A campaign like this requires a big budget. Fighters are the showgirls of weaponry. Elegant. Difficult to handle. Fast to slip away from you. And extremely expensive. If you’re not careful in your choice, you may find that the upkeep over time is the most expensive part of the bargain.

All of that to say that PR budgets to sell fighters are terrifying. And the U.S. arms industry as a whole is built on unparalleled PR.

Plus incredible technology. Plus the reality that convincing countries to buy their military equipment is central to U.S. power. People who buy their equipment become dependent on the U.S. government and on U.S. manufacturers for spare parts. Spare parts are an incredibly powerful tool in the hands of a seller who wants to increase their influence over the buyer.

Let me put this in slightly different terms. The U.S. manufacturers of weapons always have big PR budgets. Billions of dollars are at stake, so why not spend a fortune on PR. The reputation and influence of the United States is at stake. Over the last 75 years, the U.S. has increasingly built a central part of its economy around an internal circuit of government and arms producers. The good old Military-Industrial Complex.

In the beginning it wasn’t all that complex. Just the military and the armaments industry. In the early 1960s, a third element was added on. This consisted in a delusional idea that governments could make money out of armaments by selling them to third parties all over the world.

The arms industry lobbies turned this into a respectable economic theory. John Kennedy, Charles de Gaulle and Harold Macmillan plus their advisors were the architects of this policy which has always been, how shall I put it, silly from the economic point of view. The more your economy becomes dependent on the production and distributing of weapons, the less it has a relationship to any kind of marketplace, whether capitalist or social democratic or a mix of the two.

Weapons have no value in and of themselves. And they are not the basis for developing a balanced economy.

In Voltaire’s Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West (1992), I included a long chapter (“The Flowering of Armaments”) laying out this new model.

I can’t exactly say that I’m happy to have gotten it so exactly right 34 years ago. But I suppose it’s better than getting it completely wrong. Here’s how the chapter begins:

VOLTAIRE'S BASTARDS

Weapons are not a growth sector. Why? Because this is an industry which involves selling the sort of goods that either sit around contributing nothing (a missile, a rifle, etc.) or are used. In the case of any kind of bomb or missile, once used they cease to exist. Boom and they’re gone.

As I said, the modern arms market has always been delusional. What kind of economics does it represent? – an economy of hysteria.

- - -

Nevertheless, here we go again.

And let’s not become obsessed by Canada and the choice it must make. Let’s focus instead on Washington. Selling the F-35 to Canada matters to Washington for three reasons.

First, this would ensure a new and accentuated stage of U.S. control over the Canadian military and therefore Canadian defence policy.

Second, this would undermine Canada’s current efforts to diversify its trade and financial relationships in order to be less integrated into the U.S. system. If Canada buys the F-35, it will not be an expression of partnership, but one of accepting U.S. control in an area of central importance.

Third, if Ottawa does not buy the F-35 it will be an important sign that the U.S. can not pressure Canada into a submissive relationship; a message that will be understood by other Western countries.

What message? Well, that Washington really is weakening.

- - -

The F-35 is a brilliant, delicate, fancy flying machine. But that is almost beside the point. What then is the point? That the F-35 would not give Canada what it needs for its defence.

Canada needs a fighter which can function in difficult, irregular situations in the two thirds of our country which is northern; and to the north of our North. We need to be able to take responsibility for the North.

The Gripen is that kind of machine. It can land on a road. And I do mean a road, not a highway.

What about the showgirl? Well, you can’t walk on gravel in high heels.

- - -

To go back to where I began – choosing a fighter is complicated.

Here is a standard question: Is the F-35 a finer fighting machine than the Swedish Gripen? Probably.

But that is the wrong question. We don’t need a masterpiece. We don’t even need the finest fighting machine.

The idea that we must have the finest fighting machine, better than all others, misses the central point. Smart people don’t buy military equipment on an abstract theoretical basis which establishes the finest according to precise technical comparisons. In such a theory there is no need to apply your comparison to that country’s size, geography, climate, neighbours and actual needs or uses.

Does Canada need a fighter? Would drones do the job?

Ask rather, in what conditions will these fighters operate? And how can you handle their particular maintenance needs? Can they constantly operate in the places where you need them twelve months of the year? Etcetera etcetera…

- - -

The F-35 is not a fighter made for operating in the Arctic, let alone the North. It is a brilliant, delicate, spoilt child. It would need lovely warm hangars all over the place to insulate it from the brutal realities of the North. It needs not maintenance, but coddling. An impossibility in the North.

Can it sleep outside? Not in the reality of our northern conditions.

Can it land or take off on roads? I repeat, not highways.

How is it in treacherous weather? Distances?

The general answer?

The F-35 is a temperate climate fighter. How did that come about? Quite simple. It was designed with the USA in mind – a country of largely moderate climate.

The Canadian Air Force joined this program in the context of defending the main cities and population of its country, running along the country’s southern border. The Canadians did not think about a future in which their fighters would have to maintain a full time presence in the Arctic. An exotic idea! Far too exotic.

No. If they were going to defend democracy against communism or autocracy it would be in Europe on the eastern border facing the USSR or Russia. And, as in the U.S. and southern Canada, they would be flying in a close alliance with the U.S. Air Force.

Suddenly, here we are in a new world; one in which the Canadian Air Force is expected to defend Canada on two fronts. Well actually one front – The North – with three possible enemies.

• A chaotic Russia. Unpredictable.

• A rich and ambitious China, eager to be present in the North.

