Posts Tagged ‘Canada

The Dirty Tricks Battle Of 2015

- November 26th, 2014

Brace yourself, Canada — a year of skullduggery, dirty tricks, character assassination and gutter politics lies ahead of us.

With the next federal election officially looming on Monday, Oct. 19, 2015 (unless Stephen Harper decides it suits his purposes to call it sooner), the temperature of the nation’s body politic is only going to keep rising.

And there’s no doctor to call. We just have to ride out this fever and hope we emerge from the ordeal with most of our faculties intact. I’m quite confident we’ll survive but I’m also pretty sure we will be in a weakened and traumatized state a year from now.

By the time this election campaign (already begun, in case you haven’t noticed) is finished, the Guelph robocall scandal — also known semi-officially as the 2011 federal election voter-suppression scandal — will seem very tame shenanigans indeed.

We already have the case of a Conservative operative in Alberta (henceforth known as Mata Hari) surreptitiously recording a group conversation with a Liberal candidate and publicizing what appears to be a politically indelicate comment  (which I, for one, didn’t find alarming in the slightest). Unfortunately for Mata and for Sun TV (which broadcast the covert recording), she seems to have gotten her wires crossed and the comment allegedly made by the Grit politician was actually made by another participant in the conversation, a Conservative voter.

We seem to be smiling ruefully at that one, but only because it was such an amateurish farce. Just remember — that was only practice. The tricks will keep getting dirtier and the practitioners will only become more skilled at their craft as the year staggers on and the stakes grow higher.

stephen-harper-with-kitten-Stanley

I think we all expect the Conservative Party — whether officially involved or just as the recipient of freelance partisan chicanery — to be the dirtiest player in this dirty war, but don’t for a minute think that the NDP and Liberals don’t have their shadow warriors digging dirt and planting traps as well. And Pierre Karl Péladeau’s Parti Québécois will be actively trying to trip up every federalist in that province — especially Justin Trudeau, who is seen by many separatists as the greatest long-term threat to sovereigntist aspirations.

As for the Mata Hari tape, I have no problem with the basic deed. I hate hypocrites and people who talk out of both sides of their mouth, so any politician duplicitous enough or dumb enough to take one position in public and another in private deserves to be called to account for his or her own words. (Hello, Rob Ford.) I do have problems, however, with misrepresenting facts and taking comments out of context.

justin-trudeau-man-of-steel

Of course, the Liberals don’t have to worry about any eavesdropping on the Great Leader, JPJT. Justin (as we all must call him now) just rams his foot in his mouth in any available public forum, so there isn’t much chance he’ll say something in private that particularly surprises us. (Hello, “admirable” Chinese dictatorship and hello, “whip out our CF-18s and show them how big they are.” Don’t get me started.) That may or may not be a good thing for the Liberals . We’ll see.

As for the NDP and Thomas (Angry Bird) Mulcair, don’t expect them to be socialist saints. They very definitely are not above some ethically sketchy behaviour.

Mulcair-angry-bird

But the Conservatives, I think we can all agree (even the majority of Conservatives as long as they’re being honest), will probably run the most down-and-dirty, most viperous campaign of them all. Because they’re out to win — at any cost.

Despite having had four years of absolute power (and five more of somewhat limited power), the Harper Conservatives still see themselves as underdogs fighting an uphill battle that requires cunning and guile and cold-blooded ruthlessness to win. And they’re right.

After all, the Tories managed to turn less than 40% popular support in the last federal election into a majority government. In many ways, the Conservatives benefited far more from Canada’s orange crush on Jack Layton than the NDP did. Sure, the NDP became the official opposition, but the saw-off between Liberals and NDP in so many individual riding races gave Harper his majority.

There’s nothing wrong with that, of course. It’s the nature of Canadian politics. After all, the only reason a sometimes rather unpopular Jean Chretien managed to hang on as prime minister for a decade in the 1990s was because of a similar saw-off between the bitterly divided Progressive Conservative and Reform parties. And Chretien’s Grits were certainly willing to countenance a lot of shading dealings to win too.

But all that’s in the past. It’s the coming year that troubles me.

I do worry that the degree of dirt-digging and mud-slinging and underhanded manipulation and outright cozening we’ll be subjected to during the Battle of 2015 will far exceed anything we’ve seen before, possibly to the point of damaging Canada’s well-being as one of the world’s most durable democracies. At what point does striving for advantage become rigging the deal? What, for God’s sake, if the majority of Canadians question the very legitimacy of the electoral process and its outcome at the end of this campaign? It’s a possibility that has to be considered.

I certainly hope it doesn’t come to that. And I do believe that Canada’s democratic structure is strong enough to survive periodic excesses. But I’m also pretty sure that by the end of 2015 we will all be sick to death of a political cesspool that is likely to rival the just-concluded U.S. mid-term elections for low-down, dirty gutter politics.

So let’s get on with it. And hope that our much-vaunted, possibly mythical Canadian decency is real enough and strong enough to get us through.

 

 

 

 

 

REWIND: If Canada Was Scotland …

- September 7th, 2014

UPDATE: The Scottish referendum on independence is now less than two weeks away and, for the very first time, a reputable public opinion poll — published in today’s Sunday Times, no less — puts support for the Yes Scotland side slightly ahead of the anti-separation Better Together side.

I really have no sense at all which way the final vote (including results of a massive mail-in ballot) will go. The YouGov poll (which has the separatists ahead) apparently shows the culmination of a massive shift in support over the past month. Other polls have shown no such radical shift. So we will just have to wait and see.

In any case, Sept. 18 is going to be a fascinating — perhaps momentous — day for Scots and political armchair quarterbacks everywhere. And I still stand behind everything I wrote in this (unrevised) blog post.

Here’s a link to the original posting of this Nosey Parker piece back on June 15, if only to see a number of very interesting comments attached to the original.


saltire-face

“Should Scotland be an independent country?”

