MUSINGS ABOUT A GIANT, PT. 3

If a person joins a club, or an organization, and discovers that the club doesn't meet the person's requirements or expectations, the person undoubtedly will choose to leave the club. Hopefully, he/she will explore every possible way to make the club fit into the expectations. And equally hopefully, the club will recognize that there are issues and will make reasonable accommodations to encourage the person to remain. Only when all possibilities are exhausted will the person leave, and most other people would say that the person has done the right thing and the parting of the ways was necessary.

The same concept applies to families, although here the possibility of some type of split is far more serious. Spouses, siblings, parents and children …. there are often situations when things get so toxic, so stressful, so potentially violent and harmful that family members must part ways. Again, others would say that, if all other avenues of reconciliation have been exhausted, separation and estrangement and divorce are sad but necessary outcomes.

In the previous two parts of this series of blogs, I've attempted to explain how the Canadian experiment has evolved historically and politically. The Canadian family has existed for more than 150 years now. It is no longer a "young" country: in fact, in terms of political unions and consistent government structures, it is one of the oldest countries. It is older, for example, than Germany, France, Italy and Russia. Eyebrows may be raised by that statement, but if one looks up the dates of origin of the current political structure of those countries, Canada's 1867 outdates them all. ( Italy was unified in 1867, but subsequent wars have altered its structure. )

I point this out in order to give some context to what I'm about to propose in order to arrive at a final thesis about this country. We have seen the country grow, evolve and develop. We have seen it struggle with self-identity often, and we have come to the brink of disaster on a few occasions. We have come to the proverbial fork in the road many times. In fact, it seems that we stand at a perpetual fork in the road, and are frozen, not knowing what path to take. Such paralysis is not healthy for anyone. It seems reasonable, therefore, to conclude that Canada is a difficult country to govern, and that there are more things that divide us than unite us. In fact it is reasonable to conclude that Canada is a failure, and that the experiment needs to end. But how? How best to bring about the much needed divorce? How do we reconcile ourselves to the certainty that all that we have been taught, all that we have been encouraged to believe, all the mythology that has been built up about this country has been false? How do we mend broken hearts and dry weepy eyes when people are confronted with these unpleasant truths?

There have been break-ups of countries before. Most have been violent, fraught with crises and uncertainty. The breakup of the former Soviet Union comes to mind. So, too the breakup of Pakistan from West and East Pakistan to the creation of the new entity of Bangladesh. But there have been peaceful breakups as well. The best example is that of the former Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia, headed by the playwrite and intellectual Vaclav Havel. I believe that Canada, given its history, would fall into the latter example. And here's how it could be done.

The two provinces that have, in modern times, shown a vocal and marked propensity for separation are Quebec and Alberta. Quebec, being linguistically and culturally unique, and also being an original province ( arguable the oldest entity in Canada: Newfoundland could argue a good case for being "oldest", too ) has attempted to separate twice, through referenda. Close results have kept it in Canada. Theoretically, it could separate any time it wanted to, although it has never been fully put to the test, but few would argue that it couldn't do so if it passed a definite referendum on the plain question of separating.

What might drive Quebec out this time is the recently approved policy of outlawing any symbols of religion worn by public servants. This has been done in order to move Quebec further into secularism, which is thought to be the marker of a truly modern society. That would be scanned. Throughout its modern history, there has been a rather unpleasant thread of racism woven into its scheme of things. Mordecai Richler wrote about it extensively, mocking the "pur laine" belief of what constitutes a "real" Quebecer, and, really, nobody is fooled that the targets of this policy are those who wear head scarfs or cover themselves completely, in other words, Muslims. Catholic Quebec had previously targeted  Montreal's orthodox Jews and their yarmulkes and phylacteries: now Muslims have come under the gaze of Richler's "Pure Woolies."