• And an unstable USA which over the last 18 months has offended all of its allies, Canada in particular.

Mr. Trump’s claims on our near neighbour Greenland were just a start. Our neighbour? Look at the map. Greenland runs close and parallel to Baffin Island. Had Mr. Trump succeeded in getting control of Greenland, he would have claimed Baffin next.

His constant questioning of Canada’s right to exist might have been no more than a rude joke. Except that he keeps repeating his joke so that we understand it is a threat. When the most powerful man in the world keeps repeating threats in various forms against his country’s neighbour and closest ally, something serious is going on. And the Vice President, his probable successor, has let slip not even a hint that he is in disagreement.

You may not like Mr. Trump. He may be certifiable. Or verging on senility. But he is their Commander in Chief. And most important, U.S. citizens have not raised their voices in horror at his threats or in defence of Canada. They seem to be indifferent or at some level in agreement. Or they are afraid of him.

I repeat: There is no serious pro-Canada movement in the U.S.. That makes his threats powerful. That means it would be a terrible strategic error to become increasingly dependent on them for defence.

- - -

Let’s go back to Canada’s need to choose a new fighter. If ever there was a moment not to integrate into the U.S. Air Force system, it is now. Access to spare parts is perhaps the central issue. When your confidence in a country’s friendship begins to slide, it would be irresponsibly naïve to become dependent on it for military spare parts.

In any case, the last thing we should buy is a lovely racehorse when what we need are huskies.

The answers to all of these questions tell you that the F-35 is the sort of racehorse which is perhaps capable of winning competitive races on civilized tracks. What we need are huskies capable of operating in incredibly difficult weather and on incredibly difficult terrain.

The Gripen was designed by northerners for the North.

And as the U.S. empire’s need or ability or desire to lead an empire shrinks, so buying F-35s to defend Canada would become a strange strategy – a bit like a poodle that thinks it is in a fancy dog show, when it is actually in a dangerous slum.

We have a gigantic North to defend. We need equipment designed to function in our reality. It is that simple.

VOLTAIRE'S BASTARDS

Subscribe now

Share

First, Mozart and Brahms. For me, the highlight was Martin Beaver (violin) and Jamie Parker (piano) playing Brahms Violin Sonata no. 3.

The second concert was Haydn and Mozart. I always love hearing Cameron Crozman on the cello.

The Festival of the Sound has been going for 47 years. I think it’s the finest chamber music festival in the world. Certainly the best one I’ve been to and I’ve been to many. Plus, the idea that you can hear this amazing music on the shores of Georgian Bay in a hall with good acoustics is quite something. I sometimes think even the people who go regularly don’t yet realize how lucky we all are. Anton Kuerti, James Campbell, Cameron Crozman and so many others have and are playing leading roles in making this such an exciting few weeks every year.

For Adrienne and me and so many others, the experience is quite particular. We go every year.

Here we are out on an island on the Bay living an off-the-grid life (that means simple – very simple). Then along comes The Festival of The Sound.

We make a big effort to half dress ourselves up, get in our boat, drive to the marina and then drive 45 minutes to Parry Sound. And then we sit back for two full concerts of magic. Then drive back. This year our granddaughter, Talia, did a lot of the driving! And loves it as much as we do.

If you haven’t been, go! We’ll make it to five, or is it six, concerts next week. Big swim before. Big swim after. Floating on the music.

Subscribe now

Share

Of course, the World Cup must be followed by a presentation ceremony. Awful!

The second and first place teams must go through a one-sided gauntlet of public officials. Beginning with the appalling president of FIFA standing there with his hand out and a swirling aura of corruption about him. Next, the corrupt and somehow unclean Mr. Trump with the smile of a diseased barracuda.

Then it got better – President Sheinbaum of Mexico and Prime Minister Carney of Canada – the other two host countries. Then the very, very tall King Felipe of Spain. King of the winning team! Sheinbaum, Carney and Felipe handled themselves as they should.

I thought the King was particularly impressive. He gave each player a solid prolonged hug, whispering things to them. I’m not sure that any other of the various kings and queens around Europe could have done this so well, even if they wanted to.

Anyway, the two teams made their way through, the losers first. That meant the Argentinians, including Messi, had to stick around on the field for the whole ceremony, even though when the game first ended, he had simply collapsed on the turf and wept.

There didn’t seem to be any sign of the President of Argentina. He wasn’t there to console his country’s players. After all, consolation from your leader is both more difficult and more important than congratulations. Those players needed to be consoled.

The thing is that President Javier Milei, one of the two remaining noisy libertarian leaders, now that the Hungarian is gone, is in the midst of a fight with the football clubs of Argentina. Their traditional system is based on community clubs. Very grassroots.

Milei – libertarian that he is – wants to privatize the system so that businessmen can control the whole system and make money out of it.

He is a classic negative or false populist. Just in it for the money.

– – –

One last thought. Yes, I followed the whole World Cup and loved it. Yes, the players and their coaches were remarkable. So many teams. So much effort. So many surprising moments.

All the same, it would be irresponsible to forget what George Orwell had to say in his masterpiece – 1984 – about football as a major national distraction. An anti-democratic force. A modern version of the old Roman Empire of bread and circuses.

Orwell – 1984 – on how those in power handle the “proles”:

Or in his essay The Sporting Spirit in 1945:

Here’s the thing, it would be foolish to simply ignore Orwell. And our society is one in which those who argued for the ‘globalist era’ insisted that the internationalization of markets must mean the virtual end of the power of the nation-states. And that in turn was all about the demeaning of the role of the citizen.

