Reports of the death of the U.S. economy have been greatly exaggerated. Over the past few months, encouraging employment numbers, increased consumer spending and improved corporate earnings all indicate that the U.S. has more than enough fight in it to take on its malaise-inducing debt problem. More fundamentally, the U.S. is experiencing a genuine resurgence in both manufacturing and energy production. The August, 2011 report from the Boston Consulting Group, “Made in America, Again,details how and why many major U.S. manufacturers have moved their operations from China back to the U.S. The report highlights the increasingly favorable cost and productivity advantages stateside and the country’s newly flexible labor force. It predicts the trend will continue.

Similarly, U.S. energy production will increase dramatically over the next ten years as U.S. shale oil reserves, the largest in the world, come on line. The U.S. Energy Information Agency’s Annual Energy Outlook, to be published in April, predicts that U.S. crude oil production will soon reach its highest level since 1994 and that within 10 years the U.S. will be a net exporter of natural gas.

Mark Carney’s recent statements that the U.S. may never fully recover from its economic downturn misses the point. True, the U.S. will not return to the economic model that held it in good stead through the 20^th century. It will, however, create a new one. Americans have always been good at recovering. They now appear to be pretty darn good at adapting.

Meanwhile, China’s growing pains will not go away. Inflation, increasing labor costs, decreasing productivity, and unsustainable social and economic policies all suggest trouble ahead for the superpower du jour. Whether China’s State Capitalism is actually working is anyone’s guess.  To the extent the U.S. is the devil we know, China is the devil we don’t know.

In the past 5 years, the Harper government has had great success in seeking out and securing new trading partners. Trade agreements with Latin America, India, Europe, and Asia have furthered the aim of disentangling Canada from U.S. influence and have helped shield Canada from the U.S.’s economic woes. But Harper’s recent forays into China, including his government’s approval of China’s state ownership of Oil Sands projects, go beyond healthy diversification. In 2010, the Harper Government wisely rejected the foreign purchase of Potash Corp. Two years later, it is a very different Harper Government.

As a key component of Canada’s national energy security, oil is special. Decisions regarding its distribution would seem to require a more careful approach than what the Harper government is exhibiting.  Harper’s all-or-nothing response to the U.S. over the Keystone delay now has Canada rushing to strike a deal where no reason to rush exists. Moreover, even if China is “legit”, Harper’s plan necessarily depends on steamrolling the Oil Sands through the sanctuaries of Coastal British Columbia. With a revitalized and reliable trade partner to the south, such a plan, destructive as it is to Canada’s other special resources, seems decidedly unnecessary.

While the Prime Minister is intent on being chummy with China, a smarter choice would be a relationship that reflects more the divide between the two countries: arms-length. Moreover, to treat Obama’s politically motivated, and therefore likely short-lived, rejection of Keystone as a straw that broke the camel’s back threatens an ever-invaluable relationship. The U.S. may not always remain our largest trading partner, and that is okay, but it will always be our best.

In 1959, 32 Canadian engineers, fresh from Canada’s controversial Avros Arrows project (a wonderful chapter in Canadian aviation history)  were recruited to join the U.S.’s fledgling Space Task Group. This group later became the Johnson Space Center and its Canadian contingent was primarily responsible for the Apollo Lunar Module. (Notwithstanding this oft-cited example of brain drain, Canada itself became the third country in space with its launch of the Alouette I satellite in 1962).

Since Apollo, Canada has further cemented its role as the sine qua non of U.S. space missions. It is hard to imagine the Space Shuttle having the kind of 30-year run it has had without the iconic Canadarm docked in its cargo bay.  Initially cast as a supporting actor, Canada’s robotic arm ended up stealing all of the scenes. With the installation of Canadarm 2 on the International Space Station, Canadian space technology will continue in its key role long after the Space Shuttle has left the stage.

Canada has also settled on a vision for its space program. At the recent Canadian Space Commerce Association Conference, industry leaders, citing the needs of up and coming space-farers China, Russia and India, were unanimous in calling for further development and expansion of Canada’s space robotic technology.  The Canadian Space Agency has answered that call. It has moved this year not only to improve its robotic arm technology, but also to aggressively develop robotic rovers, nano-satellites, cameras, launch technologies and propulsion systems. In so doing, the Space Agency intends for Canada to maintain its competitive advantage with respect to relevant space technologies and to ensure that Canada will be the go-to partner for any future international exploration missions.

And Canadians have accommodated. In 2010, global civil space expenditures peaked at $40 billion. Every nation with a space program has since severely restricted its future space budgets. The one exception is Canada. Its 2011 budget stands at close to $400 million. This is up from $300 million the year before. And current government commitments call for 10% annual increases in funding.

