Trinity

Treasonous Loyalty: Benjamin Franklin, the Intolerable Acts, and the National Debt by Pearson Moore

2011-09-13T11:20:00.000-07:00

He is inventor, diplomat, statesman, author. Skilled in the craft of negotiation, unequalled in the art of courtship and love. If we understand any of the founding fathers, surely we know him—his temperament, his beliefs, his motivations—better than any of the men whose vision, resolve, and oratory united colonists of disparate purpose into a single mind. Yet, in flagrant challenge to our long-held beliefs, the greatest of the architects of rebellion considered himself first of all an Englishman. Deeper, bewildering shocks await as we peer into this man’s life, accomplishments, and failures.

Following through history the cascade of events he set in motion late in the summer of 1774, we are not surprised to hear the shot heard ‘round the world on April 19, 1775, nor see with our own eyes the unanimous declaration he and his congressional colleagues signed a year later, during the hot summer days of July, 1776. Perhaps, though, we are not only surprised, but shocked, to learn that this printer from Philadelphia—this Englishman—was almost single-handedly responsible for a greater number of American deaths and a deeper obligation of debt than any single person prior to the 1980s. In fact, it is specifically because of the engrained Englishness of him that the American Revolution did not end in the spring of 1777, but instead engulfed the new United States, four European countries, and seven North American First Nations in a war that dragged on for eight and a half years, and became the inexorable trajectory that led to the French Revolution six years later, the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s, and the debt crisis of the early 21st century. It is because Benjamin Franklin embodied an oxymoron—because of his treasonous loyalty—that French, not American English, to this very day is spoken in Montréal, Sherbrooke, and Québec, and the Stars and Stripes flies neither in Vancouver nor in Toronto.

The Englishman

The famous woodcut above does not represent a newly-patriotic Benjamin Franklin calling for united resistance to British overlords during the Revolutionary War, but rather a much younger Franklin’s appeal to fellow Englishmen to gather behind an earlier, but no less urgent, common cause. Franklin’s stirring call to arms was not issued in 1775, nor even in the Stamp Act days of 1765. Franklin created the woodcut in the early spring of 1754 (the version above was embellished by Samuel Kneeland of the Boston Gazette and published in May of that year) not in response to British tyranny, but in reply to French attempts to secure the continent. The tone of Franklin’s oratory and written discourse was strongly in keeping with Kneeland’s sentiment, expressed by the scroll emanating from the snake’s open mouth: Unite and Conquer. Unite against Canada, and conquer the French.

Franklin spoke of Frenchmen as representing a race distinct and inferior from the civilized humanity found only among gentlemen obedient to the British monarch. The French had strange laws and customs, the unnatural and subordinate nature of which was proven by French Canadians’ perverse ability to bring an entire continent of savages to their cause, which Franklin understood to be the removal of English colonies from what was otherwise a continent owned entirely by France. Franklin’s way of looking at the long conflict in the 1750s has carried through to modern times, though we no longer think of the French as members of a distinct “race,” and we are not as likely to refer to Native Americans as “savages.” Nevertheless, our interpretation of the events of that time is distinctly American, as indicated by the name we apply to the conflict. While historians in Europe and Canada know the battles of 1750s North America as The Seven Years’ War, American historians refer to the conflict as “The French and Indian Wars.”

Franklin’s energy and passion in rallying opposition to the French was no sideline in a life otherwise devoted to scientific investigation. His early immersion in science was not the sign of any infatuation with disembodied objectivity, but indication of a deeper sense of social propriety. Political and social intercourse in his mind were paramount to the fullest expression of humanity. He believed in the widest possible expression of arts and sciences, as long as creativity and industry were tempered by the greater call to civility and cohesive society. France, to Franklin, was an impediment both to human freedom and to proper social order.

Social health could only be achieved in a milieu which rewarded those who lived life according to natural laws. English customs were superior to all others in this regard, since rewards were not only possible, but could be expected to accrue to those who led virtuous lives. No such rewards were possible under French custom and law, in Franklin’s mind. In the colonies, and in England, there were gentlemen and commoners. In France, on the other hand, there were peasants and nobles. Franklin had started life a commoner, and in fact, one of the last of seventeen children born to a soap maker, he was not expected to have any impact on society. But Franklin early on recognized the immutable underpinnings of English culture, and applied himself in earnest to the task of rising from the anonymous ranks of common men to become a respected and even revered English gentleman. He knew instinctively that such a rise in social standing would never have been possible had he been born into the highly stratified and stagnant French socio-political system, and he came to despise French custom as destructive of the human spirit. Once a peasant, always a peasant, always under the crushing thumb of hereditary nobility. In the freedom-loving British Empire, on the other hand, social position was a matter of individual initiative.

The French and their corrupt, degrading society engulfed the North American continent. Franklin found this reality stifling, threatening, and entirely unacceptable. To the north of the Great Lakes and west of the Appalachian Mountains, Québec and her Indian allies controlled every river, hill, and valley. Further west and to the south, Louisiana controlled the continent as far inland as it had been explored.

Franklin rose quickly in the political world. Starting as a Philadelphia councilman in 1748, by 1751, largely as a result of his anti-French writings, he was elected to the Pennsylvania Assembly. He was one of the most ardent supporters of colonial action against the French, and became the most vocal architect and champion of the goals of the Albany Congress in 1754, to which he led Pennsylvania’s delegation. When the Albany Plan of 1754 failed to gain colonial approval, he refused to accept the will of the people, and considered other options. Early in 1756, he rallied Pennsylvania residents and personally raised and supported a militia (“The Associated Regiment of Philadelphia”) to fight the French.

It was in this context that Franklin left for the Motherland in the mid-1760s. He had already been to England a few times to petition for various legal remedies to colonial concerns, but this time he stayed for several years. He became so oblivious to problems back in the colonies that upon passage of the hated Stamp Act, he nominated a friend to serve as administrator of the program in Pennsylvania. His acquiescence to arbitrary British taxation made him a sudden enemy among the common people of his colony. He had to work for several years to convince his fellow colonists that he was not indifferent to the plight of the politically disenfranchised citizens of Pennyslvania. During this period, Franklin’s disposition toward the colonies is not entirely clear. One truth that is easily discerned, though, is Dr. Franklin’s attitude toward England: He loved his new home, and more than anything else, he enjoyed living the life of an English gentleman.

The Intolerable Acts

Depending on the historian one consults, the Stamp Act is considered either the second of the Intolerable Acts (the Sugar Act being the first) or a hated precursor to the truly intolerable legislation passed in direct response to the Boston Tea Party of 1773. The Boston Port Act, the Massachusetts Government Act, the Administration of Justice Act, and the Quartering Act were Parliament’s response to the uncivilized rabble-rousers who took their orders from Samuel Adams and twenty-eight-year-old Benjamin Rush. Franklin was by this time writing and speaking out against the oppression of the colonies by Parliament, but he was quite clear in his contention that the value of the tea had to be reimbursed. He continued to see himself as a gentlemanly representative of clear thinking and reasoned discourse who might be employed in diplomatic capacities to bridge misunderstandings between Parliament, the Royal Court, and the colonies. He had been serving in such a capacity for the better part of twenty years, having spent nearly half of that time living in England. He must have felt there was no reason he could not continue to serve as valued intermediary, even as Adams and his fellow conspirators began stockpiling arms for what they believed was an inevitable confrontation.
The four acts of Parliament directed squarely at Boston—the epicenter of the American rebellion—are collectively referred to as the Coercive Acts. They are known by this title to historians in both the US and the UK, and there is no question in any accepted history regarding their nature as instruments of political and legal coercion.

The broader appellation of “Intolerable” is applied to these acts, but many historians include in this designation the final parliamentary act of June, 1774: The Quebec Act. When Franklin learned of the act, he did not argue that the British Parliament had simply misunderstood conditions on the North American continent. He did not, as he did in the case of the Boston Tea Party, insist that anyone in Québec who had suffered injustice at colonial hands be reimbursed. Any inclination he might have had toward diplomacy, reconciliation with Britain, or resignation to parliamentary fiat evaporated as soon as he received word of the abominable law.

The Quebec Act granted citizens of the newly-conquered territory (won on the Plains of Abraham in September, 1759, and codified into law by the Treaty of Paris, 1763) extraordinary rights not even extended to the English-speaking colonists. The people of Québec were allowed to speak, write, and conduct all business, whether personal, public, or official, in the French language. French Canadians were allowed to retain their Roman Catholic faith and serve in His Majesty’s government. Worst of all, the Act reinstated the French system of laws. With a single act of Parliament, French language, culture, religion, and law were made legal and permanent fixtures within the confines of British North America.

“Intolerable” was probably the only word Franklin could use in polite company to describe his feelings about this bill. French culture meant doing business with and inciting to crime the native savages who stood ready to scalp children, rape women, and kill men. French law meant any legal act that could be considered an affront to civilized Englishmen. Franklin must have wondered if the members of Parliament had all lost their minds. Perhaps if he had grown up in another colony—a colony much closer to England—he might have understood.

The primary architect of the legislation was not a member of Parliament, but the Governor General of Canada, Sir Guy Carleton (made First Baron Dorchester in 1786, despite losing the colonies in the 1775-1783 rebellion). Governor Carleton added his voice to that of the former Governor of Canada, James Murray, in calling for the institution of rights peculiar to French Canada. Carleton was not English, but Irish, having been born in Strabane in 1724. This fact is critical, because it explains Carleton’s passionate drive for Canadian rights. Only thirty years before Carleton’s birth, Britain enacted the Ascendancy Laws, essentially making Roman Catholicism a crime in Ireland and rendering adherents to the Roman faith something less than second-class citizens. Carleton saw first-hand, every day, the demoralizing and violent repercussions emanating from Parliament’s inhumane treatment of his friends, relatives, and fellow Irish countrymen. Though he made no public statements to the effect, he must have been entirely resolved to preventing this type of administrative abuse. As Governor General of Canada, he enjoyed perfect placement for shaping of legislation favorable to the Roman Catholics living under his control. With conditions in and around Boston deteriorating by the week, it must have seemed entirely prudent to Parliament to take any steps necessary to prevent a continent-wide insurrection.

They could not have known that in so doing, they had alienated from their cause their most ardent supporter: Philadelphia’s most famous Englishman, Benjamin Franklin. More English than Thou, Franklin could never accept Parliament’s proclamation that French-speaking thieves, criminals, and drunkards were to be granted social standing equal to his own. His unswerving loyalty to England—or rather, to his understanding of England—caused him to join the cause to throw off the yoke of the motherland. In the summer of 1774, after reading the law Guy Carleton had fashioned and pushed through Parliament, Benjamin Franklin became the most determined foe of all things British. His loyalty led to his treason.

The National Debt

The shots fired at Lexington and Concord (for those of you enamored of my fellow Minnesotan, Michelle Bachman, Lexington and Concord were towns in Massachusetts, not New Hampshire!) must have seemed a blessing to Franklin. As soon as the Continental Congress received the reports, Franklin went into action. He knew Great Britain had virtually inexhaustible resources. The French were non-committal to the patriots’ cause, probably because they realized the situation was essentially hopeless. There was yet one way to even the field of battle: Take every port in North America away from the British. If the British had no port, they could land neither soldiers nor matériel; they would lose the war in a short matter of months.

The goal was not unreasonable. In fact, Franklin realized it was a practical, achievable objective. All the Patriots had to do, he realized, was to control Québec. If they could rally Canadians to the patriot cause, England would have no friendly ports in North America, and the United Colonies would be able to dictate any terms they wished.

