The b-word

For the record, I don't think Belinda Stronach is a bitch. I don't think she's a dog, either. I do think she's been ill advised in her career choices, but that's neither here nor there. It's not a word I would use about anyone. Well, not in public, at any rate.

I will, however, defend to the death Norman Spector's right to call her that, or any name he chooses, as ill advised as that career choice may prove to be. "Bitch" may be specific to women, but it has its analogues in "prick," "asshole," or perhaps most precisely, "bastard," along with a host of other insults that are reserved exclusively to men. It is not exactly gentlemanly language, but it's not particularly offensive, as these things go. Nor is it necessarily sexist -- indeed, outside of rap videos, it is most often used by women to describe other women. Some use it to describe themselves, as a kind of "dont mess with me" boast. You can buy t-shirts with "Certified Bitch" proudly emblazoned on them. (See also here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and ...) I can't imagine a man saying "I'm a prick," except in the throes of the most abject self-recrimination.

The predictable attempt to elevate this into an attack on all women, or indeed to portray any criticism of a female politician as sexist slander, is gender-baiting, pure and simple. So perhaps it's best to have this out now. Either female politicians are the equals of their male counterparts, able to dish it out and take it, or they are not. But let's stop pretending that Sheila Copps or Carolyn Parrish or Alexa McDonough or Deb Grey -- or Belinda Stronach -- are some sort of hothouse flowers, who can be trusted to battle terrorists and murderers but swoon at a little rough language. POSTSCRIPT: The more I think about this, the more bizarre it seems. Can the Opposition really be demanding Spector be dismissed from his job, that he be barred from all future government employment, over a word women wear on t-shirts? Is this where this sudden outbreak of linguistic puritanism is taking us? Fines in Parliament, and blacklists everywhere else? One final question: if "bitch" -- a word that has appeared 103 times this year in the National Post alone -- is so unmentionable, what about "son of a bitch"?

A farmer's right to choose

Oh look, here's another Conservative sellout...

After weeks of mounting pressure, Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl announced Tuesday that Prairie barley farmers will get to vote on the future of the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly. Strahl told a Commons committee in Ottawa the plebiscite will be held next year, with a voters' list and questions to be announced after the wheat board's director elections currently underway this fall. The move comes just one day after Strahl released a task force report that recommended the federal government set up within two years a new, voluntary Canadian Wheat Board that would be completely owned by farmers. The report recommended the monopoly on barley be removed first, followed by wheat six months later. "Many of my own MPs have been saying, 'Let's ask the question,' " Strahl told the committee about why he finally decided to hold a barley plebiscite... Supporters of the board's monopoly say it gives farmers the best prices in a fiercely competitive international market, while opponents counter they should have the right to try to get better prices for their grain. Farm groups that have long lobbied for a dual market say they're disappointed in Strahl's decision. For them, the issue isn't about what the majority wants, but in giving choice to any farmer who wants to sell their own grain.

Exactly. The whole point of taking away the Wheat Board's monopoly is to let each farmer choose for himself -- not to let the majority coerce the minority. If the Board does as good a job as its proponents claim, it should be able to persuade farmers to sell their grain through it, not threaten them with fines and imprisonment.

Trust bust

I've not had a chance to look at this very closely, but on first glance it doesn't look good:

Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has announced tough new rules designed to curb the growing corporate move toward income trusts.
Mr. Flaherty says the trend is worrying, and if left unchecked could shift billions of dollars of the tax burden onto individuals and away from corporations.
“This trend has now moved into the core of our industrial and knowledge-based economy,” Mr. Flaherty said at a surprise news conference late Tuesday, shortly after financial markets had closed.
“It is a trend that has caused me growing concern. If corporations don't pay their share of taxes, this tax burden will shift onto the shoulders of hardworking individuals and their families.”
The minister said the move toward income trusts has been so swift and dramatic that it threatens Canada's economy, as well as government priorities such as health care and tax relief.
“Left unchecked, such corporate decisions would result in billions of dollars in less revenue for the federal government to invest in the priorities of Canadians,” Mr. Flaherty said.

This is typical Conservative demagoguery, in the sense that it is now typical of them to ape the NDP. No corporation ever paid a dime of tax. All taxes are paid by people: the people who own the corporation, or the people who work for it, or the people who buy its products. A corporation is just a piece of paper, a legal document on file at the registrar's office.

The reason income trusts are such a pressing concern is not because they are an inferior form of corporate organization (that's for management and shareholders to work out between them) or because of the cost to the treasury. It's the combination of the two: the incentive for the corporation to organize itself a certain way, not because it makes economic sense, but purely for the tax savings.

Rather than ban income trusts, the solution is clearly to equalize the tax treatment of trusts and ordinary corporations. There are two ways to do this: lower the tax on the dividends corporations pay their shareholders (which face a higher effective rate because of the tax already paid at the corporate level, even with the dividend tax credit) or raise the tax on the interest trusts pay out. The Martin Liberals went some way down the former road. The Conservatives appear to have taken the latter, though there is some mention of a half-point cut in corporate tax rates five years out.

But that's just my first cut at it. Should probably read the plan first. AFTERTHOUGHT: Still, say this for them -- I don't think anyone saw this coming. AFTERTHOUGHTER: As I feared, I spoke too soon. As Finance's background paper explains, the tax differential for most investors had already been closed as of the 2006 budget (I had thought there was still a gap). The problem is foreign and tax-exempt investors -- for example, those holding shares in their RSPs -- for whom the personal tax "layer" of the combined corporate-and-person tax rate on investment income ceases to be a factor. The advantage to them in holding income trusts is strictly owing to the fact that income trusts pay no corporate tax. So the only way to level the playing field was to tax the trusts like corporations, and tax the payments unitholders receive like dividends.