While $400 million seems like a drop in the bucket compared to NASA’s $18 billion budget, Canadian quality trumps American quantity. For example, an earmark in the current U.S. budget forces NASA to spend $3 billion building a heavy-lift rocket that NASA has gone on-record as saying is not part of its long-term strategy. Sadly, this reflects a pattern.  Recent congressional testimony revealed that over the past 20 years, NASA has spent $21 billion on projects that were ultimately cancelled.

As a result, the early, inspirational successes of the U.S. space program are a dim memory to beleaguered U.S. taxpayers. Canadians, meanwhile, are relatively free from the fiscal hurdles that have hobbled the U.S. and most other nations. Accordingly, the romance and promise of space are still able to capture the imagination of Canadians. And they have. With the exorbitant cost of space travel, this passion is key to any country’s success in space.
In May 1961, President Kennedy rallied the U.S. to take on the Russians and take up the cause of landing men on the moon. The resulting collaborative scientific undertaking resulted in more than just the Apollo mission. It began what has been a half-century of U.S. dominance in technology and innovation. That dominance is now up for grabs. During its own 50 years in space, Canada has taken many small steps toward claiming that dominance. Canada is now ready to take a giant leap.

The CRTC regulations currently prohibit a licensed broadcaster from reporting false news. As amended, the new regulations would prohibit only those reports that the broadcaster knows are false and that would endanger the lives, health or safety of the public. CRTC officials cite the 1992 ruling by the Supreme Court and subsequent scrutiny by joint parliamentary committees as reason for the amendment.

If not pretextual, the CRTC’s concerns are overblown. While the CRTC should endeavor to ensure that its regulations pass Constitutional muster, the particular regulation at issue is just not a pressing matter. A review of CRTC enforcement over the years indicates that the regulation has never been cited as a basis for the issuance of mandatory orders against a broadcaster. The vast majority of CRTC orders relate to improper record keeping or Canadian content violations. The “false and misleading news” provision is a vestige of a long ago concern of the British Crown which has never posed a modern day Constitutional threat. The Supreme Court concluded such with regards to the criminal statute that it struck down: “The fact that [the statute] has been so rarely used despite its long history supports the view that it is hardly essential to the maintenance of a free and democratic society.”

Rather than addressing a genuine concern, the CRTC’s push on the amendment instead appears to be tied to the pending debut of Sun TV’s 24- hour conservative cable news programming.  Directed in large part by former Harper staffer Kory Teneyche, Sun TV promises to feature exclusively conservative political punditry and plenty of U.S.-style invective.

The CRTC insists that its proposal to amend the regulation on the eve of the Sun TV premiere is coincidental. Perhaps. Yet, it also comes just as Harper appointed good ole boys Tom Pentefoutas and Pierre Gingras to senior positions at the CRTC and CBC respectively. This pincer movement on Canadian broadcasting, the CRTC’s sudden interest in a sleeping dog of a statute, a conservatives-only news station waiting in the wings, and Harper’s scorched earth policy when it comes to quashing opposition suggest more than just coincidence.

In any event, the welcome mat for Sun TV should be pulled out from under it. A conservative television news station is fine. A conservative television news station fashioned after the U.S. version? Not so good.

Canada is home, probably, to as many diverse and even extreme political opinions as the U.S. But whereas the U.S. thrives on drama, Canada thrives on decision making. Civil discourse has always won the day here, and hopefully always will, because Canadians have long understood that disrespect for those with whom you disagree results in deadlock.

Ironically, what may save Canada from the attack dog divisiveness that Sun TV seems so keen on unleashing is the U.S. itself. Since the tragedy last month in Arizona, frenzied discourse below the 49^th parallel has leveled off significantly. If Sun TV does indeed insist on following the U.S. lead, perhaps the trend of right wing demagoguery will die out there before it can catch on here.

In the past ten years, the notion that “Canada catches a cold when the U.S. sneezes” has become an archaic one. Canada did not follow the U.S. into recession after 9/11. Nor did it follow the U.S. into recession after the ‘08 financial meltdown. The Canadian dollar grew into its own. Canadian businesses of all stripes now thrive in overseas markets.

This disentanglement from the U.S. has given global visibility to the Canadian economy. But it also promises to give that same global visibility to the Canadian voice. Canada’s true gift for the 21^st Century is not its vast energy resources or its stable business and political climate. It is its unique cultural strengths. This includes Canada’s respectful approach to debate and commitment to consensus. These are among the necessary ingredients for new leadership in a global community.

Jane Fonda once remarked: “when I am in Canada, I feel this is what the world should be like.” Free from bombast, and now free from the bombast south of the border, Canada and its voice have a real chance to recruit many who would join in that refrain.