— the formal question in the Scottish referendum to be held Thursday, Sept. 18, 2014

 

 

I have a bet with my son — a brilliant and learned fellow who is a much more astute and pragmatic political observer than I am — about the upcoming Scottish referendum on independence from Great Britain.

His position — probably the winning one — is that the majority of Scots will vote to remain within the warm embrace of the so-called United Kingdom.

My betting position is that the Scots will buck up their courage and shed the shackles of centuries of English domination, re-assert their native independence and say “Up yours, Whitehall b’stards!”

I’m pretty sure I’m going to lose this bet. So be it. We all choose our own destinies.

 

Here’s a link to the Wikipedia entry on the Scottish independence referendum if you want to delve more deeply into the complexities of the issue. I urge you to do so. You may come to a different conclusion than I do, and that’s fine by me.

 

But consider this …

What if Canada was Scotland and the United States of America was the United Kingdom or Great Britain or whatever you want to call the island queendom?

After all, Britain wasn’t “Great” until the English bribed and cajoled and bullied and manipulated and cheated their way into political mastery of Scotland three centuries ago.

I know, I know — that sounds like some ancient blood feud, but it’s not. Three centuries is a mere blink of the eye in the grand scheme of things. People in the Mideast, Europe and Asia are still killing each other over things that may or may not have happened 500 years ago or a thousand years ago or two thousand years ago.

And there were many times — four at a bare minimum — during those three centuries that the present nation of Canada could easily have been absorbed into the hungry maw of the United States of America.

That was, after all, the ultimate plan of the U.S. founding fathers and their successors — Manifest Destiny, the creation of a grand empire encompassing the entire North American continent. Great America, in other words. Much bigger and better than piddly Great Britain over on the other side of the Atlantic.

And that annexation could have occurred many times over if not for the likes of John A. Macdonald and his ilk. And luck. And fortuitous timing.

Now I’m not putting the U.S. down here. I was, after all, born in the U.S. and I’ll defend to their early graves the suicidal and/or homicidal right of all Americans, regardless of their mental state, to bear arms and slaughter each other and their children and their children’s children. I just think it’s a dumb approach to life.

But, hey, I don’t live in the U.S., so it’s not my problem any more.

Yet…

If Canada was Scotland and had been absorbed by the more powerful and populous nation to south, the border would be meaningless and America’s problems would be the former Canada’s problems.

Granted, Canada and the U.S. are joined at the hip economically — although the U.S. War on Terror is doing everything it possibly can to impede the free flow of trade between two sovereign nations.

And granted, Canada is — as that subversive separatist (separating Canada from the U.S.) Pierre Trudeau put it so picturesquely — a mouse sleeping in the same bed as the American elephant.

Canada is definitely a junior partner in the North American consortium.

But …

Canada is not  part of the U.S.

Canada is surviving quite fine, thank you, despite the fact that Canada’s natural resources could probably be exploited more efficiently and profitably if completely under the umbrella of American law and corporate dictate.

And, yes, that efficient, profitable exploitation of Canada’s natural resources — and Canadian whiskey too, I guess — might mean a slightly higher income for the average Canadian.

But at what cost?

Would you, as a Canadian citizen and national stakeholder, willingly give up the independence — however illusory — of your country to our southern neighbour?

Would you trade your Canadian birthright for swift approval of an oil pipeline or cheaper six-packs of beer? (By the way, Canada could — and should — have much cheaper beer without giving up national sovereignty. It’s just a case of government cutting back a little bit on the usurious taxes imposed on alcohol.)

We are so lucky.

We don’t have to step into the unknown. We don’t have to try to wrench our society and our economy out of the larger organism of Great America. I think it would be almost impossible to do so, just as it is probably impossible for Scotland to break free from the only form of government and dependence that 15 generations of Scots have known.

Scotland-UK-map

Scotland’s predicament could so easily have been Canada’s.

Canada could easily have been absorbed by the United States in 1867 — the same year the U.S. bought Alaska from Russia — instead of becoming an independent nation.

Canada beat the odds. Scotland didn’t. That’s the only difference.

Do you really think the London money men would give two figs about Scotland — or give Scotland a dime — if it didn’t have oil? Do you really think the New York money men would give two figs about Canada — or give Canada a dime — if we didn’t have oil and water and other coveted natural resources?

And the only difference is that Canada is an independent, sovereign nation and Scotland is a … bump on the rump of England. What a terrible place to be.

Imagine if, when Scots go to the polls on Sept. 18 to vote in their referendum, Scotland was an independent nation and the Scottish people were voting on whether or not to join England in a new union.

Do you think they would really vote to give up their independence and nationhood in that circumstance any more than Canadians would?

I certainly don’t.

Instead, Scotland has been held in thrall for so long that comfortable but recalcitrant subservience seems the normal state of being, not an unacceptable abberation.

And the fear mongers do their job well: “If you venture outside the harem, you will starve on the streets.”

It’s hard not to compare Scotland’s relationship to Great Britain with Quebec’s relationship to Canada.

I, for one, always had a problem with using threats and holding a hammer over Quebec’s head to maintain Canada’s territorial integrity. I don’t think threats and warnings of dire consequences and implied violence are a good basis for nationhood any more than they’re a good basis for a personal relationship.

So I’m glad we’re through that phase of the Quebec-Canada relationship and into a more positive, aspirant interlocution.

Yes, it’s going to be interesting to see what happens in Scotland’s Sept. 18 referendum.

As I’ve already said, I think the majority of Scots are going to opt for the safe, the known, the tolerable, the secure option of remaining a junior clerk in the United Kingdom counting house. They may have a twitch and an itch before marking their ballots, but the majority will almost certainly go down on their knees.

I’m just glad Canadians aren’t in that position. Yet.

