Tag: canada

The “Truth and Reconciliation” Dead End

It was only a matter of time. The moment when the feel good, wishy washy proclamations and promises were going to bump up against the hard realities of Canada today.

Canada has a population of approximately 42 million, of which slightly more than 1.8 million are indigenous, or about five percent. The rest are either recent immigrants or descendants of Europeans and later Asians who started migrating to what is now called Canada in the sixteenth century. The indigenous societies they encountered were technologically much less advanced than those of the Europeans or Asians, some more so than others. Some, the tribes of the west coast, for example, were relatively sedentary with established villages and hierarchies, while others like the tribes of the prairies, existed in migrating, hunter/gatherer groups. None could withstand the encroachment of the Europeans.

This is the point where most people will pause to assure everyone they are deeply committed to reconciliation with aboriginal peoples, and profoundly regret the countless terrible things inflicted on them by the newer settlers and their descendants. I will not. All those mostly empty words do is reinforce the lazy narrative that everything aboriginal is good and everything else, bad. That most feel this reflects the coercive forces that have shaped this debate in Canada. Step even a little over that line and you’ll be accused of racism or, that newest of online charges, “denialism”.

What happened to aboriginal peoples in Canada replicated what has happened all over the world since time immemorial. Populations move. Borders shift. People get displaced or absorbed. Sometimes it is peaceful but usually there is conflict with the more advanced groupings dominating. I’m sure my Celtic ancestors were displaced multiple times as more powerful groups invaded and occupied the British Isles but it would be absurd for me to demand reparations now from the United Kingdom. And yet here we are in Canada. In fact, it’s certain indigenous people did not all arrive at one time, in one group. Given they eventually populated both South and North American continents from top to bottom, some obviously arrived much earlier than others and, if human history is any guide, the newcomers displaced the earlier settlers as they moved across the continents. So who amongst aboriginal North and South Americans was first and, if that could be determined, do they have superior claims to all others?

Under the disastrous leadership of Justin Trudeau Canada cast itself as somehow different from every other place on earth throughout human history, posing as more virtuous, more just, more feminist, and oh so sorry for the litany of supposed wrongs committed by our European settler forefathers and mothers against a seemingly endless list of offended or “harmed” people. It seemed a month didn’t go by when we weren’t apologizing to some group or other about something; that the Canadian flag was at half mast, and that the steady drumbeat of shame was beaten into us. Mea Culpa. Mea Culpa. Mea Maxima Culpa. Churches were burned. Statues toppled. Streets and towns renamed. Charges of genocide, not just cultural by the way, were hurled at Canada from around the world as the the Canadian government hid its face in shame or worse, pled guilty. Not surprisingly, pretty soon the very idea of Canada, this remarkably successful country, was devalued, so much so that some preciously referred to it as “so called Canada” while others tried to rewrite the national anthem so it too would reflect our perfidy and shame. A hell of a way to build and unite a country.

In this environment it’s not surprising that the claims by indigenous Canadians should take first place as an original sin that marked the dark path that lay ahead. Canadian governments have been trying to address the role of indigenous people in a modern nation state since before Confederation. With the benefit of hindsight, it seems most of those efforts were misguided and certainly unsuccessful. That’s clear even without assigning dark motives to early Canadians. The modern context begins in 1982 when Pierre Trudeau’s government patriated the constitution from the United Kingdom and added the “Charter of Rights and Freedoms”. The new constitution, at Section 25, affirms existing Aboriginal and treaty rights for indigenous Canadians including Metis. It also shelters those rights from diminishment through the Charter rights of other Canadians. The meaning of this clause was then left to the courts to determine. That was subsequently further constrained by Canada’s adoption of the “United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Peoples”. So, bit by bit, Canadian Liberal and Conservative governments, as well as NDP provincial governments, entangled the country in a web of uncertainty and conflict, all the time engaging in magical thinking that somehow it would all work out.

On August 8 B.C. Supreme Court Justice Barbara Young issued a ruling in the claim by the Cowichan Nation that found it had established aboriginal title to more than 5.7 kilometers of land along the banks of the Fraser River in the city of Richmond, some of which is privately held either by businesses or homeowners. It found public and private titles to the land were “defective” and infringed on the Cowichan title. The ruling has triggered a tsunami of outrage against the judge, great anxiety for the current landowners, and appeals by the City of Richmond, the province of British Columbia, the Government of Canada, the local port authority and one other aboriginal group with a competing land claim. I don’t know whether the outrage and shock is genuine or political theatre because it’s been blindingly obvious to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the competing claims that it was going to come to this somewhere. This follows the provincial government voluntarily ceding full control of Haida gwaii to the Haida despite there being privately owned lands on the archipelago. In both cases the native bands have offered assurances they will not interfere in the private holdings but, frankly, that’s only good until they change their minds. Even if they don’t, the possiblity significantly undermines the value of those properties.

None of this happened in a vacuum. The politicans, having set the table over the decades, then stood back as the courts did what they were expected to do: interpret, define and refine the ambiguities in the laws. I don’t fault the judge in the Cowichan ruling. She simply considered the evidence, the law and the precedents and then issued the inevitable outcome. If it hadn’t happened in Richmond it would certainly have happened elsewhere, and soon, given other cases before the courts in B.C.

