Wham!

I really have to laugh at the sheer naivety of Jim Flaherty and his government.

Two years ago, they arrive at the head of the country in the middle of an economic boom and are annoyed to discover that the government is running large surpluses. So, masterful financial managers, they come in with two successive years of candy budgets and largely eliminate the surplus, leaving only a slight cushion of a few billion dollars.

This all looks fine in good times, but now, suddenly, things have gotten tricker. The economy is slowing down fast and may actually end up in recession. So obviously the government's revenue is declining, which, considering the size of the budget cushion, isn't good news.

Flaherty obviously didn't understand that in times of economic boom, large surpluses are normal and make it easier to deal with the inevitable downturns. Now, he's facing declining revenues and has already spent all his cards.

Showdown

A week after releasing a provincial climate change strategy which has been dubbed the worst plan of the western world, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach reiterated today his disbelief in climate change by cancelling his scheduled participation in tomorrow’s Premier’s Meeting on the environment. In doing so, he once again made it clear that the province of Alberta does not care about global warming and strive to do anything about it.

As Peter Lougheed wrote last in the Globe in Mail, this could potentially cause major national divisions.

Imagine if the federal government were to finally decide to put in place a real and effective climate change plan calling for nationwide absolute emissions reductions. All provinces other than Alberta would have a fairly easy time meeting the targets. It might take some effort and maybe initially some funds, but the popular support for the measures would mean that they get applied without too much fuss.

In Alberta, however, this situation is completely different. The province, after half a century of dreams, is finally reaping the benefits of its oil sands and sees no hurry to give them up. Few Albertans truly believe in global warming, and many still view the federal government as intrinsically evil and financially incompetent.

For this reason, it is nearly certain that any serious and binding national climate change plan would be seen a yet another federal intrusion in provincial affairs and wreak havoc across the country. It would be both Alberta vs. Federal Government and Alberta vs. Other provinces that are seeing their emissions reductions offset by the Alberta tar sands.

You see, its all because of an error of judgement made by our Founding Fathers in 1867. Not well acquainted with the science of global warming, they made the error of making natural resources a provincial domain and the environment a federal competence. So in any case of a federal-provincial battle, both sides can legitimately able to claim their side of the law, bringing a new level of antagonism to federal-provincial relations.

The government –which ever one it ends up being- will undoubtedly decide at one point to get serious about the environment. The Alberta legislature will most likely oppose any real targets, making a confrontation inevitable.

The question is how muvh? If Peter Lougheed is to be trusted: it will be ten times greater than anything we have ever seen in the past.

Bad Time For Power

With the world economy heading for a major slowdown this coming year, this is definitely a bad time to be in power. Canada looks on course for a year of stagflation -maybe even recession- and some analysts are predicting that the government could end up in deficit if it maintains current levels of spending. So, to put things squarely, unless the Conservatives get hit with their own sponsorship scandal, Stéphane Dion would be crazy to call an election any time soon.

Let's just take a look at history:

In 1930, the Conservatives of R.B. Bennet were elected with the mandate to put the Canadian economy back on track during the Great Depression. They did their best and really tried to save the situation, but, because of the bad economic times all across the world, they miserably failed and lost power to the Liberals in 1935. The didn't regain it until Diefenbaker!

In 1968, Trudeaumania swept across the country, propelling the Liberals and their young Prime Minister to a strong and decisive victory. Things went quite well at first, with Trudeau still climbing in the polls, but it wasn't long before the Canadian and world economies fell victim to stagflation, putting the government's finances in difficulty. The Liberals hung on to power in the next 1972 election by two seats, and it was only thanks to the magnetic personality of Trudeau that they avoided a humiliating defeat.

When Kim Campbell became Prime Minister in 1993, she accepted the lead of a country with its public finances in shambles during a terrible time of economic downturn. George Bush paid the price in the States, Bob Rae paid the price in Ontario, and she, frankly, paid more than anyone else.

An economic slowdown can only hurt the government, and it's as bad as many people predict it to be, it could put the government in deficit. If I were Dion, knowing the history, I would abstain from the next budget vote.

Good Work Manley!

It appears that John Manley and his colleagues have actually done good work. Contrarily to what everyone had imagined, their report on the future of Canada's mission in Afghanistan is surprisingly thorough and unbiased, and clearly defines the objectives of the mission and the conditions of our participation. Some experts and journalists are even going as far as to call it "the bible" of Afghanistan. And while I obviously wouldn't go that far, I am nevertheless prepared to recognize the legitimacy of the research.

