Viewing Canada in Black and White

It has been said that the world has changed in many ways.  In the area of communications we live in a time where human communication and interaction is at an all-time high.  Years ago, if the average Canadian wanted to communicate with our government leader they would write a letter to their local Minister of Parliament.  If they tried to make a telephone call to a government official, the best they could hope for would be a message left and perhaps a returned call.

But today, with the development of computers and the social networks created through the internet, we have the ability to pose questions directly to the Prime Minister of Canada.  Last week the internet giant Google along with their video server YouTube.com provided a forum for the average Canadian to ask Prime Minister Stephen Harper troubling questions. This was not just a posting site, it was a video interview with Harper facilitated by Google's bilingual chief financial officer Patrick Pichette.   Pichette opened the 40-minute interview by stating that the questions addressed were the top issues brought forth by Canadians which covered everything from budget issues, student loans to some of the more social concerns the Canadian press have been harping on.

Like so many times before Harper was blunt and to-the-point regarding the policies of the Conservative government and in doing so revealed his personal points of view on a few of these issues.  For the most part the interview did not reveal anything new, but the sheer honesty of the responses were rather refreshing.  Here are few items brought forth.

Crime: On the issue of crime there were no surprises.  Putting the gaping crack that Rahim Jaffer fell through aside, Harper says simply, “..the punishment should fit the crime.”  He provided a detailed answer that expressed the need for minimal sentencing on violent crimes, where conditional sentences and house arrests are not an option for someone found guilty of an indictable offense.

Climate Change: When he was asked specifically about Climate Change, there were no real earth shattering revelations here either.  He quoted the governments record on funding clean energy technology programs and clearly detailed how continent-ally both Canada and the USA have to develop a joint approach to the problem of carbon dioxide emissions, dialogue Harper says, that has been underway since the election of Barack Obama as the US president.

Afghan Detainees:  When it came to the alleged abuses of Afghan detainees by Canadian troops Harper was asked why the government was not more open on the issue and the only official response has been, “support our troops”.  Harper was quick to state that he disagreed with the premise of the question  and that there has been NO clear evidence that the troops have abused prisoners.  Stating that without evidence, accusations cannot be addressed.  In that respect Harper stated that he believes that our troops are doing a good job under difficult conditions.

On the Seal Hunt: it was here that Harper was very matter-of-fact in his response.  He was quick to point out that the seal hunt was a necessary husbandry industry for the minority Inuit of Canada and that the hunt is more humane than other recognized and accepted husbandry industries such as beef or chicken production.  He was able to quote a UK publication 'The Economist’ backing up his position and further stated simply that seals are not an endangered species but recent statistics show the seal population is on an increase.
  
On legalizing marijuana:   Pichette advised Harper that the number one question put forth by Google's audience was regarding the legalization of marijuana.  To this the Prime Minister showed actual signs of amusement, which amounted to a smile and small animated responses.  In a detailed response he stated that  “...the reasons drugs are illegal is because they are bad.”  Stating that the drug industry causes other crimes all the way down from the growers to the distribution levels in other countries.  He opined that even if Canada were to legalize marijuana use he predicts that those businesses would never be respectable nor run by respectable people.  Harper also came up with this small piece of wisdom when he said, “I don't meet many people who have lived a drug free life and regretted it.  Met a lot who haven't who've regretted it.”

What this interview revealed about Stephen Harper is that he is a man who is well versed on all the top issues the average Canadian is concerned about, but more importantly he is very 'matter of fact' with his answers. He is a man that sees things in black and white and stands on those principals.  Issues like 'Seal hunt is good, pot is bad' is clearly sorted out in his mind.  Always calm and cool under examination even his interviewer found himself complimenting Stephen Harper after every answer.

Even though the questions were not vetted by Harper, many would see his responses frustrating because he has the answers on the tip of his tongue and at no time during the interview did he seemed flustered.

Would pre-interactive internet politicians fair as well as Harper did in this form of interview?  That I am not so sure.  But if you want to see for yourself how our Prime Minister responds to the average Canadian using the new media of the world wide web go to:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5tWSMwhGkc

Are Toyota's Woes Warranted or Protectionism?

By now you have had some form of conversation regarding Toyota and the 'flurry' of  recalls affecting a list of vehicles which not only include their pick-ups but also their luxury coupes and the Prius hybrid.  Toyota's problems seem to be taking a center stage over other more newsworthy items.  But, then again people tend to like bad news so I guess we find it easy to pick on the largest automaker in the world, which just happens not to be domestic.

