Well, the rapture over the Raptors that seemed to consume some Canadians is subsiding.  The memories of what, apparently for some, was the most important experience of their lives, are fading.  Even the shock that bland old Canada could have its own victory party shootings is wearing off.  The national media have mercifully consigned most Raptors coverage back to where it belongs on the Sports pages and, even there, the prospects of the NHL entry level player draft is elbowing it out.

If we ever needed a lesson in how Toronto centric the so-called national media in Canada is, we got it in spades through these past three weeks.  Of course, the one I blame most is the CBC, not because it was necessarily the most blatant, although it may have been, but because it at least pretends to speak for the whole country.  This time it wasn’t speaking for the whole country so much as speaking at it, demanding we all be caught up in the frenzy sweeping Toronto as their team advanced through the NBA finals.

After the Raptors won, one particularly irritating theme popped up in all the media: Canada, formerly a country of losers, was now a winner.  Okay, so I’ve only lived in Canada for seventy years and may have missed a few things, but this really is news to me; the part about Canada being a country of losers that is.

That I was born in the 1940’s and my parents and other relatives did their part in defeating the Nazis/fascists and making the world safe for liberal democracy, may have blinded me to the fact I was in a country of losers (for those of you who have forgotten or, more likely, never knew, 1.1 million Canadians served in the military in World War Two, 42,000 of them were killed.  This, in a country of 10 million people at the time.  Think about it!);

Since then, I’ve watched my country go from victory to victory, or so I thought.  I suspect I’m dealing with very different views of “winning” here; one, that requires there be a loser and one, that sees everyone winning.  The first, like war, plays itself out as sports spectacles fueled by testoterone.  The second is rather more complicated.  But consider these events, all of which have happened in my lifetime:

In 1956 Canada welcomed over 100,000 Hungarian refugees fleeing the Soviet Union’s crackdown on their country (yes, I remember that);

In 1957 future Canadian Prime Minister, Lester Pearson, won the Nobel Peace Prize for helping end the Suez crisis and setting the stage for Canada to send it’s soldiers as peacekeepers all over the world;

In 1957 the Canadian Parliament passed the first legislation that led to the establishment of comprehensive and universal medicare in Canada, a program that, despite its flaws, continues to provide high quality care to all Canadians regardless of their income most of the  time;

A few years later Canada began welcoming tens of thousands of American “draft dodgers” who didn’t want to fight in the immoral and illegal Vietnam war, (which, despite massive pressure from Washington, Canada refused to join);

After that war ended, Canada welcomed thousands of Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian “boat people” as refugees, despite not having been a party to the war;

In 1967 Pierre Trudeau (for younger viewers of this blog, he was the current Prime Minister’s father), then acting as Justice Minister, introduced amendments to the Criminal Code that decriminalized consenting sexual activity between adults, effectively throwing out laws against sexual activity between gay people.  He famously declared:

“There is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.  What is done in private between two adults does not concern the Criminal Code”

This change was not the result of pressure from the courts, it was made by a popular government.  A year later, when Trudeau Sr. became Prime Minister, he won one of the largest majorities in Canadian parliamentary history.  It took decades before our cousins to the south took similar action and then it was done by the courts.

In 1979 Canadian diplomats rescued Americans after the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran (mind you, if you’re relatively young, you may not know this if you relied upon Ben Affleck’s film of the event which, not surprisingly I’m sorry to say, portrayed the CIA as the heroes and the Canadians as, at best, hapless patsies);

Canada began, and continues, to welcome countless immigrants from all over the world and, in the process, has built the most successful multi-racial/multi-cultural country in the world; ever;

On September 11, 2001 Canada welcomed thousands of stranded Americans and cared for them until it was safe for them to return to the States;

In 2003 Canada resisted enormous pressure from Washington to be part of the invasion of Iraq that resulted in the continuing meltdown of the entire middle east and the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives;

In 2005 Canada made same sex marriage legal, only the third country in the world to do so at the time;

Most recently, Canada has successfully resisted the tide of populism/nativism sweeping so much of the west and continues to refuse to cave to the forces of bigotry, isolationism and plain old racism, while continuing to fight for multilateralism and an international order governed by law and agreed-upon rules, even when its staunchest traditional allies seem to be backing away from that vision;

Canada has built, and continues to build, a prosperous, stable, democratic and civil country where people, regardless of their ethnic background; their religious beliefs; their sexual orientation, can live in peace and harmony.  (I’m a Canadian so I’m required at this point to acknowledge that we’re not perfect; mistakes have been made and there is still much to do.  BUT, we continue to work on that every hour of every day, year after year.  How many other countries can say that?).

These are all achievements of historic significance; achievements seldom reached by other nations. So, imagine my surprise, when the media outlets tell me Canada was a country of losers, only now liberated from that pitiful state by the majestic efforts of a Toronto basketball team composed mostly of young Americans.  How could I have been so blind?

All joking aside, anyone who feels Canada was a nation of losers and, only now because of a basketball game, can hold it’s head high as a winner, should give their head a shake. At best, I pity you.  At worst, well I’m not sure I can find the words.

I am a proud Canadian.  I don’t have to shout about it to the world.  I don’t have to measure it by some sporting event.  I don’t need to mimic our American neighbours and demand everyone else agree with me about my country.  I simply don’t, because I know.

Canada Day is coming up shortly.  Pause, and be grateful for what we have.

just sayin

G

Please share this blog.

If you would like to receive an automatic notification when I post a blog, just click on the “follow” button which should appear on the bottom right hand corner of your screen when you first open the blog.

 

 

 

So, the Toronto Raptors have won the NBA championship.  Good for them.  But, here’s the thing, I am tired to the point of screaming of being told the Raptors are “Canada’s Team” because, truth be told, they’re not.  They’re Toronto’s team.  Or maybe even Ontario’s team if they must reach beyond the GTA. But they’re certainly not Canada’s team.

Yes, I do understand the Raptors, after the departure of the ill fated Vancouver Grizzlies to Memphis, are the only NBA franchise in Canada.  But how does that make them “Canada’s team”?  In fact, what we have in the Raptors is a bunch of very highly paid young black Americans playing for a team situated in Toronto, Canada.  And they played against a bunch of very highly paid young black Americans playing for a team situated  in Oakland.  That’s all.  It’s not the second coming.  It’s not the discovery of some hither- to-fore missing Canadian national spirit.  And it most certainly doesn’t tell Canadians who we are.

I was not only born and raised in western Canada, I have spent almost all of my adult life in Canada’s last big city before the great Pacific Ocean.  I’m as far away from Toronto as you can be and still live in a large city in Canada.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m a loyal Canadian and frequently rage against some of our provincial (in more ways than one) politicians here acting in ways that hurt national unity. But, being a loyal Canadian has nothing to do with being a Raptors fan.

And, please, don’t dismiss this as just another Canadian from other than Toronto who secretly envies Toronto all that it has (hate to break it to you Toronto, but we don’t envy you at all and we certainly don’t dislike you, although your constant “look at me” refrain does get a bit tiring).

