But first, a little history.

As the CPR pushed the main line west in 1882-83, it was generally acknowledged that the new townsite to be known as Calgary would be east of Fort Calgary, where the wonderful community of Inglewood now exists.

Land speculators, being land speculators, immediately began snapping up all that land which they believed they could then flip to the CPR for some handsome profits.

However, the CPR, being the CPR, (the closest thing to a local monarchy we have ever had), didn’t intend to be taken to the cleaners by Calgary’s first generation of land developers.

After having safely secured the lands to the west of Fort Calgary, particularly the strip along where the Palliser Hotel now stands, the railroad publicly announced that the townsite would be situated there, and the Inglewood boom went bust, as did many of the land speculators.

So, what would be some of the things to spring up around the new train station and townsite?

Hotels – including the now-legendary St. Louis Hotel.

In the picture accompanying this column is a picture that tells a story about the St. Louis Hotel – one moment in time.

As our pal Ralph Klein struggles with the effects of frontotemporal dementia, let me lead you through this picture.

When we were young

It was taken of course in the tavern of the now-historic St. Louis Hotel, where His Worship Mayor Ralph Klein ran City Hall from 1980 to 1989.

I am sadly on the left, looking like a neanderthal in need of a haircut, a shave, a shower, and a trip to the optometrist to lose the John Denver eyeglasses that led my 13 year old daughter to ask me yesterday if I was actually insane at the time the picture was taken.

The shirt that I am wearing resembles a tablecloth at any Italian restaurant, and yes, those are my crutches, as the summer of ’84 was the year I blew out my knee.

The guy on the right is George Stevenson who famously called the imaginary horse races every Friday at lunch.

A betting sheet with a ficticious lineup of horses at Belmont Park would be distributed, bets placed, and George would then launch into the call of the race, made up as he went along, but sounding so real that many newcomers actually thought he was calling a real race.

On many Fridays, even the suits from the Petroleum Club and the Chamber of Commerce would come to the Louis to see the show.

The guy in the middle is of course Ralph Klein, Mayor.

This was obviously the period before he decided to go for his daily run.

He was much criticized for the many hours he spent in that basement tavern while he was Mayor.

His defense was always the same:  “I do spend a lot of time at the St. Louis.  I was discussing that concern with some of the people I had lunch with at the St. Louis Hotel over the past week;  the Chief of Police, the Commissioner of Transportation, the City Solicitor, the Director of Planning, the leaders of CUPE Locals #37 and #38, half the Members of City Council, and most of the members of the City Hall news media – next question.”

It was where he met the good, the bad and the ugly, the famous and infamous, the rich and poor, the captains of industry and bums down on their luck;  it was where he met people, listened to them, talked to them, asked them what was really happening in his City.

It was where people from any walk of life knew they could meet their Mayor, and have that one moment in time.

That would explain the many draught beers on the table.

The St. Louis Hotel has been protected now.

I was granted access not so long ago with veteran CBC reporter Paul Hunter who was working on a Ralph Klein documentary.

30 years later: exact same spot

I don’t know what it’s like upstairs, but downstairs the tavern is now just an empty concrete box, although you can still see the outlines on the floor where the bar was, the dance floor, the pool table, the PacMan machine.

And I swear to God you can still smell the chicken and chips, and the stale beer.

So, to the men and women at the Calgary Municipal Land Corporation who are now responsible for the St. Louis Hotel, a small request:  look after the old girl.

It’s important.

-30-

“Good evening my fellow citizens of Quebec, including many of you in Alberta who have gone to work out there because there are no jobs back here.

I am speaking to you tonight from the Cabinet Room in the historic National Assembly building in Quebec City.

This wonderful parliament building is just down the Grande Allee from the Plains of Abraham, where of course an unfortunate battle was fought in September of 1759.

Who let the dogs out??

This was a battle we lost from a military standpoint, but we won from a political standpoint in terms of Quebec’s ability to dominate Canada’s national discourse ever since.

Ever since that idiot Montcalm left the strongest fortress in the solar system to attack Wolfe upon the open field, we have been feeling somewhat down.

(I personally don’t know why Montcalm picked the fight in the autumn with winter on the way, our winters being so cold that even the Nordiques would eventually leave town).

Sorry, I am getting off topic here because there is quite a racket going on outside the building as a number of well-meaning but misguided Quebec students are protesting.

