The Blog

Tailor-mad Britain

2009-10-06T14:23:00.000-04:00

Is the case of teachers who were banned from wearing jeans and t-shirts yet another proof that overpaid school management boards need to justify their own existence?

Or are they just putting a false sense of order and perceived up-market pretentions to what's supposed to be an environment supporting diversity and creativity?

There are two areas of everyday life of modern humans where adding the word “British” automatically creates an oxymoron. Cuisine and fashion. Agatha Christie had Hercule Poirot said that British didn't have a cuisine, only food. And while some may argue that British fashion does exist, they would have a hard time defending an argument that it equals a good taste and that it translates to the masses and transposes to the everyday clothing. Ridiculously old-fashioned suits, skirts that emphasize all the wrong body parts and crazy coloured socks that make their wearer look like an idiot.

Strangely, though, Brits seem to be obsessed by clothing, but they really must like uniforms. Thousands of bank managers, million of kids etc. get of the tube, buses and cars in exactly same clothes. Watching the crowd at Canary Wharf, London's other financial centre, kind of resembles a watching swarming in a school canteen. Sure, inedible junk is replaced with smoothies and supposedly healthy snacks, but the feeling of uniformity is there.

So great is the obsession with the concept of “dress code” that in 2006 the Daily Mail (who else) attacked the BBC when corporation's reporters stationed in a war-zone during the Lebanon-Israel conflict didn't wear suits and ties. “The truth is that the BBC is throwing away credibility by allowing its reporters to appear without ties. It implies carelessness and shows a lack of respect for the viewer and the subject matter,” wrote one Michael Cole. One year later, the tabloid's daily maul was another reporter's dress comprising shirt and jeans. And it's not just the broadcasting.... Not a single GP doctor I saw in the UK wore proper doctor's garments. Suits, shirts and ties whose knots are hotbed for bacteria.

School managements, after scrapping practical science experiments (children can watch them on YouTube), are on their crusade to kill off the last remaining bit of diversity – by forcing teachers to stick to the dress code deemed appropriate by the body of busybodies. All in an attempt to offer business-like appearance.

Birmingham Metropolitan College requires staff to wear business suits and skirts and … tidy, well groomed hair. On the index are: jeans, t-shirts, t-shirts with signs, inappropriate earrings, tattoos (must be covered), trainers (that's sneakers), outrageous hairdos and colours....

Last year, a school in Tower Hamlets, one of the London's most deprived boroughs (although it also covers the aforementioned Canary Wharf) sacked a teacher because he refused to give up his usual dress code – trainers and tracksuit pants. His outstanding results (96% of his students passed maths and science GCSE exams) and side activities (he worked with disabled children) had not effect on the schools decision. According to the council, he didn't comply with “a reasonable management instruction”.

About 15 years ago, as I walked down the hall at a police station (reporting a crime) in a post-communist country, I noticed a sizable poster titled “A proper grooming of a member” with a picture of policeman's head sporting a hair-do deemed proper by communist regime. “We keep it here for fun,” a plain-clothed detective answered my quizzical look.

Analogue and noband Britain

2009-10-03T16:25:00.000-04:00

Shopping for a monitor/tv today, I ventured into British retail chain PC World and Currys stores.

As usually, it was great fun. In the PC World, I had to explain to the Asian salesperson what the "native resolution" was. And in the Currys, I gave a lecture to guy of the same origin on a miracle called extended desktop as he had no idea it's possible to do in Windows. It was a James Cook on a Pacific island moment, he brought mirrors and nails.

That sort of sums up my week, IT-wise. Britain is a country where you need to have a 19th century technology (that's telephone) to get your Interent connection. And when you get it, you're limited to frankly pathetic ADSL speeds.

I've never had a day without several signal dropouts on a UK cell network and don't get me started on mobile broadband.

In Michalovce, a 50-thousand town in Eastern Slovakia struggling with long-term high unemployment, there are four companies offering high-speed fibre optic internet connection and digital TV with speeds outpacing anything available in the UK. It's something London's City can only dream of. Which is why Britain as a broadband country just doesn't exist.

Oh, and to call a customer service you need to dial a premium charge number. A sort of sex over the phone, but only if you and your purse are into an IT S&M...

STV died. Democracy died a little bit, too.

2009-05-13T22:52:00.000-04:00

Vox populi, vox dei? Well, it depends. Sticking to the world of secular politics, without venturing into murky waters of religious debates, the Latin phrase usually freely translates as “the voters have spoken”. Riding along this particular interpretation, the decision of British Columbia's voters to reject electoral reform has to be respected and supporters of the current first-past-the-post system will trump it up all the way down to Ottawa.

There are many reasons why BC voters rejected electoral reform that would replace ancient first-past-the-post system with the proportional representation. Campaigning of the anti-proportional camp is one thing and it was hard for the pro-side to fight the propaganda that could simply hitch a ride on the “tradition” of the first-past-the-post system. Even the name of the particular proportional system, Single Transferable Vote, acronymed as STV, had very little chance to become another ATM.

The outcome of the Tuesday's BC referendum reaffirms the rejection of the proportional election system from 2005 and that means the reform on national level is very unlikely. The nation has spoken.

On the other hand, the will of the same nation, its decisions, are being ignored during every single election on any level. Seven million votes were not counted in the last year's federal election. Voters did vote, but thanks to the magic of the first-past-the-post system, their votes did not count. Earning 49.9 percent votes doesn't guarantee a single seat in the parliament (1987 New Brunswick election). On the other hand, a majority government can be formed by a party that comes second in popular vote and, in effect, lost the election. 1,379,991 voters elected 49 MPs for the Bloc Quebecois, 2,515,561 votes were enough only for 37 NDP parliamentarians. Bloc earned only 2 percents of the popular vote more than the Green Party which ended up without an MP. Nearly million Green Party voters were disenfranchised.

Canada will continue to function according to a medieval voting principles and will exercise its democratic deficit as a reminder of the colonial legacy. Yes, the nation has spoken and rejected the proportional representation. Chances are that at the next election the nation will speak again and those who advocate it's right to speak and be heard now will deny the same right to the same nation. Again.

Asylum assault? Czech audio, Canadian subtitles. Slightly out of sync.

2009-05-10T16:44:00.000-04:00

Visa regimes that regulate or restrict movement of citizens of two countries appear to live their own lives sometimes. Unfortunately, the necessity to get that visa sticker usually complicates lives and travels of people who were in no way the reason why the visas were introduced in the first place.

The Czechs travelled to Canada freely until 1997 when Ottawa slammed the door due to the high number of asylum seekers. The same issue marred Prague's relationships with Britain in the past. Apparently, former federal ties were stronger in a certain demographic, as Slovakia had the same problem with Britain, Finland and Belgium – influxes of asylum seekers prompted the harsh response, sometimes in the form of introducing visa requirements. There was an era when keen asylum seekers quickly found a replacement country – sometimes with the help of even more keen for-profit “helpers”. Once the visas were lifted, exodus re-started with varied degree of intensity. Fortunately, within few years it all became pointless since both Slovakia and the Czech republic joined the European Union.

In October 2007, Canada lifted the restriction for Czech citizens and since March 2008, Slovaks could travel to Canada without visas too. Following the pattern known from the past, the Czechs flooded Canada again. And, following all previous exoduses, it's mostly the Romas who apply for asylum. Or so the Czechs claim, but given their and the Slovaks' previous experience, it can be taken for granted.

Exodus may sound like an exaggeration, but the word is rather appropriate when things are put into a proper context. In 2008, 861 Czechs sought asylum in Canada. The first quarter of 2009 saw 653 asylum applications (34 succeeded), mostly claimed on the minority related issues. It doesn't sound like much but it's more than asylum applications put forward by the Afghans (488), the Iraqis (282) and the Cubans (184). In fact, Czech asylum seekers placed fourth behind the Mexicans, the Haitians and the Colombians. Indirect threat that the visa regime could be reinstated is not entirely out of place.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper acknowledged that the current state of the affairs might not be entirely Czech government's fault. Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, who used what was perhaps a less diplomatic language, called Canadian asylum system “soft” and suggested that the two countries wouldn't be discussing the issue if Canada reclassified the Czech republic as a safe country of origin. If that was a case, Czech citizens wouldn't be eligible to apply for asylum. More on that later.

The Lidove noviny (Czech daily newspaper) reminded that Mr Harper had already admitted that the influx is organized. The daily also mentioned a secret expert report that claimed the mass emigration is coordinated by former Czechoslovak citizens living in Canada. If so, this would not be entirely new situation, since similar “agencies” were suspected to be behind past exoduses of Slovak and Czech Romas to European countries. Profiteers or “employment mediators” operate on both sides of the Atlantic which means that both Prague and Ottawa need to cooperate to eradicate their operations or, at least, limit their influence.

The Czech government cannot restrict the right of Czech citizens to travel - to Canada or any other country. However, as Mr. Topolanek noted, the solution would be to find jobs for the asylum seekers in the Czech republic. Another good thing might be to make sure the message “don't believe the scams” gets across to those who need to hear it the most. Apparently, an abundance of people who lost a great deal of money to the profiteers is not enough to deter new victims.

The Czech side feels that Ottawa should reclassify the Czech Republic's safe country of origin status. The problem is, the safe country of origin status is a tricky concept, and, according to Canadian ambassador to Prague Michael Calcott, every applications are considered on a case-to-case basis and everybody can apply (source: Czech Television). If so, a change of attitude is necessary. Sure, Czech republic has its problems, but the country is perfectly safe, certainly no less safer than Canada. It's Canada's NATO ally. If Ottawa needed any further assurance it should have found it in 2004 when the Czech republic joined the EU, or at the very latest, in 2007, when it joined the Schengen Area, a part of Europe (26 countries) with no border controls, open for the free movement of more than 400 million Europeans.

Count Ignatieff. In.

2009-05-04T13:14:00.001-04:00

There will be many lines along which the Conservatives will attack the Liberals in the next election campaign but one will stand out. Having an extensive foreign experience, being known and respected abroad can be played out as a sign that a person with such characteristic is not a good Canadian. Read any Internet forum and the international experience of the new Liberal Party leader emerges as the main objection that disqualifies him from being a prime minister in the eyes of many Canadians. They call it “he lived abroad”. The official campaign will not be different.

Here's why.

Targeting a single person for what and who they are has become a standard of the Conservatives' partisan politics. “Can you imagine a man, who spent years outside Canada to be a prime minister of this country?” will be a follow-up on the last year's mantra “Can you imagine Stephan Dion to be your prime minister?”. Of course, Canadians do no vote for a prime minister but a potentially decisive number of Canadians does hold a belief that they do as was demonstrated last year during the parliament crisis.

Another point is nationalism. Stephen Harper was very quick in hitting on the very dangerous pseudo-patriotic string during the last year's parliamentary crisis, the attack that peaked with a pure lie. Harper claimed that the three political leaders who signed the coalition treaty didn't do so with a Canadian flag in the background. It was pathetic, sure, but heyday patriots bought it as well as a even more pathetic Harper's follow up (flags pushed aside). Simplifying is the essence of politics but at times it borders on primitivism.

Finally, the Conservatives has become a one-man party over the past few years and simply do not have a candidate that would be on par with Michael Ignatieff. Personal attack, beyond the usual campaign standards, is inevitable.

Harper is a brilliant politician, a master of partisan politics, of the realpolitik. Otherwise he wouldn't be able to sustain his primeministership for so long with a minority government. But his ability as prime minister ends with divide et impera. And the trouble with this tactics is it works only for Harper and his immediate clique in the Conservative party.

Ignatieff said something very similar at the Liberals' convention over the weekend when he sent a message directly to Stephen Harper. "For three years you have played province against province, group against group, region against region and individual against individual. When your power was threatened last November, you unleashed a national unity crisis and you saved yourself only by sending Parliament home.”

This, however, is not a mere political, partisan statement. This is a political analysis. But the phrasing is spot on, target audience is Canadian public at its most inclusive definition. Ignatieff is occasionally criticized for being too academic, too scientific and too elitist. He is all those things and it is appreciated where and when necessary. But in Vancouver he proved more-less conclusively that there is a different Ignatieff. The fact that the Conservatives are already targeting his international experience via viral Internet campaign is a definitive proof that Ignatieff and the Liberal party are on the right track. And the only alternative the Conservatives can offer is blatant nationalism.

Teasing the public opinion

2009-04-29T20:16:00.001-04:00

Few days ago I was going through old advertisements from the heydays of marketing when, apparently, nobody bothered to check the alleged studies and experts' opinions that were supposed to back up claims of the advertiser. Or use common sense for that matter. A 12-year old boy was beaming with pride and praise to his dad who got him a winchester rifle for Christmas. A soda giant advertised its caffeine and sugar-rich drink as good for the kids and babies telling mums across the US of A that the earlier they start pouring the beverage down their kids' tiny little throats the better; for the kids and mums alike. Nowadays, the technique is called “pushing” and what's grown up from the decaffeinated kids is called a “stereotyped American”. OK, a caricature of the concept. I also learned that, in the 1950s, more doctors smoked a particular brand of cigarettes.

Building on that great tradition of industry backed expert's opinions, Taser International sponsored studies showed that their stun guns are safe from medical point of view. That would be normal, in a very specific way. What's not normal by any stretch of imagination is that after several hundred Taser related death and independent expert opinionsns law enforcement agencies still refer to Taser International's studies in defence of the controversial stun guns use.

Public opinion was teased again this week when an cardiology expert who happens to be on the Taser International's payroll testified in the Braidwood inquiry into the death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski. Predictably, Dr. Charles Swerdlow said he didn't think Dziekanski's death was at all related to the use of a taser. It's not necessary to go into medical details, that's for the experts to decide. On the other hand, to base the opinion on the testimony alleging that Dziekanski had a pulse after being tasered 5 times, appears to be a little suspicious because A) it's a matter of minutes and B) people in coma have a pulse too.

The issue here is that the taser was deployed in a way that contradicted RCMP's own guidelines and, in an indirect way, to the Taser International lab tests since these involved neither a multiple use nor an police officer kneeling on the tasered person in a way that restrained breathing.

Swerdlow has an obvious conflict of interests but let his testimony stand. It is a great evidence of reluctance on part of both the manufacturer and the RCMP to provide independent tests' results and to accept independent experts. I just wonder what Dr. Swerdlow smokes.

Why Garth Turner's Sheeple matters.

2009-04-27T19:56:00.001-04:00

Accounts written by defecting spies are usually exponentiated to a power which increases with the rapidity of the fall of their former masters or how crushing the defeat of the country they denounced was. To get the approximate representation of what really occurred, one needs to reverse the process and take a root of their accounts.

Accounts of wranglings inside and outside boundaries of corridors of power also tend to bear that handle-with-care sticker. Churchill's autobiography is almost worthless as a history book but serves well as a psychological profile of the person when checked against what really happened. Which might be difficult because British historiography tends to lean towards producing political manifestos. A hero-by-accident writing about his life? A politician denounced by his own party taking out the dirty sheets? Seriously?

Former Canadian MP Garth Turner's book “Sheeple” would normally fall into that pitiful category – take a root of a number and wash thoroughly before, during and after use. But it doesn't. Why? Because the detailed account of the modi operandi of both the Conservatives and the Liberals a) doesn't reveal anything groundbreaking, b) it doesn't change a thing, c) it does nothing to advance the author's political career. Don't forget, Turner did not defected. He was thrown out from the Conservative party for being a Conservative.

Stephen Harper's authoritarian style of doing politics and handling communications is well known, Turner who basically didn't shut up when told so, merely lifts the veil from inner sanctum of the Conservative caucus. The very reason why Turner was kicked out of the party was what was already published. B) Long after Turner had left the Parliament Hill, the Conservatives still didn't change their ways and, following the September's general election, neither did the Liberals. As for the “c”, Turner was ostracized from the Conservative party, failed to get re-elected as a Liberal, but his livelihood doesn't depend on politics.

The book, however, is important, in what it points to or hints at – the deficiencies of Canadian political system. Be it the first-past-the-post voting system (Turner supports change to proportional vote) or the system of political institutions themselves. It may be argued that the current system has worked for years but it only takes one prime minister to exploit existing conventions in the caucus by fostering a public beta version of cult of personality or, at the constitutional level, by forcing the only constitutional brake to prorogue the parliament which declared it would bring the prime minister down.

It should have alarmed Canadians. But there is a profound lack of understanding of how the system actually works among general public, demonstrated by “we elected Harper as prime minister” mantra repeated by people with every possible political affiliation during the last year parliamentary crisis. The drive for a change is scarce among voters and unwelcome within the political elite.

It did “alarm” Turner, though. And this is what matters about the Sheeple, it's a statement about the state of the Canadian politics. Yes, the book is a political and a bizarre two-way partisan document which at the end comes out as anti-harperian. But in a different, mature, modern and more democratic political environment there would be no need to write it because, very likely, there would only be Stephen Harper, MP. Not PM Harper.

Pride and sense? Prejudice and sensibility?

2009-04-26T13:25:00.003-04:00

“As Canadian as ...” In the 70s, the CBC Radio asked its listeners to complete the sentence. Why do I write about what helps to define Canada? Well, it was a series of decisions made by Canadian authorities that mixed Canadian and foreign in a rather explosive ratio.

Awarding a contract to an overseas company when the domestic manufacturing sector struggles is like inviting Hannibal Lecter for dinner. The authority responsible for such an outrageous deed would surely be cut to pieces by almost every public figure and many a commentator would express their opinions in every medium imaginable. Which is exactly what happened.

Take the flag-gate, for example. Ontario's bureaucrats should have known better before placing an order for $1000 worth of Ontario provincial flags with a Chinese company. But let's do the math. A Toronto flag manufacturer sells a flag for $18 dollars. Ontario got them $13 a piece from China. It's 55 versus 77 flags. Problem solved. For the aforementioned bureaucrats, that is. There was a $1000 fund allocated in the budget and that had to be followed as the Scriptures. $1000 will not save the economy and, very probably, the fabric would be imported anyway.

In a similar case, latest batch of flag pins received by Ottawa parliamentarians was made in China. That had NDP's Heritage Critic Charlie Angus issuing a statement from which I quote: "The Canadian flag pin was manufactured by Canadian companies for decades. Now those jobs have been shipped overseas. As our manufacturing heartland has been gutted, the Conservatives have the nerve to use taxpayers' dollars to peddle 'Made in China' pins to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have lost their jobs. The symbolism of these Cadillac Conservatives couldn't be clearer." One can assume that the pin-gate was driven by the similar forces – saving money. Give them a credit, we may nag bureaucrats 24/7 but very often they're tasked (via budgets) to do the best with the very little by the same people who would later question their purchasing decisions.

Another unfortunate accident occurred in Alberta. The advertising campaign promoting the province used a picture of two kids running about a beach, which was later identified as a piece of Britain's shoreline in Northumberland. Advertising agencies around the world have access to millions images available via hundreds of commercial galleries and image banks. The picture in question was as non-descript and anonymous as possible and, frankly, can be used to promote pretty much any country. But, in this case, it was not promoting a location, it promoted an idea. Of course, it's hard for Alberta officials to fight opportunistic political opponents or patriotic busybodies who would almost certainly criticize Alberta officials had they decided to pay a professional photographer, a location manager and parents of two blond kids to take that perfect snap somewhere off the Alberta's oil rigs.

