Trump vs. Canada: Round One

On February 1, Donald Trump signed an Executive Order authorizing 25% tariffs on all Canadian exports to the United States, except fuel, effective Tuesday, February 4. It also authorized 25% tariffs on Mexico. The “carve out” for fuel was only partial, with a ten percent tariff applied, presumably to lessen the impact on fuel prices in the United States. As recently as Thursday most commentators and advisors had been reassuring Canadians the tariffs wouldn’t happen or, if they did, would be much more selective and smaller. This, despite very clear messaging from Trump the tariffs were coming at the level implemented. The Executive Order also stated that if Canada or Mexico retaliates with their own tariffs the United States may increase the level of these tariffs.

The Government of Canada responded with 25% tariffs on a range of American products imported into Canada, as well as announcing additional tariffs on a much larger group of products effective in twenty one days.

On February 3, Trump announced a thirty day “pause” in the tariffs following conversations with Prime Minister Trudeau. This followed a similar deal with Mexico announced earlier in the day. Both these postponements were linked to “progress” in enhancing security at the U.S./Mexico/Canada border. In Canada’s case, it seems to be recognition of the border security initiatives the Canadian government announced last year, along with the appointment of a “Fentanyl Czar” and a commitment to increased cooperation between the two countries combatting drug smuggling at the northern border. How these tiny additions to the 2024 border security package would justify the threat and then removal of the nuclear option of a trade war remains a mystery and it’s hard not to feel Canada gave very little to achieve the pause. That said, Trump’s spokesperson, as well as the herd of devoted Trump supporters in the media, are trumpeting it as another great win for the President (right after beating up on little Colombia). Whatever I might think of that, it makes little sense to poke the bear at this point.

Now the conversation has turned to: “why are they doing this to us?”. Certainly, nothing in Trump’s statements justifies this level of action against Canada. The claims it is justified by the fentanyl epidemic in America, or the flow of undocumented immigrants into that country, simply don’t hold up when the data for Canada is consulted. Only a tiny percentage of fentanyl and undocumented immigrants come across the Canadian border, not to mention the flow in the other direction of undocumented immigrants, drugs and guns into Canada.

Trump also cites the trade imbalance between the two countries as part of his claim Canada is ripping off America. But, again, the data simply doesn’t support that. First, the numbers he quotes are wildly inconsistent with the facts even as documented by the United States government itself and, second, that doesn’t take any account for America’s huge surplus in services imported by Canada. Also, much of the disparity in goods is the result of America’s purchase of oil from Canada, oil it purchases at a significant discount by the way and, to be clear, America is not purchasing this oil because it wants to help Canada. It’s purchasing it because it makes good economic sense for America. If it wants to stop, it can and Canada will sell it elsewhere.

Some are now claiming America’s tariffs are designed to precipitate an early re-negotiation of the U.S./Canada/Mexico free trade agreement, although it’s not at all clear how that works. Why, if that is the goal, wouldn’t America simply have advised Canada and Mexico it wants to re-open the treaty early, allowing them to respond, perhaps positively, without the enormous disruption of a trade war? Also, with these actions, America is giving a clear signal to the world its signature on an agreement is worthless. What’s the point of negotiating an agreement with Donald Trump’s America if you don’t believe it will be honoured?

As someone who knows a fair bit about negotiations, I’m pretty sure this has little if anything to do with some kind of grand American negotiation strategy. It just doesn’t fit. At a minimum in any negotiation you want your opposite to have a good understanding of your objectives in the negotiations. Otherwise there is absolutely no path forward. And at this point Canadians are left to speculate on what the Americans want with almost no clarity coming from the other side.

From the day he won the election, Donald Trump has been saying he would like Canada to become the 51st state of the United States. I’m sure he does although I’m equally sure he hasn’t thought through the implications both for America and Canada, relying instead on some simplistic notion of “Manifest Destiny” or, more likely, fantasies of unlimited resources and water up north.

Canadians are experiencing a whole range of emotions in response to Trump’s aggression although I think anger, tinged with disappointment, has now become dominant. In one form or another, Canada has had a free trade agreement with the United States since the 1960’s. I remember the debates on the wisdom of linking ourselves so closely to the behemoth to our south; the concerns about Canadian sovereignty, Canadian culture, and Canadian values. But the first sixty years seemed to go pretty well, although the addition of Mexico in the 1990’s introduced new challenges and complexities for both Canada and the United States, and likely lit the spark that flared into American and, to some extent, Canadian opposition to free trade. But it is undeniable, although many try, that the North American free trade agreements led to economic growth and prosperity in all three countries. And for Canada at least, the fears about American hegemony faded until they were almost invisible.

It’s no exaggeration to say America and Canada have more in common than any other two sovereign nations in the world. And that commonality has lured Canadians into a dangerous disregard for the ultimate rules of relations between nations. First Lord Palmerston, and then Charles DeGaul, were clear that nations don’t have friends, just interests, and that, to the extent friendship does exist between two nations, it is never eternal. Because of the similarities between our two populations, our proximity, and the decades of peaceful, successful, co-dependence it’s not surprising Canadians lapsed into a rose tinted view of the relationship, something, by the way, the Americans never really did. At best, Canada was an afterthought, if any thought at all, a gentle, friendly and harmless giant to the north, one that could easily be dismissed with a stereotype of being the nice, but boring, cousin. The truth is Americans have never appreciated what an enormous advantage it was to have Canada on its northern border. Canada: safe, reliable and peaceful.

And if we needed any proof, the reactions south of the border to Trump’s outrageous provocations and insults provide it. Where are our American friends? The silence is deafening. Almost no American political leader (with the exception of the Governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer) has voiced outrage over Trump’s behaviour and proposals. That’s also true for American columnists even in the most liberal American papers. Their criticism is almost exclusively focused on any potential damage to the United States of a resulting trade war. Not a word of solidarity with their Canadian friends, neighbours and cousins. So, Canada, it’s time to wake up.

No one is going to come to our rescue. Not the British Empire this time. Not our Commonwealth buddies. And certainly not NATO tip toeing around the vulgarian Trump. Yes, there will be statements. You know the kind: expressing concern, calling for dialogue, offering support for a rules based international order. And even these will tread oh so carefully around the fragile ego in the White House.

So, what should Canada do? For starters understand what we are dealing with. All efforts to find a reasonable, rational approach by America will fail. We are facing an insecure narcissist whose very existence depends upon endless validation and praise. Some may remember, shortly after Trump was elected, he was asked about Canada. He smiled and said something to the effect “we’re going to have some fun with Canada”. Most ignored it, but here we are. So, to be clear, there is no straight line forward. It’s not about border security; or trade imbalances; or defence spending; or claims American banks aren’t allowed to operate in Canada; or even about Canada becoming America’s fifty first state, and any effort to address any of these, whether through correcting misinformation or taking steps to seemingly address his imagined grievances will simply lead to new complaints; new lies and new exaggerations. As long as we play that game, we lose.

And the thirty day “reprieve” on tariffs is just that, a reprieve, leaving the threat ready to be resurrected as often as Trump wants. In other words, his “fun” with Canada could find us in a perpetual national crisis with each new threat causing us to ramp up our outrage and run frantically for cover. Eventually we’ll be exhausted and may even end up accepting things we should never accept.

There is a better way. It needs to be quietly and carefully developed and implemented. It may include playing for a bit of time to allow us to be better prepared to face each outrage, in which case the thirty day reprieve may be extended by months although most likely not years, but it also includes realizing the time will come when we must call his bluff. And, as any good negotiator knows, you don’t call a bluff unless you are ready to live with the worst possible outcome.

There’s another piece that no one is talking about: increasing spending on defence. Thus far, any discussion of this is around meeting the minimum NATO expectations and perhaps molifying Trump by doing so. But there’s a much more compelling reason for massively increasing Canada’s spending on defence: the actual military defence of our homeland. We have long realized there was a threat of some territorial dispute with a revanchist Russia, or China interested in the Northwest Passage. Well, now it’s time to add a new possible adversary and, as unthinkable as this would have been even a few weeks ago, America is on that list. As appalling as it is to acknowledge, it is not out of the question Donald Trump’s America could launch a military challenge to Canada’s sovereignty and, while even at the best of times it would be a David and Goliath contest, Canada must be prepared to respond militarily if necessary. That requires massive increases in the Defence budget and a refocussing Canada’s spending priorities. And it needs to happen quickly.

Mine is the last generation with any real connection to the Second World War. Prior to that war Canada was a largely rural country with a population of about ten million. Yet when challenged those people, my parents generation, rose and created one of the mightest militaries in the world, contributing greatly to the defeat of fascism and the victory of democracy.