Are these the beliefs of the rest of Canada? Do they line up with the long-held notions of acceptance, tolerance and multiculturalism ? Of course not. Does this put the federal government in a difficult position with Quebec vis-à-vis the Charter of Rights? Of course it does. Does the federal government have a moral and legal obligation to intervene if it can proven that Quebec's policy is discriminatory? Yes, it does. Will Quebec invoke the "notwithstanding" clause of the constitution to override any federal intervention? Undoubtedly it will. So, where does this put the federal government? Should the federal government choose to intervene, it would have to do so using the long-dormant option of "disallowance", which is still in the constitution, and which gives the federal government the right to override any provincial statute or regulation. It has not been used in more than 70 years and there are all kinds of concerns as to what it might actually mean to disallow Quebec's secularist policies.

It could indeed precipitate a crisis with Quebec. And Quebec, as an original colonial entrant into Confederation, would be perfectly within its rights to say that the federal government has no right to intervene into an "internal" matter, and begin the process, once again, of legitimizing its withdrawal from Canada.

Then, there is the curious case of Alberta. As discussed previously, Alberta's problems with the federal government come from three main sources: oil, distance from Ottawa, and ideology. Alberta is constantly at odds with the federal government on so many issues, it would be difficult and time-consuming to mention them here. Alberta is a relatively small province: 4 million out of the 36 million in Canada as a whole, which is less than 1/7th the size of the country. Yet, politically, Alberta punches above its weight. It's "natural" conservatism means that it sends nothing but Conservatives to the federal parliament ( there have been some exceptions ). This means that Alberta is almost perpetually in Opposition to the federal government, or, when Conservatives form a government, it means that a province of only 4 million sets a national agenda for the other 32 million of us. It is the classic case of the "tail wagging the dog."

The federal government, when it is Liberal, has registered frustration with Alberta many times. Quebec, which has much federal influence, has had it with Alberta. Alberta has had enough of Quebec. Ontario has swung back and forth on these feelings. Urban Ontarians tend to side with the federal government on most issues: rural Ontarians tend to side with Alberta in their distrust of both Quebec and the federal government. Atlantic Canada tends to be federalist, but only because their economic survival largely depends on federal transfer payments from … well, mostly from Ontario, Quebec and Alberta. Manitoba ? Again the urban/rural divide works here too, but it is in the west, so it tends to side with Alberta. Saskatchewan ? Increasingly more conservative and anti-federal than Alberta.

Dysfunctional ? This is the very definition of dysfunction. What to do ? The prospect of a new Conservative federal government, based largely on Alberta support, is looming. With it, any positive action on climate change or gun reform would be lost. Clearly, we have reached a tipping point in our country's history.

The time has come for the federal government to be proactive. I insist that, since Alberta is a creation of the federal government, the federal government has the right to "uncreate" it. In other words, to remove Alberta from Confederation. Indeed, this is a radical and extreme step. But the past events and possible future recriminations make it feasible and, in my view, desireable to do it. And if Saskatchewan makes lots of noise about this, then out with them too. Same goes for Manitoba, if it lines up with Alberta.

What will come out of this chaos ? What comes out of any divorce? It will be difficult, it will lead to anger and accusations.

But it is necessary. Canada is a dinosaur. Time to put it in a museum.

Some possible future outcomes of the divorces will be explored in part 4 of this series.

MUSINGS ABOUT A GIANT, PT. 2

If an experiment is to be successful, it must test many hypotheses before arriving at an incontrovertible truth. That test may take a long time and go through several iterations, shedding many notions and beliefs. When one arrives at the incontrovertible truth, there is nothing left to test, nothing left to discuss.

This is certainly the case with Canada, which, in my last post, I suggested was an experiment. I traced the evolution of the provinces since the 1867 Confederation, and pointed out that there two types of provinces in Canada: those which existed in either colonial or dominion form pre-Confederation, and those which were created by the Canadian federal government post-Confederation.