In other words, as Orwell said, the citizen should be distracted from her public role by focusing him on entertainment. And the most exciting form of entertainment is professional sports, particularly football.

All of which is worth thinking about.

Subscribe now

Share

The first time I’ve seen it since its original first release in Paris in February 1969. Yes, it was ‘unleashed’ on the world from that city.

I was a student living in Paris as of the autumn of ‘68. In other words, I missed MAY. I also stayed there for seven years doing various things. That is another story. A long story.

Anyway, I remember clearly the release of Z. The excitement. This film was about Greece. But wasn’t it also about France? About the U.S.?

This seemed to be a moment when change was possible. When corrupt public figures and out of control police forces and, in some countries, out of control army officers, could be reined in. Brought under serious civil control. Z was a great warning flag waved in our faces.

We were all talking about it.

What’s more, Z was the proof that you could make exciting, moral, ethical, tough, political films .

Thinking about it last night, I suddenly realized how much influence it must have had on the way I wrote my first novel – Mort d’un general, 1976, Le seuil/The Birds of Prey, MacMillan, later the same year.

Yes, for those of you who don’t know, I have spent much of my writing life in French. And it began in French in Paris with that first novel, which created a serious political controversy in that country. A strange way for an Anglo Canadian to begin a writing career.

The point here is that Costa-Gavras and Z invented a new way of making films and telling a political story. It was also a film which helped many of us to write our novels differently and to make films differently. He delivered the content of a political thesis, revealed with the pace – the speed – of a thriller.

So fast. So jagged. Sharp edges everywhere. A romantic brutality. A tough view of the world. Complex reality made accessible.

Just a masterpiece.

Nothing more.

And you can’t turn your eyes away.

MORT D'UN GÉNÉRAL

THE BIRDS OF PREY

Subscribe now

Share

On the other hand, the Spanish were. They seemed to be everywhere.

After the Canadian team, I have to admit that I’m a French supporter so I was pretty disappointed and sad for a group of guys who could have played so much better on a better day.

On the other hand, it was amazing to see the Spaniards sophisticated moves and their ability to be wherever the French thought they should be.

It’s sports. Someone wins and someone has to lose and thousands of people are split between joy and depression. There isn’t much black and white in the real world, but sports can certainly provide it on a game by game basis.

Subscribe now

Share

I know it’s silly, but I felt badly for Morocco, although I was glad France won. Morocco was not at its best and France was (at least in the second half).

It did make me think that the other day, if Canada hadn’t been missing its top two players, they might well have won.

And France really is a great team.

And competitive sports are cruel if you’re on the wrong side.

And Mbappé is truly great.

It’s like watching Gretzky when he was with Edmonton. Or Rocket Richard in his prime (I have had to settle for videos).

As I keep saying, the two greatest team sports are hockey and football/soccer. Sports of speed and movement and nevertheless, very precise skills, always used at great speed. And sports which allow a star to blossom provided they work within their team. Show offs and egotists, even with great talents, tend to fail.

Only six games to go.

And then? How about writing more?

Subscribe now

Share

800,000 without power because of the strain this extreme heat is putting on power grids.

Some 52 wounded and 5 killed in shooting incidents across the country.

Don’t worry. The Nero of the U.S. empire has his priorities straight. He called the president of FIFA to insist that the suspension of a U.S. player who had been given a red card (dangerous or foul play) should be lifted.

It was! A victory for the Empire! A battle won.

Two points:

1. The career of the Bosnian player could have ended with this incident. He came very close to a crushed foot. The rules are clear: it doesn’t matter what the intention was. No problem. He’s only a Bosnian, from the U.S. president’s point of view. Not a noble, true and brave U.S. citizen.

   

2. The president of FIFA – not worthy of naming – was brought in a decade ago to clean up the mess of corruption for which the organization is famous. And here he is doing something which literally destroys the credibility of FIFA leadership.

And why did he give in?

Remember last year – December 5th, 2025 to be precise – the unnamable president of FIFA came to Washington to present the President with a special trophy invented just for him – THE CURRYING FAVOUR TROPHY (otherwise known as the FIFA Peace Prize). Let’s not waste time on the irony or sarcasm which all of that provokes.

The additional ugly detail was that this thing was presented to Trump at the Kennedy Centre, which the Needy President was desperately attempting to rename after himself. Don’t worry, John Kennedy would be allowed to keep his name there as well.

And the point of all of this is that for the first time since 1962 – 64 years ago – FIFA has gone against a principled position and reversed the suspension of a player – for purely political reasons. Or maybe they weren’t. Maybe it was just the weakness, appalling lack of character, cowardly nature of the president of FIFA.

He should be removed before he does more damage to one of the two great sports.

Subscribe now

Share

Canada played a good game – their first half was beautiful. Here I defer to experts – it seems like their weakness is actually scoring. Lots of time to work on that before the next World Cup. I can’t help but believe that they will do even better.

Re: the France/Paraguay game, Paraguay played in the Stroessner tradition.

All the same, the elegance and skill of France broke through.

Subscribe now

Share

Subscribe now

Share

GO!

Buy your tickets. Friday (i.e. tonight), Saturday, Sunday nights. 8pm.

PLAY DEAD – by People Watching. Meridian Arts Centre, Lyric Theatre.

We went last night. Astonishing.

70 minutes of dance? Acrobatics? Gymnastics? How do they even do it? Drama!

Really something.

