Yes, there were a few die hard conspiracy theorists who had braved the cold to hand out leaflets indicating that the Twin Towers had come down as the result of bombs planted by the US government, but even they could not prevent the warmth and excitement of an evening with Rudy:

“Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the next president of the United States, Mr. Rudy Giuliani”

I never thought I would hear this in a Vancouver theater, but last night I did and the audience was no less excited than an American one: Rudy is indeed still the mayor of the world. It is a reputation that gives him an incredible amount of currency abroad and it may be a crucial asset if this next president needs to enlist some real support in unifying the west in its struggle with global terror.

The presentation was centered around Rudy‘s principles of leadership (goals, optimism, accountability, preparation, communication and teamwork) which are all discussed in his book on the subject matter. I won’t bore you with the details as it has all been documented and equally well promoted over time, but Rudy can dive into a reservoir of endless anecdotes and turn these business and life lessons into highly entertaining stuff.

The evening was scripted and rather than have the audience fire off questions, local newspaper editor Patricia Graham probed the man who had just launched his 2008 exploratory committee. And that is where Rudy moved into more interesting territory. He was for instance quick to point out that last week’s election most likely would not represent a shift away from the major goal in Iraq: ensuring the establishment and survival of an accountable government. The one thing that differs from before was the bi-partisan nature of the effort, but the trick would be to accomplish that goal without deviating from that key objective. In that he also neutralized the expectation that Jim Baker’s Iraq Study Group would come up with any dramatic changes and he linked this argument back to his leadership principle: remain focused on your goals. So no return to Kissingerian realism and settling for some useful authoritarian partners if that would allow the US an early exit, at least that is how I interpreted Giuliani's message.

Graham then asked where he stood on stem cell research, abortion, gun control and gay marriage. Giuliani was a lot more forthcoming on this then he would be had he been performing somewhere deep in America’s heartland I suspect. He fully supports the right to opt for abortion (although using the standard qualifier that as a person he would never make that choice), he endorses stem cell research, control of handguns and did not see any obstacles to civil unions for gays. “Well, you sound like a Canadian liberal!” countered Graham which was a nice cue for Rudy to drill home his other, more conservative, side. Cutting taxes, balancing budgets and an aggressive foreign policy, Rudy’s list was even spontaneously interrupted by a round of un-Canadian applause when he insisted on a determined effort to pursue the war on terror. And the latter is probably safe in the hands of the man who tells his audience that he continues to think about 9/11 everyday, and who also quite perceptively believes that America still hasn’t fully absorbed what happened on that day.

Walking back to my car it occurred to me that the issues that some of the organizers had wanted to see addressed – urban decay and crime – had not gotten all that much attention from the man who vigorously cleaned up New York. But that was not what the smartly dressed crowd had come for. While they made their way home among the omnipresent panhandlers and drug addicts it became clear that an evening with Rudy is exactly like his term as mayor of New York: a rapid exercise in how to get tangible results with a prescient lesson in foreign policy at the tail end. Despite his perceived tendencies to ‘Canadian values’, that should position him well for his 2008 run. His track record, vision as well as his political capital outside the US is unmatched by any other candidate in the current field of contenders for 2008.

It's been a while since we looked at the state of US-Canadian relations and in particular at the various attempts to manipulate anti-American sentiments. And that practice wasn't just the provenance of some left-leaning politicians who had run out of good arguments to attract voter interest. One of their cheerleaders, market research analyst Michael Adams has been on a relentless campaign to point out the diverging values of the two North American nations. As a foreign observer active in both nations I have always been puzzled by Adams' fire and ice theory, and today some numbers were released to counter it:

But those who think that means Canadians are manifestly distinct from the folks next door may be disappointed by a study by Ronald Inglehart of the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan.

The political scientist says his empirical findings will come as a "shock to Canadians." After all, he says, "The worst insult I can make to my Canadian friends is to say, 'Aw, you're just like us.' "

Inglehart's numbers put both nations very close in terms of balancing secular and traditional values as opposed to European nations which scored much higher when it came to secular and rational values. It would be interesting to correlate these findings with economic attitudes, but even there I suspect Canadians and Americans may end up far closer as opposed to the Europeans than both would like to believe. History, geography and demography do impact values in a very crucial way.

There now is solid evidence that Canada's Liberals deliberately fueled anti-American sentiments for campaign purposes during the last general election. More telling is that it is one of the Liberal Party's key people who has been frank enough to reveal this and he commented as follows:

"I don't think [Canadians] buy into the idea of gratuitously being offensive. If I had to speculate, I would say that playing that card during the election was not helpful at all to the electoral prospects of the people doing it."

And that's why it didn't work. Together with slandering conservative leader Haprer and his party the Liberals ran a terribly self-destructive and overly negative campaign. And they did this while they had a viable option to run on their economic record and possibly some new ideas. The inability to do that, combined with the latest revelations, underlines why they lost the recent election.

What it also tells us is that we will see more fingerpointing and skeletons coming out of the wretched campaign closet in the months ahead as the Liberals try and find a new leader as well as a new direction. It won't be a pretty sight, but it will be very revealing. And for some of us, highly entertaining.

At least that is the conclusion after two successive electoral defeats of Western leaders who had made anti-Americanism the center of their campaign platform. True, these two men were not the most appealing characters, but at one time their divisive message yielded some miraculous results at the ballot box. No longer. Here's an editorial from WaPo on the topic:

Mr. Martin becomes the second G-8 leader in four months to exit from office after discovering that anti-U.S. demagoguery is no longer enough to win an election. Gerhard Schroeder, the former German chancellor, also tried to rescue his political career last fall by parading his differences with Mr. Bush; the result was the victory of Angela Merkel, who has moved swiftly to repair relations with Washington.

Mark Steyn has taken a closer look at the phenomenon and explains:

It would be a stretch to argue that Mr. Chirac, Mr. Schroeder and now Paul Martin in Ottawa ran into trouble because of their anti-Americanism. Au contraire, cheap demonization of the Great Satan is almost as popular in the streets of Toronto as in the streets of Islamabad. But these days anti-Americanism is the first refuge of the scoundrel, and it's usually a reliable indicator that you're not up to the challenges of the modern world or of your own country.

Yes. It also means that Washington will no longer be alone or solely reliant on Tony Blair and John Howard in stating the morally obvious when it comes to terrorism and the Middle East. Today for instance Angela Merkel - while visiting Israel - made it plain that Hamas can not count on European funds if it fails to recognize Israel while at the same time underlining the threat that Iran currently poses for the world. Expect similar comments from Mr. Harper soon.

We haven't heard a lot from David Frum recently, but his piece on a new era in American-Canadian relations is a gem. So do read Putting an End to Ottawa's Brat Act.

Yesterday vs. Tomorrow?

It’s one of the topics that we put to rest here on Peaktalk some time ago – here are the archives if you’re interested - but with a general election campaign in full swing here, anti-Americanism has raised its ugly head again. So much, that we can unfortunately no longer ignore it and are forced to speak out, once more. A similar concern was shared by the US Ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins who offered scathing criticism of that peculiar Canadian practice in a speech yesterday:

It may be smart election-year politics to thump your chest and criticize your friend and your No. 1 trading partner constantly,” Mr. Wilkins said in a speech to the Canadian Club at the Chateau Laurier Hotel in Ottawa. “But it is a slippery slope, and all of us should hope that it doesn't have a long-term impact on the relationship.”

It hard to say what Wilkins means by an impact on the relationship, but I wouldn’t want to guess. Canada’s economy is largely built around its exports to the US (85% of all exports find their way south), so the business community should take note. Equally important, in a world where the cross-Atlantic relationship between especially the US and Europe is under pressure, Canada will have to start thinking of its role on the global stage and wonder where from a security point of view its direct interests are and how they are best served. Economically and politically - and discounting Quebec – culturally too, Canadians will have to come to some sort of realization that in the 21st century its wagon is more than ever hitched to the United States. That by the way is a relationship that is already taking shape in a number of ways. Davids Medienkritik notes for instance that the German weekly Der Spiegel isn’t even able to distinguish between American and Canadian soldiers.

But on a public level Canadians prefer to be in denial. And that’s not because they dislike Americans or feel that they’re not benefiting economically from a close relationship with the US. From a cultural standpoint they have learned that their sense of nation is not being what it means to be Canadian, but what it is that makes them un-American. Privatized healthcare and gun ownership to name a few are apparently American virtues and that’s why anti-Americanism plays such a pivotal role in an election campaign. A vote for the Conservative Party could potentially mean that time-tested Canadian solutions are going to be changed and adjusted, or may even be abandoned. It may mean that market mechanisms and free individuals are often far better judges than the government in deciding certain matters. That’s why there was such an outcry over the conservative idea to let parents make their own childcare choices; it meant a decisive move away from time tested Canadian solutions for allocating resources. It’s telling that the fear of being identified with America runs so deep that even the leader of the Conservative Party feels compelled to distance himself from a right-of-center Washington newspaper that has recently endorsed him.

Canadians however are not by nature anti-American, nor do I believe after almost seven years of close observation that they are overly Canadian, whatever that means. When questioned or pressured, they can be very pragmatic and many even aspire to American virtues without directly saying so. They’re an odd blend of European and American traditions who somehow have retained a certain way of social-economic thinking much longer than some other parts of the free western world.

The anti-American rhetoric therefore appears to be a battle between the past and the future and given the rapid global changes, is now more intense than ever before. It’s a struggle over who is the dominant player in the economy, a fight over politically correct values, a debate over the extent of individual freedom. A country that has relied on publicly funded healthcare, a moviemaking industry bankrolled by the state and an economy with one of the highest degrees of unionization in the western world will be subject to a rude awakening in the 21st century. Remember the irrational and angry teacher’s strike discussed here a few months back? Part of the same battle. The tide is turning slowly but steadily, and we are seeing it in Germany, in France and we have seen it in Britain and The Netherlands earlier.

The overly institutionalized - and hence corrupt – left is fighting without argument, without logic and has little left but slandering and insulting those who challenge the perfidy of the past that somehow passes for tomorrow’s agenda. And the fear of the unknown, the fear of tomorrow drives Canadians back to those who can convincingly sell the past. There is your anti-Americanism and there’s your hidden agenda. To propose an alternative view, to look for a better tomorrow, it's all essentially un-Canadian.

It also explains the lack of real political progress in Canada as the one party with the ability to effect change and define a vision of Canada’s tomorrow is so fearful of being shut out of power that it campaigns in line with the songbook presented by the incumbents. Sure, they’ve floated a few interesting ideas, but they fail to take the debate beyond yesterday’s battle. No call to put an end to the poisonous anti-Americanism, and no agenda to really liberate market forces where even Europe is driving privatization and deregulation further than ever. Even increased military spending is draped in a sauce of Canadian sovereignty, ignoring the fact that a few generations from now Canadians may well be wearing an American uniform to defend what’s left of the western world. Canada can define the role its plays in that crucial partnership, but the absence of political guts has for now, again, prevented it.

Here’s a very interesting column by Virginia Postrel in Forbes. In it she debunks the notion that social conservatives have stifled the progress of biotech and life sciences in the US by contrasting it with the restrictive regulatory environment in Canada:

U.S. scientists and their supporters tend to assume biomedical research is threatened by know-nothings on religious crusades. But as the Canadian law illustrates, the long-term threat to genetic research comes less from the religious right than from the secular left. Canada's law forbids all sorts of genetic manipulations, many of them currently theoretical. It's a crime, for instance, to alter inheritable genes.

If ever there’s a juncture where social conservatives and the enviro-left are able to shake hands then this is it. But where the American drive for profit has apparently kept research going, a moralizing left that’s also deeply suspicious of pharma-profits has been able to throw up some decisive roadblocks in Canada.

To be clear, this is a tough one and I intuitively reject excessive manipulation of nature and wasn’t all that excited with the emergence of genetically manipulated foods. It seemed unnatural with a potential for creating new and largely unknown health consequences.

