Politics of Insecurity: Diplomacy and Clinking Glasses

During WWII, when Vincent Massey was high Commissioner in London, his personal assistant* wondered what was the sense of all the protocol. Bombs were going off around them and he was expected to pay attention to the smallest details.

But what he learned from Massey was:

"... that protocol is really a language, a set of rules and conventions which enable people of different nationalities, social backgrounds, and political persuasions to feel comfortable with each other, to avoid embarrassing
situations, even to enjoy each other's company." (1)

So while we can scoff at the formal and ceremonial aspects of diplomacy, what we need to understand is that an important component of diplomacy is respect, and that includes respecting another nation's customs and their leaders.

I'm still reading Lawrence Martin's Harperland, and I don't quite know what to think of it. It's filled with contradictions.

Being billed as explosive before it's release, I'm finding much of it is excusatory. Martin brings out a lot of the more irrational components of Harper's character, but then will seemingly go out of his way to excuse them.

I never expected the book to be anti-Harper, and would have been disappointed if there was no balance. But while Martin flippantly highlights Harper's extensive use of profanity, that will only shock the Religious Right, who once believed he was an Evangelist; he glosses over the areas that should be shocking to all Canadians, since they have a profound effect on our future.

And the most important one is foreign policy.

When Stephen Harper dismisses our diplomats as "glass clinkers", Martin agrees. I found that quite alarming.

The book does take note of our prime minister's inexperience in foreign affairs, but then claims that because he talked about the Cold War with a friend, that made up for it. I talk about a lot of things with friends. It doesn't make me an expert on any of them.

And to top it off, no one in his caucus was any better prepared.

Given that, you would think that they would then turn to the diplomats. The ones who not only learned foreign languages but also the language of protocol. The things that break down barriers and pave the way to negotiations.

But the exact opposite happened. Stephen Harper has continually undermined our foreign service, because their knowledge of the world, contradicts his own; which is really a lack thereof.

Harper may have discussed the Cold War with his friend John Weissenberger (2), but unfortunately his understanding of world issues ends there. His foreign policy is based on ideology and the appeasement of religious extremists.

The danger of that is glaring. It is something that cannot be excused or brushed off with silly notions that discussions with a friend can replace the advice of those in the field.

And unfortunately that applies to every other decision this government makes. Experts are "university types" and advocates are "special interest groups". I find it all inexcusable.

I'll finish reading the book before I pass a final judgement, because I am very much a fan of Lawrence Martin. But so far ... ahhhh!

Footnotes:

* That personal assistant went on to become one of Canada's longest serving diplomats, dubbed a 'peacemonger' by the press. A title he wore with pride. He would go on to marry Vincent Massey's niece, and in fact proposed to his future bride at Massey's home. The family was pleased. Her name was Alison Grant who would become Alison Ignatieff and the mother of Michael Ignatieff.

Previous:

The Politics of Contempt: The Nixon-Harper Ticket

The Politics of Hate: Where Will it Lead?

The Politics of Conceit: "Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better"

The Politics of Opportunity: Election Tampering

The Politics of Jabberwocky: As Canada Plummets Down the Rabbit Hole

The Politics of Ballyhoo: David Emerson and the Soft on Sovereignty Trade Deal

The Politics of Religious Nationalism: Taking us Down a Dangerous Path

Sources:

1. The Making of a Peacemonger: The Memoirs of George Ignatieff, By Sonja Sinclair, University of Toronto Press, ISBN: 0-8020-2556-0, Pg. 62

2. Harperland:The Politics of Control, By Lawrence Martin, Viking Press, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-670-06517-2, Pg. 79

Canada and the United Nations: How Far we Have Fallen

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

"Understanding the nature of conflict leads to peace." Lester B. Pearson

During the London Blitz, two men with the Canadian diplomatic corp. surveyed the damage to Canada House, when the Lutwaffe had concentrated their attacks on Whitehall. According to one of the men:

".. together we watched the charred remains of civil service files fluttering in the wind as the fires were burning out of control all around us. [His colleague] said something to the effect that civilization could not stand much more of this kind of destruction and that we would have to try to stop it. I knew what he meant: it wasn't a case of giving in to the Germans, but rather working for peace in the future. This was about the only time I heard [him] express personal feelings; he was not a communicative man. But he was dedicated to peace, as I was and still am. In spite of innumerable disillusionments, I remain convinced that that is the direction in which we have to go, because the alternatives are so appalling." (1)

And those two men would indeed devote the remainder of their lives, to the interest of peace.

One was Lester Bowles Pearson, who would go on to play an important role in the founding of both the United Nations and NATO. In 1957 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for diffusing the Suez Crisis, the selection committee claiming that he had "saved the world." The United Nations Emergency Force was also Pearson's creation. He is considered the father of the modern concept of peacekeeping, and was responsible for the development of the structure for the United Nations Security Council.

The other man, and the narrator of the story was George Ignatieff, who would serve almost five decades as a diplomat, under many prime ministers of different political stripes. And because of his negotiating skills and commitment to nuclear disarmament the press dubbed him the "Peacemonger", a title he accepted with pride.

