In this week’s Hill Times: selfies, state dinners and West Wing 

A meal, some speeches, and some selfies.

That’s what State Dinners are, mostly. They’re supper, basically, except you have to wear your best clothes and be on your best behaviour.

When Jean Chretien was still running things, I was lucky enough to be invited to some State Dinners. At one of them, the best-ever Prime Minister was hosting Russian president Vladimir Putin. Unlike Stephen Harper would do, much later on, I shook Putin’s hand.

I tried to exchange a few words with Putin, too, via a translator. I distinctly remember an ominous grin playing across the Russian strongman’s face as he looked up at me (he’s really short, or I’m really tall). I recall thinking he had the look and comportment of a guy who would run you over with a tank if he didn’t like what you had to say. Which, as historians will agree, is exactly the case.

Anyway. That’s State Dinners. Most of the time, they’re genteel affairs, with lots of politesse, and everyone doing their utmost to avoid sounding like Donald Trump.

But was anything actually accomplished, at last week’s much-written-about Trudeau-Obama bromance banquet? Probably not. But fans of The West Wing – which famously did a whole episode about State Dinners, way back in 1999 – will know that they can be an occasion for important things to be said. To wit:

Sam Seaborn: Toby, do you really think it’s a good idea to invite people to dinner and then to tell them exactly what they’re doing wrong with their lives?


Toby Ziegler: Absolutely, otherwise it’s just a waste of food.

Exactly. (And don’t you wish Josiah Bartlet was running for president in 2016? Me, too.)

The point, here, is that Justin Trudeau was having duck for dinner duck – as in, a lame duck. The guy he was breaking bread with will be at a Wall Street law firm a year from now, making a bajillion dollars for speeches to Rotarians. He won’t be spending two minutes thinking about Trudeau or Canada.

The people Trudeau needs to be focused on, instead, weren’t even at the dinner: Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz or (God forbid) the aforementioned Donald Trump. They were chasing delegates in the mid-West.

Per The West Wing, Canada’s newly-minted Prime Minister should consider using State Dinners, and the like, to pass along a few hard truths to Washington audiences. These are found below, helpfully typed up as talking points.

· My American friends, I’m from Canada. Head to Buffalo, then turn left. You can’t miss us.
· I know the primaries probably convinced all of you that the path to power lies in tearing up trade agreements with countries like mine. That’s why Bernie shocked everyone, and beat Hillary in various Rust Belt states. That’s why Donald won everywhere – he peddles anti-free trade xenophobia.
· But don’t do it. With the world economy starting show the faintest glimmers of hope, don’t embrace protectionism. Don’t become (even more) insular. Don’t succumb to the siren song of solipsism. It doesn’t work.
· While we’re on the subject, consider a couple things Canada is good at. Our banking system, for starters. Yours, a few years back, plunged everyone into a global recession. We Canadians did pretty well, in that sad era, because we don’t ever let bankers do whatever their tiny black hearts desire. You need to similarly restrain them, before they conjure up yet another mess.
· Guns, too. Proportionately, we have as many crazy people as you do. But we don’t like our crazy people get their hands on assault rifles. You should do likewise. You’ll thank us one day.
· Health care, as well. We’re not bad at it, and you stink at it. When candidates for president start promising to give U.S. citizens less health care, not more – when they want to let poor, sick people get poorer and sicker – well, there’s something wrong in your culture, folks. Needs fixing.
· Refugees, immigrants, newcomers: we welcome them. You should, too. They become citizens, they get jobs, they pay taxes. It’s a good thing. 
· Canada has some useful tips for you to consider. Thanks for dinner.

Would Justin Trudeau ever say any of those things to a well-heeled American audience? Of course not. We Canadians are way too polite.

But these State Dinners don’t come along every week, PMO. The next time one happens, consider delivering a few cautionary messages.

After all, if President Josiah Bartlet thought it was okay to do so, it’s always okay to do so.


Son Four gets the Three!

Shot on the fly, so I forgot I was in that irritating “portrait” mode.  Sorry. Anyone know how to get in “landscape” mode? (See? I’m up on all the new tech lingo.)