The flip-side is of course that it is ridiculous to bar pharmaceutical and life science businesses from moving their groundbreaking research forward and discovering new cures for debilitating diseases. It’s the incentive to make money that is keeping many of us alive and well. The benefits of stem-cell research for Alzheimer’s are a case in point and I consequently believe that our quality of life should pre-empt undue government interference. And therein lies the ultimate test for the regulators: impairing progress should be subject to demonstrating potential negative side effects. That’s a heavy burden of proof to carry, and not an easy one too.

Interesting piece in the Economist on America's northern and southern borders. In the south as always, porous:

Some 124,000 illegal immigrants have been caught in the Yuma sector of the Arizona border alone since last October, a 46% increase on the same period a year before. Americans are at least right to see the border-control system as out of control.

And to the north, politcal sentiments appear to determine ross-border traffic:

But other issues on which Americans and Canadians tend to disagree—gay marriage, cannabis, Iraq—also play a role. Americans cite Canadian anti-Americanism as a reason why they do not head north more. Greg Hermus of the Canadian Tourism Research Institute, an industry body, has studied the issue from both sides and says Canadians have similar fears about American attitudes. “Both sides feel less welcome in the other country.”

Reasons for concern, both north and south.

The US has opened its border again to Canadian beef. Since I spent a week with one of the affected parties a little while ago, there’s a few comments I want to make here.

It’s not just good news for Canadian cattle ranchers; it is even better news for the US consumers who have been paying artificially high prices for beef ever since the border was closed. The whole ban had little to do with mad cow disease with only a few isolated cases on both sides of the border. More than anything it was a deliberate move influenced by US meatpackers to manipulate prices. Even in Canada prices somehow remained higher than where they should have been despite the glut of beef. There’s one solution to fix this problem effectively, and that is order your beef directly from the ranch. The cost of the big freezer I have to purchase to store half a cow which will be delivered this fall is still more than covered by the cost savings generated by the direct order. And not only that, I am getting excellent cuts straight for the ranch rather than processed and pricey stuff from a the retail sector.

In case you weren't paying any attention, there was a meeting at a Texas ranch earlier today:

During a summit in Texas, U.S. President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and [Canadian Prime-Minister] Mr. Martin agreed to boost border security and forge common approaches on cargo inspection and maritime and aviation safety, and co-operation on a wide range of economic and law-enforcement matters.

And it all ended on a positive note as you will see from the transcript of the joint press conference, which by the way failed to yield even one memorable quote.

Some polls have now revealed that a significant majority of Canadians supported their government's decision not to participate in the North American Missile Defence plan, much to the dislike of the Bush Administration. What is revealing though is that missile defence as such was not the issue:

Pollster Bruce Anderson says opposition to the plan has little to do with missile defence and a lot to do with opposition to Mr. Bush's foreign policy, particularly his prosecution of the war in Iraq as well as White House trade policies.

Really, there's nothing like making some solid and uninformed decisions based on an emotional overreaction. I am waiting for some conservative Canadian number cruncher who will be able to assess the damage to the country's economy and possibly its future security. Not that it will matter for now, North American relations are pretty much on hold and expectations for today's Bush-Fox-Martin summit in Texas are very low:

Fox is a lame-duck president, nearing the end of his term and unable to seek re-election. Martin is hemmed in by the realities of minority government in Ottawa.

"Bush is the only one of the three with a lot of political capital," said Sands. "But he's pretty well determined that he's spending it on things other than North American issues."

Short term attitudes all around.

Following the much hyped exodus of liberals to Canada, Matt Labash of the Weekly Standard decided to travel north and find out for himself. Personally, I think this whole issue is blown out of proportion and in the end the number of Americans migrating north because of Bush will be very, very small. Still the discussion has helped to uncover some interesting facts as Labash found the following:

What many don't consider is how much Canada has oversold itself in the areas where it purportedly does succeed. While it's true that the government has been much friendlier than ours to gay marriage, only 39 percent of Canadians decidedly support it. While Canada is supposedly more environment-friendly, it has been cited for producing more waste per person than any other country. While Canada is supposedly safer, a 1996 study showed its banks had the highest stick-up rate of any industrialized nation (one in every six was robbed). And while a great deal is made of Americans' passion for firearms, the Edmonton Sun, citing Statistics Canada, reported that Canada has a higher crime rate than we do.

Bet you won't read that in the Globe and Mail.

The US-Canadian missile defence saga continues and in the absence of real developments the media have started to focus on diplomatic snubs and other cross-border issues such as beef and softwood lumber. But Paul Martin and George Bush spoke on Saturday and it appears both parties are talking again, even about defence, here’s the Globe and Mail:

"The president expressed his understanding of the prime minister's decision but underscored the importance of redoubling our security co-operation efforts," said spokeswoman Erin Healy. "Both leaders expressed the importance of our ongoing co-operation in Norad to continental security."

Officials from both countries are already working on an agreement that could expand Norad, which began as an air warning command in 1958, to include collaboration on maritime and land defence. The issue is of paramount importance to the U.S. following the terrorist attacks Sept. 11, 2001.

Look at the bold part and how it manipulates the discussion: the entire debate in Canada is crafted around the notion that 9/11, rogue nations, wayward missiles, dirty bombs and terrorist attacks are a purely American affair. Nothing to do with Canada. The notion that somehow Canada could be attacked, could be affected by any of this is swept under the carpet, which is why a majority of Canadians really believes that UN-membership and safely distancing yourself from George Bush is a free-pass from terror. It’s a scary way to look at the world and the National Post’s endless editorials and op-eds have yet to make a single dent in this false sense of security. It will probably take a container with nuclear materials floating around Vancouver harbor to get some real attention for this issue but even then I suspect that that the unconverted will somehow find a way to blame it on the US, or on George Bush.

UPDATE: In the absence of a meaningful debate between Bush and Martin we can as always count on our friend Cellucci to hit the right notes.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Here's a Canadian voice arguing it's time to get working together:

And we need frankness. Canada's new U.S. Ambassador Frank McKenna is well able to help in this, just as was Cellucci. But instead of doing a collective freakout every time someone speaks plainly — a particular habit of Ottawa's overwrought media — how about considering what is actually said? That's part of a healthy relationship.

Finally some common sense. Harvard scholar Michael Ignatieff, who is rumoured to be the handpicked new leader of Canada's Liberal Party came up with some astute remarks about Canada's decision not to participate in the North American Missile Defence plans yesterday:

"The decision will be popular in the party. But we need clarity on our national defence policy," Ignatieff said, telling the convention in his keynote address last night that Canada needs to balance a principled opposition to the future weaponization of space to the equally principled commitment to participate in North American defence.

"We do not want our decisions to fragment the command system of North American defence, and we do not want a principled decision to result in us having less control over our national sovereignty," he said. "We must not walk away from the table. We must be there, at the table, defending what only we can defend."

A Blairite touch I would say and in a way that's welcome news. Ignatieff's potential leadership role however would once again enable the Liberal Party to monopolize the political center, attract a fair chunk of Canada's right of center voters and remain in power for years to come. It's once more proof of the Liberal Party's shrewdness and the cluelessness of the conservative opposition. The one-party state is no longer a concept, it's a Canadian reality.

Missile Defence, that is.

So in the week the Economist bills him as dithering, Canada’s Prime Minister is unable to confirm whether Canada will participate in North American Missile Defence, ignoring his own Ambassador to Washington who says Canada is “in” and his own party who are saying Canada’s “out”.

The fact of the matter is that technically speaking they’re in but just as with healthcare where the word “private sector” is unspeakable, when it comes to defense, the words “America” and “missile” are believed to equate political suicide. I say believe because no one has dared to try it out yet. That is also why Canada’s Conservatives have failed the test of political competency as their leader has also remained solidly on the fence, even after George Bush explained to him personally that political success can only be achieved through applying courage and common sense. Both of these virtues are absent in Canada’s political scene which is why there’s no debate, no creativity and no real progress. Canadians may satisfy themselves with this sad state of affairs, but outsiders and potential partners may become so exasperated that they will eventually ask themselves: why bother? And that will hurt Canada.

UPDATE I: Old Peaktalk regular US Ambassador Paul Cellucci is equally baffled:

"We don't get it," Paul Cellucci said in Toronto. "If there's a missile incoming, and it's heading toward Canada, you are going to leave it up to the United States to determine what to do about that missile. We don't think that is in Canada's sovereign interest."

UPDATE II: It's now an official no. Perplexed? Check out Bob and Debbye who have some good comments.

During my most recent trip to the US I was baffled to see what a European accent yielded in terms of a response. It ranged from the “We’re Sorry” type of exclamation to instant Euro-celebrations (that deep envy of rich government entitlements and long vacations) leaving me wondering if I should remain the calm, friendly and quiet diplomat or reveal my orphaned status, throw in a few Gipperisms, and engage in a full frontal reality-check. Problem is that I am too much of a diplomat to do the latter but there are folks, like Kate, who are happy to give Americans of the moonbat type variety a harsh rendez-vous with the facts. Maybe something to try next time.

Americans shop in Canada because it’s cheaper than at home, Canadians go south because American retail outlets have something that consumers normally look for: choice. Before he leaves his current posting, longtime Peaktalk favorite Paul Cellucci suggests that cross-border shopping should now be deregulated:

U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci is backing a proposal that would allow hassle-free cross-border shopping for both Canadians and Americans. The outgoing diplomat told the National Post that he supports the move by Maine Senator Susan Collins that would allow Canadian and American shoppers to buy whatever they wanted and to bring it over the border without paying duties.

Makes sense. Of course, Senator Collins is not acting out of charity or a deep belief in economic freedom. Maine residents apparently are clobbering their local retail sector by crossing the border north to stock up on cheap Canadian imports.

The amazement that someone would not be willing to see his or her country defended against incoming missiles is nowhere better illustrated than by the words uttered by George Bush when during a meeting with Canada’s Prime Minister he was told a missile defence shield was a politically difficult proposition:

‘I don't understand this. Are you saying that if you got up and said this is necessary for the defence of Canada, it wouldn't be accepted?' ”

It’s hard to believe, but that appears to be the case. In the Canadian press this exchange of words has now been branded as bullying, but Bush couldn’t have been any more diplomatic when he argued that:

I'm not taking this position, but some future president is going to say, Why are we paying to defend Canada?'

Ouch.

Here’s a perceptive reader:

“I find tax levels in Canada to be higher only because Canada is now more realistic about having its citizens pay for the cost of its extremely huge government. The overall size of government in the US is at least as large (and getting much much larger alarmingly fast), but the administration is deferring the tax bill for a later generation. These things take time to work themselves out, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if, 20 years down the road, you'd read some popular blog celebrating Canada's lower taxes and healthier attitude to freedom.

This train of thought has some merits and it has crossed my mind before. There are however two points that make this scenario somewhat unlikely. For starters, increasing taxes in the US are close to political suicide and it may be far likelier to see ongoing reform of the US Government in order to avoid presenting Americans with a hefty bill. It’s tough one but in the current climate it will be an easier option. Secondly, while my reader’s assessment about Canada is correct it doesn’t mean that it will ultimately result in lower taxes and more freedom. On the contrary, the fact that government after government gets away with taking a big slice from Canadians’ paychecks without any real popular revolt points to little change down the road. Some tinkering here and there, but no dramatic reform. And in a way this a logical step: lower levels in the US will continue to put Canada at a competitive disadvantage which in turn will prompt the government to help sustain the economy with endless tax credits, subsidies and heavily funded job-creation programs. That’s has been the traditional approach and there are no indicators that radical change is imminent.

If any economist (or anyone else for that matter) wants to rip this apart let me know, and I will post it.

Interesting revelation yesterday that the Canadian government had pretty much accepted its participation in the North American missile defence shield together with the US as early as late-2003. Signing an agreement was apparently only months away after some sound advice from the Canadian National Department of Defence:

The National Defence documents lay out many reasons why Canada should join the American missile shield network, in the opinion of military officials, and few counter-arguments.