They are of course being egged on the ‘Black bloc’, the professional North American rent-a-riot anarchists who couldn’t give a poutine as to what your cause is, just as long as they can smash store windows, overturn cars, assault police, terrorize citizens, and cause all kinds of other criminal mayhem, after which they will scour the internet for a place for their next riot.

(Calgary’s Lilac Festival?  Let’s go!!!!)

And like all cowards, they cover their face.

I have thus instructed the Securite de Quebec to remove the masks of the Black bloc.  With billy clubs.

But to you my fellow citizens of this most subsidized society in North America, let me tell you what this so-called ‘tuition fight’ is all about.

The leader of the student protest movement calls for “disruption of business,  and economic disruptions” in order to “call into question the entire economic system.”

That’s about a lot more than just tuition, n’est ce pas?

But mes amis, what they don’t understand is this: we are broke.

A group of think tanks as diverse as the Conference Board of Canada, the Montreal Economic Institute, and the Fraser Institute have all pointed to the fact that Quebec is heading for economic disaster.

An aging population, declining birthrate, exploding healthcare costs, decrepit infrastructure,  rising deficits, rising debts and thus rising debt-servicing costs, have even the most clueless economists ringing alarm bells.

But as the Conference Board of Canada pointed out, this economic decline is also combined with universal health care, rock bottom tuition fees, closed-shop trade unions, $7-a-day daycare, the most generous child assistance payments in Canada, subsidized private schools, and subsidized hydroelectricity rates.

And chers amis, much of our society is sustained by federal transfer payments, which I believe are coming mostly from Alberta and Saskatchewan, but I don’t want to confirm this as it would be too embarrassing for us to acknowledge that the oilpatch and the cowboys and western farmers are paying our bills.

My fellow citizens, we have arrived at a fatal intersection between fiscal insanity and an irrational sense of entitlement.

The students on our streets are simply a small example of the larger state of a society in denial.

The students being manipulated by the anarchists are using violence to demand that we try and maintain a society no more sustainable than a sand castle at high tide on the beaches of the Gaspe penninsula.

Because my fellow Quebecers, if our public finances collapse, then the dream of preserving our unique language and culture and heritage will go down the drain with the dreams of the naive students who are currently trashing downtown Montreal and being thrown in jail while the members of the Black bloc fade into the night.

That is why this evening, I am calling a provincial election.

The ballot question is as follows:  who speaks for Quebec?

Is it the mobs on the streets who want to “change the entire economic system” through violence?

Or is it a democratically elected government with a broad new mandate.

Law and order:  yes or no?

I am asking you for a mandate to tell the students to go back to class; a mandate that acknowledges that we must now face the truth about our finances; and a mandate to put in place a plan to save the unique Quebec society we so cherish.

Will there be sacrifice?  Yes.

But is there an easy way out?  Non.

That is the ‘grand bargain’ I put before you this evening.

Merci, et bon soir.

-30-

After 27 days of carefully following the Alberta provincial election campaign and consistently telling the pollsters they were going to do one thing, Alberta voters on late Sunday night, and many in the voting booth on Monday, did something else.

That is their prerogative, of course.

I am of the old school that says the voters are never wrong.

Who do you love...?

There was lots of muttering and hand-wringing Tuesday morning about how the polling industry lost all credibility, but in fact it was the pollsters data trail that tells the story of a conflicted electorate.

Voters were telling the pollsters they were longing for change, hoping for change, yearning for change, ready to actually embrace change, but at the last minute. recoiling from change.

So, they reached into their closet for a comfortable old sweater, instead of going for the new and edgy outdoor gear on offer from someone they had only just met.

This is what voters do, when presented with big and potentially historic change.

They are careful.

Much as many political activists and too many in the news media want voters to be bold, and break the mold, voters generally don’t want to, except under extraordinary circumstances.

Throwing out governments disrupts the order of things.

Individuals and families have mortgages, and car payments, and kids in school, and aging parents in long-term care, and while change may sound exciting to those of us in the political game, it can be unnerving to many in society who don’t play the game.

Change?

Change with stability sounds OK.

But is there such a thing?

Isn’t that kind of like asking for a southern Alberta chinook…without the wind?

Alberta voters decided at the last moment that stability with a brand as strong and familiar as the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta trumped the change being offered by the Wildrose.