JUST GO.

https://www.luminatofestival.com/play-dead

Subscribe now

Share

It isn’t said enough that the Indigenous people volunteered at a higher per capita rate than the rest of Canadian society in both world wars. They also played an important part in Korea. Their greatest hero was perhaps Francis Pegahmagabow from near Parry Sound. He was the greatest sniper of the First World War with among many honours, the Military Medal with two bars. This is given for bravery and the bars mean that he won it three times! There is a statue of him near the Stockey Centre in Parry Sound.

Here are some pictures plus a video of yesterday’s ceremony in Ottawa:

In case you didn’t have time for the video, Adrienne is wearing the headdress presented to her in 2005 by the Kainai Chieftainship of the Blood Tribe of Southern Alberta.

Subscribe now

Share

Ok. In that case, citizens don’t matter. Experts are in charge, while we just sit around and watch, while we complain or make cynical comments.

Yes, I often do one or more of these things.

But Substack is also capable of much more – for example of carrying what used to come in speeches or magazine articles.

I think it is an interesting place to take a bit of time to lay out issues. Or draw attention to things being missed. Or for you to give your version of how institutions work or fail. Or for me to give mine.

So here is a piece on a subject rarely addressed, at least not seriously or with an intent to understand.

Hope you find it useful, even fun.

- - -

One of the most important jobs of a Head of State of any country is to travel abroad on state visits representing their country at the highest level.

Head of State to Head of State.

As I showed in a recent post – Canadian Governors General have been doing this since Vincent Massey went to Washington in 1954. In fact, long before that, British Governors General made occasional ‘sort of’ state visits. For example, the Duke of Connaught went to Washington in 1870.

Do these visits matter?

Yes, they can matter.

They are one of the key formal international mechanisms which keep leaders talking to each other. They are made up of formulae agreed upon around the world which define how they happen. There are obligatory elements and strict timings.

This formal façade actually creates what you could call a cover for informality. In between the formal events there’s a lot of time for leaders to chat, to say things they can’t say in public, to get advice, to explain, to complain.

In most cases, the visiting Head of State stays in the State House. For example, in Canada they stay at Rideau Hall, where the GG lives. And there’s lots of time for chatting over meals or during breaks. Quite often the Prime Minister slips in quietly to join these chats. The effect of all of this cannot be measured, but it is real.

- - -

What follows here is a pictorial narrative of the Canadian GGs on state visits abroad. A far from complete list, but this selection will give you a little idea of how it works.

And I haven’t included the incoming state visits to Canada. So half the picture is missing…

Why the Netherlands?

Part of the Dutch Royal Family spent WWII in exile in Ottawa. After D-Day the Canadian Forces led in the liberation of Europe’s north coast, including the Netherlands. My father was wounded in that running battle.

Today the Netherlands plays a central role in the EU, which should not be underestimated by Canada as it tries to develop a much closer link with the EU. Our close historic link with the Netherlands is a valuable element in Canada’s move to build EU links.

Why is this being done? In order to counterbalance our overreliance on the U.S. This U.S. obsession was a fundamental strategic mistake driven by Brian Mulroney after 1988.

Major political mistakes are easy to make. It is very difficult to undo them. We are in the midst of trying to do just that.

Ray Hnatyshyn’s state visit to Ukraine highlighted Canada’s support for an independent Ukraine. Our large Ukrainian Canadian community, which has a particularly influential role in our Western provinces, has taken a leadership role in encouraging Canada’s engagement.

Yes, of course, the U.S. has their own particular opinion on how Russia should be handled and therefore tries to influence the countries on its border. But Canada, ever since the collapse of the iron curtain, has played a particular role in the evolution of Ukraine towards democracy. For example, Canadian constitutional experts were central to the writing of the new Ukrainian constitution.

Romeo LeBlanc’s state visit to India came in two parts. The second part was Pakistan. These visits were central to Canada’s evolving foreign policy as Ottawa focused on diversifying our international relationships. And in particular strengthening relations with major commonwealth countries.

This particular visit represented a relaunching of the Canada/India close relationship which had begun with Pandit Nehru and John Diefenbaker cooperating at the 1961 Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference in London. They had cooperated in order to isolate the pro-Apartheid government in South Africa. In fact, their cooperation led to South Africa leaving the Commonwealth. This was the beginning of the organized international anti-Apartheid movement, in which Canada was one of the leaders, along with India.

- - -

Adrienne and I were invited as guests on Mr. LeBlanc’s trip to India and Pakistan.

This invitation was part of a new and original approach to state visits imagined by Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs. They asked the GGs to include in their state visits delegations not only businessmen, but also writers, playwrights, theatre directors, film producers, social policy leaders – in other words, engaged citizens in a wide variety of public areas.

Why?

Because this was a way to expand the impact of state visits by advancing a broader picture of Canada in the hope that this would lead to broader relationships with those countries.

In fact, some of those countries admired the Canadian approach and have adopted it for their own state visits.

Here seen arriving at the Chilean presidential palace. The central theme of the state visit was to show support for the return of Chile’s still fragile democracy.

And to advance the more general principle that Canada should be in the forefront of supporting democracy in Latin America. This tended to put us in opposition to Washington’s view that what mattered most in Latin America was governments eager to support U.S. policies and to accept the uncontrolled influence of large U.S. companies.

Remember, Washington supported General Pinochet’s violent dictatorship all the way through.

Here you see one of several attempts by Canada over the last 77 years to strengthen Canada/China relations. This is always part of diversifying our foreign relations, particularly lessening dependence on the U.S.