Is national (or provincial) pride taking over the bigger picture here? Does anyone think of a VW Touareg as of a Slovak car? No. Yet all Touaregs are made in Slovakia. If Made in Canada is essential to determine the nationality of a product and foster the concept of pride, then Toyotas from Cambridge, ON, and Hondas from Alliston, ON, are surely as Canadian as is Ford Flex from Oakville, ON, or Chevy Camaro from Oshawa, ON. In general, cars are a great example of twists of modern global economy. Ford Fusion's 2.5 liter engine is Japanese, essentially a rebadged Mazda's MZR engine. But a 3.7 liter V6 in Mazda 6 is Ford's. Modern day Saturns are badge engineered German Opels, or perhaps British Vauxhalls. On the other hand, we, the Europeans, never though of Chrysler Voyager as of an Austrian product even though it was assembled in that country (Graz) and, heaven forbid, it used an Mitsubishi engine. It was always an American car, symbol of the American car industry. A steering wheel in Chevrolet Malibu is exactly the same as the one in my Mazda and in tens of other models of other manufacturers. Rolls Royce will be British even though not a SINGLE part of the Phantom is made in Britain; everything is shipped from BMW in Germany, even leather is reportedly from Bavarian cattle. Bugatti Veyron was designed by … Jozef Kabaň, a guy from Namestovo, Slovakia.

Is the origin of a little piece of plastic or metal more important than the reason why a person wants to pin in onto their suit jacket? How many Ontarians knew whether flags decorating provincial edifices were or were not made in Canada? That beach photo's message was “come to Alberta”, not “go to whatever-shire”. What's the source of the pride of being a Canadian, Slovak or Ontarian? A piece of fabric? Or what it actually stands for?

Fortunately, people still sing Oh Canada! no matter how terrible the singer is. Truly in the spirit of the winning entry: As Canadian as possible, under the circumstances.

When politics seals the cause

2009-04-23T22:31:00.003-04:00

If you really want, you can come up with evidence to support or justify any theory, objective or cause. Inventing a suitable euphemism for a rather unpleasant activity is a good start. Traditional seal hunt becomes a “seal harvest”, for example.

Name aside, seal hunt is a controversial activity but, unfortunately, both sides of the debate often support their respective causes with less then honest arguments and ways of putting them forward. Those campaigning for the ban of seal hunt and the related merchandise tend to use heartbreaking imagery, including pictures of the techniques that are no longer used and the species (e.g. whitecoats) that can no longer be “harvested”. However, that doesn't relegate the fact that there are wild-life animals being killed en-masse for profit.

The pro-hunt defense is more complex though hardly sophisticated enough to pass successfully through both thorough scrutiny and opponents' review. The latest initiative came in the form of the “Universal Declaration on the Ethical Harvest of Seals” prepared by Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette, and endorsed by Gerry Byrne, MP, the Liberal fisheries and oceans critic.

Prepared by the team of, and I quote from the Senator's press release, “eminent scientists and experts”, it does have a feel of serious document and undoubtedly a solid scientific substance including data from environmental protection groups. The only trouble with politicians hastily harvesting expert opinions under the agricultural moniker is that their activity will very likely backfire.

And as such an activity, the Declaration has very little credibility.

It's not universal, as it claims in its title. It's Canadian. Canada accounts for most of the seals killed worldwide and therefore has the greatest interest in promoting the cause. Other countries that practice seal hunt were not consulted. The Declaration is aimed solely at the European parliament members who are about to vote on ban of seal products.

Another issue was presentation. During the introduction of the Declaration to the media, words such as “lies”, “misinformation” and “propaganda” were uttered with rather unsettling regularity in connection with the anti-hunt side of the argument. European parliament members could vote for the ban to “appease animal rights groups”. The same groups whose numbers are being used to justify the sustainability of the harvest. By the way, the use of the word “harvest” is an ammunition material for the anti-hunt camp and they often use within inverted commas. In other words, “harvesting seals” is a linguistic and euphemistic equivalent of the Japanese whaling for scientific purposes.

Canada usually emphasizes the “native” part of the seal hunt, portraying the activity as a natural part of lives of the northern communities. And rightly so, hunt and fishing has been their traditional way of life and source of nutrition, that's why the proposed EU ban would exempt Inuit hunting. Seal hunting is vital for survival of many northern communities. But again, there is significant difference between traditional seal hunt and industrial, for-profit, activity that is, somewhat ironically, called “seal harvest”. In this context, shifting attention to the historic and native heritage of seal hunt plays on emotions in the same way as a picture of slaughtered whitecoat and, frankly, can be easily, although perhaps unjustifiably, dismissed.

Which is not surprising given the fact that the presentation of the Declaration simply dismissed arguments of the dissenting parties, many of which are valid in the same way as those used in the Declaration itself. The document, scientific as it is, coated in environmental and sustainability furs with a hint of universal pedigree, remains a political initiative of the pro-harvest Canadian political scene.

Canadian Supertramps

2009-04-21T17:38:00.001-04:00

Announcement of Bank of Canada's new lending rate of 0.25% was as interesting as was the explanation behind the decision, shall we say, intriguing. “The global recession has intensified and become more synchronous since the bank's January Monetary Policy Report Update with weaker-than-expected activity in all major economies.” The Bank has also retracted on its optimistic recovery prediction and revised expected GDP numbers. In other words, the recession in Canada will be deeper than the Bank anticipated.

The thing is, though, that the recession will be exactly like most of economists expected. However, Messrs. Harper and Flaherty were busy listening to the Supertramp' Crisis? What Crisis? Album, breaking up the country, proroguing the Parliament and, apparently, sharing the aforementioned CD with the Bank's governor Mike Carney. He went through similar twist-and-turn of opinions as Canada's finance minister, first predicting almost rosy future and then, again with a considerable delay when compared to most economists, gradually proceeding to the realm of economic reality.

Maybe he, as well as Flaherty, stumbled upon the Breakfast in America album that features the famous Logical Song....

Scrap 'em all

2009-04-20T16:40:00.002-04:00

With most attention turned to General Motors and Chrysler respective falls, and the unions, new car dealers fell to obscurity, at least in the mainstream media. Canadian dealers struggle with the credit, or lack of thereof, as the banks are not very keen on financing the shop window of a failing industry. A side but important note: the current situation is not specific to the Detroit manufacturers' dealers. “Despite record-low interest rate reductions from Bank of Canada, commercial banks have not been open for business for months for our dealers. Thais is not acceptable or sustainable,” said Bill Taylor, the chairman of Canadian Automobile Dealers Association (CADA).

Canadian dealers are now pushing Ottawa to introduce national scrappage program. To be more specific, a program that would actually work because the current fleet-renewal incentive worth $300 will not make a difference. There is still a market for old bangers so why would anyone give up one for $300 if they could sell it for $400. Not to speak that one doesn't have to spend $300 towards a new car.

CADA is looking for a $3,000 per scrapped car program, which is comparable to incentives run by several European Union member states. CADA made actually a very good case presenting detailed outlines of EU scrappage plans. These all worked, with German and Slovak programs being particularly successful. CADA hopes that the available credit combined with scrappage incentives will revive automotive retail trade. There are 6.8 million cars older than 10 years in Canada, 2.8 million are older than 15 years so there's plenty of room for renewal.

It remains to be seen what will be the federal government's response. Ottawa has already provided loans (bailout) to the Detroit manufacturers operations in Canada and it may look as it already did its share. However, it's questionable to input money into manufacturing when the second piece in the chain, the dealers, have no resources available to buy what's manufactured, and the third piece, consumers, are thinking twice whether to buy a new car. What dealers are asking for is the environment that will allow that often trumpet and much touted concept of “keep the money flowing in times of crises” actually work.

Unholy CAW

2009-04-17T08:03:00.002-04:00

Unions have become an easy target for those looking for who to blame for the quagmire US automakers ended up in. Some say that Detroit Three have become major pension funds with car making as a side business. Sure, to the most of the automotive world, most of US cars indeed do look and drive as if a bunch of accountants designed them, but that's not the point.

Both UAW and CAW has been through series of tough negotiations with the Detroit Three during past year or so in a desperate bid to lower the overall costs of running the companies. Hard times didn't stop Buzz Hargrove, now former CAW leader, to humour members of the general public with claims that it's the imports that were killing car manufacturing in North America, a state of the affairs for which he blamed the respective governments.

The results achieved in the talks looked good at the time, but with GM on it's way to Chapter 11 and some serious restructuring being worked out to save what there's to save, and Chrysler looking half-doomed, calls for even more union concessions intensified. Canadian Industry Minister Tony Clement had to say just few key words to get the message across, such as April 30, taxpayer money and “I cannot do that”.

The warning came essentially only few hours after Fiat, generally regarded as the one and only possible salvation force, said it would walk off the taking over Chrysler if the labour costs in Canada are not slashed to $19. What Clement called a “logical position”, current CAW leader Ken Lewenza deemed “unreasonable” and said it was not going to happen. Buzz Hargrove had something to say, too. He trashed Fiat's CEO Sergio Marchionne and said something along the line that CAW negotiated costs are already lower than costs of Japanese car makers' operations in Canada because Japanese manufacturers' costs are higher in Japan. If you think that doesn't make sense, Mr. Hargrove failed to realize, among other things, that FIAT is not about to take over Honda nor does the Toyota's fate depend on Italian investment.

Chrysler tried to blackmail Ottawa and conditioned keeping its Canadian operations alive with a bailout. CAW's stance is similarly arrogant, the only difference is they have nothing to win and nothing to offer. CAW can only lose. Slashing costs and keeping what's left of Chrysler running is the highest price they can get. Fiat can act from the position of powerful. CAW cannot.

Are the IIHS and the NHTSA killing US car industry?

2009-04-14T17:46:00.000-04:00

America has rather peculiar approach to the car safety. Chrysler Imperial was the first mass produced car with the so-called Sure Brake system that was essentially an early take on anti-lock brakes derived from similar equipment found on aircraft. That was in the early 70s. Fast forward to late 2000s and you find Chrysler's flagship, the 300, offered without ABS at the basic trim level. Halogen headlamps were long illegal but HID lamps do not have to have self-levelling system installed so they're free to dazzle oncoming traffic. Degree of safety has been proportional to the price of the car which resulted in the notion of safety being a privilege, not the right.

But if that can be put down to oh-so-loved free market, the following cannot. Car safety regulations in the US are effectively controlled by car manufacturers (NHTSA) and insurance companies (IIHS).

The former is a federal authority, nevertheless the only apparent reason behind its existence is protection of the domestic car industry setting standards that are different from the rest of the world. Not to speak about the cost-benefit ratio used to justify why NOT to introduce a particular safety feature. Or any other advancement. In other words, saving lives and making driving safer is not as important as saving money. Even CAFE (fuel efficiency standards) are designed with Detroit in mind as it effectively takes SUVs out of the equation.

The IIHS serves the insurance companies and, as the April 14 report proved rather conclusively, domestic car manufacturers. The IIHS is known for devising weird (premium-friendly) standards but the latest really went too far. IIHS pitched mid-size cars such as Mercedes C-class, Toyota Camry and Honda Accord (in US specs, Euro-Accord is actually a Acura TSX) against Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit (aka Jazz) and Smart ForTwo – in a frontal crash.

The obvious and much trumped conclusion was that size and weight do matter. Aside from the fact that the tests had very little to do with real world, it's the selection of small cars that is most suspicious. All are imports. There is no subcompact or compact car made by a US manufacturers. Detroit, of course, relies on SUVs and full-sized cars and has no cars that would be able to compete with Fit or Yaris. Ford's Fiesta, which is based on Mazda2, still undergoes US testing, and small US cars are just laughable. The IIHS then tried to wrap all up into the fuel economy packaging by saying that small cars aren't really that efficient and suggested a diesel VW Jetta...

IIHS test does nothing to promote road safety or the fuel economy. It only fosters the the-larger-the-safer myth, that was proven to be wrong by 2003 Transportation Research Board study that concluded the following - “average midsize and large cars have same risk to drivers as average SUV, that safest subcompact and compact cars have same risk to driver as average SUV, that pickups and SUVs (and minivans) impose high risks on other drivers because of their incompatibility with cars, and that average subcompact and compact cars have similar combined risk as average SUV. It's all down to the fact that although heavy cars do generate more kinetic energy that can be fatal (to both involved parties) they also require more energy to stop and to maneuver which makes them more prone to be involved in an accident.

If both the IIHS and the NHTSA want to help US manufacturers, they should focus on scrapping insensible US regulations in favour of international ECE standards that are proven to lead to greater road safety. But to adopt a US point of view, saving money, ECE would allow Detroit to decrease cost of new cars development. Both GM and Ford have cars capable of competing with overseas manufacturers. But they have them in Europe and can't import them because of the protectionist system they helped to create.

Unions for the RCMP? Good idea.

2009-04-07T15:19:00.001-04:00

Most of those who dismiss the very idea of unionized workforce usually do not fail to utter word communism in the same sentence. Some of those who didn't forget to grow up mentally tend to associate unions with strikes capable of polarizing and paralyzing if not whole countries then certainly at least cities or industries. And even those who realize the importance of properly run unions often disregard the notion of unions being established within law-enforcement agencies where regulations and ranks are orders and orders are no supposed to be questioned.

But police unions do make sense. It always makes sense where power and politics often mix up. That's why even Formula 1 drivers form their own unions. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police's court victory has given the officers the right to form their unions, as judge deemed the restriction unconstitutional opposing generations of RCMP commissioners who, as The Globe & Mail kindly reminds, were afraid that “police unions would expose Canada to everything from creeping Bolshevism to politicized police”.

Paranoia crept in long ago, surely, the question is where does it originate now. Of course, Cold War thinking is alive and well within certain demographic defined more by mentality than sociological stratification. Even strikes are not a problem. The modern-day reasons for opposing unions in the RCMP stem from different soil.

There's nothing wrong with the command chain within the RCMP, or any other police force for that matter, on the contrary, it's perfectly logical within the scope of tasks and the nature of law enforcement or military organizations. But the very nature of a command chain makes it very difficult to raise valid objections even outside the immediate line of duty, such where safety, security, administration or filing and reporting are concerned. What can be even more disturbing, any otherwise sensible command chain can quickly turn into a very effective mechanism protecting higher and/or highest ranks at any given stage on any given level.

It's not only about whistleblowers or scapegoats. The ongoing British Columbia inquiry into the death of Robert Dziekanski revealed several instances of RCMP's own regulations being sidestepped or violated. RCMP unions will not only serve to protect the force's officers but will also bring more transparency and public control of Canada's most iconic and internationally recognized police force.

Been to show, will travel?

2009-04-06T11:15:00.001-04:00

Reviewing the success of a travel show is a tough job. What does one base the rating on? Number of visitors? Number of catalogs, posters and candies taken and/or given away? Nope. Can you count how many people actually purchased a trip? The fact is people were interested and came to the Travel & Vacation Show in Ottawa on April 4-5. It's impossible to quantify, but one can't discount an effect the neighbouring wedding show had on numbers and the demographic profile of visitors. To many, it was a distraction. To many others, it was an inspiration and after seeing wedding merchandise they went to pick their honeymoon destinations.

Anyway, despite the surge of wedding-addicts in the area, visiting Ottawa Travel Show was a pleasant experience. Canadian provinces, of course, dominated the floor, while African countries appeared to have the second biggest presence. I was somewhat surprised by the presence of European countries, or the lack of thereof. Strategically positioned next to the main entrance and neatly packed together were the New Europeans – Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and Romania (in this order). The quartet was divided right in the middle by the good old Blighty or, to be more specific, by a travel agency offering specialized tours mainly to Britain. Scotland and Ireland had their own stands, as did the Spain, Iceland and the European Union. The presence of the European unity was only slightly disturbed by the absence of a Polish representative (at least on the Saturday afternoon).

On the other hand, Slovak stand was well manned by Vladimir Wiedermann (Head of the Trade and Economic Section of the Slovak Embassy), Zuzana Eperjesiova, representative from the Slovak Tourist Board, and by Pavel Dzacko of the Slovak House and Renata Dzackova (Nitra Travel). The Slovak stand was decent in appearance yet not boring and certainly overflowing with every possible type of the feel-free-to-take-it stuff; overall well suited for the location and the importance of the event.

The indoor venue, Aberdeen Pavilion in the Lansdowne park, is a cosy Victorian building although a bit shabby in appearance. It used to host ice-hockey games and agricultural shows (hence the nickname “Cattle Castle”). But then, travelling isn't only about 5-star hotels. Unfortunately, as teams of exhibitors applied finishing touches on Friday, the skies opened and so did the roof and raindrops poured down quite happily on the merchandise. Mr. Wiedermann was less than impressed by the standards offered in a facility hosting an international travel show in the G8 nation capital. Fortunately, upon Mr. Wiedermann's complaint, one of the organizers offered to rectify the issue and promptly suggested supplying a bucket... Unfortunately, that only added to the sense of a small-town fair that hung in the air in the hall.

However, in spite of all the limitations of the location and the weather, Slovakia got everything it could from the show. And that's good thing.

Linguistically flammable

2009-03-23T15:19:00.000-04:00

Canadian minister of citizenship, immigration and multiculturalism Jason Kenney sparked a controversy when he suggested that people without a satisfactory command of English or French should be denied citizenship. Let's put aside the official bilingual farce, although, to be fair, speaking both languages does make sense in certain circumstances, for example, if a person happens to be an immigrant or wants to pursue a career in government.

Back to language tests. To demand a satisfactory command of the official and/or prevalent language is legitimate. Immigrants, in any major migrant destination, can spend their lives without the knowledge of English in some areas. Florida and China Towns are the most obvious examples. But the living is often reduced to survival as any involvement with the authorities requires help of other people. As a result, not knowing the language of majority confines individuals to their communities, limits their opportunities and fosters “ghettoization” if neighbourhoods.

On the other hand, authorities often make their announcements or application forms available in minority languages. The London borough of Tower Hamlets offered voter registration form and other documents and in many European and Asian languages. But while that can be viewed as a form of help and support, it also takes away an important opportunity for the new and old immigrants with poor majority language skills to become active members of the community beyond the borders of their language and culture.

Many of immigrants in Canada come from countries where even basic education is scarce and the opportunities to learn languages may be non-existent. The only way to learn English or French is to take a language course in Canada.

But the quality of teaching staff in various immigration centres is often questionable. An immigrant I know in Calgary went to English classes shortly after their arrival to Canada. Educated in Europe and fluent in three languages, they kept asking more profound grammar related questions such as “why is that”. The ubiquitous answer was “it's like just that, English has no logic”. Which is a) rubbish, b) proof that the “teacher” was not really a teacher of English but merely an English speaking person without necessary qualification and lack of pedagogical skills.

It's not an isolated case. In Canada and Britain, English language is not a part of standard school curriculum. English is reduced to teaching spelling and stylistics but it is not the same as teaching a language. People learn their mother tongue only by means of its everyday use. Asking an educated Briton or Canadian questions about an accusative or a plus quam perfectum (pluperfect tense) usually results in a pretty accusatory, i.e. dumb, look. Not to mention frequently misunderstood and thus potentially explosive “genitive case”.

According to the Conference board of Canada, about 40% of adult (working age) Canadians “do not have the literacy skills to cope with the demands of everyday life and work in modern society”. In other words, they are functionally illiterate. UN statistics from 2000 put Britain's illiteracy rate to approximately 20%. UK government says that 42% of children leaving school at 16 “fail to achieve a basic level of functional English”. According to Daily Telegraph, one in six British adults lacks the literacy skills of an 11-year old.