It was, after all, a pretty audacious proposal from the Wildrose.

The proposal was for a new political party fighting it’s first election to go from zero-to-government in one election.

The last time someone did that in Canada was, ironically, William Aberhart and the Social Credit Party in Alberta in 1935.

The Canadian political history books are full of the many and now-famous who had to lose once, before they could win eventually.

Peter Lougheed, Mike Harris, Stephen Harper, the Saskatchewan Party, Manitoba’s Gary Doer, they were all told “not yet” by the voters at least once.

And so it goes.

A final observation about the campaign from a friend in Ottawa,  after watching the Progressive Conservatives go negative at the end: if there are any boy scouts or girl guides in the Wildrose who feel morally conflicted running attack ads and negative messaging, they should ask themselves if they prefer the feeling of losing.

So at the end, Albertans changed their mind.

They had a brief affair with the Wildrose, and like all affairs (not that I would know) it was fun and exciting and dangerous.

But in the end, they went back to their marriage, now in it’s 41st year.

Not as exciting, but safe.

-30-

It was billed as 90 minutes of history, but everybody thought it was only 8 of those 90 minutes that mattered.

The 2012 Alberta election Leader’s Debate, apart from the opening and closing statements and a couple of commercial breaks, was structured to have give-and-take among 4 party leaders on 8 broad subjects in roughly 8 minute blocks.

Of those 8 broad subjects, there were the usual health, education, economy, arts and culture – in short, the stuff that prompts predictable talking points that sound like blah blah blah that makes people switch to ‘Dog the Bounty Hunter’ on cable.

But when it became known to campaign managers and then the twittersphere that there would be one segment on “Democratic Renewal’, everybody in Alberta knew what it meant:  Danielle Smith’s ‘democratic reform’ platform that called for a process for citizen-initiated referenda.

The Usual Suspects™ pounced.

This, they warned, was the vehicle whereby crazy social conservatives in Alberta would take away the right of a woman to have an abortion, or gays and lesbians to get married!  They only left out bringing back capital punishment and the repeal of child labour laws because even Red Tories can only pump up so much fearmongering in one news cycle.

Premier Redford was shocked and “disappointed” that this divisive debate was even happening, (having approved the attacks earlier in the day).

And so, the scene was set:  a desperate Progressive Conservative campaign throwing a divisive Hail Mary;  an untested Wildrose campaign knowing that 18 days of flawless campaigning came down to this:  eight minutes.

The reporter would ask the question;  Smith and Redford would face off, three feet apart, with the leaders of the Liberal Party and the NDP also participating, but really mere spectators.

The debate began at 6:30 p.m. MT on a studio set with the usual cheesy Greek columns, meant I suppose to signify the birth of democracy in ancient Athens, but really looking like cheap props from a high school play.

Then, at 6:55 MT, earlier in the debate than most people thought, CBC’s Kim Trynacity finally pulled the pin and tossed the grenade into the studio.

The question was:  would Danielle Smith’s new democratic reform platform plank allowing citizen-initiated referenda lead to an erosion of minority rights?  Specifically women, ethnics and gays, as the Progressive Conservatives had alleged?

Danielle Smith brushed it off like a piece of lint on her shoulder.

Not going to happen.  People have different views, but it will never be legislated.

The Progressive Conservative, Liberal and  NDP leaders all weighed in, but the issue fizzled.

Everyone watching the debate thought the show was over.

Then, the 8 minutes that actually mattered in this debate arose when the issue of how Alberta MLAs are paid was put to the 4 Leaders.

Because of a Byzantine structure of Cabinet pay, committee pay, and the interesting discovery that some MLAs were paid over $40,000 for a committee that had not even met in over two years, sparks began to fly.

When this issue was exposed a few weeks earlier, the three embarrassed Liberal and Wildrose MLAs who only dimly knew they were on the ghost committee had quickly paid the money back.

The 17 Progressive Conservatives would not.

Put on the debate floor, it was the most spirited exchange of the entire night, contrary to what everybody had thought.

Abortion rights?  Yawn.

A government committee system that pays MLAs to serve on a committee that doesn’t meet?

Deadly.

Eleven days to go.

-30-

A young, telegenic, ambitious, dynamic leader out of Calgary leads a party full of idealistic and like-minded conservative Albertans, taking on a tired, stale government, set in its ways after 41 years in power.