Tides 1 Canute 0

CRTC chief will call it quits:

CRTC chair Charles Dalfen will not seek a second term at the helm of Canada's telecom and broadcast regulator, after more than four years marked largely by the hefty challenge of trying to maintain national borders in the Internet era.
Mr. Dalfen said on Monday for the first time that he will complete his five-year term at the end of the year and then move on. Speaking to reporters after an appearance before the House of Commons heritage committee, he wouldn't say specifically why he won't seek a second term, nor would he comment on the reasons for his decision.
He said he hasn't yet had much time to reflect on his period at the CRTC, but acknowledged that it was a difficult time to lead the federal regulator.

I know, I know: the point of the story is that Canute didn't believe he could turn back the tides...

Capital idea

Flaherty revives pledge to slash capital gains tax:

The Conservative government is looking at ways to make good on a pledge to provide a break on capital gains taxes in the 2007 federal budget, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says, after balking last spring at the difficulties involved.
The Tories withheld the measure from the 2006 budget lineup because it needed more work...
The minister said yesterday that the Finance Department is studying several options to fulfill the capital gains pledge and is also canvassing Canadians for ideas...

Well, since you ask: A better capital gains plan

Abomination

With the Liberals in disarray and hurtling towards a train wreck of a convention, word comes of a compromise proposal:

Liberal leadership hopefuls are scrambling behind the scenes to prevent a rupture over a potentially divisive resolution calling for recognition of Quebec as a nation. Several contenders are trying to broker a compromise that would defuse the Quebec bomb before it can explode at the party's leadership convention next month. Martha Hall Findlay, the lone woman left in the race, is floating the idea that all eight candidates should issue a joint statement making it clear that they agree Quebec constitutes a nation within Canada, but that "now is not the time" to re-open the Constitution.

This, of course, solves nothing. In fact, it amounts to endorsing the Ignatieff position. Whether you commit to put it in the constitution "now" or "later," you have still endorsed this repugnant idea. Yes, repugnant. Even as a "symbolic" statement, it suffers from being a) untrue, and b) prejudicial. Untrue, because Quebec, as such, is not a nation, at least in the sense that its proponents intend: a people who share a common language and culture. It's debatable whether it's even a nation in the civic sense, ie by virtue of a consensus among those of which it is composed. As the redoubtable Don MacPherson writes in the Gazette:

At the Liberal council meeting last Saturday, nearly one-third of the supposed members of the nation in attendance voted against the otherwise vanilla resolution recognizing them as such. Polls consistently show at least a significant minority of the province's residents don't consider themselves part of a Quebec nation. And a French-Canadian living in Quebec has far more in common with one living across the Ottawa River, who isn't a member of the supposed nation, than he does with a Muslim Arab living in Montreal, who is. But only sovereignists dare say out loud that Quebec nationhood is not yet a reality but an ideal that can be achieved only through sovereignty. For everybody else, a denial that the emperor is in fact unclothed is the ticket for admission to political debate in Quebec. Dissenters are simply ignored so that the pretense of a "Quebec consensus" can be maintained.

A Gazette editorial adds:

In the final analysis, Quebec is a political jurisdiction, rather than a nation. Sociologically, it is more accurate to say that francophone Canadians, in Quebec and New Brunswick and parts of Ontario and elsewhere, constitute a nation. Some hard questions must, therefore, be asked of those who claim that Quebec is a nation. Are any other provinces nations, as a Newfoundland MP said this week of his province? Are there nations in Canada that do not have their own provinces? Are there nations within provinces as minorities? Are Quebec anglophones a nation? How do we determine how these various nations should deal with the other nations that make up Canada?