One might assume that, after the geographic and political expansion of Canada had been completed in 1949, with the addition of Newfoundland and Labrador, that all would finally settle and that Canada would endure forever as a stable and harmonious entity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Turmoil and evolution have been the hallmark of our country from the beginning, making for a rather rocky and acrimonious co-existence. Consider the following:

Confederation itself was truly an unintended event. Originally, the first conference that ultimately led up to Confederation, held in Charlottetown in 1864, was to be about Maritime Union, a joining of the three maritime provinces: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. The Canadas got themselves invited to the conference, originally as observers, then as full participants to discuss a wider colonial union, then completely highjacking the conference. Prince Edward Island decided to withdraw from the discussions. Newfoundland, also attending as an observer, wanted nothing to do with this colonial union. But the skillful negotiations of Sir John A. Macdonald convinced the other colonies to give the union a go. Two more conferences, in Quebec and London, hammered out Confederation.

It was a rocky road. In Nova Scotia, a huge battle emerged between the pro-Confederation forces led by Sir Charles Tupper and the anti-Confederation side, led by Joseph Howe. Howe was a fiery and influential orator, and, for most of his life, he worked tirelessly to get Nova Scotia out of Confederation, coming close to succeeding many times. Nova Scotia was the province least enamored of Confederation, and was its most vocal critic in the early years. But not its only critic.

Ontario usually sees itself as the bastion of Confederation, the home of Macdonald and George Brown and many other "Fathers of Confederation." In recent times, it has been the federal government's best ally on a wide number of issues. It wasn't always thus. Ontario's third premier, Sir Oliver Mowat, was a constant source of opposition to the federal Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald. It didn't help that Macdonald was a Conservative and Mowat a Liberal. What is interesting is this. Macdonald, of course, was the driving force behind creating Canada in the first place and envisioned a nation with a strong central government, and the provinces subservient to the federal government. Mowat was the polar opposite and clashed with Macdonald on several issues. Two of these were the boundaries of Ontario and the theory of "disallowance", whereby the federal parliament could disallow any provincial statute it didn't like. Mowat nearly pulled Ontario out of Confederation on a couple of occasions, most notable over the dispute over the boundary of Ontario and the newly-created province of Manitoba. Both provinces actually put their respective police forces in the territory in order to stake its claim. It was up to Macdonald and the federal government to mediate an agreement between the two.

Newfoundland stubbornly resisted attempts to persuade it to join Confederation. It applied for and achieved "Dominion" status within the British Empire in 1907. As a dominion, Newfoundland participated in World War One independent of Canadian forces, and its regiment, the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, achieved international fame for its heroic sacrifice at the battle of Beaumont-Hamel. Dominion status remained until 1933, when severe economic hardships led the British to suspend dominion status and rule Newfoundland with a "Commission Government" for 15 years, through World War Two, effectively returning Newfoundland to colonial status. After the war, the British were anxious to solve the Newfoundland situation and pushed for a union with Canada. It took two referenda, both closely contested, before Newfoundland was welcomed into Confederation as Canada's tenth province in 1949, largely due to the tireless work of the pro-Confederation leader Joey Smallwood. To this day, many Newfoundlanders mourn the situation. July 1st, Canada's national holiday, is commemorated in Newfoundland as the day it mourns and honours the sacrifice of its native sons at Beaumont-Hamel.

Quebec is the province best known for being less-than-enthusiastic about membership in Confederation. It is linguistically and culturally so different from the other provinces that it has continuously felt threatened by the larger, more populous, economically more powerful, English-speaking entities of North America. Prior to the 1960's, Quebec was a rather backward province. It was heavily rural and agricultural, completely under the influence of the Catholic church, and undeniably inward-looking. Despite having Canada's only major city, Montreal, it never felt part of Canada. Montreal itself was Canada's economic and cultural powerhouse, but it was the largely Anglo-Scottish sector which controlled this. A large Jewish population actively developed its own cultural entity. The French-speaking population of Montreal was completely marginalized, effectively slaves in its own land.

