About TDH

Archived
Commentaries

Past Projects

FAQ

Links

Contact

February, 2005 Archives

February 28, 2005 - As this country is gripped with our typical chip-on-the-shoulder questioning of whether Paul Martin made the right decision by deciding not to sign on to the U.S. missile defence plan, both sides of the debate would be well served to take heed of comments made by outgoing Canadian Ambassador to the United States, Michael Kergin, this past weekend.

If there was any doubt as to how truly insignificant Canada is in the consciousness of U.S. power brokers, then the following quote should clear that right up:

"In Canada, if Paul Cellucci snores loudly at night, there's somebody around who's going to say he's in an awful foul mood and he's going to hit us tomorrow on our lack of military (resources)."

"I could be down here on the corner of Constitution and Pennsylvania and yell the worst implications against the White House and I don't know that people would care very much or notice. It would have to be pretty awful to get a footnote in the Washington Times (newspaper)."

But according to Kergin, much of our absence from political radars is as a result of a lack of understanding about the interconnectedness of the two countries.  He spoke of how the fear of Saudi Arabia turning off access to oil or heading down the path of Islamic extremism is far more of a concern to U.S. legislators then threats to the health of Canada's market for 25% of all U.S. exports.

Which means, when Frank McKenna assumes Kergin's job in the ensuing weeks, McKenna is going to have to be an educator as much as he is a diplomat.  The challenge of such a task, however, will come in the fact that the only type of teaching that the Americans understand is the kind that relies heavily on hardball tactics.

This is the reason that targeting approximately 120 U.S. imports for retaliatory duties in order to recover the $4.1 billion collected against our softwood lumber exports is the right thing to do. 

The fact of the matter, as Mr. Martin is so fond of saying, is that Canada's attempts at relevance become little more than running jokes amongst our allies when Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew goes to a meeting of NATO leaders in Brussels, for example, and suggests that Canada can act as a go-between between the United States and Europe.

Here is hoping that Jennifer Welsh, the Saskatchewan-born Rhodes scholar from Oxford that has been hired to rewrite Canada's overhaul of its foreign policy, understands that the only thing that works in the Bush era of diplomatic relations is a strong resolve.  Canada's role as a respected middle power that has real diplomatic pull is a thing of the past, and it is time that our tactics are updated to reflect this new reality.

February 25, 2005 - The back and forth this morning on the missile defence "decision" that the government finally announced this week:

U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci:

“We simply cannot understand why Canada would in effect give up its sovereignty – its seat at the table – to decide what to do about a missile that might be coming towards Canada.”

Prime Minister Paul Martin:

"This is our airspace, we're a sovereign nation and you don't intrude on a sovereign nation's airspace without seeking permission."

Them be fighting words, Paul!  This new approach wouldn't have anything to do with the "Mr. Dithers" label, would it?

Regardless, according to David Biette, director of the Canadian Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, Martin's handling (or mishandling) of the entire affair was far more damaging in the eyes of the U.S. government than the actual decision.

"A year ago, Martin could have forcefully said 'No,' but said 'We are prepared to do this, that and the other thing,' and moved on.  But he let it get out of control.  It is particularly noticed by a Bush administration that makes up its mind quickly and stick with the decision, rightly or wrongly."

According to news reports, Martin and his top advisors are baffled with the negative reaction that his refusal is prompting within the media, particularly in spite of a recent Ekos Research Associates poll where 54 per cent of Canadians wanted nothing to do with the plan.

They shouldn't be confused, however, because the Liberals never framed the issue properly.  Responses from the Martin administration have consistently been ambiguous, generic, and indecisive, and Political Communications 101 dictates that public policy cannot be relied upon to sell itself, especially with contentious issues.

George W. Bush might have despised Jean Chretien when he was in office, but one can safely conclude that this might have been because in certain ways, they are very similar to one another.  Namely, both have the fortitude to take control of situations, and stand by their convictions.

This is how respect is earned.  Begrudgingly? Divisively? Maybe.  But at least with this approach, no one can ever accuse you of being wishy-washy.

February 24, 2005 - More than new recruits and equipment for the military or investments into cities, the most significant thing that the Liberal government achieved with yesterday's budget is piece of mind.

What a different place Ralph Goodale is in today after delivering a package of goodies that 1) Has silenced the Official Opposition, and in fact made them happy 2) Directed a huge surplus into fulfilling several election promises and 3) Allows the Liberals to sit back and feel confident about their future prospects at the polls should the government happen to fall (a feat now unlikely to happen anytime soon).

When a government can deliver a budget speech that cuts taxes, heavily boosts funding for the armed forces, invests in a Kyoto plan for Canada, allocates monies for child care, contributes to cash starved municipalities, supports seniors, brings down the debt, and pays for previously signed deals on health care and equalization with the provinces, it is a winner...plain and simple.

