Category Archives: Politics

May 30 2013
Leave a comment
Media, Municipal Affairs, Politics

Rob Ford is ready for his close-up (again)

Trouble the water in Toronto

Trouble the water in Toronto

Now that Rob Ford is more popular than U.S. President Barack Obama and singing sensation Lady Gaga combined (at least according to Google searches), does Hollywood figure in the future of the world’s most famous mayor?

CTV reports, “In the wake of reported allegations he was seen on a drug video, Rob Ford searches on Google have surpassed some of the most popular figures in the world. In fact, on May 17, the day after Gawker and the Toronto Star reported on the alleged video featuring the mayor of Canada’s biggest city, Ford got more Google searches than (both Mr. Obama and Ms. Gaga) – that’s worldwide. Our Google Trends graph, which plots Google search terms based on search performance, shows the search term fluctuating in popularity from Jennifer Lawrence to Jay-Z levels ever since. Before the scandal, the mayor was about as popular on Google as Prime Minister Stephen Harper.”

And why not? The saga in Hog Town, where Mr. Ford reigns like King Lear – isolatedly and erratically – is made for the movies. Hell, this stuff even writes itself.

We may imagine the opening scene, in which the rotund, office-bound monarch ruminates on his life and the events that have brought him to this sorry state of affairs. He has just narrowly avoided a group of women who had arrived at City Hall with a birthday cake (he turned 44 on May 28), before entreating him to resign.

Then follows the flashbacks.

A happy and contented childhood attending Scarlett Heights Collegiate, playing football, horsing around with chums in the quasi-affluent Toronto borough of Etobicoke.

Vain attempts to keep up with his older brothers, Randy and Doug, whose extra-curricular activities may, or may not, have involved ritual dalliances with certain controlled substances late into the night and wee hours of the morning.

Ambitious dreams of becoming a professional football player; sitting out a season of university play on the bench; leaving Carleton after his freshman year; returning home to Toronto to join his Dad’s label- and tag-making business; hating it.

Then, in classic cinematic fashion, comes local politics to his rescue.

Three terms as a city councillor, during which he distinguished himself as an outspoken, if not always sensitive or even astute, observer of social values. And the gaffes. . .oh, the famous gaffes.

“If we wiped out the perks for council members, we’d save $100 million easy. . .all this office budget stuff is self-promotion to benefit yourself. Why should the taxpayers have to pay for it? It boggles my mind?”

His constituents loved him, the way Louisianians loved their populist firebrand Huey Long early in the last century. Mr. Ford’s big mouth could do no wrong, even when it uttered nonsense.

“We just need to get rid of these life-long politicians that just give out money to special interest groups and don’t serve the community. I’m really teed off. We need to get a new council or this city is going to go down the drain.”

And this: “If you are not doing needles and you are not gay, you wouldn’t get AIDS probably, that’s bottom line. Those are the facts.”

And this: “What I compare bike lanes to is swimming with the sharks. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks, not for people on bikes. My heart bleeds for them when I hear someone gets killed, but it’s their own fault at the end of the day.”

And, of course, this: “Those Oriental people work like dogs. They work their hearts out. They are workers non-stop. They sleep beside their machines. That’s why they’re successful in life.”

Then, in one dreadful moment, comes the Toronto Star and its allegations of a video that shows the mayor smoking what appears to be a crack pipe. And the great unravelling begins.

The accusations. The recriminations. The firings. The quittings. A city in turmoil. Reputations in tatters.

Still, at the end, there is that quieting denouement of all great, filmic melodramas – the silver lining, if you will.

We see a smile develop on Mr. Ford’s face. There is that birthday cake in the downstairs lobby, after all. It would be a shame to let it go to waste.

Fin. Fade to black.

Tagged , ,
May 29 2013
Leave a comment
Humour, Politics

Foaming at the mouth over lickspittles

Poor Ms. Maj. Her eyes are shut wide open

Poor Ms. Maj. Her eyes are shut wide open

It is rare that a member of the Senate of Canada affords so exquisite an opportunity to drink deeply the rich elixir that is the English language. So let us compliment Marjory LeBreton, the federal Government’s chief representative in the Upper Chamber, for her recent, and truly marvelous, display of verbal pyrotechnics.

To be perfectly clear, here’s exactly what she said in a speech last week: “We moved at the first opportunity to make the Senate more open, accountable and transparent. It was determined from September 2010 onward, Senators expenses would be publicly reported on a quarterly basis. Had that not taken place – no one would have been any the wiser. Things would have carried on in the old Liberal way –nudge, nudge, wink, wink!”