Once the recalls started from the ill fitted floor-mats, to a dynamically designed breaking system for the Prius, people started to point fingers and began to dig deeper into a company which has developed one of the best reputations in the industry.  One lady approached me and with an accusatory tone stated, “You know Toyota invented 'Lean Management'.  Its no wonder they are having so much trouble.”

I found this statement very interesting and it resulted in me looking into just what  “Lean Management” has to do with Toyota’s woes.   What I found was that lean management has not only put Toyota on top of their game over the past 30 years but it is probably fair to suspect why several Toyota models are in the recall list in the first place.  However, these recalls really have nothing to do with why the media is having a field day at the expense of this auto-maker.

First off, lean management, or better “Lean Manufacturing” is a principle that was developed by Toyota.  It was put into practice by Toyota and in it's most common form, works from the perspective of the customer where “value” is defined as any action or process that a customer would be willing to pay for.  Basically “lean” in this sense preserves value to the end-buyer by cutting out processes that do not benefit the customer.  In practice, one aspect of this is that Toyota employs lean manufacturing in the same way, and as a result when they develop vehicle components, those same components are used in several Toyota models.  This is opposed to a manufacturer that uses multiple dies or even suppliers for a similar or same component for different models.

These lean management principals allows the company to improve the “value” of each component being purchased by the consumer, and in turn cuts expenses.  This is in no way a dangerous practice, it is not only smart business but can actually develop superior manufacturing practices.

Another practice of lean management is to only stock components as needed.  In this manner, the manufacturer does not store parts that can become dead stock, which can result in smelting of older components.  Which is seen as wasteful and can decrease the value to the end buyer.

But when you look at the list of recalls Toyota is dealing with you quickly realize that the problems are few but each problem affects several vehicle models.  This fits well into the lean management principle, since the same or even similar components are used to solve the problems across the board.

In essence, if Toyota was allowed to deal with these problems on a Company to Customer basis like all other vehicle manufacturers, we would not be sitting in sports bars poking fun at Toyota.  Quite frankly, unless you owned one of the recalled vehicles few people would have known of these recalls.

However, what Toyota was probably not counting on was the transfer of power in the USA to Obama and the shift in the economy which has turned governments into shareholders of competing vehicle manufacturers.

Shortly after US President Barack Obama took power, his government started to voice their concerns over their collapsing economy and cited “Buy American” as a major policy.  This position smacked strongly of the 1930s Smoot-Hawley Act which closed the US borders ending cross border trading with other nations.  Other countries followed suite, and the world fell into a deep depression, known by many as the dirty thirties.

Obama's policy of protectionism is not mere speculation. Before Toyota's recalls took hold, the US was already slowing the progress of many free trade agreements worldwide including talks with South Korea.  The USA has been stalling these agreements in an effort to protect their auto industry, since one of the major Korean exports are automotive.  The Korean-US free trade agreement would see the Korean auto industry benefit more than American interests. Barack Obama has openly stated that the agreement does not pay “proper attention” to Americas keys industry sectors.   Sen. Hillary Clinton has also stated that the agreements are “inherently unfair”.  

It would be fair to say that this protectionism is partly behind why the Media has made such a loud noise over Toyota's vehicle recalls.  The latest challenge to Toyota came in the form of the US Government opening an investigation into the brake problems of the Toyota Prius.  These brake problems are unique to the Prius because of the nature of hybrid vehicle technology.  In a nut-shell the brakes on a Prius not only stop the vehicle they engage technology that generates electricity to charge the vehicle's batteries.  This gives the brakes a different feel, something that many people are not used to. Whether, the Prius brake recall is worthy of an investigation by the US government, a governing body that has public interest in competing automakers, I am not convinced.

Quite frankly, Toyota's woes are out there for all to see and if anything “Lean Management” is not a direct cause.  However a quick search on Google of other automotive manufacturers recall lists will provide recalls that in many cases have caused bodily injury or even death.   In light of this one wonders why a Japanese auto-maker has taken the brunt of bad Press.  So, are Toyota's woes warranted or protectionism?

A Bad Deal by A Bad Government

If anyone ever says to you,  “Why should I go to the polls?”  your reply should be to just look to Newfoundland for the answer.  This is in no way an endorsement to say that the good folks of that small province have made good political decisions.  It is quite the opposite.  Because brewing in our far east is a lawsuit between Newfoundland and Quebec, that should concern every Canadian.

Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) have officially launched a court action in Quebec Superior Court to redress the 1968 Upper Churchill power deal, seeking an additional half a billion dollars per year from Hydro-Quebec.  In essence, NL is saying that the deal struck under  the 1968 provincial government lead by then Premier Joey Smallwood, was made under economic duress giving Quebec an unfair piece of the pie, even by 1968 standards.

The three companies involved, which like many utility companies are heavily owned by each province pits Hydro-Quebec against the Churchill Falls Labrador Co. (CFL Co.) and Nalcor Energy.   The court action is looking to, as Ed Martin CEO of Nalcor has put it, seek to amend the contract pricing terms to address the inequity which has resulted from unforeseen circumstances.

In essence, a Hydro plant on Labrador property, turns out 34 Million Megawatts of energy per year, of which Quebec purchases at a rate of $2 per Megawatt hours.  Confusing yes, but it comes to perspective when you understand that even by 1968 standards, the price of two-dollars was laughable even then.

After the deal was struck the CEO of CFL Co. stated that they were “stripped to the underwear” by Quebec-Hydro.  The deal also saw Quebec-Hydro acquire 34.2% of the Churchill Falls site interests. What is even worse is that this deal was agreed to for a period of 50 years, with an automatic renewal clause of an additional 25 years.   To make matters worse, the NL government of the time, agreed to this automatic renewal without any need for the agreed parties to sign off on the renewal.  So, the people of Newfoundland, are stuck selling power to Quebec at a $2.00 rate until 2041.

To add insult to injury, Quebec sells off this power produced by the Upper Churchill Hydro Dams in Newfoundland, outside Canada at a rate that brings in yearly profits of $1.7 billion while Newfoundland and Labrador at the agreed rate earn a mere $63 million per year.

Many can say that a deal is a deal.  However, when the first part of this poorly handled deal expires in 2016, before the auto renewal kicks in, a Provincial Tax Concession ends that has been protecting the Hydro operation from inflation.  At a rate $2.00 per Megawatt hours, CFL Co. will begin to lose a great deal of money threatening to put the company in a position of a needed bailout.  Since Hydro-Quebec owns 34.2% of the operation already and has been making out like a gross profiteer for years, they will in essence be in a position to own the entire operation, and Newfoundland will lose a crucial energy industry, making them even poorer than they already are.

Although very complicated, history has recorded that this deal was made at a time when the CFL Co. and the Province was in near dire straights, and then Premier Joey Smallwood saw an opportunity to come off as hero to the electorate. The deal was struck, and to the average 'Joe' is looked sweet, but even then Quebec knew that it had made a deal, by which under definition was done so under “Economic Duress” and it is this ruling Newfoundland is looking to the Quebec high courts to act on.  Because, under Quebec civil  law, they have a “Good Faith” provision which Newfoundland is looking to plea for.

This is not the first time Newfoundland has challenged this deal in court. In 1988, the Newfoundland government tried to challenge the contract in the Supreme Court of Canada but the court ruled in Quebec's favour.

This court case will be one to watch because there are several elements influencing the outcome.

First we have the fact that Quebec had always resented Newfoundland for being granted ownership over Labrador based on a decision of the British Privy Council in 1929.  The same Privy Council that gave the Northern BC coastline to the United States. It would be fair to assume that Quebec believes they really own Labrador and that the Churchill Falls Hydro operation should be theirs in the first place.

Second, if the Quebec Supreme Court Judge rules in favour of Newfoundland, it could once again inflame the separatist movement which was only stemmed off in the last referendum by 1% of the vote.

And, lastly, the judge could rule that the case was already decided by Canada's Supreme Court.  In doing so, a Quebec Supreme Court Judge would be recognizing Canadian authority in agreeing with the 1988 Supreme Court of Canada decision.  It could again inflame the separatist movement and we will once again be in a position of seeing another referendum.

This all comes down to weak leadership and more importantly a complacent electorate.  Smallwood ran Newfoundland virtually unchallenged for 23 years winning  six consequetive  elections and ran Newfoundland like their was no way he could lose.  In doing so, he forgot that he was there to run the province in the best interest of the people.  No one person or even party should ever get comfortable in their positions, because that is when they get sloppy with a provinces resources.

The actual power to appoint authority is always in the hands of the voter.  If anyone ever says to you,“Why should I go to the polls?”  your reply should be to just look to Newfoundland for the answer.

I Am Canadian!