What is absolutely amazing is how the government can add $50 billion in new financial obligations through tax cuts and new spending, deliver the first $200 billion budget in Canadian history, and still project balanced budgets over the next five years with $28.5-billion in rainy-day cushions built into forecasting.

Granted, these numbers are largely contingent on the continued growth of the Canadian economy.  But being prudent and saving $11 billion by instituting government efficiencies over the next five years is a good step towards taking the destiny of these commitments into their own hands.

Take note, because you won't hear this website say this very often...but today, Ralph Goodale is a star.

With that out of the way, now all they have to worry about is missile defence, same-sex marriage, a trade war with the United States, decriminalization of marijuana, an out of control Gomery Pyle Commission, the fiscal revolt of the provinces, establishing a completely new foreign policy, managing a minority government, etc., etc., etc.

Happy slogging, guys and gals.

February 23, 2005 - The only ones that should be angry at incoming Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. Frank McKenna are members of Paul Martin's government, who have yet to properly define the most important security decision facing this country.  McKenna was only using common sense with his comments yesterday stating that Canada was already a part of the U.S. missile defence program, even if they did fly directly in the face of the government's official talking points on the matter.

In early August, 2004, Canada agreed to allow the United States to use NORAD's early missile warning system in advance of them laying down their ballistic missile interceptors.  At the time, Defence Minister Bill Graham defended the decision by saying:

"What this does is preserves NORAD and, in fact, gives us our option to either participate or not participate. If we had decided not to do this today, that would have foreclosed our options because then the Americans would have built an alternative system and there wouldn't have been any role for Canada whatsoever,"

to which TDH Strategies posed these 2 questions in a commentary from August 6:

How can Canada still be considered a non-participant if it is supplying vital information that identifies targets for the ballistic missile defence shield?

How can Graham justify Canada's role in this information exchange when the entire premise behind this decision is based on the fear of unilateral action by the United States?

Regardless of whether Mr. Martin emerges from talking with his cabinet next week and announces that Canada will not be a part of the missile deployment component of the program, the truth is that the amendment to the NORAD agreement is the most important contribution that this country was and is capable of making.

If this is a precursor to McKenna's approach to his new job (one that seems to be patterned after departing U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci, for whom McKenna has expressed great admiration for), then his stay in Washington should be very entertaining for the indecisive government that he answers to back in Ottawa.

February 23, 2005 - A direct quote from George W. Bush's press conference following the close of his summit with European Union (EU) leaders:

February 22, 2005 - This is a poignant article by Richard Gwynn in today's Toronto Star, and is worthy of consideration by anyone concerned with maintaining a unified Canada.

Here are some excerpts:

"The implied contract of Confederation — I'll help you because you'll help me — has lost much of its binding glue. What's replacing this is a system and practice in which anyone is free to get whatever they can, the key word being 'anyone'."

"Far from least, Martin is no Pierre Trudeau. He doesn't frighten any premier, to put it mildly. And, rather than Trudeau's 'One Canada,' Martin believes in 'asymmetric federalism.' That's a fancy way of saying anyone, not just Quebec, is free to get whatever they can."

The notion of what constitutes a federalist premier has definitely changed.  With the dissipated threat of separation firmly entrenched on the back burner of political considerations, fighting for Canada now means milking the federal government for as much as each province can get.  While this is certainly not a new phenomenon, it is hard to dispute the argument that Paul Martin has supercharged these provincial cash grabs by his weak dealings with his provincial counterparts.

Jean Chretien used to get lambasted in the media and by the premiers for his forceful "take it or leave it" type of negotiating tactics with the provinces.  He was often described as a bully that didn't understand the specific needs and circumstances of each particular province, and didn't care to.

Well, with all the public whining from Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty, Saskatchewan premier Lorne Calvert and New Brunswick premier Bernard Lord over the deal on offshore royalties signed with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, now the whole country understands the reasoning behind Chretien's belligerence.

A strong federal government with a forceful leader that stands up for Canada is the only way we have any chance of maintaining this complex federation over such a huge geographic area.  That is the reason why Pierre Trudeau was despised in provincial capitals, why the Meech Lake Accord failed, and why Mr. Martin is heading down the wrong path for the country.

February 21, 2005 - UPDATE:  Warren Kinsella has just responded by email to the commentary below by invoking U.S. Civil War general William T. Sherman's famous quotation:

"If nominated, I will not run. If drafted, I will not serve."

TDH Strategies will continue to keep the challenge open until inspired otherwise. At this point, however, this website's hopes towards that end are not particularly high.

February 21, 2005 - An open challenge to Warren Kinsella:

There comes a time in every politico's life where he/she must make a decision for the greater good.  Your blog entry of February 19th provided a fitting precursor to what is about to be suggested, in spite of the deterioration of Canada's pre-eminent chronicler of everything elite.  In a similar fashion, the Liberal Party currently exists as a mere shadow of its former self...a country club whose vibrancy, diversity and principles have all dwindled to a point where people have forgotten what made it so special in the first place.