While the United Nations was being formed, Canada was fortunate to also have a prime minister devoted to peace, Louis St. Laurent; and when John Diefenbaker was in power, he defied U.S. President JFK, by refusing to accept nuclear war heads. And though this cost him the next election, he stood on his principles.

These men, and other Canadians like them, created the basis for our foreign policy, in a post-war world. And as a result, Canada has always punched above it's weight, taking the lead on many issues.

But those days are gone.

Stephen Harper is addressing the United Nations today in hopes of securing a temporary spot on the Security Council, but many believe that it will be an uphill battle. " If Canada fails to win the seat in October, it will mark the country's longest absence from the council." (2)

A recent CBC survey asked "Do you think Canada deserves a seat at the UN Security Council?" 70% of the respondents answered "no". How far we have fallen.

Gerald Caplan recently outlined the reasons why we no longer deserve this honour. .... the Harper government has almost provocatively alienated other governments.

- His 110 per cent support for Israel, for example, does not impress the Arab bloc, while peremptorily cutting off aid to eight poor African countries and then freezing all aid to Africa has not exactly made friends on that continent.

- the following international figures have publicly criticized the Conservative government just in the last five months? Prince Karim Aga Khan, a spiritual leader devoted to the elimination of poverty and the advancement of women; Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General; David Miliband, former British foreign secretary and possible new leader of the British Labor Party; and most famously, Hilary Clinton. Since such folks normally never bad-mouth friendly countries in public, this may well be some kind of record.



- Dr. Julio Montaner, an internationally-known Canadian who just stepped down as president of the International AIDS Society. “I am ashamed to say,” he told a giant AIDS conference in Vienna in July, “that the government of Canada has punched well below its weight in funding universal access and supporting those affected by HIV and AIDS around the world.”

- the Harper government has canceled funding this year for a number of prominent Canadian international NGOs, including International Planned Parenthood Federation, Kairos, the Canadian Council for International Cooperation and Match International. This must be awkward for the government since all have large admiring international constituencies. Why were they cut off? Because all of them advocate for international development based on solidarity and respect

- Tony Blair’s Commission for Africa has [criticized] Canada for actually lowering its aid target for Africa. Of 22 rich countries, Canada now ranks 18th in terms of aid as a percentage of gross national income. Of 37 countries and multilateral agencies, the World Bank has just ranked Canada 29th in terms of aid effectiveness

- Yet Canada ranks last among the G8 countries in terms of efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. A prominent Guardian environmental columnist has declared that “Stephen Harper and [Environment Minister] Jim Prentice threaten to do as much damage to [Canada’s] international standing as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney did to that of the United States.”

- On peace and security issues, UN peacekeeping is now at an all-time high, with 109,000 peacekeepers in missions across the world. Canada was once proudly among the UN’s top contributors to such missions. Now we rank 57th, with just 27 Canadians deployed as peacekeepers in the traditional sense.

- At the United Nations next week, Mr. Harper will witness a group of 60 nations, including France, Britain and Japan, proposing that a tax – a Global Solidarity Levy – be introduced on all international currency transactions to raise funds for development aid. (We are not amoung them)

How does he dare even show his face?

If by some stroke of luck we are given that seat, it will not be because of anything this government has done, but in spite of their horrible record.

But let's look on the bright side. There's a very good chance that seat will be under a new prime minister.

The son of a "Peacemonger".

Sources:

1. The Making of a Peacemonger: The Memoirs of George Ignatieff, By Sonja Sinclair, University of Toronto Press, ISBN: 0-8020-2556-0, Pg. 73

2. Harper, on hunt for Security Council seat, addresses UN General Assembly, By: The Canadian Press, September 23, 2010

3. Stephen Harper does the UN - but shouldn't, By Gerald Caplan, Globe and Mail, September 17, 2010

The Fight to Restore Our Democracy Will Not be a Single Battle

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

I attended an all candidates meeting in Kingston last week, where several individuals are vying for the Liberal nomination, to replace Peter Milliken. When it came around to taking questions from the floor, I asked what each one would do to help restore democracy to Canada.

The first person answered simply "get rid of Stephen Harper". Of course everyone laughed but it was not really what I was looking for. In fairness, it was too big a question, when the contestants had no more than 30 seconds to give a response.

One of my favourite journalists, Murray Dobbin, posted an excellent piece on his blog this week, where he suggests that we are now in the fight of our lives.

Individuals and organizations in Canada who recognize that the most critical short term political goal we have is to rid the country of Stephen Harper’s government might want to engage in a kind of political and strategic triage: what are the three or four key issues that we need to focus on to expose Harper’s agenda and to exploit his weaknesses? (1)

While there is no argument that Harper must go, he is only a symptom of the disease that has been eating away at us for years.

It has been like a slow growing cancer, that while it left us weak, did not dramatically hinder our ability to function as a sovereign nation. Then along came Harper and the cancer spread so rapidly that our freedoms are now on life support, with only minimal brain function. And we are indeed in "the fight of our lives".