The government’s recent change of Leader has been a disappointment, and too many of the same old people in government occupy all the same old jobs and the entitlements and benefits they bring.

Polls show that, while hard to accurately pinpoint the landscape, something is in the air – a new generation of Albertans seem to be moving away from the voting patterns of the past four decades.

Most dismiss the notion of change as unthinkable – the economy is doing well, the energy sector is booming, the future looks bright – why would Albertans rock THAT boat, they ask?

But as more and more Canadians are moving to Alberta to share in the boom, they appear not to share the same attachment to the long-serving government.

Yet, rumors persist that many long-time and influential supporters of the government are quietly switching their allegiance to the upstart party – a party, by the way, that has only been in existence a few years.

Moreover, the new young leader from Calgary has been skilled in using new media technologies to communicate with voters in ways that have captured the electorates

Heads Up!

attention.

The campaign itself is a contrast in styles, with the opposition providing an energy and a spark and a sense of urgency and optimism to the challenges ahead, while the government soothingly assures the voters that all is well, and that what change is needed will come from within.

Many journalists can sense something about the ground shifting, but it is too diffuse, too ethereal, too nebulous – they want to see it, to touch it, to talk to it, to interview it, but whatever is happening doesn’t lend itself to that.

The journalists themselves have only ever covered one government all their adult lives, and the idea of actually reporting on a ‘change of government’ is not something with which they have any experience or training.

So, they tend towards a default position that while the campaign is certainly more interesting than usual, the re-election of the government seems likely.

The business community also senses something moving, and are uncertain about what course to take.

‘Do we stay with the government, or should we hedge our bets and make some significant contributions to this new opposition?  If we hedge our bets and contribute to the oncoming opposition, and the government returns to office, will there be retribution?  Intimidation?  Will we pay a price?  But can we afford not to?’

It is a dilemma faced by voters all across the Province of Alberta.

In union halls, and church basements and community centers and coffee shops and bars across Alberta, people struggle with the choice:  “…it has been good, but geez, after 41 years, shouldn’t we really try something new?  I’m not sure, but…on the one hand…but on the other hand…”.

And finally, it is an exciting time to be an Albertan, because we know the whole country is watching.

Canadians know that Alberta is about to enter a new era of power and influence on the national scene, and that the outcome of the looming provincial election will have a profound effect on national affairs.

Yup, that’s the way it was.

And there was no facebook or twitter.

Because of course, students of Alberta political history will recognize that what I am describing is the summer of 1971 when a young Peter Lougheed stormed out of Calgary and toppled the Social Credit dynasty.

Huh?

What did you think I was talking about?

-30-

I have it on good authority from impeccable sources that there may be an election called in Alberta, VERY SOON.

This also jives with my calculation that it has now been just over 4 years since Ed Stelmach won an election with the lowest voter turnout in Canadian history.

Something tells me a few more people may show up this time.

So, trust me, an election is on the way – or, as we used to say when I was in the business – the circus is coming to town!

It is said that all campaigns are about myths, mistakes and miracles.

Certainly some myths are already in place, and no doubt the mistakes and miracles are on their way.

Regardless, a central event of this campaign will be an event called a ‘debate’ (circle Thursday, April 12 on Global TV).

But, it will NOT be a debate – it will in fact be a televised news conference.

A debate is where two individuals are asked to state their positions on a various specific issues, and having done so, then have a spirited but adult discussion/critique/defense of each others stand.

That’s not what happens here.

What happens in Alberta election campaigns is a made-for-televsion event where a few journalists ask entirely predictable questions of 4 or 5 party Leaders who are lined up on a set that often resembles the stage on ‘The Price is Right’.

The questions that are posed then give each party Leader the opportunity to share with viewers their memorized, focus-group-tested and much-dreaded ‘talking points’.

This is to the delight of their staff who actually wrote the talking points, and who are watching from an anteroom.

‘Victory’ in these so-called debates is defined as:  “He/She kept to the talking points!”

Uplifting isn’t it?

Oftentimes, the TV producers try and inject a little more ‘excitement’ into these dreary proceedings by having a format that encourages each Leader to challenge another Leader ‘one-on-one’.

Of course, a logistical nightmare ensues, where Leader A challenges Leader B, then B challenges C, but when C then challenges D, Leader D actually wants to respond to the topic upon which A challenged B, and at that point whatever viewers are left switch to Reba.