In anticipation of the inevitable, an examination of those rumoured to be stepping up to the plate can at best be described as lacklustre.  For many, there is no place to hang one's hat anymore, and with the current impending line-up, many are prepared to continue to suffer through political hat head for many years to come.

So, for your benefit, and anyone else willing to engage in such a dialog, here are TDH Strategies' Top 10 reasons that you should begin to prepare for an entry into the eventual Liberal leadership contest:

#10 - Politics should never be a paint-by-numbers type of exercise, sh*t disturbing is a true art form, and in this respect, you are a Picasso, a Rembrandt, a Da Vinci.

#9 - Word associations with the current crop of hopefuls: Brian Tobin? Political Opportunist.  Frank McKenna? Martin Jr.  Pierre Pettigrew?  ♪See Your True Colours, Shining Through♪.  John Manley?  Spectacular Minister of Industry.  Maurizio Bevilacqua?  The Dennis Mills Candidate.  Martin Cauchon?  Actually, he could be great.

#8 - Traditional Liberal values have disappeared with the likes of Jean Chretien, Allan Rock and Sheila Copps' removal from the leadership mix.  There aren't many left these days who will stand on high and defend them to the death.  You are one of those few.

#7 -  Geography.  You are the Montreal born, Western punk that infiltrated and continues to beat down the Eastern hierarchy.  A Westerner as associated with Toronto as the city's fear of snow?  Dream candidate.

#6 - Your principles are not pieces of convenience to be used as instruments to initiate political gain.  If you win favour because of them, then so be it, but compromising your beliefs is not an option.  That kind of unequivocal strength is severely lacking in the public realm these days.

#5 - Cross pollination.  Never mind linking the divisions of the Liberal party - you are the only candidate that would have a real shot of bringing card carrying members of OTHER parties into the fold.  Can you picture the Kinsella campaign office?  A fleece wearing, sandal with socks NDP supporter arguing with the pin striped Tory who thinks casual involves wearing a short sleeved dress shirt over how many tofu/beef hot dogs to buy for the volunteer barbeque. 

#4 - Jean Chretien.  The legacy of the man is not in his accomplishments on paper, but through the foundation of convictions that he laid for the country.  If not you, who will defend that bedrock?

#3 - Musings.  The race would launch WarrenKinsella.com into the stratosphere, making it the only blog in Canada to reach 100,000 hits a day.  And unlike some other candidates who attempted to write their own about once every 6 months (not mentioning any names of course), one assumes that your updates would be fast and furious, as always.

#2 - Think of the book you'd write afterwards!  Kicking Ass in Politics 2:   The Story of My Foot...or how about Web of Bait:  Hook, Line and Stinker.

#1 - You don't need to win.  Your candidacy would be for many more reasons than victory.  And at the end, regardless of the outcome, you will know that the fulfillment of your objectives will mean far more to you than anything else.

So there you go...10 compelling reasons for you to contemplate.  All joking aside, however, here is hoping that you read these in the tongue-in-cheek manner in which they were written, and still understand that the challenge is real and worthy of consideration.

February 18, 2005 - Remember in the dying days of Jean Chretien's administration, where The Economist had a cover story that designated Canada as "cool"?        

From September, 2003:

"Canada has been going through quite a renaissance, in public policy as well as its economy."

"Part of what makes it cool is a certain boldness in social matters. Canada's government has recently announced its support for pioneering bills to legalise gay marriage and decriminalise marijuana, both excellent liberal ideas. It has granted home rule and control over mineral rights to some of its indigenous Indians. While other rich countries suffer a racist backlash over immigration, Canadians welcome migrants and are proud of their tolerance and cultural diversity. This has turned Canada's big cities into vibrant, cosmopolitan places. Canadian writers and other cultural figures enjoy unprecedented international success."

“Mr Dithers” and his distracting “fiscal cafeteria”

"...15 months after succeeding his fellow-Liberal, Jean Chrétien, Mr Martin, a successful finance minister for almost a decade until 2002, cannot quite shake off the impression that Canada's top job is too big for him." (read the full article here).

OUCH!

Yesterday, TDH Strategies praised Mr. Martin for showing an evolution in his thinking regarding a deeply divisive issue.  Yet, it is exactly that inability to stand by a position which The Economist, and many others for that matter, seem to be critical of.

The one thing that is clear is the fact that Martin has yet to find his footing with issues and policy approaches that he feels 150% confident in.   Take for example the health care accord, where he championed the "asymmetrical federalism" trump card because he was seemingly unable to strike a deal with the provinces without it.  This will now be the standard for which all other fiscal negotiations with his provincial counterparts is premised (to the severe detriment of the federal government).