Stage One: The Erosion is Small and Contained

"A society only articulates itself as a nation through some common intention among its people." George P. Grant*, Lament For a Nation

Sir John A. MacDonald, Canada's first prime minister, was not only one of the people responsible for Confederation, but he also sought to create a unique Canadian identity, while fighting against the influence of the United States. This brought about the character of 'Johnny Canuck', who appeared in political cartoons for decades.

We were the little guy, youngest cousin of Uncle Sam and John Bull. A little naive perhaps, but strong and ready to stand up to the big boys. And this sentiment continued throughout the life of 'Johnny'.

But then Johnny Canuck caught a bug. Murray Dobbin believes that it was 38 years ago (1), when the Conservatives came to power in Alberta, but I believe it was earlier than that, and simply went undiagnosed for decades.

I think the bug that now threatens our existence, first appeared on February 13, 1947, in the oil that was discovered at Leduc in Alberta. Canada then caught the attention of Texas oilmen, and the premier of Alberta, Ernest Manning, became their new best friend. So much so, that Time Magazine began to refer to Alberta as Texas of the North. (2) Other discoveries in post-war Canada of iron ore, nickel, copper, uranium and titanium, also brought us to the attention of southern corporate interests.

Johnny Canuck developed a cough.

Stage Two: A tumour has developed But Has Not Spread Into the Surrounding Tissue

"The imperial power of corporations has destroyed indigenous cultures in every corner of the globe." George P. Grant*, Lament For a Nation

A series of trade agreements followed, based on the needs of the corporate sector, who, as George Grant claimed, "sought to master nature and reshape humanity." (3) Successive Canadian governments, began to work with the corporate sector to develop our natural resources, and in many ways it was a good thing.

But then prime minister St. Laurent introduced legislation to have the Canadian government lend $80 million to the U.S.-controlled Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Ltd., to build a pipeline from Alberta to Winnipeg in order to export natural gas to the United States. This gave the new conservative leader Diefenbaker ammunition:

He accused the government of "playing around with . . . these adventurers from Texas and New York, trading away Canada's national resources at the expense
of the Canadian people." The deal, Diefenbaker said, would make Canada "a virtual economic forty-ninth state." (4)

And he won the next election on a national unity issue. And though he too flirted with the American industrialists, he was seen as a friend to small business and Canadian interests, which made him a foe of the corporate world, that launched campaigns against him.

Johnny Canuck began to run a fever.

Stage Three: The Tumour is Larger and Has Begun to Spread

Can the disappearance of an unimportant nation be worthy of serious grief? For some ... it can. Our country is the only political entity to which we have been trained to pay allegiance." George P. Grant*, Lament For a Nation

Grant referred to Lester Pearson's administration as 'capitalist internationalism", and felt that he was too cozy with JFK. In fact, a young journalist by the name of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, also criticized Pearson, and when he came to power himself sought to restore our sovereignty, and move the country toward a just society. This didn't mean that he necessarily turned his back on the corporate world, but did fight against American interests.

It was during his administration that the National Citizens Coalition was created on the advice of Ernest Manning, and the right-wing media launched an assault on Trudeau, calling him a socialist and sometimes even a communist. Leading the charge was the Toronto Sun, under Peter Worthington, and one of his journalists, Lubor Zinc, was the one who coined the term 'Trudeaumania', though it was meant to have a negative connotation. Another Sun journalist, David Somerville, would eventually head up the NCC.

They earned little credibility, until they were able to place a man, plucked right from the corporate world, to lead the country. Brian Mulroney. He would fling open the doors and announce to the anyone who would listen, that Canada was for sale. His free trade deal devastated the Canadian economy, but paved the way for a corporate takeover.

Johnny Canuck was now bedridden.

Stage Four: The Cancer has Spread to Every Corner of the Country.

"To lament is to cry out at the death or at the dying of something loved. This lament mourns the end of Canada as a sovereign state." George P. Grant*, Lament For a Nation.

Brian Mulroney may have put Canada on life support, but Stephen Harper is the one who will pull the plug. He has been systematically selling us off to American and multinational corporate interests. When he was proroguing he signed the most aggressive trade deal in the history of our country. And the recent potential sell off of Canada's potash is only the latest in what money expert Stephen Jarislowsky, of Jarislowsky Fraser Ltd., calls the "suicide of the country".

We are increasingly becoming a corporate state. Murray Dobbin focuses on the oil industry and the "dirty" oil that is giving Canada the reputation as a corrupt petro-state, but we have to look at all industries.

Corporations have their place in a society. They can keep small businesses afloat, as they provide services to the larger companies. They also provide good union jobs, which provides buying power and keeps service industries afloat. But these corporations, despite enjoying massive tax cuts and exemptions, have allowed greed to dictate. They now often compete with the small business, driving them out, while they outsource jobs overseas.

There needs to be a new and defined relationship that promotes fairness for the good of the country and our citizens.

All fascist regimes answered to their industrialists. They created autocratic governments to keep the people in line, and increased both military and police presence as a deterrent to public dissent.