A strategy paper prepared by Defence and Foreign Affairs says that while Canada is not threatened by incoming missiles now, the risk is likely to increase over the next 15 to 20 years.

I never doubted that sound judgment would prevail, but unfortunately an election intervened and Canada’s dithering leader, Paul Martin, ended up with a minority government. Rather than applying common sense and cobble together workable majorities on an issue by issue basis, he let fear of the left determine his entire agenda and in particular missile defence. The Canadian left saw its window of opportunity and started to play on nationalist feelings and notions of sovereignty: the latter would surely be squandered away if Americans would be able to set the nation’s defence policies. A flawed argument as the briefing notes from the Department of Defence note that:

“ … if Washington goes ahead on its own and chooses not to place the missile defence system under the command of the North American Aerospace Defence Command, Canada will be shut out of decisions crucial to its sovereignty”

The other argument often used, never explained, and now recycled by Paul Martin to appease his left flank is the nightmare scenario called “weaponization of space”. No one really knows what it means and why it would be such a problem if we need to defend ourselves, after all we’ve already weaponized the sea. And as Canadian Comment notes, we actually have already pretty much weaponized space, imagine operating your army without satellite guided GPS capabilities.

Martin time and again fails to show guts. If he had them he could have done two things: sign up for missile defence as a national security necessity and tell his leftist detractors to get a life or he could have told the same to George Bush and be clear about it: no weaponization of space, it contradicts our core values, they're peculiar but that's the way it is, period. Yet, he failed to do either and continues to stumble and bumble the most incomprehensive things in a desperate effort to save his political skin. The end result is that Canada has indeed voluntarily undermined its sovereignty not only by failing to follow-through on clear recommendations from its own defense experts, but also by revealing itself to be an unpredictable, clueless and dithering neighbor. I would be surprised if the Pentagon had made all its planning contingent on the erratic friend up north. As it stands today it has indeed become totally irrelevant if or when Canada joins the North American defence shield.

One more piece of history for the Canadian leadership. In the mid-1980s the US expected its European allies to deploy Pershing-II cruise missiles as a counterweight to the steady build-up of Soviet SS-20 missiles and the overwhelming conventional capabilities of the Warzaw Pact. The anti-war and peace movements had a field day with this and in my native Holland month after month was characterized by mass protests, mail-ins, road blockades, you mention it, it almost seemed like a people’s revolt focused one thing: no missile deployment on Dutch soil. The saner minds, like me adhering to the slogan “better a nuke in the garden, then a Soviet in the kitchen” appeared to be a silent and powerless minority. But deployed they were as former Dutch premier Ruud Lubbers took a political gamble and calculated that Russian intransigence at the negotiating table would justify deployment. Within a short time span of the Pershings arriving in Europe it had become a non-issue and a few years thereafter the Soviet empire collapsed, leading many to conclude that despite massive public opposition the nuclear build-up did do its work in protecting Western Europe and in speeding up the collapse of the Soviet empire.

So a missile defense test failed yesterday. This is not a big deal from a technical point of view, implementing these systems takes time and ups and down are part of the process. Nor is it a political issue, although some will try to exploit the news to argue that the entire missile defense plan is flawed. That in particular was to be expected from the freeloaders.

What I first thought was a joke seems to be true; many Americans are considering leaving everything behind, and making a move north to Canada. Since life is always about politics and markets what is truly baffling to me is that they are not only prepared to move to a high tax environment, they are willing to swallow a bitter pill that sees some 25% of their net worth wiped out due to the very unfavorable exchange rate at the moment. Not only that, the lengthy immigration process may well see to it that the value of their holdings may be eroded even further given the pessimistic outlook for the greenback. If that’s the case however, then the US has become an incredibly attractive bargain for Canadian residents willing to move south, discounting future economic uncertainties. All of a sudden a villa in Orange County is within reach thanks to Bush's prolific spending, something that he can actually be blamed for.

Anyway, it seems to me there’s a deal here and the ruling parties in both countries stand to gain from making it work. The conservative and ambitious can move south and trade their residency papers with disgruntled idealists moving north. Republicans can roll out the carpet for some potential voters and Paul Martin and his Liberals can welcome some new constituents who are so driven by sheer idealism that they are totally ignorant about the cost of their move. Prime targets for new tax initiatives: welcome to Canada!

UPDATE: More nonsense.

You know what it is like to take a kid to the dentist, screaming and kicking but after the visit you hear “it wasn’t that bad, in fact it was pretty good”. It seems that is how the Bush visit to Canada earlier this week is playing out. Here’s David Frum:

Meanwhile, I spent yesterday afternoon fielding calls from Canadians and especially Canadian journalists by no means friendly to the president who just could not stop enthusing about the wit, charm, warmth, and understanding of the president’s speech.

Bush’s visit was a diplomatic triumph, from the failure of Canada’s small but vociferous anti-American minority to turn out in the cold streets of Ottawa to the new tone taken by prime minister Paul Martin – and perhaps above all to the laughter and cheers of the president’s audiences.

Here’s Paul Martin’s acknowledgement, which is significant:

“We are in a war against terrorism, and we are in it together: Americans and Canadians"

But the detractors are still vocal, make no mistake about it. Lawrence Martin writes in one of Canada’s largest newspapers, The Globe and Mail (subcriber link only), that the speech was crafted to play to the conservative crowd back home and he tries to dispel some of Bush’ comments and historical analogies:

To compare the gigantic military might of Germany that was rolling over Europe and toppling countries like dominoes to the threat of terrorists who hijack planes and detonate car bombs every now and then may well rank as one of the most preposterous exaggerations on record.

But fear-mongering works. In terms of the power it gives Mr. Bush to bend the world to his wishes, there are still great gains to be made from the political exploitation of the terror threat. So why not compare it to the Third Reich?

Like many others, Lawrence Martin doesn’t get it. The intent of totalitarian ideologies remains the same; it’s the tools and strategies that have changed over time. But even then, today’s loosely organized rogues may be able to wreak the same amount of devastation as the Third Reich if we let them develop their capabilities unhindered. Iran is developing nuclear weapons, our friend Pervez Musharraf may fail to keep Pakistan in line and then there’s Saudi Arabia, the biggest question mark of them all. The Third Reich was a timeless lesson about the outcome of history if threats and early warning signs are ignored; today we’re acting on them. But Martin is right that the comparison to the Third Reich is flawed. It’s precisely because of that valuable lesson we are now able to identify the early stage radical Islam is in and compare it to Nazism. We’re not dealing with a Third Reich equivalent yet, it’s in Weimar Republic stage and that is all the more reason to act early, and decisively.

Thanks to Bush the debate is now front and center in Canada and not only that, he also managed to give Conservative leader Stephen Harper some lessons in decisive leadership by suggesting the latter should be clear in his support for missile defence rather than obfuscate the issue for short-term political gain. With the usual blather from the left and the unproductive dance in the middle we can only hope that Canada’s right can force the issue but don’t count on it.

The road will have to go through the center with some compromises domestically as well as some steps by Washington to take the edge off the plans so that Canadians can eventually accept it. It reminds me all of the cruise missile deployment in Europe in the 1980s: lots of debate and anti-American rhetoric but in the end common sense prevailed and the weapons were put in place without too many complaints. The same will happen here.

Apart from the fact that joint missile defence is a very logical consequence of its geographical location and the direction of Canada’s overall foreign policy, in the end it will be the lobby from a thirsty business sector that may prove to be the decisive factor. Industry stands to reap billions in subsidies and tax credits in order to help implement the shield or just use it as a great milking cow to fund decades of research and development. That would play right into a time-tested Canadian tradition: let government pick up the tab for innovation, growth and job creation. From that perspective Canada’ participation may well be a done deal, it will just be a while before the song and dance is over and everyone can get to work implementing it.

This morning Bush delivered a strong, at times witty and conciliatory speech to conclude his visit to Canada. Here’s the transcript and you will see that it’s vintage Bush, hitting the right notes to comfort his hosts while at the same time pointing to their responsibilities in the new world. He did that effectively by reminding Canadians of their past:

In the early days of World War II, when the United States was still wrestling with isolationism, Canadian forces were already engaging the enemies of freedom across the Atlantic. At the time, some Canadians argued that Canada had not been attacked and had no interest in fighting a distant war. Your prime minister, Mackenzie King, gave this answer: "We cannot defend our country and save our homes and families by waiting for the enemy to attack us. To remain on the defensive is the surest way to bring the war to Canada.” Of course, we should protect our coasts and strengthen our ports and cities against attack.

But the prime minister went on to say, "We must also go out and meet the enemy before he reaches our shores. We must defeat him before he attacks us, before our cities are laid to waste."

Yes, it once existed, a pro-active and pre-emptive Canada.

UPDATES
Mike Campbell has more on the final day of Bush’ northern visit.

Kate McMillan liveblogged the speech.

The Bush visit to Canada starts today and of course media on both sides of the border have started to analyze the differences between the two nations and assess where they may find common ground. Personally, I have written more than enough about this, there’s an entire archive devoted to it.

In short, my view is that further integration of Canada into the US from an economic and security perspective is both inevitable and preferable, but then I am a pragmatic European with a strong inclination to free-markets and a soft spot for US foreign policy. Such integration will however not result in Canada ceasing to be a sovereign entity: Republicans in the US wouldn’t favor diluting their marginal hold on power by inviting millions of statist liberals into their midst (even if they bring lots of oil) and neither would the northern elites look kindly at diluting their power base for the sake of security and jobs. So whatever shape or form further US-Canadian co-operation takes, Canada will probably remain a renegade northern province for years to come. The separation will largely be social-economic in nature, from a cultural perspective Canadians are not that dissimilar to Americans as they like to think, no matter how hard some try to argue that case.

The real problem is that Canada is beset by the same legacy as Europe. Remnants of a centre-left elite continue to have a hold over government, media, judiciary, education and the framework of public debate and thus the overall direction of the country. From a social perspective that’s probably fine as Canadians have been willing to experiment in that department , although we shouldn’t overstate it: government owned liquor distribution and the inability to creatively solve drug addiction and help legalize prostitution are hardly the hallmarks of a socially progressive country, whatever Canadians think. What’s constraining progress is the continued grasp that government and unions have on economic life and the defeatist peacemaking instincts when it comes to foreign policy. Both are no longer of this day and age. A well organized conservative campaign, a severe economic downturn or a terrorist attack or a combination of all three are examples of a potential cure for Canada. The folks over at Diplomad pointed in the direction of hard medicine last week, although it shouldn't be administered by the US. When it's homegrown or from an alternate source Canadians are probably more likely to respond to it in a positive way.

Canada is not Europe, nor is it America. The country has the right ingredients to become a huge success story alongside its southern neighbour; it’s a matter of time and apt management of events. So the best thing to come out the Bush-Martin get together would be for the US to promise significant movement on lifting softwood lumber tariffs and beef imports and for the Canadians to sign up for missile defense and to commit to working towards a North American security perimeter. Again, pragmatic instincts would warrant such an outcome, but it hardly ever works this way. Let’s what happens in Ottawa and Halifax today and tomorrow.

Further Reading
Kate points to the experiences of an American living and working in Canada. And Jay Currie points a crucial difference between the US and Canada. Finally, read the long post I received from a reader below: A Canadian Bush Backer Speaks Out.

UPDATE I: Of course our American in T.O. has lots of comments.

UPDATE II: A reader from California writes to say that Canada could join the US using the 'Quebec formula': give up sovereignty and be part of the US but on day-to-day matters you can pretty much do your own thing, like yes, healthcare. Not likely to happen but Canada is indeed migrating to a scenario where most of the integration takes place without giving up sovereignty.

UPDATE III: And of course good stuff from Frum.