Canadians have been referred to in many terms. We have been called overly polite, always apologizing for everything, even in some extremes just 'being there'. We have been referred to as weak, humble, and a nation who has hung on the shirt tails of the United States of America. We have, over a 50 year period, been seen as a nation where our military was whittled away by years of neutering. In fact it would be fair to say that for many, a sense of community pride was only regional, with Canada Day celebrated with some confusion only sparking a hint of national pride.

On the eve of the Team Canada and Russia's fateful Olympic game on February 26th, the Russian newspaper Pravda, in an editorial, described Canada in this manner. “The abject cruelty shown by Canadian soldiers in international conflicts is scantily referred to, as indeed is the utter incapacity of this country to host a major international event, due to its inferiority complex, born of a trauma being the skinny and weakling bro to a beefy United States and a colonial outpost to the United Kingdom, whose Queen smiles happily from Canadian postage stamps,"

Yes, it can be said that for the average Canadian, national pride was something we held to ourselves, and so in some respect Canadians are really a population of folks who have a sense of “National Humility.” And, it is this humility that gave credence to an international rag like Pravda, the ability to 'dis' our nation to the world.

That was until the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics.

The last two weeks have really welled up feelings that perhaps the old Maple Leaf is something to be reckoned with. With a total of 14 gold metals, Canada has gone down in history as the nation with the most gold won at a Winter Olympics since the inception of the winter games. This feeling of pride may have started when Montreal born Alexandre Bilodeau won our first Gold but the fervor hit when our Canadian woman's hockey team took the gold from the USA followed by the men's Team Canada trouncing the Russians, knocking the former red giant from the games. That event alone was the first time in the Olympics since 1960 Canada has won a game against Russia.

Of course, the crowning achievements came Saturday and Sunday. First when Alberta's own Team Martin, skipped by Kevin Martin, won Gold, then with what can only be described as hair raising intensity, Team Canada fought head-to-head with Team USA to a squeaking overtime win. Yes, it can be easily said that Canada owned the championship spot on the podium for the 2010 Winter Olympics.

This growing sense of Canadian Pride, is something that has been building over the past four years. In a survey conducted in 2006, by University of Chicago, Canada ranked sixth out of the top thirty-four countries as those nations whose citizens clearly conveyed an emotional tie to their international identity. In that survey the United Sates was ranked first followed by Venezuela, Ireland, South Africa and Australia.

Jump ahead to October 2009, with Canada taking a more dominant stance on the international stage and the Canadian economy holding stronger than most other countries and the world pride-o-meter shifted.

In a survey released that month by The Economist, Canada rose to second spot on National Pride, just behind the first place Australians. Followed only by Finland, Austria and Singapore. This sense of National Pride was already coming to a head for the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics when the CEO of VANOC, John Furlong, announced that the committee wanted the Olympic flame to be carried across Canada on a route that would touch as many Canadians as possible on a personal level. People from Hobbema, Wetaskiwin to Leduc all had the opportunity to see the flame only to be overtaken by a well of proud emotions.

This sense of National Pride was very evident and reported by media out-side of Canada. Pravda aside, NBC reported on the heels of the USA's Sean White taking Gold for snowboarding, they stated, “Americans dominate this sport but Canadian National Pride is everywhere in the stands.”

So really what is pride? The standard definition is simply a sense of one's own proper dignity or value as it speaks to national self respect. A secondary definition is a pleasure or satisfaction taken in an achievement. In this understanding, the achievements of our athletes in the field of competition definitely brought us pride as we understand it.  And, it was clearly displayed in the closing ceremonies. From the humble and yet humorous display of a mime repairing the malfunctioned Olympic Flame as exposed in the opening ceremonies, to seeing William Shatner and Micheal J. Fox end the closing ceremonies with an elaborately expanded version of “I Am Canadian”  from the popular  “The Rant”  beer commercial.

It was a real emotional ride for all Canadians that had the ability to witness Vancouver host the Olympics and see Canadians whose hard work and dedication to not only to their athletic ambitions, but also, to their dedication to our nation. These athletes are National Heroes. People who bravely competed in sports, that in many cases have been proven dangerous, and who in a sense, became the real leaders of this country for a brief moment in history.

I personally like the other definition of pride;  A company of Lions. Because quite frankly, our athletes, volunteers, and the Vancouver Olympic Committee (VANOC) have never roared so loudly in an international event. Our thanks go to these people for upping the stakes on a international Canadian identity.

“CANADA IS THE SECOND LARGEST LANDMASS, THE FIRST NATION OF HOCKEY AND THE BEST PART OF NORTH AMERICA. MY NAME IS BRIAN AND ‘I AM CANADIAN!’”