In other words, you can only maintain that Quebec is a nation if you assume that Quebec = Quebec nationalists. That's the untrue part. And prejudicial, because to make this error you have to ignore altogether the hundreds of thousands of anglophones and allophones -- roughly one in six Quebecers have a mother tongue other than French -- who make their home in the province, to say nothing of dissenting francophones. Equally, you have to write off the one million or so French Canadians hors Québec as so many "warm corpses." Quebec-as-nation, then, is pernicious in principle, let alone as a clause in the constitution. It is a statement of ethnolinguistic triumphalism, of a kind that no responsible political leader in a liberal democratic state should encourage. At worst, it is intended to further marginalize the province's minorities. At best, it simply forgets they exist. It is also implicitly separatist. I repeat here an argument I have made before: statements of sociological "fact," even where true, take on a wholly different meaning in a political context. The word "nation" has many meanings, but in politics it simply means "us." It defines the outer boundaries of the polity, the largest community within which we are willing, as a matter of course, to sacrifice for one another, to share with one another, to trade with one another, and to accept the decisions of the majority. We might do all these things with "others," but it will always be contingent. Only within the nation is it automatic -- because, after all, it's "us." It would be absurd to put up trade barriers, for example, against ourselves, against "us." It only becomes thinkable when "us" are transformed into "them." Which is precisely the kind of thinking the "nation" nomenclature encourages. Indeed, that's why the nationalists invented it. Quebec nationalists have successfully colonized opinion in the rest of the country on a great many things: the terrible "injustice" of patriation (the 1982 constitution in fact granted a slew of powers and prerogatives to the provinces in general, and several more to Quebec alone), the resulting "illegitimacy" of the constitution without Quebec's assent (the 1982 constitution was endorsed by 74 of 75 MPs from Quebec, while provincial governments of both parties have invoked the protection of the same constitution over and over whenever it suited their purposes), the urgent "necessity" of repairing this breach (the issue took on such weight chiefly as a means of restoring Quebec's bargaining power, after the hoax of the Quebec "veto" was finally exposed -- just as the death of Meech, a document the nationalists themselves had rejected, became the pretext for still further demands, and as one supposes the current controversy will in its turn), the "right" of secession (tempered, but not repudiated, by the Clarity Act), and so on. But this is something new. Yes, it is true that federalists in Quebec -- some of them -- have been stampeded into support of the idea. In this they are only fulfilling their historic role, which is to agree on Tuesday with whatever the separatists propose on Monday, then insist that the rest of the country do likewise or risk their defeat -- in effect, to take themselves hostage, and demand we ransom them. As MacPherson writes, "God save Canada from Quebec federalists." But if the next federal Liberal leader, whoever he or she is, does likewise -- and Ms Hall Findlay's proposal would guarantee it -- it will be the first time that any federal leader of either major party has done so. (Even Stanfield's disastrous "deux nations" gambit was formally a statement, not about Quebec, but about French Canadians.) What I'd really like to hear, as Norm Spector has suggested, "is a clear statement to Quebeckers from each of the Liberal leadership candidates, in French, that the government in Ottawa is their national government, too." Too? HEY WAIT A MINUTE: Of what possible relevance is it to the present discussion, by the way, that Martha Hall Findlay is "the lone woman left in the race"?

Mon pays, c'est l'Iggy: the critics rave!

Jeffrey Simpson:

Fuss around with the word all you like. Give it sociological, ethnographic, linguistic connotations, even definitions. In English or French, "nation" elides into sovereignty, as in the United Nations (Nations Unies), or national anthem (hymne nationale). It would be completely reckless, for all those who favour a united Canada, to include such a concept in the Constitution, now or ever, for there could never be any escape from the link of "nation" with sovereignty in a constitutional document.

Norman Spector:

... with Mr. Ignatieff having played the constitutional card, there's something almost Orwellian in mentioning his name in the same breath as Mr. Trudeau's... Any attempt to achieve his agenda would inevitably set off the same negotiating dynamic that led to the Charlottetown accord fiasco... Canadians are being asked to buy a pig in a poke ... It's been said that members of the Liberal Party fear a backlash if they reject Mr. Ignatieff's idea, but it's hard to believe they would leave the field open for Prime Minister Stephen Harper to campaign on a platform of "one Canada" in the next election.

Lysiane Gagnon:

Under the erratic guidance of Michael Ignatieff, the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada has happily gone down the road to political suicide... In the foolish hope that a veiled promise of recognizing Quebec's national character in the Constitution would give them back the lost votes of Quebec francophones, the Liberals are unleashing a process that will inevitably lead to division and resentment throughout the land, and end in abject failure...

William Thorsell: "... dangerous ... [a] can of worms...." Norman Webster: "... ill-timed ... an opening of Pandora's container that has so many dangerous implications it makes the head hurt to count them..." The Globe and Mail: "... with his troubling constitutional dreams, including his call to recognize the 'national status' of Quebec, Michael Ignatieff has divided his Liberal Party and, very likely, the country... It is a lamentable solution to a problem that is largely of Mr. Ignatieff's own making..." The Toronto Star: "... a 'winning' strategy for Ignatieff and the Quebec wing of his party could be a losing one for the country. It risks igniting a divisive debate within the Liberal family and a far uglier one across a country still haunted by the Meech Lake and Charlottetown constitutional debacles... Rather than legitimize folly, the Liberal Party of Canada should put the interest of all Canadians first and reject the Quebec-as-nation resolution as a non-starter..." The Montreal Gazette: "... this emotional and political minefield. Nothing good will come of it... We cannot suppress the suspicion - not to say fear - that Ignatieff was wooing delegate votes by playing fast and loose with the future of Canada. We're almost afraid to ask if he took this position out of cynicism, or naivete." On the other hand, Bernard Landry likes it. WHAT ALL OF THESE CRITICS HAVE IN COMMON, if memory serves, is that every last one of them (except Landry) were supporters, to varying degrees of shrillness and hysteria, of the Meech and Charlottetown "debacles."

But give them credit: at least they've learned something from the experience. As Simpson writes: "Any person or institution can make a mistake. Any person or institution who makes the same mistake twice is, as the saying goes, a fool."

Well, that takes care of Meech and Charlottetown. But, "what word applies to any person or institution that makes the same mistake a third time? ... What manner of man or party, and what kind of country, would take immense risks to try a third time what disastrously failed twice?"

Hmmm...

David Peterson, a former Liberal premier of Ontario who is now chancellor of the University of Toronto, said the Liberals must confront the constitutional status of Quebec, and that a leadership race is the appropriate forum for that debate. "Most of the leading political leadership in Quebec, and I'm talking about federalists like Jean Charest, believe that without some formal recognition of Quebec uniqueness, distinctiveness and nationhood within Canada, there will always be a gaping wound," said Peterson, who supports Ignatieff's leadership bid and was an ardent defender of the failed Meech Lake constitutional accord, which, among other things, would have recognized Quebec as a "distinct society."... Peterson said "there is nothing to fear" from formal recognition and that it is the only sure-fire way to defuse sovereignist sentiment in Quebec...