The three were linked by the U.S. Supreme Court last year when it consolidated the appeals of the men’s separate convictions under the “Honest Services” fraud statute. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned all three convictions and Black was released from Florida prison shortly thereafter. Last week, Black received more good news when federal prosecutors announced they would not re-try him. Today, the district court judge set a resentencing date of June 24 for related fraud and obstruction of justice convictions. Having already served 2 years of his 6 and 1/2 year sentence though, and having petitioned the Supreme Court to review the remaining convictions, it is possible that Black will remain free. Meanwhile, Black’s co-incorrigibles have languished. Skilling is serving a 24 year sentence for additional wrongdoings and in Alaska, Weyrauch faces a new corruption trial.

Among the egos that have taken the Perp Walk down Wall Street these past few years, none stand out like Black. The reason is not the amount he supposedly plundered – his conviction centered on a paltry $60 million worth of non-compete fees — but rather it is the learned air about him. Leaving the Illinois court house today, Black made a woeful attempt at self-deprecation, commenting that he did not know why there was so much interest in his case. Yeah, right. Whereas American crooks are seemingly born with a gene that causes them to lawyer up and respond with “no comment” at the first sign of trouble, Black routinely stepped up when beset by the Press and waxed eloquent and erudite about how his trial and conviction were the real crimes. Reporters thronged at every court appearance, armed with their thesauruses, for this very reason. The one successful aspect of Black’s apparent trial strategy was to convince everyone that being a high powered CEO was just a day job and the business of making money, legally or not, was beneath him. Here was a blue-blooded baron, not a white collar criminal.

Yet, Black seems to have bettered himself in prison. As his incarceration progressed, his regular missives to the National Post became less self-centered and less right-leaning and more statesmanlike. Black has come a long way since his salute of Quebec Premier Maurice Duplessis. His recent articles have avoided the minutia of political party fisticuffs and calls for social or fiscal conservatism. Instead, he has turned his attention to the strength of Canada as a nation, the qualities of Canadians as a people and their future global influence (peppered, understandably, with the occasional jab at the U.S.).

 In this sense, Black has a lot in common with the subject of one of his biographies, Richard Nixon. As he was leaving the White House, Nixon famously remarked “it is only a beginning — always.” Nixon took those words to heart and went on to achieve that most desirable of appointments: respected elder statesman. For Black, the same fate possibly awaits. While a run for political office is no doubt out of the question, Black is certainly keen on staying in the arena and his ideas would and certainly should be welcome in Canada. When his stay as a guest of the U.S. government is over, Black’s next battle will be regaining entry into his native country. Here is hoping that with time, and time served, Canadians will no longer just take Black for a snob, they will just take him back.

As in 2009, Canada’s continued ascendancy was fueled primarily by the strength of its economy. Yet, in 2010 it became clear that there was more to Canada than just a sound banking system. With strong gains month after month over a broad range of economic indicators, Canada remained auspiciously above the fray as the global recession proved stubborn. Canada also sought new and key trade markets in 2010, most notably with India, the EU, Turkey, Ukraine and Colombia. Meanwhile, surging commodities prices through the year had the world turning its collective attention to Canada and its envious array of natural resources.

In February, the world convened for the Winter Olympic Games in Vancouver. The Olympics provided exactly what Canada needed: an opportunity to introduce the world to a vibrant, strong and influential Canada. For many watching, it was their first, healthy dose of Canadian culture and patriotism. And NBC’s Tom Brokaw provided the masterstroke. The Olympic broadcaster’s homage to Canada, which aired immediately before the Opening Ceremonies, was a genuine love letter from the U.S. It detailed Canada’s proud history and heritage and extolled the country’s credibility and capability. After that video, it will be hard to argue that any future leadership effort by Canada should not have America’s all-important imprimatur.

The United States in particular ends 2010 with a keen awareness of Canada’s influence. At both G20 meetings this year, a marginalized U.S. was left jaw agape as member countries rejected American-style global stimulus and adopted Canadian-style austerity measures. Also, when not-so-friendly neighbors Venezuela, Brazil, Peru, and Chile showed increased defiance of U.S. policy, America watched and learned as Canada took the lead in creating stronger ties with South America.

Even diplomatic pit bull Hillary Clinton was forced to acknowledge Canada’s increasing upper hand over the Lower 48. In April, the Secretary of State ruffled feathers when she delivered a barrage of Canadian criticism regarding Afghanistan, Arctic Sovereignty, and G8 initiatives. By November, Clinton’s tone had softened considerably as she resigned to the Realpolitik and enthusiastically embraced a proposed Oil Sands pipeline. It was the year’s best example of America’s attitude adjustment toward Canada.