It must have seemed a stroke of genius. The Continental Congress commissioned the publication and distribution of thousands of French-language pamphlets throughout the Province of Québec. It was a propaganda drive unparalleled in history, with dozens of French-speaking spies sent north to spread news of the Patriot cause and the tremendous benefits to be enjoyed by those who supported the revolution.

The early results were stunning. Montréal fell without a fight. When General Montgomery entered the city, he was welcomed as a conquering hero, even though his men had fired not a single musket. The pamphlets and spies had done their work very well indeed. There is quite a rich field for storytelling here, as one might imagine. My second novel, Intolerable Loyalty, follows the intrigues of one such spy, sent by Samuel Adams to turn Canada. I hope to publish Intolerable Loyalty later this year.

The spies were not able to sustain their early success. By the time General Montgomery and Colonel Benedict Arnold (his treason was five years in the future) converged on Québec City, resistance was stiff, from both British Regulars and from ordinary French Canadian citizens. Within weeks of the Battle of Québec (December 31, 1775), French Canadians had formed citizen militias to battle the Americans.
The failure was not military in nature. The Patriots could have sent ten times as many soldiers, they could have sent every weapon owned by anyone in the thirteen colonies—they still would have lost. Why?

The problem rested with the architect of the strategy. Benjamin Franklin had demonstrated nothing but contempt for the French, and especially for French Canadians, for more than a quarter of a century. His writings on Canada and the Ohio Territories were widely read, and his views on French language, culture, and law were well understood. When the Patriots invaded, they brought Franklin’s view of French inferiority with them.

Benjamin Franklin made one final, desperate attempt in May, 1776. While his colleagues in the Continental Congress were debating the question of independence, Franklin was in Montréal, sitting across the table from Roman Catholic bishops and leaders of Canadian industry and the French Canadian resistance. His words were eloquent, his manner was charming, but he was perceived as insincere. If Franklin had been able to convince the Canadians of his sincerity, rather than proposing legislation in Congress to ban the French language and then saying weeks later in Montréal how much he adored spoken French, the Patriots might have enjoyed some leverage. As it was, the British had granted rights and privileges not even bestowed upon the English-speaking colonists. “We have no quarrel with His Majesty’s government,” the bishops and business leaders told Franklin. By the end of May, 1776, Canadian militias and British Regulars had chased every Patriot soldier and diplomat out of the province.

The war went on for nearly ten years. It was not cheap. People like Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and several of the founding fathers spent the better part of the war traveling around Europe, begging for money to continue the revolution. Massive debt was taken on. Even by the end of the “Second War of Independence” in 1815, the debt from the Revolutionary War had not been paid off. European benefactors eventually received payment in full, but new debt replaced the old. By the end of the Civil War in 1865, the country faced a debt so large as to defy payment. If the nation had been a corporation, it would have faced dissolution or bankruptcy. The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, passed three years after the end of the Civil War, addressed the problem of debt: “The validity of the public debt of the United States... shall not be questioned.” Certainly the Civil War would have put the country into debt, regardless of the length of the Revolutionary War. But if the War of Independence had lasted two years, not eight and a half, the debt would have been miniscule rather than overpowering. The debt, of course, has never been paid down. The legacy of debt we have struggled with for over two hundred years has its origin in the ineffectual diplomacy of Benjamin Franklin.
Thanks to Franklin, French Canadians were never converted to the American cause. Years later, in 1812, Thomas Jefferson committed the same error of judgment that had doomed Franklin’s Canada initiative. The subjugation of Canada, Jefferson wrote in 1812, was “a mere matter of marching.” The United States, ten times larger and possessing military might a hundred times greater than that of Canada, could simply walk in and take the British province. But in 1812, as in 1776, Canada repulsed the invaders. Canadians do not see the world as Americans do, and certainly not as Benjamin Franklin saw the world. The Quiet Revolution of the 1960s would never have occurred if French Canada had succumbed to diplomats more sincere than Franklin, because Montréal and Québec would not be part of Canada, they would be English-speaking states in the United States of America.

New Light On Old History

To a student of history, nothing about historical research is boring. Every primary text comes to life in our hands, because we have studied the rich, nuanced, unbelievably complex circumstances of its creation. We are always discovering valid, intriguing ways of shedding new light, new interpretations on worn and accepted ideas.

I hope you found this re-examination of Benjamin Franklin both troubling and challenging. If you found yourself shocked, confused, or angry over these words, I succeeded in my objective, which was to coerce you into thinking new thoughts about some old ideas. In the end, I do not believe Benjamin Franklin was a failure, or the locus of sufferings felt into the 21st century. As with anyone of his time, he enjoyed both successes and failures, and he certainly caused some degree of suffering, personally, socially, and militarily, but such is the legacy of even the most successful and admired of political leaders. Franklin was a leader among leaders, a rare man whose talent in dozens of fields outshines some of the best to have achieved in any one of the areas he mastered. But I see my task as an historian, and especially as a novelist, to look at history with a fresh eye, and to relay that history to you, my readers, with the greatest passion I can bring to my words. Thank you for accompanying me on this journey into the life and times—and passion—of the greatest of the founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin.

Pearson Moore
September 13, 2011

Pearson is the author of Cartier’s Ring, an action-adventure historical novel telling the story of first contact from a Native American point of view.

Cartier's Ring, ebook edition: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004VMTS7E/
Cartier's Ring, paperback: http://www.amazon.com/Cartiers-Ring-Canada-Pearson-Moore/dp/1463575777/

Abdicating the Arctic

2011-05-11T05:11:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow, the Arctic Council, comprised of Russia, Canada, the United States, Norway, Denmark, and three other countries bordering the arctic, will sign a treaty assigning search and rescue responsibilities in the high arctic. While the Council has said the practical S&R boundaries should not be interpreted as legal borders for other purposes, Canada should move quickly to avoid the impression that it is abdicating responsibility for the arctic.

As Paul Koring noted in his article in this morning’s Globe and Mail, the Council “explicitly accepted that the search-and-rescue boundaries won’t be used as precedents in the tangle of unresolved boundary disputes and overlapping claims in the resource-rich top of the world.” The problem for Canada lies in the final six words of that statement: resource-rich top of the world. Inevitably, disputes regarding resource ownership, recovery rights, and clean-up responsibilities will arise. Some tangible set of conditions will have to be used to set precedent for ownership, rights, and responsibilities, and it is in this regard that the present treaty is fraught with dangers for Canada.

Canada has been assigned an approximate 80-degree section of the 360-degree arctic region. Over forty percent of the arctic is given to Russia, with smaller pieces of the pie-shaped area going to the United States, Norway, and Denmark.

Since the search and rescue boundaries are practical in nature, they should be understood as fluid. If Canada, due to superior search and rescue capabilities, is able to assist with the rescue of sailors from a ship sinking in U. S.-controlled waters, the United States will be unlikely to turn down the offer of assistance. Such superior abilities could be used in future negotiations to argue for an enhanced Canadian presence in the arctic, and perhaps even an expansion of Canadian boundaries in future disputes over resources.

The problem is that Canada is ill-prepared for S&R work in the arctic compared to other nations. Norway, which already has a strong arctic presence in its oil drilling operations, has developed formidable resources for efficient work in the arctic. Russia has long possessed significant cold-water capabilities. Canada, according to Mr. Koring’s article, “has no dedicated search-and-rescue assets based north of the Arctic Circle...The nearest dedicated search-and-rescue aircraft are four 40-year-old Twin Otter utility aircraft based in Yellowknife.” It is not difficult to envision scenarios in which Norway and the United States will be best equipped for S&R operations in territories for which Canada is now responsible. With capabilities entirely inadequate to upholding of Canadian responsibilities, countries wishing to exploit arctic resources should have little difficulty in prevailing over weaker Canadian interests, presence, and abilities in the arctic.

I hope that Canada is not willing to so easily cede resource ownership and development rights. If the Harper government wishes to continue ignoring the high arctic, we should anticipate a high potential for consequences far more serious than simple loss of revenue to oil, minerals, and other resources. The larger concern is the health of the arctic itself, and it is here that we can find significant precedent that ought to raise our level of concern.

In April, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico exploded. For three months the open well spewed over eight million litres (53,000 barrels) of oil per day into the gulf. Some five million barrels (800 million litres) of oil were released into the ocean before the well was finally capped. The major problem in the capping effort was the inadequacy of the blowout preventer mechanisms installed in the cap, including severe design flaws that prevented the blowout preventer from working as specified. Only a few short months after the well was capped, the United States government approved the resumption of drilling in the gulf. Unbelievably, no blowout preventer design changes were required. Oil companies that wish to drill are allowed to use the same inadequate technology that led to the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

We should anticipate that the United States, with its long-established contempt for environmental health, will have no more concern for the consequences of arctic drilling than it has consistently demonstrated in warmer waters. While this may pose only short-term consequences in tropical regions, a laissez-faire attitude toward pollution in the arctic is likely to prove deadly, and costly not just to Canada, but to the entire world.

Few species of flora and fauna are found in frigid arctic waters. Oil-consuming bacteria thrive in warm tropical water, but they find the cold water close to the pole a bit too hostile. If oil spills in the arctic, it is likely to remain there for a long, long time, causing severe, long-term damage in a fragile environment. Since the arctic region has effects on weather, plant and animal life, and many other natural phenomena far out of proportion to its size, the effects of arctic fouling are likely to have severe repercussions throughout the world, and especially for countries bordering the arctic.

It is time for Canada to beef up its arctic presence. We cannot allow irresponsible countries, like Russia and the United States, to pollute the arctic at Canadian expense, to the detriment of the entire world.

PM
May 11, 2011

Orange Crush, Blue Balls, Red Retreat

2011-05-05T01:59:00.000-07:00

Margaret Wente is insightful as ever this morning. While I don’t know that I agree with her overall assessment, I find it difficult to quibble with most of her points. If you enjoy good political analysis, give this morning’s column a spin: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/heres-why-stephen-harper-really-won/article2010333/

While she does not dismiss outright the notion that Harper’s pre-campaign attack ads played a prominent role in Ignatieff’s demise, she points to several other factors that proved useful to the Tories’ success. As biting and well-informed as her analysis is, I believe it falls short, and I will tell you why.

She correctly cites several examples of the Grits’ unwillingness to engage in the hard work of base-building, especially among minority constituencies. No one among the Liberals, she said, had the stamina to go out and drink 15,000 cups of tea. The muted and impotent Liberal appeals to minority ridings and groups was seen as insincere. Liberals gave up on ridings and ideas that had been their strong suit many years ago. I think she is spot on here, especially since her words are mirrored by a party insider, Robert Silver, who also presented a sterling analysis of Liberal deficiencies in the last election: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/silver-powers/the-liberal-party-what-went-wrong-and-where-to-next/article2008011/

Ms. Wente invokes the obvious, that the Cowtown Wrangler was able to assemble a two-pronged political alliance centred in his stronghold of southern Alberta, but with a now entrenched eastern hub centred in central and southern Ontario. So strong is this continent-spanning coalition of political diversity finding room under the very generous Tory umbrella, Harper’s Posse was able to cede Québec and still manage a comfortable win.

