being forced to the back of the line to start over even though they have successfully resettled here.    If that's not acting in bad faith I'm not sure what is.

There's no way that we should ever go back to the "Whites First" policy we had for decades (and white supremacists -- ahem, "British Israelists" -- have long lobbied to have reinstated).

But I suspect many first and second generation Canadians would never have gotten over here if they had to qualify under the new proposed rules.   Canada is a better country because we have welcomed immigrants of all classes, all races and from all countries.   Most importantly, there may be an argument for "safe third countries" but the list has to be a lot narrower, otherwise Canada will lose a lot of potential migrants.    Even the  policies of the US and the Schengen bloc in Europe right now look way more enlightened.

"State" of Palestine? Where *and for what why)?

Yesterday, the UN General Assembly voted to grant Palestine the same status as the Vatican -- "non member observer state."   I have the feeling that if we in Canada had a Liberal or ND government, this country would have voted to abstain as more than 40 countries did.    That's the position we took in 1988 when the UNGA elected to temporarily adjourn from NYC to Geneva to hear a speech by Yasser Arafat of the PLO.   Of course, we have a conservative Conservative government and Harper directed our Ambassador there to vote No.   Odd we'd be in the same camp as the Democratic Obama albeit for very different reasons.   As you will read, I think that the way the UN did it yesterday was wrong-headed.   But not for the reasons that PMS had.

More than a year ago I wrote about this, that the concept of NMOS of Palestine, at least for now, was ill advised and for the same reason as now (in much more detail).   There is no clearly defined boundary of what would be a State of Palestine.   Officially, Canada takes the same position as most of the world -- that Gaza, the West Bank, the Golan Heights and most importantly East Jerusalem are not part of Israel and the occupations are illegal.   The existence of Israeli settlements which are operative exclaves of Israel are illegal.  (I have written numerous times here about legal exclaves -- just two of which include Alaska detached from the rest of the United States by Canada, and the gambling resort of Campione which is completely separated from Italy by Switzerland -- as opposed to these illegal territories and the real reason for their dubious existence.)

While I do support the concept of a country called Palestine, this really isn't the way to do it.  Not just because the borders have not been settled.   \This is not like Switzerland (which was originally an NMOS and evaded UN membership until 2002 even though it hosts the European headquarters at what used to be the League of Nations, and still maintains a policy of strict neutrality in world affairs although it does vote Yea or Nay at most of the General Assembly votes)    This is not like the Vatican which is still not a full member but a NMOS (the argument being that being a member would force it to take positions on world politics -- which is disingenuous, just read the diplomatic correspondence it does publish at its website www.vatican.va !)

The precedents  show that a non member state ought to be neutral.   In the ball park that Palestine is in and given the history of occupation and being dispossessed one can hardly expect that this "country" such that it is would be neutral.   It has a very militant populace.   I suspect most Palestinians want peace with Israel but not on the West's terms.   And you can be sure that the legation from Ramallah (the current de facto capital) will use its status with which it can now get seats on any of a number of UN agencies to drag Israel into the World Court, the IAEA, and the International War Crimes Tribunal (all three of which Israel does not recognize).   And forget the Permanent Court of Arbitration, not connected with any world body but has often acted to solve disputes reasonably and peacefully.   What would be the point of having a dispute if one of the parties didn't even admit there was something to resolve?

These are all reasons to give one pause.   But PMS makes it even worse.   It is more than obvious he is in the back pocket of groups which either do not recognize there is even a Palestinian problem, or that there is no land other than Israel, or at the very least the illegal settlement should be made legal.   This has long been a problem in the States, especially at the Congressional level (although nearly all Presidents, and especially Carter and Clinton, have tried to get all sides together at least partially successful).   Harper is nowhere near as bad as the disgraced Tom Delay who defiantly showed up at the so called "pro-Israel" rallies and proclaimed his support for annexation (if not expulsion of Palestinians including those who actually live in Israel).

But maybe there's another reason.   It's not like the Israel new shekel (ILS) is considered to be a global currency -- think the buck, the yen, the euro or even the loonie for that.   But Israel is a very reliable place to park money in strip and coupon less bonds.   It's not easy for a country offering 6 percent interest to make all of its payments on time and at full value but it does.   It's only natural that in these tough times Canada would diversify its portfolio beyond just bonds from the States or Europe.   We don't directly provide foreign aid to a first world country (unlike the US does, inexplicably even just weeks away from the so-called fiscal cliff).

But are our holdings so large, or our non government foreign investments so great, that to even throw a bone of neutrality at Palestine (i.e. to abstain) would tick off the Israel government?   It's not like we're leaving Tel Aviv any time soon.

Money will always drive ideology.   I think that's what it's about -- not just appeasing the religious right across the country.

