Liberal Party of Canada

It’s Marc Garneau. Just a quick post here on yesterday’s news out of Ottawa that the Liberal party has its first post-Ignatieff candidate for the party leadership, at least for the interim job, anyway.

Garneau was Canada’s first person in space, travelling three times on American space shuttle missions. Garneau was a “payload” specialist with expertise in operating the Canadarm of the shuttle, its famous Canadian content. Post space ventures, he became President of the Canada Space Agency. A scientist, engineer, military officer, it’s quite an impressive background and definitely would be a contrast to other party leaders in Ottawa.

In the past year, he distinguished himself on the F-35 purchase issue (see video here, for example, where he really seemed to be enjoying himself in the political sparring) and in challenging the Conservative decision to axe Canada’s long form census. Both issues were in his wheelhouse, given his background, and he seemed to mature politically due to his involvement in those issues. He’s only been in Parliament since 2008.

He also has a sleeper likability about him as well. Unassuming and solid are two other adjectives I’d use. And see his twitter feed for more of the personality aspect. That May 9th tweet suddenly takes on a whole new meaning.

Interesting that news of his bid came one day after the caucus first met to begin discussions on the interim leadership, among other things. This Canadian Press report indicates the caucus has still not accepted the national executive’s conditions for the person seeking the interim leadership. Meaning he threw his bid out there before the question of whether the interim leader can become permanent leader is resolved (at least, that question is unresolved to the public eye). That’s interesting and it may say something about a selflessness he brings, or, he just doesn’t have any ambition for the permanent slot at all.

There still may be other interim leadership candidates to come, but that’s a brief initial take on Garneau’s bid.


Canadian Press/Harris/Decima National Vote Intention Poll, 15-25 April 2010

Notes from north of 49ºN.

In both Canada and the UK, voters are getting tired with the status quo and giving increasing support to third parties. We’ll see how it plays out on the UK next week with their elections, in light of the recent rise of the Liberal Democrats. In Canada, the latest Canadian Press/Harris Decima poll showed a surge for the New Democratic Party, at 20%, while the two major parties {Conservative Party and Liberal Party} have both fallen below 30%. BTW, here’s a post on “house effects” in Canadian polls, showing that the Harris Decima methodology tends to disfavour the Conservatives. I haven’t done a province-by-province analysis for Canada in a while, but I tend to watch Ontario closely, as it’s a bellwether region. The NDP is polling strong in Ontario at 19%. Apologies that some of the numbers on the following graphic are a bit fuzzy.

The NDP is polling at an all-time high in British Columbia at 31% and are in a tie with the Liberals and Conservatives with women voters. Nationally, the Greens have also held steady over the past year, dancing around the 10% mark.

Stephen Harper’s Conservative minority government is flailing in light of the Guergis/Jaffer affair and the recent kerfuffle over revealing documents relating to the Afghan detainee torture scandal.

Twitterversion:: Canadian Press/Harris poll shows spike for #NDP. Strong showing in BC and among women #ThickCulture

Song:: Julie Doiron-‘Consolation Prize’

Notes from North of 49ºN

The above video from YouTube does a decent job of explaining what the big issue in Canada is at the moment, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s proroguing of Parliament. Proroguing? It may seem like a Sarah Palinism, as in “pro-rogue”, but it’s a suspension of Parliament without dissolving it. Harper, a Conservative, prorogued Parliament last year when the other parties were threatening to form a coalition of New Democrats, Liberals, and the Bloc Québécois. This time around, Harper was being asked tough questions by Parliamentary committees about what his government knew about the torture of Afghan detainees after they were turned over to Canadian Forces. On 30 December, the Governor General, upon Harper’s request, prorogued Parliament until 3 March 2010, killing all bills and suspending all committees. The official reason given was the economy, but nobody bought it.

There were two major results::

  1. A grassroots effort using social media mobilized sizeable protests across Canada
  2. The Conservatives have lost ground in the public opinion polls and are in a statistical dead heat with the Liberals

On Facebook, a group for Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament has amassed 219,600 members {28 January} and last Saturday nationwide protests were organized. Here in Toronto, a sizeable crowd assembled downtown::

CAPP Protest 23 January, Yonge St. looking south of Dundas at Eaton Centre

The prorogation of Parliament is viewed by many as anti-democratic {See Rick Mercer’s opinion piece in the Globe & Mail}, although Harper has supporters of his decision. For the time being, anti-Conservative momentum has picked up the pace and support for the Liberals has increased—at the expense of the NDP, Greens, and Bloc.