UPDATE FROM THE GUARDIAN ON LONDON’S PANIC: “The debate has intoxicated Scotland. Feeling involved in something BIG has intoxicated Scotland. People have seen the opportunity to seize power. It has become worthwhile to take an interest in political issues, achieve an understanding of them, discuss your own understanding with others, start formulating your own ideas.

“The possibility of informed consensus, real democracy, rising up from the people, has become real. Why would Scotland turn its back on this, now that the tang of it hangs in the air? Many undecided voters, when they find themselves in the voting booth, will be asking if they want this feeling of involvement, of agency, of purpose, to end? Many will vote yes, simply because they don’t want it to end. Why would they?”

Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
§
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
-
=
Backspace
Tab
q
w
e
r
t
y
u
i
o
p
[
]
Return
capslock
a
s
d
f
g
h
j
k
l
;
\
shift
`
z
x
c
v
b
n
m
,
.
/
shift
English
alt
alt
Preferences

If Canada Was Scotland …

- June 15th, 2014

saltire-face

“Should Scotland be an independent country?”

— the formal question in the Scottish referendum to be held Thursday, Sept. 18, 2014

 

 

I have a bet with my son — a brilliant and learned fellow who is a much more astute and pragmatic political observer than I am — about the upcoming Scottish referendum on independence from Great Britain.

His position — probably the winning one — is that the majority of Scots will vote to remain within the warm embrace of the so-called United Kingdom.

My betting position is that the Scots will buck up their courage and shed the shackles of centuries of English domination, re-assert their native independence and say “Up yours, Whitehall b’stards!”

I’m pretty sure I’m going to lose this bet. So be it. We all choose our own destinies.

 

Here’s a link to the Wikipedia entry on the Scottish independence referendum if you want to delve more deeply into the complexities of the issue. I urge you to do so. You may come to a different conclusion than I do, and that’s fine by me.

 

But consider this …

What if Canada was Scotland and the United States of America was the United Kingdom or Great Britain or whatever you want to call the island queendom?

After all, Britain wasn’t “Great” until the English bribed and cajoled and bullied and manipulated and cheated their way into political mastery of Scotland three centuries ago.

I know, I know — that sounds like some ancient blood feud, but it’s not. Three centuries is a mere blink of the eye in the grand scheme of things. People in the Mideast, Europe and Asia are still killing each other over things that may or may not have happened 500 years ago or a thousand years ago or two thousand years ago.

And there were many times — four at a bare minimum — during those three centuries that the present nation of Canada could easily have been absorbed into the hungry maw of the United States of America.

That was, after all, the ultimate plan of the U.S. founding fathers and their successors — Manifest Destiny, the creation of a grand empire encompassing the entire North American continent. Great America, in other words. Much bigger and better than piddly Great Britain over on the other side of the Atlantic.

And that annexation could have occurred many times over if not for the likes of John A. Macdonald and his ilk. And luck. And fortuitous timing.

Now I’m not putting the U.S. down here. I was, after all, born in the U.S. and I’ll defend to their early graves the suicidal and/or homicidal right of all Americans, regardless of their mental state, to bear arms and slaughter each other and their children and their children’s children. I just think it’s a dumb approach to life.

But, hey, I don’t live in the U.S., so it’s not my problem any more.

Yet…

If Canada was Scotland and had been absorbed by the more powerful and populous nation to south, the border would be meaningless and America’s problems would be the former Canada’s problems.

Granted, Canada and the U.S. are joined at the hip economically — although the U.S. War on Terror is doing everything it possibly can to impede the free flow of trade between two sovereign nations.

And granted, Canada is — as that subversive separatist (separating Canada from the U.S.) Pierre Trudeau put it so picturesquely — a mouse sleeping in the same bed as the American elephant.

Canada is definitely a junior partner in the North American consortium.

But …

Canada is not  part of the U.S.

Canada is surviving quite fine, thank you, despite the fact that Canada’s natural resources could probably be exploited more efficiently and profitably if completely under the umbrella of American law and corporate dictate.

And, yes, that efficient, profitable exploitation of Canada’s natural resources — and Canadian whiskey too, I guess — might mean a slightly higher income for the average Canadian.

But at what cost?

Would you, as a Canadian citizen and national stakeholder, willingly give up the independence — however illusory — of your country to our southern neighbour?

Would you trade your Canadian birthright for swift approval of an oil pipeline or cheaper six-packs of beer? (By the way, Canada could — and should — have much cheaper beer without giving up national sovereignty. It’s just a case of government cutting back a little bit on the usurious taxes imposed on alcohol.)

We are so lucky.

We don’t have to step into the unknown. We don’t have to try to wrench our society and our economy out of the larger organism of Great America. I think it would be almost impossible to do so, just as it is probably impossible for Scotland to break free from the only form of government and dependence that 15 generations of Scots have known.

Scotland-UK-map

Scotland’s predicament could so easily have been Canada’s.

Canada could easily have been absorbed by the United States in 1867 — the same year the U.S. bought Alaska from Russia — instead of becoming an independent nation.

Canada beat the odds. Scotland didn’t. That’s the only difference.

Do you really think the London money men would give two figs about Scotland — or give Scotland a dime — if it didn’t have oil? Do you really think the New York money men would give two figs about Canada — or give Canada a dime — if we didn’t have oil and water and other coveted natural resources?

And the only difference is that Canada is an independent, sovereign nation and Scotland is a … bump on the rump of England. What a terrible place to be.

Imagine if, when Scots go to the polls on Sept. 18 to vote in their referendum, Scotland was an independent nation and the Scottish people were voting on whether or not to join England in a new union.

Do you think they would really vote to give up their independence and nationhood in that circumstance any more than Canadians would?

I certainly don’t.

Instead, Scotland has been held in thrall for so long that comfortable but recalcitrant subservience seems the normal state of being, not an unacceptable abberation.