Indeed, she said, “The reality. . .is that we are facing this crisis because we flung open the door and revealed what was going on and now rather than being credited for doing so, we are paying the price for taking this important and necessary step.”

Alas, she added, “I am not surprised. I am a Conservative and I know more than most that around this town, populated by Liberal elites and their media lickspittles, tut-tutting about our government and yearning for the good old days, that we are never given the benefit of doubt and are rarely given credit for all the good work that we do.”

Lickspittle. What a most excellent word; a true mouthful of antiquated bile and embalmed moral authority.

“A useful functionary, not infrequently found editing a newspaper,” is how the 19th century American writer Ambroise Bierce defined the “lickspittle” in his masterwork of humour, The Devil’s Dictionary. Such a cad, he wrote, “is closely allied to the blackmailer by the tie of occasional identity; for in truth the lickspittle is only the blackmailer under another aspect, although the latter is frequently found as an independent species. Lickspittling is more detestable than blackmailing, precisely as the business of a confidence man is more detestable than that of a highway robber; and the parallel maintains itself throughout, for whereas few robbers will cheat, every sneak will plunder if he dare.”

Modern definitions, found in online dictionaries, include, “a fawning underling; a toady; a flattering or servile person” and “a contemptible person.”

Lickspittle’s closest synonym is, perhaps, “sycophant” from the Latin “sycophanta”. According to a Wiktionary entry it denotes “one who uses compliments  to gain self-serving favor or advantage from another; one who seeks to gain through the powerful and influential.” A lickspittle, therefore, is also an “ass-kisser, brown-noser, suck-up, yes man, parasite, flunky” or “lackey.”

Sadly, this detestable creature can be found in nearly all walks of life, doing the  loathsome bidding of their profane superiors in every country of the world. During the Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, you could have papered the walls of the Oval Office with them. These days, you can observe them at the IRS, targeting conservative groups seeking tax exemptions.

And while Ms. LeBreton may be justified in vilifying the “media lickspittles” in her midst, sometimes it works the other way around.

“The president and chief executive officer of The Associated Press. . .called the government’s secret seizure of two months of reporters’ phone records unconstitutional,” The Washington Times reported earlier this month. Gary Pruitt. . .said the move already has had a chilling effect on journalism. (He) told CBS’ ‘Face the Nation’ that the government has no business monitoring the AP’s newsgathering activities. ‘If they restrict that apparatus. . .the people of the United States will only know what the government wants them to know, and that’s not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment,’ he said.”

In fact, about the only institution, public or private, that remains utterly devoid of lickspittles is a certain branch of the Canadian Parliament, where 105 unelected members, appointed by the Governor General on the “advice” of the prime minister exercise only the soundest judgement, free of influence, in the lofty interest of the citizens they represent.

Isn’t that true, Ms. LeBreton? What, pray tell, is your word for them?

Tagged , , , , , , , ,
May 27 2013
Leave a comment
Culture, Politics

Fear and trembling in Canuckistan

The political process as we know it in Canada

The political process as we know it in Canada

Citizens of the world are united in at least one important respect: They’re feeling a might poorly these days, and they’re not at all sure what, if anything, can shake them from their malaise.

That, at least, is what we may conclude from a new Ipsos Global Advisory entitled, “The Economic Pulse of the World (May 2013),” in which “citizens in 24 countries assess the current state of their country’s economy for a total global perspective.”

The key findings, gleaned from interviews with 18,331 individuals between the ages of 16 and 64, suggest that, averaged overall, only 36 per cent think their “current national economic situation” is good. Most think it stinks. We Canadians are generally more positive (thank you Messrs. Harper, Flaherty and Carney). But, as Ipsos points out, even our confidence is showing some fissures of late.

In a section headlined, “Canada Cause of Growth Deterioration in North America”, the research firm states, “Also concerning is economic sentiment in Canada. The country has traditionally performed as the rock holding up North American sentiment, while the United States has struggled to recover from the 2009/2010 crash. However, assessments in Canada have dropped six points to 59% saying the economy is ‘good’, reflecting the largest drop in the country since September 2011.”

Of course, that’s still far better than many. “A considerable margin continues to exist at the top of the global ratings between global leader Saudi Arabia (80%) and the rest of the pack although this is closing compared to last month,” Ipsos reports. “Following Saudi Arabia is Sweden (70%), Germany (67%), India (66%), China (64%), and Australia (62%). Only a handful of those in Spain (3%) rate their national economies as ‘good’, followed by Italy (4%), France (5%), Hungary (7%) and Great Britain (13%).”