EKOS Federal Opinion Poll Results:: 4oth. General Election—Mid-January 2010

It’s over a month until Parliament reconvenes. It will be interesting to see if the anti-Conservative sentiments will weather the Winter Olympics in Vancouver and any possible coherent response by Harper. Upon Parliament reconvening, I’m not sure if an election will be triggered. A weakened Harper that’s ready to deal may do more long-term damage to the Conservatives. I’ll be blogging on Rhizomicon within a few days on my detailed analysis of the EKOS poll data, which should make the Liberals a bit cautious about another {expensive} election in the near future.

Twitterversion:: Harper’s proroguing triggered Facebook mobilized protests.EKOS poll:: Grits surging @ expense of Tories,Greens,NDP,& Bloc. @Prof_K

Russell Wisemen, photo from
Russell Wisemen, photo from

On ThickCulture, we’ve written about public figures getting into hot water before using Facebook.  A candidate’s campaign for provincial legislative office in British Columbia was sunk by “risqué” photos posted on Facebook [1].  Down in the States, the Young Republicans got into a dustup stemming from racially charged comments left on a vice chairman’s wall [2].  Now, Russell Wiseman, the mayor of Arlington, Tennessee is feeling the heat for calling President Obama a Muslim on a “friends only” Facebook post.  Wiseman has over 1,600 “friends” and the comments leaked out.  What did he say?  Well, for starters::

“Ok, so, this is total crap, we sit the kids down to watch ‘The Charlie Brown Christmas Special’ and our muslim president is there, what a load…..try to convince me that wasn’t done on purpose. Ask the man if he believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he will give you a 10 minute disertation (sic) about it….w…hen the answer should simply be ‘yes’….”

The extensive thread also included this::

“…you obama people need to move to a muslim country…oh wait, that’s America….pitiful.”

He also goes on with his interesting take on polity::

“you know, our forefathers had it written in the original Constitution that ONLY property owners could vote, if that has stayed in there, things would be different……..”

Wiseman felt those making a fuss about his comments were making a “mountain out of a molehill.”

I get a sense that Wiseman thought his Facebook comments were only viewable to those who shared his views -or- perhaps was imbibing in a bit too much holiday cheer before settling down to watch “It’s a Charlie Brown Christmas.”  The irony is that the Obama speech on the Afghanistan surge had so much in common with George W’s take on terrorism.  Jon Stewart has a funny take on the speech {US IPs only}::

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Canadian viewers can watch the segment here {2 December}.

So, what was Wiseman upset about missing.  It was Linus’ reading of the Gospel of Luke::

The object lesson for public figures is to be careful about what you post online, but I wonder if the proliferation of social media will “desensitize” us all to every little thing that someone says on their Facebook wall or in a Tweet.

In Canada a few weeks ago, the wife of the immediate-past Liberal Party leader Stéphane Dion, Janine Krieber {AKA la présidente}, criticized the current leader, Michael Ignatieff, you guessed it, on Facebook [3].  Here’s a translation {it was posted originally in French}::

“It’s been a year and one week since I last wrote on my blog. Ah! “la présidente” is lazy. But we have to take action now.

The Liberal Party is falling apart, and will not recover. Like all liberal parties in Europe, it will become a weakling at the mercy of ephemeral coalitions. By refusing the historic coalition that would have placed it at the helm of the left, it will be punished by history.

Anyway, I became convinced of it the moment that Paul Martin treated Jean Chrétien so cavalierly. The party died at that moment. If the Toronto elites had been more in tune, humble and realist, Stéphane would have been willing to take all the time and absord all the hits needed to rebuild the party. But they couldn’t swallow the 26%, and now we are at 23%.