A friend of mine spent two years teaching biology at two prestigious private boarding schools in Britain. That was her main assignment. As a secondary one – she taught overseas students English as a foreign language. In Britain.

This emphasizes the fact that teaching English to people who grew up in a non-English environment requires different methods, qualifications and skills which, apparently, most of the native speakers do not possess as they had no opportunity to acquire them.

If the federal government in Ottawa wants to make the command of official languages a condition for granting an applicant citizenship, it must reconcile its two often contradictory policies – granting substantial semi-autonomous language-related cultural and religious rights on the one hand and its integration policies. Second task would be to improve language learning programs for both immigrants and the Canadians.

Unfortunately, things are not that simple. Even if immigrants do speak perfect English or French and can present official diplomas from their home countries, they are often required to pass language tests because Canadian authorities or private companies chose not to accept their foreign qualification in a given language. But that's a different story.

Ontario, Made in China

2009-03-20T14:12:00.000-04:00

Awarding a contract to an overseas company when domestic manufacturing sector struggles is like inviting a Hannibal Lecter for dinner. Ontario's bureaucrats should have known that before placing an order for $1000 worth of Ontario provincial flags to a Chinese company.

But who could blame them? The $1000 funds allocation in the budget has to be followed as the Scriptures. Let's do the math. A Toronto flag manufacturer sells a flag for $18 dollars. Ontario can get them $13 a piece from China. It's 55 versus 77 flags. Problem solved.

Ontario veteran legislator Peter Kormos (NDP) was very outspoken about Made in China flags and in the framework of national, provincial and emotional reasons found a spot for the alleged quality issue. Now, quality is a subjective thing, for example JD Power made fools of themselves this week after coming up with a survey stating that notoriously substandard Jaguars and questionable Buicks are more dependable than Lexuses... but that's another story. Topically equally interesting and equally pointless result-wise thanks to the JD Power's way of collecting “data”.

Bag to the flag-gate. Yes, a flag is a symbol. Nothing more. Manufacturing a thousand dollar worth of Ontario provincial flags in Ontario will not make a difference to the province's struggling manufacturing sector. Neither will populism and fiery rhetorics.

Amazing polar discoveries

2009-03-19T17:28:00.001-04:00

It's not clear who ought to be more happy. Polar bears or environmental activists? Canada, Greenland (Denmark), Norway, Russia and the United States declared that the global warming is the single largest threat to the remaining population (20-25,000) of polar bears.

A modest fanfare of the domestic press and WWF heralded Canadian signature on the updated version of 1973 Polar Bear Agreement for acknowledging both the global warming and the threat to polar bears: "The parties agreed that long-term conservation of polar bears depends upon successful mitigation of climate change." So far so good but not new. Changes to a particular species' natural habitat, no matter how induced, do affect the species' ability to prosper and survive. But then, it's better than nothing, and it's certainly newsworthy.

What's not so praiseworthy is the lack of a proper, concrete real-world follow-up to the declaration, there's not even an obligatory call to the UN. Signing up for monitoring and controlling industrial activities in the region is a matter of common sense not a Polar Bear Agreement update. Having said that, as nobody can say 'no' to a non-committing declaration interweaving the bears' survival with the global warming, the declaration makes polar bears, in a rather specific way, very lucky creatures. Unlike seals...

Web is 20. And, of course, Steve Jobs was there.

2009-03-13T15:46:00.001-04:00

These days, the Internet, to most people, is about fun, real or imagined), supposed content creation and self-exposure via sites like Facebook, countless blogs and other experiments in the so called “Web 2.0”. No matter how is the content being created, it's still the Internet. Web. Without version numbers. PC Mag's editor Lance Ulanoff, after being apparently off-track recently, has got things right.

Today's content may appear to be pathetic and the very vague online community may not be very serious about itself, but the beginning of the Internet was serious, meaningful and purposeful.

The wild and wonderful world of the World Wide Web was born in CERN, world largest particle physics lab in Switzerland. 20 years ago, in March 1989, Timothy John Berners-Lee drafted the “Mesh”. The proposal concerned, in Sir Timothy's own abstract “the management of general information about accelerators at CERN. It discusses the problems of loss of information about complex evolving systems and derives a solution based on a distributed hypertext system”.

CERN was, and still is, a top scientific establishment so it's not surprising that it used expensive and state-of-the-art computing technology, which also happened to be not just “put together” - it was designed. And expensive. Back in the late 80s and early 90s there was only one computer that would fall into all above mentioned categories. NeXT.

Internet as we know it now may be a side product of the original Mesh proposal, nevertheless, it was created on Steve Jobs's NeXT. In 1990, the NeXT Cube became the world's first Web server that went online. Like it or not, Steve Jobs was there when the Internet was created.

Women International, Inc.

2009-03-09T15:58:00.002-04:00

Gender equality is one of the greatest myths of the modern-day mankind... sorry, humankind, nope, that doesn't work either... But irony and differences stemming from obvious physiological differences aside, gender equality is still an objective. Or is it?

Countries around the world have been adopting pro-equality legislation for decades but with few notable Scandinavian exceptions, the results were mixed at best. Some countries, Canada for example, are actually taking steps back. Green Party leader Elizabeth May, speaking at the press conference on the heels of International Womens' Day on Monday, reminded that the Conservative government refused to accept recommendations of the Pay Equity Task Force to introduce pay equity legislation which would bring Canada in line with its both national and international human rights obligations. The Conservatives removed mandate to promote women's equality from the mandate of the governmental Status of Women Canada.

Another way how Canada, and many other western countries, roll back women's rights is through either allowing elements of alternative legal systems to sneak in or by not being tough enough in combating religious and/or cultural customs that often deny women basic human rights. Few Canadian provinces already recognize immigrant's polygamous marriages and there is a real possibility that it could become legal across Canada. There is evidence of Canadian doctors performing the so called female genital mutilation surgery. So called “honour killings” are a major problem in Britain's South Asian community.

International Women's Day has pretty colourful history. Despite rather universal values it stands for. In the USA and Canada, it used to be associated with communist propaganda, as a great deal of other UN sanctioned days. On the other hand, The Day was an important one in the feminists' diary. Communist countries, which, at certain point of history, took gender equality in many ways to much higher standards than Western countries, managed to turn the celebration into a huge party where men would get drunk in the workplace and (finally!) would leave women to enjoy few hours of male-free freedom. Apparently, self-titled neolibertarian kinder-capitalists in the post communist countries forgot to grow up out of propaganda and stereotypes and are still ready to shoot down or at least ridicule any political figure who would dare to publicly say something positive about The Day.

In Canada, they would run out of the ammunition in about two minutes because every major political party issued a statement emphasizing the importance of the gender equality. That doesn't change the fact that there's a gap the size of Atlantic between declarations and male reality shaped by politics dominated by personal attacks and ambitions that thrive in the undemocratic first-past-the-post system.

International Women's Day may have lost its feminist emphasis over the years but as our understanding of human rights changes and becomes more inclusive, so should our approach to women's rights. Ultimately, it's a political issue. And why no-one can force women to enter politics, there are ways to make politics a place that would be less hostile and would attract not just more women but more people which politics is about making their countries better places to live.

Canadian Babylon at 175

2009-03-06T18:45:00.001-05:00

There are many multicultural cities in the world, but none of them comes close to Toronto, the modern-day incarnation of Babylon. More than 100 languages are used in everyday communication by some 2.5 million people. Almost half of them was born outside Canada. The Babylonian make up provides more than appropriate background for the city's 175th birthday. Toronto, know as City of York at that time, was incorporated on March 6, 1834, with all its 9,000 inhabitants.

Over the years, Toronto has become a city which precedes Canada's ongoing shift towards multi-ethnic and multicultural and multi-religious country. While Quebec is officially francophone and Canada officially bilingual, Toronto is predominantly and unofficially multicultural. Poles once replaced Irish, and what was a Polish quarter in the 1970s and 1980s became a Muslim neighbourhood later as the influx of immigrants shifted from Europe to Asia and Africa. Still, as the experience of a friend of mine confirmed just last week, it's possible to spend a day in a city using only Russian. And, very likely, any of the major languages.

Toronto is often considered, not just by those who live there but also by the likes of Economist Intelligence Unit and Mercer, to be one of the world's most livable cities. It thrives whether it's because or in spite of its diversities. With the city being, in many ways, a proving ground for the whole country, let's hope it's stays this way.

GM needs stability of being bankrupt

2009-03-05T19:17:00.001-05:00

Bell tolls for General Motors. The company is burning cash at an alarming rate, $5.9 billion in Q4, $19.2 billion in 2008. GM has already received $13 billion from the US Government, it wants another $17 billion, but the survival plan the loan is based on is, in turn, based on sales. However, while all major car manufacturers' sales suffered in February, GM was the only company that saw more than 50% drop, 52.9% to be precise, even when adjusted for less selling days in February 2009 (24 vs 25).

GM is doing so badly that nothing can really hurt it more. Well, one thing can. The uncertainty if or when it will file for Chapter 11.

The case for bankruptcy grew stronger on Thursday after GM released the report made by auditors from Delloite & Touche who expressed their “substantial doubts” whether the manufacturer can sustain its operations. GM is offloading everything it can, Saab and Opel, for example, but the speed of its actions points to panic. Which is very catchy these days and the fact is that most of plans to sack tens of thousand of people coined overnight are not plans. They are emotional reactions. And when emotions prevail, it's no longer only about money, investments, markets and bailouts. That's why it's necessary to calm things down.

Which, for GM, means bankruptcy. Sure, it will mean rock bottom, but at least it will be a solid one.

The Mystery of Missing Turtlenecks

2009-02-28T18:54:00.002-05:00

Last year, I went through a litany over futile turtleneck hunt I embarked upon in Ottawa. With April and May being apparently months outside the turtleneck season, I spent the summer and the first half of somewhat reluctant autumn waiting. In the second half of November, I got my wallet ready, neck shaved, and off I went hunting to the Ottawa downtown. Which is about the size of Vatican. Anyway, to cut the long and painful story short, I came too early. I bet there are more turtlenecks around St. Peter's square at any time of the year. About two weeks after my first attempt, it was time for the mission no.2.

It started great. The Bay, black cotton turtleneck, $59.99. There was a small problem though. Apparently, on the designer's home planet, XL-sized people have heads 2 times larger and necks two times thicker than say, an S-sized folks. The most crucial part of the turtleneck was so big that if worn by a woman it would be way too revealing. Having found nothing in “designer” shops across the street in the Rideau Centre, I gave up.

Fast forward to the last day of February. Out of sheer boredom induced by the fact that a friend of mine endorses rather loose interpretation of time and space continuum, I decided to give it another try. The Bay? Two white and three black XXL-sized turtlenecks with neck parts so out of proportion they would make even me look indecent. Obviously, these were on sale. As this happens every year, why not order more of sizes people actually buy and less of those that are left hopelessly hanging on a piece of molded plastics. OK, sorry, that's economics already.....

Then I combed every single store in the Rideau Shopping Mall that appeared to sell men's garments. Most of them “don't do” turtlenecks. Few were already stocking spring collections which is funny because a) I don't think shorts qualify as spring clothing and b) it's end of February and it was -18 Celsius outside. Out of those, some shops confessed they actually did have turtlenecks “during the winter season”. “OK, when exactly was that?” was my question. “Well, we only had like few of them,” was the answer.

The highlight of the day was my very brief but truly memorable visit to the Sears. An amiable saleswoman directed me to a colleague of hers with obligatory “he will be able to help you”. The guy then took me to a stand and pointed out to an untidy pile of polo shirts. My objections were addressed by a question: “What do you mean by turtleneck”. Which is interesting because his compatriot, Chairman Mao, sported a suit with more than passing resemblance to my desired piece of clothing.

But it was far from over. On my way back I walked down the Sparks Street which used to be a famous shopping parade. Over the years, though, it turned to a charade comprising few banks, dozen of convenience “corner” shops inconveniently stuffed with every possible merchandise. Still, two garment shops of a family-business variety were still holding their ground and were open. And each of them had exactly one (that's 1) turtleneck available. One made of cashmere another of wool. Which are materials not really strong enough to withstand abuses related to my profession, e.g. questionable backrests on chairs in various media-rooms.

In the last shop, the one that stocked a woolen turtleneck, I chatted with its owner who, in a typical Italian sympathetic fashion, concluded my experience with: “This is Ottawa.” I guess it would be easier to just grow a turtleneck than it is to buy one.

Steve Jobs could save Detroit. Does he want to?

2009-02-27T10:10:00.001-05:00

Steve Jobs's return to the helm of Apple was nothing short of spectacular. The company was on the brink of collapse. Although the product lineup was not that bad it didn't really appeal to the general public and even creative professionals, traditional and traditionally loyal Apple customers were considering leaving the Mac camp. Today, Apple's products are the most copied in the industry and beyond; an iMac G3 like iron, anyone? Every so often a iPod/iPhone/iMac etc. killer appears only to become either an also-ran or, worse, a spectacular failure.

The situation Apple folks found themselves in the mid 90s is more than similar to the dire straits the Detroit Three find themselves in now. Following the firing of Jobs, Apple was poorly managed and almost didn't survive the onslaught of the Wintel platform although at the beginning of the 1980s it was on its way to dominance.

Detroit used to dominate America and the Big 3 moniker was well substantiated. Then came the years of mismanagement, dubious product line-ups, new technology was well, there wasn't anything new or revolutionary implemented for years, take multivalve engines as an example,... and quality went south. Also, the Detroit wasn't really making cars, as BBC's Jeremy Clarkson said, it was a pension fund with car making as a side business.

If the history doesn't repeat itself, it surely does rhyme in these two cases. So it's not really surprising that from time to time there's voice coming up suggesting that Washington should deploy Steve Jobs to get Detroit out of its quagmire. Those suggestions always alarm all car fans in America – obvious cars vs. computers jokes are fired, opinions suggesting that Jobs's cars would be expensive, made in China, run only on 5-7% of the roads etc. are voiced. Apparently, Jobs knows nothing about car making.

But does any of the current Detroit CEOs knows more about how to make, sell and market cars? Judging by the results and financial situation of GM and Chrysler, not really. Ford is doing a little bit better and doesn't fight for mere survival, but it's far from being safe. With Chrysler almost dead, let's focus on GM.

It's product lineup is abysmal, there are too many duplicates, too many brands, too many options. Technology is dated (hybrids do attract attention, but they are too marginal or too far away), degree of sophistication low, and although there are some flashy products such as sports versions of Cadillac models, they're not going to generate necessary sale levels. By the way, Cadillac used to be a luxury brand while Pontiac was supposed to be more of a sporty brand. But there was also a Chevy Corvette.... So why there are suddenly Cadillacs targetting BMW's M-series cars while Pontiac is about to become a niche brand. Saturn, a poor-man's GM, was supposed to be saved by rebranded European Opels, which A) had almost premium feel to traditional GM brands and thus B) were too expensive and not just for the budget brand.

Detroit has been sinking for few years now and if it hadn't been for the buy-domestic patriotism of the American public it could have been much worse. Yet nobody in Detroit had the will to change anything. Streamlining lineups and improving quality wasn't on cards either. It's so bad that Japanese cars manufactured in the U.S. or Canada can be made to lower standards than comparable models for the Japanese domestic market or Europe. To see what I mean try Canada-made Corolla or Civic and then compare them to Japanese European offerings. US Corollas' interior could compete with Romanian Dacias (now owned by Renault). The look and feel is very cheap. But they still feel better and better made than US cars. Europe's Honda Accord is sold as an upmarket Accura in North America. American Accord is, well, questionable.

All these issues, in their computing incarnations, had to be addressed by Jobs upon his return to Apple. But he did not hesitate to fire useless staff and cancel products that nobody bother to look at let alone buy. Mind, Apple was HIS company. Doing the same thing for a bunch of car manufacturers without the emotional ballast would be a piece of cake, wouldn't it.

The question is whether Jobs would be willing to accept the post of the Car Czar. Not likely. And not because of his health problems. No doubt he would turn Detroit into a prosperous company – even if he had to do it via cooperation with Toyota (think Microsoft Office for Mac). But he would be the most hated human being in the US, because pushrod and carburetor mythologies die hard. Car manufacturing in America is different.

The thing is that people at Apple trusted Jobs, his technological and marketing visions and plans. Call it blind faith, but it paid off. It's not that Jobs doesn't understand Detroit. I bet he does. He drives a Mercedes although he should considered rotary-engined Mazda RX-8, as a think-different statement. The problem is that Detroit wouldn't understand Jobs. It lacks the capability and the will to understand. If it didn't, there would be no need to consider Jobs for a job in the Motor City.

Sultan of swing or a marionette?

2009-02-26T14:48:00.002-05:00

Counting Jim Flaherty's fiscal pirouettes would be about as useful as counting on his economic expertise in a hope they would get Canada out of the economic crisis. A short recap. Canadian finance minister walked a long way from refusing even remote possibility of a budget deficit through his infamous economic update to the stimulus package. And he walked it pretty fast.

The $40 billion stimulus was supposed to be the Conservatives perfect answer to the storm. Now, the storm is perfect, according to Flaherty, “this is an emergency situation”. Globe and Mail, and I'm sure many others, rephrased Flaherty words as “dire straits”. Hence, Flaherty hurries things up and is willing to make mistakes just to get the stimulus package working as soon as possible. The same package which, in a way, exists only because the Conservatives needed it to stay in power. So why the sudden rush to implement its instruments?

The package could have been in the works and as a result could have been implemented much sooner had it not been delayed by the pointless politics of the November economic update and subsequent crisis which the Conservatives steered into, at that time, relatively tranquil waters of national unity debate. Or was it just a proof of incompetence on Flaherty's part? A country can't afford to have a finance minister who would, in about three months, swing from one extreme to another and take temporary occupancy of any imaginable position in between. Especially, if his opinions are presented as official government economic plans for the country. Prime Minister, being aware of this, would have sacked the sultan of swing by now. Of course, the general consensus seems to be that it was not Flaherty's plan but Stephen Harper's politics play in which Flaherty was just a human-sized marionette.

Did Harper play his game because he was, for one reason or another, in denial of the state of the economy? Or did he played it even though he was very well aware of what was going on? Both options are somewhat unsettling.

Mysterious invitation highlights deficiencies of Canadian political system

2009-02-25T18:17:00.000-05:00

Did U.S. President Barack Obama invite Canada's Governor General Michaëlle Jean to Washington or not? GG's spokesperson Marthe Blouin was quoted as saying that the US president would love to see the Governor in Washington. Since then, Ms. Blouin refused to comment on her own words. The PM's office refused to comment on that. White House refused to comment on that. Globe and Mail voiced “the word of government circles” that apparently opined that the spokesperson might have exaggerated what Barack Obama actually said.

Under normal circumstances, the matter would be clarified without much ado and delays. If the GG's spokesperson went overboard with her interpretation of what was said, it would only provide welcomed ammunition for the control-freaks in the PM's office to use in the supposed conflict between the GG and the PM.

But if the U.S. President had said just what Ms Blouin said he had there's nothing to clarify because the only party that exaggerated anything were Canadian media running in the overdrive induced in part by the Obama's visit and in part by the fact they got used to speculate as the information flow from the Harper's government is channelled with utmost care, i.e. very selectively.