We are on the brink of becoming that fascist state. And it is being done by embracing the philosophies of the father of neoconservatism, Leo Strauss: Deception, Religious fervour and unbridled patriotism.

Before the 2006 Canadian election, Paul Weyrich, the Godfather of the American Religious Right, told his people not to speak to Canadian journalists for fear that it might spook the Canadian public if they knew how connected Stephen Harper was to his movement. (5)

And Weyrich knew something about political strategy. He had worked on Ronald Reagan's campaign, using divisive politics to weaken the democratic process.

"With Reagan's outspoken opposition to the Civil Rights Act in 1964, Republican strategists knew that they would have to write off the black vote. But although 90 per cent of black voters cast their ballots for the democrats, only 30 percent of eligible black Americans voted. Republican ... strategist Paul Weyrich stated "I don't want everyone to vote ... our leverage in the election quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down. We have no moral responsibility to turn out our opposition." (6)

And Weyrich also knew that Canada was ripe for the picking, because we had a system with a fragile structure, that promised democracy based on the expectation of fair play.

So when I asked my question about restoring democracy, it was not only about replacing Stephen Harper, which I already know is an absolute necessity. But it was also about how we are going to keep our corporations in check, and give the power back to the people, where it belongs.

But more importantly, how we are going to close up the loopholes in our system that allowed one man to gain so much control. Michael Ignatieff has suggested that senators should be appointed by a committee made up of a cross-section of Canadians. That's a good start. The same should be done with judges and the Governor General.

Murray Dobbin suggests that we need determined civil disobedience, fully justified by the assault on our country. He's right. But we also need to restore faith in politics and encourage citizens to vote. And to do that we need to cut through the crap. Harper's strength in is keeping us divided and ignorant, because like his pal, Weyrich, he feels no moral responsibility to encourage Canadians to take part in the democratic process.

We are the only ones who can save Johnny, or Janie, or Omar or Hans or Pierre ... Canuck. And I happen to believe that we are worth saving.

Footnotes:

*George Parkin Grant was a Canadian scholar. He had a sister Alison who married Canadian diplomat George Ignatieff. Alison and George had a son Michael, who is now leader of the Liberal Party. When Lament for a Nation was first published, the Grant/Ignatieff family was devastated. The senior Ignatieff had worked for both Diefenbaker and Pearson. But George Grant would later say it was reactionary to the defeat of Diefenbaker, but he did have some very valid concerns.

Sources:

1. The Fight of Our Lives, By Murray Dobbin, Murray Dobbin's Blog, September 13, 2010

2. Texas of the North, Time Magazine, September 24, 1951

3. Lament For a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism, By George Parkin Grant, McClelland & Stewart, 1965

4. Kennedy & Diefenbaker: The Feud That Helped Topple a Government, By Knowlton Nash, McClelland & Stewart, 1991, ISBN: 0-7710-6711-9, Pg. 35-36

5. Harper's U.S. neocon booster changes his story, By Beth Gorham, Canadian Press, January 27, 2006

6. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 22)

If He Had Been the First Prime Minister Ignatieff

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

My library has a running book sale to raise money for various library events, and yesterday I picked up a 1987 book compiled and published by Mel Hurtig: If I Were Prime Minister.

Each chapter was written by a prominent Canadian who details what they would do if they led the country.

One of those prominent Canadians in 1987 was George Ignatieff, who is shown in Life Magazine, the one with glasses. I presented a brief history of Michael Ignatieff's family before, but thought these musings of his dad's were worth sharing. They outline a vision that is now, in most areas, the same vision held by his son.

So Who Exactly is George Ignatieff

George Ignatieff, according to his Trinity College profile, was "A Canadian Ambassador of Peace." That's quite a statement, but defines him in a nutshell. When working under John Diefenbaker, he tried to broker a deal with President Kennedy over nuclear warheads. Ignatieff was opposed, but as a diplomat, tried to reach a compromise.

Ignatieff, although a diplomatic realist, was also an indefatigable champion of disarmament, and he sought to provide Diefenbaker with a formula that he could use with Kennedy in articulating the near-incomprehensibility of Canada's official position on warheads. The urbane diplomat proposed that the prime minister say he would accept warheads on two conditions: first, if there were joint control in their use — a joint control of Diefenbaker's particular definition; and second, only if an all-out effort at disarmament were launched first and if, at the end, it was determined that there could be no progress.

That formula would buy Diefenbaker some time and it might well wash politically in Canada, even if it wouldn't in Washington. "Making clear-cut decisions was not part of Diefenbaker's nature," Ignatieff later remarked. (1)

And according to Trinity, where there is a theatre named in his honour:

In 1984, he [George Ignatieff] received the Pearson Peace Medal by the United Nations Association in Canada. The Pearson Peace Medal recognizes, in Lester B. Pearson’s name, Canadians who, through voluntary work or other efforts, have contributed to those causes for which Lester Pearson stood: aid to the developing world, mediation between those confronting one another with arms, succor to refugees and others in need, and peaceful change through world law and world organizations.