This doesn’t mean Canada supports China’s political or social strategies. After all, there are also economic relationships, as well as cultural and environmental, among others.

This is also an attempt to maintain Canada’s varied role in China which goes back to the late 19^thcentury. It began in part with a surprising quantity of missionaries (mainly Protestant) who played a central role in advancing China’s public education, legal systems, and public social structures.

Let me add an important historic detail: Norman Bethune’s relationship with the early Mao and Zhou Enlai was legendary. Bethune was the only Westerner with whom Mao had a real relationship.

This visit was part of Canada’s foreign policy aimed at working closely with Central European countries. Why? To provide support given the constant tension on their Eastern borders in the years after the collapse of the Soviet Bloc.

This visit was part of a concerted effort to strengthen our circumpolar relations.

The circumpolar strategy has been undertaken several times – for example by Ed Schreyer in 1981 when he carried out a major state visit to Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark and Iceland accompanied by Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Mark MacGuigan. In 1982, Schreyer also visited Greenland. Then came Adrienne Clarkson with her state visit to Russia, Finland and Iceland in 2003.

Why do I say that Canada’s circumpolar strategy has been undertaken several times? This suggests that each time it peters out.

Why?

Because the obsession of big business with only one of Canada’s four borders – the southern – keeps our strategic attention fixed in that direction. As a society we haven’t taken seriously our reality as a northern country. Things as simple as winter holidays have affected our view of how to see the world.

The GG’s presence in Greenland was an important statement, demonstrating that Canada stands with Greenland, against attempted imperial takeovers. By the U.S. or Russia or anyone else. The fact that Mary Simon, like most Greenlanders, is Inuk, made the impact all the greater.

- - -

What I’m attempting to demonstrate with these photos and short narratives is that state visits may look slightly arcane given that what we mainly see is the formal side. The public side. It looks very grand. But remember, that formality demonstrates publicly and clearly that the two States are engaged in building a serious relationship. The grandeur relates to the importance these countries give to their relationships; not to the individuals who happen to be Head of State at a particular moment.

Mary Simon’s visit to Greenland was a case in which the intent was particularly clear. Canada was standing with a fellow circumpolar nation against interference by superpowers.

Of course Washington had declared that it wanted to take over Greenland for international strategic reasons in defence of democracy.

As I’ve mentioned in earlier posts, superpowers always have elaborate explanations aimed at presenting imperial takeovers as offering a generous helping hand.

The British and the French empires were very good at this in the 19^th and 20^th centuries. Even Athens and the Roman Empire invariably presented a fancy argument to justify taking over any country or city state and removing their leadership.

I’m not suggesting that we are living in a copycat world imitating the Roman Empire. But when it comes to imperial ambitions, the attitude of great powers remains remarkably stable. They are always ambitious. And they are always in a competition of their own making for more power. And usually for more land.

All of this should give a little sense of the role state visits play for countries like Canada when it comes to negotiating solid relationships with other countries.

By the way, leaving Ottawa last week, I met a delegation of the senior Greenland leadership. We had a short chat. I had time to say that Canadians in general support the Greenlanders – our circumpolar neighbours.

I think it’s fair to conclude that the Greenlanders had been in Ottawa for discussions about the Greenland situation and Greenland’s desire to have a positive relationship with Canada. After all, Canada – not the U.S. or Russia – is their circumpolar neighbour.

This is a reminder to all of us that we have responsibilities in our neighbourhood.

Yes, we have a long southern border. But we have three very long coasts which tie us to Greenland, Scandinavia, Russia, East Asia, South Asia, and Southeast Asia.

We are part of several neighbourhoods.

To focus principally on one neighbour to our immediate south is provincial, unimaginative and deeply passive. Oh yes, and colonial.

Do we need to pay close attention to our southern neighbour? Of course. Pay attention politically and strategically. Sell them as much as we can.

But strategy is almost always about balance. About counterbalancing forces.

So we must wake up to our neighbourhoods. And take them seriously. If Greenland – one example – is threatened, we are threatened.

If our neighbours are threatened, we need to support them. We need to take those responsibilities seriously.

Subscribe now

Share

This may not sound like much but it is incredibly important. It means that Canada is now entering into a new generation of bilateral security pacts with long time allies. These agreements are not tied to the US. They do not contradict NATO interests, but they cannot be limited by other NATO members.

These are the kinds of things Canada needs to be doing more and more in order to balance its international relationships and become less dependent on/intertwined with the US.

Not anti-US. Just a sign of Canada as a serious international player.

France et Canada. Le Président Macron et le Premier Ministre Carney viennent de rendre publique un accord général sur la sécurité de l’information.

Peut-être qu’à première vue ça n’a pas l’air de quelque chose d’important. Au contraire, c’est d’une grande importance. Ça veut dire que le Canada s’engage dans une nouvelle génération de pactes de sécurité bilatéraux avec ses alliés de longue date. Cet accord Canada-France n’est pas liée aux États-Unis. Ils ne contredisent pas les intérêts de l’OTAN. En même temps, les autres membres de l’OTAN ne peuvent pas limiter l’impact de cet accord.

Voilà le genre de choses que le Canada a besoin de faire – de plus en plus – s’il veut équilibrer ses relations internationales et devenir moins dépendant des États-Unis.

Ce n’est pas un acte anti-US. C’est simplement une indication de plus que le Canada est en train de redevenir un acteur sérieux à l’échelle internationale.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-carney-in-france-meeting-macron-g7-summit/

Subscribe now

Share

Yes, I was lucky enough to be in the Senate for the swearing in of Louise Arbour as Governor General.