UPDATE IV: So far, protests are hardly impressive:

A few pro-Bush demonstrators on Parliament Hill were drowned out by a crowd of several hundred protesters who screamed at the U.S. President to “go home.” A march planned for later Tuesday is expected to draw a bigger crowd.

UPDATE V: But then of course, there are a lot of Friends of America in Canada.

UPDATE VI: Lots of pictures of the "protests" here, even the Trotskyites made the effort to welcome the President!

Canada is getting ready for the visit by President Bush and it’s encouraging to note that in addition to the standard Bush-bashing and the knee-jerk anti-Americanism there are many Canadians that support Bush. Not only that, they are frustrated and want express their views and a few have asked me to post their comments. So take a look at Aidan Maconachy’s criticism of anti-Americanism and his informed and very accurate assessment of Bush as a leader. I couldn’t have done it better myself, a must–read for Americans and Canadians alike.

Recently I got into a discussion with a few Canadian friends about the Bush victory in the 2004 Presidential election and the ongoing war in Iraq. These friends are well educated and cultured people with a preference for European wine and movies with sub-titles. I suppose they could be described as middle-of-the-road liberals and made for pleasant company at dinner over a bottle of Beaujolais Nouveau ... at least until the subject of George W. Bush came up.

Their reaction to the re-election of the President was unequivocal. Choice of language included adjectives such as "dreadful", "shocking", "appalling" and even "bizarre". Their self-righteousness was more akin to arch inquisitors passing judgement on a proven devil worshiper, rather than dinner companions airing views on a President of the United States.

When I offered a contrary opinion, there was a hush and eyes widened with genuine horror - as though the late hour had induced the first physical evidence of my ‘werewolf within’. One of them even said - "are you feeling alright Aidan?"
You see, I’m one of those anomalies in the Canadian dominion - a Bush backer. A partiality that induces some of my fellow citizens to regard me as ... if not exactly a brown shirt ... then at the very least a tan shirt.

In the majority of Canadian minds the standard Bush caricature reigns supreme; the idiot cowboy with his finger on the trigger of the greatest arsenal of weapons ever assembled in the history of mankind. They buy the stereotype of the phonetically challenged goofy guy with big ears who would seem more at home eating beans under a starry sky than sitting behind a desk in the Oval Office. So why don’t I see this also? Is it possible that an emissary of Karl Rove has slipped a President enhancing drug into our rural Ontario well?

I’ve always been a little suspicious of iconic Presidents. Clinton for example, with his majestic white mane and inclusive body language; master of the language and equally at home with an Ohio pig farmer and the head of the PLO. Reagan with his star appeal and charming malapropisms; shielded from accusations of idiocy by his transcendental belief in "the good" as personified by America. These legendary Presidents almost compelled belief by sheer force of presence. By comparison, Dubya seems human and entirely fallible.

He reminds us of a guy we might encounter at the local sports bar or rub shoulders with in the bleachers during a ball game. Like most of us run-of-the-mill humans he screws up from time to time, mangles his grammar and even chokes on food at inopportune moments. He has daughters who have been known to act out and a wife who holds it all together with a stoicism that is instantly recognizable to those of us with an appreciation for self effacing, strong willed matriarchs. George is simply "that guy"... the only difference being that he also happens to be President of the greatest superpower in the history of the planet.

In internet chat rooms and when talking with friends, Bush backers like myself are constantly accosted with the idiot word. "Bush is an idiot" has probably been recited more times than the Hare Krishna mantra, and yet despite a stratosphere that reverberates with the "Bush is an idiot" echo, I don’t buy it.
My reluctance to give the nod to the ‘Bush as idiot’ consensus doesn’t reflect either willfulness or perversity. When I observe Bush speaking off-the-cuff to reporters I see a guy with a folksy style who addresses the issues in a direct down-to-earth fashion. There are occasional moments of levity when he upstages a journalist or offers a witticism or two. Clearly this is a regular guy talking and not an icon, and therein lies the offence. For some, Bush is simply too human and they wonder how a President who looks and sounds like the guy next door, can ever be relied upon to do and say the right thing. But to leap from that assumption to the conclusion that Bush is therefore an idiot, is facile in the extreme.

After 9/11 he rallied Americans with his down-home appeals to the nation. When he stood on the smouldering debris of the towers with an arm around a fireman and spoke into a megaphone, he was one of us ... a surrogate doing what we all wanted to do most ... reach out to a nation reeling in a time of crisis.
When he made speeches at the U.N. and at military academies around the country, his words were of course scripted ... and yet there was nothing about either his diction or his delivery that was suggestive of an idiot. He speaks well, despite the occasional mangled word, and sometimes even speaks with energized power and conviction. All of which makes the ‘idiot fixation’ such an odd phenomenon.

Of course, these detractors will argue that going into Iraq was idiotic and will predictably cite the non-discovery of WMD as proof positive of idiocy. According to them Bush was acting from the most venal of motives; indulging his appetite for a personal vendetta and sacrificing young lives on the alter of his ego. For some reason these detractors feel more inclined to call Bush’s motives into question, rather than examine the despicable nature of the Iraqi regime and the long term consequences of leaving Saddam in power.

Even though the entire world, and maybe even Saddam himself, believed that the regime was in possession of proscribed weaponry, the non-discovery of WMD was seized upon as evidence that Bush had launched a war without justification. The compelling information that has surfaced concerning links between Saddam’s Baathist regime and Al Qaeda is simply disregarded by the President’s detractors. The genocidal excesses and expansionist tendencies of the Iraqi regime are similarly overlooked. Saddam’s funding of suicide bombers is disregarded, as is the presence in pre-invasion Baghdad of that most sinister of terrorist godfathers ... Abu Nidal.

In her book The War Against America, Laurie Mylroie claims that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who was captured in Pakistan, may not in fact be Kuwaiti as he claims, but rather an Iraqi agent. Since Mohammed was an Al Qaeda operational leader, this information could well create direct ties between Iraq and the 9/11 New York attack, and so has important implications. Yet even such potentially damning information fails to move the die hard ‘idiot brigade’ who see in the person of Bush an atrocity that far exceeds even the rape room activities and genocidal excesses of the Baa’thists.

This odd fixation with Dubya’s inner idiot is compounded by the latter’s candid admission that he is a man of faith. Liberals by and large become alarmed at the prospect of God insinuating his way into the affairs of state. Some like Ann Coulter, have argued that this aversion is due to liberals’ devotion to the 'golden cow' of political correctness - something akin to a secular religion in and of itself. Coulter points out that while hundreds of references to the "Christian conservatives" and "religious right" occur in the New York Times, a Lexis-Nexis search of the entire New York Times archive did not succeed in unearthing even a single reference to "atheist liberals" or "the atheist left". Her not unreasonable conclusion, is that demeaning references are reserved for entities to the right of center.

Unlike his predecessors in the Oval Office who kept matters of personal faith in the closet, Bush has the temerity to refer candidly to God as if He actually exists and doesn’t hesitate to characterize terrorism and the states that support it as "evil". Such candor is deeply disturbing to those liberals who view God as a type of quaint metaphor that nobody in the final analysis, takes seriously. Such Presidential utterances shocks them deeply - in much the way the psychiatric nurse was shocked by the ravings of the Jack Nicholson character in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

In attempting to get to the roots of the knee jerk tendency to characterize the President as an idiot, I must also make some reference to ‘the line’.
There are some lines, such as union picket lines, that right wingers cross at risk of death and dismemberment. Even though all of the evidence and the call of destiny might necessitate the crossing of a non-negotiable line, the actually crossing of it brings unforeseen consequences. Bill Clinton knew this very well. So while he was prepared to make shows of American military power by bombing a factory in the Sudan and ordering an air campaign in Kosovo, he was too much of a liberal to cross the scariest line of all. When Al Qaeda began testing the American will with bombings in the Middle East, most notably the attack on the USS Cole, the Clinton administration declined to act. Even when Dick Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, counseled a bombing campaign against terror camps in Afghanistan, the administration twiddled its thumbs and deferred. Opening a front with Al Qaeda was a scary line to cross and Bill Clinton wasn’t about to fire up the Arab world and ruin fun times at home, let alone turn himself into a potential target for assassination.

The task of crossing that line fell to George W. Bush, and once he stepped over the line with the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq - all hell, as they say, broke loose. The Iraq attack in particular, in the eyes of many liberals was the act of an idiot. To others, it demonstrated tremendous courage and a willingness to defend the United States at any price. The jury is still out, debating the final verdict. As Jacques Chirac recently remarked ..."history will judge". Of course, it’s easy to play the proctor when you are comfortably ensconced on the sidelines sipping a pernod.

The reflex tendency to dismiss Bush as an idiot trivializes the very real threat of international terrorism. The demonizing of the USA and its President simply provides a pillow for the enemy who are greatly comforted by the sight of the western media reducing America to a loathsome caricature.

In the final analysis, war polarizes and compels people to choose sides. The Bush detractors in N. America are operating in shrinking neutral territory. When the final verdict comes in, they may well find themselves further out to sea than they had ever dreamed possible.

Posted by Pieter Dorsman at 11:00 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (2)

George Bush is going to pay an official visit to Canada later this month and his hosts, rather than thinking through important bi-lateral issues, are now focused on discussing the risk of certain members of parliament heckling Bush during a speech he might give in the House of Commons. The conservative opposition is at pains to avoid this and are calling on the potential troublemakers to think through the consequences of interrupting and jeering the US President. A typical Canadian reaction: let’s try and keep things nice. I completely disagree. If Bush ever wanted to score a publicity coup in Canada and reveal how depraved and clueless the anti-Americans in parliament are, then there’s no better way than to let them make fools of themselves during what will surely be a smart and well-crafted speech. Bring'em on!

For all those Americans who think that Canada is a peaceful paradise with crime rates that are considerably lower than those in the US, Eugene Volokh has compared some data. After looking at the numbers he pretty much discredits the notion that Canada's crime rates are 10 times lower than in the US.

I think we all know who in America spread the notion that Canadians always leave their doors open since there isn’t any crime to worry about. Now here’s what Canadians have to worry about: Americans migrating north are not just disgruntled Democrats and Naderites, no they belong to that particular sub-group that actually believes all the nonsense and conspiracy theories concocted by the Moore-wing of the American left. Next time around they will cast their vote in a Canadian ballot box.

Aspects of American reality tend to interfere with the delusional sense of peaceful well-being that the majority of Canadians have bestowed upon themselves. It’s a sad reflection of the state of affairs that politicians desperate to salvage the status-quo play into these sentiments, but thankfully there are ordinary Canadian citizens who are willing - at their own peril - to show some common sense. A fairly long piece in yesterday’s Vancouver Sun (subscriber link only) by one Marilyn Baker outlines her frustrations with the embarrassing expressions of uninformed bias. Her analysis is razor sharp:

Anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism grow from the same roots. Both fulfill the need to vent a visceral hatred of success. And both are fueled by envy.

Spot on. She goes on to argue convincingly that claiming to hate of Bush and Republicans is hardly an exonerating argument: they were voted into office by the American people. That’s why I hope that Bush can come out with some decent numbers next week, it will not silence America bashers but it will enable some of us to hit them with a great counter-argument. Her conclusion is equally on the mark:

The next time you hear someone bash Americans, ask them which race, sex, religion or creed they hate the most. Ask them if their pension plan invests in good old American know-how: Microsoft, GM, Gilette, Intel, Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart, IBM come to mind. Ask them if they know any Americans personally. My bet is that they will fluster and blubber and get even angrier.

As for me, I‘m happy to bear witness to the American election. No matter who wins, I’m glad that, through the accident of birth, I’m lucky enough to be their neighbor.

Someone give this woman a column in the Globe and Mail and put her on CBC. Please.