And the fear mongers do their job well: “If you venture outside the harem, you will starve on the streets.”

It’s hard not to compare Scotland’s relationship to Great Britain with Quebec’s relationship to Canada.

I, for one, always had a problem with using threats and holding a hammer over Quebec’s head to maintain Canada’s territorial integrity. I don’t think threats and warnings of dire consequences and implied violence are a good basis for nationhood any more than they’re a good basis for a personal relationship.

So I’m glad we’re through that phase of the Quebec-Canada relationship and into a more positive, aspirant interlocution.

Yes, it’s going to be interesting to see what happens in Scotland’s Sept. 18 referendum.

As I’ve already said, I think the majority of Scots are going to opt for the safe, the known, the tolerable, the secure option of remaining a junior clerk in the United Kingdom counting house. They may have a twitch and an itch before marking their ballots, but the majority will almost certainly go down on their knees.

I’m just glad Canadians aren’t in that position. Yet.

 

 

Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
§
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
-
=
Backspace
Tab
q
w
e
r
t
y
u
i
o
p
[
]
Return
capslock
a
s
d
f
g
h
j
k
l
;
\
shift
`
z
x
c
v
b
n
m
,
.
/
shift
English
alt
alt
Preferences

Where’s Sir John A. When You Need Him?

- November 3rd, 2013

 

“Ain’t I the old devil though?”

— Sir John A. Macdonald responding to a blistering Liberal attack on his political mistakes

 

 

Stephen Harper has been accused of a lot of things during his time as prime minister, but one thing he can never be accused of is being a riveting, charismatic speaker.

 

He proved that conclusively this weekend during the gathering of the Conservative clans in Calgary.

 

Even if he’s not really worthy of walking in Sir John A. Macdonald’s shoes, Harper has certainly learned one lesson well from the political playbook of the foremost founding father of Canadian Confederation and the Conservative Party of Canada: Never, ever admit your mistakes.

 

(Of course the man who took that political operating mantra further than even Macdonald could conceive was a Liberal: Jean “I know nothing” Chretien.)

 

The general consensus of the anointed political pundits seems to be that the current Senate “scandal” is the biggest threat yet to Harper’s iron-fisted rule and actually holds the tantalizing possibility of bringing down the great stone-faced leader.

 

Fuggedabowdit. Not going to happen.

 

The only weak link in Harper’s chainmail is Nigel Wright, the cheque-writing former PMO chief of staff and current pincushion. And Nigel Wright ain’t talking. No matter how many nasty things the Prime Minister of Canada says about him in public. Nigel knows what the deal is. He knows what he signed up for and he’s going to walk the line as long as there’s a line to walk. He’d rather take the cyanide pill than rat out the Prime Minister of Canada (if that is actually what he would be doing by opening his mouth).

 

So, from my point of view, Harper’s great “crisis” isn’t such a big deal. In fact it’s a rather small, nasty — one might say cheap and tawdry — affair about a bunch of (should one say “possible?”) cozeners and trough-feeders who apparently just didn’t know where the cut-off point was for the acceptable level of normal Senate chiseling and grubbery.

 

At least it would be small and cheap (it’s still nasty and tawdry, no matter what) if that boneyard of arrogant self-entitlement and useless pomposity known as the Senate didn’t cost Canadian taxpayers more — lots more — than $100 million a year.

 

So the Senate “scandal” is a mildly interesting sideshow, but barely scrapes together the qualifying requirements to be a bona fide scandal. The real scandal is that the Senate still exists, $100-million year after $100-million year, doing nothing except serving itself second and third helpings of foie gras and Taittinger (figuratively speaking).

 

Now that we’ve cleared that deck, let’s talk about a real scandal. And a real prime minister.

 

Sunday, Nov. 3, marks the 140th anniversary of Sir John A. Macdonald’s defiant, soaring, final attempt to save himself and his government from the “Pacific Scandal” with what biographer P.B. Waite has called “the speech of his life and, in a sense, for his life.”

John_A_Macdonald_1870

Sir John A. Macdonald about the time of the Pacific Scandal.

Sir John A. (bless his complicated, inebriated, funked-up soul) had gotten himself in a serious mess, though it was definitely not a case of petty, personal corruption.

 

And he came close to talking his way out of his big trouble.

 

It was a truly grand speech, grand in every sense of the word.

 

Grand in terms of time: Macdonald held the floor for almost five hours of non-stop talking (with various interruptions and exchanges).

 

Grand in terms of its scope: Macdonald gave a remarkable, moving history lesson on the birth and building of Canada and the immense forces trying to tear the fragile, experimental Confederation apart from its very beginning.

 

Grand in that Macdonald was a magnificent orator, nimble-witted and able to tie common experience together with epic aspirations.

 

And grand in the response it evoked: When Macdonald finally sat down — more collapsed in exhaustion than sat — the House of Commons (or at least the half sitting in the government benches) erupted in a five-minute frenzy of applause and cheering. Tory MPs tumbled over chairs and desks to pound Macdonald on the back and shake his hand.

 

It’s a speech that every Canadian should read at some point in his or her life. It makes you understand what an against-all-odds miracle the creation of Canada was and just how much we all owe Sir John A. Macdonald for making it happen in the first place and then keeping it alive through its first two trying, traumatic decades.

 

I’m not going to drag you through the whole marathon right now but here’s a link to the Hansard record of Macdonald’s magnificent speech on the evening of Nov. 3, 1873. (It starts on Page 119 and goes to Page 141.)

 

Parts of the oration can be difficult to follow because some aspects of that particular time are unfamiliar to us today.

 

The key thing to know is that, to entice British Columbia to join Canada in 1871, Sir John A. had promised the West Coast colony he would build a railway linking B.C. with the eastern provinces via an all-Canadian route.