Actually, I quite like Toronto.  I mean there’s nothing wrong with it.  It’s big.  It’s clean by the standards of a big city.  It has a wide array of ethnicities in its population.  And….well, sorry about this…it’s also kind of bland.  But, wait, there’s nothing wrong with bland.  Just ask the Swiss.

Toronto is the only city in the world I have travelled to (there have been a few) where a cab driver is likely to seek my approval of his city.  Once, a few years ago, I actually had a cabbie taking me in from the airport in Toronto announce that “Toronto was just like New York”.  What? What on earth could I say in reply? Being tongue tied isn’t my natural state (quiet out there!) but really, Toronto isn’t at all like New York.  Not even a little.  In fact, I’d be tempted to say Toronto is the least like New York of any other big western city in the world.  Toronto is like, well….Toronto.  And what’s wrong with that?

So, to watch a city turn itself inside out with extravagant glee at the simple fact their team of young Americans had just won a title/cup in an American league is a bit odd but, what the hell, at least they weren’t behaving like the yahoos do in my city when we get even close to winning a championship.  You remember, don’t you?  Looting, rioting, assaulting, burning police cars etc.  That’s certainly not bland. So be proud of your bland Toronto.

But I can’t finish this without a word about our national broadcaster, the CBC or, in the parlance of insiders, the “mothership”.  I grew up with the CBC; that great unifier of our country; the place we went to in times of  travail or worry; the place that kept us soothingly abreast of the news no matter how terrible, how threatening. Long ago, in the real Jurassic era, I, along with my other Canadians, would gather in front of our newly acquired black and white TV’s to watch the CBC National News at 10 o’clock.  Earl Cameron (remember him?) would be sitting at a desk and actually reading from a script in front of him…ON PAPER!  The ceremony would take fifteen minutes, twenty at the most (unless we were on the verge of war or famine or pestilence or whatever) and then we would blissfully retire to our beds knowing all was well in the peaceful kingdom.  We’ve come a long way since then.  And not in a good way.  The CBC National News can now be watched from BC at eight o’clock, nine o’clock and ten o’clock (I don’t know if there are later broadcasts, that would be way past my bedtime these days).  It has been stretched to an hour for reasons that aren’t clear to me, but usually I can rely on it to get the major news of the day out of the way in the first fifteen minutes or so. (there are exceptions of course; when some anonymous producer seems to feel it is imperative I learn of the disappearance of lichen on some tiny island off the northern coast of Baffin Isand; a need that apparently supersedes the usual wars; murders; kidnappings of the  day but, mercifully these are few and far between).

Now that I’m officially old I tend to turn on the CBC at nine o’clock to get my fifteen minute soporific, so imagine my surprise when I turned on the TV on Thursday night only to be confronted with wall to wall coverage that the Raptors had won.  A banner across the bottom of my screen gave me that basic information because the various reporters were too busy following the antics of the cheering crowds to bother with any detail.  Now, while it wasn’t what I expected, I thought well, they’ll give it three, maybe even five, minutes and then we’ll get to hear about the attacks on the oil tankers in the Gulf, or the day’s mass shooting in the States; or, oh I don’t know, the millions of protestors in the streets of Hong Kong.  So I waited patiently. Well, not so patiently, because by 9:20 it was clear the CBC had no intention of breaking away from shots of young men mugging for the cameras or interviews with earnest recent immigrants as they described the victory as the most important experience of their lives.  Really!  I’m not making this up.  Even old (well, older) people who one might expect have had one or two experiences that might, just might, rival or perhaps even eclipse seeing a team of wealthy young Americans beat another team of wealthy young Americans, were intoning this message.

And then, of course, the “reporters”, many of whom I recognized from their other roles as, well, reporters, kept telling me this was Canada’s victory. That somehow, magically, the north had risen.  I wasn’t aware it had fallen. (“We are the North!”…Really?  Tell that to the inhabitants of Iqaluit.).  And, just in case anyone away from Toronto might have the temerity to challenge that assertion, they broke to special coverage from…wait for it…a Toronto bedroom community.  Sigh.

So, Toronto, enjoy your euphoria. But you just might want to look in the mirror and ask why is it so important to you, and why do you so desperately need to have the rest of us agree?

Oh, and I think it’s time to take a careful look at the tax dollars going to the public broadcaster.

just sayin

G

Please share this blog.

If you would like to be notified when I publish a blog, just click on the “follow” button at the bottom right hand of your screen that pops up when you first open the blog.

Those of you who know me know I seldom resort to profanities. But there are rare moments when other words fail me. This is one of them.

The Federal Government created the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls in September 2016. It was in response to the high number of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls in Canada (at least high as a proportion of the population and the total number of such cases). Marion Buller, a retired judge and aboriginal woman, was named the Chief Commissioner and the inquiry was given a two year timeline to produce a final report with recommendations for further actions.

The inquiry encountered difficulties in its process, including requiring a six month extension of its mandate, but on June 3, 2019, it tabled its final report. The report included two hundred and thirty one recommendations for change. Some of them are relatively non controversial and fairly easily implemented, while others, less so. The final report also declares that the treatment of aboriginal women and girls in Canada amounts to genocide.

I assume the decision to use the term “genocide” was carefully weighed by the commissioners and that they were sincere in their use of it. They were also very wrong.

The term “genocide” came into the language in the mid twentieth century in response to the appalling atrocities committed against identifiable nationalities and religions, most notably in the Second World War where Nazi Germany very nearly succeeded in murdering all the Jewish people in Europe. At least six million perished in this systematic, deliberate and organized campaign to eradicate Jewish people and culture from the European continent. The term was later used to describe the earlier efforts by the Ottoman Turks and then the modern Turkish state to murder and displace the Armenian population of Turkey. Somewhere between one and two million Armenians perished in that slaughter. Later in the twentieth century the term was applied to the mass murder of the Tutsis by Hutus in Rwanda where over half a million were systematically killed in an attempt to eradicate that population. More recently the campaign to kill and displace the Muslim population of the former Yugoslavia by the Serbs, and the most recent campaign by the Burmese government and military against their minority Rohingya where, again, an entire population was subject to murderous attacks, rape and displacement, have all been generally accepted as genocide.

In all of these cases the murders resulted from deliberate government decisions to eliminate an entire ethnic or religious group, using murderous violence and coersion. The goal was to make them disappear however that occurred, and to replace them by other people. That is what genocide is.

The term genocide correctly describes the basest, most savage, most reprehensible behaviour that modern man is capable of, the behaviour that challenges our very sense of humanity and civilization. I say “modern man” because no one has seriously tried to apply the term retroactively to behaviours of our ancestors, many of which by today’s standards, could probably be described as genocide. That is because we believe (well founded or not) that we have evolved to a point where our moral judgements should curtail our most savage instincts.