The question for the political analyst, though, is WHY, and it is in this regard that both Ms. Wente and Mr. Silver fall short. I think Douglas Bell comes closest to nailing the analysis. He cites a simple, powerful, 60-second clip from The West Wing as the underlying reason for the destruction of the party of Laurier, Pearson, and Trudeau: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/douglas-bell/sage-advice-for-the-liberal-party-of-canada/article2009051/

Here’s the Youtube citation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCSMyFWTjRc

I agree with the assessment of Bruno Gianelli (portrayed by actor Ron Silver, no relation to Robert Silver), and I believe it comes closest to explaining the reason for the diverse failures catalogued in both the Wente and Silver analyses. Democrats in the United States long ago caved into the notion that the L word was so damaging to political aspirations that it could never be invoked. Traditional liberal concerns—care for the poor, the elderly, the disadvantaged, the sick—had to be abandoned because Americans would not stomach the financial obligations imposed by these social responsibilities. The problem is that Trudeau’s Just Society does not work without an emphasis on providing for the dignity of all people as essential precursor to the establishment of rights for all Canadians. I believe it is the LPC’s abandonment of traditional liberal principles, more than anything else, that has left the party in ruins, and will inevitably lead to the complete disintegration of the party.

The young Mr. Trudeau of Papineau, who will almost certainly become the party’s leading voice, and probably also its formal leader, has his work cut out for him. If he wishes to breathe life back into this fearful, quivering mass, he’s going to have to demonstrate backbone. Trudeaumania did not begin with the playboy and his convertible. It began with the man of political integrity and doctrinal authenticity, who had no fear of standing up to the political titans of his day. The LPC will gain back its voice only when it decides that Liberal is not a dirty word, and that the Just Society is not only something achievable, but that it is, in fact, the stuff upon which Canada is properly founded.

PM
May 5, 2011

Vote!

2011-05-01T09:34:00.000-07:00

Vote. Vote because it matters. Because when you do, Canada changes for the better. This time, every vote counts, every vote is a mandate for a stronger Canada, for a brighter future. Because Canada is more than it could ever be under Harper. Vote because voting is change. Vote.

Vote. Vote not because it is your right, but because it is your duty. Because a country can reflect goodness and honesty only when good and honest people participate in its governance. Now is not the time to assert rights, but to embrace responsibility, for it is through the common good that each receives her just reward. Vote not for your sake, but for your country’s sake. Vote.

Votez. Votez parce que le Québec est le coeur et l'âme du Canada. Parce que le coeur et l'âme doivent être libre. Le meilleur du passé et de ce que nous sommes est ce que les femmes et les hommes libres donnent en héritage à leurs enfants. Votez parce que le Canada chérit son héritage de liberté. Votez.

Vote. Vote because you feel the energy around you. Because change and excitement and wonder are in the air. This time, it is real. The New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party, and the Green Party have always stood for what is best in each of us, and what is best in Canada. This time your vote counts. Because orange and red and green are the most beautiful colours of the Canadian mosaic. Vote because in so doing, you express Canada’s will. Vote.

Vote. Vote because you matter. Because your voice needs to be heard. Your voice will be heard, and Ottawa will be better for it. Because your future is only as strong and just as Canada’s future. Vote because Canada matters. Vote.

PM
May Day 2011

Civic Duty

2011-04-29T08:18:00.000-07:00

The Globe and Mail has collected from leading academics and public figures some good ideas for reinvigorating democracy. “How to Redesign a Tired Democracy” is a thought provoking article, and I recommend everyone read the full collection of ideas.

Most of the experts concentrated on poor citizen participation in voting as the centre of their concern, and rightly so, I believe. Some of the ideas have merit, and ought to be given a try. Provincial-level requirements that high school students pass a course in Canadian history, Rudyard Griffiths’ contribution to the discussion, ought to be a minimum expectation. Proportional representation would probably provide a modest additional incentive to vote.

Many of the other suggestions I found untenable or poorly thought out. Direct, Internet-based democracy, for example, would give voice to those already motivated to imposing their influence and whims on others: conservatives and zealots. Political primaries, held up by Brian Lee Crowley as the best way to increase citizen participation, can be seen as a dangerous failure south of the border. Participation in political primaries in the United States is invariably highest among the extreme ideologues in each party, since these are the individuals most interested in maintaining ideological purity in platforms and candidates. During the months leading up to a primary election, middle-of-the-road Republicans retool their stump speeches and position papers to reflect ultra-conservative thought. But the day after the primary they become middle-of-the-road again so as to attract mainline voters.

Sometimes this chameleon act is not enough; in the 2010 election, moderate Republicans were shouted down and voted out, replaced by Tea Party conservatives. Likewise, in Democratic primaries, a candidate is obliged to speak forcefully in support of liberal issues, and the day after the primary becomes a centrist candidate. The result of the U.S. primary system can be seen in a tense, combative, essentially paralysed House of Representatives, where the Tea Party minority among Republican representatives’ ranks has become a feared enforcer of a chilling conservative line. Moderate Republicans know the Tea Party will put forward rabid conservatives as candidates for their seats should they attempt any compromise with Democrats. With dozens of examples of deposed moderate Republicans after the 2010 primary elections, centrist Republicans know the Tea Party poses no idle threat to their security.

Emulation of the U.S. model will not lead to increased citizen participation. Rather, it will tend to decrease the health of elections, government, and the citizenry itself, affirming and empowering the most extreme and diseased elements of society.

The most attractive idea for improving citizen involvement, I believe, was the final idea offered by Jim Stanford of the Canadian Auto Workers Union. Mr. Stanford recommended anyone deciding to vote be rewarded with a “nice crisp $10 bill.” While I find merit in the idea of financial recognition of those who vote, I wish to propose a different idea, with origin in the significance of citizenship.

Citizenship is not only a privilege and an honour, it is a right, and a responsibility. We are perhaps more inclined these days to emphasise the responsibilities of the state toward us as citizens, and in this light consider that the most important aspect of civilised society is the benefit conferred by citizenship. I wish to offer the perhaps old-fashioned notion of citizenship as duty. No reward should accrue to those who perform the normal duties of a citizen for her country. But those who shun their duty should not enjoy the full range of privilege inherent in the healthy and committed acceptance and active exercise of civic responsibility.

An agreeable means of reducing privilege to those who neglect their civic duty, it seems to me, could consist of an increased tax burden. Those who refuse the state the burden of consent would be legally obliged to realise an increase in the burden of financial support. A coupon could be issued to every citizen upon completion of exercising the duty to vote, a proof of civic commitment entitling that citizen to receive a reduction of income tax equivalent to 250 dollars. Such a simple change to the tax law would cost nothing, and would bring in a modest amount of tax revenue from the few hundreds of thousands who could not be bothered to fulfill their civic obligation.

The health of Canadian elections and government will improve when Canadians soberly accept and affirm the full truth and responsibility of citizenship.

PM
April 29, 2011

Jack!

2011-04-28T05:41:00.000-07:00

Of all the major parties in this election, the NDP has consistently demonstrated the most passionate emphasis on a vibrant and authentic Canadian future. In the New Democratic Party’s unwavering support of First Nations’ justice, Canadian arts and culture, Canadian heritage, and the rights of women, minorities, and the disabled, the NDP has shown the uncompromising commitment to Canadian values that should be expected of any political party. Most of all, Jack Layton’s charisma and his genuine appeal to québecois voters have laid the foundation for the reintegration of Québec into a fully united, culturally healed Canada. With greatest enthusiasm and without the least reservation I endorse the NDP and I urge Canadians in all ridings to vote for your New Democrat candidate on May 2.

Canadian values are unique to the world. In 2004, Canadians voted on the historical figure they felt best represented Canadian ideals. Over a hundred worthy candidates were reduced to a field of ten finalists, each of whom was assigned an advocate who was given one hour on national television to make her case. The winner was the man who had spent his life fighting for values we’ve come to embrace as central to Canadian identity: Tommy Douglas. The party he founded, the NDP, has been the unwavering proponent of those same values for the last fifty years.

The NDP seems to be the only major party that understands Canada as a coalition of three national groups: Aboriginal, francophone, and anglophone. This blog is called Trinity in recognition of that truth. The Conservative Party has been shameful in its neglect of Aboriginal justice issues, ignoring every entreaty from First Nations’ leaders. Probably we should not be surprised. The Conservative Party has always stood for the right of those enjoying power and privilege to discriminate against the weak and disenfranchised. The NDP recognises and upholds the dignity of all Canadians, and respects the Canadian tradition of multi-culturalism. The NDP emphasis on recognising the essential contribution of every facet of Canadian culture to the grand mosaic that is Canada is a refreshing and reinvigorating departure from the sterile, punitive, inhumane, and uncivilised policies of the Conservative Party.

The NDP has been most vigorous in its support for Canadian arts and culture. The NDP seems to understand that the preservation of Canadian identity is essential to the country. Canada is not the northern satellite of the United States, but some political entities, the Conservative Party chief among them, have consistently shown a complete indifference to the maintenance of Canadian character and have welcomed the overbearing intrusion of unhealthy foreign me-first pop culture. The recent inquiry by the Alliance of Canadian Cinema Television and Radio Artists was addressed in detail by the NDP; the Conservative Party didn’t even bother to respond. I find it personally hurtful and unthinkable that a political party would choose to ignore Canadian culture and identity. The NDP’s long history of embracing culture and the arts has set a positive and cheerful example for all of us, and I believe sets the proper tone for any party wishing to lead the country.

By far the most promising and welcomed development in this election has been Jack Layton’s personal appeal to the people of Québec. While Stephen Harper whines and rails, Jack Layton listens, thinks, and offers unifying and harmonising ideas. The people of Québec are coming to recognise the honesty and authenticity of Jack Layton’s appeal. The fact that so many in Québec have become energised by Layton’s charisma and his genuine concern for the needs of Québec has led to a great deal of excitement in many quarters. Political observers across the country are wondering if the NDP, under the sure leadership of Jack Layton, might be able to heal the age-old political and cultural wounds between francophone and anglophone Canada.

On every front, the NDP offers Canada a more secure, more optimistic, and more vibrant future. I urge all Canadians to vote NDP on May 2.

PM
28 April 2011

Snuffing Out Dissent

2011-04-23T06:41:00.000-07:00

The Conservative Party has an outside chance of forming a majority government. Canadians should consider the sobering truth that any such government is going to move aggressively to curtail or destroy outright any opportunity for dissent from the Conservative viewpoint. Under Stephen Harper, the Government of Canada—excuse me, the Harper Government—has move more aggressively to erode the protections of free speech than any previous government.

Gerald Caplan, writing today in the Globe and Mail, quoted the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives:

Over the past five years, exercise of the fundamental freedom of speech in Canada has been curbed and discouraged by a federal government increasingly intolerant of even the mildest criticism or dissent. Particularly affected have been organizations dependent on government funding which advocate for human rights and women’s equality. Their voices have been stifled, some completely silenced, by cuts to their budgets. Also financially throttled have been individuals and groups that speak out for reproductive rights, humanitarian immigration policies, and for changes in Canada’s foreign policy in the Middle East.

The Harper government’s now lengthy record of silencing – or attempting to silence – its critics also includes the removal of heads of government agencies, commissions, and tribunals who insist on making independent decisions. Academics who have spoken against government actions or policies have also been targeted.

This blatant suppression of basic human rights by a government constitutionally responsible for guaranteeing their expression is unprecedented in Canada’s history.

Journalists following Mr. Harper on the campaign trail were at first miffed that the former occupant of the PMO would not answer more than four or five carefully selected questions at press conferences. Near the beginning of the campaign, a reporter had the audacity to pose the question: “Why do you refuse to take questions?” Mr. Harper, of course, refused to acknowledge the question, asking, “Are there any questions?” When the reporter repeated the question, Mr. Harper ignored him.

Perhaps we were to understand from Mr. Harper’s rhetorical response an openness to questions, but his refusal to that point to address more than four or five questions was a well-established, repeatedly demonstrated fact.