That all changed with the Quiet Revolution in the 1960's. As Quebec's economy grew, a restlessness within its French majority asserted itself. French culture was celebrated. The influence of the Catholic church in areas like education and health care waned after the corrupt administration of Maurice Duplessis ended. Intellectually and politically, Quebec made more demands to safeguard its culture and institutions, and became more active at both the provincial and federal levels. One of the leading figures of this time was the journalist Rene Levesque, a former Liberal cabinet minister, who became increasingly frustrated at the slow pace of change and what he and his followers saw as a type of betrayal at the federal lever by Quebecers like Jean Marchand, Gerard Pelletier and, most notably, Pierre Trudeau. What followed was, effectively, close to 40 years of a mostly peaceful civil war for the soul of Quebec and its position within Canada. As we all know, on two occasions, referenda were held on the question of Quebec's continuing place in Canada. On both occasions, the federalist side won narrow victories over the sovereignist/independentist side. The debate continues to this day.

And then, there's Alberta. This province, carved out of the NorthWest Territories in 1905, has had a very intense love-hate relationship with Canada. Largely settled by American and East European farmers in the early 20th century, when the federal government was anxious to get people into those largely empty lands ( First Nations peoples notwithstanding ) in order to discourage talk of annexation to the United States, Alberta has always considered itself the swaggering cowboy province. None of that mattered very much until two things happened. Oil was discovered in 1947: lots of it, and Alberta suddenly became very wealthy because of it. And the second thing was a population increase that suddenly gave this province a platform on which to advance its ideas.

Alberta has always been a very conservative province, largely because of its agrarian roots. But the cowboy mentality, however artificial it may be, is a large part of this grassroots conservatism. Huge clashes occur between Alberta and the federal government because of this ideology. But, by far the biggest driver of Albertan discontent with Confederation, is with oil and other natural resources and who actually controls them. In the 1970's, bitter disputes over oil prices led to political conflict between Alberta's premier, Peter Lougheed, and the federal prime minister, Pierre Trudeau, that opened wounds felt today. In the 1973 international oil crisis, the dispute reached its zenith, with angry Albertans sporting bumper stickers on their cars that read "Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark." Hardly the spirit of national unity.

To this day, the political and economic divide between Alberta and the federal government festers.When the largely Alberta-supported Conservative government of Stephen Harper took power in Ottawa in 2006, Alberta rejoiced that, finally, they had achieved power in Canada and would set the national agenda. That lasted until 2015, when the Liberals under Justin Trudeau came to power, largely based on eastern and urban support.

Thus, the  experiment has endured. It has been difficult, to say the least, and underscores the notion that Canada has been far from a peaceful place. But the experiment goes on. Several hypotheses have come and gone, several versions of Canada have emerged, only to be supplanted by another iteration. Surely, some kind of outcome, some thesis of Canada will be achieved in the future ?

More about this in another blog.

MUSINGS ABOUT A GIANT, PT. 1

Canada is a wonderful country. We do many things right here. We're not perfect, by any means, but we try and, quite often, we succeed.

But there are many peculiarities about this country. In some ways, it is helpful to think of Canada as a "great experiment." By that, I mean that several things were done here first and under a watchful eye, in order to ascertain if things work or if they're failures. This is offered in the context of Canada being a part of the British Empire, and of Canada being a bit of a "problem child" for its British parents. Consider the following:

Of the 10 Canadian provinces, 7 of them existed in recognizable form before Confederation. Ontario and Quebec were known by several names, notably "The Canadas" or "Upper Canada" (Ontario) and "Lower Canada" ( Quebec ). They were partially self-governing colonies within the British Empire. So, too, were Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, British Columbia and, arguably, the oldest of them all, Newfoundland. In point of fact, Newfoundland had achieved "Dominion" status within the Empire after Canadian Confederation, putting the island on an equal footing with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Newfoundland's dominion status ensured that it would remain an independent entity, separate but equal, from Canada.

British Columbia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland held out from the original Confederation in 1867 for various reasons, but what's important to realize is that the reasons were unique to each colony and were an expression of the will of the governing class of people, just as the fact that the original four provinces in Canada were expressing the will of their governing classes as well. The original map of Canada was a small one, with only Nova Scotia and New Brunswick occupying the territory they have today. Ontario and Quebec had territory only going so far as the "height of land" as defined by the British. The rest of the territory was known as the "NorthWest Territories", which was nominally under the control of the Hudson's Bay Company, then put under the control of the British Crown.