So, as a result of colossal mismanagement by Canada’s political leaders we now live in an Alice in Wonderland world where two contradictory things are held to be somehow magically consistent. They are not. And many have been complicit. I don’t remember when it became compulsory for every public gathering to begin with an acknowledgement it was taking place on “unceded native land”. Or when many events were preceded by some kind of drum and/or smoke ceremony. Or when aboriginal offenders were given lighter sentences even if they were chronic and violent offenders. Or when every development proposal was subject to endless conflict over claims by indigenous groups that they had to consent before it could proceed. And on that issue we have yet another example of the ambiguous/magical thinking of our political leaders as they created the laws. Some, although fewer and fewer, are willing to stand up and say there is nothing in the constitution that requires consent by native groups before developments can proceed. But there is the need to consult and the courts have added layer upon layer to that process until many, perhaps most, indigenous Canadians believe they have the right of veto. And even when the courts find otherwise in a particular case some engage in acts of civil disobediance and sabotage to block or slow the process.

This is no way to run a country. Five percent of the population cannot trump the rights and interests of the other ninety five percent. I understand indigenous Canadians have not been able to fully partiticipate in the success of this country and I fully support initiatives that will help them do so in the future, initiatives such as ownership of resource projects or developments on their urban lands. But that is a far cry from pouring billions of dollars into a system that infantilizes and traps them. The simple fact is Canada needs to go back to square one on this issue and that may mean amending Section 25 of the constitution as well as repudiating some of the vacuous commitments previous federal, provincial and municipal governments have made. As the Cowichan ruling has shown, a tiger is awakening and it’s the vast majority of the Canadian public, and it will demand radical remedial action on how we all relate to indigenous Canadians. This could get very nasty. Let’s see if any of our politcal leaders have the cojones to lead.

Just sayin

GH

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

Is There Any Point in Negotiating With Trumps America?

I spent the better part of fifty years leading negotiations, resulting in dozens, if not more, agreements. None of them ended in failure or even a rejected agreement once a settlement was reached at the bargaining table. There were two immutable conditions underpinning those negotiations: both parties had an interest in reaching an agreement; and certainty that, once reached, an agreement would be honoured even when the outcomes might prove different from what was originally contemplated. The other significant element was that the parties had continuing relationships that predated the agreements and would continue after. This experience makes it particularly frustrating for me when I encounter other types of negotiations, for example when I’m trying to buy a car and the salesperson always goes upstairs with what I think has been agreed to only to regretfully inform me that someone in higher authority has said “no” and I will have to increase my offer. Same thing selling or buying real estate. Part of me always feels the other party is bargaining in bad faith when, in fact, I’m engaged in a type of negotiation completely different from what I’m most familiar with. It’s important to keep this in mind when confronted with other, unconventional negotiating styles such as that of the U.S. government today, and not to react in anything but a calm and thoughtful way. The simple fact is they will do what they will do to paraphrase an old negotiating colleague of mine and there’s very little we can do to control that. We must continuously focus on what we can control, a message the Prime Minister is wisely repeating over and over.

Negotiations between the U.S. and Canada are currently at an impasse because of Donald Trump’s tantrum over an Ontario ad that played in America and that quoted President Ronald Reagan decrying the use of tariffs. At least that’s the official version although it really doesn’t hold water and it’s more likely the Americans were simply looking for an excuse to stop the negotiations to bring more pressure to bear on Canada. This “pause” is a good time for Canada to consider whether there’s any point in pursuing an agreement at all with America today? I raise this as someone who has supported closer economic integration between Canada and the U.S. since the 1960’s with the then Canada/U.S. Auto Pact. With the benefit of hindsight all the free trade agreements that followed led Canada into an increasingly vulnerable position until we find ourselves where we are today. They were a mistake. John Turner was right and Brian Mulroney was wrong.

These negotiations should mostly fit in the mold of the negotiations I’ve engaged in so the first task is to see whether the underlying conditions for agreement exist now or in the future? Do the Americans believe it is in their best interest to reach an agreement with Canada? To listen to the President and some of his Cabinet, it would seem the answer is “no”, at least for any agreement that would do anything other than impose greater disadvantages upon Canada. Many will say “well, they don’t really mean what they’re saying” but, after nine months of this administration, is that really credible? Yes, the Americans need Canada for many things including oil, potash, steel, lumber and aluminum but there are powerful lobbies in America where the costs of forgoing at least the steel, lumber and aluminum are outweighed by the increased profits resulting from the tariffs for those vested interests. In other words, the American people be damned as long as the select industries can increase their wealth even if it means increased costs for American consumers.

But, quite apart from what Canadians may believe to be in America’s best interests, it’s been my experience to usually believe what the other side is saying even when it seems to contradict common sense or known facts. It’s their beliefs that count, nothing more. Of course that encounters push back when dealing with a serial liar which President Trump has proven to be but, hidden in whatever obfuscation he’s launching on any given day, there are surely grains of evidence of what’s really going on.