Mr. Harper, to an extent unprecedented in previous governments—even Mr. Mulroney’s Conservative government, has been bent on muffling any communication that does not align perfectly with his vision of a free-market, diversity-poor Canada bent on destroying Aboriginal and women’s rights.

We already know the sorry mess caused by free-market individualism. The free market has created the most dangerous disparity between rich and poor ever witnessed in history. If you are unfortunate enough to visit a large American city, you run a fifteen-fold increased chance of premature death at the business end of a handgun compared to your odds in a comparably sized Canadian city. If you are stupid enough to visit Detroit, St. Louis, Washington D. C., or the south side of Chicago after sunset, your odds of violent death increase as much as 2100 percent, giving you a 315-fold higher chance of becoming a fatality. The “land of the free” incarcerates nearly one percent of its population—6.4 times the rate of incarceration in Canada. If we include people on probation or on parole from prison, over 3.5 percent of the American population is held in one way or another by the criminal justice system.

There is no freedom in Mr. Harper’s unwholesome form of governance. The muzzling of voices that should be heard, the arrogance at press conferences, and the elimination of diversity are the price Canada will pay should it decide to elect a Conservative majority. The price is too high, for the real cost is the destruction of those good and solid features of the social mosaic that define Canada as a tolerant and healthy civilisation. Don’t give the Conservatives a majority.

PM
April 23, 2011

A Vote for Cultural Identity

2011-04-21T07:00:00.000-07:00

Imagine a crime drama in which putting the bad guys in jail is secondary to the theme of human dignity. Imagine television and radio programs that do not extol unbridled individualism as the highest expression of human identity. Imagine a culture that reveres diversity, dignity, and community as core constituents of the common good. Now imagine the expression of such a culture forever removed from the human consciousness.

The Alliance of Canadian Cinema Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA) today delivered its report on the five major political parties’ response to their eight-question query. The New Democratic Party provided detailed answers to each question and pledged its support of Canadian Arts. The Liberal Party of Canada and the Green Party of Canada likewise provided answers, but were not quite as bullish in their support of Canadian Arts. One of the major parties did not bother to respond at all: The Conservative Party of Canada.

It is rare in political campaigns for a party organisation to forego any opportunity to get the message out. Regardless of the obscurity of the group or their cause, political candidates and their staff make time to address the group’s concerns. A decision might be made to remain silent if the group were politically extreme, or if the cause were too controversial. The only other reason to remain silent was a matter of triage: the least important groups would be addressed last, or not at all.

Canadian Artists are neither politically extreme nor do they support controversial causes. The value of Canadian culture is not an unthinkably strange position. The most obvious reason for the Conservative Party’s silence regarding the ACTRA query is easily understood. The Conservative Party can’t be bothered with anything as unimportant as Canadian culture. The Conservative Party made quite clear its vision of the future. There is no room in Stephen Harper’s dreams for a Canada that includes dramatic presentations of unique Canadian culture and art. If the people of Canada want to watch television or radio, why, there’s a premium supplier of high quality art just south of the border. Canadians can tune into Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. They can watch the unbiased reporting on Fox News. They can read Ann Coulter. Who wants to watch Canadian actors, anyway?

A civilisation is known by its fruits. One of the most obvious of those fruits is the way in which it wishes to represent itself to the world in its artistic creations. Canadian ideology and its expression in the arts, in its emphasis on maintenance of the common good, is unique to the world. I cannot imagine a politician taking a position that Canadian Arts carry such little importance that they are not worthy of substantial government support. I remain undecided regarding support for the NDP or the Liberal Party. But I can urge everyone reading this, if you believe Canadian culture is worthy of expression, to consider voting for any candidate in your riding other than the Conservative Party candidate. I support Canadian culture, and I cannot imagine ever doing otherwise.

PM
April 21, 2011

Fiscal Anticonservatism

2011-04-19T01:58:00.000-07:00

Call me conservative.

I listen to classical, baroque, renaissance, and ancient music, not rock and roll. I do not use coarse, abrasive, or profane language, and I tend to congregate with people who likewise prefer not to lace their utterances with four-letter words. Our sixteen-year-old son has a strict weekday curfew: in the house by 9:00 in the evening, lights out by 10:00 p.m. I enjoy the routines of my life, and I am often averse to change.

Conservatism is “The disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.” It finds greatest emphasis in “placing value in established institutions, and subjugating individual freedom to order, rank, security, and the good of the community.” If this were the only definition of conservatism, I would be recognised as one of the leading proponents and practitioners of this philosophy of life. The primary definition I quoted is the first one listed in the unabridged Webster dictionary. The second is drawn from the Canadian Oxford. A person dedicated to the principles of conservatism would derive greatest satisfaction from governmental systems that preserved social order and provided for the common good. This is traditional conservatism, and I am a staunch advocate of this common-sense preservation of society.

There is no place in civilised society for anarchists bent on destroying the social order. There is no place in civilised society for Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, or any other organisation dedicated to the killing or enslavement of people, or the creation of discriminatory structures based on race, ethnicity, religious belief, gender, physical disability, or sexual orientation. In fact, freedom to engage in any of these uncivilised activities is no freedom at all, but slavery. The signature I use at Critique Circle, one of the writing organisations I patronise, expresses my philosophy in seven words: “Civilisation is incompatible with indiscriminate personal autonomy.” Civilised society is worth defending. If we do not preserve, protect, defend, and provide for the common good, we do not live up to the minimum standard by which we can be judged to have expressed our identity as human beings.

There is a more modern definition of conservatism, though. This one is taken from the Canadian Oxford dictionary: “Any of several political philosophies, esp. one... promoting individualism and non-intervention by the state.” This definition is also from the Canadian Oxford, and it certainly expresses a confusing and typically modern view of conservatism. Individualism is the supreme good. In this view of life, the state, or any organisation that reduces personal freedom in any way, is seen as a barrier to fullest expression of individualism. Even if a change tends to promote social disintegration, such a change is to be favoured above any social commitments that reduce or tend to obstruct personal freedom.

One of the greatest personal freedoms is the decision regarding allocation of personal property and wealth. If I do not wish to support the common good, I should not be obliged to do so. Taxes, in the eyes of the modern conservative—the American individualist or Libertarian—are the supreme negation of personal autonomy because these governmental mandates force me to allocate my wealth to projects I may not wish to support. Why should I pay for someone else’s children’s education when I have no children? Why should I pay for someone else’s dental care when I brush and floss and have no dental bills? If I pay for some fat slob’s heart and blood pressure medication all I’m doing is supporting an unhealthy lifestyle that’s going to end up killing the guy anyway; it’s money wasted, and I prefer to spend my money on things that matter, thank you very much.

Individualism, modern conservatives believe, is in fact the supreme expression of the common good. Any good thing we might wish to have will naturally flow out of a primary concern for the self, not for society. If jobs, for instance, are a good that society esteems, jobs will be created most effectively in a society that places no restrictions on individuals. Look at it this way, conservatives tell us: If a factory owner has a choice between paying twenty percent of profits in taxes or using twenty percent of profits to hire more employees, she’s going to prefer to hire more employees. Lower taxes lead to increased surplus capital, and surplus capital is turned into more labour to crank out more widgets at the factory. More jobs means more people buying widgets, factory workers are paid more to produce widgets faster, more people are hired to meet rising demand for widgets, and thus begins an ever-upward spiral toward prosperity.

Thirty years ago, this philosophy of rewarding the wealthy by reducing their tax burden relative to others was called “trickle-down economics.” Reward the wealthiest, most industrious members of society and the benefit would trickle down to us ordinary folk in the form of higher wages, more jobs, and greater prosperity for all.

History, of course, records that something very different occurred. Deregulation of the savings and loan industry, without a concurrent removal of loan guarantees, led to sustained and high-level gaming of the system, especially in the real estate market, where speculators built grand corporate meeting emporiums that were never rented and shopping malls that never attracted customers. This was an excellent investment, since the speculators owned more property, and when they received loans through savings and loan institutions, their loans were guaranteed by the United States government, and therefore they lost no money on their poorly researched investments. Ordinary people paid for their mistakes—or, in most cases, their deliberate gaming of the system. The stock market crash of 1987 was a direct result of deregulation, corporate greed, and significantly lower corporate income taxes. The debt of the United States, which had slowly increased to one trillion dollars from George Washington through Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt all the way up to Jimmy Carter, was tripled to three trillion dollars by the time Ronald Reagan left office in 1989. In eight years he had inflicted three times as much fiscal damage on the country than all previous administrations combined. This was accomplished by decreasing the amount of corporate and individual income tax collected to support government programs.

The most destructive legacy of the Reagan years was the retooling of the entire U.S. economy toward service companies and away from manufacturing. Manufacturing was discouraged since it was expensive. If a factory had to be built, a strong preference was made, and tax incentives were created, for building the factory overseas or in Mexico or in any other country where labour was cheap and plentiful. The same trend has applied all over North America. Lower taxes are used to move labour overseas. This leads to higher unemployment.

These are historical facts.

Modern-day conservatives recognise they face a tough sell when it comes to lowering taxes. They try to appeal to both the greedy, selfish, modern-day conservatives, as well as the traditional conservatives. “If you lower my taxes,” they tell us, “I’ll hire more workers at my factory.” Selfish conservatives like this, because they have more money to spend and less to pay in taxes. Traditional conservatives like this, because they recognise the benefit to society in creating more jobs.

But then we run into those nasty historical facts, and the unavoidable repetition of historical events. If you give a selfish person more money, she’s just going to try to use that money to earn more money, or power, or political influence, or any other resource she can apply to serve her unquenchable whims and lusts. Selfish people don’t care what happens in society, they care only about their individual freedom. As Karen Howlett and Paul Waldie reported in today’s Globe and Mail, lower taxes in Canada have not led to job creation. Lower taxes have led to more unemployment, more jobs in overseas sweatshops, and decreased spending on Canadian infrastructure. Basically, lower taxes lead to a multi-tiered destruction of Canadian society. Howlett and Waldie take specific examples of Western Glove Works, which used to operate a factory in Winnipeg. Now the Silver denim jeans line is manufactured in Asia, and those who used to make jeans on the production floor are working at Tim Hortons or at any of the other fine service establishments that pay a fraction of what they earned making jeans.

Nowadays, if you are a traditional conservative, you vote NDP or Liberal. Voting Conservative is the surest way of destroying the society that our parents and grandparents fought to preserve—some of them literally with their very lives. Some of my relatives are buried in graves in France, because they did not wish to see Hitler and Mussolini destroy civilisation. Selfish conservatives—the modern-day anarchists and Nazis who would preserve their wealth and power while deliberately destroying social order and the common good—are much more effective in their destruction of civilisation than Hitler and Mussolini ever could have been. They are finding among us more and more people willing to believe in the good to be derived from the selfish abandon to wealth, power, and lust.

I remain a traditional conservative. And if I could vote, I would exercise that privilege in voting for either of the parties that have consistently supported traditional conservative values: the NDP and the Liberal Party of Canada. And just as I have never, ever voted for a Republican, I would never, as long as I draw breath, vote for a candidate of the Conservative Party of Canada.

PM
April 19, 2011

David Suzuki's Legacy

2011-04-17T09:20:00.000-07:00

You came at the right time, Dr. Suzuki. You had greater influence than you know. If not for you, environmental awareness would be negligible, and even Canada would not be such a nice place to live.