They did it then. We can do it now.

Just sayin

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog click on the “follow” button that will appear on the lower right hand corner of your screen when you open the blog.

“The Darkest Night Before the Dawn”

Or is it?

Day five of the second Presidency of Donald Trump and, as intended, we are being overwhelmed by an unprecedented assault on the democratic norms and traditions that have underpinned the stability and success of America and its allies. Those who claimed Trump’s second term would be more moderate than his statements while out of office and campaigning now seem hopelessly naive. Theirs’, the stubborn optimism against all evidence to the contrary and finally crashing against the reality of elevating a vindictive, cruel narcissist to the most powerful position in the world.

It’s hard to focus on any one violation of democratic and legal norms amidst the tsunami of outrages, all swathed in vulgarity, but perhaps the most telling is the clear signal that America is no longer a nation of laws. His sweeping pardons and commutations of the January 6th insurrectionists, as well as the daily drip of further pardons of convicted criminals, shows there are few if any limits that will constrain him in his exercise of Executive power insulated by the U.S. Supreme Court’s expansion of Presidential immunity. How ironic that the great republic, founded in rebellion against the tyranny of monarchs, has turned back upon itself and, in one cataclysmic convulsion, has elevated a President who claims monarchial powers, with no respect for democratic norms or limits, and who will now seek to permanently change the political and civic order to one more in common with autocracy and oligarchy then liberal democracy.

As Canadians we have front row seats to the drama unfolding next store. Not just front row seats but, for reasons that remain unclear, we have become one of Donald Trump’s favourite whipping boys as he toys with us with repeated threats to destroy the Canadian economy while insulting the very idea of Canada or being a Canadian. And our political leaders aren’t helping as they rise to his bait, apparently unable to resist microphones where conflicting and unhelpful messages are offered, not to mention the disgraceful and disloyal statements of the Premier of Alberta that so clearly undermine the interests of this country, statements that will not soon be forgotten.

I’ve said this before, but it’s worth repeating: each time Canadian leaders respond to Trump’s provocations they guarantee they will continue and escalate. Last week, it was his address to the World Economic Forum in Davos where he continued his campaign against Canada, spewing a fire hose of untruths about our trading relationship with America. And right on cue, Canadian politicians were responding, hinting at all sorts of retribution if his threatened tariffs are implemented. I spent the better part of half a century negotating contracts and, for those who believe Donald Trump is a master negotiator, he is not. He is entirely predictable, easily provoked, with a playbook that takes little sophistication to understand. Years ago, I faced a representative of the B.C. government in repeated negotiations. He was a prominent lawyer and a very good negotiator. Whenever there was any suggestion we would do something in response to the government’s positions, he would simply reply: “you will do what you will do”, leaving unsaid what would then happen. The point being, we can’t ultimately control what the opposite party will do but we can certainly prepare for it and keep them guessing. And that’s what Canada should be doing at this time, instead of politicians at all levels rushing around like chickens with their heads cut off after each “new” outrage. This is the response he wants and it undermines what Canada will ultimately do. Keep them guessing.

Aside from the side show of U.S./Canada relations, there is the bigger question of how Americans should respond to Trump’s assaults on some of the most cherished American values and beliefs. Thus far, it has mostly been silence although there are a couple of green shoots of resistance, with a federal court judge at least temporarily blocking Trump’s move to end birthright citizenship and, perhaps most poignantly, the words of the Episcopal Bishop of Washington, Mariann Budde, who, speaking from the Canterbury pulpit in the National Cathedral, asked President Trump to show mercy to immigrants and members of the LGBTQ community. Of course her appeal was met by stony glares from the President and his wife, followed by demands for an apology but, never the less, it was an inspirational moment showcasing how people must now speak truth to power.

I suspect most liberal Americans are hiding behind the belief that “this too shall pass”. But will it? The dominant American myth for the latter part of the twentieth century was that “the Arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice”, this spoken so movingly by the late Martin Luther King, but there is reason now to question whether that is the case, or whether the eighty years of progress since the Second World War is only an exception in the long and dark history of mankind. And I really don’t know the answer to this question although I certainly hope the first green shoots will lead to a mighty forest and a counter revolution.

Just sayin

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog click on the follow prompt that will appear at the lower right hand side of your screen when you open the blog.

Adieu Justin. Now What?

After a seemingly endless walk in the snow, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has bowed to the inevitable and announced his resignation. The timing couldn’t be worse as he emulates President Biden holding on until the last possible moment as the Canadian ship of state drifts inexorably towards the iceburg of Donald Trump’s America. While it’s not surprising he would hold on until the last possible second, even by those standards these past three weeks have shown a breathtaking lack of concern for Canada as he spent his time on a skiing vacation while “reflecting” on his future. As has always been the case, it’s all about him.

Although it has a habit of making chumps of us all, I predict history will not be kind to Justin Trudeau, and not just because of his leave taking. The country he bequeathes to his successor is less united, less capable of facing external challenges and less prosperous than the one he inherited. In fairness, there are accomplishments that are to his credit. Navigating through the first Trump Presidency and rescuing the North American Free Trade Agreement is certainly one of them, as is relatively good management of Canada’s response to COVID 19. Also, legislative changes to the Child Tax Credit have significantly reduced child poverty in Canada. Ironically, a fourth accomplishment that will serve Canada well, particularly in a world where America cannot be trusted as a reliable partner, is the purchase and completion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline which allows much greater access to Asian markets for Canadian oil exports and lessens the stranglehold America had over Canadian oil. I say “ironically” because this action infuriated his enviromentalist supporters and put a significant dent in his claim to priorize the fight against climate change.

But against these accomplishments there is a litanty of failures, the first of which has to be the relentless undermining of Canadians’ sense of our history and our place in the world; an undermining that begins with his pronouncement there is no central Canadian identity, that Canada is a “post national country”, whatever that means, and that our history is at best irrelevant and, more often, shameful. And we see the results every day as signifiers of the struggles of our ancestors are devalued, destroyed or removed.

For Justin Trudeau, reconciliation with the natives who inhabited what is now Canada before the arrival of Europeans and Asians is the paramount objective, and every government action has to be measured against it. This has led us to place the interests of a tiny minority of Canadians above those of everyone else, and where that minority is encouraged to believe their ancestors lived in a prelapsarian paradise, at one with their neighours and the natural world around them, when the reality was quite different. The lives of native Canadians prior to the arrival of European settlers were brutish, primitive and short, and any other narrative is a fairy tale but it’s one that has infected much of Canada’s public discourse during Justin Trudeau’s time as Prime Minister, at least partly because he so enthusiastically embraced it and then led the country into a permanent state of mourning, or at least regret, for all that has happened over the past four hundred years.

This isn’t to say native peoples in Canada haven’t been treated badly and should be supported as they work to become fully successful members of the Canadian family. But tearing down everyone else’s historical narrative and imposing intergenerational guilt doesn’t help and has done great harm to the pride and reputation of this country. And that’s on Justin Trudeau.

And aside from undermining the core essence of what it means to be a Canadian, he and his government have failed on so many other files. Whether it’s immigration, where their blind commitment to bringing new residents to Canada regardless of the country’s ability to absorb and integrate them has made a majority of Canadians hostile to further immigration; or Canada’s role in the world, where we have been reduced to, at best, an irrelevance and, at worst, a laughing stock; or defence, where, despite dramatically rising threats around the world, they have drastically underfunded the military and, only in response to great pressure from our NATO allies, have made half hearted and probably insincere commitments to increase military spending to the minimum NATO target by 2033; and to the government’s finances, where debt and deficit targets have been blown past over and over again, they apparently believing that deficits and debt don’t matter.

Under Justin Trudeau Canada has ceased to be a serious country. Instead we claim the moral high ground and hector the rest of world over their shortcomings. No wonder Donald Trump sees us ripe for the picking.

So, no question, it’s time for a change, not some slight cosmetic makeover, but a fundamental change that returns Canada to the country our ancestors built and defended.

But there’s a problem: Pierre Poilievre, the Leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition and currently, if polls are correct, the Prime Minister in waiting. Canadians have now had a few years to get to know Pierre Poilievre and clearly many like what they see. But I suspect that is a minority with the rest turned off by his demeanour and public persona. I know I am. Of course, this is the public Pierre Poilievre and he may be charming, engaging, friendly, generous and even likeable in private but that sure isn’t the image he’s worked so hard to show to the Canadian people.