There is one area where the Americans have been consistent and where they are proceeding to strip Canada of its industrial capacity and that’s the auto industry. This strikes close to home for me. I worked for the UAW in Windsor/Detroit in 1971, just a few years after the Canada/US auto pact had been agreed to and as the countries’ two auto industries were moving to full integration in response to what was considered an existential threat from Japanese, and to a lesser extent, German auto makers. And that’s why today’s North American auto industry is so closely integrated and why Donald Trump’s dismantling of that, complete with tariff walls and eschewing the move to electric vehicles, is going to leave that industry a stranded albatross that is increasingly uncompetitive and dying. It will be rough, but Canada must use this moment to find new auto maker partners and position itself as a global leader in new automobile technologies. The alternative is a complete hollowing out of Canada’s auto industry, one that goes back a century, with dire negative economic consequences for communities in southern Ontario and Quebec.

Aside from autos, the tariffs are weighing heavily on softwood lumber in B.C., Quebec and the Maritimes. Aluminum tariffs are negatively impacting Quebec and B.C. while the steel tariffs are mostly affecting Ontario. In other words, vast areas of Canada are having economic warfare waged against them and there’s little reason to think any agreement will result in reliable relief.

So, I return to the question: do the Americans want an agreement with Canada? At this point I think the answer is probably “no” and that may also apply to the renewal of the Canada/US/Mexico free trade agreement. And it doesn’t matter what we think should be in their best interests or that they are mistaken. All that matters at this moment is what they believe. So, for starters, one of the two fundamental anchors for any successful negotiation is missing.

And that brings me to the second anchor. Even if there is some renewed interest from the Americans, can we ever truly believe they will honour any agreement they enter into? What is almost certain is that, after one too many Big Macs, Donald Trump will wake up in the middle of the night, turn on his computer and wreck chaos across the agreement landscape. He’s already done so repeatedly and specifically with Canada with his so-called fentanyl tariffs and there is no reason to believe he’s going to change in the final three years of his Presidency.

Just to complicate the conversation further, it’s clear the tariff stick is not just going to be used to address trade issues. Time and again, Trump is using it to meddle in other countries’ internal affairs, including Canada’s. We’ve already blinked once, on the digital services tax, so why wouldn’t he use it over and over again to influence Canadian domestic decisions. In fact, he already has with the Ontario anti tariff ads. This, of course, pales in comparison to what he’s doing tariffing Brazil because it has the temerity to prosecute its former President for attempting to foment a military coup after his election defeat, or his threatened tariffs agains Columbia after its President expressed concern over the bombing of boats in the Caribbean and Pacific.

So, what does Canada do now? Well, much of what it is already doing, although with a better understanding there may never be agreements with this administration and we can survive that. In negotiations theory we use a term “Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement”, or “BATNA” which basically means what it says. It’s one of the basic tools in preparing for and conducting a negotiation. It allows for a true comparison of any agreement on offer. Canada’s BATNA right now is pretty much what the Canadian government is doing. Respond to the threats and tantrums from down south with a firm “we’re ready to talk when the Americans are”, while getting on with the serious business of re-orienting Canada’s economy away from one dependent upon free trade with the United States. There will be increasing economic pain and it won’t be shared equally across the country but the federal and provincial governments can take steps to mitigate it and, most importantly, to ensure the rise of a new industrial base with displaced workers given first shot at participating in it.

Canada is a very special place and it’s worth doing whatever is necessary to ensure it endures and prospers. It’s just possible in ten years we may look back and thank Donald Trump for waking us up and starting us on yet another journey of nation building in The True North Strong and Free.

Just sayin

GH

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

Is Mark Carney Failing?

On April 28 Canadians went to the polls and gave the Liberal government a new mandate, their fourth in a row. The election was the culmination of one of the most dramatic political comebacks in Canadian history where the government turned a more than twenty percent polling deficit against the opposition Conservatives into a near majority government.

It is accepted political wisdom this would not have happened had it not been for Donald Trump and his threats to Canadian sovereignty and economic well being. While that was almost certainly true, there were other factors at play too, factors without which it seems likely the Conservatives would have triumphed. First of these was the Conservative leader, Pierre Poillievre who, over his twenty plus years in Parliament developed an image as a scrapper who was rather unpleasant and whose trademark became the one line rhyming jingos he and his core supporters seemed to enjoy but most other Canadians viewed with distaste. That, combined with suspicions he was too similar to the marauder down south, and his penchant for supporting actions by his supporters like the Truckers’ Convoy in Ottawa and Alberta, all contributed to a trust deficit just waiting to be exploited. His saviour was the then Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, who, after nearly ten years of endlessly performative politics was long past his “best by” date.

And that’s when the Liberal Party showed yet again why it is only slightly jokingly referred to as “Canada’s Natural Governing Party”. In what seemed like an impossibly short time, Trudeau was out and Mark Carney was in. The sigh of relief from Canadian voters, myself included, was almost audible as the appalling choice we’d been facing was removed. We no longer had to choose between two different, but equally unappealing, candidates at this moment of national crisis. There was an adult on offer and millions of Canadians voted for him. Within weeks of being chosen party leader, Mark Carney was elected Prime Minister, missing the holy grail of Canadian politics, a majority in Parliament, by just two seats.