Those of us who have actually run campaigns know in fact that these so-called ‘debates’ are actually black holes that change few minds, and devour precious time, money, and resources better spent talking to actual voters on the streets of Rocky Mountain House or Taber or Fairview about issues that actually matter to THEM.

But, it might be different this time.

It might be different, because this time, Albertans are restless.

They are restless about a party that has been in power for 41 years, and has enough baggage to fill up that big Russian cargo plane that was at YYC last week.

And Albertans are uncertain about whether the only real opposition, in the form of the Wildrose, has the depth and experience to form a government.

In the case of the government, say what you will, they are still the New York Yankees, one of the most formidable political brands in Canadian political history.  Playing some lousy baseball lately, but still the Yankees.

In the case of the Wildrose, they will say that voters had the same uncertainty about the untested team of young Peter Lougheed in 1971 or Saskatchewan’s Brad Wall in 2007.

In any event, I think we have a good idea about what is going to happen in Calgary and most of rural Alberta, but trust me, keep your eyes on Edmonton election night, the only place where the Liberals and New Democrats are in play.

Some crazy vote-splitting in the Capital Region is going to elect some no-hope candidates, and defeat some can’t-miss candidates, and scramble everybody’s predictions in a way that will have Province-wide implications.

Anyway, no matter, I am begging the producers at Global TV:  please, make the debate format relevant, and about more than just talking points.

Because this time, for the first time since 1993, it matters.

-30-

And the question a lot of provincial Tories are asking themselves is:  WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON IN EDMONTON???

All of Alberta’s main media outlets this week have been dominated by issue after issue that calls into question the general direction of the government.

Consider Wednesday’s Calgary Herald for example:

•  The front page story is about the surprising 52 separate probes into alleged improper financial contributions to the Progressive Conservative party or their constituency associations;

•  A major story inside the front section examines the now-infamous letter an MLA sent to a local school Board warning them not to criticize the government or it may imperil their chances of getting a new school;

•  The Herald’s preeminent political columnist weighs in on the issue and writes “…the Premier’s words seem hollow…”;

•  The lead editorial takes the government to task over the matter, calling the MLA’s letter “…the smoking gun of PC intimidation.”

•  And following the departure of the Premier’s Chief of Staff, a long-time and popular MLA abruptly announces she will not be running again in a move  “…that caught even the Premier off guard.”

Oh, and BTW, a full page advertisement “From the Doctors of Alberta” delivers a blistering text and 5 point critique of the government’s handling of the health care system, referring to the recent report from the Health Quality Council that described a “culture of fear and intimidation”.

Throw into the mix the controversial do-over of the Calgary West PC nomination, the government’s threat to boycott the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association annual luncheon, and the badly mangled communications over the terms of reference for a promised judicial inquiry into health care in Alberta, and they are sure making it hard for card carrying PCs (like me) to walk around with a skip in our step.

Running a government can be a difficult and complex task – I know.

The key to doing it right is to trust the people around you with as much information as possible about the goal, the strategy to get there, and the critical path of dates and milestones to be met along the way.

I look at the media coverage of the government over the past few weeks, and I get the sense that people in the government aren’t talking to each other.

The political staff appear to not know what is going on;  that a communications strategy one day is ditched for something else the next day; that no one has ‘defined the mission’.

There is too much freelancing, too many one-off issues, no central narrative that binds the agenda together in a coherent, clear and understandable way.

Look, I understand that bombs explode.

British Prime Minister Harold McMillan was once asked what he feared most as PM, and he replied “Events, dear boy!”.

But ‘events’ must be managed, and the past few weeks have not been pretty.

It all reminds me of another famous quote.

When long-time NY Yankees manager Casey Stengel was lured out of retirement to manage the expansion New York Mets in 1962, and they were on their way to lose 120 games, at one point during season, Stengel asked “Can’t anybody here play this game?”

Indeed.

-30-

What did the Mayor think, asked McFarland?

Can’t come soon enough for me, replied the Mayor.

Nothing came of it then, because the four things needed to make it work weren’t in place.

But they are now.

And enough is enough.

Set aside the time, (and screw up the courage) to drive the QE2 between Edmonton and Calgary and the conclusion is inescapable:  it is time for the Government of Alberta (whomever that will be after the next election?!) to get serious about High Speed Rail (HSR) between Edmonton and Calgary.