The vote of No was wrong.   We should have just abstained.   We need to do what we've always done -- say both sides have a point but also offer to be a negotiator in an attempt as feeble as it is that a final settlement can be found.    Harper could go down as one of the truly outstanding PMs if he just did that much.

Fat chance of course.

Maybe the United States NEEDS a fiscal cliff

The riots we've been seeing across the European Union -- not just the 17 countries inside Euroland but also the 10 that are not -- are the result of people being fed up with having the cradle to grave welfare state being clawed back or almost eliminated.   Here in Canada we haven't gotten quite there yet, indeed nowhere near, but at some point I think something's going to give.

And as far as the United States is concerned, here is the so-called "fiscal cliff", which came out of last year's failed budget talks when the Tea Party obstructed any effort to come up with a compromise because that's just the way they are.   If something doesn't happen by the end of the year, there will be a major dose of shock therapy.   This includes budget cuts of about $110 billion per year for ten years (half from the military) and about $400 billion every year in tax increases.

These cuts and increases would happen each and every year over ten years.   This would include a major hike in public pension and unemployment insurance premiums (maybe as much as $4000 per family) and many more families would fall into the "alternative minimum tax" which was supposed to be a forced income tax on the super rich.

Many in the States think this could force the States back into recession.   I don't think it's that bad.   In fact, I think shock therapy is exactly what America needs.   One only has to look around the world to see how two other countries pulled it off.

Back in 1986, New Zealand was facing bankruptcy.   Literally.   In an attempt to save itself, the country underwent a major fiscal shock.   Major budget cuts were made and a new focus on core priorities made.   The currency was devalued (by removing the long time peg to the US Dollar -- it's worth pointing out that Canada did the same back in 1962 when the more than century par with the greenback was ended).    As well income tax rates were cut (including cuts in subsides, i.e. corporate welfare) and a national sales tax implemented.      Did it work?   Sure.   But the more or less tracking the Kiwi had with the Aussie and the "Loonie" ended.   Before the three currencies were more or less at par, nowadays while the latter two are more or less tracking with the greenback, the NZ buck is usually about 10 to 15% less.

It got nowhere near that bad in Canada.   But when our federal debt to GDP ratio got to 70% the Wall Street Journal infamously warned that we were on the verge of becoming a "banana republic" in the sense that we might not even be able to make the interest payments on the debt at some certain point in the future it was widely ridiculed but it make the powers that be wake up.    What did we do?   The proposed elimination of the GST was tossed, which kept about $25 billion in revenues back in the system.    Some income tax cuts were deferred.  And yes, payroll taxes shot up, including a phased in doubling of premiums for the Canada Pension Plan and Régime des Rentes de Québec.

But perhaps most controversially but also courageously in my opinion, the feds cut spending discretionary by 20% including an equally proportionate slash in the size of the public service.   Transfer payments to the provinces and territories were bundled and slashed (call it a form of "unfunded mandate" for health, education and welfare).   Over time the debt-to-GDP ratio hit a low of about 35% compared to nearly triple that in the States where it is now.  We're back up to about 40% but we're in way better shape than many of our trading partners.

So what can the US do?   Well, maybe shock therapy is in order for a country which thought it had a God given right to a AAA credit rating which was rightfully stripped from it a couple of years ago.   But this is a broad outline of what I would do.

Firstly, I would revisit the entire tax code.   Get rid of the multiple upon multiple tax breaks and replace it with a higher personal exemption.   One can then cut tax rates but raise revenues quite substantially.  That's what was done in 1986.

Theoretically (although not practically at this time) a more or less flat income tax could eventually be implemented.   Seven states (Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Utah) have a flat tax.   It is also being seriously considered by the council of Washington DC.  Of course, Alberta has a flat tax with very generous exemptions so most people with low or moderate incomes don't pay any tax at all other than the health care premiums.

Second, and as unpopular as it sounds, America definitely needs a GST of some sort.   And it does have to be a  tax on goods and services as it is at the state level in many states.   There has to be some mechanism to make it partially refundable for less well off people as is the case in Canada -- but if the wealthy were forced to pay, say, an extra $8000 for every $100,000 on fancy cars perhaps finally they would shoulder the burden for the national defence.   That's what income taxes were originally designed for anyway -- a  levy for the rich, not a burden for the poor.

Third, the cap on the payroll tax needs to be raised, substantially.   Once you hit $113,000 in gross wages you no longer have to pay any social security taxes.  (It's about $45,000 here in Canada).   The premiums should be pegged to the entire gross, with the proviso that over a 10 year phase in the benefits paid out would reflect the premiums paid.