And what does he really stand for? Aside from glib catch phrases, usually on par with the discourse of a schoolyard bully, there is little if anything to go on. Get rid of the carbon tax he says (or more precisely, “axe the tax”…cute I suppose). Okay but what then? How will Canada respond to climate change? Get rid of the bureaucratic roadblocks to housing and resource development. Okay, but how? Many of said roadblocks are the result of decisions by municipal and provincial governments and, particularly when it comes to resource development, the courts often backing their decisions by The Charter of Rights and Freedom. How, exactly, is he going to undo/circumvent those roadblocks? Get rid of DEI. Well, in it’s more extreme forms, I agree, but what exactly does that mean coming from a federal government?

Of course Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives can answer many of these questions in an election campaign where, one would hope, they will lay out detailed policy proposals. He might even present us with a complete personality transplant but I somehow doubt it. I suspect what we see is what we get and any hope his ascending to the Prime Minister’s role is going to somehow make him more “Prime Ministerial” is going to be disappointed.

So, as Canadians, we find ourselves in a bit of pickle. On the one hand, we have a Prime Minister who has demonstrated his unfitness for the job and, on the other, a Leader of the Opposition who defines his brand with nasty one liners and little, if any, concrete policy. And, despite all the polls to the contrary, that might, just might, create an opening for a new Liberal Leader. I know it’s a long shot and the best that can probably be achieved is elevating the Liberal brand to the point it can form a strong opposition although, given the vagueries of Canadian politics, keeping the Conservaties short of a majority is not out of the question.

To have any hope of a Liberal rebirth the party must choose a leader who can put some significant real estate between him/herself and the current government. That would seem to disqualify most, if not all, of the potential candidates who are members of it, particularly those who are cabinet ministers. Currently, the only two “outsiders” being mooted are the former Governor of the Banks of Canada and England, Mark Carney, and the former Premier of B.C., Christy Clark. I suspect the latter is more of a long shot than the former although she would certainly represent the most dramatic departure from the status quo.

And then there’s the wild card: Donald Trump and his persistent trolling of Canada as potentially the “fifty first state”. No one knows how serious he his about this. In fact, I suspect he doesn’t either but, given his outlook on the world, not to mention his personality, it wouldn’t be all that surprising if he does levy massive tariffs on Canada and, at that point, all bets are off for both the Liberal leadership race and the next election. It won’t be long before the single most important consideration by far will be who is best able to lead this country through what is likely to be an extended period of conflict with the United States. In that case a name closely connected to the current government, Chrystia Freeland, will come to the fore, helped by Trump’s stated dislike for her and her role in the previous renegotiation of NAFTA.

We live in interesting times.

Just sayin.

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I publish a blog click on the “follow” button that will appear on the bottom right hand side of your screen when you open the blog.

Ignore him. Just ignore him.

Americans elected Donald Trump as their forty seventh President. Although he will take office on Janurary 20th, he is already asserting himself around the world and, it seems, particularly in Canada. Why he has such a facination with Canada is anyone’s guess, but he does, now trolling Canada’s leadership and its people with the claim it should be the fifty first state of the United States.

This comes as a shock to Canadians who have, for over two hundred years, viewed themselves as a friend and ally of the United States, and whose “longest undefended border” with the U.S. has been a point of pride. And this doesn’t even reference the many Canadians, myself included, who have American families. Canadians fought and died side by side with Americans in two World Wars, the Korean War and, after the attacks of 911, in Afghanistan. We have provided safe shelter for our American neighbours, whether in Tehran during the hostage crisis, or in Newfoundland and elsewhere in Canada after the attacks of 911. Our economies are so intertwined that attempting to separate them will result in monumental disruptions on both sides of the border. And yet here we are, with an American President elect who values none of that and seems to take special pleasure in insulting Americans’ northern neighbour.

I could waste a lot of time trying to analyze Donald Trump and his motivation but it would be just that: a waste of time. It is what it is and, from a Canadian’s perspective, the most important thing is to acknowledge that the relationship has changed, perhaps forever, and look to support and defend our country.

When adolescents troll other people they are looking for a response, the more dramatic and excited the better. And that is what is happening here. Donald Trump and his tech boy toy, Elon Musk, are having “fun” trolling Canada and watching the chaos those trolls are causing. And that’s where my advice comes in: ignore them, don’t react to them, in fact for Canadian media, stop even giving them significant coverage. I haven’t any idea whether this is some kind of carefully calibrated and thought out first salvo in a renegotiation of the USMCA (the latest trade agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico) or whether it’s just a bunch of immature wannabe frat boys getting their jollies, but I suspect it’s more the latter than the former.

Whatever it is, Canada must develop a carefully thought out and, if necessary, calibrated response to whatever eventualities the new American government is going to throw at it. And it must do that quietly. Thus far, we’ve seen our political leaders doing the opposite, whether it’s Prime Minister Trudeau frantically phoning Donald Trump and then rushing down to Mar-A-Lago for a hasty dinner where he and Canada were made the butt of jokes; or the various Premiers rushing to microphones to threaten, cajole, beg or publicly discuss strategy. And I guarantee you the trolls are laughing. So folks, cut it out and shut up. There’s work to be done.

Americans are telling Canadians how little they value the relationship. Well, so be it. I suspect the day will come when America regrets behaving this way but, at least for a generation, things have changed and Canada must define a new role for itself in the world, a role that increasingly separates it from America and focuses exclusively on what is in the best interest of Canada and Canadians even if that goes against America’s interests. Personally, I say this with great regret as I have held America in such high regard for so many years but it is what it is. Americans, including members of my own family, have voted for this President and his behaviour.

Message received.

Just sayin,

Please share this blog. If you’d like to be notified each time I post a blog click on the “follow” button that appears on the lower right hand side of your screen when you open the blog.

Leave Justin. For God’s Sake Leave

Justin Trudeau just entered his tenth year as Prime Minister of Canada. If the polls are correct, it will be his last with an election required no later than October, 2025. His time in office began with “sunny ways” after the dour eleven years of the Stephen Harper Conservatives and end with Canada weaker, less unified, ridiculed on the international stage and rapidly abandoning those ideas and beliefs that were its successful foundation for the past nearly one hundred and sixty years. And make no mistake, Canada’s current position is a direct result of Justin Trudeau’s governance. What began as “sunny ways” has devolved into an endless parade of self indulgent photo ops, apologies and mind numbing platitudes out of the Prime Minister’s mouth. Canada deserves better. In fact, Canada needs better if it is to survive in an increasingly dangerous world.

The first time I really noticed Justin Trudeau was at his father’s funeral where he delivered the eulogy. Although the chattering classes were quick to sing the praises of his speech and behaviour, already grooming him to ascend to the pinnacle of Canadian political power, I was not. What I witnessed was a juvenile, self indulgent performance by someone who loved the spotlight and who was far more interested in the world’s perception of him than of his father. Unkind you say? Well, yes, I suppose it is, but it was a warning very few took seriously. And, full disclosure here, when he first ran as leader of the Liberal Party against the incumbent Conservatives, I voted for him although, in fairness, it was more a vote for change and against the tired government than for him. I have not made that mistake since.

Now, in a desperate attempt to hold on to power, he is attempting to buy Canadians’ support with our own money. Most Canadians will receive a $250 cheque early in the New Year and, for added measure the federal government is suspending the GST and HST for two months, starting on December 14th. Aside from the predictable outrage from some provinces who will have to absorb part of that loss of tax revenue, it also flies in the face of good economic policy, almost certainly slowing the reduction in interest rates by the Central Bank and, as a result, long after the one time payment and the tax “holiday” are history, Canadians with any kind of debt, be it mortgages, credit cards, lines of credit etc., will be paying for it with higher payments. And, yes, I do know some Conservative Premiers have done the same thing but that doesn’t make it right. It’s just the latest in gimmicky promises, highly targeted benefits or feel good ideas that Justin Trudeau so enjoys announcing, often, as was the case this time, with his tiny enabler, Chrystia Freeland, the Finance Minister, at his side.

Canada has been degraded on so many fronts over the Justin Trudeau decade it’s hard to know where to begin so let me start with the potentially catastrophic erosion of any sense of what it means to be a Canadian.

Canada represented one of the great compromises between two of the major European empires, the French and the British. Defying all odds, the French and the English found a way to live together and prosper, both drawing on the traditions of Western Liberalism. In time, immigrants from other nations joined, creating the multi cultural mosaic we now know as Canada. The idea of a multi cultural Canada really came into its own under Justin Trudeau’s father, Pierre Trudeau, in the late sixties and seventies and, for a time, it seemed like an idea whose time had come. I used to enjoy telling non Canadian friends that Canada was like the Bumblebee, that from a strictly aeronautical point of view, couldn’t fly and yet it flew very well.