The politics of personal distraction

The moment every politician lives for, the answer to their most fervent prayers, is to be the subject of a vicious personal attack. If they are very lucky, it will be directed at their family...

My Saturday column is up.

Attack of the killer mailboxes

Sigh.

Canada Post will assess more than 800,000 rural mailboxes across the country to determine whether they meet new safety standards established by the Crown corporation. The move comes after complaints from mail-delivery drivers that many mailboxes are on blind hills or sharp corners, or in high-traffic areas. Some rural mail carriers are refusing to deliver to locations they say are unsafe. After the complaints, Canada Post consulted with the National Research Council, which examined issues such as the location of the boxes, sight lines for the drivers and the driving behaviours of Canadians. They produced a computerized checklist of safety standards that drivers will use to analyze the safety of Canada's 800,000 rural mailboxes... Ottawa, meanwhile, is promising to restore "traditional" mail delivery to rural communities, says a report. A spokesperson for Lawrence Cannon, the minister responsible for Canada Post, said Thursday the government will do whatever is needed to restore delivery to rural residents, said the Globe and Mail... Last spring, dozens of unionized drivers refused to deliver mail to rural parts of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, citing safety concerns. More than 200 drivers have claimed their routes are unsafe, and complained about poor road conditions and the risk of repetitive stress injuries from reaching out from their vehicles to put mail in the boxes.

Oh for the love of... The post office, recall, has a legal monopoly on the delivery of first-class mail. The justification always offered is that if competition were allowed, no one would deliver on rural routes. (Which is nonsense -- courier companies will deliver to any address in Canada, provided the price is right. But leave that to one side.) So give them a monopoly, and what happens? With the post office firmly in the grip of the Canadian Union of Prize Wusses, no one will deliver on rural routes. Well. If delivering the mail is too hazardous for Canada Post, and if the government is serious about doing "whatever is needed" to restore service on rural routes, isn't it time to send in a few daring entrepreneurs and their hand-picked teams of leathernecks to tame those unruly mailboxes? Either them or the army. MORE: Actually, the post office hasn't delivered the mail in years...

The recent loss of door-to-door service follows a trend that has occurred for more than two decades. Until June, 1985, group mailboxes had been limited to rural areas. Since then, Canada Post has been installing community boxes in new subdivisions in urban areas. Prior to that change, Mr. Caines said, only about 46 per cent of Canadian residences received service to the home.

Yes, but what if they colonized outer space?

Vampires a Mathematical Impossibility, Scientist Says:

On Jan 1, 1600, the human population was 536,870,911. If the first vampire came into existence that day and bit one person a month, there would have been two vampires by Feb. 1, 1600. A month later there would have been four, and so on. In just two-and-a-half years the original human population would all have become vampires with nobody left to feed on.

Quod erat draculandum.

At last the flying cars

Neiman Marcus to Sell Flying Cars For Christmas!

Encore des nations!

From the North Bay Nugget:

Bob Goulais of Nipissing First Nation, an executive with the Nipissing-Timiskaming Federal Liberal Association, plans to table a resolution to ensure recognition for First Nations. The question of nationhood was addressed on the weekend at the Quebec assembly of the Liberal Party of Canada, where the delegates passed a resolution recognizing Quebec as a nation. “There is no question Quebec’s nationhood status in Canada should be debated,” said Goulais, an Anishinaabe and chief of staff for the Union of Ontario Indians. “We all know First Nations have long sought recognition as nations within Canada.” Goulais says he will he will table a resolution with the Aboriginal Peoples’ Commission of the Liberal Party of Canada at the party convention, which begins later this month. “I will propose a resolution mandating that First Nations issues become a top priority of the Liberal Party of Canada including the recognition of First Nations as nations within a nation, and the recognition of First Nations governments as a legitimate third order of Government within Canada,” he said in the release.

So that's Quebec, the other provinces, Acadians, about six hundred native bands... Is there anybody here we haven't recognized as a nation?

Face the nation - three views

I. HERE'S the text of the Quebec Liberals' resolution, to be debated at the Liberal Party of Canada's national convention:

WHEREAS history recognizes the three founding peoples of Canada - Aboriginal, French and English; WHEREAS Quebec is a founding member of the Canadian federation and is the principal cradle of the French presence in North America; WHEREAS Quebec defines itself primarily, although not exclusively, by its unique language and culture, its civil law and its inestimable contribution to the political, economic, and cultural evolution of Canada; WHEREAS Quebec covers a specific territory and recognizes the historical linguistic duality and cultural plurality within this territory as enshrined in both the Canadian and Quebec Charters of Rights and Freedoms; WHEREAS the majority of Quebeckers wish to retain their historical partnership with the rest of Canada, respecting their partners' cultural and social aspirations; WHEREAS countries have long recognized nations within their borders without upsetting either domestic or international legal frameworks; and WHEREAS it is duty of the Liberal Party of Canada to take the lead in order to assure that each member of the Canadian federation is accorded the proper respect and recognition necessary to facilitate future discussions regarding the evolution of a Canada that best reflects its modern and advanced society; BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada recognizes the Quebec nation within Canada. BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada will create an expert taskforce with the mandate of reporting to the next Leader of the Party on possible ways and the appropriate timing to officialise this historical and social reality.