You were born between the generations—between the Greatest Generation and the Baby Boomers. You seemed to adopt the Baby Boomers’ stance for a time. Peace, Love, and Rock-and-Roll apparently fit you well, but this was a superficial assessment. You never abided by the hypocritical terms of the Baby Boomers. What we saw as Peace, Love, and Rock-and-Roll was actually Justice, Harmony, and Reconciliation with Nature. There was nothing superficial about you. Born between two generations, you had a choice: The narrow but authentic humanity of your parents, or the hypocrisy and artificiality of your younger sisters and brothers. You chose a third path: Authentic humanity guided by a refusal to wear the blinders that had led your parents and their bigoted white sisters and brothers into their generation’s biggest mistake: the forced relocation of tens of thousands of innocent people into internment camps.

You were a victim of your parents’ generation’s narrow-mindedness, but you never displayed bitterness. This must have been the result of parents whose foresight and care outstripped their desire for retribution. Their understanding of justice must have included dimensions of thought unknown to most of us, and entirely alien to the self-absorbed Baby Boomers. You accepted those notions of justice and fashioned an harmonious and beautiful notion of humankind’s proper place in this universe, and in 1979 you began teaching the world.

It was the right time. The Baby Boomers were just starting to discover country-western music and MBAs and tax shelters. They were only a year away from electing into office the world leader who did more to eviscerate pollution controls than any person before or since. These snot-nosed children, living off their parents’ hard work, saw life as an endless disco dance oriented toward self-gratification. There was probably no reasonable means of changing their attitudes. But their children... PBS was the most trusted babysitter in the United States. Young parents knew they could put their toddlers in front of the television and free themselves from the awful chore of parenting. What they didn’t know is that a man of substance and authentic humanity was teaching their children every day on a version of The Nature of Things that was no longer oriented toward goofy, clunky experiments. Now, with this curly-haired, soft-spoken yet forceful and energetic man leading the show, the entire flavour of the series changed. This was no longer science for the sake of science, but science with a purpose, a message. The message was all about responsibility, and it was delivered with eloquence, energy, and equanimity. The toddlers and young children soaking in your message learned me-first from their parents. From you they learned a cheerful, robust sense of themselves as connected to every other human being and every other plant and animal in the world.

You came at the right time. Your joyous message of justice, harmony, and reconciliation with nature arrived at a dark time that would otherwise have consumed another generation, and pushed the planet onto an accelerated path of destruction. It is because of you, and people like you, Dr. Suzuki, that your grandchildren—and the forests and schools of fish to which they are intimately connected—have a chance of surviving and perhaps even restoring the health of the world. Seven years ago, you were called The Greatest Canadian. Perhaps it is an embarrassment to a humble man. But it is a title bestowed in recognition of the tremendous difference you have made in millions of lives, and the difference you made to the planet that is our home.

PM
April 17, 2011

Tax Day

2011-04-15T07:59:00.000-07:00

Eleven years ago I received a job offer from a company in Edmonton, Alberta. Due to the unique circumstances of the offer, I was obliged to decline. The passage of time since then has not dulled the angst I feel over having had to render such a decision. Edmonton is one of my favourite cities, and I have many connections there--friends, school (I attended the U of A), business associates. If I had been able to accept I would have been a Canadian citizen by now, and that knowledge hurts more than anything else about the sad particulars of the long-ago choice I had to make.

When I received the offer I was of course elated, and I went about the business of determining exactly what I would have to do in moving across the border. One of the things I investigated was taxation. At the time, Alberta had no provincial income tax, but I wanted to know what I would have been paying in Canadian federal tax, given the agreed-upon salary with the company in Edmonton and reasonable assumptions about my personal situation once I had moved. I purchased tax software at Zellers and did my analysis. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that the federal tax was not as high as I had imagined, but the tax remained significantly higher than anything I had been paying in the states. After exemptions and deductions I don't believe I've ever had to pay more than 10% of my gross income in taxes; my tax burden in Edmonton would have been about twice that level.

The short article in today's Globe and Mail was enlightening (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/tax-centre/do-canadians-really-pay-more-taxes-than-americans/article1981740/). Angie Mohr wrote a very thoughtful analysis of tax structures in both countries and concluded that no blanket statement could be made regarding comparative tax burden between the two countries. Because of deductions and exemptions tailored to specific sub-groups of taxpayers on both sides of the border, it was simply not possible to make sweeping statements without looking at clusters of factors that would render the analysis virtually impossible to follow. She did provide enough information, though, for a bonehead like me to figure out that the comparative level of taxation is much closer than I had imagined. For instance, the fact that my taxes would have doubled in Alberta relative to what I was paying in Colorado was due to two factors that likely would not have existed once I moved to Alberta. On top of that, I was not factoring in the $3600 I had paid in medical fees in Colorado--most of which I would not have had to pay in Alberta, thanks to Canadian Medicare. Factoring in medical costs and eliminating the two other extenuating factors, the out-of-pocket cost of living in Alberta and Colorado would have been about the same.

Even in the face of what I then considered higher taxes, I was more than ready to move. Frankly, even if the tax burden had been four times higher, I would have been anxious to move. Higher taxes mean less disposable income. But life has so very little to do with what I can purchase, and so very much to do with who I am and the person I would like to be. Being a selfish, money-hoarding person is not on my list of favoured life outcomes.

PM
April 15, 2011

Contempt of Parliament

2011-04-12T06:55:00.001-07:00

Maybe they figured nobody would know that Huntsville, Ontario does not share a border with the United States. Maybe they thought the citizens of Ontario wouldn’t care. When the Conservative government informed Parliament that fifty million dollars had been spent on border crossing improvements in Huntsville, which only coincidentally is in one of the most conservative ridings in Ontario, maybe they figured no one would question the allocation of such a small sum of money.

First, the basic geography.

Huntsville, it turns out, is hundreds of kilometres from the nearest border crossing, and pretty much on the periphery of the heavily populated portion of Ontario. It would be difficult indeed to find a reasonably populated location in Ontario farther from a border crossing than Huntsville, Ontario.

“Wait a minute,” the mayor of Huntsville says. “That fifty million dollars was used to fund infrastructure improvements for the G8 Conference. The money was accidentally taken from the wrong pot. Who cares? The money would have been spent on the G8 Conference anyway. World leaders had to relieve their bladders somewhere, so we built rest rooms. There was no conspiracy to mislead Parliament.”

Fair enough. So, then, the upgrades at a senior citizens’ centre, paid from money earmarked for border crossing improvements, were put in place for the use of President Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron? I guess we can concede that possibility—even though Barack Obama was 48 years old in 2010, and David Cameron was 44—nowhere near retirement age, even in Ontario. But the larger difficulty here is that the senior centre isn’t even close to the place where the world leaders met—it is several kilometres away. We still might envision a plausible scenario in which fleets of ambulances—fitted with bulletproof glass, of course—were deployed to whisk away those coffee-drinking world leaders to the senior centre across town so they might relieve themselves in privacy. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that anything like this occurred. There were plenty of rest room facilities on-site. Money legitimately allocated to the G8 Conference was spent on the few infrastructure improvements that even the most pampered world leaders found necessary or acceptable.

Several Huntsville projects, in fact, were funded out of money designated for border crossing improvements, and justified as infrastructure improvements required for the comfort and safety of G8 Conference participants. Only a few of the improvements were made anywhere near the conference location; the largest projects were for facilities far away from the site.

Even an open-minded outside observer would be forced to conclude the money was wilfully misallocated. The only question remaining is whether the Conservative government intended to mislead Parliament, or were they merely demonstrating unfortunate but forgivable incompetence? Mr. Harper and his gang have never been considered among the sharper knives in the drawer. Maybe the Cow Town Posse just doesn’t get out all that much. Is it reasonable to expect that a bunch of cowboys from Alberta should have a grasp of Ontario geography?

Pork barrel spending is as old as politics. Party leaders have to be able to count on at least a few ridings that will reliably vote for the candidate of their party, no matter who they put up for election. Muskoka is a solidly conservative riding, but Conservative leaders cannot count on fickle Ontario, which has turned this way and that, sometimes with the political winds, sometimes against. They needed to establish a few key ridings, and Muskoka, away from the unpredictable, competing political difficulties of metropolises like Toronto, was a good place to spend a little insurance money—collected from the citizens of British Columbia, Manitoba, and Newfoundland. Why not? A good number of them voted Conservative in the last election. Will they care that Harper’s gang may have lied to Parliament?

The Auditor-General says she cannot release her report of findings on possible G8 mismanagement. She cannot comment on the possibility that the Harper Government misled Parliament. All of that will have to wait until the next government is formed, which will not occur until after the May 2 elections. While this may create a temporary convenience for the Conservatives, one has to wonder what the effect will be on MPs once the full truth comes out in the Auditor-General’s report. Pressured by irate constituents, demanding that Conservatives face natural consequences for their contempt, will MPs long be able to resist the will of the people? It could be a short but interesting summer. Labour Day elections, anyone?

PM
April 12, 2011

Sam’s Unholy Political War

2011-04-10T06:18:00.001-07:00

Unless you live in Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, or Wisconsin, you cannot hear the chanting. That’s because of the noisy sideshow going on in Washington, D.C. Even good reporters, like the Globe and Mail’s Konrad Yakabuski, believe the sideshow is the main attraction. The true centre of American politics, he’s been told, is the “culture war” fueled by the tea party’s hidden conservative social agenda. The tea party, Yakabuski tells us, claims to promote fiscal conservatism as its sole agenda item, when in fact it is using the budget battle as a ruse, allowing it to ram through Congress a socially conservative agenda, led by an attempt to defund non-profit agencies that offer abortion services. This was the gist of Mr. Yakabuski’s article yesterday. I have to disagree with his report. The main attraction is not the tea party in Washington. The real news—which even the Globe and Mail is not covering—is the attempt to forever destroy the political underpinnings of the United States. The war is cultural, but it is most of all economic and political. That is what people—good people—are chanting about, and trying to bring to our attention, in Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Wisconsin. But no one, except Rachel Maddow’s and Michael Moore’s followers, is listening.

The particulars of the budget debate have no relevance to anything that is actually transpiring. Evil beasts have clamped their iron jaws around the necks of Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio, cutting off the jugular. The purpose of the noise in Washington is to divert attention from the beasts in the Midwest, to give them enough time to force the states to pass out from suffocation. At some point, the unsavory Obergruppenführers leading this unholy war know the people of Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio will lose patience, vacation time, and resolve, go home, and allow the beasts to consume the dead carcasses of their once noble states. The evil that spreads across the Midwest is the devilish attempt to destroy the Democratic Party, and any progressive organization that has the ability to organize and raise money. It is a coup d’état, in progress.

The war began on January 21, 2010. It was on that day that the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that regulating corporate campaign contributions constituted illegal restraint of free speech. Private entities of any kind in the United States are now free to spend without limit to support candidates and political causes. The ruling was surprising to most court watchers because it constituted a 180-degree turn from previous rulings over several decades. The common wisdom of the 20^th century, reflected in one court decision after another, was that free speech would be harmed if wealthy and powerful corporations could control political debate by purchasing advertising space that might have been allocated to opposing political views. Thanks to the present ruling, you can turn on the radio or the television and hear a constant barrage of conservative political advertisements in the days before an election. You will not hear liberal or Democratic political advertisements because all of the air time has been purchased by the better-funded conservative candidates. This monopolization of the public forum by conservative voices now has the official blessing of the United States Government.