It was undoubtedly arrogant of Canadians to believe all new immigrants, while maintaining some of their cultural background, would assimilate into the dominant Canadian family and adopt its core values that, from our perspective, were superior to all others. After all, as far as we were concerned, those values were the bedrock upon which Canada’s peaceful and prosperous existence was built. It never occurred to us new immigrants might not want to shed their previous identities, beliefs and values.

With the benefit of hindsight there is a kind of poetic justice to Pierre Trudeau’s son leading us into what now seems the inevitable outcome of our faulty reasoning to a “post national country”, one that has no unifying myths and histories, and that rushes to eschew anything that might “trigger” anxiety or concern amongst any of our diverse members no matter how important it is to another, or particularly the largest, group amongst us. And it’s hard to see how a country with no past has a future.

As if to accelerate this loss of any real shared identity, Justin Trudeau has seized upon the colonist narrative when it comes to Canada’s treatment of its native citizens, using it to illustrate his compassion, his wokeness, his view all non native Canadians, presumably including him, are sinners in need of endless absolution. Perhaps the best example of this was his response to the discovery of anomalies in the soil around a former Residential School in Kamloops, a discovery that was quickly equated with mass graves and gruesome images of the schools as killing factories right up there with the death camps of the Nazis. Did Trudeau ask for any verification of the worst case scenario? Did he appoint some kind of inquiry to determine the truth? No, he did not. He bought into the myth of genocide wholeheardedly, ordering Canadian flags lowered to half mast where they remained for over half a year during which, by the way, not a single body was recovered or verified from the site. And suddenly Canada, hithertofore the world’s boy scout, was labelled a nation of murderers and racists. Our enemies couldn’t have been happier. After six months, with no explanation, the flags were quietly raised to full mast, presumably hoping no one would notice.

Not surprisingly, this attitude and approach led to the burning of churches across Canada, the tearing down of statues honouring Canada’s founders, the push to erase the names of men and women who contributed mightily to the Canada we enjoy today and, most troubling, the move by some parliamentarians to criminalize speech that even questions the most extreme of the claims about Residential Schools and Canada’s history with native peoples. It also led to the use of the term “the so called country of Canada” by those who want to see this successful nation fail.

The Canada I grew up in had a good international reputation. It had punched well above its weight in two world wars and Korea. It had been a founding member of NATO and the United Nations. It practically invented the idea of peacekeepers and strove to be an intermediary between the former colonial powers and their colonies, perhaps best illustrated by its role under Prime Minister Brian Mulroney confronting Apartheid in South Africa. Although closely allied with the United States, it refused to participate in the Vietnam war or the second invasion of Iraq. Wearing a maple leaf pin when travelling abroad usually resulted in good and friendly treatment by people who liked and respected Canada but, after ten years of Justin Trudeau’s foreign policy, not so much. In fact, it’s probably fair to say Canada has become an irrelevant laughing stock to much of the rest of the world. How did this happen? Well, it was an accumulation of small but symbolic acts, all against the drumbeat of us hectoring the world. We announced we had a “feminist foreign policy”, whatever that meant. We were quick to judge and condemn our historic allies and friends when they came under attack. We equivocated and hid when difficult foreign policy choices confronted us. And our actions seldom, if ever, matched our words. All this while our capacity to even enforce our own sovereignty was constantly degraded as our military became less and less well funded and supported.

In fairness, the degradation of Canada’s military predated Justin Trudeau by at least three administrations, both Liberal and Conservative, but the willful blindness to the threats that opened Canada up to in a newly dangerous and fractured world is astonishing. Canada is quite rightly considered a freeloader in NATO despite being one of the wealthiest nations in the world. And how does the Trudeau government respond? Not with solid and real commitments to rebuild our military, to meet the challenges posed by Russia and China in the Arctic, to effectively stand with our allies in the conflict in Ukraine. Not at all. Just some flimsy commitment to meet a 2% military expenditure target by 2032.

From its inception Canada has had the advantage of being protected by the two great super powers of their times, Great Britain and then the United States. And, in case you haven’t noticed, the United States is tired of carrying that burden. After all, why should American taxpayers pay for the defence of Canada while we instead channel monies to feel good political programs or boutique benefits that advantage whatever political constituency the governing party is seeking favour from? So Canada, wake up while there’s still time because it is running out.

It is past time for Justin Trudeau to go. By the looks of it he’s going to hang on to the bitter end, taking the Liberal Party down with him. In the end, he will disappear like a cloud of vapour, leaving unpleasant memories of a weakened and divided nation.

Just sayin

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog click on the “follow” button that will appear at the bottom right side of your screen when you open the blog.

Fasten Your Seatbelts. It’s Going to be a Bumpy Four Years

One of the comments I received in response to my last blog where I opined on the risk to Canada of a new Trump Presidency described me as “a paranoid imbecile”. Imbecile maybe. But paranoid?

Two days ago private citizen Donald Trump sent out a post on his ‘”Truth Social” social media platform in which he said he would impose 25% tariffs on all imports from Canada and Mexico until they take steps that stem the flow of fentanyl and illegal entrants to the United States. And he said he would do this on the first day of his new administration, January 20, 2025. Never one to be bothered by facts, Trump seemed to believe there was a huge problem with drugs and illegal immigrants coming from Canada. Or did he?

In an earlier conversation, Donald Trump laughed and suggested it was going to be fun dealing with Canada in his new administration. That was the same conversation where he said he loved tariffs as somehow the answer to all the problems that are plaguing America. Clearly he has a thing about Canada and it’s not good. None of us really knows why although the gratutitous shots Prime Minister Trudeau has taken at him over the years, particularly since his 2020 defeat, have not helped. That, combined with the seeming consensus amongst his Cabinet nominees and closest advisors that Canada is some kind of socialist threat where the woke policies they hate and reject are firmly in place, undoubtedly contribute to his views as he assembles what is likely to be the American government most hostile to its northern neighbour in at least a century. And that is something we have little control over. What we can control is our response. Having spent nearly half a century negotiating contracts, most of them asymetrical, i.e. with one party more powerful than the other, and usually representing the weaker of the parties, I certainly have some thoughts on how Canada should be responding.

Even before the explicit threat, some of our politicians were auditioning for the role of supplicant in chief to the golden throne of King Donald. Premier Doug Ford’s public musings on throwing Mexico under the bus and Premier Danielle Smith’s initiatives to cut some kind of a side deal on oil exports surely opened the door to the kick we received a week or so later. And once it arrived Chicken Littles appeared everywhere. First, we have Premier Ford fulminating on how insulting it is to be grouped in with Mexico. Aside from the implicit racism in that statement, it is also profoundly stupid if we want to develop a coherent and effective strategy to deal with the bully about to be reinstated in the White House. Not to be outdone, Premier Smith stated how difficult it would be for Alberta to be part of a united Canadian front given the presence of Prime Minister Trudeau. Also worthy of mention is Saskatchewan’s Premier Moe who, just in case we forgot, wanted the world to know he agreed with Alberta and, what’s more, agreed with Donald Trump that there was a huge problem with illegal immigration and fentanyl imports across the northern border despite all evidence to the contrary. By comparison, the federal government was mostly restrained, but not completely, with the Prime Minister immediately initiating a panicked phone call with Donald Trump and expressing gratitude he took the call, and then saying Canada would “prefer” a settlement that included Mexico which doesn’t exlude the possibility of him joining the “throw Mexico under the bus” mob at some point down the road.

All this is music to the ears of Trump and his advisers. We could practically hear the laughing and high fives at Mara Lago all the way up in Vancouver. The bully got the response he wanted and I guarantee he will now return to that playbook over and over again. He wants Canada to abandon supply management of dairy products, something I agree with by the way, so he threatens massive tariffs on the Canadian economy if we don’t. He wants Canada to end the digital service tax so, again, he threatens massive tariffs. He wants Canada to massively increase spending on defence so, again, the threat of massive tariffs. The list goes on and on and only includes the issues we are already aware of. What if, for example, America decides to engage in yet another unjust war somewhere and wants Canada’s support. Well, you know the drill.

So, what should Canada do? Well, for starters, shut up. There’s no need to respond to every provocation from Donald Trump except to say we are aware of it and we are working with our partners to ensure a careful and effective Canadian response. And, by the way, those partners must include Mexico. Canada imports approximately $485 billion of goods from the United States annually. Mexico imports approximately $455 billion. Canada is America’s second biggest market and Mexico isn’t far behind. Except for China, no other nations even come close. Between Canada and Mexico, nearly a trillion dollars of U.S. goods flow into those two countries. So, that’s a starting point. Some perspective.