 

North America’s first transcontinental railway, the Union Pacific (which had its own political payoff scandals), had already begun operation in the U.S. in 1869. The Union Pacific terminated in San Francisco, but branch lines snaked up into the Northwest and other railroads linked it to Winnipeg.

 

And a second transcontinental American railway, the Northern Pacific, was already under construction close to the Canadian border. The main backer of the Northern Pacific was Jay Cooke, known as “the financier of the Civil War” because his Philadelphia bank had successfully marketed most of the bonds the Lincoln administration floated to pay for the union war effort.

 

So Macdonald knew he had to build a transcontinental railway on Canadian soil or concede the development and eventual takeover of the Canadian Northwest to American interests and see the colony of British Columbia eventually drawn into the American orbit as well.

canadian-pacific

Because of deep-seated Canadian resentment against real and perceived abuses by the U.S. and fears of American expansionist designs on Canada, there was absolutely no chance in the world that American financial interests would be allowed to control — or even participate in — the proposed Canadian railway. This huge project would have to be done by Canadian and (hopefully) British investors.

 

That was the intention and public face of the venture, anyway.

 

Because of the enormous expense and risks involved (much more via an all-Canadian route than anything faced on the easier American routes) there were few British takers.

 

Canada’s money men quickly coalesced into two groups — a Toronto group led by banker and railway tycoon David Lewis Macpherson in the form of the Inter-Oceanic Railway Company and a Montreal group led by steamship magnate Hugh Allan calling itself the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.

Hugh-Allan

Sir Hugh Allan 

Macdonald tried desperately to get the two groups to merge into one corporation representing the united interests of both upper and lower Canada before the federal election of 1872. Even in the middle of the election campaign, with his own Kingston seat in jeopardy, Macdonald was in Toronto trying to get the Macpherson camp to bend just enough to allow a merger.

David_Lewis_Macpherson

David Lewis Macpherson

(Macdonald was willing to let the Toronto group have the majority of seats on a combined board of directors, but he insisted on Hugh Allan being in charge, in part out of loyalty to his dying friend and Quebec ally, George-Etienne Cartier, and mainly because Macdonald felt he could control Allan better than he could handle Macpherson.)

 

But Macdonald failed to forge a united Canadian railway company. And almost lost the election in the process. And both for the same reason: The very large behind-the-scenes presence of American money and influence.

 

Jay Cooke (remember him from the Northern Pacific Railway in the U.S.?) was determined to control the new Canadian railway — either to meld it with the Northern Pacific or to sabotage this Canadian competitor to his American railroad.

Jay-Cooke

Jay Cooke

Cooke had secret dealings with both the Montreal and Toronto groups and pumped huge amounts of money into the Canadian political process to try to influence the outcome.

 

When it became apparent that he would not be able to control Hugh Allan and the Montreal group to his satisfaction, Cooke shifted his support to the Inter-Oceanic Railway bid and also ordered his operatives to do their damnedest to scuttle both the Canadian Pacific Railway and Macdonald’s Conservatives.

 

“The American work has to be kept dark for the moment and there is no hint of the Northern Pacific connection, but the real plan is to cross the Canadian Pacific over to the United States at the Sault Ste. Marie through northern Michigan and Wisconsin to Duluth, then build from Pembina up to Fort Garry and by and by through the Saskatchewan into British Columbia. The Act will provide for building a North Shore Road (i.e. an all-Canadian route along the more-difficult north shore of Lake Superior) to Fort Garry (Winnipeg) merely to calm public opinion, but it will provide for consolidation with other roads, so that the Michigan portion of the Northern Pacific clear to Duluth can be blended with the Canadian Pacific and the bonds sold as such in London. We will have a straight route from Duluth to Montreal. This is all confidential. The parties have now gone to Canada to get the legislation for it …”

— Jay Cooke’s confidential correspondence to a colleague in 1872

 

Chief among Cooke’s henchmen in Canada was a Chicago (and previously Prince Edward County) hustler named George McMullen, who pumped large amounts of Cooke’s money into supporting opponents of Macdonald’s Conservatives in the 1872 election.

 

Macdonald himself estimated that the Liberals had received upwards of $2 million in financial backing from the Americans. That was a very large amount of money in a time when a dollar was worth 25 times what it is today, when Canada’s entire population was only 3.5 million and when votes were cast in public with everyone knowing where you stood.

 

In other words, most of that American money was being used to buy votes for Liberal candidates — a relatively common practice but never before done on anything approaching the scale of the August 1872 election campaign. Historian Alastair Sweeny has called it “easily the dirtiest (election) in Canadian history.”

 

To counter that influx of American money, Macdonald hit up his Canadian financial backers for every cent he could wring from them — again mainly to buy votes, the principal election expense of a mid-19th Century Canadian political campaign.

 

And chief among Macdonald’s financial backers was Hugh Allan, head of the Canadian Pacific consortium. Later estimates put the amount Allan contributed to Macdonald and the Conservatives at $360,000 — nickel-and-dime stuff compared to the millions being pumped into the campaign by American railway interests.

 

The money had its effect: Macdonald held onto his seat but Cartier lost his and the Conservatives barely clung to a majority.

 

(I should point out right here that party discipline was not as strict in 1872 and 1873 as it is today. Also, there were some strange anomalies: Some Conservative candidates ran as “Liberal Conservatives,” a throwback to an Ontario coalition designation of the 1850s. Sir John A. Macdonald, in fact, ran as a “Liberal Conservative” candidate in both the 1867 and 1872 elections. Despite the name, “Liberal Conservatives” were full members of the Conservative governing party and most would drop the confusing “Liberal” add-on by the 1874 election, the same election that introduced the secret ballot. The last “Liberal Conservative” MP left Parliament during World War I.)

 

The 1872 election results returned Macdonald to government with 102 seats in the 200-seat House of Commons: 63 Conservatives, 36 Liberal Conservatives, two Independent Conservatives and one Conservative Labour member (from Hamilton).

