United Arab Emirates' reaction against the resistance from the federal government to their request to expand their landing rights in Canada is not the best expression of what diplomacy is all about. I'm also convinced the federal opposition parties' reaction in favour of Abu Dhabi against our own government is self serving and politically motivated.
However, the condemnation of the bullying reaction of the Emirates, who resorted to an indirect involvement of the United Nations in a minor bilateral economic dispute, is only one part of the equation.
The other is the obtuse behaviour of our bureaucracy, which is always ready to pick a fight with someone.
Former American ambassador to Canada James Blanchard, in his book Behind the Embassy Door: Canada, Clinton, and Quebec, quoted an American bureaucrat saying that "in the bowels of the Canadian bureaucracy are a bunch of guys who want to pluck a feather from the American Eagle. When they get out of hand, we whack them hard and they run for cover."
Many decisions that Canadian governments, whether Liberal or Conservative, have to handle are created by the obtuse behaviour of our bureaucrats who decide to lock horns with someone just to flex muscles and to show them who is in charge.
It happens at the airports, where our customs agents are the most unwelcoming with some of the officers assuming that all the people arriving are terrorists or drug dealers, while the only things they catch are sausages, cheese and nuts.
It happens with the Canadian Radio Telecommunication Commission (CRTC), which acts strong with weak broadcasters and weak with the strong ones. They are after code words like 'Canadian content' while, at the same time, we know we are already flooded by foreign programs coming from all over the world.
It happens with foreign governments who, most of the time, are just trying to increase the relationship with Canada and Canadians, but are faced with stubbornness, lack of cooperation and, at times, contempt.
For example, I've already said many times that I'm against the Italian government's initiative to elect to Rome's Parliament 20 Italian citizens living abroad. But my apposition is motivated by the consideration that this is unfair to the Italians living in Italy. In fact, it is unfair that a person like me, who's lived in Canada for more than 30 years, is allowed to decide how much taxes my sister living in Italy should pay.
This initiative has been criticized, tolerated or ignored by governments from all over the world, including those of United States, Australia and Argentina, which have a strong representation of people of Italian origin in their territory. Nonetheless, all governments have accepted this initiative, except Canada. Italy is infringing, Canadian bureaucrats said, on our sovereignty. It's nonsense.
If anything, it is the Italian sovereignty being infringed upon by the presence in its Parliament of people with Canadian, American or Argentinean passports. For years Ottawa has unnecessarily picked a fight with the Italian government over an issue that all other governments have ignored. Besides, despite the opposition generated by an obtuse bureaucracy, Canadian politicians have always allowed the Italian government to carry their 'election' in Canada. It was accepted by the Liberal government of Paul Martin, and has been allowed by the Conservative government of Stephen Harper.
I believe that Air Canada is a Canadian institution that has to be defended. Still, I believe that the attitude of our national airline has to be consistent with the requests of our economy and the market.
Air Canada cannot kill any domestic competition bullying other small Canadian operators in the name of a free market, but crying in the arms of "mama government" if someone is trying to do exactly the same at international level is ridiculous.
I don't agree with the Emirates' reaction either, but at the same time we need to take a closer look at Canadian bureaucrats' behaviour which at times seems more concerned about defending their positions and considering every request for a dialogue an attack to their authority, than taking care of the interests of Canadian citizens.