In the last decade or so various groups, recognizing that their particular cause did not fit the extreme events described as genocide, have attempted to expand the term so that it might include their grievance. Amongst others, this has led to the coining of the term “cultural genocide” which, while seriously negative, lacks the horrifying patina of violence and savagery connected to the orginal term.

Throughout human history groups of humans have displaced others. Groups more highly developed technologically, or in other ways, have appropriated the space occupied by others. Sometimes they murdered the displaced people while, at others, the displaced population coninued and co-existed with them, almost certainly in some inferior capacity. In time the two populations merged. This did not begin with the European occupation of North and South America. It began thousands of years earlier. It is not peculiar to European colonizers any more than it is to native Americans who, in their own development, displaced other native Americans. Indeed, many of the European settlers of North America were themselves victims of displacement in Europe.

So it is an understatement to say it is surprising to hear that all non native Canadians are guilty of perpetuating genocide against native women and girls. In fact, it is far more than that. According to the commission, it doesn’t matter if you arrived in Canada a few months ago or several generations ago. Either way, you are guilty of committing genocide, that worst of humanities collective crimes. You are on par with the Nazis, the Turks, the Serbs, the Hutus and the Burmese military.

And where are our politicial leaders when this charge is hurled against ninety six percent of the population they are elected to represent? From the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition to the Leader of the NDP to the Leader of the Greens; from all of the provincial Premiers, not a peep. Tiptoeing around, fearful of offending native Canadians; fearful of commiting a political faux pas on the eve of an election; fearful of being branded with that most loathsome of political insults: “racist” (not to mention defender/perpetrator of genocide).

Yes, the Prime Minister was careful around the term in the first few hours but then, at first a bit hesitantly, and then with a full throttled embrace, he accepted it. And by the way, even that brief pause brought criticism down upon him. I heard a native woman commenting on the term and complaining it took eight hours, YES, EIGHT HOURS!, for the PM to utter the word, as if that was a fatal flaw, a moral failing. Think about that, the Prime Minister waited a whole eight hours before accepting a term that brands ninety six percent of Canadians racists and murderers. How appalling! (I feel migraine coming on).

Let’s be clear, I fully accept that native people in Canada have suffered from discrimination and the destruction of their indigenous societies. Past governments have pursued policies towards them that have often made their condition worse; policies that were sometimes motivated by racism and discrimination, but not always. Although it’s anathema to say these days, I suspect some (maybe even most) of the people behind the residential schools policy and the “sixties scoop” were well intentioned. With the benefit of hindsight, we also know they were wrong and the consequences of those policies continue to haunt the lives of native Canadians. But none of this is genocide. It’s not as if the children were taken from their homes and killed or that their parents were similarly treated.

And while we’re at it, why no substantive discussion of who is committing the violence against aboriginal women and girls? Why no acknowledgement that, in the significant majority of cases, the violence is committed by native men? What does that mean and how does it fit into the genocide narrative?

I accept that some policies and beliefs of previous governments were grievously wrong and that some were motivated by racist beliefs that, in today’s context at least, are shocking and worthy of condemnation. But, again, they do not qualify as genocide.

And what are we to make of the assertion that it isn’t just past governments that have committed this cardinal sin, but that it continues to this day under the current government that, by any measure, is doing more to support reconciliation between natives and non natives; more to provide redress to natives for past wrongs; more to address the most basic needs of native communities, like clean drinking water, than any previous government in the past one hundred and fifty years? How does that make sense?

So, why did the commission use this bogus charge? The simple answer is: I don’t know. Maybe intellectual laziness; maybe political naivete; maybe pandering to people who are satisfied to live in a culture of blame where it’s not necessary for natives to take any responsibility for their current and future position, where it’s so much easier and more satisfying to identify as a victim?

The hurling of this charge would be less a concern if all it did was ruffle a few feathers in the non native community. But that isn’t the case. The genie is out of the bottle and is already being considered by international players whose conduct and attitude towards minorities is infinitely worse than Canada’s. From the Peoples Republic of China to Russia to Turkey to Burma and to lord knows how many other petty, viscious, racist dictatorships out there, this is a magnificent gift. Just wait, it won’t be long before, when Canada speaks out against real genocide as it occurs or has occurred, the counterpunch will be quoting the commission’s report and denying that Canada has any moral authority to speak. Well done commissioners!

And what about the impact here in Canada? I suspect one motivation of the commission in using the term genocide was to attract attention, presumably with the view that any attention would lead to progress. Oh how wrong that is! Instead of focussing on the recommendations, all the oxygen is being taken up by the genocide charge. And that will not change. In the minds of most non native Canadians this will remain the report that slandered them with the appalling charge of genocide.

The very good progress that could have come from the commission will be lost, particularly if the government changes in the Fall.

What a waste.

just sayin

G

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified whenever I post a blog please click on the “follow” button that should appear at the bottom right hand corner of your screen when you first open the blog.

Home after two weeks travelling. No matter how good the trip; how nice the places visited; Vancouver is always wonderful to return to. Especially when it’s sunny but not too warm, but even when it’s raining. Countless cab drivers from the airport have been bewildered as the first thing I do when I enter the cab is wind the passenger window down so the cool, even cold and damp sometimes, air can wash across me as we go into the city. It really is a very special place and I consider myself very lucky to have moved here with my parents sixty years ago. It is home.

I flew in from New York last Thursday evening. We were delayed by weather for nearly two hours so didn’t arrive until close to midnight. The weather in New York was surprising. I have been there dozens, if not hundreds, of times in the past fifty years and I have never before been placed under a tornado warning but that’s what happened on Tuesday night. No tornado touched down in the city although one did across the Hudson in New Jersey, but the city was pummelled by torrential downpours, quarter sized hail stones and heavy winds. The streets turned to rivers and umbrellas offered little protection. When I returned to my hotel in the midst of all this, the TV commentators were warning that people should leave their TV’s on to get updates in case they had to flee to somewhere safer, although god knows where that would have been. Also, the alert system on cell phones kept going off warning of flash flooding. What to do? I was on the seventh floor of an old New York hotel in Midtown. I shut the phone off; closed the blinds and drapes; found a Frasier re-run on TV and, when it was over, went to bed. The next night was almost as bad although there was no tornado warning for the city, just extraordinarily violent weather. And on one of those days, the Trump administration rolled back another Obama era initiative to combat climate change.

I commented in a previous blog on “Oklahoma” which I saw earlier in the trip. On my return I went to “Gary” starring Nathan Lane. His starring in it was the reason I bought a ticket, having been well entertained by many of his performances in the past. Gary is the name of his character in the ninety minute play. It’s (sort of) a riff on “Titus Andronicus”, certainly Shakespeare’s bloodiest play. “Gary” is set on the day after the massacre that ends Titus Andronicus when the cleaning staff arrive to clean up the bloody mess. Gary is assisted in this role by a long term maid and they are then joined by a midwife (don’t ask). I was in the second row and my first worry was that I was going to be soaked by the fake blood spraying all over the stage.