The discussion over Pat Robertson’s comments that Bush told him there would be no US casualties in Iraq has been getting a lot of attention over the past few days. It may be that Bush was mistaken about the location of the casualty-free war; pre-emptive action against Canada would almost certainly yield no casualties whatsoever. It may be a far-fetched idea but Americans are rightly concerned over the potential use of Canada as a launching pad for a terrorist attack in the US. Earlier this week US Ambassador Paul Cellucci, hardly a diplomat in the traditional sense, underlined the gravity of the situation:

“I have to tell you this co-operation is now more important than ever. Another attack could be catastrophic to our economic relations. The threat has not receded. The threat is real," he said.

Another attack with roots north of the border would prompt the US to seal the borders and that indeed would hit both economies hard, for Canada however it would be devastating whereas for the US it would merely be uncomfortable. The core of the issue remains the extent to which Canada is prepared to secure itself for such eventualities as well as its willingness to work closely with the Pentagon and Homeland Security. That’s why Cellucci keeps hammering on the simple truth:

"Our shared geography alone makes it inevitable that the terrorists will consider using Canada as a potential launching pad into the United States. ... For us, the simple fact is that we cannot defend our homeland without Canada's help."

To the Bush opponents this may be interpreted as a prelude to yet another grab for oil (and there’s lots of it in Alberta, the place where US troops would probably be quite welcome) and for the conservative crowd it’s yet another valid reminder that Canada needs to take its security obligations seriously. A North American security perimeter is a no-brainer and while it’s absolutely ridiculous that it’s still up for discussion, we should note that political thinking in Canada is still dictated from the left. The same political stream that continues to rally against free trade and that would be perfectly welcome the US closing the borders: a northern autarky has always been their preferred model.

The problem is not only that the left influences this debate: it is not well framed to begin with so that most Canadians either fail to get the importance or conveniently ignore it. It’s either labeled as a US-issue in which case the potential impact on the Canadian economy is hugely underplayed, or it’s cast in such a way as to suggest that the only casualties would be American which is ludicrous. Canada has long been on the al-Qaeda hit list and the country is also an established recruiting ground for terrorist organizations precisely because security is lax. In essence, the current administration in Ottawa is Clintonesque (or Kerryesque if you like) in its approach: let’s downplay the danger and let’s pray that we are not going to be in the line of fire, and if we are, we’re happy to use the time-tested concepts of pre 9/11 foreign policy. As long as that attitude prevails, which by the way is lauded by the Canadian public at large as it hates to be woken up from its self-delusional sense of well-being, it will be impossible to credibly deal with the issues that Cellucci has put on the table. Sooner or later a Canadian leader will have to stand-up for North American security and we can only hope that it will be early enough to thwart a terrorist attack on either side of the border. A US invasion of Canada is implausible today, but if it turns out that a nuclear dirty bomb finds its origins in Vancouver or Montreal than even the most moderate US leaders will rapidly start to lose their sense of humor.

UPDATE I: Here's some good background reading on Cellucci. Question: will he get a senior appointment in Bush II ?

UPDATE II: Yes, the Southern border is equally problematic, as noted by Michelle today.

UPDATE III: Entered in OTB's Traffic Jam.

And while we are discussing the beauty of cross-border relations, in the string of endorsements it was only a matter of time before members of Canada’s Liberal government started to make themselves heard with their views:

"It's Kerry," Environment Minister Stephane Dion told Globe and Mail columnist Lawrence Martin. "Intellectually, I'm attracted to Kerry," said Human Resources Minister Joe Volpe.

So there’s not only an unwillingness to intelligently frame a cross-border discussion, government ministers themselves – banking on a Kerry win – are more than willing to frustrate any dialogue with their neighbors. I am sorry for Paul Martin that he has to keep a bunch of unruly pseudo-intellectuals in line, but then he himself has cobbled this group together without ever really substantiating his claim to improve US-Canadian relations. His credibility as a leader to ever do that has suffered yet another blow.

Here’s some interesting news on a common sense approach from the Council on Foreign Relations who have set up a task force to investigate further integration of the USA, Mexico and Canada, from both an economic and security perspective.

."Ten years after NAFTA, it is obvious that the security and economic futures of Canada, Mexico, and the United States are intimately bound. But there is precious little thinking available as to where the three countries need to be in another ten years and how to get there. I am excited about the potential of this task force to help fill this void," said Council President Richard N. Haass.

The task force is chaired by former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada John Manley, former Finance Minister of Mexico Pedro Aspe, and former Governor of Massachusetts and Assistant Attorney General William Weld.

It will not be easy to find common ground for these three very distinct entities but the NAFTA experience is evidence that a lot can be accomplished in this department. Security pressures (witness the border topics that came up during the last Bush-Kerry debate) and the global geopolitical shifts will move North American integration and co-operation high up the agenda for all three nations.

My inclination was to pen a searing indictment against the Canadian government’s endless dithering over joining the US in building a North American Missile Defense system. The obvious need for such a tool hardly needs debating, but you can count on the Canadian Liberals to argue this one, oblivious to the fact that you can’t do that much about your geographical, economic, social and cultural position in the world. That position is by the way so comfortable that you may want to do something to preserve it, defend it and contribute to the one country that is picking up the tab for your securitry. But no, their anti-Americanism is so entrenched that they don’t even see that the implementation of such a shield is a phenomenal opportunity to use their time tested skill of forking out government cash to friends and family who happen to be in the business of putting weapons in space. Well, let me stop there, David Janes has written an excellent argument for Canada’s obligation to participate in a North American Missile Defense system. Read the whole thing.

Although we haven’t seen any numbers there’s little doubt that Michael Moore’s interference in the Canadian election campaign a few weeks ago helped sway voters away from Harper and his conservatives, I reported on one particular case earlier. The irritation over a left-wing American lecturing the Canadians over the potential negative outcome of a conservative victory has prompted one student in Ontario to dig into Canada’s election laws and find that:

it is an offence for "[Any] person who does not reside in Canada [to], during an election period, in any way induce electors to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate unless the person is (a) a Canadian citizen; or (b) a permanent resident."

Good for him and he has launched a website to support the effort to charge Moore, the penalty being 6 months in jail or a $2,000 fine. While it’s not likely that Moore would wind up in a Canadian jail, which would be the ultimate irony in this case, it’s important to note that someone at least bothers to take on Moore and is able to actually use some legislation to make that a worthwhile endeavor. However I hope it doesn’t encourage Democrats south of the border to find ways to charge Canadian conservatives meddling in US elections. If that were to happen we would loose some valuable contributions like this one …

This is a Traffic Jam entry

One more thought on the Canadian election, and as a fan of the cross-border aspect I am going to bring the Americans into it and our American in Toronto has some thoughts. She points to the effects of the interference by Michael Moore and that other experienced election spoiler, Ralph Nader.

Coming on the heels of his movie release Moore probably had some impact as I suggested earlier. Someone floated the likely outrage that would occur if Rush Limbaugh would dispense some electoral advice to Canadians, but even wheeling in some moderate American conservatives (Schwarzenegger, Giuliani, McCain to name a few) to prop up Harper would have caused a nationwide outrage, with the CBC no doubt stirring up the flames of fury. Whatever comes out the US must be bad for Canadians is the dogma, but here’s what struck me. Is the leftist sentiment in this country not to a large extent an American import product? How many disgruntled, socialist, environmentalist, pacifist or otherwise disenchanted Americans over the years have made Canada their home, adopted citizenship and are now practicing a political agenda for which there was little appetite back home? I don’t have to look very far to identify a significant number of them and there are actually some figures for this phenomenon:

During the Vietnam War, U.S. emigration to Canada surged as thousands of young men, often accompanied by wives or girlfriends, moved to avoid the draft. But every year since 1977, more Canadians have emigrated to the United States than vice versa - the 2001 figures were 5,894 Americans moving north, 30,203 Canadians moving south.

So for every six potential Conservative voters Canada loses it gets one Liberal back. That must have had an impact last night.

And while we are at the strange interaction of American and Canadian politics, here’s some reader mail following the report that 40% of Canadian youths see the US as an evil force:

Canadians should realize that their anti-Americanism no longer occurs beyond the notice or care of Americans. Many Americans, including myself, are beginning to realize that Canada is as much an enemy as France.

Perhaps a strong quote, but still. After the endless America bashing abated following the decision of Canada not to participate in the war in Iraq it has now re-emerged as three of the four major political parties have repurposed anti-Americanism for electoral gains. Apart from the dubious tactic of singling out one particular group or nation for attack and the wisdom of clobbering your major trading partner, I really challenge, going back to my dinner companion, the assumption that everything American is so despicable. On the contrary.

But more importantly the crux is that Canadian politicians, the Prime Minister no less, fail to present a compelling vision for their nation to their electorate. They fall back into a poisonous mode of electoral rhetoric that not only directly affects bi-lateral relations, it creates an atmosphere where young people and the easily influenced take their recommendations at face value which in turn can have a very damaging and negative impact in long-term relations between the US and Canada. And that is clearly in no one's interest.

David Janes yesterday summarized the Arar case in a list of hard and relevant questions, and Chris Lawrence today condenses his thoughts as follows:

I honestly don’t know what to make of all of this. I have a sneaking suspicion that elements of the Canadian intelligence apparatus were trying to get the U.S. to do some of their dirty work for them, because the Canadian government would never let them get away with it on their own, but there’s also the distinct possibility that U.S. authorities were freelancing. It’s all deeply weird.

No one really knows, but I think Chris's summary is pretty accurate.

It seems the Bush-Martin breakfast has yielded some results and the Arar case, as discussed yesterday, featured prominently on the agenda. The leaders were pleased to announce an agreement:

Under the new agreement, the White House has formally pledged to “formal notification and expeditious consultation” with Canadian authorities immediately whenever a Canadian national is detained in the United States for security reasons.

Well, I believe that in the Arar case the Canadian consular authorities were notified but failed to act. A thorough investigation and disclosure of the facts of the entire Arar case on both sides of the border is warranted, and it would be nice if the results could be disclosed to the public at large. But the breakfast yielded more results; Canada can now bid for reconstruction contracts in Iraq something that seemed to elude Canada following the controversial Pentagon announcement to exclude a number of countries that did not support the invasion of Iraq.

Mr. Martin said that "it actually does show that working together you can arrive at a reasonable solution."

Yes, a simple truth that his predecessor largely ignored with regard to US-Canada relations. It seems we have entered a new phase of bilateral relations, one that could have a direct impact on Paul Martin’s domestic standing, as I discussed last week:

As a liberal in Canada you can cut taxes, trim spending and even send troops to Afghanistan and keep the left-wing of your party quiet, cozying up to George Bush is another thing altogether and it has been one of the key reasons why pollsters see a huge exodus of voters in the direction of the hard left New Democrats.

The next big item on the agenda is joint missile defence and I leave it to your imagination how that topic plays to a liberal Canadian audience. But for now, things look brighter and that is good news, for both sides.

Brad DeLong and Iain Murray are pointing to the case of Maher Arar, a Canadian national of Syrian descent, changing flights in the US in September 2002, detained and deported to Syria by US authorities where he was held captive and tortured before being released. He is now back in Canada and making frequent media appearances to discuss his case. This has been front page news in Canada for months now and I find it somewhat surprising that only now it is getting traction in the blogosphere, the reason probably being that Maher Arar was a suspected terrorist, making it more difficult for some to advocate the man's rights.

While DeLong is pointing the finger to US authorities as those culpable for Maher’s maltreatment, serious doubts have equally been raised over the role played by Canadian authorities. It should be noted that Arar had been under surveillance by the RCMP and CSIS (the latter the federal Canadian intelligence agency) and these agencies have apparently passed certain information to their US counterparts, the nature of which no one is clear about. In addition Canadian consular staff failed to attend hearings for Arar held in New York, shortly before he was deported back to Syria. It’s far from being a clear cut case which is why Arar himself has been asking repeatedly for an independent inquiry. To date that has not happened but the issue has now made its way to today’s breakfast meeting between Bush and Martin at the summit of the Americas in Mexico. Given the track record of this matter so far it is unlikely that the country’s leaders will reach any meaningful conclusion, but both countries should make an effort to review their security and deportation procedures to ensure that at least there will not be a repeat of this embarrassing affair. And while they’re at it maybe they will care to disclose what information prompted the Canadians to keep Arar under observation and why the Americans chose to deport him directly to Syria. Only then can we truly make an assessment of Maher Arar and his case.