Finally, near year’s end, Wikileaks revealed that shortly after Barack Obama’s inauguration in 2009, aides had advised the new President that Canada and Canadians were plagued with self-esteem problems. By late 2010 though, when the remarks were leaked, the characterization seemed so outdated that it served only to underscore just how far and how fast Canada had come.

Which brings us to the Canadvocate of the Year for 2010. The Canadvocate of the Year award is given to the person or persons whose efforts and conduct through the past year contributed the most to elevating Canada’s position and influence in the world. This year, there are two Canadvocates: Former Governor General Michaelle Jean and Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall.

Michaelle Jean

It is ironic that the Canadian who this year exemplified Canada’s rise as a future leading power did so while occupying a position that is a vestige of both Canada’s past and of superpowers of old. Governor General Michaelle Jean spent 2010 successfully showing the world that, unlike the Imperial and American Centuries that preceded it, the Canadian Century will be one marked by global alliances and commitment to ever pressing humanitarian issues. Throughout 2010, Ms. Jean confirmed Canada’s reputation among the world’s nations as a qualified and passionate leader devoted to a 21^st Century global ideal.

In January, a horrible earthquake devastated Haiti’s capital of Port-au-Prince. The resulting relief effort was referred to as the first global response to the first global crisis by the new global community. Thanks in large part to the efforts of Ms. Jean, it can also be called Canada’s finest hour.  Ms. Jean was key in rallying Canadians to provide swift and massive aid to Haiti. As a result of those efforts, Canadians were among the largest per capita contributors of aid to Haiti. Ms. Jean emerged as the face of the global community’s response.

In April, Ms. Jean traveled to the Congo and neighboring African nations. Canada’s conservative government had previously burned bridges in the area by diverting aid away from Africa and by waffling in response to UN peacekeeping requests. Ms. Jean’s trip was highly publicized and she succeeded in bringing much needed attention to human rights abuses in the region.

She also became one of the first western officials to publicly acknowledge Central Africa’s vast potential and to encourage the region to become an influential contributor to global affairs. This contrasted sharply with a U.S. diplomat’s contemporaneous remarks, which focused on military responses to rebel resistance in and around the Congo. While the traditional powers seemed stuck on 20^th Century solutions, Ms. Jean provided Africa with a 21^st Century vision.

At home, Ms. Jean remained committed to fostering national unity and continued her efforts to bring Aboriginal communities within the Canadian fold. She also managed to deftly handle a second prorogation crisis. By the time Ms. Jean stepped down in October to become UN Special Envoy to Haiti, she had transformed and transcended the traditional Governor General role. She showed the world just what a new global leader looks like. Canada was lucky to have her.

Brad Wall, Premier of Saskatchewan

Whereas Ms. Jean gave the world a glimpse of Canada as benevolent leader, Premier Brad Wall showed the world this year that Canada also plays hardball. Specifically, Premier Wall was responsible for convincing the Canadian government to block the $40 billion acquisition of Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan by Australian company BHP Billiton. In so doing, the Premier assured that Canada would no longer be seen by other nations as being ripe for the plucking.

Premier Wall’s accomplishment was not an easy one. In February, the Harper Government gave its Speech from the Throne in which it announced to foreign investors that Canada was open for business. The conservatives had already made changes to the Investment Canada Act making it easier for foreign corporations to invest in Canadian industry. These included such previously sacrosanct industries as airlines, uranium, telecommunications and broadcasting. Prior to BHP’s bid, the Harper government had never met a foreign investor it did not like. The only previous rejection, the 2008 proposed purchase of MacDonald Dettwiler by U.S based Alliant Techsystems, was blocked on national security grounds.

With respect to the Potash Corp. takeover, Premier Wall downplayed the traditional argument about whether or not the foreign purchase provided Canada with a “net economic benefit.” Instead, the Premier emphasized the strategic importance of Potash, a critical resource used in fertilizers, and Canada’s status as the single largest holder of potash reserves on the planet.

In successfully framing the argument this way, Premier Wall transformed how Canada’s natural resources will be categorized in the future. After 2010, key Canadian assets, including potash, uranium, gold, oil, natural gas, water, and even land, will be considered instruments of Canada’s national security that simply cannot be bought.

Brad Wall’s stance in protecting Potash Corp. also served to start a national conversation about how ultimately Canada will use and allocate these important Canadian assets. While it remains to be decided what Canada should do with its ample natural resources, for now, it has adopted Premier Wall’s suggestion: Canada will protect them at all cost.

Happy New Year from The Canadvocate!

“We must populate or perish.” So said John Diefenbaker in 1958. The former Prime Minister was a staunch advocate of a Canadian Century and believed the only thing Canada lacked was enough Canadians. Certainly, he relished Canada’s geographic advantage. Canada’s size and its location on the map practically scream superpower. Also, even back then, the richness of Canada’s natural resources portended a leading role for Canada. Still, Diefenbaker worried that Canada’s vast territory and all it contained would be for naught if we remained merely a sparse population strung along the U.S. border.