George Ignatieff enjoyed a distinguished career in international service. He was Canadian Ambassador to Yugoslavia from 1956 to 1958 and Assistant Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs from 1960 to 1962. In successive appointments between 1963 and 1972, he was Canada’s permanent representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; the United Nations, including the Security Council; the Committee on Disarmament; the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the United Nations in Geneva. He was a Companion of the Order of Canada, a member of the Atlantic Council and the Canadian Pugwash Group on Disarmament, and former President of the United Nations Association in Canada.

It's a shame that Canadians don't get to know this, because it helps to define the kind of prime minister Michael Ignatieff will be. Diplomacy and leadership are in his veins. But it explains why the Conservative Party spent ten million dollars on "Just Visiting" ads. They can't let us know just how Canadian Michael Ignatieff really is.

If I were Prime Minister By: George Ignatieff

Following are some excerpts from Michael's father, with his dreams for Canada. He starts out with a goal of nuclear disarmament, his life's passion, then moves onto other areas.

- The duty of a prime minister is to serve the vital interests of the Canadian people. In an age dominated by revolutionary changes wrought by science and technology, including the threat to survival by the risks of nuclear war, top priority must be given to trying to ensure survival. The dangers of nuclear war must be kept in check by active Canadian participation in negotiations for drastic arms limitation and increased international understanding.

- Canada, as the country with the largest space in relation to population, has a major stake in world co-operation and stability. I would give priority to the pursuit of international co-operation and global relationships, and would expand trade relations with all countries—including the Soviet Union, China, Japan, and the developing countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America--rather than concentrating on a bilateral agreement about access to a continental market. I would also give priority to fighting American protectionism*, which is inconsistent with the spread, throughout the world, of revolutionary changes in finance and technology.

- Canada's traditions of multiculturalism enable us to set an example for peaceful coexistence throughout the global village. This gives us an enviable influence in world affairs. Moreover, Canada's contribution to United Nations peacekeeping and peacemaking (which should be indivisible) gives us a unique destiny. We should be approaching the new millennium with confidence, knowing that we can look after our vital interests of security in an interdependent world society, rather than leaning towards dependence on the superpower-oriented world view of the United States.

- Individual security and support services are the other priorities to which 1, as prime minister, would give my attention. We are moving away from the neoconservative reaction, when it was thought that free-market forces would somehow ensure full employment and competitive advantages in world markets. In fact, profits do not necessarily mean prosperity for the majority. The ideology of the "mean and lean" has produced a further gap between the government and the people. My concern would be how to cope with the problem of information—the crucial indicator of power in the information age. The executive, even in such a democratic and traditionally egalitarian society as Canada, seems to be obtaining an unbreakable monopoly on information, despite remedial legislation. Is there much benefit, for instance, in having access to information about the expense account of the prime minister, or his journeying—including such trivia as to whether he was accompanied by a valet and a maid—when our elected representatives are denied essential information about the issue of survival, flowing from Canada's nuclear commitments under NORAD?

- Education offers part of the answer. Education and research would not only contribute to help train the younger generation for the many new services opening up in the information age, but they would also provide the necessary background knowledge so that Canadians could ask the right questions when seeking to become better-informed citizens. In an information society, education and training must have better public funding. We badly need trained minds to cope with the problems of the twenty-first century, especially in using science and technology for the enlargement of human knowledge, for the development of social controls, and for improved standards of living.

- Canada's priorities should be related to the values most Canadians accept—values that include a sense of responsibility for oneself, as well as for one's neighbour. Unemployment in our society is primarily related to the question of human dignity and the individual's freedom of choice. When seeking solutions, it is not enough to place our faith mainly on the value of the market place. Solutions require changes in policy, in responsibility at all levels—federal, provincial, municipal, and community. But this necessary move towards equity and justice is hindered by numerous difficulties: the problem of adjusting the thinking of a large government bureaucracy; the seeming lack of genuine leadership and initiative at the political level; the remaining discrimination against women; disputes between large businesses and small ones; the dislocation of employment by technological changes; disagreements among economic experts; feelings of frustration among the young and the handicapped, and the lack of educational opportunities in an informational society.

- In coping with these inequities, priority should be given to unemployment rather than to fighting deficits or inflation. Women must be given equal pay for equal work, and any woman should have the right to six months' maternity leave. Day-care centres, with properly trained personnel to care for the children, should become part of medicare, as should compulsory medical examination through grade and secondary schools.

- A fund should be created to finance public works at the municipal level, with emphasis on low-cost housing. An industrial strategy needs to be worked out to create permanent jobs for people in local communities, especially with regard to better social services, care, and pensions for the increasing proportion of aged in the Canadian population.

- In co-operation with labour unions, workers should be invited to play a more decisive and responsible role in developing strategies for employment (such as a shorter work week, staggered holidays, and subsidized travel on railroads and other public transport). There should be a more balanced and equitable program of tax reform, including increases in taxes to keep the deficit under control (the principle being that governments should set an example to society by paying their bills). Various tax deductions allowed to businesses should be reviewed, eliminating "tax expenditures" by corporations. Every effort should be made to improve medicare and social security benefits, and there must be pension reform, especially for those most handicapped by technological displacement. Finally, the farmers must be given greater protection from interest-rate hikes and debts, as well as being provided with co-operative insurance schemes and credit guarantees to give them protection against crop destruction.

