The Vanishing Country: Vanishing Rhetoric. Part II

In this part of my four part review of Mel Hurtig's 'The Vanishing Country' I tackle his claims of Canada's vastly superior society. Most of his comments, while valid in some places, fall apart under scrutiny.

Succumbing to labeling people is a temptation that should be avoided when trying to convey an idea or point. Unfortunately, Hurtig does not avoid this. His over reliance on attacking everyone as a 'right-winger' and dismissing certain claims made by others as 'nonsense' was somewhat unfortunate.

Let's begin with a quote in his book from journalist Richard Gwyn who described Canada as being a "kinder, gentler' nation with a collectivist outlook that is committed to peacekeeping and promoters of global human security'."

What Western country isn't?

The main purpose of this book is to explain in nationalist language the sell out of Canada. Of course, what's a Canadian ho-down without dedicating an obscene amount of pages to comparing Canada with the United States?

The Americans are not the only ones apparently at fault. The Canadian government and the nouveau right-wing academic establishment are both singled out for their eagerness to integrate with America. The Canadian people are, surprise, given a free pass.

The radical right for their part are described as the following: "they have little or no precedence, they contradict long-standing Canadian values, and they advocate a far-reaching transformation of the character of our county. I would posit that the championing of small government and individualism is very much in line with Canadian history. He has the story inverted.

Even if it isn't, what is wrong with some of their ideas?

Our traditional values were not born in Canada. They were imported from other countries - specifically and ironically the United States - and found their highest expression in Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Canada became a 'compassionate' society on the Northern European model in the late 60s. It was Trudeau who engaged in social engineering - which can be looked upon as far left project. When we talk of Canadian values we're actually talking about Trudeau.

The myth persists as Bob Gustafson asserts, "…this social consciousness has been a foundational aspect of Canada…"

One part of the book that elicited attention was his long list of Canadian companies sold to the Americans. He laments that an American bought the legendary Montreal Canadiens. What he doesn't say is that no Canadian group stepped forward.

Nor does he point out that in most cases - leaving aside the fact that common shares have a right to vote - shareholder value is usually enhanced in any merger. He can dismiss this as 'right-wing drivel' but Canadian nationalism will only go as far as their pocket books tell them.

Throughout the book he mixes apples with oranges. For instance, he complains about CEO pay increases and wonders why social workers like teachers or nurses don't get the same pay raise. Maybe because they are public servants? How can we compare salaries between the private and public sectors?

In attacking the corrupt nature of American business, he takes an easy way in pointing out Enron and Worldcom. These are two mere examples in a country that has thousands upon thousands of companies listed. Most of the criminals have been brought to justice. This line of thinking is narrow in scope especially considering that this country too has had its share of criminal corporate excesses. Bre-X anyone?

This is irrelevant to Hurtig. "Hooray. Bring on more Enrons…" Was his response to the Investment Dealers Association (IDA) harmonizing rules for brokers with the U.S. To assume because the IDA worked with the Americans would imply weaker measures or protection has no foundations. The cold, hard fact is that investors in both countries will benefit by a joint effort in ensuring that future Enrons (and Bre-X's) are prevented.

The real scandal is that Canada does not have any national standards regarding investments. The IDA harmonizing with American partners is not only practical but prudent - especially considering that many Canadians invest in U.S. companies. It's better than nothing, no?

When he's not quoting from the Toronto Star, Hurtig at least attempts to back up his claims with figures. Let's stick with the financial services industry.

" Canada has consistently had a better return on capital than in the U.S. or any G7 country." And "from 1990-1998 the return on capital in Canada was better than in the U.S. for six years and better than the G7 or OECD AND the EU every single year."

A startling assertion considering that in this same period America experienced its greatest expansion of wealth in its history. To be honest, it is difficult to pinpoint where he got these figures. Canada is a resource driven economy and its stock market will move in lock step with this. To even suggest that Canada is somehow on par with the EU, parts of Asia and the most dynamic, innovative and entrepreneurial of them all with the U.S brings into question the credibility of his economic knowledge.

Furthermore, if this is true, then the whole financial industry needs to be uprooted. There is no way a semi-diversified country like Canada with an extremely narrow stock exchange can offer a better investment option than any of the mature economies of the G7 - no matter what various rankings show.

Canada is a sound investment destination to be sure but its optimum potential in terms of returns usually depends in what business cycle we're in. If resources are in demand in world markets, then the Canadian economy will naturally react in an upward trend.

In presenting the case that Canada is a successful country under attack by a treacherous intellectual and political community, Mel Hurtig's mistake is that he falls into the same old bottomless pit of using America as a punching bag. As well as relying on a vision of Canada that is not all that Canadian in its roots.

No one disputes that Canada has many positive attributes, however, the book took too many rich leaps of logic to prove this point.