Sunday, May 31, 2009

The right kind of Canada

Last week, Zahra and I were in Nova Scotia searching for our slice of Canadian paradise... and trust me, it does exist (right around Mahone Bay, I might add!). We were staying at the Fairmont House Bed and Breakfast and we were enjoying conversation over coffee with our host, Thomas. I invited him to have a read of my blog.

The next morning, our discussion turned to the blog and his thoughts. He enjoyed what he read, he said, but suggested that I was rather hard on my fellow Canadians. I appreciated the feedback and the critique.

For any readers I may have out there in cyberspace, I wanted to say that, while I have been a bit hard in the course of my blogging, it was never because I harboured disdain or dislike for my fellow citizens or my country. I am critical for the exact opposite reason -- I have incredibly high hopes and expectations for Canada. Those hopes and expectations are the responsibility of each and every citizen.

We can only shape Canada and its culture by embodying the values we deem important. If that's a strong sense of conservatism and intolerance, and we elect a government that matches those values, that is exactly how we will be viewed by our peers in the international community. Consequently, it will also be the kind of society we will build. On the other hand, if we chose to be a progressive, innovative, forward thinking society, and we embody such values and beliefs in our society and hold our government to account for promoting those collective values, we will be seen by our international peers as such. We will also build a society much more relevant in a globalized, multi-ethnic world.

Canada is the country it is today for having chosen the latter route. We may not always get the credit we deserve for innovative thinking or bold policies (after all, we do share the North American continent with a larger, more powerful and more "glamourous" neighbour), but our strength as a society is precisely because we have the confidence to make difficult choices, with or without recognition. Our society should not, in the age of fleeting popularity and Hollywood-style showmanship, abandon our conviction to do the right thing. Never.

As for the doubters and naysayers who think the American way is the only way, James Howard Kunstler's most recent blog post should set you straight. In his recent drive up to Watertown, New York, and then over the border into Canada, he wrote:
"It was, I'm sad to say, a relief to cross the border out of my own country. Once you got off the main highway of Canada, 401, along the north side of Lake Ontario, the landscape presented a disturbing contrast to what you saw on the American side. Unlike the slovenly, failing farms of New York State, the farms of Ontario looked successful and prosperous. The barns did not tilt at weird angles and the roofs were intact. The farm houses were freshly painted and the grounds generally not strewn with the sort of dingy plastic effluvia Americans like to deploy around their dwellings to give the impression of plentitude. You wondered: how did all the IQ points below the Great Likes [sic] somehow migrate over to the Canadian side? Had they invented some kind of quantum spirit vacuum, run perhaps on dark matter, that sucked all the vitality out of their neighbor-to-the-south? (If so, maybe Canada should take over our dreary duties in Central Asia.)"
We must, as Canadians stay true to what we believe -- peace, order, and good government -- and have the spine to demand it from our government. It is, after all, our responsibility. The more we integrate with our neighbours, the more we risk losing our country.

I look to my inspirational friends Ray and Marge, who moved to Nova Scotia from America in the early 1970s to protest the war in Vietnam. Actually, it wasn't just in protest, but to be a part of a peaceful and progressive society, to be locally active, and to promote citizen engagement. For that reason alone, I say the world needs more Canada (and more Ray and Marge!). But, if the world really does needs more Canada, it has to be the right version. Each and every one of us is responsible for that version, whatever it may be. So forgive me for being tough, but I will continue, in order to force all of us to think about the choices we make each day. I would also like to inspire readers to become more engaged -- the next time your MP has a townhall, hold him or her to account by attending, asking tough questions, and demanding more. It's not enough to be critical or offer ill-informed opinion from the sidelines. The time is now to get involved with a critical eye and open mind.

Sunday, May 24, 2009

Canadians deserve better

As if the current state of politics in Canada wasn't bad enough... In the past few weeks, two politicians — one an ancient relic and the other a poster girl for 'social justice' — have demonstrated the new low to which the stature of public service has sunk. I refer, of course, to the case of former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and his Airbus-for-cash deal with Karlheinz Schreiber and to the Bollywood-babe-turned-politician, Ruby Dhalla.