Paul Martin wants to leave his mark on the country, and rightfully so...he has waited a long time to inhabit 24 Sussex Drive.  What the Prime Minister must recognize, however, is that leadership involves risks, and legacies are built as a result of those risks.

You can't please all of the people, all of the time, but then again, making history has never been a popularity contest.

February 18, 2005 - What is this man thinking?

Stephen Harper's unilateral strategy regarding same-sex marriage has been based on targeting immigrant and ethnic groups, with the thinking being that these were audiences that were more traditional in their beliefs on matrimonial unions.

So what does he do to try and solidify that support?  He uses historical suffering as a political tool:

"Let us not forget it was the Liberal party that said none is too many when it came to Jews fleeing from Hitler. It was the Liberal party that interned Japanese Canadians in camps on Canada's West Coast, an act Pierre Trudeau refused to apologize or make restitution for, leaving it to Brian Mulroney to see justice done."

According to the above linked article:

"A range of groups responded yesterday with fury, saying Harper went too far. A flurry of outraged news releases descended on media offices from the National Association of Japanese Canadians, the Chinese Canadian National Council, the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, the Canadian Buddhists Civil Liberties Association, the World Sikh Organization, the British Columbia Unitarian Church and the Muslim Canadian Congress."

Whereas previously this website thought of Harper as having lots of political potential peppered with health doses of ineptitude, now Mr. Harper simply goes into the category of Stockwell Day.  The Tory leader is out of step with the Canadian public, is becoming more and more offensive with every passing day, and is the biggest detriment his party has to achieving government.

TDH Strategies is now writing off Mr. Harper as being a political force of any consequence, and the Conservative Party of Canada should take their policy convention in Montreal next month to do the same...before it is too late.

February 17, 2005 - TDH Strategies is currently on the road, and so just a quick comment for today.

As the debate begins on same-sex marriage in the House of Commons, this website would like to send praise to Prime Minister Paul Martin.  Reading this article detailing his opening remarks on the subject shows how the man has evolved his position over the past four years:

"Four years ago I stood in the House and voted to support the traditional definition of marriage."

"Many of us did. My misgivings about extending the right of civil marriage to same sex couples were a function of my faith and my perspective on the world around us. But much has changed since that day."

For someone to be a person of faith and still understand that ultimately, regardless of their own viewpoint, the issue is about fundamental rights and freedoms - well, that is something to be praised and commended.

Politicians are too often rock solid in their public utterances, bending over backwards to maintain consistency even when it is the continuation of a wrong public policy decision.  In this case, Martin has publicly shown that there is no shame in having an honest struggle of integrity, even if that internal battle demonstrates a contradiction with one's own past.

This takes guts, and in this instance, Paul Martin has shown he has the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing. 

February 16, 2005 - It is so frustrating to watch these guys "negotiate."

Yesterday's fast and furious proposals and then rejections have deflated every sucker (and yes, sucker is the most appropriate word to use here) that has hinged their hopes on the NHL and the NHLPA actually coming to a deal at crunch time.

It seems that $45 million for a salary cap would have been the magic number that could have rescued the season, but no one was willing to meet in the middle of each respective "final offer,"  which saw only $6.5 million separating each side.

Here's a question though...If the owners pitched a $40-million salary cap on Monday, and then increased that figure to $42.5 million on Tuesday, why was the player's counterproposal of $49 million so outrageous when:

"The union also proposed that the rest of the luxury tax would increase like this: 25 per cent on $40 million-$43 million, 50 per cent on $43 million-$46 million and 75 per cent from $46 million-$49 million. The deal also included a minimum payroll of $25 million."

Good luck in trying to silence the band.

February 14, 2005 - Yes, this is the date for LOVE, and some might say that today's commentary requires the gentle hand of pacifism, conciliation, and brotherhood...a warm internet embrace, if you will.

TDH Strategies, by contrast, contends that the only thing that keeps the ♥ behind this website beating is the fire that resides from within, and passion is always a little harder to suppress.  So, here we go...

First, let us preface this first rant with an admission that Calgary Conservative MP Jason Kenney has always been a political figure held in extremely low regard.  From the pious and heavy-handed preaching on his limited views of morality, to his consistent tendency to pander to American interests over those of his own country, Kenney has never been a particularly endearing figure.

Surprisingly, however, TDH Strategies thought that his recent attacks on Paul Martin regarding the Prime Minister's walking-on-eggshells approach to China's government and human rights were extremely effective.  Sure, he was grandstanding, leaving the China trip delegation to parade his "respects" for the recently deceased Zhao Ziyang (a Chinese leader deposed by the Communist regime) in front of the cameras.  On the other hand, he really had the government over a barrel on reports that Chinese spies have been engaging in industrial espionage in Canada for decades.