Yet, it turns out that Canada’s small numbers are a key Canadian asset. Together with its geographic good fortune and precious resource riches, Canada’s nimble populace represent a Canadian triumvirate, capable of leading Canada through the current global economic malaise, past the preordained superpowers of China and India and on to dominant form on the world stage.

Everyone knows now that Canada escaped the brunt of the economic crisis. No Canadian banks failed. Unemployment numbers remained respectable. There was no mortgage meltdown. Now comes the realization that, because of this, Canada also gets to miss out on implementing painful austerity measures that are all but certain to relegate the United States, the U.K. and most of continental Europe to decades of slow growth.

The IMF estimates that U.S.’s 2010 Debt to GDP ratio, considered the best measure of a country’s debt, will hit 97% by the end of the year. Economists equate anything over 90% with significantly lower economic growth. The average for advanced G20 countries is 109%. Canada meanwhile, slots in with a comparatively sunny 77%.

And the belt-tightening has begun. France, the U.S. and the UK have all either passed or proposed laws to raise the retirement age. The U.K. is bracing itself for cuts across the board to its hallowed entitled programs. The recent elections in the U.S., seen as a rebuke of stimulus plans, has the Obama administration scrambling to come up with debt reduction measures. One thing is certain; cutting the U.S.’s $13 trillion debt will take decades.

Compounding the U.S.’s problem in particular are crises related to its large population. They include a near-bankrupt social security system; an overburdened and unworkable health care system; and a crumbling infrastructure unable to accommodate 300 million people and requiring a $2.2 trillion overhaul. The U.S. is forced to contend with these problems as it simultaneously struggles with its crippling debt load. With 34 million people within nearly 10 million square kilometers, and with more energy resources that you can shake a stick at, Canada will be burdened with none of this.

Meanwhile, the economic awakening of large populations in China and India presents an even more troubling situation. While both countries’ economies have grown at a tremendous pace, scarcity of critical resources in these countries will stop them dead in their tracks. China has long practiced food self-sufficiency. Growing enough grain to sustain its population however consumes massive amounts of water that China just does not have anymore. Primary aquifers in Northern China have all but dried up. At the same time, to support its spectacular growth, China continues to divert precious water resources to manufacturing. And China does not conserve. Industry in China uses up to 10 times more water than industries in the West. China is already scouring the globe for critical resources such as oil, steel, and precious metals. Simple math establishes that China will soon be forced to significantly increase grain and other food imports. It is hardly likely that a country that cannot even feed itself would be considered a dominant world power. In this respect, a billion Chinese can be wrong.

While China and countries like it scramble to produce or import the resources necessary to sustain billions, resource-rich Canada can casually provide them and remain safe in the knowledge that it can do so without effecting its own sustainability. Moreover, the world will never again see boom and bust cycles in commodities. The only time demand for Canada’s resources will wane is when they are all gone. Until that day, not only does Canada possess tremendous intrinsic power with respect to these resources, because of its small population, it has the flexibility to wield that power.

Recently, Canada has shown the world its ability to do just that. Two weeks ago, the Canadian government blocked the $40 billion sale of Potash, Inc. to Australian company BHP Billiton. Approval was seen as a foregone conclusion. Since 1985, the Canadian government had approved over 1600 previous foreign purchases of Canadian Companies. Just last February, in his throne speech, Prime Minister Harper emphasized that Canada was “open for business” and his government adopted in wholesale fashion the recommendations of the Competition Policy Review Panel that advocated for increased foreign direct ownership. Yet, faced with the largest ever such foreign direct purchase, Canada rejected it. In so doing Canada signaled that its natural resources would be treated as part in parcel with its national security.

Another key moment for Canada was last week’s G20 meeting in Seoul. The U.S.’s proposals on trade and currency agreements were rejected by the rest of the G20. The consensus in Korea confirmed what was hinted at six months ago at the Toronto G20:  the United States no longer dictates the world economic order. Small countries do not fall in lockstep behind larger ones. Such realignment benefits Canada and increases its ability, small country though it is, to set the global agenda.

By definition, a superpower is a nation that does more than just survive. It succeeds. Many of Canada’s superpower competitors are now in survival mode. With their increasingly unwieldy populations, these countries will likely remain so. Canada is not so hampered. Pared down to the essentials, Canada stands ready to succeed, just as it has done so these past painful years. Perhaps in Diefenbaker’s day, bigger was better. Today though, for countries seeking superpower status, a large population is less a rung in the ladder as it is a nail in the coffin. As the former Prime Minister also said: “I am so excited about Canadians ruling the world.”