The core theme of Mark Carney’s election campaign was that he was the best candidate to deal with the predations from the south. In the slogans of the campaign he was the “elbows up” candidate, the one who promised a strong and direct response to American economic aggression. This was accompanied by full sentences where we were told our relationship with America had fundamentally changed and that Canada’s response must operate on several levels at once, including finding new trading partners, breaking down inter provincial trade barriers, and significantly strengthening our armed forces, all while trying to maneuver through the chaotic and constantly changing political climate in Washington.

We just passed the one hundred day mark since the Carney government was sworn in and the vultures are beginning to circle, looking for signs of weakness or failure where they can attack. They point to a series of moves by the government that don’t seem consistent with “elbows up”, moves like suspending the imminent digital services tax and eliminating many of the counter tariffs Canada had placed on American goods in response to its first tranche of tariffs on Canada. And in the areas where the counter tariffs remain, particularly on steel, aluminum and automobiles, they remain at half the level of the American tariffs they are responding to. None of these moves has resulted in any obvious American reciprocal action except perhaps vague agreements to continue talking. At the same time the Canadian economy is teetering closer and closer to a recession as the impact of the American tariffs affect employment, spending and government revenues. While this is happening Prime Minister Carney and his government seem to be going out of their way to flatter and coddle the President.

On the other hand, in its first one hundred days the government has done some of the things that were in its election platform. It has passed legislation aimed at eliminating federal interprovincial tariffs, while actively encouraging the provinces to do likewise. It has passed a “One Canadian Economy Act” that aims to significantly reduce the time necessary for approvals of projects that are deemed in the national interest. It has created an office of Major Projects and appointed an experienced businesswoman to head it while, simultaneously, asking provincial and territorial governments to identify projects that might qualify to be accelerated. It has implemented a middle class tax cut. It has committed to increase spending on defence, first by two percent and then by a further three percent, as required by NATO. It has increased pay for members of the Canadian armed forces and is moving rapidly to purchase a new and greatly expanded fleet of submarines. Prime Minister Carney has held meetings with European leaders and is moving to integrate Canada’s weapons procurement with that of its European allies.

So what is going on?

Admittedly, I bring a perspective tempered by nearly half a century of negotiating contracts with governments, unions and other organizations so I am more inclined than others might be to wait and see and to trust the silence as a sign some progress is being made in negotiations with the Americans. I remember negotiating quietly while those on the outside were condemning our lack of progress, or our lack of transparency, or, indeed, our competence. In the end they were shown to be completely ill informed as all of the resulting agreements were ratified and accepted, often with great enthusiam. So, for starters, I don’t find it significant that there is very little information coming out and, in fact, suspect that is a sign progress is being made. If they were going nowhere we would hear about it.

We should remember the Prime Minister has been clear that Canada will not sign just any agreement with the Americans, unlike some other countries who seem to have done just that. The latest news that the negotiators are working on smaller, sectoral agreements makes perfect sense and is likely the best that can be achieved outside of the CUSMA renewal negotiations.

It also makes sense that the government re-engage with the Chinese and the Indians despite the angry pressure from their Canadian diasporas, something that is underway. We may not like the way they run their countries or act on the world stage but a trading country like Canada cannot ignore them, particularly when our closest ally and trading partner has gone rogue. And that’s the world we now live in.

Parliament is resuming in two weeks and a budget will be tabled shortly thereafter. That’s likely when the rubber hits the road and we can make a better assessment of how the man we elected to be Prime Minister is doing. When I voted for Mark Carney I was not voting for a Rambo who would charge wildly against the Americans. I voted for someone who I believed had the temperament, intelligence, demeanour and experience to lead Canada through a very difficult time, in other words, a man with the characteristics of our very best Prime Ministers. What’s more, I understood the “elbows up” part of his campaign was only part of the arsenal we would have to employ to emerge from this crisis intact and prosperous.

I have no doubt the most difficult challenges still lie in front of him, whether the continuing truculent and unpredictable America; the opposition from all the vested interests that rise up to defeat most nation building projects in Canada; the continuing slowdown of the economy as the trade war takes its toll or, as Prime Minister Harold MacMillan of Great Britain put it “events dear boy, events”. But so far I think he’s doing just fine, showing an adept and steady hand on the tiller as we navigate these extraordinartily treacherous waters.

Just sayin

GH

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 hand side of your screen when you open the blog.

Little Donald is Playing With Matches Again

Several days ago Donald Trump woke up in the middle of the night and decided to send a letter to Canada threatening thirty five percent tariffs on its exports to the United States. This was followed a few days later by similar letters to the European Union and America’s trading partners in Southeast Asia. Somewhere along the line Mexico got one too, and then there was Brazil where he has promised to apply fifty percent tariffs unless the Brazilian government and judiciary stop the prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro is on trial for trying to stay in power after losing the Brazilian election (sound familiar?).

In my (I stress) limited experience, little boys play with matches for several reasons best commented on by trained psychiatrists and psychologists, but one is blindingly obvious: little boys play with matches to get attention, usually the unwanted kind from adults, but attention none the less. Parents are legitimately concerned that little Johny, Donny or Mikey might hurt themselves. In the current context I could care less about that but then there is the serious concern he might light a fire that burns down the entire house or neighbourhood or world (you get the picture). And for reasons still eluding most of us, seventy seven million of our American neighbours gave little Donald seemingly unfettered access to the world’s largest supply of matches. And boy is he enjoying playing with them.