The property market is booming here in Vancouver, spurred of course by low interest rates. Yet, there are other factors at work, an improved business climate with a tax-cutting and deregulating provincial government, a government that was also instrumental in helping to land the 2010 Olympic Winter Games which has given another impulse to the local property market. What I did not know however was that according to one of my realtor friends there is a huge influx of Americans buying up residential property in and especially around Vancouver. And according to her many of them buy here, you’re not going to believe this, in fear of a terrorist attack on US soil. To me this is baffling, abandoning your home country out of fear in itself is debatable, but what in my mind points to sheer stupidity is the idea that buying a property 50 miles north of the US is going to insulate you from potential disaster. But there’s more. One American bought a property up here after he had satisfied himself that the water supply was insulated from any potential contamination threats. In a place where local councils freak out if hikers piss in designated water reservoir areas, I leave it to you to judge if this American has bought himself any safety.

North American missile defense continues to be a hotly debated topic and many, including myself, have pointed out that wayward nukes from North Korea can end up anywhere in North America which is why it is important that Canada works closely together with the US in developing such a defense shield. Canadian opponents point out that the technology is years away from being implemented, if ever, and of course vent their standard objections along the lines of “we do not want to militarize space”, whatever that means. I interpret the latter objection as: (a) it is an American thing let them figure it out, we do things our way; (b) even if we would participate we do not necessarily want to pay for it, it is preferable to spend our money on other things. There’s an English word for this and Lou Cuppens, a Canadian retired lieutenant-general and former deputy commander for the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) used it this week to express his anger over Canada’s position:

"As a retired military member, I know Canada can't stand around and be a defense freeloader forever … some countries view us as that. We don't do our share."

It is Canada’s interest as well as its moral obligation to review its position and come up with a comprehensive plan that will see to it that joint US-Canadian preparations for a missile defense shield start as early as possible. The ill-defined objections really do not cut it; I mean are technological barriers not there to be overcome? Even if any breakthroughs are years or decades away, does that mean we should just abandon the quest and forget about it? There lies the opportunity; Canada could help foster a process of innovation by supporting the research and development that will be required to build well-functioning missile defense shields. The country has a huge talent base to tap into and there are many government programs ranging from direct grants to tax-breaks to spur innovation. In doing so it would encourage phenomenal technological advances with likely various spin-offs that in turn can accelerate economic growth and further development in other areas. The payback in terms of job creation, exports and tax revenues could be substantial. At the same time it will have contributed in a significant way to a missile defense shield and be rightfully able to claim that it is no longer a freeloader, but a partner and contributor. Would that be good for the feeling of national pride or would the opponents rather continue on the journey to irrelevance with the inherent economic consequences? And last but not least, Canada will have contributed to the end of this situation:

Cuppens said that all Canadian and U.S. military leaders could do now in the event of a first strike would be to call the president and prime minister and tell them the missiles have been launched, what the likely targets are, and the time of impact. "That's all that can be done," he said. "What's defending North America? Nothing."

Time to get to work, on both sides of the border.

David Frum takes the Economist to task over the numbers it presented in its piece on Canada which I discussed earlier this week. While Frum is a great commentator, I think this time he really wants to tell us why he dislikes the Economist by trying to discredit the way the famous and influential magazine gathers data and interprets them. Yes, you can argue that the gap between America’s standard of living and Canada’ is 15% using GDP as the basis for comparison, but you can equally argue that it is 30% if you look at personal disposable income. Frum has not read this analysis from the Centre for the Study of Living Study Standards (CSLS) too closely otherwise he would have read why the GDP comparison in their opinion is the better tool and why personal disposable income omits certain factors that determine the standard of living. The gap between the US and Canada is however perplexing and the question is whether Canadians have the political will to ever close it and I share Frum’s underlying disbelief over this issue.

Now here is another point. Since the beginning of this year the Canadian Dollar has appreciated by about 15% to the US Dollar. So, in theory if you compare GDP in dollar terms then the Canadians are moving up, especially since they are now able to buy more US goods and thus in terms of purchasing power, if that were the benchmark to compare standards of living, they are better off than before the sharp appreciation. But here’s the catch, the cheaper US Dollar will make it more expensive for Americans to buy Canadian goods and thus the Canadian economy will suffer if Americans buy less up north. How to fix that? By increasing productivity which is what the CSLS correctly identifies as the means to improve the standard of living, no matter how you compare it. That’s why a stronger Canadian Dollar is good news for Canada, it is hard medicine that requires some introspection and forces a critical examination of options to improve the country’s competitiveness.

David Janes has picked up on some of my comments in my post on Quality of Life and his conclusion is that you can do well as an entrepreneur in Canada, but that as a regular employee the prospects of doing well are not that great. He’s right, but it is interesting to note that the high tax rates subsidize a universal healthcare system. That in turn allows many to take the entrepreneurial route since they are not burdened by pricy monthly health insurance premiums, a reason why many in the US are so dependent on a paycheck job. The downside of this phenomenon is that very often there are just too many entrepreneurs over here, which results in many wacky business propositions, bad deals and numerous bankruptcies. So there are some significant economic costs to that great tradition of entrepreneurialism, although many deals will see the light of day that would otherwise have remained dormant in the minds of paycheck employees.

Environics is at it again. In one of their latest pieces of research they claim that 89% of Canadians claim that their country provides a better quality of life than the US according to this article. They are taken to task by Dale Orr, an economist with another Canadian research group, who claims that Environics’ findings are incorrect for they ignore evidence based on data compiled by various international economic agencies that report that Americans have a significantly higher standard of living than the Canadians. The latter is based on after-tax disposable income, but as we all know net cash in itself is not the sole determinant of quality of life, there are many other factors that have a material impact. In fact, quality of life and standard of living are materially different things.

When I lived in Hong Kong my after tax disposable income was pretty substantial even if I took into account the high cost of living. The flip side was that we were living in a very polluted city, were subject to a healthcare system the practices of which were often questionable and the amount of living space we had where we could enjoy our wealth was negligible. Nevertheless, we had a great life there, and at that point in time it provided the kind of life we wanted, you will never ever hear me complain about Hong Kong, on the contrary. In Canada, the reverse appears to be true with clean air, an open and reasonably well-functioning healthcare system and lots of space with housing available at affordable prices, but the income metrics however are somewhat different. As I discussed earlier it was the opposite of our previous location and our current location certainly gives you another perspective on the term “quality of life”. For lack of a good definition I would define it as reaching the optimal balance between the way in which you earn your living and the way in which you get to spend and enjoy what you have earned.

Americans rightly point to their achievements and have the numbers to support the earnings part but it is not quite clear how we can go about measuring the spending and enjoying part. There are many regional differences in the US and I know quite a few American professionals that were willing to give up A-list career opportunities in New York and settle for something less exciting in what they called a ‘second-tier city’ in order to enjoy life better.

The discussion in Canada proves my earlier point that social-economic research is often being manipulated, both by the right and the left in order to get their respective viewpoints across. The right argues in favor of the net-after tax dollars (and uses it as the argument for lower taxes), whereas the left will hammer on issues that are harder to quantify such as the environment and access to healthcare (and argues for more spending). I would fine tune my definition further and argue that quality of life is not only the optimal balance between the way in which you earn your living and the way in which you get to spend and enjoy it, but also the options, or freedom, you have to find that optimal point. It is at this point that the Americans have an edge over the Canadians as the regulated and comparatively highly taxed environment in Canada restricts flexibility and impacts economic opportunity which in turn prompts some to cross the border south:

However, the tax-and-spend policies that Canadian politicians use to boost the living standards of the 40 per cent of households at the bottom of the income ladder, mostly at the expense of the top 20 per cent, have a price, the analysis warns. In the longer run those policies contribute to the brain drain and in turn lower productivity, which in turn erodes over-all living standards, it says.

A valid comment, and out of fear and out of national pride the net result is that many Canadians, rather than argue the economic and political merits of the above, start to defend their quality of life as the determinant in why they have it better than Americans. I even know of people who have to suffer through serious economic hardship but who will say; “well, I have quality of life, that’s the price I have to pay for it”. Seems like a hefty price to me. It is this logic that helps Environics to come up with an 89% figure argument and it is why I would argue that their numbers fail to paint the entire picture. Canadians out of fear go in the mode where they define their national identity by what they are not (read: what it is that sets them apart from Americans) rather than what they are. Some Canadians are able to define what they are like this one, I do not necessarily agree with him but at least he is making it clear why he prefers the Canadian mode over the American mode. I think that many Canadians would make it a lot easier for themselves to adopt a bit more of the American free-market style economic model without giving up too much of what they enjoy now and qualify as uniquely Canadian. They may even end up with more disposable income to enjoy even better the phenomenal ‘spend and enjoy’ opportunities they have available in their own country.

Some of you know I spent a significant portion of my career financing power plants. So, I was pleased to note that following yesterday’s blackouts some of my ex-colleagues may find themselves in a growth market yet again as a lack of investment in both power generating and power transmission facilities in North America has played its part in contributing to the blackouts. According to former Clinton Energy Secretary, now New Mexico Governor, Bill Richardson, America is a superpower with a third-world grid. He is right, as investment in power generation and distribution has lagged demand, regulatory issues as well as the collapse of Enron have turned many investors away from what is potentially a license to print money. After yesterday, that may change.

And to make my day even better, the Canadians and Americans are once again pointing the finger and trying to blame one another for the blackouts. Do these people ever grow up? I do not know who has whispered this into her ear but this is what Senator Clinton had to say about it: “Our best understanding right now is that whatever did happen to start these cascading outages began in Canada”. The Canadians in turn pointed to a fire at a nuclear power facility in Pennsylvania. Whoever is responsible, we have given terrorists yet another clue as to how vulnerable we are and that is a truly disconcerting piece of news.

The blogosphere has discovered the phenomenon of Americans and Brits that have given up hope in their native countries and decided to leave and settle in what they believe is a social paradise called Canada. Shark Blog was the first to pick up on it and Samizdata did a very good job as it discovered a British journalist who ‘threatened’ to leave for Canada. Both blogs encouraged the move believing Canada would be a nice place to isolate the loony-left while no doubt the brighter Canadians would move south to the US. The bloggers over at Caerdroia came up with a better suggestion when I exchanged e-mails with them: the US could swap some of the blue states for some of Canada’s red provinces, or for the uninitiated: Americans would get rid of a few states dominated by the Democrats for a few right-leaning Canadian provinces. Last time I looked at the electoral map that would mean trading New England for Western Canada. Not very likely to happen, but neither is a merger of Canada and the US as the Americans would never want to see a return of all the lefties they were able to conveniently dump north. And yes, I can tell you, they are here. The most fanatical tree-huggers and anti-Bush enviro-nuts carry, you guessed it, an American passport.

But seriously, the notion that life in Canada is “more relaxed” and ”less competitive” is a delusion, which is not surprising if you look at who is perpetrating that notion. Canada, I found, continues to be the land of the lumberjacks and the pioneers where you have to work pretty hard if you want to turn something into a success. And opportunities there are: the Economist a little while ago ranked the country relatively high on its scale of “entrepreneurialism” and I have also learned that the Canadian population contains a higher percentage of millionaires than the American, but there may of course be a significant number of rich Americans part of that Canadian number who have migrated north to look for a relaxed lifestyle? Brits and Europeans will be shocked once they find out that life here is not a holiday paid for by the government and that handouts from the same institution pale compare to what is the standard back in the old country. It wasn’t until I landed here that realized what ridiculous social packages are the norm in Europe. The ruling Liberals have moved to the center and, like Tony Blair’s Labour Party are hardly the image of the tax-and-spend left, although they do their fair bit when necessary. Canada continues to be some weird mix of North American freedom and Old Country statism.