The time for choices is now. I don’t want to see the Conservatives continue to change my country. They are, slowly, like any dictatorship, changing the world. Torture doesn’t exist, corruption is a fabrication. Do we really have the right leader to discuss these questions? Can someone really write these insanities and lead us to believe that he simply changed his mind? In order to justify violence, he must have engaged in serious thought. Otherwise, it’s very dangerous. How can we be sure that he won’t change his mind one more time?

The party grassroots had understood all of that, and the average citizen is starting to understand it too. Ignatieff’s supporters have not done their homework. They did not read his books, consult his colleagues. They were satisfied that he could be charming at cocktails. Some of them are outraged now. I am hearing: Why did no one say it? We told you loud and clear, you didn’t listen.

I am starting a serious reflection. I will not give my voice to a party that will end up in the trashcan of history. I am looking around me, and certain things are attractive. Like a dedicated party that doesn’t challenge its leader at every hiccup in the polls. A party where the rule would be the principle of pleasure, and not assassination. A party where work ethic and competence would be respected and where smiles would be real.

Maybe I’m not dreaming.

“La présidente.”

Some have called the above as a tirade, others think it wasn’t constructive given where the Liberal party is these days, and still others went “right on.”  No matter what, Ms. Krieber’s post was taken down after it was being circulated.

Will social media eventually change what we collectively deem as shocking, inappropriate, or out-of-line?  Until then, watch what you say…and Google cache.

Twitterversion:: Tenn. mayor goes off on “Muslim president.” Anothr #Facebook #fail 4 a public figure. Will we evntually get desensitized? @Prof_K

Song:: Tennessee – Silver Jews


Notes from North of 49ºN

Up here in Canada, Remembrance Day is coming up on the 11th, so plenty of red poppies have cropped up, which is a Commonwealth tradition.  Until Afghanistan, it’s been a while since Canada has been in a “war” and the specifics of getting out of Afghanistan has entered into the news up here.  The Conservatives and the Liberal parties in Canada already agreed in 2008 to withdraw from Afghanistan::

“Canada’s top soldier, Chief of Defence Staff Walter Natynczyk, has given the order for Canadian Forces logistics whizzes to begin mapping out the move, expected to be finished by the end of 2011. That’s in keeping with a 2008 deal between the Harper government and Opposition Liberals that extended the combat mission until July, 2011, with a pullout taking until Dec. 31.”

On a sidenote, shortly after Harper’s announcement, news of the pricetag was released.  It was reported that by 2011 the military mission in could cost up to $1.8B CAN, or $1,500 per household.  While the decision was made last year, the logistics and details of the estimated skeleton crew of 500-600 soldiers to stay behind to protect redevelopment efforts and train local police has remained an open question.  In the interim, the war has become increasingly unpopular and according to Allen Sens, a University of British Columbia political scientist::

“Canada’s government and public is suffering from Afghanistan fatigue…There’s been a lack of progress, and I think the public has a sense that it’s time for other countries to step up and move into the south, where the fighting has been the toughest.”

The Obama Factor

The Liberals in Canada are quick to point out the failure of humanitarian efforts.  Canada had the objective of building 50 schools by 2011 but because of the instability, only five have been built.  So, why should Prime Minister Harper {Conservative} drag his feet on the “drawdown” planning?

“the Prime Minister acknowledged that not every single soldier will return with the combat pullout, and is expected lingering pressure from the Obama administration to help out may lead to a contingent remaining.”

Will Canada cave to possible pressure from the Obama administration to stay?  Politically, the opposition Liberals would be wise to shift as much decision-making on Harper and the Conservatives before triggering another federal election, something the Liberals have been threatening for most of the year.  Obama is faced with a tough decision and is running out of time.  Barack is faced with::

  1. A deteriorating situation in Afghanistan
  2. White House decisions based on reports painting an incomplete picture
  3. Little progress despite doubling troop numbers in 2009 {hence balking at McChrystal’s original recommendations}
  4. The election débâcle in Afghanistan where Karzai won amid fraud allegations
  5. Waning public support in the US of the war

Obama needs to assess whether his objectives can be met in Afghanistan, specifically in terms of what is possible and probable as outcomes, given a flailing domestic economic situation.  While the stakes are clearly lower for Canada than for the US and Obama, I wonder if Canada will react to any pressure from Obama to stick around, even with just 500-600 “non-combat”  troops.  I also wonder if the Liberals will try to push decisions that may irk Obama onto Harper.