She gave a remarkable speech, both intellectually and ethically. Within the historical context she evoked, she also laid out important ideas about how we as Canadians must act in this very difficult time. You can find the whole speech here.

In the meantime, here are a few quotes from what she said:

“[Mary Simon] has reminded us that reconciliation is a lifelong journey that begins with listening and with empathy.”

From her international experiences: “I have seen regions ravaged by war and poverty, where people, like all of us, yearn to live with dignity, in peace and security.”

“[Canada is] a country that is not afraid to reinvent itself.”

“Our future is our shared project, a project that calls on us to balance the many perspectives that shape our collective identity.”

“Extreme polarization is dangerous—but so is extreme consensus.”

“It is through our differences, and our fundamental right to express them, that we will nourish critical thinking, creativity and innovation. It is through our differences that we will build our common future.”

“We must continue to protect the public space in which our national debates take place: from schools and universities to the media, political parties, unions and civil society organizations. From theatres, concert halls and museums to courtrooms and the floors of our legislative assemblies.”

“We do not mistake humility for weakness, nor do we measure a person’s worth by the thickness of their wallet.”

“Young Canadians are citizens of the world—they are well educated, with both a deep climate awareness and remarkable digital literacy. Yet not all of them are able to reach their full potential as they face the headwinds of inequality. In that, we are failing them. It is our shared responsibility to correct course.”

“Our country is our shared work. So, too, is our influence on the world.”

“And don’t underestimate how lucky you are to grow up here, even if you’re rightly concerned about the major challenges of our time: the health of our planet, the inequitable distribution of wealth, the violence of armed conflicts.”

“As we undertake major initiatives to strengthen our security and grow our economy, including in the Arctic, we must remain attentive to the rights of those directly affected and we must always ensure a fair sharing of both burdens and benefits.”

“Our collective security rests, above everything else, on the trust that we place in each other.”

“I am mindful of the privilege given to me to go out and meet with Canadians across this country and to discover the wealth of ideas and ideals that inspire them.”

“I am preparing myself to be surprised and to confront my own stereotypes and unconscious biases.”

“I hope that each day, I will be able to embody the spirit of empathy that lies at the heart of our great reconciliation project.”

Subscribe now

Share

They were under fire in the water and on the beach. They were faced by 15 machine gun positions and 5 armed concrete casements.

381 Canadians were killed on D-Day; 574 wounded.

By the end of the day 14,000 Canadians had landed. And the Winnipeg Rifles had fought their way inland to Putot.

June 6. A very different kind of day than the one many of us enjoyed today.

Subscribe now

Share

Just saw Waiting for Godot with Paul Gross and Tom McCamus.

Adrienne and I both think of Godot as the greatest modern play. This is all of us. This is our drama. Our society floating without purpose.

Beckett! Beckett! We have seen it in everything from a garage production in Fort Lauderdale to great actors on great stages.

Well, this was on the main stage - a big space! Gross and McCamus – and the rest of the cast – filled that space with the emotion and the craziness of the play.

Loved it!

Not often that you see a masterpiece done by masters, as if it were easy. Which it isn’t!

A fabulous moment of theatre.

Subscribe now

Share

The Governor General is not the representative of the King. That is a very old-fashioned colonial idea which has no place in today’s Canada.

Yes, yes, the Constitution suggests the opposite. But the Canadian Constitution has always been difficult to understand in any practical sense. It says many things it does not exactly mean, just as the old BNA Act did.

- - -

We have a long history of obscure constitutional truisms. Which often aren’t true. Or are temporary truths. Or convenient positions.

For example, the BNA began by declaring that Canada was a Dominion. This was meant to be a central and important point.

Why? Because the Fathers of Confederation had begun their independence negotiations in London in 1866 by demanding that Canada be called the Kingdom of Canada. Why? Because as a Kingdom, Canada would be equal to England and therefore completely independent.

The British negotiators refused.

Why? Well, remember, Canada was the first European/British colony to negotiate for independence since the U.S. colonies broke away 91 years before. Yes, the Canadian negotiations were peaceful. But they were also a revolutionary innovation.

For the British government, some sort of independence was one thing. Equality with Britain was quite a different matter.

The fallback position was Dominion of Canada. Why? Because the Canadians knew their bible, probably a lot better than the urbaine British negotiators. For the Canadians, the biblical origins of ‘Dominion’ were all about power, therefore independence.

‘Dominion’ came from Psalm 72:8: “He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.”

It also came from Zachariah 9:10: “And his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth.”

But the key intentional bit was in French. Again, Zachariah 9:10. It read: “Et sa puissance s’étendra depuis une mer jusqu’à l’autre mer, et depuis le fleuve jusqu’aux extrémités du monde.”

PUISSANCE. Power.

That’s right. The BNA was bilingual and it was clear. The French version had as much constitutional meaning as the English. The Dominion of Canada in French was La Puissance du Canada. That’s right. Canada was born as La Puissance du Canada. The Power of Canada. A Dominion and a Puissance. This was made clear in English and French in the first and third paragraphs of the BNA.

Two important details in those London negotiations:

1. Macdonald was the negotiator. He was a master at arguing the details. And he read French fluently. For years George-Étienne Cartier had been passing him French novels, which he loved to read.

2. Cartier was the master of text. He understood the relationship between French and English. And the BNA was in both languages, each carrying equal legal importance. The Dominion was La Puissance. Therefore, the meaning of ‘Dominion’ was clear. It was all about power and independence.