California is the birthplace of trends. Countless innovations and ideas got their start in the Golden State and quickly gained hold across the U.S. and elsewhere. Popular political trends are no exception. Property tax revolts. Gay marriage. Medical marijuana. Ronald Reagan. Many a national political movement began in California.

With yesterday’s election, California confirmed a new trend:  American austerity. Billionaire Meg Whitman, the Republican candidate for Governor, was soundly defeated by Democrat Jerry Brown after spending a record $140 million on her campaign. A former Ebay executive with no political experience, Whitman outspent her opponent, the politically experienced Brown, nearly seven times over.

By all traditional accounts, it should have worked. In U.S. politics, it is usually the candidate with the most money that wins. Whitman blindly embraced this notion (Brown, who ran a shoe-string campaign, seemed content to coolly reject it). Also, Whitman’s Silicon Valley success story had a distinctive, California appeal that, combined with her onslaught of advertising, served as an effective counter to Brown’s name recognition. Indeed, Brown’s legacy in California — he was the Governor from 1975 to 1983– is mixed at best. Certainly, Californians have not spent the last thirty years yearning for a return to the “Brown Era.” Also, if ever there were an election where a Republican stood a good chance at seizing political office, it was this one. This year’s mid-term vote was widely seen as a referendum of the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress. As expected, the Democrats suffered heavy losses across the country.

Yet, with all she had going for her, Whitman lost. To be sure, there were missteps during the campaign. Her debate performances were unsteady. In what has become a sine qua non for Republican candidates, it was revealed she had employed an illegal immigrant housekeeper. And many voters described her personality as Hillary Clinton without the warmth and tenderness.

But mostly, it was the money. With each report that Whitman’s spending had reached a new record – $50 million, $75 million, $100 million – came comments showing that Californians were increasingly disgusted. The triple whammy of recession, job loss, and the housing crisis hit California particularly hard and no California voter was left untouched. With everyone tightening their belt, Meg Whitman’s excess, while once admired and applauded, was now ugly and unacceptable.

Whitman’s defeat, along with similar losses by HP exec Carly Fiorina and wrestling mogul Linda McMahon, has solidified this new American austerity. Since the economic crisis hit, Americans have made some significant lifestyle changes. Personal savings rates have increased. Credit purchases have (been) declined. Business and leisure travel has been curtailed. However, like wartime rationing, all of these changes were believed to be temporary. Americans viewed themselves as merely hunkered down waiting for the all clear to spend again.

However, with the U.S. economy stagnant and unemployment numbers stubbornly high, Americans now realize that their change must be a fundamental one. Once seen as economically superior, if not invincible, Americans now admit they are mired in the same economic muck as everyone else, even more so compared to some (read Canada). Americans now begrudgingly accept the premise that the U.S. can neither solve the world’s problems by itself nor even solve its own problems by itself.  President Obama has been saying as much since he was elected and Americans are finally starting to get it. While American potential, ingenuity, and spirit have thankfully not dimmed, and never will, the American character has definitely changed. California’s repudiation of Whitman’s high profile spending reflects that change.

This is good for Canada. Despite globalization and Canada’s success in establishing other valuable trading partners, the consensus remains that Canada’s economic well-being is tied to that of the U.S.. In other words, Canada must continue to exploit and nurture its economic relationship with the United States. As for that relationship, while the U.S. does not quite have hat in hand, the playing field has leveled significantly. Americans are much more willing to negotiate. This was evidenced recently when Secretary of State Clinton announced her support for the Keystone Pipeline project and acknowledged, despite intense pressure from environmental groups, that Canada’s oil sands remained the best choice to meet U.S. energy needs.

As for the world stage, Canada’s success at weathering the economic storm has already bolstered Canada’s presence. America’s willingness to share the spotlight has further strengthened Canada’s international role. Last month in Korea, G20 Finance Leaders, including Treasury Secretary Geitner, looked to Canada for leadership in fighting the currency crisis. U.S. acknowledgement that Canada can make significant contributions to the issues of the day will provide the imprimatur to further aid Canada’s ascendancy. For Canada, therefore, the trend is up.

In Hollywood, you can always tell the “talent”, i.e., the actors, writers, and directors, by the casual way in which they dress. Jeans and t-shirts are the norm. And usually, the more casually dressed, the more talented (or at least the more successful). On the studio lot and around town, this show business dress code also serves to separate the talent from the “suits”, those studio chiefs, network executives, and agents, who, like their counterparts in traditional business, wear, well, suits.