Accounting for Canada’s precipitous slide this month is a little like sifting through the leaves at the bottom of a teacup. After all, according to a report by TD Economics in April, “The Canadian economy beat expectations in February, growing 0.3%, following an upwardly revised 0.3% gain in January. Canadian economic growth has now accelerated to a 1.7% pace year-on-year. That is still sub-par, but a far cry better than its 1% clip at the end of 2012.”

Moreover, the bank states, “The Canadian labour market created 12,500 net jobs in April, a small bounce back from (March’s) 54,500 net loss. The trend pace of job creation moved back into positive territory as the 3-month moving average rose from -8,600 to 2,900 in the month while the 6-month moving average stayed steady at

12,400. The unemployment rate remained steady at 7.2%”

My theory about the mini-crisis in confidence here has more to do the the “weighted average” of bad news related to matters of a decidedly non-economic nature. With apologies to the Bard, consider these rough winds, ripped from the daily news, that do shake the darling buds of May in the late, Great White North:

“Senator Mike Duffy said Thursday he wants a ‘full and open inquiry’ to answer the many questions Canadians have about the spending scandal that prompted him to leave the Conservative caucus and now has the RCMP asking the Senate for more details about spending rules,” reported the CBC on Friday.

For something completely different, also from the CBC, “Members of Rob Ford’s executive committee say they are prepared to take over the day-to-day running of the city if the Toronto mayor is no longer able to perform his duties, amid a scandal involving allegations he was caught on video smoking crack cocaine.”

If these aren’t enough to send you screaming over to grandma’s house, then how about this from the Montreal Gazette: “Exploding cars, intimidating phone calls and clandestine meetings in the dead of night. The Charbonneau Commission was presented with a dark and unflattering portrait of the city of Laval on Thursday, with two witnesses describing their involvement in a well-organized system of collusion in the municipality that was both profitable and dangerous.”

A rotten economy? We should be so lucky.

Tagged , , ,
May 22 2013
Leave a comment
Government, Politics

The Red-faced Chamber needs reform

They’ve been falling like pins on a bowling lane – not one after another, but all at once, concussed by the sheer force of the public opprobrium against them. First Messrs. Brazeau and Harb, then Mr. Duffy and, finally, Ms. Wallin. May is the month of their reckoning and, at some basic level, of the Canadian Senate itself.

Expense claims make superb political scandals. Who doesn’t believe that public officials are always just one chit away from defrauding the noble, long-suffering taxpayer? Who doesn’t suspect that for every misdeed uncovered in the nation’s chambers of power, dozens more go undetected?

The burden of reality, though, is complexity. Nothing in Ottawa is ever as it seems, and while the tangled webs Senators Patrick Brazeau, Mac Harb, Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin have spun for themselves seem identical, they are not.

Last week, Mr. Brazeau told CBC Radio’s “The House” that he received prior, written approval from the Senate to rack up nearly $50,000 in living costs, a sum which that august body demands he return. His colleague, Mr. Harb, is on the hook for $100,000, a claim he has hired a lawyer to defend.

Meanwhile, Ms. Wallin has quit the Conservative caucus and has no intention of returning until an external reviewer finishes examining $320,000 in travel expenses she has incurred since 2010. In a statement, she said, “Given that (the audit process) continues, I have decided to recuse myself. . .and I will have no further comment” until, presumably, she is either cleared or found culpably responsible for the tab.

And then there is Mr. Duffy – poor, dear Mr. Duffy. He is paying a heavy premium in the court of public opinion for the $90,000 gift he received from the prime minister’s (now former) chief of staff to cover his expense debt to the Senate. The move has both baffled and outraged Canadians, who complain, with some justification, that a member of the Upper Chamber ought to pay his own bills, just like anybody else.

In fact, it’s the variety of these alleged lapses in judgement (as much as their concurrence) that speak most convincingly to the real problem an increasing number of Canadians perceive about the Senate: its institutional ossification.

Here is a body so unfamiliar with the concepts of accountability and transparency that it has no way to influence the comportment of its members without erecting what amounts to a police dragnet.

This observation lets no individual off the hook; nor should it. Mr. Duffy’s behavior  (or what we know of it) seems particularly egregious. Amid the thunder and lightening of popular outrage, no one has yet seen fit to point out that ethical wounds cannot always be healed by legal triage. Notwithstanding the generosity of a friend lately in a high place, the $90,000 Mr. Duffy improperly billed the Senate is still his burden to bear until he, alone, assumes responsibility for the debt. Otherwise, he skates free to spend his unencumbered net worth on whatever he likes. In whose conception of plain dealing is this even remotely fair?