Yet, with any progress that Kenney might have had in establishing himself as an effective member of the opposition, he goes and makes statements like this:

"The fact is that homosexuals aren't barred from marrying under Canadian law.  Marriage is open to everybody, as long as they're a man and a woman.  It doesn't say you can't marry if you're a homosexual. The fact is that homosexuals have been married and do marry." (click here to read the entire article)

There are two very valid sides to this highly contentious debate, and each has highly intelligent and accomplished individuals as its champions.  Now even though TDH Strategies has advocated for the federal government to move forward on the legalization of gay marriage for many years now, there is also a respect for those that truly believe that the sanctity of marriage would be threatened by this legislation.

Jason Kenney, however, has shown that not only does he not have any  respect for the concept of same-sex marriage, but also no respect for homosexuals, period.  Mr. Kenney's comments, which use MP Libby Davies' living arrangements with a man for 24 years and former MP Svend Robinson's one-time marriage to a woman as reasoning behind his incendiary statements, demonstrate his belief that homosexuality is a condition that can be disregarded arbitrarily. 

Valentine's Day is a time for everyone, regardless of where you sit on the same-sex marriage debate, to remember that time-honoured bit of logic that states that "you cannot choose who you love."

Straight or gay, young or old, that one statement is about as human as it gets.

February 14, 2005 - Paul Martin is once again having a difficult time making a decisive decision on one of the most pressing policy areas in the country.

The federal government has stalled, flip-flopped, and failed to meet objectives set out in the Kyoto protocol.  Fair enough...it is something that has billions and billions of dollars hanging in the balance, and we are only one of many countries that has waffled on previous commitments.

That being said, how can the Minister of Environment Stephane Dion stand up everyday in the House of Commons and state that we are going to meet our 2010 targets and when the Prime Minister is set to accept a voluntary agreement by car manufacturers on fuel economy rather than insisting on legally binding regulations.

Cars are the #1 source for greenhouse gases, and the key factor in determining whether Canada is successful in meeting its standards of environmental stewardship or not.

TDH Strategies feels sorry for Rick Mercer's shilling for the government's "one-tonne challenge," considering how it is clearly undetermined whether he is referring to gaseous emissions or the kind that tends to come out of the mouths of politicians and makes good fertilizer when spread on your lawn.

February 11, 2005 - Following Paul Martin's testimony yesterday, observers of the Gomery Pyle Commission are much wiser about the inner workings of government decision making (from how a budget is crafted to the effects of international financial markets on Canadian economic forecasts), but still in the dark about how money went missing from the sponsorship program.

It was baffling to see how Justice John Gomery intervened several times in response to questions that apparently were outside of the commission's mandate (including a troubling interjection when Mr. Martin and his Finance department's close contracting relationship with the Earncliffe consulting group was brought up), yet remained completely silent when co-counsel Neil Finkelstein spent the first couple of hours of testimony asking such hard hitting inquiries as "What proportion of every tax dollar was used to pay debt service charges in 1993?" and "What difference does it make who holds your debt?," both subjects for which Paul Martin the technocrat LOVES giving answers to.

What was Mr. Finkelstein's reasoning behind this line of questioning?

"Prime Minister, I would like to explore...the extent of your knowledge and involvement as Finance Minister in the Sponsorship Program, if any."

"To explore these issues, I want to review with you first what precisely is the job of the Finance Minister and, second, if you were not focusing on sponsorship, as I understand will be your evidence, what were you focusing upon in the relevant period from 1993 to 2001 while the sponsorship activities were going on."

Regardless, for all of the criticism that this website has levied (and will continue to aim) against Gomery and his traveling circus, however, it would be hard to find anyone in the country who envies his task of weeding through so much ineffectual, evasive and conflicting evidence.

For example, Prime Ministers may make good theatre for the television audience, but in reality, this past week of testimony has been a complete waste of time.  Like it or not, Prime Ministers are purposefully and practically insulated from the minutiae of the administration of government.

How did Paul Martin do?  Well, he was fine - controlled, affable, informative on CERTAIN issues - but generally not a huge help in moving the business of the commission forward.  TDH Strategies does not doubt that Paul Martin had no knowledge of the criminal activities occurring within the sponsorship program.  That being said, Mr. Martin's claims that  he was not aware until 2000 or later that there was a specific federal government sponsorship program designed to provide financial backing for community events is extremely suspect, considering that he was a part of weekly meetings with other Quebec cabinet ministers where they spoke about the sponsorship program (as detailed in yesterday's open question to Minister Stephane Dion).

So, based on a) a complete lack of perspective on the program and b) a questionable claim about his knowledge of its existence, Mr. Martin's testimony has only added more work to Gomery's task, while contributing few other benefits.

Gomery is now packing up and heading two hours east to Montreal, where the commission will spend several months hearing testimony from advertising agency executives that were directly involved in delivering contracted "services" for the sponsorship program.

Many in the media are convinced that this next phase will form the meat of the commission's work, where concrete revelations will expose new answers and perspectives (if for nothing else, to validate their own sorry existences covering this gong show).