The three-hour white knuckle roller-derby has become a dangerous joke, where thousands of cars and pickups and SUVs towing boats and snowmobiles and u-hauls, fight for space with tractor trailers, tanker trucks, oilfield service rigs, and farm vehicles, all policed by the RCMP and Sheriffs trying to keep Albertans from smashing into each other.

And when they do, then throw the firetrucks and ambulances into the mix.

The Europeans figured this out a long time ago.

Over there, all the people are on trains and all the freight is on the highways.

Over here, all the people are on the highways…and so too is much of the freight.

HSR between Calgary and Edmonton has been studied for years, but the four conditions needed to proceed are now in place – well, three and a half anyway.

•  First, the passenger market has to be there;  and now with roughly a million people at either end of the 300 kilometer Calgary-Edmonton corridor, the passenger market is there;

•  Second, proven high-speed rail technology has to be there, and with HSR operating all over the world, it is just a matter of picking the system you want;

•  Third, the alignment has to be there, and two options exist:  either the existing CPR line with appropriate upgrades, OR, a new dedicated alignment – the “greenfield” option;

•  And fourth, what will be the nature of the government’s involvement?

Because here is the reality:  there is not a single high speed rail line operating anywhere in the world without some kind of government financial environment.

This is where the political courage is required, absent in Alberta thus far.

So get over it, the Government must play a role.

The Van Horne Institute, the University of Calgary-based transportation think tank examined all of these four areas in a report issued a few years ago.

Their conclusion?

It is time to proceed.

The passenger market, the technology, and the alignment alternatives are all there.

All we are waiting for is the provincial government to stop talking about it, and stop studying it, and make the decision that it is in the long term best interests of Alberta to get on with it.

The private sector, from the engineering companies to the construction companies, and from the train manufacturing companies to the passenger rail service companies and financial houses, are all standing by, waiting to partner with the government.

Next time you get a chance to go to Europe, get on a train, and see what the future could look like.

Or drive up the QE2, and pray.

-30-

It’s always a pleasure to go to Toronto on business, as I did last week for three days, and be reminded why we don’t like to go to Toronto on business for three days.

Toronto loves Toronto in a way that puts the word ‘smug’ out of work.

That is why it was so much fun to be there when the report by highly respected former federal public servant and later TD Chief Economist Don Drummond landed with such a shudder last Wednesday on the corner of both Bay Street, and main street.

To recap: Eleven months ago, Premier Dalton McGuinty, knowing that his economic and fiscal forecasts were almost criminally demented, appointed a commission headed by Drummond to review the state of Ontario’s finances, with a mandate above all others to tell the truth, and oh, by the way, to do so after McGuinty’s Liberal government was safely re-elected in the fall of 2011.

Tragically for the Ontario Liberals, Drummond did his job.

Executive summary:  Dear Ontario, you are Greece.

Economic growth won’t save you.  Higher taxes won’t save you. Manufacturing won’t save you.  Hope is not a strategy.  Your budget and fiscal plans are the equivalent of a pathetic comic book, and all your best and brightest young people are moving to the West.

The reason?

The Ontario government and public service is a grotesque, immense, bloated, overpaid, underperforming, dysfunctional, uncoordinated behemoth that is killing the dream.

The government itself is devouring the province it purports to serve.

A Japanese movie from the 1960s comes to mind about a rampaging dinosaur that ate Tokyo.

In response, McGuinty was courageously unavailable for comment, his Finance Minister Dwight Duncan downplayed the 385 recommendations, and the Toronto Star, doing their usual turn on the Comedy Channel, begs the government to be cautious lest we force seniors to choose between their pets, and rent.  (Actual headline).

What to make of all this?

Ontario is becoming Greece.

Election timing matters more than fiscal planning.

Taxpayers are treated like 8 year olds who don’t know what is going on.

And we have all built (or are building) governments we cannot afford.

But what Don Drummond told the Ontario government, and the Ontario people, is that after 145 years, it’s over.

Not a bad run for an empire, but over nonetheless.

Get out of Business Class, get back in economy, eat your peanuts, and get back to work, longer, and for less.

In the immortal words of the Poet Laureate of my generation, Bruce Springsteen, “…the foreman says those jobs are leaving boys, and they ain’t comin’ back”.