The play is about ninety minutes long which, as it turns out, is about forty five too many. The dialogue is delivered in a faux Shakespearean cockney and is almost unintelligible. It does provoke a few guffaws if you like “low” humour but other than that, it is a miss. (It’s nominated for several Tony awards, so what do I know).

I also visited the Robert Mappelthorpe retrospective at the Guggenheim. If you’re interested in that time and life in New York (I am…I was there), it is certainly worth a visit although I believe it ends at the end of June.

In between my stays in New York I visited Fort Lauderdale for the first time in many years. With apologies to Gertrude Stein, there’s not much there there. The beach area is pretty in a resortish way (for all you retired teachers out there, I know there’s no such word) but, other than that, it’s just not that attractive. And the mosquitos! I’m not used to being bitten on top of my head where, admittedly, I don’t have much cover, but I was, as well as on any other part of my exposed skin.

However, the strongest memory of the visit is that I nearly had a life ending experience when a large (and I mean large…think four feet long and a good eighteen inches tall) iguana decided to join me in the small tropical swimming pool I was floating on. It moved with great speed, fortunately not in my direction, but for the rest of my trip, I didn’t close my eyes when in the pool. Those are mean looking beasts and apparently the jury is still out on whether they will attack a human.

It’s hard to describe the constant cacophany of news about Donald Trump down there and it’s completely disorienting and depressing. “Trump Derangement Syndrome” is real and you can catch it with only a week or two exposure. One of the things that will interest me if he is defeated next year is how the people and media will fill the void when all the noise ends. I don’t think there will be an easy return to normalcy, much as that is greatly to be desired.

I wonder how the queen will react to Donald Trump on his London visit now that he’s described her daughter in law and mother of one of her great grandsons as a “very nasty person”? It would be nice to think she might tell him “she is not amused”.

And I see the two SNC-Lavalin heroines are now running as independents in the fall federal election. Elizabeth May and Jagmeet Singh dodged a bullet on that, much as it may have been tempting to have two candidates who had at least a chance of winning their seats under those parties. The conventional wisdom seems to be their chance of winning now is slim to none. I hope that’s the case. I know politicians have to have large egos but, at least in the case of Ms. Wilson-Raybould, I think we pass into the zone of narcissm that defeats the kind of effectiveness we need in political leaders in this country. Oh well, it could be so much worse. Just look south of the border.

just sayin

G

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified when I post a blog, just click on the “share” button that appears at the bottom right hand corner of your screen when you first pull up the blog.

Well, back to politics (sort of).

I’ve noticed in the last few weeks a change in my response to the ongoing political gong show in Washington.  The turning point may have come when I found myself dreaming about Donald Trump (and not in a good way, as if that were even possible).  Of late I read the latest headline and start giggling.  Part of me feels alarm that events that can so dramatically affect world and local events seem amusing, but mostly I just can’t help it. My brain seems to have fixed upon a survival strategy and I guess I’m stuck with it.  But then, who needs “Saturday Night Live” when we’ve got the daily “Punch and Judy” show in the Whitehouse.

This week is a particularly rich vein to mine.  On Wednesday President Trump was scheduled to meet with Speaker Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader, Schumer, to discuss a deal on infrastructure.  A few hours before the meeting Speaker Pelosi was quoted as saying Donald Trump and the Whitehouse were attempting a coverup, not an extraordinary claim considering the blanket ignoring of subpoenas that’s occurred.  In response, the President stormed out of the meeting with Pelosi and Schumer and announced at an “impromptu” news conference (I say “impromptu” news conference because of, amongst other things, the printed posters supporting the President’s position) in the Rose Garden that he would no longer work with the Democrats as long as Congress continued with its various investigations of him and his administration.   In other words, the President has said he will not work with the legislative branch of the U.S. government as long as it pursues its constitutionally required duties of oversight of the Executive Branch.

So far, so good.  After eighteen months of this behaviour no one feels particularly shocked that the President won’t even cooperate on something like infrastructure (you know, filling pot holes, making sure bridges don’t fall down, ensuring planes land safely…unimportant stuff like that).

But then the fun began.  On Thursday Speaker Pelosi expressed concern about the President’s mental state, saying she was praying for him and suggesting his family might like to stage an intervention.  It’s called throwing shade.

And of course Trump took the bait, first of all calling Pelosi “crazy” and “a mess”.  This about the most powerful and highest ranking woman EVER in American politics.  The woman who played a key role at an earlier time as Speaker in preventing a global depression; the woman who dragged Obamacare across the legislative finish line and who, time and time again, has proven to be Trump’s perfect foil.

Right on que, some right wing media outlets  began running a doctored clip of Pelosi speaking with what seemed like a slur and our “friends” at Fox began speculating over the state of her health.

Then President Trump decided to swing back at the Democratic claims he lost it in the infrastructure meeting by assembling a sterling cast of witnesses beginning with his very own Kelly Anne Conway (you remember her…the alternative truth lady) who solemnly attested to the President’s composure in the meeting.  That was followed by Larry Kudlow (Canadians remember him for his nasty comments about Prime Minister Trudeau after the Group of Seven meeting in Quebec) and finally, the one and the only, recently invisible Press Secretary, the Divine Sarah Sanders.    Well, I don’t know about the rest of you, but that certainly does it for me.  And anyway, does anyone really  believe Trump would stage an infantile temper tantrum?  I mean, really, this is the President we are talking about here!

Not satisfied to leave things where they were, the President went on to describe himself as a “very stable genius”.  What?  What?  Where did that come from?  I mean who talks about himself that way other than a five year old and, even then, counselling is highly recommended.

Of course, Speaker Pelosi got the last word, tweeting she looked forward to working with the “stable genius” as soon as he decided to act Presidential.

Sigh!

What chance does Alex Baldwin have?

Somewhere in the middle of this I started giggling.  And I’ve noticed quite a few of the commentators on TV are doing the same thing.

Remember how the song ends.  We can only hope.

just sayin

g

Please share this blog.  If you would like to receive an automatic notice when I post a blog just click on the “follow” button that should pop up at the right hand bottom of your screen when you first sign on to a blog.

 

 

I’m back in my favourite city, New York. Yesterday I discovered a restaurant that is worth checking out: “A

u Cheval Diner” at 33 Cortlandt Alley (off Canal). The original restaurant is in Chicago and the New York location is certainly worth a visit. It calls itself a “diner” and the menu leans heavily towards burgers and the like, with lots of eggs thrown in. Very popular. Very busy. And they don’t take reservations. But I had no difficulty getting a seat at the bar when I just walked in.

I decided to start my morning today by walking to the new Hudson Yards. This is a huge development along the Hudson River between West 30th Street and West 34th. It’s a mix of condos, retail, restaurants and some public amenities, including “The Shed” which is a performance space with a retractable roof. I’m attaching some photos.