Only one cluster of entities has any ability to stand in the way of the complete control of all advertising media. Killing these organizations is what this unholy war is all about. It’s what the people are chanting about in Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio. The only entities that have the power to afford expensive political advertising are the unions. Conservative legislatures and governors in Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio have passed laws or are attempting to pass laws that take away the long-held right of public workers to engage in collective bargaining. In effect, these legislatures are removing unions’ primary reason for existence. Without collective bargaining, there are no unions. More importantly to the Obergruppenführers and their evil ditto-head tea party followers, once the unions are destroyed there will be no liberal-leaning organizations remaining that can prevent social and fiscal conservatives from ruling the airwaves in the United States. Henceforth, only the conservative message will be heard in the United States. It is a coup d’état, but only those who cannot afford food or health care coverage will die. The rich and powerful will suffer only a small loss in wealth to pay for the political advertising that will ensure their selfish existence.

It is a cultural, political, economic war led by capitalists and other selfish people, including the heretics who falsely call themselves conservative Christians. Those who seek to hoard mammon are not Christians at all. They are the most vile of heretics, blasphemers, and unholy filth. They would have you believe that their selfishness is somehow validated in their King James and NIV Bibles. Deep down, some of them actually believe that in worshiping money they are actually showing “stewardship” and following the commandments of Christ. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anyone who believes the Gospel says poor people should die due to lack of food, clothing, shelter, or medical care is delusional. Anyone who preaches this from the pulpit or talks about it in books or on radio or television is a heretic and is preaching blasphemy. And anyone who cultivates any such lifestyle is going to burn forever in hell.

The Gospel is about sharing with those in need, loving thy neighbor as thyself, giving food to the hungry, clothing to the naked, shelter to the homeless, hope to those in prison. It’s never been about selfish hoarding of money. You can only serve one master: God or mammon. Those who deny their neighbors’ needs are serving mammon. Their selfishness should be rendered illegal. Their selfishness cannot exist in a truly civilized environment, because selfishness is antithetical to the very foundations of civilization. Their selfishness does not exist in heaven, because heaven is the place where all are cared for. That is to say, people such as these cannot exist in heaven. By their own choice they will burn in hell. They took Pascal’s Wager, decided there was no God (no law of the universe that says people need to be treated as the Image of God), and decided to live a life of hedonistic abandon.

The chanting coming out of Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio is the song of those who stand to lose their medical insurance, and therefore their homes and their livelihoods, if the Obergruppenführers and other brutes and conservative thugs get their way. Once the conservative agenda is promulgated into law, once every branch of government is forever in the hands of the Obergruppenführers and their ilk, only the poor will pay taxes. Nowadays we call it sales tax. Someone has to pay for roads and the military. A 15% tax on food will take care of that. Income tax? No such thing. The government will still have something called income tax, but its sole purpose will be to refund to the wealthy the small amount of sales tax they had to pay. Some way will be found to discriminate between rich and poor. Perhaps a monthly purchase of champagne or caviar will trigger a sales tax refund. It will be something interesting and creative. Medical insurance? Sure, but only if you can pay several times more than you’re paying now. Pre-existing conditions? If you can afford to pay $25,000 a year the pre-existing conditions clauses will be removed from every contract. And if you can’t afford that? Well, before you die of the cancer that is ravaging your body, you’ll need to legally disown your children. Otherwise, after you die of the disease that doctors refused to treat because you could not pay, the Obergruppenführers’ debt collectors will force your children to pay, long after your body has been rotting in its grave.

This is the ugliest war ever fought in the United States. I join my voice to those chanting. Take away my collective bargaining rights. Take away my voice from the airwaves. Take away my medical insurance. Take away my home, my job, my way of life. But you cannot take away what I believe, even if you manage to kill me. I believe every person on this Earth has a right to live, a right to food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and education. And even if you oppose me, even if you assert the truth of every blasphemous lie, even if you spit in the face of Christ and laugh at Him and nail Him to the cross, I continue to believe that there is some bit of the divine hidden behind your evil, that somewhere inside you carry the divine spark, that you can, if you allow yourself, show compassion to your neighbor. Whether we like it or not, all of us are the very Image of God. I embrace that truth. That’s why I’m chanting. You may take away everything from me, but you will not win. My children and my neighbor’s children will have to be destroyed, too, if you wish to rule the world. Eventually you will lose. Eventually God will prevail against you and the other Obergruppenführers. And our chanting will fill the airwaves.

PM
April 10, 2011

Announcing CARTIER'S RING

2011-04-08T07:22:00.001-07:00

A new novel by Pearson Moore

Author Pearson Moore, best known for his essays and books on LOST, today released his first novel, "Cartier's Ring," the compelling tale of the birth of Canada.

Cartier's Ring

A red snake coils its body around a young woman's leg. She looks in horror as the red scales fall away, and underneath the snake is black. Iroku—a black snake—the sign of her mortal enemy, the Iroquois.

It is Myeerah's dream, the dream of an eleven-year-old girl. It is the dream that will found three great nations. It is the beginning of the land we call Canada.

Cartier's Ring

She is healer, hunter, warrior. Her strength will inspire generations. Her courage will found a nation. Experience history as never before. See the birth of Canada through the eyes of the woman who lived and breathed it: Myeerah of Hawk Clan, Matriarch of the Wendat Nations, Mother of Canada.

"Only men have dreams such as this, not girls. Not the daughter of a slave." So begins an adventure that will span eight decades across two continents and dozens of historical figures. From swashbuckling pirates on the high seas to the slave traders of Mexico, to the genocidal wars of North America, Pearson Moore engages from the very first page, using a vibrant prose style that captivates the imagination, and the heart.

Twelve years of intensive research went into building the rich historical background for Cartier's Ring, including dozens of trips to Québec, Montréal, Upstate New York, and Midland, Ontario. But it is the emotional depth of Myeerah's story that brings the novel to life. You will feel her pain as she is beaten and enslaved, touch her tear-streaked face as she witnesses the ritual torture and execution of her brother, share in her joy as she overcomes deprivation and starvation, and stand up and cheer when she vanquishes her enemies.

Using rarely-deployed but deeply effective narrative devices, Moore immerses you in a strange world that is attractive in its humanity and intriguing in its statements about our common heritage and destiny. This novel is unabashed in its proclamation of feminine strength, courage, and tenacity. It is a rich and powerful testament to the ideals that founded a nation, and the indefatigable will of the women and men who shared a common vision. Most of all, this is Pearson Moore's tribute to a country and a philosophy of life; his passion is evident on every page.

Cartier's Ring is that rare creation that will change the way you think about the world, about your own country, and most of all, about the country that is the starting point and the focus of every word in this novel: Canada.

Cartier's Ring is the first novel of writer Pearson Moore. Relayed from the point of view of a young Aboriginal girl, Cartier's Ring tells the story of Jacques Cartier's first contact with the summer fishing camp on the shores of the Atlantic, his first winter in Stadacona, the later explorers who came for furs, fish, and treasure, and the arrival of the man who would found Québec, Samuel de Champlain—all of these events, as they happened, through the eyes of a girl who becomes hunter, warrior, matriarch, and leader of a great nation.

Do you own a computer?
If so, you can read Cartier's Ring

No Kindle device is required. All you need is the FREE software available from Amazon.
Download the free software for PC, Mac, iPhone, iPad, Windows Phone, or Blackberry
Download the free software (2 minutes), install (2 minutes), and in less than four minutes you can read any Kindle ebook.

Purchase "Cartier's Ring"

Read the first chapter of "Cartier's Ring"

Courage, Strength, Freedom

2011-04-07T04:01:00.000-07:00

Cartier's Ring Wallpaper

featuring Myeerah of Hawk Clan by Peter Ortiz

Cartier's Ring Wallpaper Wide Screen 1440 x 900

Cartier's Ring Wallpaper Wide Screen 1680 x 1050

Cartier's Ring Wallpaper Normal Screen 1024 x 768

Cartier's Ring Wallpaper Normal Screen 1152 x 864

Cartier's Ring Wallpaper Large Screen 1600 x 1200

Cartier's Ring, the Tale of Toengenseek

Cartier's Ring, The Hunting Song

Going Gentle into That Good Economic Ruin

2011-04-06T06:57:00.000-07:00

The noisy neighbour—Sam—the one whose caprices control 85 percent of the Canadian economy—decided several decades ago to commit slow suicide. He is more overweight than our distant neighbours in Europe and Asia. He says he believes in “freedom,” but he incarcerates more of his brothers, on a per capita basis, than anyone else on the planet. He derives perverse pleasure from the maintenance of government-funded death squads (he calls it capital punishment), especially in the southern states. “Freedom,” for Sam, more than anything, means freedom to kill each other. Handgun violence is rampant because it is protected and enshrined as an American ideal by the country’s antiquated, ill-functioning 18^th century constitution.

But the most suicidal aspect of Uncle Sam’s confused (some would say hypocritical) mindset has been his insistence on a relentless drive toward economic ruin. Sam is hell-bent on destroying himself, and his desire to kill himself is most evident in the deliberately destructive running of his economy.

Several decades ago, Sam decided the workers in his factories were being rewarded for their industry at too high a rate of compensation. That they were by far the most productive workers in the world was of no consequence to Sam. He knew only that factory owners would become much richer if cheaper labour could be found. So Sam went about noisily insisting on globalisation, which in Sam’s view consisted of a factory owner’s right to build manufacturing facilities in the poorest countries in the world so that he could use plentiful and cheap labour to reduce operating costs. Sam’s plan worked as envisioned, with wealth and power flowing to only a few of the country’s richest individuals and everyone else growing poorer. People who used to make cars or steel or computers for 35 dollars an hour on the production floor were now earning seven dollars an hour flipping hamburgers and cleaning toilets at McDonalds.

One economic fact of life is certain for Canada: Uncle Sam is going to be purchasing fewer and fewer of the country’s goods and services because Sam is driving himself into poverty and ruin. The new economic and military masters of the universe will be located for a time in Asia. Sam’s reign as leading economic power began after World War I but has been in slow decline for the last forty-two years, since the Nixon Administration. Sam, due to irrevocable choices he made over the last forty years, has no economic future.

Canada has tied its economic fate to that of Uncle Sam. Since long before World War II, Canada has been the breadbasket and construction materials (i.e., forestry products) one-stop shopping centre for the United States. After World War II, Canada became the first foreign sweatshop for the United States, a kind of testing ground for the destructive principles of globalisation.

It’s time for us to realise Canada does not have to go gentle into economic ruin with its fat, disease-ridden neighbour. Canada can look to its healthy past for viable answers. Sir John A. had some excellent ideas, among them the National Policy. Why not Canada first? Why not build an economy independent of what we now know to be the failure and downright evil of the so-called “free market”?

The National Policy is not the only uniquely Canadian idea gaining currency. The Federation of Québec Maple Syrup Producers—an organisation that would probably sound terribly socialistic to Sam’s ears if he knew of its existence (but let’s not bother him, especially while he’s watching “American Idol” and Glenn Beck), has taken a step in the right direction.

As the Globe and Mail noted this morning, consumers in the United States are purchasing increasingly less maple syrup. In fact, consumption is down 15 percent just in the last year. The Québec producers realised Sam is not the only consumer with a sweet tooth. Sam has long been stuck on high-fructose corn syrup for the soda pop he enjoys (and that has contributed to his obesity, heart disease, and propensity toward dozens of other maladies). It only makes sense that our healthier neighbours in Europe and Asia would be interested in consuming a much healthier sweet snack.

The Federation of Québec Maple Syrup Producers is stockpiling maple syrup—and lots of it. In two storage facilities near Plessisville and Québec City, the FQMSP is maintaining what they call the International Strategic Reserve of maple syrup. It sits, waiting, while Québec marketers storm Asia in a multi-lingual advertising blitz. Maple syrup: It’s not just for breakfast anymore. And it’s not just for Uncle Sam anymore, either.