One can agree or not with their findings. They say that a extra 1000 foreign troops would be enough to make the mission a success, I say that a billion dollars of cash to get poppy farmers onto another crop would be a better use of resources. They say that "Canada is meaningful in Afghanistan", I cynically believe that the only ones who really matter are the United-States. But these are just opinions, which are always stronger after a healthy debate.

There is one idea of the group, though, which I find particularly brilliant: tell NATO that Canada will pull out all of its troops in February 2009 unless the alliance can send the extra 1000 well trained soldiers viewed by Manley as essential to the success of the mission. In other words, send NATO an ultimatum.

These troops probably won't make a difference. To be honest, thinking that the Taliban can be vanquished thanks to a few more western soldiers is simply wishful-thinking, frankly naive. But at least, by sending a ultimatum, the government would reiterate Canada's commitment to Afghanistan while making it clear that the country will not be pushed around by other members unwilling to do their share of combat. That works for me!

Innovation please!

Three important events took place this week in the automobile industry.

First, in Detroit, Ford and GM unveiled some of their newest innovative vehicles at the 2008 North American International Auto Show. In keeping with the American tradition, the new models were big, rugged and tough. Here are some of the most advertised models:



Also this week, Indian firm Tata Motors unveiled its new Nano model, whose $2500 price will make it the world's cheapest car. Not a F-150, but it apparently works!



Finally, back in Detroit, candidates battling for the US Republican Party Presidential nomination debated the best ways of saving the crumbling American auto-industry.

I'm no auto-expert, of course, but judging by the pictures above, the US auto-industry in in limbo for a good reason...

-

Canadians working in manufacturing plants for US auto-makers are losing tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. The high dollar is of course partly to blame, but the dinosaur mentality of Ford-GM as shown in the Auto Show doesn't help either. The Tata is the car of the future, the F-150 is the car of the past. With our high dollar and level of education, there is an opportunity for us Canadians to develop an expertise in the area of small, energy-efficient car, and rid ourselves of the reliance on the health of the Detroit 3.

A small firm in Québec built the amazing ZENN (Zero Emissions, No-Noise) car which impressed Rick Mercer enough for him to feature it on his program. It can reach highway speeds, fit a weeks worth of groceries in its trunk, and removes six tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere every year. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M88k6Ipp3c)
But unfortunately, thanks to our great bureaucracy, it has only received safety approval in British-Columbia and... the United-States.



In most countries an innovation as fantastic as the ZENN car would have received HUGE governmental support. But in Canada, our government has been so busy trying to save the GM jobs in Mississauga that ZENN has had to wait for two years to get its safety certification request processed.

A Manufactured Fiasco

As we all know, a mini-crisis erupted in Ottawa last December when the crown corporation AECL (Atomic Energy of Canada) was forced by the Nuclear Safety Commission to shut down a plant in Chalk River, Ontario, that produced more than half of the world’s medical isotopes. Despite the drastic repercussions on world health, Linda Keen, the head of the nuclear watchdog, had ruled that the reactor posed too much of a risk to the community to be allowed to stay in operation.

While the government initially took some heat for its decidedly slow response to the crisis –especially after it was revealed that it had known about the situation for four months-, it managed to bury the issue pretty quickly by calling an emergency sitting which saw parliament overrule the nuclear watchdog’s decision and order AECL to resume isotope production. Canadians’ approved, they forgave the government for its slow response, and broke off for the Christmas holidays.

In most governments, this would have been the end. “Crisis avoided, we acted, now forget about it” would have said Jean Chrétien.

But for some reason, the Conservatives got another idea. Last week, after Christmas, the Minister of Natural Resources Gary Lunn in charge of the reactor file wrote a scathing open letter the head of the nuclear watchdog Linda Keen, basically telling her to get in line with the government’s position or face demotion.

It was, to say the least, bizarre. There was no clear purpose to the letter, no new decision relevant to the file, just some menaces and allegations. It was as if Gary Lunn was taunting Linda Keen into dropping the gloves.

And drop the gloves, Linda Keen did. In an open response to Gary Lunn’s letter, she clearly informed him that she was doing her job as required under the law and that she would not hesitate to pursue legal action if the government interfered in the work of the independent nuclear watchdog. Ouch!

So what does Minister Lunn do? Play down the confrontation, put the issue behind him? No, he waits until the eve of Linda Keen’s scheduled testimony for a parliamentary committee and fires her in the middle of the night. Just like that, bam!