Fourth, there does indeed have to be massive spending cuts on the discretionary side.   I would however focus it on the military.   Instead of the pending 50-50 split between defence and "other", it should really be 80-20.   The American military will always be the most powerful.   They certainly have the resources to answer the call of duty anywhere, and after more than a century I think a lot of people in the country are sick and tired of fighting other people's wars.   They have dozens of units ready to move at just hours notice and cutbacks in military procurement (i.e. materiél) won't affect that.   Besides, a lot of money is wasted on unsafe equipment -- think the V-22 Osprey that the Marines finally gave up on, or the F-35 that Canada is still so hung up on but even the US Army is now clawing back by hundreds of units on after they lost a war game against the 1970s era Australian air force.   Yeah, Australia!

But leadership starts at the top.   And so finally any President who makes over a million a year should not collect any salary.  Same for the fat cats in the Senate and the House of Representatives.   The travel allowances ought to be cut back as well.   And no more rollover of campaign contributions to the next election.   Anything left over goes to pay the debt.

But maybe austerity is what's called for.   If it's good enough for Greece and Ireland, it sure as heck it's good enough for the States.  It's way past time the country claimed an exemption just because it's America.    Matter of fact, it's time for the IMF and the World Bank to bail out America.   That'll learn them.   Especially the Tea Party (i.e. neo-facists) who hates both of the main pillars of global  economic security.  I wonder how you translate "Special Drawing Rights" to ... um, how do I end this sentence?

Gaza, the ethnic media, and PMS

There are two stories that have emerged the last few days.   They are totally unrelated but it does raise questions about a certain world leader, PMS.

 

The events of the last twenty four hours or so in Gaza and southwestern Israel have raised the stakes much further and higher than one might have imagined just a few days ago.   Not too surprisingly, PMS has said once again that his government absolutely supports the assassination of a Hamas leader and anything else Israel does.

Now of course we all should support the State of Israel and its right to exist.   Only a moron would not.   And anytime a terrorist is taken out, it`s a good thing.   It is not a good thing, however, when innocent civilians are killed.   A proactive move such as this one, no matter how necessary, also requires minimizing civilian casualties.   It may very well be true that Hamas may be using human shields, but that doesn`t allow the other side from abdicating its responsibilities.   Yet for some reason, Mr. Harper has not said a single word about the Palestinians caught in the crossfire.

Could it be that he supports the concept of collective guilt?   Remember that this was the stain that wrongly smeared Jews from the time of the Crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth until the Nazi death camps were liberated.   Almost 2000 years.   And it’s worth considering that the mostly peaceable Muslims were admired – however grudgingly – until the end of the same war.   Now the tables have been turned.   The opinions of a very vocal but tiny minority taint the rest.   Because of that, it’s quite okay to pick on Muslims – if not in the mindset of PMS himself, certainly among a large section of his base; again not the majority but the minority who contributes the most to the Conservative Party coffers. 
 

That leads to the second story … the news that the Cons are using public funds to monitor the print, audio-visual and streaming media of ethnic groups.   Why?   To see how those groups are reacting to the government’s immigration policies.

I am not really surprised, but this smacks of when the RCMP spied on Québec separatist factions and feminist activists in the 1970s which directly led to the creation of a specialist spy agency although the Mounties have acknowledged that they still engage in espionage activities.

Does Harper not realize that if you antagonize “enemies” even worse than before, sooner or later the very policies you have tried to push will end up not only repealed but rolled back to the benefit of those you have tried to crush?      The only thing that can stop him is the secret ballot … which must be held eventually no matter how many times he prorogues Parliament – and while Canada is technically at war (the so-called one on “terrorism”) he needs a 2/3 majority beyond the maximum 5 year term to keep things running for 12 month intervals at a time which he obviously will not have.

 

These two shows to me even more than before how much of a control freak Harper is.   And how so determined he is to control the agenda that he will resort to besmirching those who express concern for the vast majority of a people who want no part of any international argument whatsoever other than justice and recognition for their cause, or to monitor any communications in languages other than English or French.

It’s no wonder why some media groups in the major cities here have their radio transmitters in the United States, not only to get around CANCON rules but so they can promote their message without fear of reprisal – the rules for political commentary are way more lax in the States, after all, than they are in Canada.    Or why they have just gone to live streaming. 

Will the government continue on this track of having an enemies’ list?   Sure.   They’re going to go on no matter what anyone says on it.   But whether it’s promoting tax policies or its total lack of environmental protection policies or raping the forests to extract the tar sands or shale gas – or spying on ethnic  enemies – they should do so with Conservative party coffers, not the taxpayer’s public funds.   Not unless there truly is probable cause that illegal activities have happen or might, in which case it’s a matter for the police, not the PMO.    Last time I checked, we still have habeas corpus.