The FQMSP has an idea whose time has come. It is time for Canada to move on. Uncle Sam has made his choice. Soon enough, he’s going to be a wheezing, morbidly obese old man, propped up by the Asian and European holders of his massive debt. But his time on economic life support is soon coming to an end. He’s going to be going into cardiac arrest soon, and though we may mourn his occasional smile and can-do attitude, his time is over. It’s time for Canada to move on, into a healthier world. The FQMSP is leading the way. Let’s follow their example.

PM
April 6, 2011

The Direction of Our Moral Compass

2011-04-05T05:59:00.000-07:00

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." –Mahatma Ghandi

Its crime rate is ten-fold higher than the rest of the country. Its citizens suffer more alcoholism, child abuse, suicide, sexual abuse, depression, and serious crime than any people on earth. Thirty-two thousand people occupy the largest territory in Canada. But Nunavut is not just the largest and most northerly part of Canada. If our moral compass points north, Nunavut is True North, and it reveals the extent to which we honour the commitments of a Just Society.

The Globe and Mail is running an excellent series called “The Trials of Nunavut.” I hope everyone I know will take the time to read this series of articles, videos, and slide presentations. It is a beautifully composed but heartbreaking series discussing the deep social problems facing the people of this most northern land.

I cannot think of a set of remedies for the deep and open wounds in this suffering land. I cannot even devise a meaningful hypothesis to account for the origins of the crime, pain, violence, and social ill that have gripped the territory. I suspect the nature and extent of the problems require the skills and expertise of far more people than have so far been allocated to any serious consideration of solutions.

My father campaigned for Hubert Humphrey. In my youth in Minnesota, I understood him to represent that which is good in all of us. When the Liberals form a government in Canada, the Throne Speech often quotes this founder of Minnesota’s Democrat Farmer-Labor (DFL) Party. Humphrey said, “The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.”

The feeling among leaders of Nunavut’s government that scant attention and resources are being given to this northern land finds deep resonance in my thoughts. I don’t know how we might find solutions. But I do know this: The depth of our concern about Nunavut, and the extent to which we honour that concern with our actions and through our political leadership, is a test of our character as human beings. I am going to be listening carefully over the next four weeks to discern the major candidates' thoughts and proposals for addressing the needs of Nunavut. What I would really like to see is some honest expression of compassion from anyone in the four major parties. When we find compassion in our hearts, we will inevitably find solutions. And when we find solutions, we will have reoriented our compass to True North.

PM
April 5, 2011

Forward to Trudeauville

2011-04-04T10:52:00.000-07:00

John Ibbitson wrote a piece yesterday titled “With New Platform, Liberals Chart Course Back to Trudeauville.” I don’t know that Michael Ignatieff is going “back” anywhere, but I am glad to see the Liberal Party’s renewed emphasis on education, child care, and the environment.

The Liberal plan calls for fairness in taxation. It’s hard to know how to structure a system of taxation in such a way that it is truly fair. However, it is not difficult to discern the feelings of those who are taxed. Wealthy individuals south of the 49^th who pay less than five percent of their income in federal tax are most visible and vocal in their complaints that taxes are too high. They pay a small percentage of income in taxes, but to listen to them you would think they inhabited the most socialistic country in the world. “I’m in the 28% tax bracket,” she says, almost in tears. You can feel her pain, and when she says, “Taxes are too high!” you recall your own sense of loss when the government takes money you might have used for your daughter’s braces or new shingles on the roof. Seems like she’s right, you think: Taxes are too high.

We need to separate feelings from reality. I have been solidly in the 28% tax bracket for many years. But I have never paid more than 7% in federal income tax. I’m not cheating. I don’t even reduce the tax as much as I could. In the United States the tax code is brimming with exemptions and deductions and ways to calculate business and personal loss in such a way that taxes can be reduced, often to nothing. Skilled accountants can manipulate the complicated tax code to reduce tax all the way down to zero. The next time you hear someone from south of the 49^th complain about taxes, realise that she is not complaining about high taxes. She wants to pay no tax whatsoever.

Perhaps the fact that wealthy and powerful people pay fewer taxes and at a lower percentage of income and wealth is a good thing after all. Shouldn’t innovation and resourcefulness be rewarded?

Science and society and the free market are limited by an unbreakable rule of economics. The 80/20 Rule has been found true for physical and chemical phenomena as well as for social interactions and product sales. In the realm I inhabit, achieving 80% drug purity requires perhaps 20% effort. Bringing that purity up to the FDA-required 99% requires an army of people to do the work, test purity and efficacy, and confirm purity through checks and audits. Probably about four times as much effort is given to achieve that last 20% of purity compared to the resources required to achieve the first 80% of purity. In industry, 20% of companies control 80% of sales. In the literary world, 20% of authors write 80% of the books anyone is ever going to read.

When I travel, my hotel room is prepared by a woman who earns less than 20% of my annual income. I am served breakfast, lunch, and dinner by waitresses and waiters who earn less than 20% of my salary. The janitors and maintenance people who prepare the boardroom where I will deliver my oral consultant’s report are payed less than 20% of my income. Throughout my work day, I am continually interacting with individuals whose industry is rewarded at less than 20% of my generous salary. Yet they are working long hours, just as I am. Does their hard work carry less value than mine?

The conservative nods. “Yes,” she says, “janitors and housekeepers and waiters are providing non-creative services. You provide a creative service to corporations and this is reflected in your $160 per hour salary.”

Pierre Trudeau shakes his head. “No,” he says, “janitors and housekeepers and waiters are performing work you could not complete on your short schedule. They are the ones who allow you to arrive on time, well-rested and well-fed, to deliver your report. Their time is just as valuable as yours.”

Society cannot easily regulate my salary or the janitor’s hourly rate. But society can oblige me to pay a fair share of taxes. Probably the janitor and the housekeeper should be paying no tax whatever. Their physical labour is sufficient tax. However, someone like me who is coddled and primped and served all day long should pay a significant portion of income in taxes. My income should support the daycare workers who care for the housekeeper’s children, should pay the salary of teachers who educate the janitor’s daughters and sons. I ought to pay a share of costs to build and maintain the roads that brought me safely and quickly to the company who requires my expertise. I should be paying in taxes a higher percentage of my income than someone earning only $50 per hour, and that person should be paying a higher percentage than someone earning $25 per hour. People earning less than $15 per hour should never even receive a tax form.

There was a time when this philosophy was called progressive taxation. Now it’s called “soaking the rich.” But it is the only fair system of taxation. Those who benefit most should pay the most to support the system that allows them to rise to prominence, power, and wealth.

It all comes down to our attitudes about the value of human life. When I am about to check out of my hotel room I first make sure I haven’t left too big a mess. I make sure I haven’t forgotten anything in a drawer or on the nightstand. And then I reach into my pocket and pull out a portrait of John A. MacDonald or Alexander Hamilton, depending on the country I’m in at the time, and place the bill on the pillow. My hotel room set me back $100; is a 10% tip for the housekeeper too much? I don’t think so. And as for attitude: I have yet to assess any gratuity I give as a business expense so that my tax burden can be reduced. The ten dollars I leave the housekeeper or the twenty dollars I leave for the waiter are not tokens of my wealth, to be reimbursed by the government. They are tokens of my gratitude, freely given, because I esteem the good work performed on my behalf, and consider it worthy of my support and recognition. Society is for all of us, and not just for those who believe themselves more worthy. We’re all worthy. Every one of us.

Mr. Ignatieff’s plan is not going back anywhere. It’s taking us to the kind of future we ought to have had long ago. It’s progressive. It’s a good idea. As Trudeau would have said, it is a step in the direction of a Just Society. There could be no better road to the future.

Political Authenticity

2011-04-01T03:54:00.001-07:00

I sit here this morning trying to make sense of Mustafa Rizvi. Unless you’re a resident of Mississauga the name may not be familiar to you. Mr. Rizvi, until quite recently, was an NDP candidate for Parliament from the riding of Mississauga-Erindale. Apparently he woke up one morning and decided he was not a New Democrat, but his true calling was to support the Conservatives.

I read a couple news reports about him, about his third-place finish in the 2008 elections, about his upcoming marriage. Did the impending loss of bachelorhood cause a sudden shift in his political allegiance? I tried to imagine Tommy Douglas waking up one morning and realising he was not really a member of the CCF and he certainly couldn’t help form this new political entity, the New Democratic Party. What could have caused the Premier of Mouseland to suddenly see himself in the role of Black Cat?

Try as I might, I just couldn’t see it happening. Would Tommy Douglas, even on his deathbed, have repudiated the causes for which he so eloquently fought? The Black Cats and the White Cats, as Tommy said, are still cats no matter how you look at them. Cats like to eat mice. Conservatives use labour as fuel for the realignment of power into the hands of the wealthy. That is, human lives are seen as expendible—useful only to the extent that they help enrich the lives of the power elite.

Conservatives understand human beings as having been distributed into two camps: Those who manipulate others to serve their whims, and the stupid, sniveling hordes whose only justification for existence is to serve as expendable slave labour to the manipulators, the creative capitalists—or to use their Randian term—the Atlases of the world. Humanity is not something to which one is born, it is rather something one must earn in the free market. And if fortune does not favour you, this can only mean you don’t possess the requisite backbone or skill or tenacity to call yourself a human being. Into the hopeless pool of the nameless masses with you, then, to serve the Masters of the Universe.

Other than upholding the historical definition of marriage, I cannot think of a single conservative cause that has advanced the cause of human dignity. In the Greatest Canadian competition of 2004 I supported Pierre Trudeau. I felt he had done more than any other Canadian to mould Canada into its present form. In retrospect, perhaps I ought to have cast my vote for Tommy Douglas. Not because Tommy was the ultimate architect of what Canada is, but because he is the best representative of what humanity ought to become.

I cannot say I understand Mr. Rizvi. But I do understand Mr. Douglas. I understand there are dispositions of the soul that admit of no philosophical alternative. My religious tradition tells me that human beings are formed into the very Image of God. In all of creation there is nothing more sacred than human life. Tommy Douglas believed this. What do you believe, Mr. Rizvi?

PM
April 1, 2011

Like Father Like Son

2011-03-31T00:08:00.000-07:00

I remember the strange euphoria of June, 1968. Bobby Kennedy had been assassinated only days before, and two months before, Martin Luther King Jr. had been killed. There were riots in major cities, the Vietnam War was on the news every night, the body count growing, with no end in sight. And then something magical happened toward the end of the month. A man from Montréal—a man whose actions defied definition—appeared on the scene. Though he was balding, everything about him breathed youth and energy and ability. Politicians were not supposed to slide down bannisters or jump fully-clothed into swimming pools just for the fun of it. But here was this gleeful, attractive man who was suddenly Prime Minister of Canada. I was an early admirer of Pierre Elliott Trudeau; I have remained a constant admirer all my life. Four biographies of PET and several volumes of his writings occupy a central position on the bookshelf in my living room.

But what to make of my favourite Prime Minister’s son, Justin? Widely respected in Papineau, he garnered enough support to represent the small but important Québec riding in Parliament. He has gathered something of a following on the internet, and I follow his announcements and activities with interest. He has a fresh style in both oral presentations and written materials.

Others are not so sure about this young Trudeau. “A lightweight,” they say. “Lacks his father’s persona.” With little in the way of academic credentials, and lacking his father’s broad interests in culture, history, and political theory, does young Mr. Trudeau offer Canada anything more than an apparent long-term interest in occupying the Prime Minister’s Office?