But I mean, seriously, why bother? The issue was off the radar screen, Keen was largely silenced, and the public supported the governments handling of the issue. Why waste any energy going after Keen? And even if it was that important to give her the boot, could they have found a better time than the eve of her scheduled testimony before a committee. After parliament voted the reopening of the reactor in December, for example, Lunn could easily have argued that this put Keen in a position of non-confidence. Or on Christmas Day, he could have gotten rid of her without anyone knowing. It would have been, as they say in French, ni vu ni connu.

Why such a politically astute government chose to artificially create such a controversy is difficult to understand. Not only are they firing an esteemed public servant in after having handed her all sorts of abuse, but they are firing a woman when the polls clearly show that they are suffering from an extremely low level of support among women all across the country. Strategically, it makes no sense.

Daniel Lessard, the esteemed Radio-Canada journalist, said that the dismissal of Linda Keen was a message to all civil servants: get in line or face the sack. In his words “If I were a civil servant at a very high level –head of a board, of a crown corporation- I’d be very nervous and I would try to please that government as much as I can.”

We should of course be wary of making too many alarmist predictions about the future, but considering Harper’s well known distrust of the civil service which he views as too Liberal, Mr. Lessard may well be right.

Scandal?

A small scandal has erupted in the US over these comments Hillary Clinton made about President Johnson's role in Martin Luther King's equality movement.

Watch the video here.

As you'll see, the comments are completely inoffensive and absolutely true. This only became a scandal because journalists were running out of new things to say about the Democratic race and wanted a fresh new scandal to sell some papers. Had Clinton made her remark on another day, we would never had heard of it again.

In another part of the world (a few miles north), Stéphane Dion's appointment of NDP MLA Joan Beatty as liberal candidate in the northern Saskatchewan Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River has angered the very influent David Orchard, who was planning on running himself for nomination, and caused a mini-crisis in the riding and party. It's been on Don Newman for the last two days: first Ralph Goodale yesterday, then, today, David Orchard.

In a riding that was only won by about 100 votes by the Liberals in the last election, this is hardly what you would call smart campaigning.

Canada=America

We Canadians love to think that we’re different than Americans. Yet judging by the partisan tactics that our government getting away with, Canadians are only getting closer to Americans.

Take a look:

The speech from the Throne: Traditionally, the speech from the throne was read in the House at midday by the Governor General, with only MPs and the press present. This year though, the PM told Michaëlle Jean to read it at prime-time, and brought in “average citizens” to sit behind Her Excellency and add the human touch to the TV shot.

Leaving Parliament: All important announcements used to be made in the House. Prime Ministers would never even think of saying anything meaningful away from Parliament Hill. Now though, even if it is to announce two million dollars in aid to Inuit fisherman, the PM will fly over to Iqualuit with his band of ministers to beautify the photo-up.

Anti-conservative media: The Prime Minister exerts draconian control over the press: sets which reporters get to ask him questions in press conferences, bars cameras from filming the coffins of dead Canadian soldiers returning home from Afghanistan, cancels his appearance at the Press Gallery dinner and bans MPs from attending it.

And why? Because the media is, to quote our Prime Minster: “anti-conservative”.

Terrorist target: In a televised speech, the Prime Minister says: “we are a target because of who we are, and how we live: our society, our diversity and our values. Values such as freedom, democracy and the rule of law.” I thought that was Dubya’s line…

God Bless Canada: Yes, God Bless Canada… just like God Bless America. In our secular Canada, which we thought different than the USA, our Prime Minister now ends most of his speeches with “God Bless Canada”.

None of this would have been permitted ten years ago. Canadians would simply have put their foot down and said: “This is not the government we want”. Yet today, the PM gets away with it.

So all that nonsense about Canadians being different than Americans, I’ll only buy into it when Harper leaves office.

Deux Articles

Voici deux articles que j'ai écrit pour le journal de mon conseil scolaire


À la recherche du français perdu

Dans son recensement quinquennal de 2006, Statistiques Canada dresse le portrait alarmant d’une communauté franco-ontarienne en voie de disparition. Ses données montrent les francophones en perte de poids démographique partout dans la province, et confirment ainsi une tendance historique qui, à moins d’un revirement spectaculaire, semble condamner les Franco-ontariens à l’assimilation.