Still, the larger issue is the Senate, itself – a 19th century institution purportedly doing 21st century work. Its members serve at the pleasure of those who appointed them, not always in the interests of the electorate or even the regions they are, by convention, supposed to represent. Its rules of residency are baroque. Its internal review procedures are inconsistent and oftentimes incomprehensible.

It is possible to remove a senator, but as a CTV report noted in February, it isn’t easy. Quoting from the Constitution Act, the news source identified five reasons for turfing a member, including: “If he is adjudged Bankrupt or Insolvent, or applies for the Benefit of any Law relating to Insolvent Debtors, or becomes a public Defaulter.”

Bankruptcy? Really?

All of which only guarantees that the inarguably good work the Senate performs (despite itself) remains shackled both to its fossilized past and current scandals.

There can be only one, sensible reckoning for Canada’s Upper Chamber: reform.

Tagged , , , ,
May 21 2013
Leave a comment
Media, Politics

How B.C.’s pollsters got it right

Seeing the forest for the trees in public opinion research

Seeing the forest for the trees in public opinion research

Public opinion pollsters are, to many, nothing more than contemporary augerers, gauging the effects of political rhetoric to predict which way the wind will blow on election day – something akin to reading a dead muskrat’s guts to divine the moment of Julius Caesar’s murder on the steps of the Theatre of Pompey.

No segment of society, it is safe to say, maintains a more disingenuous relationship with survey masters than the Fourth Estate. Journalists would be lost without the Nik Nanoses, Angus Reids and George Gallups of the world. We hang on their every word, dutifully parrot their findings and usually concur with their conclusions.

Then, when they turn out to be wrong (as they often do), we abandon them faster than a tourist does a passenger cruise infected with stomach flu. “If the B.C. election induced even a smidgen of humility into practitioners of our craft,” wrote the Globe and Mail’s national affairs columnist Jeffrey Simpson last week, “and made them less reliant on suspect polls and got them to stop yammering about polls (which the general public doesn’t much care about anyway), it will have served a useful purpose.”

Perhaps, but the general public does, in fact, care about polls, because we make them care about polls, especially the “suspect” ones. And if the B.C. election does serve a useful purpose, it will be the degree to which it nurtures a finer appreciation of the role polls play in the peaceful transition of democratic power.

Or, at least that’s John Wright’s and Kyle Braid’s hope. They are, respectively, senior vice president and vice president of Ipsos Reid Public Affairs, which bills itself as “Canada’s market intelligence leader, the country’s leading provider of public opinion research.” In an unprecedented examination of “what happened and why” in British Columbia last week – when the provincial Liberals defied every prediction and marched to victory over the NDP – the pollsters declare:

“In Canada, polls cannot be released on Election Day so it often leaves people guessing at what happened and produces lots of finger pointing. In the United States and other jurisdictions, polls that interview voters are harbingers of the outcome but most importantly help explain why things have turned out the way they have.”

In fact, they say, they nailed the results at the last minute, but because they weren’t allowed to release their election day findings, no one, apart from themselves, was the wiser.

“In British Columbia, we interviewed 1,400 voters on Election Day and, as you’ll see, the numbers virtually matched the real outcome in terms of voter preference,” they write. “But it also tells a story as to why this happened right down to the last minute. The reality is that one in 10 (11%) BC voters decided in the voting booth on election day to mark their ballot for their candidate – and with one of the lowest turnouts in provincial voting ever (52%) it was motivated voters, Liberals, who bested the NDP in the voting booth. . .This was a hand-to-hand combat campaign and it deserved close scrutiny to the final ballot – and that’s why we did what we did by doing this special poll but because of the rules we couldn’t release it.”

The bottom line: “After an event like this – which in Canadian politics has been few and far between – there are lots of people who say that the ‘polls got it wrong’ when in fact it’s voters who upset their own applecart based on everything they’ve seen, read or heard.”

In other words, B.C.’s pollsters got it right to the final moments when the public revolted against what they read about their voting intentions in the media.

The question, of course, is: If Ipsos Reid had been permitted to publish the results of exit polls on voting day, would that have changed the outcome of the election? A better question, perhaps, is: Does it matter?

The final prerogative of citizenship in a democracy defies prediction. A voter, after all, is still permitted to change his mind.