It's not really fair for me to take pot shots at either of them here. At best, I could offer only divisive criticism and biased conjecture; if you want that, pick up a copy of the National Post (or National 'Compost' as my friend Red Canuck has called it). In the case of Mulroney, my pangs of schadenfreude were tinged with pity. I cannot think of a worse fate for a 70-year-old man than welling up and shedding a tear at a public trial. Crocodile tears? Maybe. Let's face it, his reputation is forever sullied; the best that Canadians can hope for is that we don't get a repeat with our very own 'Canadian Idle' [sic] Ben Mulroney. As for Dhalla — that's a mystery in my mind. I'm pretty sure, given the complexity of the current global situation, Canada doesn't need the vapidity offered by a power-hungry actor turned politician. And therein lies the lesson. Or lack thereof.

In grade and then high school in the 1980s and very early 1990s, I do not remember ever receiving a proper 'civics' lesson. At best, maybe some cursory explanations about the establishment of our parliamentary system. But considering how critical these formative years are in terms of understanding personal identity and how an individual sees him/herself in relation to the country and the world, this is a grave flaw in our education system.

If we are to keep young, talented people in Canada, and give them the tools to mold this country into something other than a springboard to a career in the United States or Europe, they must know about the mechanics of citizenship: how our constitution works, what protections are offered by the charter of rights and freedoms, how the systems of power in Canada intersect. Only by making the political system more transparent — and therefore accessible — can a greater plurality of voices have a say in the way this country is governed. Over the past 15 years, with the rising balances of bank accounts, 0 per cent financing on BMWs, McMansions, and unapologetic suburban sprawl, Canadians have essentially disengaged.

Because we are a small population, a lack of engagement and understanding in the political system leaves us in a very vulnerable position. I have referred to this process as a sort-of 're-feudalization,' where those with money continue to make money and tighten their grip on power. And we know who these people are — they're the ones who preyed on 90 per cent of honest, hardworking Canadians, taking huge sums of pension money and hard-earned savings and investing in the seductively corrupt system of bogus sub-prime mortgages, bank stocks and hedge funds. They're the ones who protected their wealth through trust funds and offshore bank accounts, while lobbying cap-in-hand on Parliament Hill for taxpayer bailout money. Power and money are siblings, after all.

What better way to ensure continuity of the 'every man for himself' ethos than to support a system that keeps a majority of Canadians poorly-informed, offers up glamourous but vacant members of parliament, makes unskilled high-turnover jobs in the service industry plentiful, and fills store shelves with cheap factory foods to feed another generation of Nintendo-addled children. The shame is that our standards — individual Canadian standards — are so low. We readily build Wal-Marts on fields that were once productive, without remorse. We have no problem with governments funding massive highway projects that extend morning commutes by another 45 minutes, but make no demands for alternate transportation or higher fuel economy standards or creating greater access to clean energy.

In a democracy, one gets the government they deserve. But at some point, the spiral of stupidity must stop, voices have to be raised, and we must demand more from our public officials. Otherwise, we are squandering the true benefits of the very democracy we continue to promote as an ideal system of government.

Granted, this is how I connect the dots and, having been in diplomatic circles for some time now, I realize others will see this differently. What I have also found, however, is that the staunchest arguments against a particular position always come from those who have the most to lose.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Staying the course with peacekeeping

Romeo Dallaire is the true definition of a hero. And we can claim him as ours!

Yesterday, I watched Shake Hands with the Devil, the 2007 Canadian movie about the genocide in Rwanda, starring Roy Dupuis (Barbarian Invasions, The Rocket) as Lieutenant-General Dallaire. If you haven't seen it, you should.

The movie portrayed Dallaire as a man of steely determination and compassion in a very Canadian way -- understated, but with enough graphic reality that discounted the use of shoot-em-up computer graphics and "to-scale" models constructed on some studio back lot. This was the real deal and felt like it. You couldn't mistake it for anything but genuine; one man, leading 450 rag-tag UN peacekeepers, working tirelessly against the odds in the worst possible conditions.

It cut close to the bone for me on many levels. The United Nations is filled with good people, but put them together at headquarters in New York, disconnected in many ways from the reality on the ground and you have nameless, faceless apparatchiks deciding on the fate of innocents half a world away. At the end of a day, the keyboards go silent, the lights go dim, and it's off to the opera, or an honourary dinner at the Ambassador's residence on Park Avenue, or just a quiet meal at home with the family in ignorant bliss. The next day, it starts all over.