Cette réalité illustrée par Statistique Canada est d’autant plus surprenante compte tenu des prodigieux efforts déployés par les gouvernements fédéraux et provinciaux pour promouvoir la place du français dans la province. Ils ont offert aux francophones minoritaires un système scolaire public dans leur langue, ils ont soumis le gouvernement fédéral au bilinguisme, et ils ont versé des millions de dollars à divers organismes caritatifs faisant la promotion du français. Mais malgré tout, les Franco-ontariens continuent de s’assimiler à un rythme catastrophique.

Il semblerait donc finalement que l’assimilation soit moins un problème de ressources que de volonté : malgré les efforts du gouvernement, les Franco-ontariens ne tiennent tout simplement pas à leur langue; du moins pas assez pour vouloir la transmettre à leurs enfants.

Cette affirmation peut paraître surprenante à première vue, mais il faut se rappeler que la majorité des Franco-ontariens maîtrisent mieux l’anglais que le français. Ils ont beau savoir parler français, ils réfléchissent en anglais et vivent leur vie uniquement en anglais. La question se pose alors : pourquoi conserveraient-ils leur français?

Si l’on veut que les Franco-ontariens s’accrochent au français, il faut faire de celle-ci leur langue de prédilection : la langue dans laquelle ils préfèrent tous lire, écrire, et s’exprimer. Mais ceci suppose une maîtrise parfaite de la langue, ce qui, malheureusement, n’est pas toujours le cas. La nostalgie ne pourra empêcher la disparition des francophones de l’Ontario. Seul un programme scolaire rigoureux accordant une place prépondérante à la qualité de la langue pourra contrer les forces de l’assimilation.

La mélodie de l'Alternative

Le 23 décembre dernier, les élèves de l’école secondaire l’Alternative ont eu le bonheur d’assister à un spectacle de noël mettant en vedette plusieurs talents artistiques de leur école. Organisé par le professeure Danielle Barrette, le spectacle a enchanté le public par sa fabuleuse richesse et rigueur artistique, et formé la digne apothéose d’une année 2007 réussie.

Quelle émotion, et quel talent! Danseurs, chanteurs, pianistes et violonistes se sont succédé sur scène, accompagnés chaque fois d’un chorus de cris et d’applaudissements. Leurs numéros, parfois lyriques, parfois sympathiques, et souvent même émouvants, se complétaient à merveille pour former un ensemble organique et complet.

Les regards du public en disaient long. Immobiles sur leurs chaises, ils avaient les yeux rivés sur les artistes, captivés et parfois émus par les merveilles de la scène. Le sourire était universel, et tous se sentaient fiers et heureux d’appartenir à un ensemble d’élèves si convivial et solidaire.

Même les enseignants étaient de la partie. Actifs ou retraités, ils étaient tous ravis de se joindre à leurs élèves et d’entonner quelques chansons traditionnelles sur un clavier ou accordéon. Certains d’entre eux, habillés en costumes clownesques de paras ou de cow-boys, se livrèrent même à une parodie chorégraphique du tube des années 70 YCMA, provoquant l’hilarité générale dans la salle.

Un spectacle comme celui-ci n’aurait pu avoir lieu qu’à l’Alternative. La convivialité, les rires, et la complicité entre les élèves et leurs enseignants n’existent qu’à cette école, et c’est précisément ce qui a fait du spectacle un évènement si mémorable. Comme a crié quelqu’un dans la foule : l’Alternative est si attachante que même après leur retraite, les professeurs reviennent jouer dans le spectacle de noël.

Vision Please

In September 1864, 36 delegates from the British provinces of North-America gathered in Quebec City to negotiate the creation of a new confederate state. They came from different backgrounds, both personal and political, but were united by the common dream of building a country to call home. Three years later, on July the 1^st 1867, this country they called Canada was born.

Less than forty years later, at the turn of the century, the united state they had dreamt for had blossomed into a true land of promise where anything was possible and the best was still to come. The country’s new francophone Prime-Minister, riding an unprecedented wave of popularity, felt confident enough to claim that the century would belong to Canada.

He also had a dream. A dream of a country truly spanning from coast to coast, populated by millions of new immigrants united by hard work and optimism. So he implemented it. He opened the country’s borders, gave out free land, and offered government subsidies to fund the construction of new railway lines building on the successes of the Canadian Pacific Railway. His dream took off, and the country benefited.