Aside from the casual rewriting of history (Quebec, as we know it, was not "a founding member of the Canadian federation" -- it was created by Confederation, out of the old Province of Canada), three things jump out immediately. One, it is abundantly clear that the definition of nation is linguistic-cultural, not civic-political ("its language and culture"). On that basis, it is nonsense to say that "Quebec is a nation," unless you wish out of existence several hundred thousand anglophones and allophones. Two, it is explicitly a "deux nations" vision of the country, with Quebec on the one hand and "rest of Canada" on the other. Binational compacts of this sort -- Czechoslovakia anyone? -- do not have a good track record of stability. Three, though it avoids directly committing the party to constitutional entrenchment, it is hard to attach any other meaning to "officialise." Nor, it is clear, is this the end. Far from it: the offering of "respect and recognition" to Quebec is the starting point to "facilitate future discussions." II. HERE'S Stephane Dion's politically shrewd take on the controversy, as expressed in his letter to La Presse yesterday:

Before entering politics, more than ten years ago, I maintained that we Quebecers could be described as forming a nation, in the civic and sociological sense of the term. Last Saturday, however, I voted against the resolution put forward by the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada calling for the party to undertake the necessary steps towards a formal recognition of Quebec as a nation. Before we ask other Canadians to support such a formal recognition (in the constitution no doubt) we should first of all determine what we expect from such a recognition. Hiding behind the apparent consensus in Quebec on this question are at least three disagreements. First question: are Quebecers the only nation to be recognized within Canada, or will we accept that other groups, heartened by our example, be given the same recognition? Will the pressure exercised by an undetermined number of human groups in Canada, including in Quebec, to be recognized as nations lead us to conclude that our own national recognition has been trivialized or diluted? Second question: is this recognition necessary or is it rather only something desirable? Those who say it is necessary must follow their reasoning to its conclusion: if we Quebecers do not obtain this recognition then we must leave Canada. Indeed, one cannot live without something that is necessary. Those who say that, on the contrary, this recognition would only be a good thing to obtain should not place it at the heart of the Canadian unity debate. You do not break up a country on account of something that is good but not necessary. Third question: do we want this recognition to be purely symbolic or, on the contrary, do we want it to lead to concrete consequences on, say, the division of powers or the allocation of public funds. And how does this approach square with the previous question? It is contradictory to affirm that the recognition of Quebec as a nation is necessary but purely symbolic. But that is the untenable position Michael Ignatieff has decided to advocate. Gilles Duceppe, the Bloc leader, and Claude Morin, the former PQ minister, have already responded that if the recognition of Quebec as a nation in Canada is important then it must bring about “something” beyond symbolism. We’ve seen this movie three times already. First it was the debate on the constitutional recognition of Quebec as a “distinct society” contained in the Meech and Charlottetown accords. Then came the Calgary Declaration, a 1997 episode which few people remember. The Premiers of the other provinces tried to define, for us Quebeckers, the type of recognition we wanted. They had their legislatures adopt a declaration that recognized “the unique character of Quebec society”. When the Declaration landed in Quebec, the province’s political class rejected it, stating that this recognition “had no teeth.” So, here is my position: I am proud to belong to the Quebec nation within Canada. The constitutional recognition of such a fact, although desirable, is not necessary because nothing prevents us Quebeckers from participating and succeeding in this great endeavor that is Canada, a country we have contributed so much to building. Nothing can justify that we renounce our Canadian identity. Such a rupture would be a tragedy, for ourselves, our children and future generations. We should not be encouraged to make such a mistake on the basis of a recognition that is desirable but not necessary. That is my position and I am more than willing to debate it because I do not underestimate the importance of symbols and recognitions. But I do not believe that we should ask other Canadians for such a recognition until we have clarified what we are hoping to obtain from it. Although it is an important one, I do not believe this debate is the most important thing we can do to improve Quebec and Canada as a whole. For me, the main issue by far is to ensure Canada is part of the solution, not the problem, to the crucial challenge of the 21st century: how to reconcile humanity with the ecological limits of the planet. That is the vision and the plan of action I am proposing to Canadians in order to combine the three pillars of our success: economic prosperity, social justice and environmental sustainability. Quebeckers, we have better things to do than to see this movie for a fourth time. We should mobilize ourselves to make our country a pathfinder in the 21st century. Let’s contribute all our talents, energies and our own culture, as we have always done in the past, when we have had to respond with other Canadians to great challenges.