No one would win an all out trade war and it’s likely Canada and Mexico would suffer more than the United States, but all would feel considerable pain. So, how do we calibrate just the right amount of push back while, simultaneously, showing the Trump administration this is not a path they want to go down? Well, for starters we don’t begin by offering terms of “surrender” before we even find an appropriate negotiating forum. And that is a problem right now. Donald Trump is not the President of the United States, Joe Biden is and will continue until January 20th so deciding how to engage with Trump is complicated but not impossible. In fact, in some ways, that’s the least of the problems.

In anticipation of the negotiations wherever and whenever they occur, Canada must assess what the Trump administration really needs and also what Canada’s core objectives in the negotiations are. We must also determine where Donald Trump is vulnerable and over what time, remembering there are mid term elections in the United States less than two years after he takes office. And, most important, Canada needs to game out any number of strategies and outcomes from the best to the worst and then plan its response to each. Oh, and never forget, the all out war approach always favours the more powerful party.

In parallel with this strategizing, we should reach out to allies, starting with Mexico with whom we need very close coordination, and including American business leaders, states potentially most damaged by the tariffs or by countervailing duties from Canada and Mexico, and friendly voices within Trump’s orbit.

And in the meantime, as the clock is ticking down to January 20, we must exude calm and confidence. Thanks to the initial reactions from some Canadian political leaders, we are already on our back foot and that’s unfortunate but not fatal, at least not yet. I don’t underestimate the difficulty of getting the Canadian choir to sing from the same songbook but, if Canadians generally support this approach, most will fall in line and the rest will just have to be marginalized.

And so I end with the British motto from the Second World War: “Keep calm and carry on” while the hard work is occuring out of public view.

Just sayin

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog click on the “follow” button that appears on the lower right side of your screen when you open the blog.

America: Notes from the Front

While southern California is hardly the front line in the political wars roiling America, it’s still interesting to see how people there are reacting to Donald Trump’s victory. In a nutshell: not well. I assumed, incorrectly, people wouldn’t want to talk about it but, thus far, there’s little else they want to talk about, which makes a restful, sun filled vacation difficult.

Some say they want to move to Canada but then I point out Canada is a sovereign nation and you can’t just arrive and announce you’re staying. Well, you could, but it wouldn’t be very effective. Others have (jokingly I presume) asked if I would marry them, presumably believing that would fast track their becoming a Canadian citizen (I’m holding out for romance).

Most Americans I talked to have a complete lack of understanding how this could have happened. Theories are offered about the extent to which Trump supporters are ignorant of who and what he is and represents; or the belief many voted for him believing his campaign bark was much worse than anything he would do as President and, finally and almost excruciatingly, the acceptance that millions of his supporters not only knew all about him and his plans, but fully supported him and them.

There is also a kind of bipolar response to what might be coming. On the one hand, people want desperately to believe little will really change, that somehow the vaunted checks and balances will contain his wilder excesses, this despite much evidence that isn’t so, and, on the other, a kind of terror at the five alarm fire that has already begun to rage across their political landscape.

And for those clinging to the “all will be okay” mantra, that thread becomes thinner and thinner with each new announcement in the gong show of Cabinet Secretary nominees. Each one seems to top the other in mind numbingly awfulness, let alone incompetence. Matt Gaetz, Kristi Noem, Telsi Gabbard, Pete Hegseth and last, but certainly not least, Robert Kennedy Jr. You know you’ve crossed into the twilight zone when Kristi Noem and Pete Hegseth seem almost normal compared to the others but really… For those of you who may have forgotten, Kristi Noem is probably most famous for boasting about shooting Cricket, her dog, because she really didn’t like him, and Pete Hegseth has been accused of sexual assault and apparently paid some amount of money to settle the case.

The other three seem pretty well tied in a race for the worst. Robert Kennedy is a vaccine denier who would be put in charge of public health. Telsi Gabbard is a conspiracy theorist who, amongst other things, likes murderous middle eastern dictators and who would be in charge of national security and Matt Gaetz…well, what to say about Matt Gaetz…actually words fail.

The next step in this carnival is the senate confirmation process or, if Trump gets his way, the absence of one as the Republican Senate waives its constitutional duty to advise and consent and, instead allows the nominations to go ahead unchallenged. And after years of Republican absolute obeisance to Trump and MAGA, don’t be surprised if even so-called traditionalist Republican senators bend their knee to the new President’s every whim.

Although I like America and have many American friends, as well as family, I confess to being glad to getting back to Canada last night. The biggest news here today is a hail storm that hit part of Vancouver last night. On the other hand, Canada taking an ostrich approach to what is happening south of us would be very unwise. There’s little doubt the new administration will adopt policies harmful to Canada and we will have to adjust but, wait, there’s worse: I don’t think it’s alarmist to also be worried about Canada’s sovereignty. Why do I feel like The Netherlands in 1933?

Just sayin

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog click on the “follow” button on the lower right hand side of your screen when you open the blog.

America: Why?

Yesterday, Americans re-elected Donald Trump to be their President. This, despite his thirty four felony convictions, his being found liable for sexual assault, his pending trials for attempting to overthrow the 2020 election and taking secret government documents, his role in the January 6 insurrection, and his campaign of darkness, chaos, revenge and violence. In fact, they not only re-elected him, they gave him a majority of the popular vote and a commanding lead in the Electoral College count. And while I say “despite”, I think it worth acknowledging that millions of Americans voted for him not “despite” these things, but because of them.

For many of us who grew up under the unbrella of the post Second World War consensus led by the United States, this seems incomprehensible and yet, when you dig deeper, is it really? America has a long history of isolationism, racism and even flirting with fascism but, somehow, has always managed to hold those forces at bay. Winston Churchill famously said “Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else” and there was a kind of comfort in that thought as history showed time and again it to be true. Until now perhaps.

So, why have Americans so completely upended their, and likely the world’s order, in this election? The coming weeks and months will see scholars parsing the election results and offering their views on what happened. They will show that this or that issue, this or that choice or word, had some effect on the margins, that certain big issues like the economy weighed heavily on the outcome but few of them will give us a really satisfying result. I’m no expert, but I have my own theories.

What has happened in America is neither unique nor particularly mysterious. We have been witnessing serious internal challenges to the western dominated international order since at least the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom when what seemed manifestly against the interests of the vast majority of its citizens was, never-the-less, supported by a majority of them. This has been followed by the rise of extreme right wing parties across Europe, including in countries long considered the very model of moderation. In Sweden, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Poland, Slovakia and Hungary, parties rooted in the notion of “blood and soil” have been on the rise. That America has now joined this group should surprise no one although, given its prominence in the western democratic alliances, its shift will have an outsized effect upon us all.

And so I return to the question of “why?”. Of course there are local, grievances and issues and they drive some votes some of the time but I also believe they only gain traction against the backdrop of other, nation wide feelings and grievances. I believe there are three such areas in western liberal societies: the economy; immigration and the attempt to reshape some of the most fundamental beliefs of those societies to achieve a kind of post modern nation.

On the surface, the American economy should be the last thing on Americans list of concerns. By almost any standard, it’s humming with low unemployment, good wage growth, low inflation and year over year gains in GDP. Despite all this, many, if not most, Americans are still suffering from “sticker shock” which is the result of the COVID induced spike in inflation causing everything to be much more expensive than it was even a few years ago. And while on the topic of COVID, although I don’t list it as a major factor in the election outcomes, it was none the less, a profound shock to all societies, including the United States, a shock that seriously undermined peoples’ view of who they were and what their rights were. And that shock certainly caused further fragmenting in society.

The one issue that is consistent across all the nations experiencing radical political change is immigration. Whether it’s because of political instability, climate change or something else, vast numbers of people have moved from the relatively undeveloped global south to the more affluent and stable north and west. And in America this is a particularly fraught issue as millions of undocumented immigrants have flowed across its southern border. Aside from the most obvious effects of this such as homeless encampments and other types of disorder, it also feeds into what is known as “the great replacement theory” where the current inhabitants of America fear their way of life and their values will be replaced by immigrants from countries with very different historical experiences or values. And this is not just a fear in America. It is acutely so in parts of Europe that have experienced mass immigration over the last few decades and, even in Canada, where the fantasy of an harmonious multi cultural society is challenged by shocking outbursts of anti semitism and homophobia, often at the hands of relatively recent immigrants from countries and societies with cultural and religious views completely at odds with core Canadian values. Instead of dismissing this fear out of hand, it deserves a closer and more sympthetic hearing than it usually gets. In fact, and this is heresy in countries like Canada, mixing such diverse people and expecting a benign outcome may not be possible. That doesn’t mean ending immigration but it may mean being much more selective about who can joint these national families.