 

In opposition were 98 MPs: 95 Liberals, two Independent Liberals and one Independent (Louis Riel from Manitoba).

 

Once the Conservatives appointed a Speaker from their caucus, they had the slimmest of majorities in the House — 101 to 98. Any prolonged illness or wavering loyalty could spell doom for Macdonald.

 

And once Cooke’s operatives failed to buy the election, they turned to other dirty tricks to try to trigger that doomsday scenario.

 

The most effective gambit by George McMullen was to bribe a clerk in the office of Hugh Allan’s lawyer to steal confidential papers about the Canadian Pacific Railway from the office safe.

 

The hottest document was a copy of a (supposedly) confidential telegram sent from Macdonald to Hugh Allan just six days before the 1872 election: “I must have another $10,000. Will be the last time of calling. Do not fail me. Answer today.”

 

McMullen actually tried to play a double game, at least according to Sir John A. Macdonald, who said McMullen offered to sell him some of the documents — “blackmail” was the word Macdonald used — but was rebuffed.

 

I somehow doubt that Macdonald would have let that incriminating telegram slip through his fingers if he had known McMullen had it and if McMullen actually offered to sell it to the prime minister.

 

In any case, the telegram and other supporting stolen documents from the safe were passed on to Quebec Liberal MP Lucius Seth Huntington (a sleazy Eastern Townships dog who was already the bought-and-paid-for servant of the Vermont Central Railroad).

 

Huntington in turn began making accusations about political payoffs in the Commons in April 1873 and had the purloined documents published in two strongly Liberal newspapers — the Toronto Globe and Montreal Herald — on July 4, 1873.

Montreal-Herald

And then the Liberals went on the attack. After fending them off for a while, Macdonald prorogued Parliament and appointed a Royal Commission of three judges to investigate the allegations of corruption and influence-peddling in August 1873.

 

I’m not sure what he hoped to gain from the Royal Commission except a little more time. (NOTE: I’ve since seen suggestions that the governor general at the time, Lord Dufferin, forced Macdonald to institute the Royal Commission as the price for proroguing Parliament and getting the opposition off his back for a little while.)

 

When it came time for Macdonald to testify, he simply said he was raising campaign funds for the party in the usual way and was far less at fault in that regard than the Liberals:

“I got pecuniary assistance where I could. In Canada we have not the same organization that they have in England … to manage elections, and the leaders have to undertake that for themselves. I found, as the contest went on, that it was getting more severe; representations were coming to me from all parts of Ontario (saying) that the Opposition, to use a general expression, had two dollars to our one.”

But the telegram was damning evidence and the Commissioners, although vague, seemed to hold Macdonald responsible in the report they issued that October. Public reaction was strong and, when Parliament resumed on Oct. 23, the prime minister found many of his backbenchers wilting under pressure from their constituents to censure Macdonald — or face the consequences themselves.

Macdonald-cartoon-1873

 

Political cartoons in 1873

pacificscandalpie

So that was the situation the prime minister faced when he entered the House of Commons on Monday, Nov. 3, 1873, in a last-ditch effort to firm up wavering support and defend himself and his government.

The House began sitting about 3 p.m. and recessed for supper in the early evening. About 9 p.m. Sir John A. took the floor — and talked for the next five hours.

 

Macdonald started weakly, according to those who were there, appearing ill and worn out by months of relentless crisis. But as he spoke, the witnesses said, he grew stronger and more vociferous, fueled no doubt by the steady supply of carafes of gin and water Commons pages delivered to Macdonald’s desk.

 

Macdonald defended the honour and integrity of himself and his government in awarding the railway contract, he expounded on the constant, shifting balancing act required to put Canada together and hold it together, he vilified Liberal conceit and deceit, he attacked his severest critics like the aforementioned hound Huntington (who had refused to testify before the Royal Commission), he ridiculed Liberal party organs like the Globe newspaper, and he sparred with and baited members of the opposition who took offence to what he said. And he did it all in a most entertaining way.

 

Like I said before, it’s a speech well worth reading. Here again is a link to the transcription of Macdonald’s speech and the debate, starting on Page 114.

 

Finally, in the early morning hours of Tuesday, Nov. 4, Macdonald concluded with these words:

 

Can any one believe that the Government is guilty of the charges made against them? I call upon any one who does to read that (Pacific Railway corporate) charter. Is there anything in that contract? If there is a word in that charter which derogates from the rights of Canada; if there is any undue privilege, or right, or preponderance given to any one of these 13 Directors, I say, Mr. Speaker, I am condemned. But, Sir, I commit myself, the Government commits itself, to the hands of this House, and far beyond the House, it commits itself to the country at large. (Loud cheers.) We have faithfully done our duty. We have fought the battle of Confederation. We have fought the battle of Union. We have had Party strife setting province against province, and more than all, we have had in the greatest province the preponderating province of the Dominion, every prejudice and sectional feeling that could be arrayed against us.

 

I have been the victim of that conduct to a great extent; but I have fought the battle of Confederation, the battle of Union, the battle of the Dominion of Canada. I throw myself upon this House; I throw myself upon this country; I throw myself upon posterity, and I believe that I know that, notwithstanding the many failings in my life, I shall have the voice of this county and this House rallying round me. (Cheers.) And, Sir, if I am mistaken in that, I can confidently appeal to a higher Court, to the Court of my own conscience, and to the Court of Posterity. (Cheers.)

 

I leave it with this House with every confidence. I am equal to either fortune. I can see cast the decision of this House either for or against me, but whether it be against me or for me I know, and it is no vain boast to say so, for even my enemies will admit that I am no boaster, that there does not exist in Canada a man who has given more of his time, more of his heart, more of his wealth, or more of his intellect and power, such as it may be, for the good of this Dominion of Canada. (The right hon. gentleman resumed his seat amid loud and long continued cheering.)