III. HERE'S the Ignatieff camp's reply, as emailed to Warren Kinsella (!).

On the matter of recognizing Quebec as a nation, let's be clear: all four of the front-running leadership candidates have said that they believe Quebec is a nation. The recognition of Quebec as a nation is about making federalism relevant to Quebeckers once again. The last election produced the second worst result since Confederation for the Liberal Party in Quebec. Eleven seats and a mere approximate 14% of the French vote in Quebec are simply not acceptable. This past weekend’s motion was a grassroots initiative. It was drafted and driven by the Quebec wing of the Party as part of its policy process. The resolution passed with 80% support, from supporters of Ignatieff, Rae and Dion. The LPCQ resolution is identical to the stated position of ALL of the leadership candidates with the exception of Martha Hall Findlay. It is an error to equate the recognition by the LPC of Quebec as a nation as a matter of policy as a commitment by the LPC to seek constitutional reform. Rae and Dion are inaccurately framing the LPCQ resolution as a referendum on whether the LPC should support opening the constitution or not, even though the motion calls only for a Task Force to explore a path forward. The Liberal Party of Canada’s Task Force on Federalism, led by former Minister of Justice Martin Cauchon who is supporting Bob Rae, has also recommended that the Liberal Party of Canada recognize that Quebec is a nation. Michael’s position differs only in that he would leave the door open for constitutional talks in the future if the conditions are right. Michael is a leader who would not let the failures of the past prevent him for seizing an opportunity in the future, when the time is right and the political will and good faith are there. In August of this year, Bob Rae said on this issue: "I always supported the notion that Quebec ... is a nation, it is a distinct society, which we need to recognize in our Constitution and I have fought for that," Mr. Rae said. "The genius behind federalism is that we can be both a Quebecker and a Canadian." (Globe & Mail, August 10, 2006). In sharp contrast to what Dion says today in La Presse, Dion used to say that the recognition of the distinctiveness of Quebec outside of constitutional reform was a good thing for the country. The following quote is from Dion in the House of Commons, well after Meech and Charlottetown and also following the last referendum: "Mr. Speaker, today the support for the distinct society clause is about 40 per cent in polls. It is lower in this poll because it was connected with a kind of question that looks like a threat: 'If you don't recognize Quebec, then Quebec may leave'. Instead of increasing support, it decreased it. I urge the hon. member to look at the recognition of Quebec on its own merit, why it is good, why it is bad. I think it is good. It is good for our country. It is good for Canadian values. It would not endanger the charter of rights and freedoms. It would not endanger equality between citizens. It would be a great thing to recognize Quebec distinctiveness as a fundamental characteristic of our country. … Mr. Speaker, one thing is clear. This government has said that we do not want to make a change in the Constitution if it is not supported by Canadians. So we will try to convince Canadians that in order to reconcile Quebecers and other Canadians it would be a fair and good thing to recognize that in this anglophone North America there is a province of Canada that is francophone and this is an asset for Canada. If it were the province of the hon. member that was francophone we would recognize this province without any problem and we would be proud of it.” (November 20, 1996)

The fourth time, as a very special episode of "Blossom"

My Wednesday column is up. (Not crazy about the headline, even in the amended form it appears here, but...)

The third time as tragedy, again

A couple of marginal notes, in advance of my Wednesday column. 1) It's worth recalling, in view of Ignatieff's insistence that any constitutional recognition of Quebec as a nation would be purely symbolic, the short, unhappy life of the "distinct society" clause. As originally proposed by the Quebec Liberal Party in 1986 (I have the hard copy somewhere, but perhaps somebody could provide me with the link), the clause was to be inserted in the preamble to the Constitution, meaning it would not be "justiciable" -- offering substantive legal guidance to judges in interpreting the Constitution, and hence altering the Constitution by way of jurisprudence. But the Parti Quebecois, then led by Jacques Parizeau, would have none of that. The "multicultural heritage" clause, after all, was in the body of the Constitution, explicitly instructing that the Charter should be interpreted in this light. Was the Quebec nation to take a back seat to a bunch of ethnics? (Okay, I'm paraphrasing, but consider the source.) So a justiciable distinct society clause it was. But the story doesn't end there. Recall the history of another great constitutional drama, the Charter/patriation debates of 1981, and the circumstances surrounding the multicultural heritage clause, among others. The original draft of the Charter had spoken simply of the equality of every individual before the law, specifically mentioning the usual list of grounds, including sex. But notwithstanding that assurance, women's groups were concerned that the "multicultural heritage" or "aboriginal rights" clauses might trump sexual equality. So another clause was added, stipulating that, notwithstanding Section 15's assurance that women and men were equal, they were also equal. Fast forward to distinct society. Once again, the concern was raised that women's rights were in peril. And so, at one point, it was seriously proposed -- I think by Frank McKenna -- to insert yet a third clause guaranteeing the equality of the sexes. At any rate, it was all cleaned up by the time we got to the Charlottetown Accord, which helpfully spelled out just which Canadians' rights would take precedence over others'. 2) On CTV the other day, a reporter was explaining that the Ignatieff proposals would probably encounter a lot of opposition from Canadians outside Quebec, who had not been properly taught their history: specifically, that Confederation was the meeting of "two founding nations," the English and the French. Uh, no. Let me quote two of our most distinguished historians, Donald Creighton and Frank Underhill, polar opposites politically but in agreement on one point: Confederation was in no way a compact between two founding nations. Prof. Underhill first:

"This interpretation is a modern Laurentian fantasy, which can only be fitted into the historical facts by a painful straining of evidence. The conferences out of which the British North America Act originated were conferences among delegates from the colonies of Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. The Canadian delegates were the members of the Canadian coalition cabinet of 1864; they spoke for Canada as a whole; they did not divide on racial lines. There were no delegates there who had been chosen by a French-Canadian or English-Canadian 'race' or 'nation.' If the Canadian delegates at these conferences spoke in any role but that of Canadians, they spoke as Conservatives and Reformers."

Now Prof. Creighton:

"Before 1867, British North America still remained, and was still regarded not as a cultural duality but, in the words of Georges Cartier, as 'a diversity of races.'... Language was only one of the many components that made up (this) curious cultural medley... National origin and national tradition - Irish, Scotch and English, as well as French - might be equally influential, and religion, so often sharpened by sectarian bitterness, was perhaps the most important of all. The Fathers of Confederation had to take account of these differences; but their great aim was not the perpetuation of cultural diversity but the establishment of a united nation."