- Modernizing the economy should be accompanied by a process of gradual conversion from defence-oriented industries (dominated by the defence-sharing agreement with the United States and the various subsidiaries of American defence production) to providing tax incentives to encourage the production for Canada's civilian needs, as well as for export. For too long, high technology has been allowed to flourish in the production of lethal or unusable weaponry, while research and development in the civil sector have suffered from chronic underfunding. If the arms race is allowed to continue uncontrolled, we shall only sacrifice our security further, by trying to cope with twenty-first-century weapons with twentieth-century mindsets.

- Finally, the unity of Canada under a federal system needs more than the patriation of our constitution and legislation on human rights. Canada needs a functioning common market. Instead of having a federal minister responsible for regional development and the cabinet operating a regional "pork barrel" according to its transitory party interests, I would set up in Ottawa a council of ministers, appointed by each provincial government, that would be responsible for making a common market work for Canada. This council would report quarterly to the meeting of premiers and would be staffed by a group of permanent officials, appointed by each province, with the task of promoting on-going federal-provincial economic and social cooperation. As prime minister of Canada, I would then feel more qualified to speak for Canada with a single voice when dealing competitively with the other members of the international community in protecting Canada's vital interests in the common interest. (2)

And I love his last line: "However, if a woman with similar views should care for the job, I would gladly yield to her." What an intelligent and charming man.

We have got to start paying attention. The goal of neoconservatism is to dummy down the population. We've seen it in the U.S., who with the help of Fox News has turned their political system into a nightmare. And Canada is now just one Tea Party away from being a nation of political morons.

Unfortunately, most of our media is more concerned with spin than substance. Stephen Harper doesn't speak to them, and despite the fact that Michael Ignatieff does; they listen to Ignatieff, but only speak through Harper.

Because if they actually reported what Michael Ignatieff said, almost all of his ideas were articulated by his father in 1987 and by himself in the Rights Revolution**. And both men, father and son, believe that "The duty of a prime minister is to serve the vital interests of the Canadian people."

A concept that Stephen Harper has been unable, or unwilling, to grasp.

Footnotes:

*Harper's idea of fighting American protectionism was to simply give away the farm.

** The Rights Revolution: CBC Massey Lectures, By Michael Ignatieff, Anansi Books, 2000, ISBN: 978-0-88784-762-2

Sources:

1. Kennedy & Diefenbaker:The Feud That Helped Topple a Government, By Knowlton Nash, McClelland & Stewart, 1991, ISBN: 0-7710-6711-9, Pg. 100-101

2. If I Were Prime Minister, Compiled by Mel Hurtig, Hurtig Publishers, 1987, ISBN: 0-88830-315-7, Pg. 135-139

The Making of a Prime Minister From the Ground Up

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

George Munro Grant was born on December 22, 1835 in Stellarton, Pictou County, Nova Scotia; the son of James Grant and Mary Monro.

His parents had emigrated from Scotland in 1826 and like other Scottish settlers, tried his hand at farming. However, it was not his calling, so he earned his way teaching school and offering legal services. But then he tried his hand at investing, leaving the family in financial ruin.

At the age of nine, George lost all the fingers on his right hand in a battle with a threshing machine (1), which made a career in farming impossible, and with little money, seemingly few options.

But fortunately his mother, Mary Munro was a strong and determined woman who insisted that he receive a good education. After attending Pictou Academy he received a scholarship from the Presbyterian Church to study in Scotland, and on his return was given the Parish of St. Matthews in Halifax.

But he was determined not to lead his congregation with the old fire and brimstone, typical of his youth, but with an emphasis on the positive things that faith could achieve.

Grant was effective in implementing typically evangelical solutions to the social problems of Halifax. He was involved in the direction of the School for the Blind, the Halifax Institution for the Deaf and Dumb, the Children’s Home and Child Immigration Schemes, the Old Ladies’ Home, the Halifax Industrial School, the Halifax Visiting Dispensary, and the Young Men’s Christian Association, and helped raise money for them.

In addition, St Matthew’s Church supported a city missionary, James S. Potter, who provided relief to the poor and operated the Night Refuge for the Homeless. But Grant did not consider such works the means to salve the bad consciences of the rich. He preached frankly to his congregation of merchants and shipowners on the relationship of labour and capital and denounced men who made money by risking the lives of their crews in unseaworthy hulks or saw charity at home as a substitute for justice at sea. (2)

In other words, like Tommy Douglas, he ascribed to a social gospel.

On May 7, 1867, he married Jessie Lawson, daughter of one of the leading merchants in the city, but it is said that he himself "lived frugally and gave generously". (3)

The couple would have two children; William Lawson and George, who died at the age of 12.