The third issue is the hardest to pin down but likely the one to spark the most intense debate: trying to reshape people and societies into a form that is radically different from what is core to their historical being. Whether it involves the rights of gays and lesbians or transexuals, what is acceptable in the public discourse, particularly between men and women, what place religion should have in shaping a society, what values should be the bedrock of a community and how they relate to historical values and, finally, what we should honour and respect in our past. It’s no exaggeration to say there has been a deliberate and aggressive attempt to reshape many of these by, for lack of a better word, “elites”, whether academic, political or economic and, not surprisingly, that has led to resentment amongst many people and political pushback. At the least, this needs to be dialed down and we need to find a way to better accommodate the competing voices.

And so here we are on the verge of another Trump presidency. I have no idea whether it will be as terrible as some are predicting but I suspect we’ll emerge whole on the other side, perhaps a bit chastened and that might be a good thing.

Just sayin

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

Floating Down the Mississippi

I’ve just returned from a trip on a paddlewheeler from Memphis to New Orleans. Given the fraught state of American politics right now, I wasn’t sure what I would encounter in the “Deep South” but assumed I would run into a phalanx of “Trump” supporters and signs. I almost certainly ran into Trump supporters but, as for signs, the only one I saw was in a window in Natchez, Mississippi. Aside from that, there was little if anything to show an election was happening.

Like most people who don’t live there, my views of “the South” were shaped by many myths, whether the horrors of slavery and racial discrimination, or the Disneyeque pictures of the genteel south encapsulated by “Gone With the Wind”, all nicely wrapped in the sorrow of its music. As it turned out, there was some truth to both pictures but it was a lot more complicated than the black and white images I brought with me.

Our starting point was Memphis, Tennessee although, because the Mississippi was so low, we had to be bussed south to a moorage in Mississippi. The two nights in Memphis were less than memorable, with one notable exception. Unfortunately, the cruise line decided to house us in the Graceland Guest House which is right across the street from Graceland but is a long distance from downtown Memphis. I learned that Graceland was the second most visited house in America after the White House although I did not add my number to that count. The most interesting/disturbing occurrence happened at the guest house. On my first night there, I was sound asleep and suddenly my room was filled with light from the enormous flat screen TV opposite the bed and, in the background, Elvis was singing “you ain’t nothing but a hound dog”. It was 1:45 a.m. I raised this with the desk the next morning. They said they hadn’t heard of it and made a note of it. I assumed it was looked after. The next night, this time at 3:45 a.m., the same thing happened although Elvis was singing something else. I left the next day for the cruise and, upon consulting my fellow cruisers, found many had the same experience. Weird.

Downtown Memphis looked interesting although the famous Beal Street during the day was mostly closed or deserted. What’s more, it was effectively only two blocks long and had the feel of a tourist trap. The one unreserved good thing about Memphis was our meal on the second night when we went to a restaurant called “Porch and Parlour” and had an outstanding meal. It was also New York prices.

Our first stop after Memphis was Cleveland. When I heard we were stopping in Cleveland I worried we might be going in the wrong direction but then discovered there is a Cleveland, Mississippi. I gather it is a fairly typical small town in Mississippi, although it’s main street was tarted up to appeal to tourists on the river boats. There wasn’t much there there (apologies to Gertrude Stein), although my rare interractions with the merchants were nothing but polite, indeed as I was looking for shoe laces, they were extremely helpful, offering to phone other stores to see if they carried them. Initially, I did wander into what I thought was a regular bookstore only to find myself in the midst of Christian store with an owner who quickly, and correctly I might add, assessed me as fallen. I fled.

The first of the really interesting stops was Vicksburg. Vicksburg was the site of a major battle and seige during the American Civil War. The fortress/city was under seige for two months in 1863 and eventually surrendered to Union General, Ulysses S. Grant. Most of the plantations surrounding the city were destroyed and, because of the seige, many of the antebellum homes in Vicksburg were also severely damaged or destroyed. During the seige the residents of Vicksburg retreated to caves to avoid the constant bombardments.

The people I met in Vicksburg were very conscious of their civil war history, referring to their great, great grandparents and their experience during it. And yet, they did not fit into the stereotype of the culturally backward southerner. In fact, quite the opposite. At the Old Courthouse Museum there is an extraordinary collection of aritifacts going back several hundred years, including many to do with the Civil War. One of the attendants was a young woman with hair slightly tinted purple and wearing a “Pride” button. When I purchased a cookbook for a friend she asked if I would like it gift wrapped for an extra dollar. I said yes, expecting a bit of paper but, instead, was presented with a package worthy of any Christmas tree (lots of ribbons and curls).

Perhaps my most pleasant experience in Vicksburg happened when I walked into a very old music store named “Michel’s Record Shop”. It was empty when I entered but then I heard the door open behind me and a very pretty elderly lady, with bright blue eyes and a charming southern accent, came in. She was the owner and I would guess was probably well into her ninth decade. It wasn’t clear what, if anything, was for sale as there were used musical instruments everywhere and vinyl records, posters and photographs of shows and musical greats going back more than half a century. At first I was browsing but, fairly quickly, she assumed the role of guide and took me through sixty two years (the shop opened in 1962) of musical history in the south. There were some performers I’d never heard of although I suspect better informed Blues lovers would have recognized them right away. She told stories of Elvis and his gold Cadillac parked outside for two days, of Sam Cook performing in the store, of her husband’s good friend, Willie Dixon, of celebrities like Natalie Cole, Dorothy Moore and Kenny Rogers coming in to sign their records with lineups down the block and, perhaps the crowning piece was an old photograph of a much younger her sitting on the back of a convertible, BB King next to her with his arm around her, as they paticipated in a parade on the street outside. There were black and white photos of juke joints, also known as barrel houses, deep in the Mississippi woods where mostly black audiences enjoyed the blues while partaking in dancing, gambling and moonshine. Michel’s Record shop is named after the lady’s late husband. She is known affectionately as “the music lady” in Vicksburg and I was so lucky to meet her.

The next major stop after Vicksburg was Natchez, Mississippi. Unlike Vicksburg, Natchez was not destroyed in the Civil War so it has a definite antebellum charm. Many of the original townhouses of the plantation owners remain, restored and lived in. The reason Natchez was not destroyed depends upon who you ask. In Vicksburg they told me Natchez was not destroyed because, having witnessed what happened to its sister city, Vicksburg, up the river, Natchez simply surrendered. My guide in Natchez had a different story. He claimed Natchez was neutral during the war, something that is a little hard to credit.

And while I’m on the subject of my guide, he was exactly what a little southern gentleman of a certain age would look and sound like, a bit like Colonel Saunders, but more refined. His family lived in Natchez for many generations and he said his great, great grandfather went to West Point with Ulysses S. Grant who, when the war broke out, sent a clipper to Natchez to rescue his family. They spent the war years in Geneva, Switzerland. And, just to give you a sense of this man, as we drove by a grand old hotel on the river he announced there was a lovely bar on the roof where he used to take his wife for drinks. He then paused and said “when she was someone else’s wife”.

Natchez was also the site of a remarkable building called Longwood, also known as “Nutt’s Folly”. It is octagonal and, from the outside looks like something out of “Kubla Khan”. What now stands was built in fourteen months by slaves. It’s owner, Haller Nutt owned approximately 800 slaves and was building Longwood for his wife when the Civil War broke out. His craftsmen were from the north and left. The building is as it was in 1862 with only the basement level finished. The rest is preserved as a construction site. One of the more poignant moments was when bricks with fingerprints were pointed out. The slaves were illiterate and would mark a brick they made with their fingerprints in the hope their daily output would exceed their quota and they would be given additional food to take home to their families.

The next major stop was the state capital of Louisiana, Baton Rouge. We sailed into Baton Rouge just after dark and saw what I subsequently learned was the Capital Building. In New York, Chicago or Detroit it wouldn’t have been remarkable but in Baton Rouge, standing alone at thirty four stories and lit from all sides, it was remarkable.

Baton Rouge is named after a blood soaked pole that separated the lands of the native peoples who lived there prior to European settlement, the Bayougoula and Houma tribes. There are several things that are remarkable about the city. First, there’s the capital. Built when Huey Long was Governor with the intention of being the tallest state capital in the nation. From the outside it looks similar to early twentieth century highrises in America’s northeastern and mid western cities except, as noted, it stands alone. Huey Long’s grave and monument stand in front of it, the monument being a statue with him looking up at it. I was there on a Sunday and, for some reason, the state Senate was in session so I was limited to the large public rotunda outside the Senate chamber. It was a remarkable room. In fact, I have never seen such detailed and beautiful art deco ornamentation anywhere else.