There are indeed repeated references in the Confederation debates to the desire to create "a new nationality," a "political nation," and so forth. Not two, or 10, or 600: one.

Oh, God

Even Ignatieff supporters have mixed views over his Quebec 'nation' idea OTTAWA (CP) - Not even supporters of Liberal leadership frontrunner Michael Ignatieff agree what his proposal to recognize Quebec as a nation would mean. Reaction is all over the map: some Ignatieff supporters express outright opposition, some cautiously endorse it, and others enthusiastically welcome it as a first step toward recognizing every province as a nation...

The second time as farce

"Guided only by political opportunism and with no other idea of where they're going, the Quebec members of the federal Liberal Party giddily decided on the weekend to take the country on another doomed expedition into the great dismal swamp of constitutional reform." Great column by the Montreal Gazette's Don McPherson on the madness that is about to overtake the Liberal Party, and the country. Sadly, it is behind a subscription wall, but check out Inkless for more. In fact, read every word of Wells's blog these past few days (okay, you can skip the iPod playlists): he's one of the few to sound the alarm over what the Ignatieff Liberals are about to do, or may already have done. I'll have more to say on this tomorrow.

... their long-term targets are in the same ballpark as those proposed by the Liberal leadership candidates... -- from my Saturday column. Not true, say the Grits: we measure reductions relative to 1990, while the Tories use 2003 as a benchmark. Well, yes, but do the math: in 1990, emissions were about four-fifths of what they were in 2003.* The Tories would aim to reduce these by up to 65% -- call it 60% for simplicity -- meaning emissions in 2050 would be two-fifths of their 2003 levels. Two-fifths is half of four-fifths, or a 50% reduction from 1990. That’s exactly what Michael Ignatieff, for example, suggests. ------ *ie in 2003 emissions were about 25% above 1990 levels -- not 30%, as Jeffrey Simpson claims, though they're probably close to that now. EXTRA CREDIT: For those who still find it hard to believe that a 60% reduction from 2003 levels could be equal to 50% from 1990, here's another way of looking at it: Let x be 1990 emissions. So 2003 emissions = 5/4 x. Subtract 60% from 2003 = 2/5 * 5/4 x = 10/20 x = 1/2 x = 50% off 1990. QED

You've probably already heard this one.... So, when it comes to shorthand names for famous couples, there's Bennifer (Ben and Jennifer), Brangelina (Brad and Angelina), even Tomkat (Tom and Katie). What do you suppose people will call Belinda Stronach and Tie Domi? That's easy: Belomi. And it works on so many levels...