My overall impression is not good. The moment I walked into the central plaza I felt as if I was in some monumental development in LA, not New York. The Shed has some positive possibilities but, otherwise, the public art and amenities feel forced, as if trying to compensate for the massive new glass towers around them. Inside, there is a high end shopping mall covering several floors and with most of the expected names. This feels odd to me in New York where you can go to the originals of many of the stores and have a much more authentic experience. My hunch is they are aiming for wealthy Asian tourists with the shops.

Perhaps my greatest complaint about the development is that it bears absolutely no relationship to the city abutting it. It’s as if some aliens chose to plop it down where railway lands had been largely neglected.

It’s one of the those developments where it will take decades before a consensus develops as to whether it is good or bad but my initial impression was, at best, disappointment or, more definitively: “what were they thinking?”

Later that day my friend Linda and I went on a guided tour of “gay Greenwich Village”. It took us from The Stonewall Inn, site of the 1969 riots that are credited with igniting the gay pride movement, to “Julius”, one of the oldest continuously operating bars in New York and certainly the oldest continuously operating gay bar in the city (it was also the site for several scenes in Melissa McCarthy’s film “Can You Ever Forgive Me?” for which she was nominated for an Academy Award last year), to the New York homes of Henry James, Eleanor Roosevelt, James McNeil Whistler, Oscar Wilde and others, to the cabaret where Nina Simone debuted “Strange Fruit” and ending at the site where the first Pride Parade started. It was organized one year after Stonewall to memorialize Stonewall. At the beginning there were about one hundred marchers but by the time it ended there were over five thousand. That doesn’t sound much by today’s standards but in 1970 it was astonishing.

The tour was organized by “Oscar Wilde Tours” and led by Professor Andrew Lear who also conducts fascinating tours of the Metropolitan Museum. Well worth booking if you are in New York.

A slightly amusing aside. There is a very old coffee store on Christopher Street in the West Village where I have been buying coffee for nearly fifty years. We went there yesterday to make my purchase to bring back to Vancouver. Speaking to the clerk I accidentally said “Whenever I’m in the city I come to Murchies” and realizing my mistake, said “sorry, different city”. He smiled and said “yes, we know, Vancouver isn’t it.”

We also walked by the “White Horse Tavern” that was the hangout of many famous writers in the fifties and sixties, perhaps most noticeably Dylan Thomas who pretty much drank himself to death there.

This afternoon I’m going to the new production of “Oklahoma”. There’s so much to do in this town!

Wow! I’m pretty sure Oscar Hammerstein would not have approved but the current revival of Oklahoma on Broadway is a triumph. Forget about all the pretty technicolour images from the film, this production is like the bad younger brother. Of course the music is the same and, initially at least, so is the tone: a kind of saccharine sepia tinted memory of an ideal time and place that never really existed, but by the second act you realize this production is tearing that mask off, exposing a dystopian nightmare that is made all the more shocking by the continued presence of the reassuring tunes. The actors/singers are superb, particularly the one playing Curly and boy can he sing. Its nominated for eight Tony Awards and deservedly. If you find yourself in New York soon I highly recommend seeing it. Oh, and they give out chili and cornbread at intermission…nothing like free food!

This morning I went to The Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) to view an exhibit composed of paintings and other items donated to the museum by Lincoln Kirstein. For those of you not familiar with that name, he was a major player in New York in the first three quarters of the twentieth century. He and George Balanchine founded The New York City Ballet and he was very involved in New York’s cultural scene, including with MOMA in its early years. It’s a good exhibition with works by people like Paul Cadmus and Glenway Wescott. His influence was not without controversy as exemplified by the New York Times article on the current show titled: “Lincoln Kirstein: A Modern Tastemaker With Some Iffy Taste”. The exhibit is worth a visit although you’ll have to hurry. MOMA is closing for several months for renovations that are already underway (I had trouble finding the door this morning).

I head to Fort Lauderdale tomorrow morning. It’s been nice to post a blog that says nothing about politics.

just sayin

G

If you would like to be notified when a future blog is posted click on the “follow” button that pops up when you first sign in to the blog. It should be at the lower right hand corner of your screen.

“Constitutional crisis”: the term increasingly invoked to describe the state of the body politic in the United States.  So often, in fact, most have become inured to it.  But, is this time different?  Are we really on the verge of a confrontation that could permanently disrupt the liberal democratic order?  Yes we are.

Like most Canadians I grew up in the shadow of the republican behemoth to the south, always aware of its presence but generally feeling it was, at worst, benign and, at best, an inspiration for us all.  That, of course, had to be combined with the acute understanding that any move by it, even an inadvertent one, could profoundly and negatively affect us in Canada.  Pierre Trudeau said it best when he likened the relationship to sleeping with an elephant where every twitch of that beast could damage or destroy you.

Of course the U.S. could be annoying in its certainty and belief it was a “mansion on a hill” everyone else on earth should aspire to.  The frequent (and continuing) assertions that some individual’s success “could only be achieved in America”; the claim that America was the oldest functioning democracy in the world (we, in the Anglosphere knew that title belonged to Britain but felt it harmless enough not to object…but still); the claim that America’s interventions in the world were always motivated by humanitarian and praiseworthy goals even when they manifestly were not; and the belief that, in the end, America would always make the right decision (this latter, thanks to Churchill).

We, in Canada, found it particularly annoying when the Americans claimed to have “won the Second World War” when, in fact, our young men and women had been fighting alongside Britain since 1939 and America only joined the fray in 1941 and only after it was attacked by Japan, and Germany declared war on it.  And then there were the insults casually tossed off as if they didn’t matter.  Even the sainted John F. Kennedy had choice words for Prime Minister Diefenbaker, not to mention Lyndon Johnson and Lester Pearson, Richard Nixon and Pierre Trudeau and now of course, Donald Trump and Justin Trudeau.  But, what do you do with an occasionally obnoxious brother (actually cousin might be a better term)?  Well, you forgive and mostly forget and generally continue to like them because, after all, they are family.

What’s more, they are the bulwark upon which the liberal democratic order depends and those who refuse to accept that and, instead, claim equivalence between the U.S. and tyrannies like the Peoples’ Republic of China are either blind to history or just plain ignorant.  For all its flaws (and, yes, they are numerous), the United States is the last best hope for the triumph of democracy in the world.  If it fails, who knows where the weaker, smaller democracies will end up but it’s unlikely to be a good place.

So, what are we to make of the current political conflict in America?  When Hillary Clinton referred to some of Donald Trump’s core supporters as “deplorables” seemingly everyone recoiled in horror.  But I have little doubt most Americans, including Republicans, agreed with her.  Of course the Republican spokespeople howled in protest but I have to believe in their hearts, they knew she spoke the truth.  As was the case for all the liberals who tut tutted about the divisiveness she was bringing into the political conversation. Personally, I saw nothing wrong with it except for its giving the Trump supporters another cudgel to attack her with.  In fact, Trumpism kicked over the rock and all sorts of deplorables climbed out, eventually infecting the body politic like some kind of metasticszing cancer.  And, of course Donald Trump rode that cancer right into the White House.