Why is all this important? What is the purpose of this history lesson? Stay with me, for all will be revealed as this "great experiment" continues.

When British Columbia ( 1871 ) , Prince Edward Island ( 1873 ), and Newfoundland ( 1949, finally! ) joined Confederation, they did so, again, as an expression of the will of the governing classes in those colonies. But it must also be said that they did so under considerable pressure and influence of the fledgling Canadian government and, especially, of the British, who wanted less to do with the affairs of these strange and wild colonies in North America. It is also important to note that, in 1870, the British passed ownership and care of the vast NorthWest Territory ( also known as "Rupert's Land" )to the Canadian federal government. All of a sudden, the tiny east coast and Great Lakes country of Canada became a continental giant, spanning more than 3,000 miles from the Maritimes to the Pacific and north to the ice cap. And this is where the experiment takes an interesting turn.

The federal government began creating new provinces where none had existed before. Manitoba was the first, in 1870, although it was just a small portion of what it is now. On a map of the time, it resembled a "postage stamp" in shape and size. As time evolved, so too, did the map. Ontario and Quebec expanded north beyond the "height of land" to gradually fill in the boundaries we know today, reaching Hudson's and James Bays in 1912. Manitoba also grew northwards to fill in the territory we know today.

It is in the creation of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta that the experiment takes its most interesting turn. Those provinces were created out of districts organized by the federal government in the late nineteenth centuries. As Manitoba grew, so did the others. Saskatchewan and Alberta were amalgamations of some of those districts and became provinces in 1905.

The territories were re-organized later, reaching their final iteration in 1999, with the creation of Nunavut, carved by the federal government from the NorthWest Territories. The NWT is now a shadow of its former self.

What's interesting about all of this is that the 3 "Prairie Provinces" and the 3 Territories were not created out of existing entities within the British Empire ( colonies or dominions ), nor were they really created as expressions of the will of the governing classes, because there were no governing classes, unless one counts the provisional governments of Louis Riel and his Metis followers. The legitimacy of those governments is very, very debatable.

No, the Prairie Provinces and Territories are, without doubt, creations of the Canadian federal government. There can be no debate about this: this is historical and political fact.

Once one understands the nature of the creation of the provinces, one gets a better appreciation of the experimental essence of our Confederation. But it also creates much uncertainty about the future outcome of the experiment.

More of this later.

REALPOLITIK COMES TO OTTAWA

One of the leading figures of the Renaissance was Niccolo Machiavelli. A brilliant intellectual, he was a writer, poet, advisor to the powerful and a thinker. His seminal work "The Prince" is considered to be the founding treatise of the discipline of "political science." In it, Machiavelli outlined the qualities of the ideal political ruler. In subsequent years, "The Prince" has been examined in minute detail, which has left Machiavelli himself the subject of much debate. Was he a cold-hearted, bloody-minded operative or a true theorist who  delved into the human psyche, holding a mirror to us all ? Did he, in fact, have a greater understanding of the human spirit than anyone else ?

Perhaps the main point of Machiavelli's work is the concept of "realpolitik." This is the belief that any type of decision in politics should be based on the concept of pragmatism: it should be based on the realities of the time, on the realities of the situation a person is facing, and on workable or "doable" outcomes or solutions to that situation. Realpolitik is "getting things done", ignoring ideological or philosophical frills that may encumber or even prevent real or successful solutions from ever occurring. A practitioner of realpolitik is often seen as an evil being, one without the softer aspects of humanity: compassion, empathy, charity or even love. The term "Machiavellian" has come to mean someone to be feared, avoided, and hated.

The events of the past few weeks in Canadian politics has, for me, been a fascinating study of Machiavellianism and realpolitik. The resignations of Jody Wilson-Reybould and Jane Philpott from the cabinet of Justin Trudeau has sent ripples throughout Canada, shaking the very foundations of Trudeau's government. Because of this, Wilson-Reybould and Philpott have been held up as shining examples of what political leaders should be: principled, altruistic and honest. They have been portrayed as everything, from victims of an overbearing male to crusading champions of women's rights and Indigenous purity. And, as a contrast, Trudeau has paid a heavy price in his reputation, his integrity and his ability to lead a government.