A whole new cottage industry has sprung up trying to make sense of Donald Trump, all predicated on the never quite stated view that something complicated, even sophisticated, is going on. Fortunes are being made or enhanced as former Trump associates and officials swan across the world’s TV screens (for a fee of course) to offer their unique insights into this consequential figure. And make no mistake, he is a consequential, perhaps even unique, figure in American history, if not the world’s (well, there was Nero, but that was a really long time ago).

Little boys playing with matches usually get their comeuppance when adults step in and put a stop to the behaviour, likely accompanied with some kind of remedial punishment. Unfortunately, with the current arsonist in chief the next opportunity for adult intervention isn’t until the U.S. midterm elections in November, 2026 and then only if enough American voters decide they’ve had enough of this roller coaster and elect at least one house of Congress capable of applying some breaks. And that assumes America will still be capable of holding free and fair elections. I’m not holding my breath. So for at least another seventeen months the pyrotechnics will continue and we’ll all have front row seats.

Governments from one end of the globe to the other are scrambling to get anything that might look even a little like “normal” back into the relationships with the world’s biggest economy and mightiest military power. And that is especially so with Canada where two hundred years of increasing cooperation and integration is out the widow.

Canadians elected Mark Carney as Prime Minister in April largely in response to the bellicose behaviour of Donald Trump and his government, whether threatening expropriation or economic ruin for Canada. With one exception, I think he’s doing as good a job as possible in the cirumstances. The exception is the move to remove the Digital Services Tax (“DST”) in response to Trump’s threats. While I didn’t support the tax and am glad it was removed, I was surprised at how that was handled. Just a few days earlier the government was insisting the tax would go ahead despite the very strong objections of the Americans but as soon as Donald Trump threatened to end the negotiations the tax was dropped. I know a few things about negotiations and this was an unforced error by Canada’s negotiators. Knowing the American position, the Canadians negotiators should have pre-emptively paused the tax until the negotiations were concluded, probably then trading it off for something in the negotiations. A quibble? Perhaps, but it reinforced Donald Trump’s view that bullying works and allowed his always charming and thoughful spokesperson to tactfully say “Carney caved”.

Aside from the DST though I think the government is doing most of the right things: moving to diversify Canada’s trade; eliminating interprovincial trade barriers; embarking on nation building projects that will use Canadian products while strengthening our ability to sell resources to nations other than the U.S.; encouraging “buy Canadian” programs domestically; committing to massive increases in Defence spending; building and strengthening relations with countries in Europe and Asia; and trying to achieve some kind of agreement that will stabilize our relationship with America. It’s the last of these that poses the greatest challenge because, aside from the diametrically different views on tariffs, does anyone really expect any agreement with America under Donald Trump is going to be faithfully executed and honoured? It’s a virtual certainty the time will come after an agreement is reached that Donald Trump will wake up in the middle of the night, need some attention, and fire off a tweet threatening or imposing tariffs on Canada despite whatever the agreement might say or require. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try for an agreement and, if the basic terms of one are achieved, it shouldn’t be accepted, just that our eyes need to be wide open to the limits of this process as long as the current occupant of the White House is in power. To the extent possible, the economic and political relationship should be stabilized and, yes, that will likely mean accepting some level of tariffs and I’m glad the Prime Minister has begun preparing Canadians for that.

And then we just get on with our lives as best we can, all the while hoping the little boy in the White House doesn’t burn the entire neighbourhood down.

Just sayin,

GH

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

The Most Important Election in Canadian History (2)

At the start of the federal election I described it as the most important in Canadian history. I still believe that. Although the invective aimed directly at Canada from the White House has quieted over the past three weeks, it will likely resume once the election is over, as it seems Donald Trump and his MAGA followers have taken Danielle Smith’s advice and toned things down in the hope it will get the Conservatives elected. If the polls are correct, that’s not going to happen but, either way, I expect things will heat up after April 28.

Both Mark Carney and Pierre Poilievre have run good campaigns, at least when measured against what they needed to accomplish. Carney’s has been cautious, seeking to avoid the pratfalls of a green politician, and Poilievre has managed to tone down some of his more aggressive instincts although there are still flashes to remind us of the attack dog image he worked so hard to establish as Opposition Leader. It’s ironic that image, effective against Justin Trudeau and in a very different political climate than the one we’re in now, has become an albatross around his neck. The behaviour that endeared him to his base is now a liability as he tries to widen his appeal, particularly with women.

Despite efforts by the Conservatives to refocus the election back onto the Liberal government’s record over the past decade, and concerns about cost of living, crime, street disorder and immigration, the elephant in the room remains Donald Trump and his threats to Canada’s economy and sovereignty. Despite Trump’s silence about Canada over the past few weeks, his other actions and words have upended the economic and political world order in ways that are profoundly unsettling to Canadians, as they should be. It seems the economic and foreign policy of the most powerful nation on earth is being set and changed on the fly, and then announced through late night tweets by the President on Truth Social. What could possibly go wrong? As it turns out, quite a bit. The giant swings on the stock market have drained trillions of dollars from the world’s economy, including in Canada where those of us relying upon investments in retirement are witnessing their shrinkage at an astonishing rate. All this, while some in Trump’s close circle of family and friends are making out like bandits, buying the dips and selling the highs. But maybe that’s just a coincidence.