It was at once painful and pleasing to see the Canadian flag and the United Nations flag together on Dallaire's uniform. Pleasing because it spoke to one of our country's fundamental contributions to international order and peace in the latter half of the 20th century. Painful because it was a reminder of just how weakened and poorly regarded peacekeeping has become. Where Canada was once a leader, we no longer are. Where peacekeeping was seen as a fundamental contribution of the United Nations to stability around the world, it is now underfunded and ineffectual. It would seem that the days of peacekeeping -- first modeled by Lester Pearson -- are numbered.

The CBC's Brian Stewart wrote a very interesting online op-ed on the subject back in April. With some authority, he said:
In 1990, fully 10 per cent of all UN missions were staffed by Canadians and the image of blue-helmeted Canadian soldiers policing the world's flashpoints — from Cyprus and Sinai to Kashmir — became almost as iconic as the beaver.

But those days are gone. It's time to face the harsh reality.
Stewart also provides a quick overview of the unraveling of peacekeeping and possible successor models. I've given the approaches in his article, and others, some thought. The issue for me -- whether it's sending NATO troops to do some type of modified "peacekeeping" or a pan-North American police force into a place like Haiti -- is the potential to fall into old traps of imperialism or gun boat diplomacy.

The "have" countries will always be able to send "professionals" into places where there is value. Areas where no value exists will either be forgotten or made into training grounds for troops or police -- in such cases, the actual value is in maintaining chaos. The world always loses out in such cases.

The dark cloud around peacekeeping in its current state -- and the manner in which it has come into disrepute -- stems directly from the fact that it doesn't have the support or leadership of strong world powers. Without that, it is bound to atrophy, which is what we are seeing. Peacekeeping is being left to die a slow, painful death, with the UN filling in the gaps as best it can with undisciplined, poorly trained troops.

The peacekeeping model introduced by Pearson -- internationally sanctioned and multi-lateral in composition -- is still valid. Perhaps not perfect, but surely relevant if there is to be any hope of survival for a multi-lateral approach to solving the world's problems. Furthermore, this is Canada's legacy to protect. We should not allow the efforts of great Canadians to be relegated to a forgotten chapter of international history.

Saturday, May 9, 2009

Much ado about nothing... I mean Ignatieff

Last Sunday, Michael Ignatieff was officially declared leader of the Liberal Party of Canada -- unchallenged and unfettered in his quest for the job. It was a coronation, really. Someone even called it the "Seinfeld convention" -- a show about nothing.

Following a miserable performance in late 2008 by then-Liberal Party leader, Stephane Dion, in his attempts to persuade Canadians that a coalition government was a logical alternative to the tyranny of the Harper conservatives, Dion logically stepped down. The Liberals were significantly weakened and, while there was an initial rush to fill the leadership void by some very respected politicians, they bowed out in the name of 'party unity.' Ignatieff, it would seem, would have the interim leader job all to himself. My close friend Red Canuck blogged about it.

My introduction to Michael Ignatieff was in 2003 when, in the run up to (an essentially) unilateral declaration of war by the United States, Ignatieff published a massive diatribe in the New York Times magazine extolling the virtues of the need for America to take offensive action against Iraq. This Harvard professor and influential American thinker fell hook, line and sinker for the old urine-in-the-vial trick. Our 'little guy from Shawinigan,' Prime Minister Jean Chretien, had the sense to ask where was the proof? And without reasonable proof, Chretien had the sense to keep Canada out of a devastating mire.

I have no personal vendetta against Ignatieff. I read his 2007 Iraq mea culpa (also in the New York Times magazine), which I found to be a pompous, politically-expedient way to clear the air, if not redefine himself as moderate, perhaps more "Canadian" after having spent the majority of his life outside the country. Still, it was an admission of error -- after the fact and in the face of truly disgusting war crimes by American soldiers -- but still, he had the sense to try distance himself and salvage a shred of credibility. He wrote:
"Having left an academic post at Harvard in 2005 and returned home to Canada to enter political life, I keep revisiting the Iraq debacle, trying to understand exactly how the judgments I now have to make in the political arena need to improve on the ones I used to offer from the sidelines. I've learned that acquiring good judgment in politics starts with knowing when to admit your mistakes."
Too little, too late in my books. But comments on Red Canuck's blog showed that liberal, progressive Canadians remain desperate for leadership, to the point where rallying behind a less-than ideal Liberal Party candidate is seen as a step forward towards healing deep wounds. Far be it for me to criticize that approach; it's clear this is what many in the Liberal Party wanted. Even the name of Pierre Trudeau was invoked!