George Munro earned a reputation, not only as a preacher, but a compelling speaker on political topics. In 1867, when Nova Scotia was adamantly opposed to Confederation, Grant championed the cause, and his verbal battles with journalist Joseph Howe were legendary.

It is said that had Grant not thrown his whole weight in favour of Canadian confederation, it may not have taken place when it did. As to Howe, there was no real animosity and Grant would later write a glowing biography if his adversary. Later, his son, William Lawson would also author The Tribune of Nova Scotia: A Chronicle of Joseph Howe, as part of the Chronicles of Canada.

But George Munro Grant was not finished impacting Canadian history. In 1872, he traveled across Canada:

.... from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean, with the engineers, including lifelong friend, Sir Sandford Fleming, who surveyed the route of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Grant's book Ocean to Ocean (1873) was one of the first things that opened the eyes of Canadians to the value of the immense heritage they enjoyed. He never lost an opportunity, whether in the pulpit or on the platform, of pressing on his listeners that the greatest future for Canada lay in unity with the rest of the British Empire; and his broad statesmanlike judgment made him an authority which politicians of all parties were glad to consult. (3)

And in 1877, as Principal of Queen's University, he also left his mark. According to the University's own literature:

Grant is the most important of all Queen's Principals. More famous in his day than any Queen's Principal before or since, Grant transformed the university in his 25 years of leadership (1877-1902) from a struggling denominational college into a dynamic national institution. (4)

George Munro Grant died in Kingston on May 10, 1902

Grant’s most lasting achievement is Queen’s, where, as noted by Hilda Marion Neatby, he “set his personal mark . . . so indelibly that its history in his time has almost to be written in personal terms.” By the end of his life, “Geordie Our King” had assumed legendary proportions.

...The Cambridge classicist Terrot Reaveley Glover, who began his career at Queen’s, wrote of Grant that “it was yet no small part of the education that Queen’s gave to associate with a man of such outlooks, such range and such political integrity. . . . Teacher, builder, driver – call Grant what you will; he saved the University from intellectual ruin as surely as he did from financial; and, with all his limitations, his presence, his word, his glance, were inspiration.” (2)

William Lawson Grant

William Lawson Grant was born on November 2, 1872 in Halifax, Nova Scotia, the son of George Munro Grant and Jessie Lawson. He would become a professor at Queens University and Principal of Upper Canada College.

He married Maude Erskin Parkin on June 1, 1911, and they had four children: Margaret Monro, Charity Lawson, Jessie "Alison" and George Parkin.

William Lawson died on February 3, 1935.

The Other Side of the Equation:

Russia in the early 19th century was a place of much turmoil. Czar Nicholas II, though a good family man, was an incompetent leader, and when war broke out he went to play soldier instead of addressing matters at home.

And while Russia was at war, there was an internal war taking place on many fronts. The fraudulent Protocols of Zion, had resulted in pogroms, as the Jewish people were now thought to be behind a conspiracy to take over the world. A mass exodus took place, and for those who chose to stay, anti-Semitism was rampant and often violent.

Vladimir Lenin opposed the Imperialistic war, and instead was promoting a class war. While practising law, he worked on mostly land-ownership cases, where he gained insight to the Russian peasants' socio-economic condition. As a result he developed a political system he called Leninism, which was described as a pragmatic Marxism and often referred to as Lenin-Marxism.
Vladimir was in Switzerland at the time of the February Revolution that saw the Czar Nicholas II deposed, but with the help of the Germans, he was able to get safely back to Russia to join in the powder keg of revolt.

With the end of the Romanov dynasty an alliance between liberals and socialists formed a provisional government, committed to political reform, by creating a democratically-elected executive and assembly.

However, this new government failed, in part because they agreed to continue their participation in the Great War, and the riots continued, finally culminating in the October Revolution that saw the Bolshevik government under Lenin gain power, and the country was thrown into civil war.

On August 30, 1918 the head of the Petrograd secret police was assassinated, and a would be assassin tried and failed to take out Lenin. In retaliation many members of the royal family and those loyal to the White Army, a counter-revolutionary force, were rounded up and arrested.

On September 6, 1918, 25 armed men entered the home of Count Pavel Nikolayevich Ignatiev and his wife Princess Natalya Meshcherskaya. Pavel was arrested and held with counter-revolutionary prisoners, all slated for execution.

He had been the education minister at the Imperial Court, but was a Ukranian farmer of some means. Against the protests of her family and friends, Natalyan followed her husband demanding his release. But it wasn't until a geography teacher heard that Pavel had been arrested and was being held that his luck changed.

The teacher, remembering that Pavel had been instrumental in improving the educational system in the country, organized a student protest and as a result the ailing Pavel was allowed to return to his family.

However, they were constantly tormented. Their home was looted seventeen times, the final government sanctioned robbery netting what was left in their children's dresser drawers.

Finally forced to flee*, they eventually settled in Upper Melbourne, Quebec, where Pavel would return to his first love; farming. Pavel and Natalyan are better known as Paul and Natasia Ignatieff. She died in 1944 and the New York Times wrote of her death in an article entitled 'Princess Ignatieff'. Paul died in 1945.