Some recent columns

The Council of the Federation, as the premiers have taken to styling themselves, was born on Dec. 5, 2003. On that date, according to the council's Web site, the premiers "proudly announced in Charlottetown" -- in Charlottetown, no less -- the creation of "a new institution for a new era in collaborative intergovernmental relations." It was more than just a grandiloquent title for a bunch of second-tier pols with their hands out, you understand. It was to be the vehicle for a great reshaping of the federation... -- Stephen Harper's fiendish strategy, July 26, 2006. With the environment on everyone's agenda and Canada groping for a strategy to deal with global warming, the government of Ontario has stepped up with an imaginative, far-seeing response to the challenge that confronts us all. While others are content merely to debate the issue, the McGuinty government has bet hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds on a revolutionary new form of mass transit that maybe, just maybe, holds the key to a greener future. Perhaps you've heard of it. It's called the Camaro. -- Taking taxpayers for a ride, August 23, 2006. At some point in his first or second year, the average undergraduate comes to a dreadful, shocking, thrilling, intoxicating realization: Everything I was taught to believe until now is a lie. We're not the good guys. We're the bad guys: the West, white people, my parents, whatever. Grasping this insight is the key to enlightenment, and enlightenment is the key to, among other things, pulling chicks. As time passes, most of us move on to a more balanced understanding of life. But that first rush of exhilaration at having pierced the veil, at being granted the power to see through the lies that hold others in their thrall, never really leaves us, and retains its ability to shape our thoughts throughout our lives. -- The left's new bad guy, August 26, 2006. As they prepare to engage the Taliban in a major battle for control of the Panjwaii district in southern Afghanistan, Canadian soldiers can take heart: Jack Layton's got their back. Well, in a manner of speaking. The NDP leader says the whole mission is misconceived, and they should come home at once -- by February at the latest. How's that for a pep talk? We're behind you all the way, boys. We just think what you're doing is pointless. Oh, and if you're wondering whether it's worth risking your life in the service of your country -- it isn't... -- Layton's exit to nowhere, September 2, 2006. "The true believer is the real danger. The study of history and of culture teaches that all the world was mad in the past; men always thought they were right, and that led to wars, persecutions, slavery, xenophobia, racism, and chauvinism. The point is not to correct the mistakes and really be right; rather it is not to think you are right at all." Thus Allan Bloom parodied the prevailing intellectual climate 20 years ago in The Closing of the American Mind. And that, without parody, appears to be the lesson George W. Bush's critics have drawn from his presidency, notably the decision to invade Iraq. -- March of Folly -- or spirit of the Blitz, September 6, 2006. This implies not only a change in the way we finance students and universities, but our whole view of the relationship between them. Previous reform models see students as consumers, who purchase an education from university providers. But in fact students are themselves the product -- or more precisely, assets to be developed. In Prof. Pardy's model, the university, as an investor in the student's education, acquires a direct stake in his future career prospects... -- Learn now, pay later, September 9, 2006. The wheel of Canadian politics turns full circle again. For most of the twentieth century, it was the Liberals who favoured free trade, the Tories who opposed. By 1985, the positions had been reversed. The Liberals, similarly, had long been the party of provincial rights against Sir John A. and his centralist descendants, before the two parties neatly switched places mid-Depression. Now that ol' debbil deux nations, which held the Conservative party in its spell for the better part of three decades, not to be expunged until the party itself had been extinguished and reconstructed, has suddenly reappeared, this time in the person of the front-running candidate for Liberal leader. Only perhaps I should say plusieurs nations, or better yet beaucoup de nations, or even centaines de nations... -- Ignatieff has disqualified himself, September 16, 2006. The parallels are not exact. There was, so far as we know, no deliberate, conscious effort to frame Maher Arar. Canadian society is not a hotbed of anti-Arab sentiment, in the way that Third Republic France was anti-Semitic. Nevertheless, in the broad strokes -- an innocent man, a member of the wrong minority in a time of national panic, is unjustly accused and left to rot in some far-flung piece of hell, while officials stall, look the other way, and cover up -- this case deserves to be known as what it is: Canada's Dreyfus Affair. -- Canada's Dreyfus Affair, September 20, 2006. This asks no more of us than that we make a choice. It does not bind us permanently, nor does it impose any barrier to entry. We can be citizens of Lebanon first and then of Canada, or of Canada and then Lebanon. The only thing we can't do is be a citizen of both countries at the same time. What's wrong with that? Nothing, if your view of nationhood is essentially service-based -- just as you can belong to two frequent-flier programs at the same time. But if you incline to a view of the nation as moral project, as a moral order we are in the process of constructing, then a higher degree of commitment is implied. -- What you can do for your country: Why dual citizens should be forced to choose, September 23, 2006. Many indictments may be laid at the feet of Joe Volpe, but the most severe I can think of is this: I think he means it. I accuse him of sincerity. I accuse him of believing his own humbug: that all those children of all those Apotex executives each individually decided to donate the maximum $5,400 to his campaign of their own free will and out of their own bank accounts, because they were excited about his "message"; that the dead people his Quebec campaign signed up as members are the kind of "anomalies" one should expect in the "hurly-burly" of politics; that he is the victim of an anti-Italian smear campaign on the part of unnamed members of the party "establishment," but that he will fight on because, after all, it's for the kids. -- He actually believes it, September 27, 2006. After Giuliano Zaccardelli's performance before the Commons security committee on Thursday, it is no longer necessary that he resign as commissioner of the RCMP. It is imperative. If he will not resign, he should be removed. If the government will not ask for his resignation, Parliament should. -- Zaccardelli must go, September 30, 2006. The three runners-up -- Bob Rae, Stephane Dion and Gerard Kennedy -- are in a correspondingly weaker position: with 15% to 20% of the first-ballot vote apiece, each can win only with the support of the other two. So the question that must be answered, before all, is this: Is there a basis on which these three candidates can coalesce? Can one of the three rally the other two to his side? If not, there is no point in continuing: Mr. Ignatieff's eventual victory is assured. But if so, then they had better agree amongst themselves that that is the case -- that is, the first thing they have to establish is that the three of them will stick together, come what may. Only if it is first agreed that one of the three will be leader is there any point in deciding which of the three it will be... -- It's anybody's game, October 4, 2006. This is hardly unique to Quebec. All over the world, people are perpetually boiling with rage at this or that insult, real or imagined: Muslim radicals, Harvard feminists, on and on. But I can think of few places on Earth where the entire political class erupts in such fury, with such unanimity, at such regular intervals, over the comments of a single individual. -- They protest too much, too often, October 7, 2006. We simply do not have the stomach for this fight. We will learn no lessons from this latest crisis, as we have learned none from those before. But be assured our adversaries will. In Iran, they are watching and learning from North Korea's example, as North Korea had learned from Iran's, each discovering in its turn that there are no checks on its ambitions, nor any world to stop it. And when, as the wisest heads advise, we abandon Afghanistan to the Taliban, and Iraq to al-Qaeda, the nuclear bazaar really will be open. -- We have allowed this to happen, October 11, 2006. The Toronto Transit Commission advertises itself as “The Better Way.” Dutiful urbanists that they are, Torontonians are taught to believe this, or certainly to say it. Indeed, a strange cult surrounds the system: there are websites devoted to it, a magazine, clubs. One particularly dedicated transit fancier spent the summer photographing every one of the city’s 69 subway stations. Their actions belie them. Transit worship may be at an all-time high, but transit ridership is still below where it was 15 years ago. What no one is allowed to say, but everyone secretly knows, is that riding the TTC is not a terribly pleasant experience: slow, crowded, slow, inconvenient, and did I mention slow? And so anyone who can avoid using the TTC generally does. -- There's a better way to run the TTC, October 16, 2006. Seven months into the Liberal leadership race, the party has at last found its voice. No longer divided and despondent, party members have rallied around a positive, optimistic vision of the country, a message of hope they will take to the Canadian public in the next election. And the message is: We forgive you. -- They haven't learned a thing, October 19, 2006.