Tagged , , , , ,
May 17 2013
Leave a comment
Humour, Politics

Hey buddy, can you spare a dime?

DSC_0180

Dear Nigel:

It’s been some time since last we chatted, and it occurs to me that I never did thank you for your gift of last Christmas, which was both timely and deeply appreciated. As we are both men of a certain social standing and responsibility, we understand how the pressures of high office can occasionally undermine our material means. It is grand to know that one can count on one’s friends when circumstances prevail overly on one’s pocket book. Great Aunt Mabel’s sudden demise (the unfortunate result of one too many rum toddies during Hogmanay) was a devastating blow to all of us. Your generous offer to cover the costs of her interment was a great relief. Again, we thank you!

On another matter entirely, you’ll be pleased to know that the renovations to our summer residence in Castle, New Brunswick, are proceeding nicely. The wife, Minnie, and I are enormously proud of the 1,500 square feet of new, outdoor living space, which replaces the old baby barn and outhouse. We can’t decide what we like most about it: the uniflame, gas firebowl with teak surrounds or the Buddha-themed, granite water feature. Minnie simply can’t tear herself away from the Rattan sofa chair.(It’s mildew-resistant, don’t you know). In any case, thanks to your thoughtful munificence, we’ve managed to steer clear of the bank. What a relief! Arguing loan terms can be such a bore.

Oh, before I forget, I should mention that our girl Tabitha is having a marvelous time on her European grand tour, visiting all of the Old World capitals. Meanwhile, young Chad is learning how to parasail (his fondest dream) during his sojourn at the reef islands of Vanuatu. Needless to say, they are most grateful for their “Uncle” Nigel’s support and they send their love.

Now, down to business. . .I may have mentioned to you my desire to write a book. For years, I have been deeply concerned about the state of the Maritime economy and the increasing gulf between the haves and the have-nots. When I travel around this region – the times I manage to extricate myself from my heavy workload in Ottawa – I am shocked by the lack of opportunity here. Recently, somebody (I can’t remember who) told me that the population is aging and that more and more people are actually leaving to get work elsewhere. Did you know that?

Well, that’s certainly a wake-up call and I think something should be done about it. Specifically, I think I should do something about it. After all, I am a member of this great country’s upper chamber. What’s more, I am a journalist by training and a story teller by temperament. (I once gave a speech, scheduled for half-an-hour, that ran on for 75 minutes; by the end, the audience could not recommend me too highly).

Nigel, here’s what I’m proposing. . .I will roll up my sleeves and get down to the nitty gritty of what makes this region tick. Why do some people seem to have it all and why do some. . .well, don’t? Why is there so much unfairness out there? Who’s to blame? What’s the solution?

I’ve considered throwing my support behind Maritime Union, but for the life of me I can’t figure out where the capital city should go. So, maybe that’s a non-starter. At the very least, however, I can leverage the not unappreciable respect my station in life affords me to get the urgent conversation going. I even have a working title: “A Tough Love Letter from Fat City.” Catchy – don’t you think?

At any rate, such a project will take time and, of course, money – about $90,000, in fact. And that, dear friend, brings me to you. I know you won’t let me down. After all, men like us. . .well, we’ve got to stick together.

Your enduring chum,

Senator Alejandro Brucellosis, Esq.

Tagged , ,
May 15 2013
Leave a comment
Politics

When silence is golden

Ballooning blabbermouths in the Canadian House of Commons

Ballooning blabbermouths in the Canadian House of Commons

Now that the more rigorous aspects of Statistics Canada’s data collection functions are effectively hobbled, the nation awaits with breathless anticipation the arrival of alternatives. The more whimsical, it seems, the better.

Here comes one, courtesy of Samara, which bills itself as “a non-partisan charitable organization that works to improve political participation in Canada.” The happy collective with a staff of six takes its name from “the winged ‘helicopter’ seed that falls from the maple tree. A samara is a symbol of Canada, and a reminder that from small seeds, big ideas can grow.”

Like this one: “Canada’s House of Commons is really a House of Words – almost 8 million in 2012. But when it comes to debate on the floor of the Commons, some MPs have much more to say than others. What do 200,000 words, 70,000 words or 1000 words look like?”

Samara is glad you asked, because “thanks to several famous Canadian books, a bookshelf helps us visualize the differences. . .We’ve included the most talkative MPs, the least talkative, the leaders of the political parties and a few cabinet ministers.”

The group’s research, just released, shows that oratorily. . .um. . .speaking, New Democratic members are more verbose, by several magnitudes of order, than their political rivals. (The exception is Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, who never met a podium she couldn’t crash).