Let's be blunt: Ignatieff is no Trudeau. I think someone was passing out some pretty strong Kool-Aid at the Vancouver convention. The real shame is that the Liberal Party, the natural party for Canadians -- centrist, moderate -- has essentially confirmed two things in my mind. It has lost the plot in terms of where it sits in Canada's political spectrum, continuing to inch rightward, disenfranchising many centre and left-leaning Liberals. The second is that, whether Harper or Ignatieff is Prime Minister, both appear to be ideologically similar -- in the same way Chevys and Pontiacs are essentially the same cars. You can sell them as different for only so long before people wise up.

Though admittedly I sit slightly outside the fray, I see the political scene in Canada as being in deep, deep trouble. Whether it's an election-fatigued populace, terrible political choices across the spectrum, or the divisive rise of punditry that has helped fragment Canada into regional blocs with a deep-seated trench mentality. Canada needs another real Trudeau; someone who will work to break down barriers and bring all of us together based on our common values. When the Kool-Aid wears off, it will be clear that's not Ignatieff. (And, if you need a metaphoric harbinger, the Pontiac brand will cease to exist in 2010.)

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Harper and the dinosaurs

Am I the only one unhappy about the Canadian government spending taxpayer money to buy into Chrysler?

The situations today at Chrysler and General Motors are eerily similar to the situation in the British auto industry in the late 1970s - only without the violence, disco and Labour Government. I suppose in that sense, you can slice the irony with a knife and serve it with a dollop of whipped cream.

The fact that any business in the United States - let alone banking or car manufacturing - is nationalized, must surely strike fear in the hearts of red blooded, god fearing, Coca-Cola drinking Republicans. The US government is definitely charting new territory. In Canada, the irony doesn't come so much from nationalization, but the government that's practicing it.

Stephen Harper has appeared frequently in the US media, touted as a trusted partner to Barack Obama in his first 100 days of the presidency. At a recent international event, B-roll news clips showed the pair, Harper following Obama, having a chat -- really it was Obama talking, and Harper basking in the warm glow of the president's aura. What could our little Alberta despot possibly offer the president? Frankly nothing. That's why Canadians now own $2 billion worth of an automotive dinosaur.

Harper is Ed McMahon to Obama's Johnny Carson; the world doesn't need another 'yes man' and follower. It needs a leader, and in that regard, the Chrysler deal is a complete failure on the part of Canada's leadership. Don't get me wrong, I care deeply about the thousands of families that would be affected should Chrysler close. But that's not the issue here.

The Canadian Government is not a bank machine. It should not be a lender-of-last-resort for a major international corporation -- with the Chrysler deal, we have skewed our entire government and financial system the wrong way. The unions aren't to blame for the demise of Chrysler. The public isn't to blame for the demise of Chrysler. Chrysler's predicament lies squarely on the shoulders of its management -- it alone decides on product offerings, negotiates terms with labour and suppliers, and sets its own pay rates. They should be held to account, not given a cushy, golden handshake. Chrysler isn't even publicly traded/owned anymore, which means the government is essentially taking over a business run by a private investment firm -- Cerberus Private Equity -- whose principals include a host of bigwigs and politicos with major connections. If Dan Gerstein's Forbes December 2008 article on the Chrysler-Cerberus-Government connection doesn't scare you, nothing will.

Aside from the lack of outrage by Canadians -- yet another indication that our education system needs some pretty serious help -- at the very least, there should be people across our country who see how $2 billion could help put more usable and accessible public transportation into place. Whether it's more than just one commuter rail line between Hamilton and Toronto, or additional urban subway lines, or a Vancouver "Sky Train" style monorail in our major cities and suburbs, the loss of Chrysler jobs can easily be made up for with well-thought out skills retooling that is directly relevant to new public works and infrastructure projects. Instead, we're seeing investments in things that perpetuate the myth that dinosaurs walked the earth with humans. How about something a little more profound and forward looking? Let the dinosaurs die, Mr. Harper.