Any expectation Donald Trump would temper his behaviour and comments when he became President quickly evaporated as assault after assault was launched against everything and everyone, from the media, to other politicians, to America’s oldest and best allies, to anyone anywhere who dared to point out the emperor has no clothes.  And, at the same time as he was assaulting all the long established norms of political behaviour, he was also working to undo the international order that, by and large, was an American creation after the Second World War.  His favorite leaders are autocrats and tyrants.  His belief about relationships is entirely dependent on the view there are winners and losers, never allowing for the possibility of a win/win.  His greatest need is to protect and stroke his insatiable ego, the sign of a desperately insecure man if there ever was one.

And now he has set out to completely undermine the most important American political institutions.  Growing up we heard a lot about America’s “checks and balances”; about how one branch of government was designed to check abuses of power by the others, whether the Presidency, the congress or the courts.  For those of us of a certain age, we remember the last time a President tried to pre-empt the authority of the other branches of government:  Richard Nixon leading to his near impeachment and then resignation.  The system worked that time although I’m not sure it was a certainty it would.  But it worked because there was still a shared comity in America and there were elected leaders on both sides of the aisle who were willing to put country ahead of their own partisan political interests and needs.  That doesn’t seem to be the case this time.  Except for a few  individuals who were risking little because they were retiring, almost no Republicans have stepped forward and consistently condemned the President for his abuses and appallingly bad behaviour.  The one exception of course, was Senator John McCain who, whatever you thought of his life of legislative behaviour, showed courage and, above all, an absolute commitment to the best traditions of American democracy.  But, of course, he’s dead although that hasn’t stopped President Trump from attacking him.

America has lost its way because the social contract which is the bedrock of any successful nation has come undone.  The “deplorables” now occupy centre stage and the radical ideas they espouse are now on that stage.  The President is seeking to obliterate any constitutional norm that inhibits his unfettered use of power.  Many Americans are looking at this with dismay as it seems the the vaunted checks and balances really offer little constraint over a man who cares not at all for them.

What strikes me most about this is the unmasking of the weakness of constitutional norms; of accepted practices, the very things that are the glue of successful, democratic and liberal societies.  And if it can happen in America, it can happen elsewhere too, as is the case today in some European countries.  Oh, and by the way, it can happen in Canada too where, arguably, our parliamentary traditions are even less able to fend off a rogue poitician.

I don’t know how this is going to end.  Like so many others I hope and pray the American people take back their democracy when they vote in November 2020.  If they don’t, all bets are off and that poses a profound danger to countries like Canada, not to mention the entire international order.  What is at stake is nothing less than liberal democracy in the world.  Yes, in the entire world.  Is this the end of three hundred years of experiment and progress?  Time alone will tell but, in the meantime, all of us need to examine our democratic structures and answer the question of how well they can withstand the tsunami of extremism when it rises.

Just sayin.

G

p.s. I’m heading to New York and Florida later this week and may post something from one or both of them.

Please share this blog.

If you would like to receive an automatic notification when I post a blog, please tap on the tiny “follow” window that should appear at the lower right hand corner of your screen when you first open the blog page.

And so it begins.

Premier Jason Kenney of Alberta followed through on his election promise and, as his government’s first act, proclaimed the legislation allowing Alberta to limit or prevent the flow of oil to British Columbia. Premier John Horgan of B.C. responded by initiating two court challenges to the Alberta legislation. An earlier court challenge was ruled premature as the legislation, while adopted by the Alberta legislature, had not been proclaimed.

Let the games begin.

If Premier Kenney’s goal was to strengthen his hand in negotiations with B.C. and the federal government proclaiming the legislation may not have been the smartest move. Many constitutional scholars believe the legislation is unconstitutional and B.C. will succeed in getting an injunction against its implementation while the court cases are proceeding. If that is correct Premier Kenney has given up a significant chip in future negotiations. The threat posed by the legislation will remain only as long as it is not found to be unconstitutional and the previous Alberta government, in enacting but not proclaiming it, may have positioned it to provide its maximum leverage. That will evaporate as soon as the courts rule against it, if they do. It’s the same principle that applies with the threat of a strike that is often more effective than the actual strike. So, maybe Premier Kenney isn’t a very good poker player.

Or maybe he is.

If negotiations are at a stage where a settlement is within sight this may be the very moment to use the threat of turning off the taps for maximum advantage while, at the same time, gaining all the political cred from proclaiming it.

So, which is it?

In the past few days there have been tantalizing clues that may, and I stress may, hint at an imminent settlement of the dispute, a settlement that would pay political benefits to Premier Kenney, Premier Horgan and Prime Minister Trudeau. First, Premier Kenney softens his tone, at least in the view of many comentators. Second, he states that lifting the output ceilings on oilsands production was never in the policy platform of his United Conservative Party. He also says he welcomes constuctive engagement with both Victoria and Ottawa on these issues.

British Columbia’s Lower Mainland is in the midst of an affordability “crisis” on gas prices. Premier Horgan publicly muses the solution is to get more refined gas from Alberta, at one point suggesting Alberta increase its refinery capacity to provide the gas. He then suggests that, now that the federal government owns the pipeline, the Prime Minister should direct that more refined gas be carried through the existing Trans Mountain Pipeline for use in B.C.’s lower mainland. And then he suggested the existing terminus in Burnaby should play more of a role providing gasoline to the Lower Mainland and not be used solely to transport heavy oil through Burrard Inlet, perhaps opening the door to shipments that do not involve Burrard Inlet.

Hmm? What could all this mean?

Getting the twinned Trans Mountain pipeline built would be a big political win for Premier Kenney. Lowering the price of gas in the Lower Mainland would be a big political win for Premier Horgan, as would limiting the number of tankers in Burrard Inlet and English Bay to approximately their current number. Getting the pipeline underway, lowering gas prices in the Lower Mainland and preventing an increase in tanker traffic in Burrard Inlet and English Bay would be a big political win for Prime Minister Trudeau. And diffusing the whole dispute would be a win for all three of them.

Much of the opposition to the twinning of the pipeline in the Lower Mainland is based on fear that an oil spill will damage the natural beauty of the waters around Greater Vancouver and especially in Burrard Inlet and English Bay. That oppositon would fade considerably if any new tanker traffic began its journey south of Vancouver, perhaps at a new terminal or an expanded Delta Port or Roberts Bank. Yes, there would be complications with municipalities and First Nations bands affected by a rerouted second pipeline but I have the impression the First Nations bands affected by either a Delta Port or Roberts Bank expansion might be more amenable to the development and the economic opportunities that would accompany it.

So, who really knows. Well, Premiers Kenney and Horgan certainly do. As does Prime Minister Trudeau.

Stay tuned. This is going to get interesting.

just sayin.

G

If you would like to receive an automatic notification when I post a new blog just click on the “follow” button that should appear at the bottom right hand corner of your screen when you first pull up the blog.

Please share this blog.