Image:: Iconic Tim Horton’s coffee shop in Kandahar.

Twitterversion:: Canadian Forces pressure deets on wthdrwl fr.Afghanistan. What will Obama do&how will Cdn politcns play it? #ThickCulture

Song::  Shipbuilding – Elvis Costello & the Attractions {about workers building ships for the UK Falklands War with Argentina}

"Non" Québec Sovereignty Referendum Celebration, 20 May 1980 - Tom Haythornthwaite
Québec Sovereignty Referendum, 20 May 1980 - Tom Haythornthwaite

Notes from north of 49ºN

In California, identity politics is a way of life.  Ask Pete Wilson, ex-Governor of California on how Latino politics can derail a career, as detailed in a LA Times magazine article from 2004.  The same article highlights Republican concerns with shifting demographics::

“Many Republicans view the mushrooming Latino voter rolls in the same way a person looks at a growing mole: One hopes it’s benign but fears for the worst.”

Unlike in California where immigration is resulting in dramatic demographic shifts, here in Canada, a hot-button issue is Québec separatism that stems from centuries-old disputes.  The province of Québec has a distinct francophone culture when compared to the rest of predominantly anglophone Canada and this cultural divide naturally affects politics at both the provincial and federal levels.

Currently, at the federal level, Canada {with a variation of the Westminster parliamentary system} has a minority government {plurality of parliamentary seats} with Conservative Stephen Harper as Prime Minister.  Minority governments tend to be unstable.  Indicative of this, the Conservatives had a scare last December when Stephen Harper angered the other parties, bringing the country to the brink of Constitutional crisis.  Recent polls in Canada showed that about half of the voters wanted a more stable majority government, where one party has a majority of the seats.  Moreover, recent polls indicated that support for the Conservatives is dwindling, likely leading to a situation where the Conservatives and Liberals have close to the same number of seats, further deadlocking Parliament.  An article a week and a half ago by the Montréal Gazette brought up a controversial argument::

“Quebecers more than others have it in their power to break this log-jam, by taking a more active hand in national governance instead of ‘parking’ their votes with an increasingly irrelevant Bloc Québécois. Had Quebecers voted for national parties in the same proportion as other Canadians in the last election, we would have a majority government. The instability of minority times makes the government of Canada weaker, which serves the sovereignists’ interests but not the public interest.”

This assumes that Québec voters are more interested in federal governance than Québec interests.  In Québec, the Bloc Québécois {BQ} is a political party associated with sovereignty for the province.  Its raison d’être is promoting the identity politics of francophone Québec at the federal level.  While I’ve noticed the BQ numbers slipping since the 2008 election on the ThreeHundredEight blog, the Gazette’s line of reasoning is unlikely to lure enough Québec voters to the Conservative or Liberal camps.  According to an EKOS poll, the federal vote intention in the in Québec shows a plurality of support for the Bloc::
Federal Vote Intention-July 2009
Federal Vote Intention-July 2009 EKOS

The 2008 federal results in Québec saw BQ making a strong showing with 49 ridings {seats} of 75 in Québec and 308 in Canada. The map below shows Bloc in light blue, Conservatives (PC) in dark blue, Liberals (LP) in Red, and New Democrats (NDP) in orange. The Bloc is strong throughout the province, while the Conservatives have support in a few rural areas, and the Liberals and NDP have appeal in or near the cities of Montréal and Ottawa.

Federal 2008 Election Results by Ridings in Québec
Federal 2008 Election Results by Ridings in Québec
The relative popularity of the Bloc introduces a challenge at the federal level, one of identity politics.  Last month, Liberal Party of Canada {LPC} leader Michael Ignatieff showed how hard it is to manage perceptions in Québec as the leader of a Canada-wide party. While promising restoring funding to the arts and appointment of Québecers to cabinet posts, he also said he has no plans to give Québec any special powers, if elected as Prime Minister. This opened the Liberals open to criticism in the province by rival parties.
“It’s the same good old Liberal Party of Canada that wants to put Québec in its place.”
–Pierre Paquette, Bloc MP Joliette