Another point is that there wouldn't have been a mystery to solve if the Governor General had refused to grant Stephen Harper prorogation of the House of Commons, setting up a very dangerous precedent. And of course, none of that would be an issue if Canada had a modern and democratic political system where all branches of legislative and executive bodies have their powers and competences clearly defined and can control one another by checks and balances.

Bad PR exercise in damage limitation

2009-02-24T18:16:00.001-05:00

A taser to every police officer! The message that doesn't fall far from proteins-driven one-egg-per-day campaigns of the yesteryears would make sense in Detroit gangland and some may argue that certain quarters of Toronto would qualify as well. Unfortunately it came from Canadian Police Association (CPA) and Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) representatives in the middle of not just widespread public and expert debates but also during an ongoing Braidwood inquiry into the taser related death of Robert Dziekanski.

There was a lot of “setting the record straight” and “addressing inaccurate and incomplete information” talk from all speakers on Tuesday's press conference in Ottawa. The police are entitled to their opinion, and, let's face it with all irony, it's usually more acceptable to use a taser than a real gun. But that was never an issue. The only problem experts and the public share is the usage which appears to be rather arbitrary by sometimes trigger happy officers. The rate of taser is actually low, contrary to the popular perception. But blaming media as the CPA and CACP representatives did is not helpful. If a person dies after being shot with a taser, the story will be made public sooner rather than later and it's up to the police forces to handle it – even on the mass-media battlefield.

But the failure of police forces, RCMP for example, to admit flaws or even to agree to a public discussion was so prevalent, that both public outrage and media backlash were inevitable. Has anything changed on Tuesday? No. It was same old plethora of arguments many of which were on par with drug users advocating the use of their substance of choice or smokers advocating their “right” to smoke in public places because car fumes are much more poisonous. According to the police representatives, there are 150 studies on taser use and none proves that conducted energy weapons caused any death. But there is growing medical evidence that they do contribute to fatalities, with or without using “excited delirium” as a supporting argument. Comparing tasers' effects to those of a batonor a pepper spray and claiming that tasers do not require any more oversight as bbatons sprays or weapons is flawed. Yes, a person may die as a result of Custody Death Syndrome even without force used against them. But that's hardly a point.

Both Chief Tom Kaye of the CACP and Charles Momy, CPA's president, suggested that tasers should not be used in cases of “passive resistance”, in other words, as a compliance device. Which are exactly cases that outraged the public the most – 14-year old girl tasered in a cell, a pensioner on a hospital bed or Robert Dzienkanski for that matter. Walking away and grabbing a stapler is hardly an active and dangerous resistance.

Had the police representatives came out and only said that they wanted to improve reporting and make it consistent across the country and ban the use of tasers as compliance device, they would have undoubtedly eased the tension. But no. Admitting fault is not in the PR guidebook which is all what Tuesday's press conference was all about. Instead, tasers-are-not-lethal mantra was stepped up with a taser-to-every-officer slogan. Which is a classic PR stuff.

There's one problem with that. Police is a public service, not a corporation and the only PR they are supposed to do is through their work to make sure they earn public support and trust. People don't want to see police officers doing PR to protect police's interests a) in the media and b) during a major investigation. Which was exactly what Canada saw on Tuesday. It was nothing but a PR exercise in damage limitation. And a bad one, for that matter.

Blind faith or spend-to-save confidence?

2009-02-23T15:43:00.001-05:00

Retail trade in Canada wasn't really booming in the second half of 2008 and December was particularly bad. Most of the 5.4% slump was down to the automotive sector, especially new cars dealers, whose sales declined 4.7% in 2008. Retail is a mixed bag of volumes, prices, consumer preferences and, of course, sometimes elusive concept of consumer confidence.

Canadians who bought their cars in October (so far the last month during which new motor vehicle sales posted an increase) were thought to be overconfident given the state of the economy and falling stock prices (and their investment accounts, too). October new cars sales were more-less the only bright moment in both retail sales and consumer confidence as both have been falling almost in unison for the past few months.

However, it may not be that bad in the upcoming months. For a start, Statistics Canada preliminary data suggest that January's new car sales will rebound by 6%. While most manufacturers reported year-over-year decreases in January, following abysmal December sales any increase will be a good news not to mention the fact, that January tends to be the weakest sale month. Any increase, in turn, will positively effect retail sales (fingers crossed).

Harris-Decima poll published on Monday just after the retail trade numbers supports the statistics. Confidence in economy rose from December to February to 67.0 which is the highest index has been since August last year. While in December, only 35% of Canadians thought it was a good time to make a major purchase, 50% thought it was a bad idea, as most car dealers would confirm. The bad-idea camp still wins in February but the margin is down to mere 2 per cent (43% - 41%). 27% of Canadians believe they will be better off in a year, which is a major improvement over December's 20%. Bleak future is foreseen by 13%, down from 18% in December.
Interestingly though, 59% still await bad times for the economy. Although it's down from 64%, it doesn't really scream out an expression of confidence in the economy, especially when only 10% of those polled said there were good times ahead for Canadian economy in 2009.

“Restored consumer confidence is an important factor in any potential economic recovery” said Debbie Ammeter, Vice-President of Advanced Financial Planning at Investors Group, as quoted in the Harris-Decima release. The question is whether the confidence is based on blind faith in economy (or something else) or on believing everybody who tells them that spending money will save the economy. Or are Canadians just being, well, Canadian about it? That is, as Canadian as ... possible, under the circumstances.

Is Harper in for a lesson from Obama?

2009-02-17T20:54:00.000-05:00

Apparently, everybody who has grown a mouth in Canada has something to say about the upcoming Barack Obama's visit to Ottawa. Among the cacophony of voices are, however, few with a point. And an agenda. Or, to be more specific, an idea of what the agenda of the US president should be.

Take Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and their report penned by Bruce Campbell, CCPA's Executive Director. According to the CCPA, the net effect of Canadian stimulus package (worth $40 billion) will be only 0.7% of the GDP, which is quarter of the US package. The budget and stimulus package, though approved by the House of Commons, are more the products of political and economic necessity than general consensus, and it's in a way normal that the Centre for Policy 'Alternatives' (emphasis mine) does not approve of the government's work.

The CCPA concludes that the conservative government of Stephen Harper is taking a “free ride” on the US stimulus package. In other words, relying too much on the effects US package would have on Canadian economy. Given the “highly integrated and asymmetrical nature of the two economies”, a fancy way of saying that Canadian economy is totally and utterly dependent on the US economy, it will certainly have an impact. Moreover, it will not be limited to the effects of the remnants of “Buy American” clauses, initially inserted into the package by congressmen seriously challenged in geography, economics and common sense. To sum up, CCPA would like to hear Mr. Obama saying to Mr. Harper to do his bit in North American economic recovery.

In the same way, Climate Action Network Canada wants the US President to deliver a lecture on the environment. Stephen Harper has been know for having a very good mutual understanding with both oil industry and George Bush. The latter is now gone resulting in what only few months ago was an unlikely scenario. US President pushing for tougher environmental standards and really meaning it. Which is something that Stephen Harper is not very keen on doing.

In the past, under very different circumstances, Harper could afford to dismiss all similar suggestions coming from inside of Canada. Which was exactly what he did. The problem wasn't with what all the NGOs, think-tanks, networks and centres were saying, but their suggestions were almost always delivered in a highly academic tone and were, again almost always, highly politically charged. That gave Harper room not for discussion but for dismissing them in an instant.

The way of delivery hasn't changed. What changed, though, is the US policy which now, in essence, corresponds to what Canadian groups has been pushing for. Harper can afford to play politics in the Canadian parliament and outside, but can't afford to play the same game with the current US administration. Certainly not on the fields of energy, environment and the economics. Well, Harper can. But Canada cannot.

Conquering West or conquering rural Canada?

2009-02-16T15:39:00.003-05:00

While some people were busy falling in love over the Valentine weekend, Canadian Liberals revealed their crush on the West. Or at least that was the idea. Michael Ignatieff went to Saskatchewan, for the first time as the leader of the Liberal Party, with the clear message. The party must embrace the West, it cannot afford to succumb to temptation to run against it, against what it represents. Which means, cowboy values aside, the energy sector, oil sector, drilling and perceived capitalism.

Ignatieff has very good reasons for the love-thy-enemy approach. Poor showing in the last federal elections cost the Liberals 26 seats in the House. They lost Ontario, which certainly hurt, but west of the Canada's largest province they managed to get exactly 7 seats – one in Manitoba, one in Saskatchewan and five in British Columbia. And, of course, zero seats in Alberta. Of course, the seat math distorts the real vote distribution due to the natural democratic deficit of Canadian first-past-the-post election system. Proportional vote would have resulted in a very different House of Commons.

Still, the Liberals would have lost. The Green Shift, or carbon tax plan, which was the lead of the Liberal's campaign didn't go down well in oil-rich provinces, for a start, not many people really knew what it was all about and second, it came from the Liberal party, therefore it is probably a socialist idea trying to undermine western capitalism. There's no love lost and, occasionally, there are talks about Western Canada splitting from the rest of the country. Many dismiss the idea as too marginal, others say that it's not meant for real anyway, and point out to the Quebec's secessionist movement instead. With the Bloc Québécois, it is rather simple. Everybody agrees it's a one province party. They don't campaign outside Quebec so while other parties' leaders and candidates are busy flying across 4 and half timezones, Bloc's folks are enjoying bus trips within the province.

The Bloc Québécois is the only province-based party but they're certainly not the only regional one. The Conservatives dominate in the West and while they're not a single-region party, the West is certainly a single-party region. Unlike Quebec with surprisingly inspirational popular vote distribution (Bloc – 38.1%, Liberals – 23.7%, Conservatives – 21.7%, NDP – 12.1%). Compare that to Saskatchewan (Conservatives – 53.7%) and Alberta (Conservatives 64.6%)...

The Liberals were pushed, with the great help from themselves, out of the West. But they also lost touch with the most of Canada. With few exceptions, their main sources of votes were city centres. Urban jungle seems to be the winning battleground but there's still Canada beyond the downtown quarters.

That Canada is very different. It may not have the western energy mentality, but it's certainly less academic about everyday life. Embracing the West is good, but embracing Canada would be even better, for the Liberals and for the country. Michael Ignatieff, the impersonation of intellectual powers and academia, must find the way how to embrace the whole country without becoming Stephen Harper in the process.

Bus service is running like a well lubed machine again

2009-02-08T21:26:00.004-05:00

Do you know why Ottawa's buses are free until February 15?Apparently, the bus drivers and/or the union leaders took advantage of the promotion of one the Ottawa's adult shops.

Although, the first bus I saw on Saturday was being towed away. Broken.

Tale of four leaders

2009-02-04T14:00:00.002-05:00

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper did a perfect job in the past few weeks. For the most part of the time, he kept himself to himself. It may be hard to quantify the effects, nevertheless, it was a significant contributor to seemingly seamless sail the government had in paving a parliamentary road for the budget. Canada's financial plan that forecasts a $33.7 billion deficit in 2009/10 fiscal year was passed by the House of Commons on Tuesday evening with only New Democrats and Bloc Québécois MPs voting against.

This is where things get interesting. OK, Harper got it right. Not necessarily when it comes to the budget itself because, thanks to his attitude and passion for power games, Canada lost few crucial months in getting the country's finances adapted to the challenges of global economic crisis. But in the post-prorogation weeks, he stayed quiet. The proverbial bitter pill was digested during the winter break and Jim Flaherty partook most of it anyway. But it doesn't mean that Harper lost control of the party.

Bloc's Gilles Duceppe did his job perfectly, he stands for his party and Quebec. In fact, being in the opposition and representing his province, he couldn't get it wrong.

Now, Jack Layton... By voting against the budget, even the New Democrats' leader behaved as expected, but only from his partisan point of view. Few hours after Michael Ignatieff, a fresh leader of the Liberal Party, announced his semi-conditional, probational support for the budget, NDP launched an attack against Ignatieff. That was short sighted at best. Yes, Ignatieff appeared to have reject the idea of the coalition, but Layton decided to kill it off. Lack of maturity? Or just an example of petty partisanship?

There was more to the NDP-Liberal coalition than just the need to get rid of Harper, but that was apparently beyond the reach of Jack Layton. If only he could get up from his kitchen table for a while...

Finally, it was Michael Ignatieff who did the best job in the most complicated circumstances. There was the budget, then the coalition and finally Liberals' MPs for Newfoundland and Labrador, a classic example of a conflict between the interests of a party and those of the MPs' constituents.

Ignatieff managed to get the most of everything. He forced the Conservatives to submit themselves to the regular scrutiny, which is significant given the fact that they still have minority in the House of Commons. Using words such as “ransom” or “gunpoint” may be slightly overboard but, at the same time, let's not forget that the Conservatives voted for the Liberals' amendment.

As for the Coalition, it was supposed to be a second option and was supposed to stay hanging around as potential threat. It's regrettable that short-fused Layton didn't get it, but given his eagerness, he still may jump on board if the opportunity to form a coalition government re-appears.

Finally, by allowing Newfoundland and Labrador MPs to vote against the budget, Ignatieff confirmed, that unlike the Conservatives, the Liberal Party is not the party that revolves around a single man with, at times disturbing, authoritarian tendencies. Allowing the vote was, according Tom Flanagan, Harper's former advisor, a sign of weakness. “Harper would never do something similar,” said Flanagan as quoted in the Globe and Mail.

Yes, he wouldn't. And that's the most important thing. Enforcing the vote on the six MPs and alienating the province's electorate would have done much more damage to the party. All mature political parties do contain factions but their leaders tend to have enough common sense to keep the party united when it really matters. Ignatieff's decision didn't change the outcome of the vote, in other words, it didn't really matter how the “rebelling” MPs voted. In the whole budget tale, Newfoundland issue is the only Harper's victory.

To sing or not to sing

2009-01-30T20:42:00.002-05:00

Is singing of a national anthem on every school morning an act of true patriotism? Or is it a perfect example of sunshine patriotism? Does it make people more loyal to their countries? Does it make them more Canadian or American? Does an anthem stand for a country? Its people? Or political ideas and/or personal beliefs associated with them?

Most of Canadian kids, or kids in Canada, start they school day with the anthem. It's not mandatory, but most schools stick to the daily ritual. But lo and behold, Belleisle Elementary in New Brunswick's Springfield abolished the practice after some parents expressed their wishes that their children do not participate at singing. It triggered accusation of political correctness running wild (courtesy of Conservative MP Keith Ashfield) and another Tory MP, Mike Allen, said that there was nothing more inclusive than Oh Canada.

Oh really?

How inclusive is a national anthem that has two language versions with two very different meanings.

English (official)

O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide, O Canada,
We stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

French (official) – English translation

Ô Canada! - O Canada!
Terre de nos aïeux, - Land of our forefathers
Ton front est ceint de fleurons glorieux! - Thy brow is wreathed with a glorious garland of flowers.
Car ton bras sait porter l'épée, - As in thy arm ready to wield the sword,
Il sait porter la croix! - So also is it ready to carry the cross.
Ton histoire est une épopée - Thy history is an epic of the most brilliant exploits.
Des plus brillants exploits. - Thy valour steeped in faith
Et ta valeur, de foi trempée, - Will protect our homes and our rights
Protégera nos foyers et nos droits - Will protect our homes and our rights.
Protégera nos foyers et nos droits.

One may question political correctness, patriotism of those who have issues with singing the anthem, their religious motifs and even reasons why they came to Canada in the first place. But if somebody feels the need to sing an anthem every morning, they may as well do it in the privacy of their own home. Forcing somebody to sing an anthem will not turn them into a patriot. Why not organize an anthem singing session every morning in the school gym and give kids and their parents freedom to participate or opt out?

But the real issue shouldn't be whether to sing or not sing. Even if every single human being in Canada sang the national anthem every morning, it wouldn't make the country more united. The anthem would be still sung in two languages, by two communities, each wowing to protect something else. But it's easier to discuss a marginal issue than to deal with the real question.

Don't panic. For now.

2009-01-29T18:54:00.000-05:00

When IBM announced the deal about selling its PC division to the Chinese company Lenovo, few members of US Congress switched into a panic mode. IBM, computers, China ... that sounds like US national security would be under threat any time soon. Sheer patriotism and national security concerns bordering on stupidity are never good advisors, but the Congressmen talked until somebody hushed them down arguing that IBM hadn't made a PC on the US soil for ages.

Fast forward from 2005 to 2009. US stimulus bill worth $819 billion triggered alarms around the world because one of its stipulations (in the House of Representative's version) forbids using non-US produced iron and steel. According to the Washington Post, Senate's version allegedly requires the use of only US made goods and equipment, with only few exceptions.

Ottawa is very afraid, naturally. US is Canada's largest trading partner, by a great margin, in other words, Canada's economy depends on the American one. Canadian House of Commons' question period was abuzz with phrases such as US protectionism and Canadian lobbying in Washington.

Yes, the situation is serious but it's hard to imagine that the bill would be as restrictive. Apparently, US companies are worried too. US-made goods and equipment are very scarce now and, steel aside, it will be impossible to get anything started let alone done. Let's hope that the US lawmakers on any level will act rationally and come to terms with reality. It's 2009 and the US simply can't exist without imports. Nobody can.

Striking Canada

2009-01-22T17:58:00.001-05:00

France has the image of a country, where workers strike more than they actually work. Yes, they work less than their US counterparts, but, according to the OECD 2007 estimates, France GDP per hour worked as a % of USA's was 100.6%. Not that this is in any way relevant... Unions go on strike everywhere, not just in France.

But who would have thought that a French way of striking can serve as a good example. Bringing Paris to a halt for a few days makes a point and both unions and the other party are usually smart enough to negotiate 24/7 and come up with a compromise. Alienating the public for too long would be counterproductive and would hardly win more support for the unions and the political party that's in charge of the city or the country. Even the wide-spread November 2007 strike was over in 9 days. It was a strike against reforms that were supposed to change France's work and pension systems in a very dramatic way.

In Canada, they do things, obviously, differently. Ottawa's transit strike entered its 44th day on Thursday. And apparently, even if the strike ended now, it would take two weeks to resume full service – on 70% of routes. Ottawanians had miserable Christmas and New Year's celebrations, commuting, which is always a challenge in snow laden Ottawa at -20 degrees Celsius was hell. Taxi drivers, on the other hand, are having a party. Formal negotiations haven't taken place since December 23. Informal talks are, apparently, way to go.

Meanwhile, in Toronto, University of York's students had a great time. Union members of the staff went on strike on November 6, academic activities were suspended and 50 thousands students out of class, seriously jeopardizing not just their studies but also their prospective careers. Negotiations between university and the unions ended on January 9.

Both cases show that neither of the sides cares much about the consequences their respective actions have on the outside world, on those who depend on services they pay for, be it education or transport. A few day strike usually means that the public can blame either unions for raising unacceptable demands or the employer for making unacceptable proposals. There's a winner and a looser. But in the cases of Ottawa transport and University of York strikes, the only losers are tens of thousands of innocent students and commuters.

There must be heads rolling. The question is, who has the authority and who has the will.

FIAT voluntas tua

2009-01-20T19:54:00.000-05:00

Rover, now a defunct British car manufacturer, was known as an English patient. Chrysler is on its way to be come an American one. The smallest of the Detroit 3 was bailed out in 1979, tried an alliance with Mitsubishi, bought several small European manufacturers such as Rootes and Simca…. and sold them away. In 1998, Chrysler merged with Daimler, to be more precise, it was taken over by the German manufacturer. The marriage felt apart and Daimler sold 80% to Cerberus, a private equity group. The troubled manufacturer then entered into the partnership with Nissan in an attempt to gain access to small and fuel efficient vehicles. Sale of its Jeep division and even merger with General Motors were also on cards.