And on the subject of Huey Long, I have known of him over the years and always had the impression he was a wannabe dictator clothed in populist clothing (like someone else we know today). It seems I was wrong. Huey Long was Governor and then senator from Louisiana. He aspired to be President but was assassinated in the State Capital. He assisted FDR get the Democratic nomination that led to his election but broke with him over the timidity of the New Deal programs in FDR’s first term. In other words, he was a true populist. People in Louisiana speak of him as if he was almost contemporary, referring to him as “Huey” and with considerable affection.

Because of his Presidential ambitions he had the Louisiana Governor’s mansion built to resemble a smaller version of the White House, his belief being once elected he wouldn’t have to worry about getting oriented in the White House. That building stands today although it has been replaced by a much larger residence.

A museum sits opposite the State House. It traces the development of what is now Louisiana from its pre-European days until the present. What is striking is how honestly it confronts the legacy of slavery. One exhibit had a plaque stating slaves where confined into tight quarters at night, quarters with doors that had openings at the top for air. Two examples of these were beside the plaques and, when I leaned into the dark openings, I heard moaning, whispering and humming. Haunting.

The other thing to note about Baton Rouge is Louisiana State University where we went on a bus tour. It’ was enormous and what struck me most was the high profile of all the athletic facilities, including a football stadium that can hold 105,000 spectators, a baseball arena and an arena for basketball, all enormous and all central to the identity of the university. There was no mention of academics although I’m sure they offer good programs in those areas but I couldn’t help contrast this with the two Canadian universities I attended, both of which had major sports teams and facilities, but those were completely secondary to the central role, mission and image of the universities. Sports obviously plays a more important role in American life (okay, yes, we’re crazy over hockey) and I have no idea what, if anything, that means in defining the two cultures.

We also drove past two Civil War cemetaries in Baton Rouge, one the final resting place of Confederate soldiers and the other the final resting place of Union soldiers. They were separated by a narrow street. Both were enormous with headstones stretching as far as the eye could see. The Union cemetary was designed to look like the national cemetary at Arlington across the Ptomac River from Washington.

Our final major stop was New Orleans. By this time I was getting tired and thought I was coming down with a cold (turned out to be COVID) so I didn’t have much energy to explore the city I used to love and haven’t seen in decades. The one thing I did on day one when my companions were off doing something else is go to an old and famous gay bar, Laffitte in Exile. I remember it thirty years ago as large, open to the street, with good music, friendly and with a balcony on the second floor where you could sip your libation and view the spectacle below on Bourbon Street. I nearly walked by it. It seemed to have shrunk. Inside it was pokey, quiet and dark, with only one other customer. I ordered a beer, took two sips and then left. It’s true, you can never go home again.

So what did I learn from my trip through the Mississippi delta? Maybe a little humility. I approached it as if it was something out of “The Heart of Darkness” and, instead, met a world with its own complexities, but populated by friendly and gracious people. They completely negated their stereotypes.

This is a land with a terrible dark legacy, slavery, and its inhabitants don’t shy away from confronting that, but they also seem determined to forge ahead while honouring that of their past that was good or at least heroic. I couldn’t help contrast that with the endless, strangling mea culpas we in Canada indulge in as we “atone” for the sins of our ancestors towards the aboriginal inhabitants of Canada whose treatment was gentle compared to three hundred years of slavery in America.

My guide in Baton Rouge was a woman who was perhaps in her mid forties and whose family had lived in the area for generations. Her accent was certainly southern but nothing like the harsh stereotypes some offer. When the tour ended she said: “We don’t say goodbye in the south because our visitors become our friends.” And then with a slightly wry smile she said: “Y’all come back now. Y’hear.”.

Just sayin

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

The B.C Election: Which Side are you On (Boy)?

On October 19 British Columbians will go to the polls and decide whether the NDP government should be allowed to stay in office after six years, or to bring back the Conservatives after a century in the political wilderness. It’s not a choice most British Columbians, myself included, want to make but, with the collapse of the Liberal/B.C. United party, it’s the only real choice we have.

In an earlier blog I identified four issues that will affect my vote: the drug accelerated disorder on the streets of cities and towns across B.C.; the failing healthcare system; our response to climate change and managing the province’s finances. Subsequently, I wrote a blog criticizing the government’s approach to reconciliation with native bands, particularly acknowledging aboriginal title over all of Haida Gwai, as creating uncertainty over the ownership of Crown lands as well as land that is privately held in B.C., and so I include it in the issues guiding my vote in the upcoming election.

Anyone who lives in or near the centre of a major town or city in B.C. confronts the results of policy failures concerning illegal drugs and homelessness every time they step out their front door. And, in the past few years, the consequences have moved from being unsightly to being downright dangerous. Although we are constantly told violent crime is going down in Vancouver, that is cold comfort when we regularly encounter people experiencing some kind of drug induced psychosis on our streets and in our neighbourhoods, and against the backdrop of recent horrendous stranger attacks in the Vancouver.

These problems have worsened during the six years of NDP governance, certainly because of the increased availability of toxic drugs on the streets, but also because the government has pursued an approach fixated on the single metric of keeping drug addicts alive. In fact, it has gone so far as to decriminalize drugs in B.C., something it has partially reversed after the chaos it unleashed prompted a public outcry that threatened its re-election, and placing vending machines with drug paraphenalia in hospitals and other public facilities. Even what seemed like a fairly innocuous approach a few years ago, the opening of a safe injection site in the Downtown Eastside, has, with the opening of similar such sites elsewhere in the city and province, caused the disorder, pettty crime and random violence to metastacize across other neighbourhoods and communities. This is madness that should have been obvious prior to our descent into the apparently bottomless pit of drug accommodation but, even if not then, after failure upon failure in curbing drug overdoses, deaths, property crime and random violence.

Both David Eby and John Rustad are now advocating for a different approach to the issue of illegal drugs and street disorder and, in some remarkable ways, their approaches seem to be converging. A consensus has emerged (at least between the NDP and the Conservatives) that we need to significantly ramp up facilities for treatment and to diminish the likelihood of “get out of jail free” responses when violent and persistent offenders appear before the courts. Both leaders now advocate for greater use of involuntary detention and treatment.

So, who should we trust with this file? Well, in David Eby’s case, he was opposed to these measures before he was for them, and then was against them, and, finally, is now for them again. For the time being at least. I’m all for people changing their positions in response to new information but, in his case, this epiphany seems suspiciously motivated by politics and, once the election is over, I’m not at all sure it will continue with a re-elected NDP government. In fact, given the considerable influence within the coalition that is the NDP of those who have championed the rights and interests of the drug addicts over those of the rest of us , I suspect the position of a new NDP government will settle back into the same failed approach we have witnessed for the past six years. So I notch one for the Conservatives because I do believe on this issue they will show stronger leadership and will put the interests of the general public over those who have chosen to use illicit drugs.

The second issue is how to change our healthcare system so the obvious shortcomings we witness daily are addressed. This happens to be something I know a little about and I’m under no illusion either party has a straightforward and simple answer to issues concerning ER closures, people without family doctors and waitlists for everything from diagnostics to procedures. And I commend the NDP government for some of its policies, particularly those aimed at increasing the number of doctors and nurses in B.C. although I can’t help feel it’s too little, too late. On the other hand, previous provincial governments, both Liberal and NDP, ignored the warning signs of the coming crisis and, in some cases, took actions that made it worse. And things are going to get much worse before they get better because of factors mostly beyond the control of governments: the Baby Boom generation entering that part of our lives when our needs for medical care rise exponentially; the retirement of Baby Boom physicians, nurses and other healthcare professionals; and the relentless immigration into the province. All of this was predictable but, as I said earlier, their’s lots of blame to go around on this file.

While I commend the NDP government for many of its initiatives responding to these pressures, none of them are sufficient to get us past the next ten to twenty years. For that we need a fundamental rethink of how we provide medical care in B.C. and how it is paid for. This, of course, is the third rail of Canadian politics, the one where anyone going near it is instantly labelled an enemy of Medicare and/or un-Canadian. The people doing the labelling often refer to themselves as “the friends of Medicare” although their actions stifling any real debate about the fundamentals of the Medicare system in Canada run the real risk of loving it to death because the current course is unsustainable. Perhaps because of its close association with the founding of Medicare in Canada, the NDP seems especially paralyzed in these conversations and regularly weaponizes the arguments against anyone suggesting fundamental change. So I am interested in the Conservative’s proposals that would provide wait time guarantees with the escape valve of publicly funded and privately provided care. I also think John Rustad’s ruminations on whether, and if so how, people should be able to purchase insurance to get care when it is not readily available in the public system is worth pursuing. By the way, these proposals will cost money, probably a lot, which is why the NDP claims that the Conservatives will cut funding for healthcare is such a lie. So, again, advantage Conservatives.