I will not presume to say anything about Mr. Trudeau’s political aspirations. But I will say this: I knew Pierre Trudeau, if only from television appearances. I agree with the detractors: Justin Trudeau is no Pierre Trudeau. But as a staunch fan of the man I believe to have been Canada’s greatest Prime Minister, I need to say this: Justin Trudeau is his own man. That he is not his father—and very much unlike his father in so many ways—I believe to be a good thing, and not at all an indication of weakness or inability. On the contrary, Justin Trudeau is the kind of political representative I think most people wish they could offer their votes.

Pierre Trudeau knew he was widely travelled and wise in some ways that most of us ordinary mortals never will be. You just kind of had to accept that about Pierre Trudeau. I admired him not only because he exuded energy but because he was so obviously more capable and devoted to the cause of people than any other political leader of his time. The problem with Pierre was that he knew all of this, too. He knew he was smarter, and he made no bones about it. You might call it arrogance—or at least the insensitivity of a philosopher king. But this was the reality of Pierre Trudeau. He was one of the elite group of great leaders of the 20^th century, and he knew it. The essence of this arrogant strength is captured perfectly in his response to CBC reporter Tim Ralfe’s question on October 13, 1970. “How far will you go?” Ralfe asked. How far would Pierre Trudeau be willing to go in putting down the FLQ? Trudeau’s legendary response: “Just watch me.”

That’s just not Justin. Justin Trudeau does not think, behave, speak, or write in a manner that even his most vocal critic could twist into some form of arrogance. The six-minute impromptu discussion he had with gun registry opponents on Parliament Hill is indicative of Justin Trudeau’s true mettle. He listened. In fact, he listened attentively and patiently, making sure he understood what his questioners were asking, giving rapid-fire responses in both English and French. There was not a hint of Pierre in this active engagement of those opposed to his views. These were the kinds of scenes that forty years ago resulted in Trudeau Senior yelling “Why don’t you go out and get a job!” as he did when addressing unemployed factory workers. After seeing Justin Trudeau in action, in several venues, I just cannot imagine him acting in a manner as insensitive as his father’s often was.

I have to wonder what might have come of October 1970 if Pierre Trudeau had not been so combative. Perhaps his political tactics were the best response to the unknowable extent of FLQ activity. But I tend to think a less combative, less arrogant posture might have helped his cause. I certainly believe that Justin Trudeau, in his willingness and at times eagerness to listen, is the kind of person I would like to have representing me. He is very different from his father in many respects, but he is exactly the same as his father in the one way that matters most: He loves his country and its people, and he is eager to serve in the best way he can.

The residents of Papineau are fortunate indeed to have such a considerate man representing them in Ottawa. I do not know which party I would support to set up the next government. But I do know this: If I were a resident of Papineau, I would be casting my ballot on May 2^nd for no one other than Justin Trudeau.

PM
March 31, 2011

A Fifth Voice for the Fourth Estate

2011-03-30T02:33:00.000-07:00

I didn't realise until this morning that my blog was contributing to an incorrect conceit. Yesterday I implicitly attacked the assumption that voices from the four main political parties could suffice to determine the boundaries of the national dialogue for the coming election. I questioned the value of a campaign debate that elevated the tax on home heating fuel to the fore of our common consciousness and decried the short shrift given to weightier matters, among them the future disposition of arctic lands. While the substance of my argument was valid, the argument itself was rendered impotent by omission. I neglected to include in my analysis an essential fifth voice in the discussion: Green Party Leader Elizabeth May.

I pointed out yesterday that environmental issues, such as the use of arctic lands, cannot be relegated to the periphery of our thoughts. In the arctic, which has received little attention since Pierre Trudeau's government in the early 1980s, we see stark proof that environmental issues are intimately connected to national security and the health of Canada and the world. We ignore the arctic and allow those rugged individualist cowboys down south to do as they please in Canada's most northern territories at our own peril, and to the likely detriment of everyone on the planet.

I believe I am not overstating the importance of arctic lands. This issue certainly has greater bearing on our future than any tax on home heating fuel. If this is so, my omission of Ms. May from yesterday's blog is a serious oversight. It reveals a conceit that North Americans can no longer afford to cultivate. In my personal bias and in our collective ignorance, we propagate a hubris that is injurious of ourselves and our planet.

We need to listen to Elizabeth May. I am certainly not alone in stating this. A Globe and Mail poll released only hours ago reveals the extent to which G&M readers agree with my assessment.

As of 5:20 EDT this morning, 61% of G&M readers believed Elizabeth May should have been given a slot in the federal election leaders' debates. The poll reveals a popular wisdom that should not be ignored. Elizabeth May represents a crucial fifth voice, and a sensibility that must be given our fullest consideration.

I am under no illusion that the Green Party will be able to assume a leadership role in the governing of Canada, at least not in the foreseeable future. But the Green Party can play a central role in the debate, and can influence staid and jaundiced people (like me!) by reminding us of the importance of issues we need to address. If I could vote, my ballot would be cast for one of the more traditional, progressive parties. But I would feel much better about that vote if the party of the candidate receiving my support acknowledged and asserted its intention to take to heart the environmental issues that are critical to Canada's future.

PM
March 30, 2011

Why Not Passion and Patriotism?

2011-03-29T10:05:00.000-07:00

Another election. Ho-hum. While many Canadians consider that elections represent nothing more than an unnecessary drain on budgets, I sense a more deeply-held feeling that recent elections have achieved little for the country. When the biggest item on any party’s agenda is the removal of taxes on home heating fuel, perhaps apathy is justified. Can we admire and feel good about marking the ballot for the candidate in our riding whose party leader says he’s going to put $120 a year back into our pockets? Six Loonies and a couple of Toonies a month. A couple trips to Tim Horton’s, basically. On this basis we are to make a decision about the governance of an entire country?

Why not passionate convictions? Why not grand ideas? Why not great national projects?

Is a pledge to defend the arctic from foreign encroachment an impossibility? Canada has legitimate arctic claims going back to the 16^th century; why not assert these historical and legal claims and vigorously defend well-defined national boundaries? This is not simply a matter of pride or patriotism. It is a question of preserving a fragile environment, and one that affects the climate of the entire world. Those who would love to push Canada aside, the capitalist-controlled Americans and Russians, do not have environmental records that could be considered in any way exemplary—unless one wishes to extol the overwhelming virtues of a pure market economy and the wonders of free enterprise. Well, that’s fine. But you may wish to poll the residents of Prince William Sound, Alaska before you shrug your shoulders and allow the Russian Bear and the American Eagle to just come in and take territory rightfully belonging to the industrious Canadian Beaver. Twenty-two years after Exxon Valdez, Prince William Sound is still cleaning up. Imagine, if you will, an Exxon Valdez or a Deepwater Horizon just north of Iqaluit. Asserting Canadian sovereignty over its legally-defined territory is not really a privilege or a right: It is a responsibility.

And what about that $120 in taxes that some of the candidates are making into the biggest economic issue of the campaign? There are much more important interests that could be discussed. The first item on any valid economic platform, it seems to me, must be the decline of the American economy. The Canadian economy is tied so intimately to that of Big Brother downstairs that a 1:10 correlation, based entirely on population, can be seen in virtually all sectors of the Canadian economy. As the American economy goes, so goes Canadian jobs, bank accounts, and quality of life. How many citizens truly feel that such intimate and widespread connection to the economy of what will soon become a second-class world power is a situation best ignored and left to the status quo?

The United States did not go blind into its good night. The decline began in the Reagan years, when capitalists began shipping entire sectors of the economy to Asia. Manufacturing—the creation of something useful—used to be the centre, the very core of the U.S. economy. China has become the sweatshop for a few wealthy brand name owners, whose only role is to create television ads that stoke desire for products made by Mandarin-speaking peasants. U.S. workers who used to earn $25 an hour making computers now get by on $7.00 an hour flipping hamburgers at McDonalds.

Perhaps one of the candidates will discover a backbone. One can hope. The biggest hope, perhaps beyond anything we might legitimately dream of, is a pledge to cancel NAFTA. To place the fate of our continent in the hands of greedy capitalists and entrepreneurs was the biggest mistake of the late 20^th century. It’s time to reassert sovereignty. It’s time for passion and patriotism. It’s time for an election we can feel good about. Michael, Stephen, Jack, and Gilles—are you listening?

March 29, 2011

This Day In History

2011-03-28T00:31:00.000-07:00

It was on this day, 47 years and nine months ago, that President John F. Kennedy gave his famous "Ich Bin Ein Berliner" speech in Berlin, West Germany. It marked the beginning of a proud tradition of American foreign policy speeches delivered on German soil.

The first president to follow up on Kennedy's precedent was Ronald Reagan, speaking from Hamburg. Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy had led the nation astray, asserting that government could do good in the world. Reagan knew better. He announced in Hamburg that any country whose citizens averaged less than $40,000 a year in income would no longer receive food and medical supplies, but instead would be sent the beautifully restored and digitalised collection of all his Hollywood films. Poor people didn't need food, Reagan knew. All they needed was a swift kick in the butt, and Reagan's all-American films would teach that ideal to lazy, no-good foreigners. The "Bonzo Speech" is remembered fondly by conservatives for the first four words Reagan uttered on taking the podium at Hamburg City Hall: "Ich bin ein Hamburger."

The Trickle-Down Gipper was followed by George Bush Sr., who visited Frankfurt in March, 1989, to sign the Union Carbide-sponsored Western Trade Frankfurt agreement. The WTF was the first free trade agreement between the United States and Europe. It specified that American and European factories and chemical plants built in developing countries would be barred from installing expensive safety equipment or pollution controls. Any such controls, Bush noted in his eloquent speech, would hamper poor countries' efforts to become competitive in world markets. Cities like Bhopal, India would no longer have to suffer the oppression imposed by government regulations and petty liberal ideas about saving the environment. The WTF agreement was a hallmark of conservative thought, made famous by Bush's opening words at Frankfurt City Hall: "Ich bin ein Frankfurter."

The little-known trip of George Bush Jr. to Vienna in March, 2001, is marked by conservative historians as a milestone in right-thinking diplomacy. Bush is unfairly accused by liberal pundits of having developed an arrogant foreign policy. Conservative historians correctly point out that Bush sought European approval for his "Unredressed Knocks" treaty (using the quaint Texas word "knock" in place of the stuffy term "grievance"). The National Unredressed Knocks Emergency Exemption Mandate (NUKE EM) gave any head of state whose father had been insulted by a dictator full authority to invade the dictator's country, kill hundreds of thousands of his people, and destroy the country's infrastructure. Bush had insisted on signing the treaty in Vienna due to his fondness for the sausage bearing that city's name. He had planned on making this his "Germany" speech, but one of his aides, a left-over civil servant from the Clinton Administration, told him only moments before the speech that Vienna was, in fact, in Austria. The ever-resourceful Bush thought for a moment, then said, "Hell, nobody knows where Australia is, anyway. You say Vienna's in Australia? We'll just pretend it's in Germany. Nobody'll give a hoot." Reminded that Vienna is Wien in German, Bush, with a gravity befitting the occasion, mounted the steps of City Hall and said, "Ich bin ein Wiener."

One has to wonder how our country could possibly have managed to become a world leader, universally revered and adored, without the brave and insightful conservative leadership of visionary presidents like Reagan, Bush, and Bush Junior. Whether you consider yourself a hamburger, a frankfurter, a wiener, or just an ordinary, patriotic ditto-head or tea partier, you ought to feel a special pride this day in the great foreign policy initiatives that are your heritage.