Finally, Fiat got the scoop. The Italian manufacturer will get a 35% stake in Chrysler and there’s an option for another 20. The deal, however, seems to be rather unbalanced in practical terms. Yes, Fiat will have a share in one of the Detroit 3, essentially for free, but given the fact that Chrysler has been in an automotive hospice for some time now, it doesn’t seem like much. Fiat’s Alfa Romeo has been contemplating return to the US but Alfa is a niche brand. Return of Fiat itself would make little sense given the huge slowdown of the US car market. Even if Fiat’s small cars could have appeal, Asian manufacturers and even Ford and GM are much better positioned as both can rely on its European operations. VW is bringing Polo stateside.

It’s Chrysler that’s apparently going to benefit – it will gain access to Fiat engines, it’s dealer networks and markets, although the question is is, who would be interested in Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep cars. Most crucially, Chrysler gains backing in its bid for the government bailout as it asked for $7 billion and got only $4, and Fiat’s support and expertise in restructuralization. There’s also a usual business of platform sharing too.

How will Fiat and Chrysler partnership work? For start, there are quality and reliability issues. In the German Auto Bildt TUV’s 2009 reliability report based on inspection of more than seven million cars (at least 10,000 of each model), in the 2-3 year-old category, the best Fiat car (Panda) ended up on 90th place, Chrysler PT Cruiser on 115th. And it’s not that the survey is biased to favour German manufacturers, the Top 11 features 7 Japanese cars, two are directly derived from a Japanese car and the other two are Porsches. At the moment, the deal makes more sense for Chrysler than Fiat. In the long term, it doesn’t make sense at all. Fiat voluntas tua. Thy will be done…

Is Flaherty doomed?

2009-01-14T20:45:00.000-05:00

Canadian finance minister Jim Flaherty has been busy using the controversial parliamentary break to stitch together the federal budget and the stimulus package that are supposed to steer Canada away from recession. It will not work that way. Following pretty much every economist in the country (sans the Conservatives' flock), Conference Board of Canada, an Ottawa based think-tank, released its own gloomy prediction for 2009.

The Board expects all major indicators to move significantly – in wrong directions. Unemployment rate is supposed to shoot over 8%, house prices will drop 10% in 2009. Low commodity prices and major slowdown of the US market will contribute to the expected shrinking of national economy. On the same day, Parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page warned Canadians to expect at least five years of budget deficits.

This added an insult to the Flaherty's injuries, such as his pathetic deficit u-turn, subsequent denial and the legendary explosive economic update. Judging by his election and post-election record, Flaherty is either incompetently out of touch with the real world or he let his boss, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, to use him for rather questionable political objectives. Canadian political commentators discussed the possibility of Flaherty's voluntary or involuntary departure from the government at the beginning of parliamentary dispute. The same question should be on cards today. Flaherty's reluctance to go and Stephen Harper's unwillingness to sack him only reinforce the impression that hangs above the Conservative party from the days of election campaign – they have no idea how to deal with economic crises. Sure, sacking Flaherty will not save Canadian economy from recession but at least it would save Harper's face. But does he care?

Canadian president

2009-01-13T20:44:00.000-05:00

On the night of Barack Obama's election victory, thousands of people flooded streets across the United States. The morning after, it was impossible to book a room for the inauguration weekend in Washington and its very broad neighbouring area. Everybody wants to be a part of history and, apparently, people are willing to shell out 5-figure sums to get the ticket, CNN reported a $20,095 price tag. Busloads of people from all over the United States are expected in Washington.

Interestingly, many of them will come from Canada. Yes, Washington is close, or at least closer than from the rest of the world. But Canadians' interest in inauguration also reflects their pre-election behavior. Many chose to watch the US vice-presidential debate and ignored Canadian election debate taking place in Ottawa. Election turnout fell to a historic low. Canadians couldn't be more uninterested in what happens in their own country.

Do they feel that the US election have more influence on Canada than the domestic vote? Or do they miss a fatherly figure of US presidents on the Canadian political scene? Harper may be charismatic and populist enough to attract Western Canada but that's about it. He's not Obama. In spite of that, as shown by the parliamentary dispute and the following political crisis triggered by Harper himself, even opposition supporters lined behind Harper ready to defend his perceived right to govern. That was totally irrational since this public outrage was based on a severely distorted view on how a multi-party parliamentary democracies tend to work. And, more shockingly, how their own political system works.

Canadians simply projected the values and principles of the US political and election systems onto the Canadian politics. False expectation led them to forget that a US president, as the most powerful part of a government, is balanced by Congress. Sure, most Canadians would like to see an Obama clone in charge. But to achieve that, they ought to spend more time paying attention to their own country. Or have they already gave up?

Detroit Electric City

2009-01-12T21:39:00.003-05:00

Detroit is interesting in many ways. For a start, the city has kept it's French name, although the pronunciation was heavily anglicized. Playing on the mythology of the French-US antagonism, it's ironic that symbol of American automotive industry, famous for it's huge, sometimes innovative and not very reliable cars was, sports a bit of Frenchness, bit of a country famous for it's small, sometimes innovative and not very reliable cars.

Detroit, the motor town, was home of Motown Records, which was a company that, in the 60s and the 70s, mainstreamed what was traditionally a black music, soul, funk, rhythm and blues. These genres relied heavily on electric bass lines and later reinvented themselves in forms of disco, rap and hip hop, that relied on heavy use of electronic instruments.

It worked.

Motoring Detroit is trying to reinvent itself in a similar fashion. I'm using the word 'fashion' on purpose because what is going on in Detroit is a desperate damage-limitation exercise both public relation- and production-wise.

Detroit motor show is full of electric this and electric that. The atmosphere of impending doom is charged with electric concepts that are supposed to be a green alternative to gas-powered cars. The alternative that is, at best, greenish. Not so long ago, ethanol was hailed as the green fuel but the only green thing about it was what it was made from – crops. The problem with electric powered cars is that they're not really green. Yes, plugging it in and recharging overnight sounds great and there's no CO2 emissions coming out from the exhaust pipe. But the electricity needs to be produced first and burning coal and natural gas isn't really emission-free. And the batteries used in hybrids aren't cheap to make either.

Most of the concepts are exactly that, concepts, not expected to hit showrooms any time soon. Their only purpose is to show that the Detroit Three are doing something to justify the bailout. In this way, no matter how subdued, low profile or electric Detroit 2009 is, it's the same old Detroit of the yesteryear. Showing off without much substance and no real plan. Just hastily trying to patch things up.

Ignatieff's dilemma

2008-12-09T18:59:00.004-05:00

At last, the Liberals got something right. They actually let the best candidate to lead the party. Dominic LeBlanc's withdrew from the race on Monday, Bob Rae followed on Tuesday. That leaves Michael Ignatieff with no-one to run against. Which is fine because he was the best of them anyway.* The question is why it has taken so long.

Liberals' coalition partner, the New Democrats, seemed to be relieved after the leadership mess has been cleared. But what about the future of the Coalition? Ignatieff's attitude towards the idea is generally described as “lukewarm”.

Should he foster the idea and keep the coalition alive? The treaty, albeit a document enforced under unusual circumstances, is not just a scrap of paper and should be honoured. How it is implemented in the world of real politics is another question. The Coalition makes sense from the perspective of bringing the Conservative government of Stephen Harper down. But what will come next? The Parliament will resume the session on January 26, 2009, more than three months after the election. Bringing down Harper's government, as was planned, could result in the coalition being asked to form the Government, but it can also trigger new election. After the last week decision to grant Harper the prorogation, it's very difficult to predict how the Governor General would react.

The new election would give advantage back to the Conservatives and could potentially ruin the Liberals financially. But should the Coalition keep Harper in power? That would potentially ruin the Liberals politically. Should they go on and rely on the GG to sack Harper and ask the Coalition to form the government? Ignatieff will have to be careful.

(Written for World Business Press Online)

* Ignatieff for ... the Liberal Party leader

Hollow Men of the Liberal Party

2008-12-08T22:14:00.004-05:00

Stéphane Dion is stepping down. Again. I think only Bill Gates announced stepping down more times, using a “salami method” to slowly, gradually, post by post, withdraw from the company he loved so much, the company damned so many times by too many. Each time, most of the press provided backing vocals singing praises and preaching the gospel of Gates.

Dion's second departure, sort of announced on Monday, will be less pompous, think of whimper, not of a bang. The world will not end, only the hollow men of the Liberal party will have less time to think about the future of the party they helped to damage.

After the federal election on October 14, Dion announced he would step down. In May. Inexorable logic of political cause and the effect, however, suggests that the unsuccessful election leader steps down immediately If he did, the Liberals would have had one less problem to solve. But it's all academic now.

Dominic LeBlanc, Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae showed the much needed unity in the hour of need and supported Dion on the day the Coalition agreement was signed. And they should have maintained that position whether the parliament was prorogued or not. From a few-days distance it seems they could have delay the leadership race until after the overall political situation would have had stabilized, but who could have known that the Governor General would throw democracy out of the window and give prime ministers powers to shut down parliament any time they'd face a no-confidence vote.

Still, while the Liberals' enemy was tearing the country apart alongside anglo-franco and east-west lines, instead of showing the much needed unity of the party for the sake of the country, they went on to squabble over the leadership. Yes, supporting Dion wasn't the first choice of many, but it would be lesser of two evils. That's what parties do to show the unity and to come to power. It requires both maturity and ability to control one's personal ambitions. When forming coalitions, people swallow their prides, forget past fights, but apparently it's easier to forgive your political opponents than to get on with your party comrades.

The Liberals had the chance to use the parliamentary crisis to renew the sense of leadership they shattered during the federal election campaign. Instead, they're using the salami method to deconstruct their own party. After arguing over the leader, they are now arguing over how to chose one. Instead of debating policies, they debate the ways how their party should work.

This makes Prime Minister Harper the happiest person in Canada. It's not that he managed to beat the Liberals, his political genius stems from him being an opportunistic authoritarian rather than a brilliant super-strategist who “planned all of this”. The Liberals made him blink, blink big, and then stopped mid-way. Harper didn't really win, but the Liberals have surely lost. Not with a bang. With a whimper.

(Written for World Business Press Online)

No kangaroos in Austria and no Canadian journos in Brussels

2008-12-05T20:42:00.004-05:00

There are more than one thousand journalists accredited in Brussels, the de-facto capital of the European Union. None of them works for a Canadian media organization. The rumour has it that there actually is a Canadian journalist in the EU press gallery, but he doesn't work for a Canadian media outlet.

European union affairs are, if, covered from London or Paris. Does it make sense? Yes and no. Studying the impact of EU policies in the member states is certainly a good thing, but sampling two countries out of 27 doesn't really represent the diversity of the EU. And there's another problem. EU decisions, or to be precise, decisions adopted by the EU member states in Brussels, are inevitably digested by the country's mood reflected and shaped by the local media. In London, it means anything between euro-skepticism and euro-hostility most of the times.

With the English being the dominant language in Canada, it translates into mostly negative coverage, as proved rather conclusively by Steffi Retzlaff (Mc Master University) and Stefan Gänzle (University of British Columbia) in their work Constructing the European Union in Canadian News.

Europe's opinion, voiced in Ottawa by the current French EU presidency, is that this is not really adequate. It's not about spreading the good news, it's about spreading at least some news and getting it right, as apparently, not many people in Canada know what the European Union actually is, and that includes both journalists and their audience. Among other things, the EU is Canada's second largest trading partner, with which Canada negotiates free-trade arrangements. It's a single market with almost 500 million people. India and China may have almost 3 billion combined, but most of them cannot be described as consumers and that is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. In the media, current affairs concerning the European Union are often referred to through individual states with the EU moniker used only as synonym for the rest of the countries, not for the European Union as a single political and economic entity (France, Germany, UK and EU.... ). Instances, where Britain is referred to as a separate from the EU, even when the EU acts as a single player, are common.

There are other reasons why Canadian media do not have a dedicated correspondent in the Europe's capital. Canadian media market is small and local media outlets simply do not have funds not just for an adequate EU coverage but also, as some insiders argue, for a proper coverage of the US affairs. In any case, EU, or European affairs, rarely make it to the prominent section of international news sections in the newspapers. Canadian media outlets are in the process to focus more on Asia, mostly China and India.

This has an interesting consequence. Canadians are left with only one economically and politically comparable country. The United States. That gives them rather dubious legitimacy to say, that their health care system etc. is the best in the world. On the other hand, European Union has become something of a holy grail for a certain wing of Canadian nationalists. Well, the term “Canadian nationalist” may be considered an oxymoron, given the east-west, anglo-franco etc. division lines that are still distinctive in Canada. Still, some Canadian nationalists, defined as strictly not-Americans, see the EU as a powerful entity to balance out the overwhelming and unavoidable influence of the United States and encourage closer cooperation with the EU. Some say they do have a point. But that's another story....

(Written for World Business Press Online)

Dangers of precedents

2008-12-04T20:42:00.007-05:00

Some countries you love. Some countries you hate. Canada is a country you worry about. Canadian author Robertson Davies, author of the above definition, seems to have nailed it.

Prime minister Stephen Harper, facing a non-confidence vote everybody knew he was going to lose, asked the Governor General Michaëlle Jean to prorogue the parliament for almost two months, to avoid the vote. And the Governor General duly obliged. Unconditionally. From now on, any prime minister, facing a no-confidence vote will be able to do the same. At any point.

The Governor General could have set another precedent, or, depending on the point of view, re-affirm the one set in the 1920s in the King-Byng affair. She could have asked the coalition of the two opposition parties, that had secured majority of votes in the House of Commons, to form a government. That would have done much less damage, certainly in political and constitutional sense, because it would have had been both more controllable and less likely to occur.

The 2008 Canadian parliamentary dispute (already a Wikipedia entry) highlighted several issues that will have to be addressed at some point in the future. Despite the paint of multiculturalism and openness, Canada still listens to sunshine patriotism talk and anti-Quebec sentiments. That, in turn, alienated many Quebecois and the dispute certainly did nothing to ease East-West inter-provincial warfare, on the contrary, it deepened the divide. Stirring pseudo-patriotic emotions and hatred is irresponsible. Another point of interest is that Canadians do not really understand how their political system and election systems work.

The parliament is closed. Canada is left deeply divided. It will be governed by a minority government led by the prime minister who managed to secure the right to decide at will whether he would allow the non-confidence vote. There's no institution, and certainly no elected institution, to prevent that. Is it time to worry about Canada?

(Written for World Business Press Online)

Amazing Harper

2008-12-03T20:17:00.003-05:00

Unfortunately, after Jim Prentice, Canadian environment minister, said that “this attempt by the coalition, the separatist coalition is undemocratic”, he didn't go on to explain which coalition he meant. Resolving the validity of the word “separatist” is a question of realizing that the Bloc Québécois is not the part of the Liberals/New Democrats coalition. Yet, the Conservatives continue to use pseudo-patriotic rhetoric and compare the cooperation with the Bloc Québécois to a treason.

Branding a coalition formed in the democratically elected parliament by the legally elected MPs as undemocratic would send any government minister in any parliamentary democracy right down to the political cemetery. Coalitions are normal part of multi-party parliamentary democracies and if the Conservatives can't get it, they are probably not happy with Canada being a multi-party parliamentary democracy. Their attempt to ruin opposition financially by tailoring the legislation to suit them was certainly very suggestive in that matter.

Meanwhile, Stephen Harper relies on the lack of knowledge of political system Canadian citizens are displaying and fosters the false idea that Canadian citizens elect prime ministers and the governments.

Studying how parliamentary democracies work would reveal, to both Harper and Canadians, that if you form a minority government, you usually try to secure some kind of support from one or more opposition parties to stay in power and to run as much of your program through the parliament as possible. Instead, Harper did all he could to alienate the opposition. Now he has very little ground to accuse the Liberals for refusing to cooperate on budget with the Conservatives because he never made the offer.

Instead, after loosing legitimate arguments, he went to an overdrive of populism, creating a sense of national unity being threatened and now he's appealing to calm down the very emotions he deliberately created. Another danger is that by demonizing Quebec, and indirectly Eastern Canada, the Conservatives are profiling themselves as a regional Western political party.

In the evening, Harper made a televised address to the Canadians. Instead of coming up with a plan that would involve all political parties, he went on to repeat the mythology about the Canadians choosing governments and giving mandates to a particular party to govern. Another interesting point was accusing the coalition of changing the results of election which was simply ridiculous.

Harper tried to put himself into a role of defender of democracy. However, by saying that the opposition didn't have the democratic right for a coalition he proved exactly the opposite. On Thursday, he will visit the Governor General with only one plea. To prorogue the parliament until the end of January to avoid non-confidence vote he will lose. Or would he go directly for the new elections?

(Written for World Business Press Online)

Harper's rhetoric threatens Canada

2008-12-02T17:21:00.002-05:00

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative party can't enjoy the status of being the majority political entity in the House of Commons, and, de facto, lost the House's confidence. Harper is now, apparently, loosing the plot and plays very dangerous game with only objective - to stir up the public emotions to extremes in a hope to stay in power.

During the Tuesday question period, Harper managed to sink into the lowest level of vulgar nationalistic populism and criticized the coalition for not having a Canadian flag behind them – when they signed the treaty in one of the rooms of the House of Commons.

There were two Canadian flags, one at each side of the table.

It would have to take a wide-angle camera to get them and the three leaders in the picture. And that's exactly what Harper is missing. Wide picture.

By branding the coalition as a threat to the Canada unity, Harper decided to alienate Quebec and to turn the western Canada, his electoral base, against the francophone province, which, at the moment, is still an integral part of Canada. As is Alberta. Forgetting in the proces, that he himself relied on support of the Bloc few years ago while in opposition and recognized Quebec as a nation. Of course, sovereignist agenda of the Bloc Québécois is not making an abrupt exit. However, in the current economic situation, most of what's good for Quebec is good for Canada and vice versa and in that sense, Bloc's support for the Liberal/NDP coalition makes a lot of sense.

At the moment, however, the economic agenda is only one part of the debate. The other half is democracy. The Harper's Conservatives tried to undermine the opposition financially by tweaking rules about political parties financing to suit themselves. They proposed to withdraw the right to strike from the public sector workers. And then they managed to pull out their own Watergate and produced an unauthorized (read illegal) recording of the private NDP's MPs phone conversation. Harper is now trying to avoid the inevitable by postponing the confidence vote and, potentially, adjourning the parliament. In that sense, the coalition is putting the country first – it's trying to prevent Stephen Harper quest to establish the Conservatives as the permanent election winner.

Or is the all part of Harper's intention to make the parliament dysfunctional, force in the new election whatever the cost and get the majority? He wouldn't be the first autocratic, democratically elected leader of a party to do so.

(Written for World Business Press Online)

Coalition forming highlights immaturity of Canadian electorate

2008-12-02T11:09:00.005-05:00

Canadians are totally gobsmacked by the proposition of majority of parties forming a coalition government. Political analysts and political scientists are taking turns in TV studios trying to explain what the heck a coalition is. Amazingly, Canadians still believe that they elect governments in general elections, but that can be easily explained by the nature of the democratically deficient first-past-the-post election system.