It’s been four months since Meng Wanzhou was arrested at Vancouver International Airport by police acting on an extradition request from the United States.  In response China arrested two Canadians, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, and has subsequently charged them with spying.  Michael Kovrig is a Canadian diplomat on leave from his active posting.  A Chinese court also converted a lengthy prison sentence for a Canadian convicted of drug trafficking, Lloyd Schellenberg, to a death sentence in seeming retaliation for Meng Wanzhou’s arrest.

Ms. Wanzhou was granted bail and is living in one of her homes on the west side of Vancouver while the court proceedings continue.  Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor are being held in Chinese jails where they are subjected to several hours of interrogation daily, are kept in cells where the lights remain on twenty four hours a day and are denied access to the outdoors. They have limited access to consular support and no legal representation.  A recent report suggested Michael Kovrig’s conditions might have been eased somewhat.

In the past month China banned the import of Canadian canola, first singling out Richardson International based in Winnipeg and now extending the ban to other Canadian suppliers.  It claims the canola is infected with weeds and pests and is of an unacceptable quality, a claim that is vigorously disputed by experts.  In fact, some of the weeds and pests China claims are present in the canola do not grow or live in Canada or at least in those areas of Canada that produce canola.  The ban on these imports almost certainly has nothing to do with the quality of the canola and everything to do with punishing Canada for Ms. Wanzhou’s arrest.  The family of Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Christa Freeland, farm canola in Manitoba, a point Ms. Freeland made to the Chinese during earlier trade discussions.  The choice of canola and especially the singling out of Richardson International in Manitoba is likely a deliberate shot at the minister.

Canadians are increasingly frustrated at the government’s failure to gain freedom for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, especially in light of their harsh treatment that some characterize as “torture” and the comfort Ms. Wanzhou is living in during her court proceedings.  It has been suggested her bail be revoked and she be held in a Canadian jail.  While the anger is understandable, that is not only impossible without the consent of the courts but, even if that were not so, unwise.  Canada is a country of laws and its courts are not subject to political interference which is the cornerstone of Canada’s response to the U.S. request and  the Chinese reaction.  Somehow forcing Ms. Wanzhou back to prison because of the treatment of the Canadians held in China would turn that idea on its head and completely undermine Canada’s position in the court of international opinion.  That does not mean there is nothing Canada can and should do at the appropriate time.  But the next steps must be part of a fully integrated plan and certainly not taken in anger or frustration.  While throwing everything at China in total escalation might feel good temporarily it will almost certainly result in greater pain for Canada and much more difficulty resolving the underlying issues.

I spent nearly half a century negotiating agreements which taught me a few things.  First, always be clear on your goals.  Second, in an asymmetrical  negotiation, i.e. one where the other party seems to have more power or bargaining options than you, each move must be calibrated against its possible reactions.  Third, any escalation should have a clear connection to the desired result.  Fourth, always retain the ability to escalate further. And fifth,  escalations should be combined with an “escape” route for the other side so it doesn’t have to concede defeat when it settles.

Canada’s goals in this dispute with China are pretty clear but should go beyond the release of the Canadian hostages and settling the dispute over canola to include achieving the kind of relationship Canada wants with China in future.  My own view is we must never again allow Canada to be too dependent on the Peoples’ Republic of China. With apologies to Lord Palmerston, by and large countries do not have friends. They have interests and they have enemies.  Any thoughtful look at China shows that its interests and ours will  frequently diverge.  The temptation to ignore that and welcome the embrace of the communist giant is considerable given the vast wealth at stake but Canada and indeed the West is more than the sum of its gross national products and it is no exaggeration to say China poses an existential threat to the values and beliefs that are central to the democratic civil societies of advanced western nations.  That should be the first consideration in any future dealings with the PRC.

Several columnists have suggested steps Canada should take against Beijing.  Many of them seem credible and, combined with others, can be part of the armoury Canada should assemble as it prepares to escalate.

On the trade front, a core purpose of the Trans Pacific Partnership was to create a counterbalance to a resurgent China.  Canada must use the expanded access to trade through the TPP to aggressively find new and expanded markets for Canadian products, markets that will lessen our trade reliance on China.  It should also pursue expansion of trade with the EU through CETA.

Canada is not alone in this struggle.  It is not the first nation, and it will not be the last, to feel the sting of China’s bully tactics and its single minded intention to dominate based entirely on its self interest which seems to supersede any international commitments. New Zealand, Australia and South Korea have all been  the object of Beijing’s wrath in the past few years and some of the third world countries who initially welcomed Chinese money are now chafing against the strings that come with it. Canada must join with its democratic allies to forge a common response to China, one that engages as appropriate but never loses sight of the underlying conflicts between their political and economic system and ours.  While this will remain a challenge as long as Donald Trump is in the White House, effectively sidelining America in any multi lateral moves, that will not last forever.

One possible solution to the current dispute may result from the United States and China signing a trade agreement that, whether explicitly or not, results in the U.S. withdrawing its extradition request for Meng Wangzou followed by her release and, subsequently, the release of the Canadian hostages.  While that will resolve the immediate dispute we must never forget the lessons from this experience, including the necessary cautions in our future dealings with China and our response to extradition requests from the United States.  But that is a subject for another day.

Just sayin

G

NOTE:  when I started this blog I said I would publish it weekly on Mondays.  With only one exception, I have done so.  While that has imposed discipline on me it has also resulted in all my writing time being devoted to the blog, causing me to ignore my other writing projects.  I’m going to change that.  From now on I will post a blog when there is an issue I want to comment on.  It may be weekly or not.  It may be on Mondays or on some other day.

If you would like to receive an automatic notifcation when a blog is posted just click on the “follow” button at the bottom right corner of your screen

Please share the blog.

 

 

And so it begins.

Last Tuesday Alberta’s United Conservative Party won an overwhelming majority in the provincial election, defeating Rachel Notley’s NDP and ending its four year old government.  The election guarantees months, or even years, of conflict between the federal government and hard right conservative governments now governing most of Canada’s provinces.

Given Alberta’s long history of conservative governments, the NDP’s defeat isn’t surprising although some of the blame for it rests with the B.C. NDP government and its steadfast opposition to twinning the Trans Mountain pipeline, or indeed it would seem, to all pipelines except those needed for its own LNG projects.

Jason Kenney, the Premier Elect, waged a campaign appealing to Albertans’ sense that the rest of Canada didn’t care about them and their economic challenges and promising to take a much more adversarial approach to the federal Liberal government and other provinces and politicians perceived to be blocking the transport of Alberta oil to markets. He promised to proclaim the legislation adopted by the NDP government but never proclaimed into law that would enable Alberta to cut off or reduce the flow of oil and gas to B.C.  I don’t know enough about constitutional law to have a well informed view of the legality of this but it seems certain it will be challenged in the courts.  I don’t support this behaviour by any province but the B.C. government bears significant responsibility for this particular conflict. Although it scaled back what it says its objectives are on the pipeline file, its initial roll out of the plan was a direct threat to Alberta and every bit as damaging to inter provincial relations as Premier Elect Kenney’s current threat.