What are not so easy to spot in Hollywood are the Canadians. Yet, it turns out that there are a lot of them and they have been turning up in Hollywood since before talkies. From the Silent Era to the Golden Age to the New Hollywood, Canadians have in large part shaped show business. Hollywood’s foremost “suits” and “talent” are and have been from Canada. 

Hollywood as we know it began with the two major studio pioneers, Jack Warner of Warner Brothers and Louis B. Mayer of Metro Goldwyn Mayer. These two built the industry. Both were Canadian.  Warner secured the technology to bring sound to motion pictures and he reigned as a studio head for 40 years, greenlighting more Hollywood movies than anyone. Warner serves as the original archetype for every hard charging studio chief that has come after him. Think Tom Cruise’s Les Grossman. Mayer, meanwhile, invented the “Star System”, the method whereby publicists, agents and studios turned actors and actresses into stars by carefully crafting their public personas and images. Variations of this system are still an integral part of today’s Hollywood. The difference today of course is that any press, good or bad, will satisfy the star makers.

Of course, Hollywood has always been about the stars. In that regard, Canadians have also dominated. Hollywood’s very first movie star was Mary Pickford.  Born and raised in Toronto, Pickford went on to become the biggest star in the world during the 1920’s and was dubbed, ironically, “America’s Sweetheart.” Pickford also possessed keen show business acumen and co-founded the United Artists movie studio.

The great, golden age dramas of the forties and fifties saw the rise of the Canadian theater actor. Raymond Massey, Christopher Plummer, and, yes, even Leslie Nielson, were in high demand and commonly thought by American audiences to be British stage actors.

In modern times, Canada has produced its fair share of superstars. Michael J. Fox, Jim Carrey and Keifer Sutherland have all enjoyed the status, at one time or another, of being the highest paid movie or television actor. In that vein, Canadians also produce a lot of comedians.  For example, Saturday Night Live, that bastion of U.S. political and cultural satire, counts nearly as many Canadian alumni as American. SNL itself was created and continues to be produced by Canadian Lorne Michaels. The youthful and ubiquitous Seth Rogan and Michael Cera continue the long tradition of Canadian funnymen.

Canada is also the source of Hollywood’s most bankable directors. James Cameron, born in Ontario, directed the two highest grossing movies of all time. Neil Blomkamp, a Canadian transplant from South Africa, is the leader of the new wave of young filmmakers who are using technology to bring in the blockbuster on a budget. Meanwhile, Canadian Jason Reitman leads the charge for directors of quality independents. After three feature films, he has four Academy Award nominations to show for his efforts.

As impressive as the names is the numbers. The Canadian ex-patriot community in Southern California, numbered at over 1 million, represents the largest collection of Canadians outside of Canada. Many of these Canadians work in the entertainment industry. The shear number of talented Canadians in Hollywood ensures that Canadian influence over U.S. movie and television production will continue.

And while all of those Canadians are located on U.S. cinematic soil, Canada has emerged as the location of choice for U.S. film and T.V. production. Vancouver, which has been a popular filming location since jump street (or at least since 21 Jump Street), has grown to become the third largest film and TV production site in North America.  According to the B.C. Film Commission, last year there were 239 motion picture projects shot in the Vancouver region generating over $2 billion in production spending.

Bringing the Canadian influence full circle is the announcement recently that ABC, CBS and the CW Network had purchased Canadian-produced television dramas and sitcoms. Each of the networks plans to air the Canadian shows in the U.S. this summer and may include them as part of their fall line-ups. This is an unprecedented coup for Canadian programming. Even the King of Kensington couldn’t crack the U.S. market in its heyday.

So what accounts for this disproportionate Canadian influence over what is the primary source of American culture? Mike Myers once remarked that the difference between Americans and Canadians is that Americans grow up watching TV while Canadians grow up watching American TV.  Indeed, it is the unique combination of our proximity to the U.S. and our distance from it that gives creative Canadians special mastery in observing, interpreting and portraying the uniquely American character.

More importantly, the force of Canadian talent in the entertainment business has transformed the U.S. movie industry into the North American movie industry. Ultimately, as Canada and Canadians increasingly exert their influence, the industry will hopefully further evolve to where moviegoers will increasingly demand portrayals of that culture and character that is uniquely Canadian.

In the meantime, when you next come across a location shoot or watch an award show and you want to know where in the pecking order a particular Hollywood player belongs; do not look at the clothes. Instead, just look at the passport.

Recently, Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs introduced The Transboundary Waters Protection Act. The legislation, known as Bill C-26, prohibits the bulk removal of water from rivers and streams that flow across the Canada-U.S. border. The new Act supplements existing rules banning the bulk removal of water from lakes that straddle the border. Bill C-26 ostensibly has two goals: to ensure that Canadian watersheds are maintained and properly replenished so that Canada can continue to enjoy its freshwater riches; and to ensure that Canada’s water stays in Canada.