People don't elect governments. People elect parliaments. Parliaments form governments.

The amazing thing is how the CBC is stirring anti-coalition moods by repeatedly airing anti-coalition statement of people many of whom seem to have no idea about how Canadian political system work and, more importantly, how democracy work. That plays in accord with the Conservatives propaganda machine that's desperately trying to brand the coalition as something non-democratic and suggesting that it amounts to coup d'état. Conservative even went as far as to suggest that the Monday's TSX drop occurred due to the forming of coalition.

Governor General Michaëlle Jean fortunately stayed calm and voiced what was one of the few reasonable opinions - it's part of the democratic process.

Canada, grow up.

The greatest game in Canadian history

2008-12-01T19:45:00.001-05:00

The deal is done. Canada has entered the age of mature western politics – the new political reality in Ottawa is that the coalition of three opposition parties has the majority of votes in the House of Commons. The Conservatives are the minority party.

The leaders of Canadian opposition parties, the New Democrats, the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois, signed the coalition treaty with the ambition to replace the Conservatives' government of Stephen Harper. The new government will only feature NDP and Liberal MP but the Bloc will support their coalition at least until June 30, 2010. It's a power deal, no doubt, but Stéphane Dion, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe showed much more political maturity than leaders of the Conservative party, who instead of reaching out to secure at least an occasional ad-hoc majority went on a rampage to alienate everybody else.

The deal is straightforward in its outlines and economy objectives and rather complicated regarding the mechanism of the coalition. Still, the deal was signed and Stéphane Dion, as the leader of the Liberal Party and the Leader of the Opposition sent a letter to the Governor General stating that the Conservative government lost the confidence of the House of Commons and that there is more than a viable alternative already formed. This was the only plausible way to prevent Canada from sliding into economic downturn and political nightmare that could result in a one party system and a permanent election winner.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives are playing dangerous populistic game spreading the scare supposedly coming from having a coalition with the support of the Bloc Québécois, whom as Stephen Harper said, are breaking up Canada. However, in 2004 he considered Bloc's support to take over the minority Paul Martin's government. On Monday, Harper ruled out any coalition with the Bloc which is in line with the way he led the election campaign during which he managed to stir up the tension by deliberately provocative proposals and remarks. Most of Québécois found them humiliating and offensive while the Conservative's electoral base found them appropriate. By the way, Harper's government that officially recognized Quebec as a nation,

Another dangerous remark was uttered by the former Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer “Canadians won't tolerate this.” What has Harper in store? Are we going to see bus-loads of Conservative supporters defending Harper's imaginary right to be the Prime Minister at the Parliament Hill and across the country? Harper can prorogue the parliament (subject to approval by the Governor General), ending the current session prematurely, to buy himself another month hoping that the opposition deal will break down – and to prevent the non-confidence vote that he already postponed by a week.

Governor General will have to also decide what to do after the Parliament votes on non-confidence, which will very likely happen at the first possible opportunity. Calling the election would be unwise and counterproductive. Leaving the minority Conservative government in power will create a locked-down Parliament. Coalition of the willing supported by the majority of Canadian population is the only reasonable solution.

Coalitions tend to put aside black-and white politics, force political parties to compromise and work for the country, and leave minimum space for political ideologies and overambitious political egos.

(Written for World Business Press Online)

Arrogance of power. Harper edition.

2008-11-28T21:19:00.004-05:00

Six weeks after the general election, Canada finds itself in the middle of a political fight triggered by the so-called the government's report on economic situation. The update. The opposition threatens to bring down the new government and the Liberals and the New Democrats are reportedly in talks about the forming of a coalition government, the first one since 1920.. The stakes are high. Political turmoil in Ottawa is about Canada's economy and democracy.

One would have to struggle to find an economist who would think the economic outlook as presented by the Conservatives' government (economic growth, no recession, no deficits) was not made out of thin air. In general, the opposition parties smashed the Update as ideological and totally inappropriate for the current economic situation.

That by itself would be a sufficient reason to vote against the Economic Update. However, the Conservatives' plan to abolish federal funding for the political parties is equally disturbing. The Conservatives' leader Stephen Harper used the finance minister Jim Flaherty to perform a populist show that would have it's place of honour in any wanna-be dictator repertoire. Under the aura of cutting the government expenses, hidden in what was supposed to be a plan to steer Canadian economy through the global financial turmoil, was a direct attack against the main opposition party, the Liberals, an attack lead outside the boundaries of democratic political arena.

The opposition wanted to bring the no-confidence vote to the House of Commons on the coming Monday. Stephen Harper decided to delay the vote by one week and accused the opposition of making backroom deals without the mandate of the Canadians, majority of them, who, according to Mr. Harper gave the conservatives clear mandate to govern the country.

There are few problems with that, though. First of all, the Conservatives didn't win majority of seats. They didn't win the majority of Canadian votes. The Conservatives won exactly 37.65% of votes, while the Liberals and the New Democrats got 26.26% and 18.18%. Furthermore, the Bloc Québécois won 9.98%. Overall, it's 54.42% of the popular vote. The only reason that allowed the Conservatives to form the government is the archaic and undemocratic first-past-the-post election system, a tragic remainder of post-colonial ties with similarly democratically deficient Great Britain.

Digging deeper reveals the abysmal voter turnout - 59.1% making it the lowest in Canadian election history. Many Canadians just didn't bother. There's no sense to vote if you know that your vote will be disfranchised, courtesy of the first-past-the-post-system. All this means, that the Harper's Conservative have the mandate of 22.26% of eligible voters. The Liberals, NDP and the Bloc together have a) more seats in the parliament (163 vs 143), have won more votes 54.42% and the mandate of 32.16% of all Canadians.

What the opposition is attempting at the moment, is not a backroom deal. It's serious and legitimate way how to prevent Canada's slipping into economic and political havoc. By the way, Mr Harper proposed taking power without the election in 2004. Now, Prime Minister Harper did what he could in delaying the no-confidence vote which very likely gave the opposition more time to come up with more concrete plan. Will Harper pay for his political arrogance? He should.

The only problem is that the Bloc Québécois will not be a part of the coalition. But it's more likely to support NDP-Liberal coalition than anything the Conservatives would propose. Quebec faces the same manufacturing decline as Ontario, and the cultural issues are always negotiable. That would result in one minority government of 143 seats being replaced by another with mere 114. Still, it would work with a silent nod of the Bloc.

And it would inevitable produce better legislation, because if the coalition parties would like to see any law passed, they would have to work harder, throw their respective ideologies away and start coming up with working solutions. Politically much more mature Europe knows how to do it. And one of the first things the new government should do is commission the work on rewriting Canada's election laws. Canada is no longer a two-party country and it's election system should reflect that.

(Written for World Business Press Online)

Canadian Economic update triggers election talk

2008-11-27T19:49:00.004-05:00

Despite pretty much everybody in Canada and abroad predicting recession and budget deficit, Canadian Government thinks otherwise. The Economic and Fiscal Statement presented in Ottawa on Thursday by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty still predicts growth. The 2008/2009 fiscal year should end up $0.8 billion in black. Prediction for the next two years? $0.1 billion. That's without guarantees. After all the talk about “technical recession” and shifting attitudes towards deficits this sounds more like government's reluctance to put the R and D words on paper.

On the more positive note, the government wants to guarantee credits flow to both businesses and individuals, decrease corporate taxes, increase no-tax income level, establish new tax-free savings account, there was also a good news for companies' pension schemes, and a confirmation of plans to invest into infrastructure. The Conservatives' government is encouraging provinces to replace sales-tax with VAT harmonized with the federal tax and urges them to “achieve their goal of amending the Agreement on Internal Trade by January 1, 2009 so as to achieve “full mobility for all Canadians” by April 1, 2009. This should remove many of the trade barriers and employment certification requirements among the provinces which often makes it easier to do business with the USA than with the neighboring Canadian province and also allow for more foreign investments. Government also states that it is good idea to talk to professional organization that regulate some section of the labour market to let much needed “skilled immigrant workers” into Canada. However, the Report is scarce on details and doesn't promise any concrete action.

Government spending will be cut, because as the Report says, “we cannot ask Canadians to tighten their belts during tougher times without looking into the mirror”. That would be nice if the new Harper's government hasn't increased in size from 31 to 38.

The Report confirmed speculations about a controversial reform of federal financing to political parties. Under current regulations, federal parties receive, among other means, a quarterly subsidy equaling $1.75 per vote they got in the election. This will be eliminated from April 1, 2009. The Conservatives, as the ruling party, say that it will hurt them most. Mathematics says it's true. However, the Conservative party is the richest one in Canada, while the Liberals are really struggling financially. NDP leader Jack Layton had every reason to accuse Conservatives of “attacking democracy”. Because this is exactly what Harper is doing – he tries to weaken his political opponents financially knowing that the reform will hurt them most.

All Canadian opposition parties declared that they would vote against the government's update. According to the New Democratic Party, the Update is a “failure” that will not stimulate economy. Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe declared it wasn't an economic statement but an “énoncé idéologique”. The Leader of the Opposition, Liberal Party's Stéphane Dion said that the announcement “leaves Canada ill-prepared to face economic challenges”. Opposition's NO could result in yet another election. Another option is a coalition government of opposition parties. The buzz is already going around the House of Commons.

(Written for World Business Press Online)

Losing on a technicality

2008-11-24T18:19:00.004-05:00

Wrangling about Canadian economy continues with a tempo of a badly directed farce. The opposition has finally woken up and made a belated attempt to attack the Conservatives over their silence about Canada's public finances. The point is that Prime Minister Stephen Harper knew that the deficit was on the cards and wasn't straight about it in front of the public during the election campaign. And weeks after. Some call it brilliant politics, others call it lies.

The budget deficit is inevitable, even the Tory-appointed parliamentary budget deficit said so. Kevin Page dared to blame the Conservatives for the part of the financial crisis due to the GST reduction in 2007. On the other hand, the Conservatives say that the reduction was the right thing to do and point out to Britain's package announced on Monday that slashes the VAT by two percent. The difference is in timing. Apparently, Harper got the timing right on elections, but had jumpstarted the GST reduction. The moral of the story? One can run the party's policies out of ideology, but adopting the same approach for the economy is usually backfires.

The other interesting side of the debate is the R-word. The earlier Bank of Canada's prediction of a “0% growth” allowed Canada to escape recession. On a technicality. Everything was supposed to be just fine. Now, it appears that Canada will indeed slip into a recession. After the Bank of Canada, even Harper and his finance minister Jim Flaherty admitted it's likely. However, in what can only be described as a desperate attempt to put a positive spine or a gloomy outlook they talk about a “technical recession”. Apparently, it's only a classbook definition of a particular state of the economy (two quarters of negative growth equals recession) so everything is OK. And, according to Flaherty, no stimulus “package” is needed.

The opposition has every right to point that out and criticize Harper for his reluctance to be straight with Canadians and call a spade a spade, the only question is why they didn't do it sooner. Harper now tries to get out on a technicality. However, in the long run, he risks the whole country losing.

(Written for World Business Press Online)

Veni, vidi, ... icy

2008-11-20T19:02:00.002-05:00

It was suppose to be so simple. Let's fly off to Washington, go to Senate, paint the grimmest picture we can and then get back to our private corporate jets with some taxpayers' bailout cash. But the US senators were less than impressed with the performance of the Detroit Three CEOs. The problem was that Messrs. Nardelli, Wagoner and Mulally came to moan instead to discuss the problem and possible solutions.

The Senate did the only responsible thing. “Until they show us a plan, we can't show them the money,” said the Senate speaker Nancy Pelosi (Democrat). These were harsh words and they came from the party that actually supports the bailout. However, the Senate's stance is not straightforward. Pelosi actually stole the thunder of a bi-partisan group of Senators who came up with a compromise plan by holding a press-conference just before they were supposed to hold theirs. Still, the compromise plan wasn't really concrete in terms of outlining conditions under which the loan would be provided.

Detroit Three CEOs are supposed to be back in Washington on December 2. The bailout was put on ice. Literally.

Naturally, Detroit said it would be more than happy to provide further details and come up with a plan. The question is why the Detroit Three didn't come to Congress with one. Another thing, US car manufacturers were not really good in making plans. But it's getting increasingly serious and the Detroit surely realizes that getting money this time will not be easy. Apparently, the Senate is willing to risk the future of the three automakers to force them, for once, to behave according to the circumstances.

The latest development continues to raise serious concern in Canada. September wholesale trade rebounded mainly due to increased performance of the automotive sector. The demise of the Detroit Three production plan could send Canada directly into depression.

There is a great deal of political will to help the Detroit Three which is, at the moment, the most important thing to bear in mind. But while the Detroit CEOs will be drawing out the plans, the Congress and the White House must decide where they'd take $25 billion Detroit's asking for. From the $700 billion Wall Street package? Or will they dip further into taxpayers' money?

(Written for World Business Press Online)

Deficit Speech from the Throne

2008-11-19T19:24:00.004-05:00

As expected, Governor General Michaëlle Jean's Speech from the Throne was about Canadian economy and rather grim outlook it faced and hard decisions that were to be made. The speech was, of course, written by Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper and its content was hardly surprising.

The speech contained that much feared word – deficit. Canada had it coming and Harper's government has been gradually easing in Queen's offshore subjects to the fact that Canada's budget would end up in red. On October 22, Ontario announced it would run a $500 million dollar deficit in 2008/2009. The province got slammed from every political quarter of Canada with only the wise men of economics warned that it would not be such a bad thing especially during times of general economic downturn and/or recession. But that was a problem. Harper's government couldn't say the country was facing downturn and recession since the Conservatives based their campaign on “everything's OK” slogan.

Two days after Ontario announcement came the August $1.7 billion dollar federal budget deficit which kick started Jim Flaherty's (Canadian finance minister) one-week long Great Copernican Shift during which he renounced his no-deficit mantra and adopted more realistic approach – trying to run a surplus no matter what might lead to a long term damage. Even Bank of Canada played its role in the policy of denial. After a 0.4% contraction, it predicted a “0% growth” for the next one. In other words, Canada was suppose to avoid recession. Politically and verbally. A 0% growth can as well be a 0% contraction, the only thing is how would you sell it.

The Throne Speech warned about the necessity of deficits and labeled them as an instrument to protect Canada during economic crisis. Coordinated or not, Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney said, in London, UK, that the situation is worse than the Bank predicted just a month ago and hinted at further reduction of interest rate cuts. “Recession is possible,” said Carney.

In all fairness, neither Harper or Carney could have predicted what would happen in one month time. Neither could opposition leaders. However, budgets and the related decisions are not created overnight, neither are budget deficits. The Conservatives had, of course, one very good reason to keep quiet about the deficit – the federal election held on October 14. They had no economic plan to offer for different economic circumstances during the campaign. The means that kept their momentum fueled, such as high oil prices and perceived Canadian immunity, gone, the Conservative government will really face “hard decisions”.

(Written for World Business Press Online)

Detroit sinks further

2008-11-17T18:20:00.003-05:00

The US Congress met on Monday to discuss the bail-out plan for the Detroit Three. The discussion stalled, which wasn't surprising given the transitional period between the two US administration. In other words, given the fact that it's a lame-duck Congress that's trying to do “something”. Who supports the bailout and who doesn't is little bit irrelevant now although, in general, it's Democrats who are “for” and Republicans who are “not so sure”. There are, of course, exceptions in both camps. The problem seems to be that the members of Congress are not 100% sure how to do the bailout. And reward the spectacular failure.

The idea of bailout is not going down very well with European union and the Commission president, Jose Manuel Barroso said that the EU would be could raise the question at the World Trade Organization. Speaking of Europe, three credit insurance companies that control 80% of world's credit insurance market and that happened to be European, Euler Hermes, Atradius and Coface, removed cover from General Motors and Ford suppliers. Financial Times reminded that same steps led to the demise of many other companies in Europe, manufacturers, suppliers and construction firms.

Meanwhile, Detroit is sinking deeper and deeper. General Motors is challenging Hollywood releasing two please-save-us videos on its YouTube channel warning about dire consequences the Detroit collapse would have on the US economy. GM is really in a position of a person with credit card debts twice the annual income who's selling a microwave to get some extra cash. General Motors announced selling its remaining share in Suzuki for $230 million, which, at its current cash burning rate should prolong the agony by few days. As a small consolation, Opel/Vauxhall Insignia, the new flagship of GM's European operation won the European Car of the Year title. The only question is why this car is not on sale in the USA either as a Saturn (it already sells re-badged Opels) or a Buick, as Insignia is marketed as Buick Regal in China. Getrag, transmission manufacturer, has filed for Chapter 11 after Chrysler pulled out from the joint project of dual-clutch factory.

To sum up, it is getting increasingly difficult for anyone covering events concerning the Detroit Three to find appropriate words. We are running out of the synonyms for “bad” and “very bad”.

(Written for World Business Press Online)

Ignatieff for ... the Liberal Party leader

2008-11-13T17:40:00.004-05:00

Following a disappointing defeat in the October general election, Liberal Party's leader Stephane Dion announced that he would step down at the next convention. During the campaign, Dion was impersonation of a reluctant leader and unfortunately he played the role of university professor way too often. Whether this was intentional or unavoidable, is up for a discussion. His less then perfect command of English contributed to the overall non-political image.

In its quest for the new leader that would reverse their fortunes, the Liberal party must find someone who will be a direct opposite of Stephen Harper. The Conservatives' leader Stephan Harper is in many ways politically perfect - impersonal, ideology driven leader, a populist here and there, but generally sterilely average without a long term vision for the country.

Liberals have to choose a leader that will be able to unite the party. This often leads to electing a person who's sufficiently weak to absorb individual fractions' influences. Obviously, this is a method that may work for a while but in the long run A) it only delays inevitable disintegration of the party, and B) it is the worst way to provide party with a leader capable of challenging political opponents during the next election and leading Canada.

After Michael Ignatieff announced on Thursday that he would run for the Liberal party leadership, the party got exactly what it needed. Ignatieff's career and life are most impressive. His international experience shouldn't be treated as suspicious and nobody should question whether he's a real Canadian.

Ignatieff is an accomplished historian, journalist, writer and politician, in any order, which makes him perfectly suitable for leading not just the Liberal Party, but Canada as well. In the recent days, amidst international effort to stop or at least slow down the recession, Canada has become a role model for the sound economy. Canadian leader without ideological ballast and international credibility will be the one who the world will surely listen to.

(Written for World Business Press Online)

To B or not to B?

2008-11-12T19:57:00.002-05:00

Pop into any discussion thread on any North America based automotive website these days and you will almost certainly come across a heated and very long debate centered around “to B. or not to B.” B, obviously, stands for bail-out.

The topic is huge in the United states, the home of the brave, etc. and the land of what used to be known as the Big Three. Chrysler was the main feature on the radar screens of those paying attention about two weeks ago, but since the merger talks with General Motors stalled, it was left out in the cold. To die, apparently. Now, all eyes are on General Motors that's burning its cash resources faster than Saturn V launcher burned the fuel while propelling Apollo to the Moon. Most analyst agree that at this rate it will be over soon and the only way predictions differ is whether GM would last until Christmas or until the end of the year.