TDH Strategies' advice?  Don't hold your breath, because you might never come up for air.

February 10, 2005 - Question for Minister Stephane Dion:

Prime Minister Paul Martin has just testified that while he was aware that the federal government participated in sponsoring cultural and sporting events, he was not aware of a particular sponsorship program towards this end until well after the year 2000.

In February, 2004, however, you are quoted as stating that Mr. Martin was a part of weekly meetings between Quebec cabinet ministers that often talked about the sponsorship program in Quebec, and therefore was not "out of the loop."

Yet, in this Chantal Hébert article from the Toronto Star, she writes that in your testimony to the Gomery Commission, you claimed that ministers had "little more knowledge of the sponsorship program than the opposition and the public."

So, which is it - did Quebec ministers know, or didn't they?

February 10, 2005 - Every news clip that this website has seen on Jean Chretien's Gomery sensation has been positive, and yesterday even arch rival Paul Martin led a standing ovation in caucus in support of the performance.  MPs in the Liberal Party seem to be in unison on this issue, for once.

Everyone except the separatist Minister Jean Lapierre, that is, who is showing his latent Bloc Québécois disdain for the former Prime Minister.  In a scrum with reporters, Mr. Lapierre was quoted as stating that Chretien was retired, and seemed to be having fun playing with his balls (or something to that effect).  He also criticized Chretien for putting on a show rather than serving as a serious witness.

To Mr. Lapierre:  You will never be the Quebec lieutenant that you think you are.  You are no longer in the Separatist army, and displaying your anger for the man who crushed your movement in the name of a unified Canada will not take you any closer to fulfilling your aspirations for importance and relevance.  Principles and values are not political tools that you can jump on and off as the situation dictates - maybe you should go ask Mr. Chretien about always sticking to his.

February 10, 2005 - TDH Strategies must strongly commend the federal government for finally moving forward on targeting approximately 120 U.S. imports for retaliatory duties in order to recover the $4.1 billion collected against our softwood lumber exports over the past 3 years.  The government will make a formal request to the WTO for authority to retaliate against U.S. non-compliance with WTO rulings on softwood, which Canada won handily.

Retaliation of this sort is never the first choice for any government, but at some point, any self-respecting sovereign nation must quote Popeye the Sailor Man and cry out loud:

“I’ve had all I can stands, and I can’t stands no more!”

In this situation, the United States has shown total disregard for the rules of international trade, so much so that yesterday B.C. Forests Minister Mike de Jong stood before hundreds of business leaders at a Vancouver Board of Trade luncheon and referred to the U.S. Commerce Department as "a group of pitbulls" while declaring that NAFTA was falling apart at its seams.

Once again, Canada is going through great lengths to observe due process, and will only proceed with the duties after applying to the WTO appeals panel to officially declare that the U.S. has shown blatant defiance with the the WTO's previous decisions that were favourable to Canadian lumber producers.  So, to those who will suggest that this is a brash and premature decision, nothing could be further from the truth.

Make no mistake about it - the United States uses its massive markets as a non-violent way of unilaterally bullying other nations, and much like the way they have completely disregarded international institutions such as the Kyoto Protocol and the International Criminal Court, codified trade agreements can be damned if they do not work in favour of American interests.

If the U.S. government can trounce on the Geneva Convention Protocols on the treatment of Prisoners of War with its illegal detention and torture of over 500 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, then breaking a trade deal with Canada and Mexico is a drop in the bucket, not even worthy of an afterthought.

It is about time that America's largest trading partner shows a little muscle with our purchasing power for 25% of all U.S. exports.  We've already succumb to the pressure of signing onto the U.S. ballistic missile defence shield (it's just a matter of months, folks), so let's at least hit them in the pocket books in the name of free and fair trade.

Elephant beware...the mouse is on the prowl.

February 9, 2005 - For those of you who didn't see the brilliance from yesterday's proceedings, TDH Strategies presents a brief synopsis in photos:

             +  

                                   =

This website never quite understood the striking resemblance between Justice John Gomery and Gomer Pyle until Jean Chretien made a guest appearance.

Now will someone please put us all out of our misery and cancel this damn show?

February 9, 2005 - The "Gomery Pyle Commission" line that TDH Strategies loaned Warren Kinsella (who has employed it to maximum benefit and exposure) has become a national phenomenon, and has been picked up my just about every major news outlet in the country.

Maybe this website should start charging royalties.

February 8, 2005 - TDH Strategies watched former Prime Minister Jean Chretien's appearance in front of the Gomery commission this morning, and while comments on the inane and quite frankly, uneventful line of questioning will be reserved for the media, reflections on Mr. Chretien's opening statement must be offered up for discussion (you can read the entire text on Warren Kinsella's website).