The third issue is how the government is going to respond to man made climate change and, on this one, the NDP had me squarely in its corner with the carbon tax which experts tell us is the best, most effective way to encourage people to make choices that reduce their CO2 footprint. Of course, as I stated in earlier blogs and posts, the carbon tax only works if all the funds collected are returned to the people who paid them in the first place, thus providing a clear market incentive to make other expenditure decisions and, in B.C., the NDP government undermined this essential principle by retaining large amounts of the tax revenues and using it as a cash cow for anything that, even vaguely, related to the environment.

My calculation on this factor was completely upended when David Eby announced that a new NDP government would abolish the carbon tax if re-elected and it was abolished federally, as seems likely. He cited the “collapse of the public consensus” supporting the tax as his reason for the changed position. Well, yes, it is probably fair to say that consensus has collapsed but that is at least partly because of actions of the NDP government as mentioned above. More to the point, ” collpase of the public consensus” sounds suspiciously like it was going to cost the NDP votes and, perhaps, the election. So, rank political cynicism where, instead of defending the tax as good environmental policy or, better, promising to return the tax to its original form where the funds are returned to the taxpayer, far easier politically to simply join the “axe the tax” mob.

I now have no idea what either party plans to do in the absence of the carbon tax to meet our obligations on the environment file. On the one hand, we have a party leader who originally seemed to be denying the reality of man made climate change (although he does seem to have moderated his position on this) and, on the other, a leader who, despite seeming to believe the climate scientists, is willing to throw the best climate policy under the bus to increase his chance of getting re-elected. So, I have a draw, and not a good one, on this issue.

The fourth issue is whether, and if so how, the government balances the provincial budget. I have a number of left leaning friends who regularly tell me with all sincerity government deficits don’t matter for any number of exotic reasons. This leaves me wondering if we’ve lived in parallel universes for the past seventy five years. Of course government deficits matter in all manner of ways, whether it’s upward pressure on itnerest rates, increasing amounts of taxes being paid as interest, limits on what the government can do and squeezing out the private sector in credit markets, amongst other things.

The Conservatives say they will balance the budget although they don’t say how or over what period. The NDP is conspicuously silent on the issue which isn’t surprising given its record. The NDP government led by John Horgan understood the need to be fiscally conservative, spending within the province’s means. That’s one of the reasons I voted for it in the last election. But, as soon as John Horgan retired and was replaced by David Eby, everything changed, most dramatically with the rush to spend the billions they were left as surplus before it could be applied to the provincial debt. And that pattern continues, resulting in the downgrading of the province’s credit rating and dire warnings of fiscal problems in the not distant future.

So, on this issue, I’m faced with the Conservatives at least acknowedging the need to balance the budget and the NDP promising more of the same. On balance, it’s advantage Conservatives.

The last issue is the approach to reconciliation with native bands in B.C. In an earlier blog I expressed concern over ceding Aboriginal Title to all of Haida Gwaii to the Haida nation, believing as I do it sets a precedent for the rest of Crown land in B.C. which constitutes approximately 94% of the land mass of British Columbia. It also introduces uncertainty over the status of privately owned land in the province. I understand the need to achieve some kind of reconciliation with the native inhabitants of B.C. although, as I have said elsewhere, their treatment is consistent with, if not more benign, than the treatment of all other peoples overwhelmed or conquered by another group throughout human history. What I do not support is the position that, because they were here before the Europeans and later Asians, their views should be paramount when it concerns land use in B.C. Native people make up less than six percent of the population of the province and creating a system where that six percent trumps the interests and wishes of the other ninety four percent is both undemocratic and guaranteed to lead to future conflict. In my view, the final decisions on the use of Crown Lands should always reside with the Crown. That is the position of the Conservatives but certainly not that of the NDP. So, again, point to the Conservatives.

Based on the forgoing it might seem inevitable I would support the Conservatives. If only it were that simple. Campaigns matter as do the views and personalities of the individuals running for office. I am certainly turned off by the kind of ads the NDP is running, reminding me as they do of the behaviour of the Social Credit Party in its endless wars against the CCF and the NDP. Some of you know I was very active in the NDP over fifty years ago and held a number of leadership positions within that party, and it was always important to me we behaved differently than the Socreds, not peddling lies, exaggerations and conspiracy theories. I suppose some of this was my youthful naivete and my tendency to see the world as a binary place with good and evil absolutes, but I do believe that party did try to hold to a higher plane and I can’t help feel some of its leaders from those days would be disappointed by the NDP’s tactics in this election so far.

On the other hand, some of the charges and innuendo the NDP has been throwing around are apparently true. Up to this point, John Rustad had been a bit of blank slate for me. I was aware he was kicked out of the Liberal/B.C. United caucus because of his views on climate change but that was about all. I was also aware the provincial Conservatives had attracted some candidates who were, shall we say, out of the mainstream but assumed, after the effective merger with the Liberals/B.C. United, they would be jettisoned and replaced with more centrist candidates. I don’t know if that has happened.

What I do know is that John Rustad has allied himself with those who deny the reality of man made climate change or, at least, the idea we can do anything about it. I was also aware he had expressed sympathy for those healthcare workers who refused to get vaccinated during the COVID pandemic and felt they should be reinstated with back pay. While I fully support the idea that healthcare workers should be required to be vaccinated, especially during a once in a century pandemic, and don’t see anything wrong with their being fired for refusing to do so, this was not a deal breaker for me. But then the NDP dropped their exquisitely timed depth charge on days three and four of the campaign: the video clips showing John Rustad addressing those former employees and seeming to deny the efficacy of vaccination while expressing regret he had received three COVID vaccines. What’s more, they showed him saying he bought into some of the weirdest conspiracy theories around the pandemic, specifically that the vaccination program wasn’t designed to create herd immunity but, instead, was somehow about “controlling the population” (pardon the expression but: “WTF?”). Also, as part of his attack on vaccination and B.C.’s response to the pandemic, he singles out Dr. Bonnie Henry as the author of much of this alleged malfeasance and pledges to fire her if he is elected Premier. I disagree with Dr. Henry on the province’s appoach to the toxic drug/overdose crisis and, if a new government takes a radically different approach than what she’s recommending she may not be the best person in the job of Provincial Health Officer, but that’s a far cry from saying her performance during the pandemic warrants dismissal. I would argue the exact opposite, citing evidence that B.C. performed as well or better than any other jurisdiction in Canada during the pandemic, and that was at least partly because of her inspired leadership. This also reminds me of the reckless populism of our Alberta neighbours where the current Premier campaigned on exactly the same thing, i.e. firing the Provincial Health Officer for her role in leading the province’s respsponse to the pandemic. She was fired and the hounds baying for her scalp were temporarily sated. This is not the future I want for B.C.

This also prompted me to remember one of the other positions John Rustad took prior to his ascent to being the primary opposition leader. Specifically, his view that students in B.C. schools were being taught “what to think, not how to think” which is probably a distinction without a difference but does echo some of the MAGA gibberish around schooling and book burning in the United States. It appears that, if elected, he would reach into the classrooms and try to bend the curriculum to his will which, by the way, would simply mean teaching a different version of “what to think” or, worse, providing no instruction at all on some key subjects.

The narrative the Conservaties offer about John Rustad is that he’s a nice guy. In fact, one of their first ads features his wife detailing her struggle with cancer which resulted in her being unable to have children, and showcasing her husband as a loving, supportive spouse and uncle. That may well be but it doesn’t mean he wouldn’t implement measures that hurt many British Columbians. The closest comparison I can get may be with Bill Vander Zalm who was Premier from 1986 to 1991 and who allowed his conservative religious beliefs to intrude into the government’s response to the then surging AIDS epidemic, slowing and, in some cases, stopping an effective response. I have no doubt some British Columbians died because of that, and yet he seemed like a nice person (full disclosure here: I never met him).

So, here we are only a few weeks out from the election and faced with an almost impossible choice. On the one hand, we have an NDP government that has failed on several key issues and that, in the election, is showing the moral backbone of an amoeba while, on the other, we have a party leader who seems to ignore science and the best advice of experts, and who, as Premier, might take steps that could seriously hurt some British Columbians. I wish I lived in one of those ridings where former Liberal/B.C. United MLA’s are running as independents (is it too late to move to West Vancouver?) because the best possible outcome might be a minority government dependent upon those independents to govern.

So, I still have several weeks to make up my mind, several weeks where there will likely be more bombshells about John Rustad, where the NDP will abandon whatever long held “principled” positions in pursuit of votes, and where John Rustad might, just might, surprise us and set the record straight (although god knows how he can at this point).

One thing is certain though: I will vote and you should too.

Just sayin

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