Conclusion: If you are wondering what the Canadian negotiatiors understood before they accepted being called a Dominion, the official French version gives you the full intended meaning from the biblical Latin: “potestas.”

“Dominion” or “Puissance” was the original way to make a statement of power and independence.

- - -

These are not technical details. I repeat – Canada was the first colony after the U.S. rebellion – about 90 years before – to try for independence. Canada was the first of the English and European colonies to reinvent itself as a nation state. And the Canadian leaders understood that negotiation was the intelligent way to go. They were negotiators not soldiers. So there was lots of room to create new formal language. In fact, it was necessary.

The problem was that London didn’t like this originality. Once the deal was done, the imperial leaders and managers set about debasing the word Dominion by using it for every ex-colony. Let’s call it: inflationary devaluation. And they pretended there was no French version. No legal term Puissance.

Canadians eventually came to believe this imperial version of their own story – that the BNA existed only in English. That there was no such thing as La Puissance du Canada. Therefore, that the BNA included no mention of ‘power’ as a sign of independence.

So ‘Puissance’ gradually disappeared, leaving only ‘Dominion,’ which declined into a colonial term.

The result? Well, it took a while, as Canadians made enormous contributions and sacrifices in two world wars, while the imperial powers sucked up the credit and the advantages.

In 1951, the government of Louis St. Laurent simply stopped using the devalued term. There was no constitutional amendment. No law was passed by Parliament. The term Dominion simply disappeared from bills, laws and public discourse. The Canadian government stopped using the word because its meaning had lost its dignity and was therefore undermining Canada’s international reputation as an independent power.

- - -

I tell this story because it highlights how empires deform history to suit their own interests and their own version. The version in which they are the Hero. They alone are heroic! Everyone else is just a colony or an ex-colony.

Remember! At that time the British Empire was the most powerful imperial force in the world. And they used their English language to reinforce their administrative and military power.

That same sort of context shapes the story which tells how the role of the GG was often manipulated in order to create a false understanding of how it worked.

It took quite a while for the Ottawa-London uncomfortable deal of the 1860s to settle into the formalized public independence we now take for granted. Along the way the Governor General gradually began functioning as the de facto Head of State of Canada.

There was no formal change in language. That might have created a crisis. The GG simply evolved into the working Head of State of Canada.

Today, the GG fulfills that role in its entirety, and has for a long time.

- - -

Now let me be clear about four practical details:

• The Governor General does not speak with the monarch about the Canadian role/job. Never.

• The Governor General does not seek advice from the monarch. Never.

• There is no working relationship between them.

• The monarch knows this and therefore makes no public or private comments which are not written for him by Canada’s authorities.

I make these four points because they are never laid out by Canada’s leaders. It is as if they don’t want the citizenry to understand how our democratic system actually works. As if they fear clarity.

In other words, yes, the King is constitutionally the monarch. But the King has no practical role in the functioning of Canada. He can be brought out from time to time, when it is useful, as the government of the day sees fit. Long periods of time may go by without the government wishing to do so. Decades!

And whether the monarch is brought out or for show or not, the Governor General is at all times the de facto Head of State. AT ALL TIMES. Whether the monarch is visiting the country or not.

- - -

A helpful description of the historic and actual role today of the Governor General would be to describe the GG as the defender of the Canadian Crown, just as the King is the defender of the British Crown.

The Crown is not a person. Yes, in Britain there are various crowns made out of various precious metals. But the Canadian Crown does not require a nice metal hat of gold or silver or platinum, studded with jewels of colonial origin, to put on someone’s head.

What is that Crown? The Canadian one? What does that word – Crown – mean?

It is an abstract representation of the country, of the people, of its history and its culture – and of course of its written and unwritten constitutional systems.

The Crown is an abstract theory of governance.

You could actually have the Canadian Crown without the monarch.

That’s right.

The Crown is an abstract expression of legitimacy. ‘The Crown does this or that,’ ‘Crown Land,’ ‘Crown Attorney,’ etc.

All countries tend to have a central physical symbol of their legitimacy; that is, the symbol of something physical. It may be a prehistoric stone. Or a plaque. Or an ancient cross. Or a book. Or a document. Or the abstraction of a crown.

- - -

Remember – Canada is the oldest continuous democratic federation in the world and one of the two or three oldest continuous democracies in the world.

CONTINUOUS! That is the key word. Why should we interpret phrases or words, such as the Crown, in such a way as to diminish our standing as a country? A G7 country. A founder of the UN and of NATO.

The use of terms evolve over time. When we ask today – ‘What is the Canadian Crown?’ – there are many answers. For example, the Crown is now millions of hectares of land. Crown land. When we talk of the Canadian Crown, we are not making a reference to the monarch. We are referring to the legitimacy of the Canadian state.

- - -

So it is the GG’s job to represent, at the Head of State level, the place and the people of Canada. And as Commander-in-Chief, it is the GG’s job to represent the defence of Canada.

All of that explains why the job is so complex and important for Canadians.

- - -

Subscribe now

Share

Have a look at what they’re saying in their two articles. These are particularly interesting.

Now I’m back!

Basically their arguments are that the F-35 is an amazing plane. However, if Canada were to buy it, it would not enable the Canadian Forces to defend their country. Rather it would demote Canada to a subset of U.S. strategy.

In that sense, the F-35 would be an extremely expensive purchase resulting in Canada becoming weaker as a force in its own right.

A step backwards when it comes to military sovereignty.