There you have it: I wrote something positive about Canada. Not only because it is fair, but also to stabilize my mental health and keep that whispering voice at bay that says: drop everything and head south.

Neighborly relations have a tendency to be complicated and often difficult. Growing up in the Netherlands it was evident from a very early age that our neighbors to the east, the Germans, were not our natural friends. A different culture, a different way of organizing the economy, a distinctly dissimilar sense of humor and of course some fresh wounds incurred during the Second World War contributed to a sometimes testy relationship which at times (for instance when the Dutch and German soccer teams met) boiled over. At the same time however there has been peace for over 50 years and Germany is the Netherlands’ single largest trading partner. Relations are good, many Dutch spend their holidays in Germany and vice-versa, and you would hardly ever see polls in the Netherlands which tried to rate our feelings about our easterly neighbors or see lengthy discussions on whether Gerhard Schroeder is likeable or not, or whether values in each respective country are diverging or converging. Such exercises are largely pointless and apart from the occasional flare-up during the noted soccer meetings and discussions over the Germans attending Second World War memorials, the Dutch and Germans are doing fine. I certainly never felt any real animosity or dislike towards them. Why would I?

The same cannot be said for the Canadians and Americans. On the contrary on the Canadian side of the border there continues to be a need to define oneself vis-à-vis the southern neighbor, and there is an abundance of futile discussions over the relationship between the two countries. The Canadian identity to a large extent seems to be a continuous search for what is not Canadian, and very often the “what-is-not” is equated to what is American. The absurd thing is that we are talking about two countries that are economically more integrated than the Netherlands and Germany and are culturally closer than any two European countries. When I got here I was amazed at the anti-American invective and the small-mindedness of some of the points that were being put forward during discussions about America. I am, a very great friend of America and see Canada as a stepping-stone to launch some of my activities into the US, so I was always quite interested to talk about bilateral relations and especially to talk about things American. Conversations always turned into discussions, and discussions got lengthier and more complicated in the run-up to the war in Iraq and the Canadian reluctance to join that effort.

I write about this again as I came across this piece of news where a Canadian-based research firm analyzed the feelings of Canadians towards George Bush and they came up with the fact that more than 60% of Canadians dislike Bush, but still have an overall positive feeling about the US. I was irritated the moment I saw the heading and decided to do some research on what firm had generated these numbers. It was not a complete surprise that I found out that it was the Environics Research Group, a Canadian opinion research firm that has hit the news before with, in my view, some contentious research and numbers. The group’s founder, Michael Adams, appears in the news here on a regular basis and most recently he ruined one morning for me by appearing on the radio that I was listening to while driving into town, with the message that Canada and the US were culturally and socially diverging and not converging as most would believe and he had the numbers to support that thesis, or so he claimed. That sounded fishy as it contravened everything I had experienced in my 4 years here and I got the idea that Adams was not really engaged in social research, but in social research to help define and implement social and cultural engineering. His conclusion was based on comparing attitudes in both countries following the 9/11 attacks and he contrasts some very strong emotions prompted by the event in America with an absence, or a reduced incidence, of these emotions in Canada. That’s were you get different sets of data sure, but that does not mean that values on both sides of the border are diverging. Again, Adams is manipulating manifestations of social behavior in order to support his theory that Canadians are very different from Americans and are becoming increasingly different. Approaching your subjects with biased questions at specific points in time can get you any result you want.

Let me give you an example in order to illustrate what I think is really happening. Shortly after 9/11, Wal-Mart in Canada offered a small Stars-and-Stripes flag at its checkout. I promptly bought one which continues to be on display in our kitchen and I keep it there because I like America, but also because I like to provoke the Canadian visitors a bit and we get quite a few of them. And they bite, almost immediately. Once they have seen the flag (or even before that, in case we drink our coffees or beers before they have had a chance to enter the kitchen) the discussion centers around America and they feel the need to embark on an explanation of what is wrong with America and what Canada should be doing about it. This is a first line reaction I have discovered because once I start probing (and Irene is good at this as well) and outlining some of the flaws in their argument they quickly retract and acknowledge that this emotional reaction is a typical Canadian thing, but that in essence there’s nothing wrong with Americans. In fact if you probe further they are almost always quite positive and relaxed about America and many for instance – and the numbers bear this out as well – would have liked to see Canadian support for the coalition invasion of Iraq. Many Canadians do business in the States, have a second home in the States; and most of them eat, drink and sleep American culture and yes, many Canadians even turn out to be Americans when you ask them about where they are coming from.

Now a cross-section of our circle of friends may not meet the statistical rigor that Mr. Adams applies to his efforts, but it strikes me that his results are derived by touching the surface and it elicits an emotional first-line reaction. So his research on Bush generates a negative reaction but it is complemented with the comment that overall Canadians remain positive about Americans. But guess what makes the headlines? What his research fails to do is to dig deeper and find that underlying all this negative traditional emotional nonsense is a pretty balanced and articulate opinion about the USA which is not at all that negative. He may also find that given the economic convergence, social convergence is right around the corner and that culturally the two countries have been very much alike for a long time anyway.

There are other weird incidences. At a party quite a while ago, I met this very successful guy. Made millions, lives in a spectacular multi-million dollar home, yet when I mentioned I was a foreigner and new to Canada, he immediately retreated and said: “you probably think that we Canadians are pushovers, right?”. Huh? It never occurred to me that Canadians were, and even if they were it would most certainly not apply to this guy, but it truly amazed me that someone would go into a conversation with a stranger and qualify himself as a pushover, just because of his nationality. Would an American ever do that? Nope, I don’t think so. Would a Dutchman do that? Never ever.

But circling back to Adams and his research I believe that Adams’ objectives are not necessarily anti-American. Adams dislikes the nature of the political wind blowing from the south and he cleverly – or at least he thinks so – uses this to promote his views and the Canadian media give him of course unlimited airplay to do this. The Globe and Mail (not my political flavour, but a very good newspaper nevertheless) and the CBC perpetuate the myth about America by reiterating these surface-level observations for their own political needs. Those needs come from the left side of the political spectrum and everything that reeks of free-trade, privatization, low-taxes and pre-emption is directly associated with those evil neighbors down south and what is easier to do than play to some surface level emotions that you know will come to life once you appeal to them? It is an old tactic and has been used many times before and is used over and over again by those in Canada that are desperate to hang-on to some antiquated notions of statehood, culture and social-democrat dogmas. Canadians can do much better than that; people like Mr. Adams lead them to irrelevance.

The result is a distorted debate about Canadian-American relations, unpleasant incidents as we witnessed earlier this year and potential damage to the interests of those who do not think in terms of dividing and diverging but who think and live by working together and by advancing both nations in the spirit of co-operation and above all, freedom. Diverging? If Europeans with different cultures and languages are slowly converging how on earth can Canadians and Americans be diverging?

It is almost daily that something about US-Canada relations hits the newswires and if it is not Paul Cellucci, Brian Mulroney or George Pataki then some other dignitary will pipe up on the subject. Today the honor goes to Jeb Bush who commented during a trip to Toronto:

"The bonds between Canada and the United States are as strong as they'll ever be, and have ever been. We are friends and that's not going to change."

He’s right. But his comments are further evidence that whatever went wrong between Canada and the US does not really represent a rift between the two countries and between Americans and Canadians, but is pretty much the result of the erratic behavior by Canada’s Prime-Minister Jean Chretien. His unpredictability leading up to the war in Iraq was a major irritant, as was his reluctance to rein in some of his cabinet ministers, members of parliament and staff when they engaged in unmitigated and purposeless America-bashing. The latter, construed as an official sanction to engage in anti-American behaviour, did lead to some unpleasant incidents but it appears relations are improving. Helpful comments from the likes of Cellucci and Mulroney have helped to smooth things out, as have Jeb’s comments today. It occurs to me that given the intensity and frequency with which Canadian media comment on every positive remark from an American regarding bilateral relations, many Canadians really must have feared the negative fallout of the deterioration in relations and are pleased to see that things are getting back to normal.

Peaktalk started to follow this topic out of sheer irritation and frustration but now that things are slowly getting back on track I will suspend the regular updates on this unless something unusual or material happens. Please note that full normalization of ties will have to wait however until Chretien has disappeared from the scene, which is scheduled for early 2004.

For those of you keeping track of the abysmal relationship between the US and Canadian government leaders, which I have been following with growing disbelief, there’s good news today. They finally have talked, by phone. Not on Iraq, not on missile defense, but on something closer to home: beef.

Even though I reported that US-Canada relations appeared to be on the mend, the postponed visit by Bush to Canada has now been pushed back even further. President Bush has wisely figured that there is probably little point in meeting with a fairly hostile lame-duck who is going to be gone in February 2004 anyway.

I have been meaning to write about this for a while but haven’t had the time to sit down and put the pen to paper. The issue is that of the sliding US dollar and the impact it has on the currency of its closest neighbor and trade partner, Canada. For a number of years now the Canadian economy has been ‘saved’ by the favorable exchange rate, one US dollar on average bought you almost 1.60 Canadian dollars, making it cheap for Americans to buy and produce in Canada and in turn giving the Canadian economy a solid influx of funds, contributing to healthy growth rates. The Liberal government in Canada benefited enormously from the rosy economic picture, but many critics pointed out that the US$/C$ exchange rate covered up some real problems. The problem is that on the face of it, Canada was competitive, but a closer examination revealed that it wasn’t really. What if the exchange rate had been 1:1 ? Would we still have seen US investors, business and tourists flocking to their Northern neighbor as they did in recent years? Probably not. The Canadian economy was competitive primarily by virtue of the exchange rate, not because it produced better and cheaper goods. That problem is now becoming more evident and in a way the rising value of the Canadian dollar is a blessing in disguise. Note that today one US dollar buys you only 1.38 Canadian dollars, the latter appreciating in value by about 14%. It will now force Canadian businesses to increase productivity and become more efficient in order to offset the reduction in profitability resulting from the change in exchange rates. That in turn means that many Canadian businesses will have to model themselves after their southern counterparts, which in practice will not be an easy process as many external factors such as government regulation, taxes and organized labor have had a value destroying impact on Canadian businesses. These external variables can not be turned around overnight, but the complacency prevalent in Canadian society at large will no doubt have to experience some form of shock therapy in order to maintain a position of relative competitiveness vis-à-vis the US.

There’s one other important effect which is the fact that the sliding Canadian dollar made imports into Canada fairly expensive. This is a much overlooked aspect but it shouldn’t be as it was slowly destroying Canadians’ buying power as phenomenal amount of goods and services from the US are imported into Canada. The Liberal government never paid much attention to this aspect either as their economic thinking to a large extent continues to be mired in the notion that consumers should be buying domestically, a flawed concept that predates the days of free-trade and globalization. You will not believe how many businesses continue to advertise their products as “Canadian” and how many people (although a minority) in Canada disapprove of buying at Wal-Mart. The rise in the value of the Canadian dollar now allows consumers in Canada to buy more imported products for their dollar and that is a move in the right direction as it ultimately creates wealth for consumers.

It is now up to the Canadian government and businesses to respond to the new realities by together working towards a framework in which Canada stays competitive. That means lower taxes, less rules and regulations and more flexibility with regards to labor. In the end this will benefit both Canada and the USA. A currency union with the US, favoured by many in Canada, has a long way to go. The current Canadian government has a hard time getting its head around joint security arrangements so the idea of one North American currency may be generations away, but it is a concept that will be discussed intensively over the next few years.

One of the signs of failed political leadership is the inability to present a vision for the future. Even worse for a leader would be to voluntarily provide evidence that you continue to live in the past. Now that Bush has cancelled his state visit to Canada, Canada’s Prime Minister Jean Chretien has decided to fix this inconvenient turn of events by scheduling a meeting with … Bill Clinton.