When Chretien speaks, you have a sense that his heart is behind every word.  His love for his country is unquestioned.  His commitment to serving the Canadian public is unwavering.  And most importantly, his legacy and impact on Canada, despite what his critics will have you believe, will forever be remembered as positive and significant.

Reference some of his remarks from this morning:

"I can tell you, Mr. Commissioner, that we as a federal government realized that whatever we did before the referendum to promote Canada in Québec was not enough. For the next eight years, the unity of Canada was my number one priority as Prime Minister. It was never an issue of party; it was always an issue of country."

"As Prime Minister, I take ultimate responsibility for everything good and everything bad that happens in the government. Those mistakes that were made in good faith can be excused. Any that were made in bad faith are inexcusable. If some people acted in bad faith for personal gain, they betrayed the Prime Minister, the government and the country. They should be identified and punished, subject, of course, to due process of law. But there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that it would have been a totally unforgivable mistake to leave the field of sponsorship of community events in Québec to the Parti Québecois government alone."

"The single most important priority of every prime minister since 1867 has been to preserve the unity of the country. We all may have been criticized at some time or another for our approach to national unity. But in the case of the unity of Canada every prime minister from Sir John A Macdonald to myself has always put country ahead of anything else."

This is a man who has draped the Canadian flag on his shoulders from coast to coast to coast for over 40 years, and been called a traitor in his home province as a result.  This is not a man who designed a program to boost Liberal fortunes in Quebec and line the pockets of his associates at the expense of the future of the country.

The sponsorship program has turned into a nightmare for many, and those who took advantage of what was designed to benefit a fractured nation should face the full brunt of the law.  Jean Chretien, on the other hand, is one person who sleeps soundly at night knowing that he did what he knew to be best for Canada.

February 7, 2005 - Minister of Foreign Affairs Pierre Pettigrew is not on the best of terms with the Prime Minister's Office, according to TDH Strategies' sources.  Two incidents have ruptured the once cozy relationship:

1) A draft of the long-awaited foreign policy review was presented by the Minister to the PMO, and apparently was soundly rejected by Paul Martin.  The PMO is now bringing external experts (namely Jennifer Welsh, a Saskatchewan-born Rhodes scholar as reported in this article by Alexander Panetta) to help the process along, and this time around, Minister Pettigrew and his officials are largely being shut out of the process.

2) Minister Pettigrew's trip to the Middle East was planned without any consultation with the PMO or the PCO.  Thus, because of this sign of independence, the original plane tickets were cancelled.  The trip was only put back onto the agenda 48 hours before departure as a result of much consultation and mediation with Mr. Martin's top aides.

This is a rift that isn't going away anytime soon.  Foreign Affairs is such a touchy department for so many close to the Prime Minister, and apparently Pettigrew is not a man that strikes an appropriate chord of confidence.  It will be very interesting to see how the government stick handles the upcoming debate on participation within the U.S.' ballistic missile defence plan.

February 7, 2005 - Someone in Ottawa is going to have to explain this one, because it truly baffles the mind:

The 9/11 commission, which spent 18 months reviewing more than 2.5 million pages of documents, interviewing 1,200 individuals from 10 countries, and holding 19 days of public hearings, which took testimony from 160 witnesses, cost $15 million US.

The Gomery inquiry, which is not even half completed, has already sucked $60 million from Canadian taxpayers, and the monolithic white elephant does not show any signs of slowing down its consumption of public funds.

If the reasoning behind the establishment of the commission consisted of providing Canadians with answers regarding the $100 million that allegedly went missing, then where is that same level of concern for a public inquiry that clearly has no regard for fiscal restraint or accountability to the public?

No matter how the spin is portrayed by the politicians, transmitted by the media, and digested (or choked on) by the public, the Gomery commission of inquiry will forever be remembered as a boondoggle.

February 4, 2005 - When Conservatives "reunited" under one banner with one leader just under a year ago, the exuberance of the rank and file was abundant, save for a smattering of David Orchard supporters and embittered John A. MacDonald Tory loyalists.

This was apparently the jolt the right needed to get back into the game, and truly challenge the Liberals for government.  Well, that didn't exactly work out so well, as a badly botched election campaign demonstrated to Canadians.

Now, on the verge of a vote on same-sex marriage, and a major policy convention in Montreal this coming March, the Tories are in the midst of civil war that will seriously test the resolve of a united front.  The fight to define an identity for the Conservative Party of Canada is in full flight.

Speaking to friends within the party, it is clear that the socially progressive wing is really feeling alienated and is madder than hell when it comes to the direction of unilateral decision-making by Stephen Harper and his band of socially conservative supporters.  The antagonism from both sides is getting extremely heated, to the point where one might classify the party as being in crisis.

As Conservatives go down the path of actually setting "grassroots" policy for this still relatively new political entity, members are likely to find out that there was a very tangible and in fact, sound reason that the Reform Party originally split from the Progressive Conservatives in the late 1980s.  Fundamentally, however, it really wasn't about an aerospace contract inappropriately going to Quebec instead of Manitoba, nor was it the deep-seeded feelings of western alienation that still permeate the mindsets of many in this region of the country.