One thing is certain as we look out over the next three years. The landscape will be constantly changing as the chaotic forces unleashed by the White House upend decades of peace and prosperity for much of the world. Some of it will be economic, some political. We might even see the aggressive use of hard power. And even if the Democrats win back one or both Houses of Congress in the 2026 midterms, the disruption coming from the White House will continue. Not a pretty picture, I know, so, to quote Bette Davis in “All About Eve”, “Fasten your seatbelts. It’s going to be bumpy ride”.

What does this mean for Canada’s federal election? A lot. Donald Trump has done the near impossible fuelling a Liberal Party resurrection that may see them form a majority government and gain an almost unheard of fourth consecutive term. And that’s because the most important question in this election remains: who can lead Canada most effectively through these exceptionally difficult times?

As I’ve said previously, prior to Justin Trudeau’s departure and Donald Trump’s assaults on Canada, I had decided to vote Conservative despite my dislike for Pierre Poilievre’s style of politics and some of the positions he supported in the past. I still think the Conservatives are a better choice on issues like public safety, law and order (although I’m not happy to hear them joining their provincial colleagues promising to use the “Notwithstanding Clause” in the Charter, increasingly rendering it meaningless), getting our resources to world markets, and bolstering defence spending. I do note Mark Carney is saying many of the right things on these issues too. But none of these issues matter if Canada’s economy is destroyed or its sovereignty lost.

Prior to making my final voting decision I wanted to see how the debates turned out and how, if at all, they might change my perception of the two leading candidates. They did not.

While Pierre Poilievre has run a good campaign where he has mostly muted some of his worst partisan instincts, I have seen little to persuade me he has the depth and experience to lead Canada at this very fraught time. He has a very thin resume with seemingly no experience in international relations or economics. And I know virtually nothing about his team, the people who will be populating the government if he is elected, although I suspect I would find some of them problematic. Witnessing the amateur hour playing out in Washington as spectacularly inexperienced and unqualified people now run the American government, I think it important Canada not embark on a similar experiment where, at the very least, we would have a group of inexperienced people trying to navigate us through these extraordinarily treacherous waters.

Everything in Mark Carney’s academic and professional life seems to have led him to this moment when the time meets the man. His resume says it all. By the way, I don’t get the Conservative’s attack on him as “resume man”. Perhaps someone can help me but isn’t it all about that resume vs the very limited one for Pierre Poilievre? In a sense I’m going with the devil I know, hoping Mark Carney will steer the Liberals away from some of their more unsuccessful policies and attitudes of the last decade but, even if he doesn’t, I’m certain he is the better qualified to confront the existential economic and political challenges facing Canada today. I will be voting for Mark Carney.

Just sayin,

GH

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

The Most Important Election in Canadian History

Prime Minister Mark Carney is expected to call an election tomorrow, one that will end either on April 28th or in the first few days of May. By some measures it will be the most important election in Canadian history as the country confronts a bellicose United States that is threatening Canada’s economic ruin or absorption.

The possible results of this election would have been unthinkable even three months ago, but the resignation of Prime Minister Trudeau, Carney’s selection as Liberal leader and Prime Minister and, most of all, the all out assault on Canada’s economy and sovereignty by Donald Trump have turned previous predictions on their heads. If current polls are correct, it will be a tight two way fight between the governing Liberals and the Conservatives, rather than the Conservative landslide that seemed all but certain. And it will likely be decided on the margins, with “blue” Liberals and “red” Tories determining the outcome one way or the other. I am one of those people and, although I voted Conservative in the last federal election and was prepared to do so again to get rid of Prime Minister Trudeau, I’m now back on the fence.

My final decision would previously have been based on the Trudeau government’s track record over the past nearly ten years and it would have been mostly negative. I fault them for policies and attitudes that weakened Canada’s fiscal position; that viewed every issue through the single lens of reconciliation with native Canadians; that created entitlement programs costing billions of dollars while ignoring the glaring defense needs of Canada even after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014; that caused Canada to become an object of ridicule on the international stage while it pontificated about the virtues of whatever cause Du jour; for failing to make the necessary federal legislative changes to give provinces and municipalities the tools to deal with rampant crime and drug addiction; and for heedlessly alienating the resource producing provinces in the name of environmental purity. All this has weakened Canada and made it less prepared to confront the challenges it is facing today.

Trudeau’s “Sunny Ways” devolved into a mishmash of sanctimonious irritating announcements, often with no follow through. Perhaps this was best articulated by Trudeau himself when he stated Canada had no central, unifying identity and that it was a “post national state”. That didn’t stop him from vilifying the people who created this country, causing their descendents to be labelled as the progeny of genocidal racists, much to the delight of other countries who wish Canada harm. So, yes, I was prepared to vote for Pierre Poilievre despite some of the MAGA lite wing nuts around him and his churlish, childish behaviour. But Donald Trump has turned that calculation on its head.