Support for the US is now getting more specific in Canada and rightly so. Look at this new site: Canadians for Bush. With the likelihood that Bush has now cancelled his visit to Canada many Canadians are starting to feel very uncomfortable about the deteriorating relationship between the two countries and are calling for regime change in Ottawa.

So what the federal government in Canada is unable to establish is taken on with vigor by provincial governments. NY Governor George Pataki and Premier Ernie Eves of Ontario today signed a declaration calling on their two federal governments to establish a security perimeter around the US and Canada. This is an absolute no-brainer for both the US and Canada although the usual Canadian suspects will cry foul over a perceived loss of sovereignty. Both countries however stand to gain in terms of free trade and security and it is therefore a relief to see that some leaders are willing to take this issue forward.

It appears the Canadian government has seriously misread the mood under its citizens. A significant majority of Canadians believes Canada should have supported the US at the outset of the war and 56% of Canadians believes the US was right to launch an invasion to get rid of Saddam. The latter number I believe is pretty close to what we are seeing in terms of public support in Britain. The Chretien government is now trying to save face:

Jean Chrétien is to give a speech in the House of Commons today endorsing the Bush administration's "mission" in Iraq and asking MPs to declare formal support for a quick victory by coalition forces.

This is not just "too little, too late" it is a shameful exercise in political expediency and one that will barely register in Washington. Canadians are deeply embarassed as not only do they want to support the US, they also start to lose their sense of humor when they get e-mails like this:

Hello John,
I have looked at the projects and continue to be impressed with your company's work and commitment to quality. Unfortunately most of my American companies have been nonplussed if not down right furious over the recent treatment of Americans by Canadians. It is with a heavy heart that I must recommend we postpone any of our marketing ideas with regards to {name deleted}.
Please feel free to call me to discuss this current dilemma and unfortunate turn of events and again let me say that this in no way reflects my feelings for your company or you, just a reflection of the times.
Sincerely,

And believe me, they will not blame the American that sent this e-mail, no their anger is directed entirely at their own incapable government and its clueless leader, Chretien. As a foreigner living here, I am amazed that a government would go to these extreme lengths to frustrate a great relationship while at the same time seriously misreading the public mood. Yet, somehow I am comforted by the poll numbers revealed today.

Today US Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci again expressed his disappointment that the US is not finding Canada by its side in its war against Iraq and he also expressed some concern over further anti-American incidents in Canada. It appears however that the mood in Canada is changing and that outside Quebec support for the US war effort is growing, many provincial politicians are speaking out and expressing real concern over the damage to bilateral relations and, needless to say, the business sector is speaking up as well with a very clear message.

Some in the US have questioned the Cellucci approach, wondering if it would not be interpreted as bullying by the US. I have a hard time explaining this as undiplomatic behaviour, I see it as welcome comments that give support to an issue that concerns Canadians as well as Americans. Canada's current government has chosen not to speak out against virulent anti-American incidents that have included comments by senior cabinet ministers. This not only a betrays a lack of manners, it is also evidence of an unwillingness to maintain and improve a very important relationship between two neighbors. Cellucci's comments are not only a clear indication of his frustration over this, but also of his genuine concern of the unnecessary deterioration of a great friendship.

Good to see and hear that the pro-America rallies are gaining momentum. Even in Vancouver, Canada, a notorious hub of left coast activity a rally took place yesterday. What gave the rally momentum were some interesting testimonials, especially this one:

Ariel Tijerino, who moved to Canada from Nicaragua in 1998, had a similar view, saying in an interview that he backs U.S. action in Iraq "one hundred per cent -- one million per cent ... I'm from Nicaragua and I appreciate what the Americans did for us."

I highlight this comment because Nicaragua is so often pictured as a benchmark of US aggression by the anti-war crowd. Well, my guess is that Ariel is not the only Nicaraguan thankful for America's efforts to rid the place of the Sandinista dictatorship. Apparently more pro-America rallies are scheduled in Canada and may many more refugees speak up, they have an important message. I am just waiting to hear about pro-America rallies in Europe, when they happen I will be one of the first to let you know.

Quite busy yesterday so I did not really have the time to finish my discussion of Drezner's arguments regarding the comments made by the US Ambassador to Canada, Cellucci. There is some good news from Canada though, the support America movement is growing and here's another site that has just gone up: Friends of America.

Last night Irene and I went to the opera, Richard Strauss' Elektra, not exactly something that will put you in a good mood, fairly depressing. It was compounded by the fact that Elektra was played by a Janice Soprano look alike.

I will check in later.

Springtime is here. The sun was shining this morning and I decided to work from home in the morning and shortly before lunchtime my almost 3-year old daughter Nora and I walked to our local post office to get the mail and a newspaper. Not that the paper would add a lot since I had already digested three continents of news highlights online, but it is a routine and so there I was in front of the newspaper stand. All of the headlines focused on the deteriorating relations between the US and Canada including very detailed analyses over the speech the US Ambassador to Canada gave yesterday in which he rightly blasted the Chretien government for not supporting the US in its war on Iraq.

The fact that all the major Canadian newspapers are splashing this across their front pages tells me that many in Canada believe this is a serious issue. Public opinion is changing and it appears that a majority of Canadians now believes that their government should support the US in its war effort. It is hard to say what has prompted this move in the right direction, but I believe there is a genuine feeling that Canada should stand by the US, although there will be many people that will just look at their wallets and realize that Canadian wealth to a very large extent depends on the huge volumes of trade going back and forth over its border with the US. Hopeful signs I think, and yes, there will be “Rally for America” in Toronto next week, let’s hope other Canadian cities will follow.

Access to President Bush is vital for almost every political leader and it is great that in Canada there is a Prime Minister who has exactly that, the only problem is that he left office about 10 years ago. Brian Mulroney has given his views on the US-Canada relationship and the war on Iraq and he gets it right:

Mr. Mulroney acknowledged Mr. Chrétien's policy of neutrality is popular in Canada, but he said the test of leadership is to make the right decision in Canada's long-term interest even if the public is initially opposed. He pointed to Tony Blair, who committed troops to the war against great public opposition, which has begun to melt as the British Prime Minister rallied his nation to what Mr. Mulroney called a just war.

He goes on to say that:

"You have a Liberal Member of Parliament [Colleen Beaumier] going to Baghdad and saying George Bush is worse than Saddam Hussein. You have a press secretary [Françoise Ducros] to the Prime Minister, saying the President of the United States is a moron and nobody gets repudiated, nobody gets fired,'' he said. ''Guess what the consequences of that are? The consequences are the loss of influence.''

It is probably time that Mulroney gets to speak a bit more often. Not only is he right, he has access to the White House and that could be a valuable asset when the time is there for Canada to mend fences with Washington.

Support is growing and rightly so, now there's a website called Canadian Friends of America. Go visit.

As promised I will share with you my rage over the shameful performance of the Canadian government this week. To be clear: I am not a Canadian but I happen to live here and as such I have a bit of an insight into what is going on here. First of all, the government here made it very clear that it does not support the US-led coalition that will go to war in Iraq in what is now a matter of hours. The key reason is that the Canadian government does not believe that this action is legal and it further believes that, like France and Germany, more time for weapons inspections by the UN is required.

The centerpiece of their argument is seriously flawed. UN resolution 1441 provides sufficient legal ground to attack Iraq and in addition there is a very strong argument to intervene in situations where urgent humanitarian needs require this. The latter has happened in Bosnia and Kosovo and it did not happen in Rwanda, the latter being one of the worst human tragedies of the past century and for which the UN is still carrying a huge portion, if not all, of the blame. Beyond the strict legal argument there is the right for each and every country to defend itself against attacks or harm that may come to visit its citizens. Again, the Iraqi arms build-up as well as its terrorist connections prove a substantial ground for action especially in light of the attack on Kuwait in 1990 as well as the numerous attacks on Iraq’s Kurdish population. I am stating the obvious here, but it is leading into the following argument.

If you still believe, in spite of the all strong arguments noted above, that after 12 years of arguments and sanctions it is not right to attack Iraq, you may very well make that point, but you lose all credibility if you fail to support your closest friends that are willing to stand up to the source of evil that is confronting the world. With American, British and Australian soldiers likely to die in the next few days, the least you could do as a friend and ally is to express some level of support to your friends and especially to your closest neighbor who also happens to be your major customer, in this case buying 85% of everything that you export abroad. And not only that, that southern neighbor also provides for your security as you have miserably neglected to do anything about your own defense and you have indicated a considerable degree of unwillingness to integrate security arrangements for a North American perimeter that might have benefited the security of your and your neighbor’s citizens. The legacy of Prime Minister Chretien is that he has relegated the status of a once powerful nation like Canada to that of a completely irrelevant bystander that even in times of acute danger can not bring itself to support those that are willing to contain the danger and are taking on the dirty work. Compare the Canadian PM to the British PM, compare their respective parliamentary performances earlier this week and it is not difficult to see that Chretien can not even stand in Blair’s shadow. As I have argued earlier on this site, you do not always have to agree with one another but you can at least make some effort to sit at the table and participate in the discussion. Yes, that will require you to give up some of your cherished ideals but that is something all of us do on a day-to-day basis: there is a real world out there. If I walked away from every client that I have because in most cases I do not always agree fully with what they are doing, then I would be unable to help shape their businesses and I would be sure to not have any business myself. Is that not true for everyone in a working relationship? Give up some of your ideals to be part of a team, you will at least be ensured a continued income flow and an ability to shape the process because you’re involved and a part of it even though you do not always like it.

The Canadian government has chosen not to participate. I have spoken to many Canadians in the past 48 hours and a significant number is deeply ashamed of what is happening. Canada also does not have the luxury to put itself in a situation like this. The French and Germans may retreat into their European fortress and survive, but in Canada’s case there is a tonne of bi-lateral issues on the American-Canadian table that the American government now will not even bother to look at. Why would they ?

If, and this is something I hope and feel will happen, the campaign in Iraq is short, weapons of mass destruction will turn up, and masses of Iraqi civilians will enthusiastically hail American, British and Australian liberators into their country, then Chretien and his cabinet will be toast, both on a national and international level. They will have deserved this as they are not acting in the best interests of the Canadian people, do not show loyalty and respect for their best friends and fail to help where human need is urgent. Their stance in this matter is disgraceful.

Again, Canada has launched an initiative with a new deadline for Iraq to disarm. The problem is, Canada is not seen as a credible partner by the U.S., Britain or Spain, the countries that are sponsoring the proposed resolution that has a March 17 deadline. The reason for that is that Canada has never bought into the fundamental concept of disarming and removing Saddam. Had they done this at an early stage, they would have been a credible partner for Bush, Blair and Aznar and they would have been able to contribute something that would have been listened to in Washington and London. It is Tony Blair who after September 11 realized where to position Britain and as a result became a credible partner for the U.S. Tony Blair is the key reason for the U.S. to have gone back to the U.N. Security Council and so Blair has been able to shape the direction of dealing with Saddam. Canada never really was a part of the discussion as it never made clear it wanted to play a meaningful role. To now at the eleventh hour enter the stage with a number of revised deadlines is in the words of one diplomat "not plausible". I would go a bit further: the proposals are irrelevant. If you want to be relevant you sit at the table from the beginning, then you have some credibility and then you can help structure the final deal. It is time Canada rethinks its foreign policy, realizes how it can help shape international policy and only then can it come back to the table with a credible vision. So far, they are still not getting it.

So Canada may be going to war in Iraq after all. Good. Why don't they just say that ?

I unconsciously introduced the 'b' word in my last posting. Well, it has been the subject of much debate this week here in Canada. One of PM Chretien's lackeys used it to describe Americans. This truly sickens me and I do not want spend a lot of time on it, but if you want to know more, David Frum has the goods.