Unfortunately, the legislation places too little emphasis on the first goal and too much on the second. With a change of emphasis, Canada can not only preserve its vast freshwater resources but also command a leading role in combating and solving the pressing problem of global water scarcity.

From an environmental standpoint, Bill C-26 is welcome legislation and Canada needs more like it. As defined in the Bill, the prohibition on “bulk removal” includes the diversion of water for any reason, even domestic use. Canada’s exploitation of its rivers through diverting, damming and withdrawing water has severely threatened Canada’s major watersheds, its ecosystems and, as a result, Canada’s future water supply.

“Changing Currents”the report published this week by the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, provides recommendations regarding the sustainability of water resources in the face of increasing demand for and diversion of water flows.  The report identifies several instances where more effective regulation and management is needed. For example, in the South Saskatchewan River (which is not covered by Bill C-26), 70% of the natural river flow is tapped to support hydropower, drinking water, and irrigation. These diversions have threatened both flora and fauna over large portions of Alberta and Saskatchewan and are the primary cause of Southern Saskatchewan’s routine and severe summer drought conditions.  Other examples of potential crises across Canada at other major rivers include the McKenzie in the North, the Fraser in the West and the Saint Lawrence and Saint John in the East. The Report concludes that the key to sustaining Canada’s freshwater supply is limitations on flow diversions from rivers that feed and form Canada’s vast watersheds. Accomplishing this requires an updated, integrated and strictly enforced water management and governance regime. While Bill C-26 helps, it does not represent the drastic change in governance and management required.

Instead, Bill C-26 is mostly geared toward reassuring Canadians that the government does not intend to sell off Canada’s vital resources to the highest foreign bidder. The fact that the Minister of Foreign Affairs sponsored the Bill and not the Environment Minister was a not-so-subtle signal that the focus of the legislation is on banning water exports. To erase any doubt on the issue, Minister Cannon used the occasion of his introduction of Bill C-26 to reiterate his party’s position: “we are not in the business of exporting our water… Canadian water is not a commodity. It is not for sale.”

This position is inconsistent with Canada’s international role as a human rights stalwart and, frankly, the position is untenable. Canada, with only  0.5% of the world’s population, possesses 7% of the world’s renewable fresh water and 25% of the world’s wetlands. According to the OECD, nearly 1 billion people currently live without the proper access to fresh water. By 2030, the number will be 3 billion. The world sees Canada as being embarrassingly rich in water resources. It may be reasonable to ban the export of  water for use in swimming pools and golf courses in Palm Springs. It is a different story altogether to assume that Canada can or will ignore the problem of global scarcity by refusing to export water to the world’s truly parched.

It is clear that Canada has an abundance of water. More importantly, if properly managed, Canada will have a surplus. The looming challenge of global water scarcity, which both Bill C-26 and Changing Currents ignore, must be factored into the equation of determining how to sustain and manage Canada’s water resources. It is an inescapable reality that the 21^st Century world considers itself an interconnected community facing global challenges that will demand concerted and cooperative efforts to confront. The world is so committed to that mantra that President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing more than simply repeating it.

Pursuant to that reality, Canada, as sole steward of such a large portion of the world’s freshwater supply, should lead the concerted and cooperative effort to confront what is certainly the most critical of these global challenges. In so doing, Canada will be at the forefront of instituting new global commitments to sustainability and the adaptation of significant  limits on the use of resources, commitments that will see application to all critical and finite resources.

Moreover, including provisions for exports and for addressing global shortages  in Canada’s water management plan will help Canada ensure that its domestic water supply is preserved and maintained. A key factor identified in the Changing Currents Report is that Canada currently lacks the necessary human resources, technical expertise, financial resources and management systems to properly manage its water resources. The United States, on the other hand, has access to vast reservoirs of human resources, financial capital and technical expertise.

Canada should consider reaching out to the United States in working together to establish a water management framework that would, first and foremost, preserve and sustain Canada’s water resources, but that would also provide for manageable water exports. This would allow Canada to contribute water resources where and as needed around the world with Canada being the arbiter on how such water resources are to be used. In addition to establishing global conservation policies, such a partnership would include the development of technologies to further relieve the strain on freshwater supplies. These include desalination technology, salt-water farming, improved irrigation technology, and genetic engineering of drought tolerant and high yielding crops.

The returns to Canada in securing its domestic water supply and increasing its global stature are immeasurable. By taking these steps, Canada’s traditional role as the nation with an abiding and selfless commitment to global human rights will not only remain intact, it will be recast as one where such a commitment commands a leadership role on the world stage. The cost to Canada, in terms of allowing water exports, will be, most figuratively, a drop in the bucket.