The top prize goes to NDipper Peter Julian (Burnaby-New Westminster) who uttered a grand total of 226,027 words during the 129 days the Commons sat last year. According to Samara, that’s roughly equivalent to reading out loud Rohinton Mistry’s “A Fine Balance”.

On the opposite end of the of the lip-flapping scale, Tory MP Keith Ashfield (Fredericton) issued a mere 922 bon mots, which is about the same number that fill the Robert Service poem, “The Cremation of Sam McGee”. (To be fair, Mr. Ashfield had been ill and, therefore, absent from the House last fall).

Other works of literary art various MPs might have recited in place of the greenhouse gases they actually issued include: Conrad Black’s “A Matter of Principle” (Liberal Kevin Lamoureux, Winnipeg North, 222,451 words); Ken Dryden’s “The Game” (Conservative Kellie Leitch, Simcoe-Grey, 120,835); Will Ferguson’s “419” (New Democrat Jack Harris, St. John’s East, 113,819); Rick Mercer’s “A Nation  Worth Ranting About” (New Democratic Leader Thomas Mulcair, Outremont, 44,498); and Kim Thuy’s “Ru” (Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Calgary Southwest, 26,758).

The research is intriguing. But is it instructive?

Surely, the quantity of speech is less important than the quality. When Mr. Mulcair inveighs against the sitting government’s policies for penal reform, do we afford him equal stature to Deputy House Leader Tom Lukiwski (who once spoke for six straight hours at committee) telling colleagues that television broadcasts of empty seats in the House “doesn’t look good for Parliament”?

In fact, the annals of democratic assemblies are littered with the spoken nonsense of their members. Business Insider reports, for example, that Senator Strom Thurmond (South Carolina) delivered what still remains the longest monologue in U.S. history. “In filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957,” the news source says, “Thurmond began speaking at 8:54 p.m. on August 28, 1957, and did not stop until 9:12 p.m. on the 29th. . .That rhetorical marathon took a lot of preparation. Here are some of the details, according to the Associated Press:

“Thurmond took a steam bath earlier in the day to rid his body of excess liquid. This avoided the potential for any ‘accidents’ in the chamber. He went to the floor armed with cough drops and malted milk tablets. He allowed others to make short remarks and ask questions during his time, allowing him to sneak off to the cloakroom to gobble a sandwich. He had his aide wait in the cloakroom with a pail when he was about to step down from the dais in case of an emergency evacuation.”

All of which may only suggest that verbal diarrhea is just one more bodily function best performed in private.

Tagged , ,
May 09 2013
1 Comment
Politics, Science

Applying social values to good science

Seing the forest for the trees. . .

Seeing the forest for the trees. . .

The contention that science, or at least its pursuit, should benefit society is hardly revolutionary. Where things get sticky is in front of the cameras as politicians explain what they mean when they modify the noun, “research”, with the adjective, “useful”.

So it was on Tuesday when Gary Goodyear, the federal minister of state for science and technology, announced that, henceforth, the National Research Council will concentrate on helping Canadian industry become more innovative and competitive.

“The day is past when a researcher could hit a home run by publishing a paper on some new discovery,” he told an Ottawa news conference. “The home run is when somebody utilizes the knowledge that was discovered for social and economic gain.”

The implication is that the NRC has been spending too much of its time doing “basic” science, and not enough time helping businesses commercialize promising, new technologies. In fact, Mr. Goodyear is explicit when he says, “Our businesses are not doing the research that they need to do. So something had to be done.”

But if the NRC has been a laggard in the nuts-and-bolts, dollars-and-cents world of applied science, then what are we to make of its government-approved website? It clearly states this: “The National Research Council (NRC) is the Government of Canada’s premier research and technology organization (RTO). RTOs are mission-oriented providers of innovation services to firms and governments, dedicated to building economic competitiveness and, in doing so, improving quality of life.”

And this: “NRC partners with Canadian industry to take research impacts from the lab to the marketplace, where people can experience the benefits. This market-driven focus delivers innovation faster, enhances people’s lives and addresses some of the world’s most pressing problems. We are responsive, creative and uniquely placed to partner with Canadian industry, to invest in strategic R&D programming that will address critical issues for our future.”

And this: “Each year our scientists, engineers and business experts work closely with thousands of Canadian firms, helping them bring new technologies to market. We have the people, expertise, services, licensing opportunities, national facilities and global networks to support Canadian businesses.”