As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, the F-35 requires highly sophisticated infrastructure, landing strips, and support structures. On top of which the use of these planes would be entirely dependent on the willingness of the United States to provide Canada with parts in a timely manner.

In other words, the F-35 would be a dependence machine.

High maintenance. Powerful but delicate. Not made for the Canadian North. Its use dependent on a foreign country.

The Gripen is all about flexibility. Those who buy it are able to accept that their own formal landing strips may be destroyed. This is a plane which can land and take off on roads. To say nothing of the tough and unpredictable conditions to be found all over northern Canada, which is probably where the fighting would take place.

A much tougher plane which can be maintained in a far less expensive way.

And it would not make us dependent on Sweden!

Canada would have its own structures and its own ability to adjust its logistics and strategy to the reality of what the country would be defending.

Subscribe now

Share

It is an amazing gathering. The public is very involved and an amazing collection of people take part.

I will be doing four events – one a day. I’m on my way to the first one with Adrienne at this very moment (in heavy traffic on the M4). We will make it!

WARFARE IN THE ACADEMY – Friday, May 22nd at 7:00pm

We once imagined education was about teaching objective facts to the next generation. But in today’s polarised world, education has become a fierce political battleground. The left pushes post-colonial readings of history, critical race theory, and gender studies. On the right, Trump has threatened to remove billions in funding from top universities over their DEI programmes, including Harvard, Yale, and Stanford. PEN America calculated that since 2021, 22,810 books have been banned in US schools. More recently, in 2025, political commentator Charlie Kirk was assassinated while giving a speech at a university campus. What our children and young people learn, and how they learn it, has become the stage of international debate and controversy.

Was it a mistake to imagine education was or ever could be devoid of politics? Should schools aim to present students with a range of competing perspectives, encouraging them to think critically and draw their own conclusions? Or is the only solution to the current chaos to double down on providing a single objective and neutral account of history, science, and society?

Philosopher John Ralston Saul, Tory MP and Shadow minister James Cleverly, and author of Can Feminism Be African? Minna Salami debate whether neutral education is a fantasy.

RETHINKING THE GLOBAL ORTHODOXY – Saturday, May 23rd at 12:00pm

We thought that prosperity ran on open borders, frictionless trade, and global supply chains. Trump's tariffs challenged that orthodoxy. Join acclaimed author, former President of PEN International, and Trump critic, John Ralston Saul, as he argues that faith in globalism is, in fact, a dangerous illusion. Overreliance on borderless institutions has hollowed out local economies, weakened democratic accountability, and fractured civic trust. Saul contends that genuine freedom and resilient citizenship demand we reclaim national agency, rebuild community self-reliance, and rethink the orthodoxy of globalisation.

AFFLUENCE AND ITS AFTERSHOCK – Sunday, May 23rd at 5:00pm

Most assumed material advancement would translate directly into emotional and psychological well-being. For decades, richer societies, better medicine, and rapid technological change were meant to make lives safer, longer, and more fulfilling. Instead, the opposite seems to be unfolding. The Global Burden of Disease Study reports that while mortality is falling overall, youth deaths are stagnating or rising across North and Latin America, driven by suicide, substance abuse, and self-harm. Anxiety and depression have surged. In a world of record wealth and medical knowledge, despair and neglect are becoming as lethal as disease. Moreover, studies show that richer nations have higher rates of depression than middle-income nations.

Was it a mistake to assume that ever greater material success would drive satisfaction and fulfillment, once basic needs are provided? Should well-being be treated not as a material struggle but as a shared cultural goal of belonging, stability, and purpose? Or are material benefits the most reliable way to increase quality of life and well-being?

Universal basic income advocate Guy Standing, philosopher and former President of PEN John Ralston Saul, and author of Nothing, Janne Teller ask whether rich societies can buy happiness.

PHILOSOPHY BRUNCH – Monday, May 24th at 11:00am

It's not every day you get to join a world-leading thinker for a delicious brunch. Avocado and eggs on toast never tasted so good.

The old global order is breaking down, but what replaces it? Join former President of PEN International, John Ralston Saul, to explore geopolitics beyond empires and blocs, examining power, democracy, and why civic responsibility, not ideology, may shape a more stable international future.

Look forward to seeing you at one or more events!

Subscribe now

Share

Rowswell lays out the many things that Mary Simon has done and continues to do. Please take the time to read this. If you do, you will see why I think we owe her a great deal for what she has brought to Rideau Hall.

Let me add two things which I’ve already made reference to in earlier posts. When Siila Watt-Cloutier gave the 9th LaFontaine-Baldwin Lecture (Returning Canada to a Path of Principle: an Arctic and Inuit Perspective) in Iqaluit in 2009, it went without saying that we would ask Mary Simon to be part of the small panel which led the public discussion the next day. This was a particularly important LBL as there had never been a major national lecture held in the Arctic before then. Mary Simon and Siila Watt-Cloutier with the Mayor of Iqaluit, Elisapee Sheutiapik, represented a remarkable force.

And in 2022 we asked Mary Simon to give the 19th LaFontaine-Baldwin Lecture which took place in Calgary. By then she was Governor General and it was a historic moment for the first Indigenous Governor General to be talking to a thousand people in Calgary about Reconciliation and the evolution of Canada.

The appointment of Louise Arbour as the successor to Mary Simon demonstrates the continuity of naming to the senior position in this country Canadians of consequence who have changed and will continue to change the way in which Canadians see themselves.

Subscribe now

Share