In terms of substance it’s hard to offer much criticism of the Conservatives because, thus far, the party has failed to offer Canadians any kind of detailed policy platform. What little there is is couched in slogans and is mostly in response to current Liberal policies. There are some things I agree with: changing federal legislation to better support communities dealing with random crime, much of it related to drug addiction, building a military base on the Arctic Ocean, reigning in government spending, building infrastructure to get Canadian resources to both the Atlantic and the Pacific, and generally moving away from “woke” filters when setting policy. But that’s about it.

On the environment, the Conservaties single focus has been on abolishing the carbon tax and, thanks to the complicity of multiple federal and provincial governments, the tax has become so toxic that both major parties now support its elimination and on his first day as Prime Minister, Mark Carney eliminated it at least so far as it applies to individuals. Its demise was the inevitable consequence of governments using it as a cash cow and, thus, just another tax. As I said long ago, the only way a carbon tax will work is if it is revenue neutral with all its proceeds returned to taxpayers as was the case in the first Canadian carbon tax in B.C. that was introduced by Gordon Campbell’s Liberals.

Aside from the paucity of policy, the real problem with the Conservatives is their behaviour and approach to politics that is so well exemplified by Pierre Poilievre. I don’t think Mr. Poilievre is a MAGA supporter, but a significant part of his base is and he plays to them regularly. These people have little difficulty with Donald Trump which, right now, should be disqualifying. Their “take no prisoners” approach; vilifying anyone and everyone who might disagree with them; ignoring medical science and experts on healthcare and the environment, and the juvenile school yard bully language that so often punctuates Mr. Poilievre’s comments are profoundly un-Canadian. Similar behaviour there was the harbinger of the complete collapse of political comity in the United States. So the selection of a new Liberal leader and Prime Minister does create choices for me and, I suspect, many other voters as well.

Everything considered, there is only one issue in this election. Canada is facing an existential threat unlike any it has faced since the mid nineteenth century. Even our parents’ battle against fascism in Europe and Asia wasn’t in response to an immediate threat to the security and economic well being of this country. But Donald Trump and his coterie of sycophants and enablers pose such a threat. So, despite all the other priorities, the single issue in the election is: who can best lead this country in a battle for its very existence against the madness of American nationalism/populism that is threatening global stability? For this we will need a leader who can assess strategic risks and opportunities, knowing just how far to push the envelope without sending it over the edge. He (it will be a “he”) will need a calm demeanour and a very thick skin. He will be able to communicate with Canadians in complete paragraphs and in a way that engenders trust and confidence, modelling the behaviour that the rest of us must show over these next few years. Although difficult in an election, he should be perceived as above partisan politics, a leader who can unite and lead all of us against the existential threat.

So, how do the two leaders on offer stack up as we embark on the campaign? On paper at least, Prime Minister Carney has the edge. His history in academia, public service and the private sector all point to a man with great intelligence, much experience, and a deep understanding of the world and how it works. His obvious weakness is his lack of political experience, although that may be more a weakness during the campaign and not, if he is successful, after, as Prime Minister. But he stumbled out of the starting gate and I’m waiting to see if it was a “one of” or part of a pattern. Specifically, when the Conservatives raised the issue of Brookfield Management moving its corporate headquarters from Toronto to New York while he was chairman of its board, instead of giving us a straightforward and easily available answer, he equivocated and parsed in a way that would have made Bill Clinton proud. At first he said he was no longer on the board when the move occurred or when the official decision to make the move was made. While this was technically true, it soon came out that the effective decision to move was taken when he was chair of the board, something he or at least his political advisors should have anticipated. And this played right into the Conservatives’ hands. The move was never something that would excite Canadians, many of whom have investments managed by Brookfield, especially as no Canadian jobs were lost and it made good business sense for growing the business. But Carney’s response allowed the Conservative line to take hold, the one linking Prime Minister Carney with “sneaky”. This was a political own net goal. The question now is is this part of a pattern, something intrinsic to his general behaviour, or just a single slip by a political novice trying too hard to play the political game? The campaign will tell.

Leader of the Official Opposition, Pierre Poilievre, begins the campaign with a public persona he’s spent years crafting, one wildly at odds with what most Canadians are looking for in a Prime Minister at this time in our history. We do not need an attack dog nipping at Donald Trump’s ankles (although I like that image). And to make matters more difficult for him, there is nothing in his background that suggests he will be the kind of thoughtful, strategic leader we need at this time. Mr. Poilievre’s work history is entirely in politics, beginning as an employee of the old Reform Party, becoming a Member of Parliament from Ottawa, serving as a Parliamentary Secretary in the Harper Conservative government and then, finally, holding two minor cabinet roles in the final days of that government. Since becoming Leader of the Conservative Party he has cultivated his image as an aggressive partisan, never once rising to what most would consider Prime Ministerial behaviour. Most recently, his response to Justin Trudeau’s resignation and then Mark Carney’s ascent as Liberal Leader and Prime Minister showed no grace, no civility and seemed completely tone deaf in this moment. His base may like this but that’s not enough to get him elected.