Some suggested that automakers should be included in the $700 billion Wall Street bail-out package but not many people in the current Bush's and in the upcoming Obama's administration are keen on the idea. However... House of Representatives' speaker Nancy Pelosi, prompted by the fact that GM stocks fell on its 65-year low on Tuesday, called for a quick vote and bipartisan effort to save the US car industry. This may well be necessary since GM cannot wait until the transition of power is over (inauguration will take place on January 20) and Bush administration is basically a lame duck. Furthermore on the “however” note, various sources suggested that Obama administration will appoint a “car czar” to oversee any federal help to the Detroit Three.

North of The Border, home to many car assembly plants, Canadian government is said to be contemplating some form of “transformational” aid, but a bail-out is apparently not an option even though there are thousands jobs at stake in Ottawa and Quebec. Still, it's nothing compared to several millions - estimates depend on who do you talk to. Speaking of Canada, former Canadian auto workers' union boss Buzz Hargrove said (again) that the biggest long term problem are imports and the best long term solution is to do something about imports. Well, it's 2008 not 1978 and this is still his way of thinking, that its a miracle the Detroit Three are still in the business of making cars. Another point, most of Hondas and Toyotas are not imports, they are made in the USA or in Canada, fact acknowledged by American-only Nascar that allowed Toyota to compete. Most damage was done by poor management and poor product line ups. They were loosing market share to Toyota and Honda before the credit crunch, ignoring what others didn't.

Meanwhile, the “too big to fail” argument is fading away as it becomes clear that no matter what will happen (something will happen), the Detroit Three simply cannot emerge back in the same form and shape. And even most of those discussing the situation on automotive sites such as Autoblog or mainstream media sites (Globe & Mail) are against a direct bail-out. America had enough.

(Written for World Business Press Online)

Road building always works

2008-11-06T18:38:00.003-05:00

When in crisis, build a road. Or a railway. German leadership knew that and embarked on an extensive road and autobahn building program in the late 1920s. It gave, directly on indirectly, jobs to tens of thousands Germans in times of the Great Depression and very tough post-war years.

Fast forward to 2008 Canada. Infrastructure is built but it's aged and needs to be repaired. Furthermore, the economy is trying to brace itself for the impact of global financial meltdown, budget deficit is apparently unavoidable and economy is slowing down, manufacturing industry, heavily dependent on the US market is threatened with further job losses. The government talks about tax cuts and contemplates ways of jobs creation.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities added its input to the save-the-economy debate. Canada is not an exception when it comes to wrangling among the federal government, provincial governments and municipalities. The federal government needs to be persuaded.

The FCM commissioned a study (conducted by Informetrica Ltd.) comparing the impact of $1 billion worth of tax cuts with a $1 billion investment into the infrastructure. The study shows that even a $2 billion tax cut wouldn't create more jobs than $1 billion spent for upgrading and refurbishing roads, bridges and water systems. Another interesting result is that spending $1 billion on infrastructure would boost economy by 0.13% and create more than 11,000 jobs.

Luckily, the Building Canada Fund has almost a $3 billion leftover from the 2007-2008 budget. The FCM proposes to free these funds and pour them into the economy. Obviously, bearing in mind the constant fight between local and federal governments, municipalities do have their own agenda. But they do have a point. With a dollar coming from both municipal and provincial level for every federal dollar, infrastructure investment would be worth more than $8 billion. Whether this would create projected 100,000 jobs is up for a discussion but refurbishing Canadian infrastructure would be a long term investment covering, hopefully, short term crisis needs. Both economic and infrastructural, for example, highway between Ottawa and Montreal is in desperately desolate condition. Fortunately, the federal government seems to be getting on board. We'll see some serious wrangling over the investment allocation....

(Written for World Business Press Online)

Obama's Campaign 2.0

2008-11-05T17:31:00.004-05:00

Demographics of the US presidential election results clearly show that Barack Obama managed to attract 66% of 18-29 year old and 68% of first time voters. There is almost certainly a significant overlap between these two groups and while there were multiple reasons why their members flocked to polling stations on Tuesday, one thing is certain. Call for turnout, call for change wouldn't have the impact they had if it hadn't been been for a clever and inventive use of modern communication technologies.

These days, car manufacturers introduce their upcoming models in PC and console games. Barack Obama doesn't make cars but his campaign cleverly placed the “Early Voting Has Begun” ad into Burnout Paradise game – Electronic Arts, the game's developer, accepted it as any other credible political ad. It didn't have to get the policy message across, the important thing was that the kid who first spotted the ad gave his message a burnout start and set it speeding all over the Internet. Which very likely led many other kids saying “yeah, this Barack guy must be cool”.

Playing on the similar tune, Obama's campaign released a motivational YouTube ad featuring a couch and a game controller. Opposable Thumbs, arstechnica.com's gaming offshoot, noted that until now, if computer gaming was referred to during a campaign, it was almost in a negative way. Only a day before voting, a new video ad came up, targeting technology sector. And there was, of course, an iPhone application Obama '08 developed by a group of enthusiasts available for free via iTunes App Store. Barack Obama's online presence was so ominous that even spammers abused his name six times more often than McCain's.

John McCain and his proud admission that he can't use the Internet and e-mails (with Sarah Palin's e-mail fiasco) didn't send a positive message to those portions of society that proved to be the decisive force, whether in the voting itself or in the mobilization efforts. Of course, Internet literacy and related issues were not important for the republican electorate, but that's separate issue.

By grasping the opportunities of the new media political marketing, Barack Obama managed to create a user generated campaign, going by the Web 2.0 pattern, a Campaign 2.0. Yes, his team set up the agenda, the framework and provided the means. But the rest, he placed into his supporters' hands and moved political campaigning to a completely new plane, the one which is totally appropriate for the 21^st century policies and for the 21^st century, post-bipolar world, way of leading a superpower.

(Written for World Business Press Online)

Can it be any worse?

2008-11-03T20:06:00.003-05:00

October's new car sales numbers in the US are so bad that they do without lengthy comments. Any swear word would do and nobody would be bothered in the general weeping and gnashing of teeth. Car sales were down 34%, trucks plummeted 51%. US car manufacturers, the “Big 3”, took the hardest hit. General Motors led the slide after selling only 170,585 cars compared to the 310,008 in October 2007. That's 45% drop and that before the seasonal adjustment to compensate for one more sales day in October 2008 (27 versus 26 days). Seasonal adjustment makes the result even worse at 47%. Ford was down 32.7% and Chrysler 37.4%. GM called it the worst sales month in the post World Word II era. All GM brands fell more than 40%.

Asian manufacturers took their share of double-digit beating too and Europeans followed. The only exception being Mini that posted 50.6% surge in sales. However, Mini targets a very specific segment of the market and is, in a way, more a fashion accessory than a car.

Manufacturers are trying to lure buyers with incentives and special sales offers and many people would like to be lured. The problem is that tighter loan rules, brought in by the credit crunch, put many potential buyers out of the market. GM's financing company, GMCA, that pushed it's credit requirements to above 700 FICO territory, and while it's hard to quantify the effect of credit rating changes, the impact was most likely significant. By the way, GMAC may play a part in GM-Chrysler merger. GMCA majority owner, Cerberus, also owns Chrysler, that, meanwhile, suspended the talks with Renault.

Even zero per cent financing is often beyond limits, not to speak about the fact that people became more careful about their money. However, falling price of oil made up for a rather interesting act. With gallon back to $2.60 territory, Americans seem to revive their love for SUVs. It wasn't enough to save the sales, even with the help of discounts (on average $6,000 per SUV/truck), but the trend was there, especially in the second half of October. Some habits are just hard to beat. Ford announced plans to re-hire workers for its F-150 truck plant. Some companies are bound to repeat their mistakes.

(Written for World Business Press Online)

US government bails out of GM Chrysler merger

2008-10-31T18:27:00.003-04:00

Today's understanding of free market capitalism apparently revolves around the idea that the bigger you are, the more funds you're entitled to receive from the government. General Motors and Chrysler pushed the boundaries of this normal social conduct to the unheard of territory when they asked the US government to fund their merger.

What GM asked for was essentially federal funds to kill off Chrysler while Cerberus, Chrysler owners, asked for federal money to walk off without losses and the blame. Washington was put into a lose-lose situation with pretty much only one logical option left – they had to play the role of federal Pontius Pilate, wash their hands and leave GM and Cerberus to their own devices. The problem is there are none.

There seems to be the general consensus that the merger would mean axing almost entire Chrysler line-up in all divisions – Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge. That would in turn result in closing plants and massive layoffs. Then there are dealerships, parts manufacturers and pretty much everybody whose livelihood depends on car manufacturing. Even coffee shops and fast-food restaurants in areas around closed factories are going out of business.

Unless the US and global economies make a miraculous recovery in the next few month, US car manufacturers will have to downscale. Which is a process that's already underway and is both irreversible and unavoidable no matter in what shape and form the help arrives. Even nationalization of Detroit (yes, it has been suggested) wouldn't change a thing. It simply doesn't make sense to manufacture cars that nobody would buy.

(Written for World Business Press Online)

Flaherty, mk II

2008-10-29T20:39:00.005-04:00

Canada's finance minister Jim Flaherty continued his Copernican shift, or a 180 degree pirouette, on his stance on budget deficit. This time though, he's nearly finished. A brief recap

Exactly a week ago, Flaherty, while commenting on Ontario's planned budget deficit, said there would be no deficit, no even a temporary one. On Friday, with the news that the August budget was indeed in a deficit, Flaherty said with confidence that, overall, the budget would end up in “modest” surplus. On Sunday, the minister refused to “categorically rule out a deficit” and added that the government would run a deficit “if it were responsible thing to do in a critical situation in Canada”.

On Wednesday, October 29, he said that “misguided attempts to balance the books” in the global economic downturn might lead into “long term damage”. In other words, “surplus at any price” is not an option. It's still long way to March 2009 and with markets and currencies behaving unpredictably even in their best moments, predictions are bound to change overtime. Still economists predict 5-10 billion deficit for 2009-2010 year. Still, Flaherty was adamant that deficits will not be part of “structural framework” and will be treated more as a necessary evil rather than a regular fiscal policy instrument.

It's not only economic reality that drives Flaherty to shift his position. Politics plays it's role too. For one, election campaign promises will be have to be treated as luxuries. Two, admitting the possibility of a deficit and attributing it to the global markets meltdown will ease off potential attacks of the opposition. Local commentators point out that it was the Conservative party that accused its opponents of proposing economic plans that would inevitably lead to deficits. Under current circumstances, any government would be forced to run deficit, still, any ammunition is good ammunition when for the opposition parties.

But whatever is the main motif behind Flaherty's shift, it's with all probability the only sensible short-term option that would work for Canada in the long run.

(Written for World Business Press Online)

Chrysler euthanasia sponsor wanted

2008-10-28T20:35:00.000-04:00

Rumours surrounding merger between General Motors and Chrysler intensified after reports that both manufacturers asked US government for a special package to support the deal. The details as to how advanced are negotiations were ranging from “asked for” to reports that the US Treasury Department is already actively looking for the best way how to make the merger possible.

Whether GM and Chrysler asked for $5 or $10 billion is important only when related to a $25-billion loan for the Big 3 (or Big 2.8) already approved a signed few weeks ago. It went unnoticed at that time because it was first OKed amid discussion about a $750 billion Wall Street rescue package.

The important thing in the GM-Chrysler merger story is logic behind the idea.

A merger/takeover between two prosperous manufacturers, one big and one small, would make sense. A merger/takeover between a prosperous and a failing would make sense. But a merger between two companies on the verge of bankruptcy? Not so much. Governments do play their role in operations like this and it comes in many forms and shapes. A legislature tweak here, a tax relief there. All for the sake of national interests.

Of course, keeping about 70,000 Chrysler and 350,000 GM employees at work is important, but it's extremely unlikely that they will all keep their jobs. Both Chrysler and GM (and Ford, for that matter) have announced massive job cuts in the past few weeks. Then there are the overlaps in their model line-ups. On Monday, Autoblog compared competing models and concluded that only 2 Chrysler models would survive the merger. Or, shall we say, euthanasia? Even if GM decided to axe more Chevrolet and less Chrysler models, it wouldn't change much in terms of workforce losses.

At the moment, it looks as if GM were only after Chrysler's cash because, frankly, there's not much of anything else, and is seeking government's (taxpayers') money to offset expenses of effectively shutting Chrysler down. Chrysler itself has nothing to lose or gain. Meanwhile, Chrysler's owner, Cerberus, is desperately trying to sell Chrysler while there's still something to be sold. Last week, Daimler, previous owner of Chrysler, declared that the value of its 19% share in Chrysler is worth $0. For the US Treasury, it's an exercise in damage limitation. But unlike helping financial institutions, puring money into US car manufacturers' accounts means bailing out companies that failed long before the global market crunch.

(Written for World Business Press Online)

Flaherty in Copernican shift

2008-10-27T20:32:00.001-04:00

Canada's finance minister Jim Flaherty has been reversing from his long-standing views on budget deficit faster than a getaway stunt driver. Last Wednesday, while commenting on Ontario's planned budget deficit, Flaherty said there will be no deficit, no even a temporary one. On Friday, he was hit by a news that the August budget was indeed in a deficit but that didn't crack Flaherty's confidence as he went on to say that overall, the budget would end up in “modest” surplus.

Come Sunday, and Jim Flaherty is doing a U-turn again as he refused to “categorically rule out a deficit”. Speaking for the Canadian public broadcaster CBC, Flaherty said that the government would run a deficit “if it were responsible thing to do in a critical situation in Canada”. He went on to say that a significant worldwide recession would be such a thing. Which is exactly the world is spiralling towards.

Fortunately, Flaherty seems to realize that cutting spending just to keep the budget in black is not an option. Luxuries promised during election campaign will have to wait. Which will not make much of a difference since the Conservatives' promises, such as diesel tax cut, were more-less teasers that wouldn't harm public finances. There's still “a budget reluctance”, but the sooner the government braces Canadian finances for the impact the better.

This may be tough though. To add insult to an injury, the Canadian dollar has fallen to its lowest level since September 2004 to 77.59 US cents. This, among other import-export and tax revenue related issues, means that Canadians no longer need to complain about price imparity brought in by more than a year of dollar parity.

(Written for World Business Press Online)

Running a deficit versus being run by a deficit

2008-10-24T16:55:00.003-04:00

Canadian no-deficit mantra has come to an temporary end after Finance Department reported a $1.7 billion budget deficit in August. Which is, in a rather tragic way, funny, since only on Wednesday Canada's Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said there will be no deficit, not even a temporary one.

Still, it's not the end of the world as the budget still ends up in an overall $1.2 billion surplus for the first five months of the current fiscal year. By the way, Canadian fiscal year runs with a modified post colonial wisdom from April 1 to March 31, unlike the British financial year that starts on April 6 and ends on April 5.

Last year's August budget was $100 million in the red with a 5-month surplus of $6.6 billion. The thing is that unlike the last year, the cushion is much smaller, the deficit much bigger, Canadian dollar 20% bellow the parity with its US counterpart and global financial circumstances somewhat different. Last year mortgage crisis and its international consequences were a mere turbulence compared to the current mayhem.

Keeping with the official party line, Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty assured his compatriots that the government will still run a modest surplus. The thing is that Flaherty is convinced that running deficit, even under current circumstances, is a bad thing. Again, ideology beats the realpolitik.

Flaherty and his mates need to realize that running a deficit is not a bad thing. It's much better option than letting a deficit to run government's finances.

(Written for World Business Press Online)

Crisis? What crisis?

2008-10-23T16:34:00.002-04:00

Canada seems to have found the way how to avoid recession. Verbally and on political level. Because while the leaders firmly believe, at least publicly, that Canadian economy and banking system are indefinitely more secure than any other major world economy's, actions they undertake tend to prove that it is inevitably vulnerable as every other economy. But in Canada, recession is still a question of politics, not of question of economics.

First, there's a issue of budget deficit. In Canada, this word is frowned upon to such an extent, that merely suggesting running a deficit qualifies as the eighth deadly sin. Running a deficit means skipping purgatory and ending up in the political hell. Apparently, Canadian governments have only one budgetary objective – keep the surplus no matter the consequences. But then, Ontario announced on Wednesday that it would run a $500 million deficit in the fiscal year 2008-2009. Which, given that both Ontario spending and revenues are in the region of $96 billion, is really a proverbial drop in the sea.

However, the plan was slammed immediately from all political quarters followed by “We? Never!” proclamations. Political rhetorics is winning over economy and that is always dangerous, especially in circumstances of global economic downturn. The underlying message that Canadian economists try to pass on to the government is that a deficit is necessary to keep the economy going during, or on the brink of, recession. “Government debt plays a useful role in the economy in terms of financing some of the long run infrastructure investments you have to make and in terms of lubricating a financial sector. These days, there's nothing investors love more than the good, stable government bond to put their money into,” said Jim Stanford, Canadian Auto Workers Union economist, for the CBC.

Political leaders, especially the Conservatives, could have been more prone to listen but they're too busy repeating pre-election mantra that Canada is on its way to avoid recession. Even the Bank of Canada's report, grim as it may be, failed to call the spade a spade by projecting dubious zero percent growth for the next quarter. That, with current quarter contraction being 0.4%, means that Canada will not face recession which is defined as two consecutive month of declines. What's more, according to the Bank, recovery will start in 2010. That, from purely political point of view, bears all characteristics of, well, political rather than economic prediction.

Meanwhile, economists such as BMO Capital Markets chief economist Sherry Cooper, predict that the recession is unavoidable. Canadian economy depends on the US economy, which already is undergoing recession. Housing market in Canada is slowing down significantly, as is consumer spending. Canadian dollar fell to less than 80 cents US, and falling oil prices provide for even gloomier background.

On Thursday, Canadian finance minister Jim Flaherty announced new measures to ease up bank-to-bank borrowing. According to the press release, “the Canadian Lenders Assurance Facility will provide insurance on the wholesale term borrowing of federally regulated deposit-taking institutions. This initiative will help to secure access to longer-term funds so that Canadian financial institutions can continue lending to consumers, home buyers and businesses in Canada.” Earlier this month Ottawa announced a takeover of a $25 billion takeover of bank-held mortgages.

It's not that the government fails to react, although, all measures were announced only after the US and European Union countries adopted similar programs. The potentially damaging issue is that political needs (election), flawed political ideas (no deficit no matter what) and ideology stand in the way of absolutely vital measures that need to be implemented to help Canadian economy during global financial turmoil.

(Written for World Business Press Online)

Chrysler rumours signal end of Big 3

2008-10-22T20:21:00.004-04:00

Chrysler is the smallest part of what used to be know as the Big Three of US car manufacturers. They are, more often than not, referred to as Not-So-Big 2.8, the moniker that is the result of slow sales, record losses and turbulent, and more recently colorful, Chrysler's history.

Chrysler, the smallest of the Big 2.8, was bailed out in 1979, at that time a $1.5 billion government money was packaged as a “loan guarantee”. Chrysler reinvented itself in the 1990s, producing “cab-forward” cars that were, unlike GM and Ford offerings, on par with European and Japanese cars, even BBC Top Gear's Jeremy Clarkson admitted that. In 1998, Chrysler was purchased by Daimler-Benz, forming DaimlerChrysler AG. Officially a merger, take-over in real life, Chrysler's models shared many parts with the previous generation Mercedes cars, which, at that time, were renowned for substandard reliability and built quality. Chrysler fortunes faltered again and Daimler sold 80.1% to Cerberus, a private equity group, in 2007.