Raptors, address all inquiries about signing to me, his agent.


When you stare into the abyss, etc. 

Is Donald Trump deliberately provoking violence to help his campaign? Probably. Are we falling into his trap? Maybe. 

Here’s what Maddow says:

Maddow pointed out that Trump’s rallies have included racially charged violence for months and said, “There have been instances in the past where he has at least encouraged or praised the idea of violent actions by his supporters. When he’s spoken wistfully about how great it would be to beat people up at his rallies or he has told people that he would pay their legal fees if they would beat up a protester on his behalf. 

He has done that in the past. But this sort of blood lust. Right? This half tongue in cheek, mostly serious call for a tougher America where there are more beatings and where anti-Trump protesters fear for their lives.”

 Rachel Maddow date stamped a series of Trump comments to show that the escalation of the violence at his rallies is deliberate.

So, if she’s right, Chicago helps him. It doesn’t help those who oppose him. 

But here’s the thing: what happened in Dayton – when a guy came very, very close to getting him – doesn’t. I mean, Mr. Trump, what good is your provoke-violence strategy if you end up…well, you know. I don’t wish that on you, but I won’t be surprised if it happens now, either. After all, etc.

Like I always say: when you set a mean dog loose, he may bite someone else. 

But, eventually, he’ll bite you, too. 


Did someone mislead a Parliamentary committee?

As most of you know, some of us have been speaking out against the decision of Canada Post to take money to distribute the racist, homophobic, Holocaust-denying Hitlerite rag, Your Ward News.  I’ve written extensively about their content – here and here and here – and my brother Richard Warman is now going after them legally.  Me too.

Yesterday, Judy Foote – the minister responsible for Canada Post, and the minister who hasn’t stopped Holocaust denial from landing in tens of thousands of Toronto-area mailboxes – appeared before a Parliamentary committee.  She was asked about Your Ward News by former cabinet minister Steven Blaney.

Here’s Liz Thompson’s account in iPolitics:

During her testimony, Foote was also questioned on another thorny issue involving Canada Post and controversial mailings of a publication entitled “Your Ward News.” Critics of the publication have accused it of publishing material that promotes Holocaust denial, racism, homophobia and sexual assault.

Steven Blaney, Conservative MP and former Public Safety Minister, asked Foote why Canada Post is distributing the publication, which goes to homes in the Toronto area.

Foote said she shared Blaney’s concerns.

“I am aware of the situation and I too have issues with the information that is being distributed – so much so that we have asked for a legal opinion on the content to see if there is any criminal aspect to it. I am concerned about the content.”

“We have talked to Canada Post and my understanding is that there was an incident where they had where they had legal advice and there wasn’t an issue that would have them withdraw it. But now that there is another piece of literature that is being disseminated, there are concerns. I too have concerns with it and we have asked for a legal opinion”

She gave that answer yesterday afternoon.  I find that timing interesting.

Here’s why: at 9:26 a.m. yesterday, six hours before Foote appeared before the committee – and long enough for Canada Post to have briefed her, because Canada Post was on the agenda at committee – Canada Post’s “Vice-President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary” issued a letter in which he stated that Canada Post had rendered all of the “legal opinions” on Your Ward News they were going to render. And they had decided, yet again, to do nothing.

So, I’m curious: did Canada Post deliberately withhold that information from their own minister?  Or did Foote tell the committee something that was, put charitably, factually incorrect?

Confused? Me too:

  • Foote says “another piece of literature” (it’s not literature, it’s hate propaganda, Judy) is still actively being reviewed by Canada Post’s crackerjack legal team – to wit, “we have asked for a legal opinion.”  She’s on the case!
  • Canada Post’s crackerjack legal team, however, has said in a letter that it has reviewed all that it is going to review – to wit, “it is a matter for the Courts decide, not Canada Post.” That is, they’ve washed their hands of it.  They’re not reviewing anything.

So who is telling the truth?  A legal review is happening, or no one is reviewing anything, legally or otherwise?  Which is it?

This case gets curiouser and curiouser.

I can tell you one thing: Richard and me – and many others – are not going to let this go.  We don’t give a damn who the government is.