So, as the election starts, both the major contenders have work to do. Mark Carney must show he can connect with ordinary people and, to some extent at least, be above the partisan political fray. Pierre Poilievre must demonstrate he can be Prime Ministerial and represent all Canadians at this time of crisis. Thirty seven days isn’t very long but long enough to demonstrate who is best qualified.

Just sayin

GH

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 at the lower right hand side of your screen when you open the blog.

Donald Trump: Time to Confront the Unthinkable

Several weeks ago I published a blog in which I said I was beginning to feel like The Netherlands in 1938. Some of you suggested I was being alarmist and paranoid. I wish you’d been right.

The latest information from the discussions between the Prime Minister and the President suggest several alarming things for Canadian sovereignty. Most significant is the American view that the treaties establishing the border between Canada and the United States can be easily withdrawn from or broken. This in the context of Donald Trump referring to the border as an “imaginary line” that should be erased and Elon Musk saying “Canada isn’t a real country”. Several of Donald Trump’s advisers are now being quoted as saying the border should be “redrawn”.

These comments have been viewed as either a joke or as raising the possibility of an American takeover of all of Canada which would require an enormous American military commitment, and that doesn’t even account for the continuing costs of occupation. That’s provided some comfort to Canada. But what if the threat is less ambitious but every bit as deadly to the continuation of the Canadian state? What if a unilateral re-drawing of the border by the Americans severed Canada from some of its most important territory? For example, what if the Americans decided they no longer wanted to share the Great Lakes? And while at it, what about the St. Lawrence Seaway? Or what if America decided it needed a contiguous land connection to Alaska? Or wanted complete control over the Columbia River? And then there’s the arctic. America has never recognized the Northwest Passage as Canadian water. This, despite it being surrounded on all sides by Canadian land. What if America decided to unilaterally establish a military base up there, on Canadian land, from which it could look across the Arctic Ocean at its new ally, Russia?

Alarmist? Paranoid? After the last few weeks? Actually, this is right out of the Russian playbook. We are all familiar with Russia’s overt aggression against Ukraine since 2014 when it annexed Crimea, but we should also remember it has being trying to chip away at Ukraine for years, not to mention the other states on its periphery where it has fomented discontent and uprisings before intervening directly. Oh, and how many times have we heard Russians saying “Ukraine is not a real country”?

It’s unclear whether Donald Trump is in thrall to Russia for whatever reason or whether he just admires the kind of thuggery Vladimir Putin practises at home and abroad. Either way, the Russian model might look very attractive to Trump when he looks at Canada.

Canada, after nearly two centuries of sitting safely behind three oceans and next door to a friendly ally, is now more akin to 1930’s Poland, stranded between Russia and Nazi Germany. Except, in Canada’s case, there is no one to come to our rescue. Although millions of Canadians crossed the Atlantic to defeat fascism and defend democracy in Europe in two world wars, it is unlikely any European nation will go to war with the United States to defend Canada’s sovereignty, especially as the Russian bear threatens Europe from the east. In other words, we’re going have to handle this one on our own.

Before anyone panics it’s worth noting what Canada has available to it. It has the seventh largest economy in the world; a population of forty two million people which is highly educated and skilled; access to vast resources including minerals and oil; and is one of the breadbaskets of the world. Canada also has an impressive military history although that capability has been degraded through the neglect of Liberal and Conservative governments going back generations. And, despite any internal differences, I think it’s clear now, if it wasn’t before, Canadians are fiercely loyal to their country.

I am certainly no military expert so I offer the next few thoughts with that qualification. It strikes me as good strategy to develop our military capabilities so we can defend against isolated incursions and so that the cost of a larger invasion to an invading power is too great for it to bear. From my limited reading on the issue, I expect we need to rapidly and effectively spend hundreds of billions of dollars enhancing our defence capabilites, including a massive campaign to recruit and train new personnel. We should reexamine the contract with Lockheed Martin for the purchase of over seventy billion dollars worth of F35 fighter jets. Apparently, even when those jets are fully in possession of the Canadian Airforce, the Americans will retain the technical ability to disable them. For all the obvious reasons, this is clearly unacceptable and, if that vulnerability cannot be eliminated, the contract should be canceled and replaced with one with a European aerospace manufacturer. Canada should also proceed rapidly to replace its submarine fleet, avoiding American arms companies, and sourcing them from Europe or Asia. And, while on the subject of submarines, perhaps we should also be purchasing some that are capable of carrying and firing nuclear armed missiles. Those of you who have known me for a long time will realize how difficult it is for me to even contemplate a nuclear armed Canada but the blinkers are off and we have to create deterence that is real and effective, even to the most powerful nations in the world. Everthing must be on the table.

Aside from a military buildup, Canada must strengthen its economic position by diversifying its trading partners and making internal changes that make doing business easier in Canada. So far, the early signals on this front are good and, while it would have been good had we embarked on this path years ago, better late than never. We also must continue communicating with Americans, making the point over and over again, Trump’s policies towards Canada are, in the words of the Prime Minister and The Wall Street Journal, dumb.

Keep calm and carry on Canada.

Just sayin

GH

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 at the bottom right hand side of your screen when you open it.

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

GH

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

GH

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.

GH

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.