Now, Daimler has troubles on its own. Mercedes COO Rainer Schmückle said recently that Mercedes is in a “full-blown sales crisis” and Daimler Trucks announced 2300 layoffs of in its Ontario and Oregon plants. Ontario Sterling Truck plant closure will mean 1300 jobless in St. Thomas, with population of 36,000.

Back to Chrysler. News channels have been aflush with speculations about its future in the past week or so. They've had one in thing of common, though - Chrysler will not stay with Cerberus. Chrysler is, apparently, in merger-takeover talks with General Motors. The story got complicated with the back-story about talks between GM and Cerberus concerning the GMAC Financial Services. Cerberus owns 51%, GM 49%.

It's hard to imagine, as most industry insiders say, that GM would retain Chrysler's dealership network and production facilities. Even though some models may be retained, with great many overlaps and markets' downturn, its, again, hard to imagine that both GM's and Chrysler's lineups will survive unaffected.

Still, there's one concrete information among rumours. Renault/Nissan is also in the play, in fact, it apparently made an offer to 20% of Chrysler. Earlier speculations indicated that Renault is interested in Chrysler's Jeep brand. However, since Nissan is more than capable of producing more than capable off-road vehicles, it may be all about the name. Renault Wrangler anyone? According to Detroit News, Nissan will have to foot the bill, because Renault is in a $5 billion debt. That would be, by a little stretch of imagination, a takeover of an American manufacturer by a Japanese company. Still, Renault will first make sure that issue of remaining share in Chrysler is solved before it moves in.

Meanwhile, Cerberus may be playing field trying to get the best possible offer for Chrysler. Whatever the outcome will be, it's not an easy game, Chrysler has been on life support for a while now and Cerberus is offering a dying animal on a volatile market. And whichever of the possible transactions goes ahead, there will be no Big Three or 2.8 anymore.

(Written for World Business Press Online)

Canada's democratic deficit

2008-10-21T16:27:00.007-04:00

Not counting in seven million votes cast legally by eligible voters would send any election monitoring body, be it the OSCE, Council of Europe or Transparency International, spinning with anger and sending protest notes and demarches to the guilty government. Still, it's an election reality in all first-past-the-post systems such as United Kingdom or Canada, and it goes unanswered.

According to Fair Vote Canada, more than seven million votes simply did not count in October 14 election. The grim fact is that only votes for the winning candidates matter. Even grimmer fact is that with more than two candidates in a riding, it's often more than half of the votes that do not count. Which is exactly what happened – 13.7 million Canadians voted, more than half of them didn't have to bother. With historic low turnout of 59.1% that means that only about one third of Canadians had their say in deciding their country's future. In Gatineau, 71% of voters were “orphaned”.

Under proportional representation, the 40^th Canadian parliament would have 117 Conservative MPs (not 143), 81 Liberals (not 76), 57 New Democrats (instead of 37), 28 Bloc Quebecois deputies (not 50) and Green Party would have 23 MPs – it has none despite attracting more than 940 thousand votes or 6.8% of popular vote.

Sure, one can object that this is just a play with numbers, a specific point of view, perhaps distorted to the same measure as the first-past-the-post system election results, and finally, that the rules are the same for everybody. Yes, they are. 1.7 million conservative voters lost their vote as did 2.1 million liberal voters. Green Party lost badly and their leader Elisabeth May, who featured prominently at the Tuesday Fair Vote Canada press conference, even organized a virtual Green Party caucus meeting in front of the House of Commons featuring 23 people posing as Green MPs who were not elected due to the first-past-the-post system.

But any party can found themselves on the receiving end of current rules, the Conservatives had, at one point, only two (that's 2) MPs. The problem is that Canada and Canadians are always on the receiving end of the system which has little to no sense in a multiple-party political environment. Even in a bi-party scenario, it's possible that a single party would gain 100% of parliament chairs by winning by a single vote in each riding/constituency. And it wouldn't be the public who would speak, since the actual difference in votes would be 308 – which is the number of ridings. That is not democratic by any standard.

The only answer to the Canadian democratic deficit is introduction of proportional voting system. Whether this will be done through a reform of the Senate or a complete overhaul of the election law in Canada is subject to discussion. As both Larry Gordon, the executive director of Fair Vote Canada, and Elisabeth May told me, there's no single proportionate system they're now looking for as an example that may be implemented in Canada. The idea allows for wide degree of maneuvering and adjusting for the specifics of the country. For example, it would make political parties more nationwide and decrease secessionist tendencies whether from Quebec or western provinces.

As for the level of support, it's kind of given that the Green Party, New Democrats and Liberals would support the idea, especially after the latest election results. But the situation can reverse in four years and even the Conservatives should have no other than purely political reasons to oppose the reform. As Elisabeth May pointed out, Conservative leader Stephen Harper once wrote an article advocating proportionate representation. Probably the most difficult task will be to persuade Canadians who, as is the Fair Vote Canada plan, should make the decision in a referendum. British Columbia will vote on electoral reform in May 2009 – the reform would introduce proportional voting. Results of the referendum (which will be subjected to the “super majority” to become binding) will indicate whether Canada is ready to adopt modern democratic voting system which ensures that all votes do count.

(Written for World Business Press Online)

More on that: Mandatory voting - cure for imperfect elections?

Prospecting the new trans-Atlantic alliance

2008-10-17T19:14:00.003-04:00

Relying too much on a single market is never a good thing but in Canada's case any discussion is academic. There is only one market. Canada's exports to the United States were worth $43.1 billion, imports $37.3 billion in August. Exports and imports to and from the European Union reached $3.5 and $4.3 billion respectively.

The numbers paint a vivid picture of dependency but the reality is more of a oil-gray shade. With the US economy going south, Canadian exporters and producers are already feel the consequences, take Ontario's car manufacturing industry as an example. US retail sales fell sharply and the worst is probably still to come as the latest numbers predate last weeks global market turmoils. Meanwhile, Canadian consumer confidence fell to 1982 levels. That was the time when Canada was in recession.

With the main export market going, going.... it's necessity to offset the losses. Many in Canada have advocated closer ties with European Union, Maclean's Paul Wells among them. The reasoning was simple. India, China and Brazil are still emerging markets where most of population not really eager to buy and consume. EU, on the other hand, is a single market, with unified trade policies comprising half a billion people.

After much secrecy, or, more appropriately, almost no publicity, at the EU-Canada summit in Quebec City, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that EU and Canada will start negotiations to form “ambitious” and “historic” trade agreement. It's only sad that these negotiations hadn't start earlier and that it had to be a global economy crisis to speed up the process. There are economic gains to be made on both sides (estimated to $32 billion a year). For Canada though, there's also a political gain in a form of a relationship with an economic bloc whose currency is replacing the US dollar as an international currency of choice. Finally, closer ties with Europe, will be welcomed by those who claim that Canada is blending too much to the American way of life and doing things.

(Written for World Business Press Online)

Mandatory voting – cure for imperfect elections?

2008-10-16T17:06:00.006-04:00

Most western democracies are struggling with low election turnout. Canada has experienced the record low numbers on Tuesday and 59.1% turnout means that about 10 million people didn't cast their votes. The problem is that they didn't really exercise their right NOT to vote. They simply didn't bother.

There were tons of books written about the general political apathy in post-modern societies. But then, people got their breads and circuses, Starbuckses and reality TV, hamburgers and Nascars and on days when they can exercise their right to vote day simply exercise and/or consume.

Not even the effects of the global financial market turmoil and the credit crunch managed to inspire Canadians to vote in larger numbers. Many of them didn't bother because nobody really believed that Conservatives would fail to win, the only question was whether they form a minority or majority government. Another reason is rooted in Canadian voting system. 308 ridings mean 308 victors. It also means that the votes of people voting for other than victorious candidates do not matter. And that, in real life, means that 37.63% popular votes turned into 46% percent of MPs for the Conservatives, 9.97% popular votes for Bloc Quebecois turned into 50 places in the House of Commons – that's 16 percent. On the other hand, New Democrats got 18.20% of votes yet earned only 37 chairs in the Chamber – 12%.

Great Britain, with the same voting system and now essentially three parties, can serve with even more staggering results – in 2005 election, the Labour party got 35.3% of popular vote, the Conservatives 32.3%. Labour party formed majority with 356 MPs while the Conservatives only got 198. Liberal Democrats got 62 seats with 22.1% of popular vote. 61.3% turnout, although edging up from 2001, was nothing to write home about.

The problem with the first past the post system is that if a particular constituency or riding is firmly pro-conservative or pro-liberal, etc. voting for other parties' candidates really makes no sense since, at the end of the day, the vote will not count.

Changing voting system is an option, it was raised as a possibility in the post-voting debates, but it's unlikely that proportionate system will be introduced. After all, it doesn't seem to change the things very much.

Even major events or important issues seems to attract voters. The 2002 French presidential election were marked with a historic low turnout of 71.6%. Surprisingly, French right leader Jean-Marie le Pen made it to the second round only 3% behind Jacques Chirac. That pushed thousands people to the streets protesting against the election result.... But even the possibility of President le Pen failed to mobilize more than 79.7% of eligible voters.

Many in Canada are now calling to consider mandatory voting. It works in 32 countries – it's enforced in Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Turkey and 15 other states, such as Greece, Italy and Luxembourg, do not enforce mandatory voting. Compulsory voting doesn't necessarily mean that people actually have to vote. Belgium's citizens can cast an empty ballot. Which still says more than just ignoring the vote altogether.

(Written for World Business Press Online)

40e élection générale, humour edition

2008-10-14T21:33:00.005-04:00

Voting may not be a straightforward deal for everybody and with a significant change taking place before the 40^th General Election, confusion was bound to arise.

For example, for the first time in history, Canadians eager to excercise their right to vote must produce a proof of identity. Producing a passport, however, is not enough. A proper ID must contain photo, name and address but the passport doesn't include the last item. Fortunately, combinations of ID documents and other item such as bank statements and utility bills are allowed. There are special provisions to allow voting of people wearing full-face garments.

Another interesting thing is that employers have to provide their employees with three consecutive hours to vote. They can allow them to arrive to work later, leave earlier or allow workers to take a three-hour voting break. Penalty for failing to do so is three months imprisonment, up to $1000 fine or both. If an employee uses intimidation or other “means to interfere with the granting of the time off”, fine increases to $5000, five years in prison or both.

Another interesting thing is that even homeless people, without a fixed address, can vote. ID confirming the name is acceptable if accompanied by the attestation of the local shelter. In fact, this year, Salvation Army did an excellent job in helping homeless people to exercise their right to vote.

FAQ section of Election Canada website also features the following question – Is someone allowed to eat a ballot? Proverbial Canadian Humour, eh? Eh, no. According to the website “eating a ballot, not returning it or otherwise destroying or defacing it constitutes a serious breach of the Canada Elections Act”.

Another interesting fact - until 1975, British citizens could vote in Canadian election. The provision was restricted to Canadian citizens in 1970 but those Britons, who were eligible to vote as of June 25, 1968, kept their right until the said 1975.

Last but not least – the campaign. CBC talk show The Hour host George Stroumboulopoulos was giving out the laurels and darts for deeds and words done and uttered during the campaign. Canadian political leaders got their share of both but the most important laurel was awarded to the economic crisis. “Thank you for turning the election about nothing that nobody wanted into an election about something that nobody wanted.” Thank you, Mr. Stroumboulopoulos.

(Written for World Business Press Online)

There are no kangaroos in Austria

2008-10-12T19:26:00.008-04:00

In 2001, I found myself at the US Air Force gala in Minot, North Dakota. Being a civilian and a European, and thus totally out of place, three army men and their lovely wives were firing away. Questions. Such as “Where exactly do you come from?”. From Slovakia. Collective “Ah, I see” (meaning "I have no idea") was followed by rather abrupt “How did you get here?”. I walked, obviously. Quizzical looks started to fade away as the story about US State Department's International Security Issues Program for international visitors evolved around the table.

Slovakia, of course, didn't ring any bells, Czechoslovakia echoed in the distance, and to make things worse, one of my Program traveling companions was from Slovenia. Explaining all the -slavias and -ias produced confusion only comparable to watching four NHL teams playing two games at one ice-rink at the same time. But then, what's the difference between the Dakotas, right....?

Earlier that day I spent around 20 minutes in a fully functional B-52 bomber, still in an active service. The crew, led by a guy with quintessentially Czech surname, courtesy of his Czech grandfather, had just returned from a mock-up NATO mission. Virtual bombs were disposed of over Poland. NATO member-state, by the way.

Few weeks ago, a Hertz agent examined my International Driving Permit and checked it against some kind of Hertz country manual. Then he asked me what my country of origin was.
Me: Slovakia.
Agent (after going through the list again): I only have Czechoslovakia here... is it, like, eh, related?
Me: Well, yes, it is. It's just that Czechoslovakia ceased to exist 15 years ago.
My Permit and European driving license proved to be OK, we just agreed upon the fact that the list, sporting an antique yellowish tint, “probably” needed to be updated.

There's a small convenience store close to my place in Ottawa, you know, one of these corner shops that are actually in the middle of a block. It's owned by a Chinese family. As I found out later, they came to Canada about ten years ago. A usual how-are-you conversation on a Saturday morning took an interesting twist after I answered the obvious where-do-you-come-from question asked by a woman at the counter. “How did you managed to divide the federation so peacefully? It was in 1992 or 1993, wasn't it?”

Was I surprised? Yes. But wasn't the fact that she KNEW, it was the fact that she CARED to know.

Unlike most of my classmates at the French language course I'm taking. Going by the book (made in France) we arrived at point where we were supposed to identify few stereotypes about French. Les Française mangent beaucop de fromage? Check. Great cuisine? Check. Ne parlent pas anglais? Check. Then someone said that the French stink claiming it's customary there not to have a shower/bath every day. And apparently, most of the class agreed. There's not enough water Europe. Hot water is scarce. Perhaps it's because during the war there wasn't enough water.... So, being a proud European, I fought my lonely battle.

It was an amazingly sad experience. Canada has the image of a country that is more open, more international, and, compared to the United States, less egocentric, less prone to claim it's best in everything, much more immune to stereotypes and biases of propaganda.

However, there was one message that roamed under every political leader's speech during the election campaign - Canada is the best country in the world. And the nation agrees. Hats off to proud Canadians, French, Germans, Slovaks.... But how can one compare their country to others if they know next to nothing about them? For generations, Canadians only compared themselves to the United States. To such extent that American journalist Richard Starnes said: "Canadians are generally indistinguishable from the Americans, and the surest way of telling the two apart is to make the observation to a Canadian." For many Canadians, Europe is still behind a mental Iron Curtain that fell in the middle of the Atlantic.

Meanwhile, Europe evolved. It makes much better cars, has faster Internet, better mobile networks, Canadian banking system and security are truly medieval compared to European standards. Health care is generally better in Europe (Britain excluded). European driving licenses are valid in all countries and there are fewer trade restriction within EU than among Canadian provinces. It's Slovakia that makes most cars per capita in the world.

That Canadians can't tell the difference between Lichtenstein and Luxembourg, or Slovakia and Slovenia, is not really important. We, Europeans, don't really care whether Newfoundland and Labrador are two or one province.

Put it this way, people usually don't care about gravity, some are even in constant denial. But when they stumble upon something, the gravity will show itself with all the force. Remember the Summit Series? September 2, 1972, the first hockey match between Canada's elite pros and Soviet national team. Played in Montreal. USSR 7 - Canada 3. These days, TSN commentators can say that Marian Hossa is from Dukla “Trentchin”, Slovakia.

(written for World Business Press Online)

Playing a disaster card in Canada's election play

2008-10-03T20:40:00.007-04:00

Alas, Canadian political party leaders had their English debate wind stolen by the US Wall Street bail-out deal. That also, accidentally, worked out very well for a US vice-presidential hopeful. That's singular. On either side of The border, the official commentator army and the blogosphere didn't really have much time to perform usual day-after vivisections. Or postmortems.

In Canada, it's almost safe to say that after four hours of debating everything from aboriginals to tax cuts there was no winner, although some polls may suggest otherwise. The triumvirate Harper-Dion-Layton preached to the the converted for the best part of the four hours. Bloc Quebecois' Gilles Duceppe and the Green Party's Elisabeth May were more or less clear that they couldn't really win and were fighting for impressions. They are both relevant to their respective minorities, sure, but on the national level they are bound to play the fourth or the fifth fiddle.

Still, they may play an important role as opinion tweakers. Since they're not really in position to run for premiership, they can afford to be different. Identifying specific issues rather than wasting time presenting necessarily broad and generally vague national strategies can effect undecided voters. Not necessarily in their directions but they can make them swing away from Stephen Harper's Conservatives. Mind, there was really only one message streaming out from both debates – another Conservative government would be a disaster.

Harper, on the other hand, warned, that another minority government would be a disaster for Canadian economy. He'd better watch his words, because, with winner-takes-all electoral system, it may well be his government.

(written for World Business Press Online)

Valensia: Good afternoon, pianist

2008-09-04T09:39:00.008-04:00

I'm not alone! Great. I updated the "favorite music" part of my profile and started to explore how many people might have had the same taste. Amazingly, I found seven other souls who listed Valensia Aldous Byron Clarkson as one of their favorites. There's magnificent eight of us :-) Back at home, in Slovakia, I think it's safe to say that if you know Valensia, you know me.

I came across his work accidentaly as I ran into Mayke & Veronique (the song). Then I paid $80 in current prices for the Blue Album, Japanese edition, which I got about 4 weeks after it was released in Japan. But the most amazing thing was to find 3 CDs (Gaia II, Valentine vs Valensia and Luna Luna) in Virgin Megastore on Champs Elysees in Paris, France. Metal Majesty CDs arrived from Finland, Queen tribute from a seller at Amazon UK... Not easy, but it's worth every penny, cent and minute.

google's chroma key

2008-09-02T23:26:00.005-04:00

Those familiar with movies, television or "moving pictures broadcasting" in general know what chroma key is. For the others, there's Wikipedia to the rescue. Essentially, chroma key is a green or blue screen that serves as a background to a scene. With actors done with their jobs, smart folks with computers replace all the green or blue with a dramatic or an office background.

This is exactly what Google is doing, although it's the users who are, or are supposed to be, smart. iGoogle is Google's chroma key, they gave you the background and it's up to you to set up the scene. The Chrome browser is here. It's different, slightly unusual, it feels fast, although it is NOT exactly pretty, especially the XPized bluish bar that's A) ugly and B) unnecessarily thick. Skins, please!!!!!!!!! Amazingly, Chrome reflects the pages I visited using Firefox (weird, I have four browsers on my work PC now). It's rather neat, especially when "jeez, what was that site..." moment strikes, but then, it means that I'll have to clean the cache of a browser I'm not using. Can that be the reason why it's so fast?

Anyway, I must admit, I like Chrome. I use Firefox on a PC, Safari on a Mac, with a few exceptions when I encounter poorly written websites. I'm not going to change my browsing ways but I can see myself using Chrome more often - once they get rid of that ugly bar and ugly Bookmark bar folder Icons.

Speaking of Chroma Key, a project founded by former Dream Theater keyboardist Kevin Moore, the best keyboardist Dream Theater ever had. Check it out here.

the first one

2008-09-01T03:08:00.000-04:00

OK, not exactly a blog post, but this is my very first one, ever, it's past midnight and I shouldn't be doing this. However, after spending more than an hour playing with the settings and tweaking the blog (changes to the template are rather subtle....), I felt a sudden urge to write that proverbial "something". Just to see how it looks. And tweak it again... perhaps.