If I lived in Alberta I would have many concerns about Jason Kenney as Premier.  First among these would be his role in attempting to deny partners of people dying of AIDS access to their loved ones in their final hours and then boasting about it.  Yes, that occurred thirty plus years ago and in San Francisco but, for me at least, it’s a cardinal sin that speaks volumes about the character of the man and can never be fully expunged. His spokespeople respond to this inconvenient bit of history by saying he was “only 20” and studying to be a priest at the time as if that excuses this astonishly cruel behaviour. But I don’t live in Alberta and my immediate concerns with his election are on climate change and Canada’s response to it, and the strains on the federation that will result from the confrontational politics practised by Mr. Kenney and his soul mate in Toronto.

Climate change is the greatest challenge mankind has ever faced.  Its effects disrupting communities and countries around the globe (remember Fort McMurray) illustrate its existential threat as well as its urgency. Despite claims from environmental lobbyists to the contrary, Canada is doing pretty well on this issue and is a leader amongst nations on it, something we should all be proud of.  Whatever else I may think of the Trudeau Liberals, their climate change agenda is wholely worthy of support. And a key part of it includes working with Alberta to limit the production and escape of greenhouse gases from its mining and refining of the oil sands.  Under Rachel Notley’s NDP government Alberta introduced measures to curtail the province’s emission of hydrocarbons, including implementing a provincial carbon tax, imposing emission limits on oil companies working in the oil patch and closing coal fired generating plants. Premier Elect Kenney says he will reverse some, if not all, of these measures and will challenge any federal imposition of a carbon tax in the courts, joining Ontario, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick who are already doing so.  Let’s remember the quid pro quo for the twinning of the Trans Mountain pipeline was Alberta implementing measures that limit greenhouse gas emissions and provide at least a partial offset to any increases in emissions resulting from pipeline expansion.

Much of Premier Elect Kenney’s wrath during the campaign was directed at Prime Minister Trudeau and the federal Liberal Government.  In fact, he worked overtime to connect Rachel Notley with Justin Trudeau, arguing they were working against the interests of Albertans.  And it seems to have worked.  That the Trudeau government continues to  support the Trans Mountain pipeline, even going so far as to buy the company to ensure it continues, apparently counted for nothing.  And even if that support was acknowledged, it was drowned out by complaints about the proposed tanker ban on the North coast of B.C., the effective quashing of the Energy East pipeline and what is described as an unworkable new process for the approval of future pipelines.

Like a majority of British Columbians, I supported the twinning of the Trans Mountain pipeline as part of a grand bargain with Alberta to control its greenhouse gas emissions. I also supported the Energy East proposal and was angered that Ottawa effectively ended it because of oppositon from the Quebec government and affected Quebec municipal governments while ignoring similar opposition in B.C.

By voting in a UCP government the people of Alberta have declared to the rest of the country that they will no longer cooperate on climate change but they still expect the Trans Mountain pipeline to be built.  Paradoxically, they seem to think this new hardline will increase the likelihood of the pipeline being built. I don’t know if their reneging on commitments to limit greenhouse gas emissions reflects lack of faith in the science of climate change, or a statement that their prosperity outweighs concerns about climate change, or whether it’s just blind, bloody anger at the delays in building new infrastructure to transport oil to markets, or all of the above.  But I do know that leaders who promote these beliefs are either ignorant, willfully ignorant or unforgiveably cynical.  Take your pick Jason Kenney.  And while we’re at it, let’s not forget the other conservative leaders across the country who are similarly at fault.  They include Premier Doug Ford of Ontario and Opposition Leader Andrew Scheer, both of whom attack the federal policies relentlessly but, thus far at least, have failed to offer any credible alternatives.

In October Canadians will go to the polls and they will have a choice between a government that has demonstrated its leadership on the climate change file and an opposition Conservative Party that would rather distract with side issues like the SNC-Lavalin matter or the Prime Minister’s vacations than tell Canadians where they stand on climate change.  But that just got more difficult.  With Conservative governments in at least four provinces doing everything in their power to unravel the federal programs, while cheerleading their Conservative fellow travellers in Ottawa with the hope they, too, will win and turn the clock back, the choice before Canadians will be clear and I’m betting the majority of us will support government policies that take climate change seriously.

As I stated in earlier blogs, my family has deep roots in Alberta.  I was born and grew into my teens there.  I have always felt empathy for it and its people.  That’s one reason I consistently supported getting pipelines built although the most important reason by far was, and is, my belief that Canada will never respond effectively to climate change without the active cooperation of its major oil producing province, Alberta and that cooperation requires reasonable accommodation on pipelines.

So,  what do we do now?  The federal government has announced a one month delay for its decision on whether to proceed with the pipeline. That announcement cited the need to complete consultations with native communities along the pipeline route but I wonder if something bigger is at play.  I hope it is.

I don’t think this was the plan when the federal government purchased the Trans Mountain pipeline but doing so gave it a strong bargaining chip with Alberta. Subject to any other findings by the courts, the decision on whether or not to proceed is now the federal government’s alone.  But it should avoid any pre-emptive action, instead waiting to see exactly what the new government of Alberta does.

Premier Elect Kenney states one of his government’s first actions will be repealing Alberta’s carbon tax.  It will also lift the emissions caps on oil sands producers and scale back or reverse the movement away from coal fired electricity generation.  If the Alberta carbon tax is repealed the national tax will kick in and, taking Premier Elect Kenney at his word, the Alberta government will challenge the constitutionality of the federal tax.  All this could happen before the new mid June deadline for a decision on the pipeline.  If it doesn’t but seems to be pending, the federal government should announce a further delay and that is when Prime Minister Trudeau will need to show some spine. While building the pipeline is in the economic interest of Canada that should not outweigh mitigating the environmental consequences of it being built. The Prime Minister should tell Albertans and Canadians that proceeding with the pipeline is contingent upon Alberta taking steps to limit greenhouse gas emissions, steps that are at least as effective as the measures that have been, or will be, repealed.  He should not attempt to force the Alberta government to back down on its key specific election promises and should acknowledge its right to choose measures of its own. But they will have to be credible and measurable actions to replace the programs Alberta eschewed if the pipeline is to be built. If they are not then there should be no shovels in the ground.

Of course this will outrage Edmonton and risk wiping out Liberal seats in Alberta.  But some perspective here:  there are only three such seats.  The Liberals have little to lose there and much to gain in other parts of the country (see B.C. and Quebec) by standing up for the environment.  And even if that weren’t so, it’s the right thing to do. This will also pressure conservative parties and governments to tell the Canadian people what their plan to battle climate change is and then allow a fair and proper evaluation of the competing approaches by the voters.

The response to climate change should be the defining issue of the upcoming federal election.  The players are on the board.  Let the game begin.

just sayin

G

Note:  If you would like to receive an automatic notification when a blog is posted please click on the “follow” button at the bottom right hand side of your computer screen.

Please share this blog.