 

And the House went crazy, at least the Conservative side of the House. They  cheered and clapped and stomped and whooped and pounded the drained Macdonald on his back and jeered the opposition.

 

Then they all dragged themselves off to beds or taverns.

 

The next day Macdonald took stock of where things stood — and realized he had lost. He had not recouped enough support from those wavering Conservative backbenchers to hold off a Liberal vote of non-confidence.

 

So on Wednesday, Nov. 5, Macdonald went to the governor general and handed in his resignation as prime minister. He also offered to resign as leader of the Conservative party but was convinced to stay on by the vast majority of Conservative MPs still loyal to him.

 

Liberal Leader Alexander Mackenzie was appointed prime minister and promptly called an election for January 1874. The Liberals won a landslide victory and Sir John A. Macdonald was apparently consigned to the slag heap of history as a failure and venal abuser of power.

 

But history’s a funny thing — you can never depend on it to do what you expect.

 

Being bounced from office in November 1873 may have been the best thing that could have happened to Sir John A. Macdonald.

 

Because just as Alexander Mackenzie was taking the reins of power, the world was tumbling into a deep depression that lasted the better part of a decade. It began with the Panic of 1873 but became known as “the Great Depression” until an even greater depression in the 1930s stole the title.

 

By the time of the next Canadian federal election in 1878, Alexander Mackenzie and the Liberals were blamed for leading the country into such a sour economic state and Macdonald returned to power with as great a landslide of support as the Liberals won when they disposed of him in 1874.

 

Back in office, Macdonald got the moribund Canadian Pacific Railway project back on track with a new consortium of solid, experienced Canadian financial backers. And all thanks to Jay Cooke.

 

What? How did Jay Cooke get back into this?

 

For starters, Jay Cooke played a large part in starting the Panic of 1873 that triggered the Great Depression.

 

Cooke had overextended his bank in financing the Northern Pacific Railway. When the bank collapsed and Cooke was forced into bankruptcy, it caused a chain of other bank closures and the temporary shutdown of the New York Stock Exchange.

 

Much like the 2008-09 financial crisis, the bank failures coincided with a number of other contributing meltdown factors — continuing post-war inflation, a tightening money supply, a plunge in the price of silver and bad speculative investments (in railways) in the U.S. combined with the effects of the Franco-Prussian War and the failure of a number of Viennese financial institutions in Europe — to plunge the world into a long depression.

 

Then …

 

A couple of smart, successful cousins from Montreal bought Jay Cooke’s shares in the Northern Pacific Railway for pennies on the dollar and turned the American rail company into a roaring success before selling it for five times what they paid for it a few years later.

 

Then…

Cousins George Stephen and Donald Smith turned around and put together the syndicate that became the new Canadian Pacific Railway, chosen by John A. Macdonald to finish building the transcontinental rail link to B.C. And the cousins were smart enough to hire another hot-shot, go-getter U.S. railwayman, William Cornelius Van Horne, to get the job done — six years ahead of schedule.

Canadian-Pacific-locomotive

 

As for Jay Cooke, he regrouped, built a new fortune and died a wealthy man in his palatial mansion in 1905 at the ripe old age of 83.

 

And Sir John A. Macdonald? Old Tomorrow, the architect and builder of Canada, remained prime minister from his re-election in 1878 to his death at home in Ottawa in 1891. He was elected Prime Minister of Canada six times between 1867 and  1991.

Now that’s a Prime Minister, with a capital P and a capital M. And a scandal worth its salt.

What Canada-EU Free Trade Deal?

- October 20th, 2013

Canada-Europe

HAMBURG — Sorry, Canada, Europe’s just not that into you. In a commercial sense, I mean.

 

Most Europeans still have a dewy-eyed puppy love for Canada as a romantic idea (an emotional state which, surprisingly, is often reinforced by an actual visit to the place).

 

But moose-and-mountain-land as a major economic partner linked to Europe by a multi-billion-dollar/Euro free trade pact? That just does not compute over here. It’s like comparing iPhones and, er, BlackBerries.

 

Not only does it not compute, it barely ruffles the surface of public consciousness in Europe — despite Stephen Harper calling Friday’s announcement of a Europe-Canada free trade pact-in-principle  “historic” and “a big deal.”

ceta-logo

Well, it’s neither if you ask the average informed European. I’ve asked quite a few in Britain and Germany over the past couple of days about this supposed “big deal” and not one of them had an inkling any kind of “new era for the European Union and Canada” (quoting EU President Jose Manuel Barosso) had been brokered.

 

(Since much of the EU trade with Canada, apart from cheese and wine, involves either Britain or Germany, those are the countries most likely to be aware of any big international trade news.)

 

Granted, the whole thing still has to be debated and approved by Canada’s 10 provinces and three territories and by all 28 individual member states of the European Union and the European Parliament — a process expected to take a minimum of two years, probably longer — before the free-trade pact supposedly comes into effect in 2015. And it will be at least a decade before all the proposed clearing of trade tariffs and investment impediments is finished.

 

But still, for something that’s being heralded as the second coming of NAFTA in Canada, you’d think it would warrant more than a ho-hum passing notice buried in the business section on the BBC website (below “Fire burns tonnes of sugar in Brazil”) or a four-paragraph squib in Frankfurter Allgemeine.

 

The “big deal” doesn’t even make it onto the front pages of the UK, France or Deutschland editions of Google News.

 

The Brits are more interested in stories with headlines like “Monkeys take turns in conversation” and “Vote for Scottish independence is act of self-belief.” (So am I, come to think of it.)

 

As for France, Google Actualités is all about L’Affaire Leonarda, Quentin Tarantino and “Nice plonge l’OM dans le doute” (which seems to be about football rivalry between the neighbouring cities of Nice and Marseilles, not about a nice cleavage). Nary a mention on the homepage about “Cherchez le fromage Oka” or “Vite,  vite, wheat, wheat.”