All this came on the same day that Alberta Finance Minister Ron Liepert delivered a speech in Toronto to the Economic Club of Canada where he announced that the Government of Alberta is “spending too much”.

He also told the audience that Alberta’s budget has to “get off the roller-coaster ride of relying on oil and gas revenues”.

By an unfortunate coincidence noted by many in his audience, this year’s Alberta budget relies on the roller-coaster ride of oil and gas revenues.

And next year.

And the year after that.

Alberta is poised to make the same disastrous bets we have seen before on using tomorrow’s oil and gas revenues to pay for today’s spending.

Anyway, between thinking about Ontario, Greece, and Alberta, it is always fun to be in Toronto with the CBC, the Maple Leafs, Mayor Rob Ford, traffic on the Gardiner Expressway, Pearson Airport, and February gloom.

And the Fairmont Royal York is still the best hotel in the country.

-30-

Recent efforts to restore/rebuild the Bluenose sailing sloop ($15.5m???) got me thinking about another attempt to re-do the past…

It has come to my attention that the National Battlefields Commission has decided to re-enact the Battle of the Plains of Abraham on, well, the Plains of Abraham, in Quebec City.

(I had a Jewish classmate at Crestwood Elementary in Edmonton who told me the Plains of Abraham was also another name for the Israeli Air Force).

I don’t know who the National Battlefields Commission is, but I think this is a bad idea. 

It is a bad idea because it is like re-enacting a marriage that ended in divorce – I defy you to find two people who want to go back to the church to re-recreate that moment.

Some things are just better left alone.

To re-cap, the French lost this battle.

The British who were downriver snuck upriver and the French didn’t notice. Probably watching a Habs game at the time.

The British then climbed up a cliff and started singing all those annoying soccer songs on the Plains of Abraham to let the French know they had arrived.

Remember, it was September, and the French were inside the strongest fortress in the solar system with winter on the way.

All they had to do was sit tight, invent poutine, lob a few shells out onto the front lawn to keep the English up at night, wait for the weather that made even the Quebec Nordiques leave town, and watch the English go back down the cliff and sail home for Christmas.

But oh no.

Mister Smarty Pants Montcalm has to sashay out of the fortress and dare the English to take him on, saying (in French) “You want a piece of me?!  YOU WANT A PIECE OF ME?!”.

They did, actually.

In thirty minutes, it was over.

Montcalm lost the battle, the fortress, and the continent, although bilingualism would survive.

He even got himself shot and was carried to a house a few blocks from the Chateau Frontenac where he died.  A plaque on the house still marks the occasion, and you can buy some truly awful souvenirs there while you mourn his passing.

The only good news for the French was that they did pick off British General Wolfe, although even then, he got a better painting of his death that did Montcalm.

All in all, not a good day for the French, and I am thinking certainly not one that a national federal body should try to ‘re-create’ for historical purposes.

Here is the problem:  where do you stop?

Why wouldn’t they also re-create the fall of the Fortress of Louisbourg to the British, where the winners got the fort and all the lobster they could eat?

Why don’t they head out to Regina and re-create the hanging of Louis Riel?

And while we are out there, let’s have a do-over of the Battle of Batoche where an army of North West Mounted Police creamed a rag-tag bunch of Metis who just wanted to preserve a threatened way of life.  I’m sure their descendents would be thrilled to participate.

See if the Iriquois want to re-create the Battle of Sorel in 1616 when Champlain cleaned their clock because all his guys had a blunderbuss and the Iriquois only had bows and arrows.

Lets get out to the West Coast and throw some Chinese in jail to re-create our horrible overreaction to the start of the Second World War.

I mean, hey National Battlefields Commission, be creative!

But of course, none of this should be done in the first place.

That is why I think this whole Plains of Abraham thing is a bad idea.

History should sometimes just be history.

Sometimes, a country can have too much history, and bringing it all back brings old animosities back with it, even if it happened a long time ago.

A memorial service to mark the soldiers who fell on both sides?  Fine.

But if we are going to do this, then lets do it right.

My personal favourite would be to get the Montreal Canadiens and Detroit Red Wings Old Timers onto the ice to re-create the 1966 Stanley Cup Final where the Habs won, only because Henri Richard illegally kicked in the puck to win Game Six.

A true miscarriage of history.