All of which is sheer poppycock, and complete balderdash. Consider the following:

In 1983, at the conclusion of some long-forgotten Constitutional conference, Bill Wilson, a chief of a British Columbia First Nation delivered some prophetic and significant remarks to then-Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. The video is widely available on youtube or in the CBC archives. Wilson told of his two children who were studying law and wanted to be Prime Minister some day. He revealed to the assembly that his kids were women and got suitable laughter and applause. Trudeau quipped that he'd "stick around until they were ready" to which Wilson hit back with (paraphrasing) they could be on a plane that evening. "A good exchange between two keen debaters," you might think. But I see more to it. If you look at the video ( and I urge you to do so ) you will notice that Wilson was not laughing, but instead fixed Trudeau in a death stare that would rival anything seen in a superhero movie. Wilson could barely disguise his dislike for Trudeau. And Trudeau would not look at Wilson after he made his "plane" response. There is palpable animus in this exchange.

My point ? The sins of the fathers have been visited on their children in the present day. Justin Trudeau has succeeded his father as PM and Wilson's daughter, Wilson-Reybould became Justice Minister and Attorney General in Justin's government. At first, the two seemed to work well together. Not now.

Wilson-Reybould has been described by some cabinet colleagues as being "difficult". Her sister described her, in an article in the Star, as the "go get 'em" one in the family, not at all quiet, but rather driven and ambitious. The sister used the "running of the bulls" in Pamplona, Spain, as an example of how much of an "action" person she was and is. Wilson-Reybould pulled the sister from the relative safety of their balcony onto the street to run with the bulls for a brief stretch. The sister had no intention of doing this, but Jody took charge and, well, it makes a good family story.These are all good qualities in anyone with designs on positions of responsibility and power. Machiavelli would have approved.

As a minister in Justin Trudeau's government, Wilson-Reybould was seen as a leader, occupying a senior portfolio. The fact that she was Indigenous didn't hurt her rising star status either. Trudeau earned praise for crafting a cabinet that was exactly half female, something not done in Canadian politics before, earning him praise as a male "feminist". This gave him a platform with which to tout several domestic and international initiatives benefiting women and girls around the world, raising Canada's international profile immensely. The praise went to Trudeau. His cabinet colleagues were seen as support only, doing his good work. Wilson-Reybould seemed to go into the shadows while other ministers, notable Chrystia Freeland and Jane Philpott ( more about her later ) took on tough tasks like foreign affairs and the "doctor-assisted death" initiatives. Wilson-Reybould could not have liked this.

This is where Machiavelli would fold his hands on his desk and lean forward closely to observe what happened next. Along came the SNC-Lavalin affair, wherein Trudeau, anxious to protect the company and keep jobs in his native Quebec, approached Justin Minister Wilson-Reybould several times about obtaining a "deferred prosecution agreement" ( perfectly legal ) in order for SNC-Lavalin to work its way out of potential criminal prosecution while co-operating with a federal investigation into prior activities concerning Libya and Ghadaffi's son. Wilson-Reybould, quite properly, refused to do so, citing conflict of interest with her position as Attorney-General. And this is where Machiavelli would've been most proud.

I maintain that Wilson-Reybould saw her chance to discredit Trudeau. When Trudeau moved her into another position, Minister of Veterans' Affairs, she saw this as a demotion. She published an unprecedented on-line essay on her experience and achievements as Justice Minister, instead of quietly accepting her new position, which is what she should've done. Then, scarcely a month after the new position change, she abruptly resigned. In the interim, the Globe and Mail published the story of possible political interference in the SNC-Lavalin affair, citing unnamed sources for the story. "Unnamed sources"? How far do we have to look?

As mentioned above, Wilson-Reybould's resignation, subsequent silence on the matter, only to be burst wide open with her damning testimony at the Justice Committee inquiry on the matter, have only served to raise her reputation, while putting Trudeau on the complete defensive. Mission accomplished? Not quite. Another two resignations followed: Gerald Butts, Trudeau's chief advisor and, strangely, Jane Philpott, a highly regarded cabinet minister, who had previously held the Indigenous Affairs portfolio. It must be pointed out that Philpott is not First Nations, but is considered to be a "good close friend" of Wilson-Reybould. Has the plot thickened yet?