Jian-Ghomeshi

Currently getting bigger play than the free-trade deal in German newspapers is a DPA news-service profile of CBC host-interviewer Jian Ghomeshi, who is dubbed “Superstar” and “der Coolster Kanadier” — the coolest Canadian. Ghomeshi’s civilized but firm showdown with über-jerk Billy Bob Thornton is cited, and his sympathetic but penetrating interviews with the likes of Drake, Joni Mitchell, J.K. Rowling and Woody Allen are lauded.

 

Stephen Harper would kill — and I mean that almost literally, he really might kill — to get such fawning, high-falutin’ praise in the German press. But Harper just isn’t getting the same love. Not by a long shot.

 

If you want to know what the Belgians, Czechs and Greeks think about the Canada-EU “big deal,” you’re going to have to look it up yourself. But I can pretty much guarantee you’ll find nothing — nada, rien, niente, niets, rud, zero, sifar, wala, zippity-do-dah, nothing — on their Google News pages either.

 

None of this shows ignorance or lack of awareness on Europe’s part: It simply reflects the reality of the situation.

 

While Harper trumpets that the European Union is Canada’s second-largest trading partner (far behind the U.S., of course, but a solid step ahead of China), it’s not an equal equation for Europe.

 

Canada is not the EU’s second-largest trading partner (China is, with the U.S. being No. 1), or third-largest (Russia) or fourth-largest or fifth-largest trade partner (Switzerland and Norway, which aren’t members of the EU).

 

Hell, we’re not even in the top 10 like Brazil and India.

 

We are … wait for it … the European Union’s 12th-largest trading partner, getting only 1.6% of Europe’s international trade attention.

 

Canada is sandwiched between Saudi Arabia and Singapore. Singapore? Little, unforested, non-agricultural, mineral-free, non-BlackBerry-producing city-state Singapore did $65 billion worth of business with the EU in 2011, not that far behind the $74 billion worth of trade carried on between Europe and big, resource-rich, BlackBerry-producing Canada in the same year.

 

No wonder Europe was in no rush to cut a major trade deal with us. No wonder Stephen Harper had to bend and buckle so much to get his “big deal” pushed through while it still serves his purposes.

 

If you want to be an optimist — or Stephen Harper’s flack — you can look at this as providing a huge opportunity to gain market share: The sky’s the limit. If you want to be a realist, you can say Europe gets most of its wood from Scandinavia and Poland, most of its oil from Russia and the Mideast, and most of its wheat from France and Germany.

 

(Really. Canada is now a relative pipsqueak in terms of growing wheat, only the seventh largest producer of wheat in the world. France produced far more wheat than Canada in 2012, Germany produced almost as much, and the European Union as a whole produced five times as much wheat as Canada did in 2012. Did you really think all that Italian pasta you buy was made with Canadian wheat? If we didn’t have hockey-playing beavers and moose and mountains and American movie stars in Muskoka, if we didn’t have poutine and polar bears and Mayor Rob Ford and elephants in the Toronto Zoo [of course Rob Ford's not in the Toronto Zoo, silly ... but then neither are the elephants], we’d be almost bereft of a national identity these days. Oh, and BlackBerries, of course. We must never forget our BlackBerry heritage.)

hockey-playing-beaver

Of course, CETA (as those artful nerds and hipsters in the know call the free trade deal) will make some kind of difference to the Canada-Europe trade balance. But don’t be too sure that shift will be in Canada’s favour.

 

Europe already sells Canada a hell of a lot more stuff than it buys from us. Once BMWs and Volkswagens and Soaves and Cote du Rhones and prosciutto hams and Nike runners and Rolex watches and Kinder Surprise eggs (which are actually Italian, not German) and Birkenstocks and Prada diapers become cheaper on this side of the Atlantic, that imbalance may shift even further in Europe’s favour. Then, with all those extra loonies and toonies in their pockets, the Europeans can come over to Canada for cut-rate holidays and buy up any extra mineral-exploration and potash-producing companies and telecoms (hahahahahaha!) the Chinese and Singaporians have left lying around. Oh yeah, and it looks like they’ll be able to buy up Canadian water and infrastructure under the CETA deal, too.

 

The best thing about the deal, from my particular point of view, is that it will — theoretically — make European wines and cheeses more affordable and more widely available in Canada.

Wine_and_Cheese

That doesn’t make Canada’s vintners and dairy farmers very happy, but there is, after all, only so much Quebec cheddar and Niagara VQA baco noir you can consume before you shout, “Enough! Give me a wedge of Italian pecorino and a glass of Spanish tempranillo before I expire from ennui!”

 

Even when the Canada-EU deal is noted in Europe, very little mention is being made in the media of increased trade in wheat or potash (or pecorino or tempranillo) or the increased opportunities for Europeans to buy up Canadian corporate and natural assets. No, what’s really making the Europeans’ mouths water (if they know about the deal at all) is increased access to … Canadian steaks. Yep, they’ve got a real hankering for more — much more — of Alberta’s AAA prime beef.

Rindfleisch

“Wo is das Rindfleisch, Kanadier?” — “Where’s the beef, Jian Ghomeshi?” — Germans shout at me as I drive by with tiny, diplomat-sized Maple Leaf flags fluttering from stanchions on the front fenders of the Hispano-Suiza.

 

I just wave regally and make a great show of ripping up publicity photos of Billy Bob Thornton to vast, heaving swells of applause and cheers. Then I throw out free samples of surplus BlackBerries to sudden, oppressive silence.

Billy-Bob-Buffoon

Canada and Europe, friends forever, a united front — if only in our profound dislike of Billy Bob Thornton and sourness toward the BlackBerry. As for the trade issue, that will sort itself out in due course. It’s really not such a big deal.