One of Pavel's five sons, George; would grow up to become a long serving Canadian diplomat and personal assistant to the Canadian High Commissioner in London, Vincent Massey. He would marry Massey's niece, Alison Grant, who of course was the daughter of William Lawson Grant, mentioned above and granddaughter of George Munro Grant.

George Ignatieff was also the assistant under-secretary of state for external affairs, under John Diefenbaker, and helped to negotiate an arms agreement with President Kennedy.

He turned to George Ignatieff ... for advice on a rationale for his hesitation on acquiring nuclear warheads. "I tried to make him understand," Ignatieff said, "that by committing Canada to an integrated North American defence system, he had accepted a subordinate role in a strategy based almost entirely on the nuclear deterrent."

Diefenbaker told Ignatieff that he'd been misled by the military into believing the Bomarc-B anti-aircraft missile [that replaced the Avro Arrow] could use conventional weapons — a claim that flies in the face of all evidence. An earlier version of Bomarc, the Bomarc-A, was capable of using conventional warheads, but Diefenbaker had deliberately committed Canada to the nuclear-only Bomarc-B. "The day he approved NORAD," Ignatieff said, "he embarked on a course which led to the acceptance of nuclear weapons."

Ignatieff, although a diplomatic realist, was also an indefatigable champion of disarmament, and he sought to provide Diefenbaker with a formula that he could use with Kennedy in articulating the near-incomprehensibility of Canada's official position on warheads. The urbane diplomat proposed that the prime minister say he would accept warheads on two conditions: first, if there were joint control in their use — a joint control of Diefenbaker's particular definition; and second, only if an all-out effort at disarmament were launched first and if, at the end, it was determined that there could be no progress.

That formula would buy Diefenbaker some time and it might well wash politically in Canada, even if it wouldn't in Washington. "Making clear-cut decisions was not part of Diefenbaker's nature," Ignatieff later remarked. (6)

George Ignatieff, was the father of Michael Ignatieff, the next prime minister of Canada; making George Munro Grant his grandfather, through his mother Alison; the niece of the Governor General at the time, Vincent Massey.

Diefenbaker's feud with JFK is believed to be responsible, in part, for his downfall. Michael Ignatieff's uncle George Parkin Grant, was a devout Diefenbaker follower. Upon his demise he wrote a book : Lament For a Nation, believing that Canada would now be selling out to the U.S. The book became a Bible to Canada's left, despite the fact that George Parkin was a Conservative Christian. (7)

And it is this background that Michael Ignatieff will be taking with him as leader of this country. He is not "just visiting" as the Reformers suggest, but is to the very soul, a Canadian.

Forbes magazine recently named him one of the top 100 people to watch as an international star:

"Michael Ignatieff. After decades in Britain and the U.S., the professional intellectual returned to his native Canada and became head of the Liberal party. If a federal election is called in 2010, he could become the next prime minister, and the Canadian head of state with the biggest international profile since Pierre Trudeau."

The above picture appears in Pierre Trudeau's Memoirs. The caption reads: "Amid unusually comfortable surroundings at London School of Economics I chatted with Michael Ignatieff, son of distinguished Canadian diplomat George Ignatieff." (8) Michael not only taught at the London School of Economics, but also Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge and the University of Paris, among others.

It's not good enough to simply convince people that the Harper government must go, but we also have to give Canadians something and someone to believe in.

Footnotes:

* Two brothers Terentiy and Lukyanov also fled from the Ukraine during the Russian Revolution, settling in Chicago. Terentiy Lavrentievich's wife Anna and son Zinoviy, had fled with him, and eventually they made their way to Brantford Ontario, where four more children would be born: Fedor, Vasiliy, Ekaterina, and Olga.

About 1930 conditions in their homeland had improved and Anna wanted to return, but Terentiy preferred to stay in Canada, so the family separated. He would then marry a Polish girl, Mary of Pidhaytsi, Ukraine, and they would have a son named Walter who would eventually have a son named Wayne, who would grow up to be the greatest hockey player that ever lived.

Sources:

1. True Patriot Love: Four Generations in Search of Canada, by Michael Ignatieff, Penguin Books, 2009, ISBN: 978-0-670-06972-9, Pg. 33

2. GRANT, GEORGE MONRO, Dictionary of Canadian Biographies, 1901-1910 (Volume XIII)

3. George Munro Grant, Wikipedia

4. The Rev George Monro Grant (1835-1902), Queen's Encyclopedia

5. The Russian Album, By: Michael Ignatieff, Penguin Books, 1987, ISBN: 978-0-14-317165-2, Pg. 153-162

6. Kennedy & Diefenbaker:The Feud That Helped Topple a Government, By Knowlton Nash, McClelland & Stewart, 1991, ISBN: 0-7710-6711-9, Pg. 100-101

7. Patriot Love, Ignatieff, 2009, Pg. 144-145

8. Memoirs, By Pierre Elliot Trudeau, McClelland & Stewart, 1993, ISBN: 0-7710-8588-5, Pg. 41