Rather, beneath it all, the split was about values, and the latest generation of Tories is going to find out that these are not the kind of political wedges that you resolve with the signing of a document and the shake of a hand.

February 4, 2005 - Read this article by Oxfam Canada's Executive Director Rieky Stuart, and it will become very clear why debt repayments from poor developing nations to wealthy Western powers represent nothing more than blood money. 

If they can cancel $31 billion in debt for Iraq, then the G7 finance ministers had better step up to the plate with Canada's proposal for 100% debt relief to Highly-Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs) when they sit down to meet in London this weekend.

February 3, 2005 - Sometimes being on the Westcoast makes you long for a smoked meat sandwich from Schwartz's in Montreal, or a walk on Toronto's Danforth for some authentic Greek.  On the other hand, in regards to our palette, Vancouver takes a backseat to NO city.

February 3, 2004 -With all the rain the wacky Westcoast has seen over the past three weeks (to you readers in the east, take the mountains you call snow banks, melt them, and then picture that falling on top of you for 7 days straight, non-stop), this prospect has been a worry of TDH Strategies for sometime.

Best Case Scenario? The world sees the gourgeous sun and beautiful flowers blooming in a warm February in Vancouver, and makes our city a winter destination for hundreds of thousands.

Worst Case Scenario? The world sees a grey, perma-water park on the streets of Vancouver over a two-week span, all snow-involved events are rescheduled to take place in Lake Louise, Alberta, and floods carry homes away like they did last month, spurring benefit concerts from across the globe in response.

February 2, 2005 - Collectively, the world has come to condemn U.S. unilateralism over the past four years, and more specifically, the manner in which the Bush administration has undermined international institutions such as the United Nations.  The American argument for bypassing the UN has been grounded in the reasoning that the body is corrupt, ineffective and short on taking concrete action when necessary.

Now although it is difficult to see the merit in a foreign policy which is so clearly driven by a "with us or against us" type of mentality, it is even more difficult to defend the United Nations after the release of a report like this.

Here is a telling passage from the above-linked article:

"Where genocide is found to have taken place, signatories to a UN convention are legally obliged to act to end it."

So, with the release of this report, which goes out of its way not to classify the 300,000 dead and more than 2 million displaced persons as genocide, the United Nations does not feel propelled to step up and intervene.

Now, reference this quote from the report:

"In particular, the commission found that government forces and militias conducted indiscriminate attacks, including killing of civilians, torture, enforced disappearances, destruction of villages, rape and other forms of sexual violence, pillaging and forced displacement, throughout Darfur."

But apparently, this isn't genocide.

Further:

"These acts were conducted on a widespread and systematic basis, and therefore may amount to crimes against humanity."

But again, this isn't genocide.  Why, one might ask?  Well:

 "Generally speaking, the policy of attacking, killing and forcibly displacing members of some tribes does not evince a specific intent to annihilate, in whole or in part, a group distinguished on racial, ethnic, national or religious grounds."

The United Nations states that it would rather an entity such as the International Criminal Court decide whether genocide occurred in Darfur on a "case-by-case" basis.  On the other hand, it does state that:

"International offenses such as the crimes against humanity and war crimes that have been committed in Darfur may be no less serious and heinous than genocide."

This kind of convoluted, bureaucratic nonsense is infuriating, particularly with the stench of death still lingering from the recent 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau.  This is not even mentioning the atrocities committed in Rwanda, another example of mass slaughter that the UN skirted around and watched happen.

With the systemic and deeply disturbing fraud from the United Nations' Oil-for-Food program currently being investigated, and the continued employment of a sitting on our hands style of intervention, the United Nations needs a major overhaul, in leadership, in structure, in principles, and most importantly, in decision-making.  Until that point, George W. Bush and others will forever have a built-in excuse for ignoring the will of the UN in favour of a self-serving scorched earth policy.

February 1, 2005 - He's carrying on, folks.  From the CBC website:

On Tuesday, Gomery said some of his statements were "ill-advised and inappropriate," but blamed his inexperience in handling the media.

He admitted that his description of Guité was the kind of "colourful language that a judge should avoid using."

But he rejected arguments from Chrétien's lawyers that he was biased. He said he didn't believe a well-informed person would conclude that he had closed his mind or come to any conclusions prematurely.

"After giving the matter careful consideration, I am firmly of the opinion that a reasonable, well-informed and fair-minded person understands the difference between committing an error and being biased," he said.

TDH Strategies will continue to defer to yesterday's commentary as a point of reference for the circus-like proceedings.  This is far from the end of this battle, however, as the tightrope walkers should now be easing their way down to the Federal Court for a definitive decision on Gomery's future.