Half a century later, Lester B. Pearson took the reigns of a Canada more prosperous than it had ever been, and with the help of Tommy Douglas, gave it a compassionate government. He knew what his country could achieve, he had a vision he dearly believed in, and he implemented it. The result was universal health care, the Canada Pension Plan, Canada Student Loans, and a minimum wage. He dreamt big, and the country is still reaping the benefits.

His successor, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, also had a dream: a just society. He wanted a country where all citizens would be treated equally by the law, where Francophones and Anglophones would build the country together as equals, and where immigrants would be welcomed with opened arms and encouraged to share their culture and heritage. The result was official bilingualism, multiculturalism, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Trudeau’s dream was bold, and never unanimously accepted by the Canadian public, but he had the courage fight for it and make it a reality. The country undeniably benefited.

Brian Mulroney also had a dream. He wanted a truly united country where all citizens felt included and accepted by the federal government. He wanted to bring Quebec back into the constitutional families and heal the wounds of a divisive and often bitter Trudeau reign. He really tried his hardest and put all of his energy into his dream. And ultimately, if it failed, it was because of the unpredictable actions of a single Manitoba MLA. But he took other risks, some of which proved to be fantastically successful. NAFTA, the GST, were all products of Mulroney’s bold vision and desire to produce lasting change in the Canadian economy.

But since then, there has been no vision. Nobody able to take the reigns of the country and bring it on a path towards more fairness, unity and prosperity. Four Prime-Ministers, have led the country since Mulroney left office, and not one of them truly has truly brought vision and a desire for excellence. We had good managers, sly politicians, but no true leaders.

Times are good -times are very good-, but our country still faces many challenges. We must restore communications between francophone Quebecers and the federal government, and address the unacceptable plight of Aboriginals living on reserves. We must address the growing disparities between regions, and between the very rich and very poor. We must act immediately to become leaders in fighting climate change, rather than self-righteous talkers. And most importantly, must to start believing in ourselves, and remembering that while Canada may not be the largest and most powerful country in the world today, it wasn’t either at the time of Lester Pearson, which didn’t stop him from leading the world.

The next election should be about vision. Who has a positive and generous vision for the country? We’ve had fourteen years and counting of decent managers playing political games to stay in power. It’s time for vision.

Ebauche

Voici la première ébauche d'un article qui parraîtra dans l'Express Etudiant, le journal mensuel des écoles françaises de l'est de l'Ontario.

Vingt ans après que le romancier québécois Yves Bauchemin ait qualifié les Franco-ontariens de « cadavres encore chauds », les résultats du recensement de 2006 semblent lui donner raison. Partout dans la province, la minorité francophone est en perte de poids démographique, et, avec l’exception de quelques régions situées le long de la frontière québécoise, elle se dirige droit vers l’extinction.

Certains diront que c’est par manque de ressources : si les Franco-ontariens avaient à leur disposition plus d’argent et de ressources gouvernementales, il parviendraient plus facilement à combattre les forces de l’assimilation. Mais la minoritée francophone bénéficie déja d’un système scolaire allant de la maternelle à l’université, de services gouvernementaux offerts en français, et de sommes importantes d’argent allouées par les gouvernements fédéraux et provinciaux pour soutenir des initiatives communautaires visant à promouvoir l’usage du français. Bref, les ressources sont là pour permettre aux Franco-ontariens de résister à l’assimilation; ce n’est plus qu’une question de volonté.

Le défi est donc de convaincre les Franco-ontariens que le français, au même titre que l’anglais, est une langue valant la peine d’être cultivée et transmise aux prochaines générations. En d’autres mots, ils faut que les Franco-ontariens soient assez fiers de leur langue pour vouloir l’enseigner à leurs enfants. Or il se trouve que la majorité des francophones vivant en Ontario maîtrisent mieux l’anglais que le français. Ils ont beau savoir parler francais, ils réflechissent uniquement en anglais et vivent leur vie en anglais. Pour eux, le français est simplement la langue de leurs ancêtres.

Si l’on veut que les Franco-ontariens s’accrochent au français, il faut faire en sorte qu’ils le maîtrisent au moins aussi bien que l’anglais. Qu’ils soient capables d’écrire une lettre aux professeurs de leurs enfants sans commettre de fautes d’orthographe, et de comprendre l’Horace de Corneille aussi bien que le Hamlet de Sheakspeare. La nostalgie seule ne pourra empêcher la disparition des francophones de l’Ontario. Seul un programme scolaire rigoureux accordant une place préponderante à la qualité de la langue pourra contrer les forces de l’assimilation.