Far from describing itself as a college of eggheads who sit around in their lab coats screeching “Eureka!” at every arcane discovery they make, it lists its main areas of R&D in proudly pragmatic terms: aerospace, information and communications technologies, security and disruptive technologies, construction, medical devices, energy, mining, and the environment.

It is, of course, entirely possible that the organization’s website is less a reflection of reality than wishful thinking by business-oriented bureaucrats. But that still wouldn’t undermine the NRC’s long track record of useful innovations over the years.

Here’s one from the Council’s archives: “Long before fictional forensic investigators with fancy crime-busting gadgets became popular entertainment, the Canadian Mounties were using some of the world’s best detection equipment to sniff out hidden weapons. Developed by a soft-spoken NRC scientist, the portable bomb sniffer became the standard of explosives detection in international aviation security.”

Here’s another: “The Canadian Prairies are blanketed with millions of acres of bright yellow canola fields. The crop is used in dozens of products, including cooking oil, mayonnaise and printing ink. Over the past five decades, researchers at NRC have transformed a minor crop into one of our country’s most valuable assets.”

And another: “The dedicated researchers at the National Research Council have produced many significant medical technologies and advancements, but perhaps two of the most important are the first practical motorized wheelchair and the first artificial pacemaker. Through these developments, NRC scientists have improved the quality of life of millions of people around the world.”

Mr. Goodyear’s determination to ensure that the NRC sticks ever more closely to its knitting in the field of practical science may be laudable. But is it actually necessary?

The distinction between “basic” and “applied” science is real. As a public institution, however, the Council has pursued the former quite often in the interests of latter as a matter of course (and in accord with its mandate).

Defining what’s “useful”, then, has less to do with science than semantics.

Tagged ,
May 07 2013
Leave a comment
Climate, Oil and Gas, Politics

Are Canada’s oil sands on shaky ground?

The tar sands may be moot in moments, people!

The tar sands may be moot in moments, people!

There he went again, raining all over Canada’s petroleum parade with the sort of gusto one expects from a former American vice president, nobel laureate and, arguably, the planet’s leading climate-change critic.

Al Gore thinks the nation to the north of him has lost its way and in an interview published in Saturday’s Globe and Mail, he pulled no punches. “The resource curse has multiple dimensions,” he said, “and [that includes] damage to some extremely beautiful landscapes, not to mention the core issue of adding to the reckless spewing of pollution into the Earth’s atmosphere as if it’s an open sewer.”

To which Canada’s Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver shot back (again, in an interview with the Globe), “Well, he’s off the mark. . .[Those were] wildly inaccurate and exaggerated comments.”

This is not the first time the two gentlemen have sparred over Alberta’s oil sands, which occupy a tract of land about the size of England (though only a fraction of this is actually under development) and which can be seen from space. And it won’t be the last. As the glittering example all that’s wrong with our greedy, self-destructive, fossil-fuel-addicted society, this bitumen-producing region is, for environmentalists, simply too sexy to resist.

Still, though they continue to provoke discussion, there is some indication that their battles over the production of synthetic crude are becoming less relevant to the global energy debate, which is moving in increasingly new and intriguing directions.

British Columbia’s Liberal Leader Christy Clark, who is campaigning for a second term as the province’s premier, touched on this the other day when she told the Globe’s editorial board, “The pipelines that are of most interest to British Columbians are liquefied natural gas,” she said. “That’s something we can do and we don’t need the federal government and we don’t need Alberta.”

It’s the sort of statement that comes with the electioneering territory. But at least one decidedly sober source openly wonders whether our conventional attitudes and assumptions about petroleum products deserve a makeover.

One such assumption is that the world is running out of commercially exploitable reserves, a condition that makes the still plentiful Alberta fields crucially important. But, as Charles C. Mann notes in the Atlantic magazine’s cover story this month, “Even as companies drain off the easy oil, innovation keeps pushing down the cost of getting the rest. From this vantage, the race between declining oil and advancing technology determines the size of a reserve – not the number of hydrocarbon molecules.”

Mr. Mann says, “This perspective has a corollary: natural resources cannot be used up. If one deposit gets too expensive to drill, social scientists (most of them economists) say, people will either find cheaper deposits or shift to a different energy source altogether. Because the costliest stuff is left in the ground, there will always be petroleum to mine later. ‘When will the world’s supply of oil be exhausted?’ asked the MIT economist Morris Adelman, perhaps the most important exponent of this view. ‘The best one-word answer: never.’ Effectively, energy supplies are infinite.”