As a final coda to all this, the CBC contacted Wilson-Reybould's father, the above-mentioned Bill Wilson, for his reaction. I urge all of you to look at this video on youtube or CBC archives. Mr. Wilson is getting on in years now, but has not lost any of his feistiness. Besides supporting and expressing pride in his daughter, as any good father would and should, Wilson launched on a slightly rambling and extremely emotional tirade against the "Trudeaus" ( note the plural ) and the shameful approach to Indigenous affairs by Canadians generally. It was based, of course, on truths and reality, but it was still slightly cringeworthy to watch and hear. And what did it have to do with the SNC-Lavalin affair? Or ethics in government ? Or altruism ? Absolutely nothing.

Which brings me to this. This entire sorry spectacle has nothing to do with principal, or ethics, or altruism, or honour. It has everything to do with power, influence and the attainment of both. Wilson-Reybould played every card in her hand. Her ethnicity played a huge role in this. She shares her father's frustration at the snail's pace with which improvements for Indigenous people moves. She has studied how to work within the "white man's" system ( Wilson's words, not mine) in order to bring about change. And then there's the issue of gender. Despite Trudeau's good words and deeds on the "feminist file", he has raised expectations among certain women very high. If he has not moved fast enough, then some women would like to see him removed and replaced with a woman at the top job in government. Would that be Wilson-Reybould herself ? Many on social media have suggested so. Certainly the Opposition ( led in a Machiavellian way by female Conservative members, largely Lisa Raitt ) have suggested that Trudeau has a "woman problem."

I counter by suggesting that some women in government have a "Trudeau" problem. History teaches us that most revolutions occur not when people are completely downtrodden, as is the common misconception, but rather when their expectations have been raised, even slightly: when things start to improve, people want more and they want the improvements to happen immediately. I submit to all readers that this is what has happened here.

There are many Machiavellian actors in this piece. Wilson-Reybould, her father and Jane Philpott have already been discussed. But Justin Trudeau exhibited Machiavellian traits as well. He sought to intervene in the SNC-Lavalin affair in order to placate the company, thus preserving Quebec jobs and, in doing so, raising his own profile. Imagine if he hadn't and SNC-Lavalin had made good on their threat ( they may yet do so ) to leave Canada for England, eliminating 9,000 jobs. Imagine the howls of protest from the nation and especially the Opposition for Trudeau not doing everything in his power to save Canadian jobs. So, he had to do this. Admittedly, it was inappropriate for him to put pressure on Wilson-Reybould to intervene, but it was not illegal. When Wilson-Reybould protested, Trudeau got her out of the hot seat portfolio and put her in Veterans' Affairs, which, as explained above, was seen by her as a demotion. And then there's the Opposition led by the vacuous and ineffective Andrew Scheer. Scheer must think that he'd died and gone to heaven with this gift from the political gods. He has been like a dog on a bone with this issue, which is his job as Leader of the Opposition. But the smirk on his face is obvious for all to see: he sees this as his opportunity, perhaps his one and only opportunity, to strike at Trudeau before the fall election. He has no policies, no traction with voters outside of Alberta or Saskatchewan, and, frankly, has the personality of wallpaper paste and the intellect of a cocker spaniel. And he could become Prime Minister of Canada because of Wilson-Reybould's ambition and drive.

Realpolitik. It's a tough game.

One final observation. In order to garner sympathy from all of us, Wilson-Reybould cited the enormous pressure she was under from the alpha male, Justin Trudeau, in this incident. It raised her anxiety and worry levels. Hmmm …. isn't that what realpolitik is all about ? Isn't that what being a leader, be it an Indigenous leader, a female leader, a political leader, or Prime Minister is all about ? Pressure? Perhaps the ends do, indeed, justify the means.

It's all so Machiavellian. It would make a great novel.