The article’s author does not endorse this argument; he merely raises it by way of explaining that technology is transforming our notions of what is and is not exploitable   – just as it once did in Alberta. Now, shale gas from hydraulic fracturing is flooding the North American marketplace, promising to do the once unthinkable: make the United States energy self-sufficient in less than 20 years.

And, on the horizon, is another, even more promising, fossil fuel source awaiting the steady march of innovation to set it free. “In the 1970s, geologists discovered crystalline natural gas – methane hydrate, in the jargon – beneath the seafloor,” Mr. Mann explains. “Stored mostly in broad, shallow layers on continental margins, methane hydrate exists in immense quantities; by some estimates, it is twice as abundant as all other fossil fuels combined.”

It’s also much cleaner and, therefore, potentially less costly (environmentally and financially) to produce.

But if all this sounds like so much science fiction, it’s worth remembering that’s what the experts once said about shale gas and, yes, Alberta’s oil sands when technology was still in its infancy.

The future is about to give bitumen a run for its money.

Tagged , , ,
May 07 2013
Leave a comment
Business, Corporate Responsibility, Politics

A bitter lesson in corporate responsibility

Death in Dhaka...600 and counting

Death in Dhaka…600 and counting

Galen Weston’s remorse notwithstanding, it’s tempting to think the man who runs one of the largest retail organizations in Canada should have known how dangerous conditions were for the Bangladeshi garment workers who died when their building – where some of the Loblaw-owned Joe Fresh apparel was manufactured – caved in on them.

There was even a hint of self-recrimination in remarks he made separately to reporters and investors last week, as reported by CBC News and The Canadian Press. Referring to his company’s commitment to safety standards at the overseas facilities it contracts to produce its goods, the executive chairman said, “Nothing in (the) reports suggested a problem, but the scope of the audits does not cover structural integrity. . .I am deeply shaken by the event. . .Our thoughts and prayers. . .go out to those who were injured and to all of the families who have lost loved ones.”

More than 500 perished in the collapse outside the Bangladeshi capital of Dhaka last month. As many as 150 remain missing. The tragedy made headlines around the world. And, still, Mr. Weston wondered about “the deafening silence from other apparel retailers on this. . .I’m very troubled. . .Thirty companies were having goods manufactured, but only two have come forward to speak publicly.”

But whether or not he and his industry counterparts should have known about the perilous condition of the edifice (and if, by knowing, done something about it before the dreadful accident occurred) is lamentably moot. What matters is what they do now.

Other than remaining mute, they can exit the country altogether. According to an item in The Independent, “Executives at Disney were so concerned about labour conditions in Bangladesh that they ordered a halt to operations in the country, before the clothes-factory collapse. The decision to stop production of branded merchandise was taken in March and was prompted, in part, by the factory fire in Bangladesh in November last year that killed more than 120 workers.”

The news source quoted Bob Chapek, president of Disney Consumer Products: “We felt this was the most responsible way to manage the challenges associated with our supply chain.”

The third option is a version of staying the course, sadder but wiser. Reports suggest this will be Loblaw’s approach, with renewed vigilance. The company plans to enhance its facility audits, engage its own people directly in inspections and create a disaster relief fund for the victims and their families. “We have taken action to address the situation,” Mr. Weston said last week, according to CP. “(This includes) the announcement of a fund to provide relief. . .There is more we will do and we will make that public over the next few days.”

Crucially, the company will remain in Bangladesh because Mr. Weston and his senior executives believe the garment industry can be a “force for good” in the otherwise impoverished Third World. Under the circumstances, this is the most responsible course of action.

Globalization has changed the rules of the road for western corporations that avail themselves of cheap labour overseas. The vast and integrated nature of their supply chains demands that, if they choose to do business with poor countries such as Bangladesh (where, paradoxically, the apparel industry generates $20 billion a year), they are also obliged to assume a more direct role in overseeing manufacturing processes and infrastructure.

The disaster in Dhaka illustrates that globalization’s evolution is halting and still fraught with atavistic, hands-off ignorance of, or indifference to, working conditions around the world.

But it also stands as a wake-up call to rich retailers who can no longer afford, either morally or financially, to shirk their duties abroad. The Internet and near-ubiquitous mobile communications is seeing to that. So, increasingly, are consumers who, in virtue of the options they enjoy, can and do make mincemeat of a company’s most important asset: its brand.

Mr. Weston’s remorse is genuine. He might yet take some comfort in the fact that, in exercising his presidential choice, he is doing the right thing in Bangladesh.

Tagged , ,
← Older posts
Newer posts →