“It shows that he’s not only been out of Canada for 35 years, he’s never known anything about Québec except what he learned at Upper Canada College and, frankly, I’m not afraid of him a bit.”
–Thomas Mulcair, NDP MP Outremont
The nuances of the issue of sovereignty and its manifestations is far too complex to go into here, so suffice it to say that concerns of Québec as a distinct society are far from settled. According to Andrew Cohen’s The Unfinished Canadian, Québecers are more likely to be ambivalent towards the idea of a federal Canada, which isn’t that surprising. Stephen Harper has done precious little to appeal to Québec, while Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, in my opinion, doesn’t help things with statements like::

“The best possible Canada is a Canada where Québecers are in power…The Bloc Québécois is not a solution for a better Québec and Canada.”–Michael Ignatieff, 3 June 2009 at a Montréal fundraiser

While Ignatieff may have had his reasons, the Bloc represents a set of meanings to many Québecers and I fail to see the upside of antagonizing the Bloc. The tories went after the Bloc earlier in the summer, accusing the party on being soft on pedophiles because they didn’t support tougher legislation on minimum sentencing for child trafficking. The ads haven’t affected polls and the Conservatices are still falling behind. Having appeal in Québec requires subtlety. As stated above, Harper hasn’t done much to appeal to Quebecers, but Conservative writer Bob Plamondon in a Macleans article gets at the heart of the matter. Harper needs to understand culture in order to build social capital::

“I don’t think it was so much that those specific policies were abhorred by Quebecers…because in the scheme of government activities, they are relatively minor issues. But they spoke to larger issues—does Stephen Harper understand Quebec and can he be trusted? I think Quebecers drew the conclusion that he’s disconnected from them. They couldn’t identify among Harper’s team a particularly strong lieutenant who had near-veto power over what went on in Ottawa with respect to those matters that are of particular concern to Quebecers.”

I don’t see that happening, but I can see him using fiscal controls on Ottawa as an appeal to Québec and fiscal conservatives in other provinces.
While the Bloc’s fortunes have waxed and waned over the years, the party is currently in an era of resurgence.  The Bloc’s clout with almost 16% of Parliament representing a culturally distinct region is a good case study for California legislative politics, if we assume Latino political identity strengthening.  Latino population does not equate to a homogeneous population with similar political interests, as there is diversity within.  The question remains: Can there be a strong Latino political identity that spans regions and demographic categories?
Web 2.0 & Politics
In the francophone Québec blogosphere, the following catchy Bloc video went somewhat viral in 2004 in the pre-YouTube era, as part of the “un parti propre au Québec/a party proper to Québec” campaign.

Videos like this show how parties can energize voters and generate buzz for a campaign.  Given how 41% of younger voters under 25 support the Bloc {see above table on federal vote intention in Québec} and how Bloc support skews younger, I expect to see more Bloc use of Web 2.0 in the future, i.e., more use of YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and possibly MySpace.
What about Web 2.0 and Latino voters in the US?  Pew Internet research does show that in the US,  Hispanics tend to be younger and online less than other ethnicities.  Nevertheless, Hispanics 18-29 are online the most for the ethnicity at over 60%, although this percentage is lower than black or white counterparts.  Latino cell phone owners are more likely than their white counterparts to send/receive text messages, at 49% vs. 31%, respectively.  Given that Latinos trend younger and the younger Latinos are online the most, I expect to see greater usage of social media targeting them, using online and SMS {texting} media.  Brandweek is citing 65% use of social media by Latinos, particularly with MySpace and MySpace Latino.  The challenge will be politically engaging Latinos in a way that’s relevant to them.
While many of the following issues may be unpopular due to their divisive nature, is this the globalized political reality we’re in?
  1. How will globalization shape California identity politics?
  2. Will culture serve as a political rallying point?
  3. Strengthening of identity politics caucus/coalition powerbase{s}
  4. Use of cultural distinction socially & politically
  5. Strategies of mainstream politicians/parties to negotiate with or combat a caucus/coalition
  6. Use of Web 2.0 & SMS technologies & social media to politically engage electorate in a culturally-relevant fashion
Twitterversion:: As California grapples with identity politics, what can be learned from #Canada, #Québec, & Bloc Québécois? #ThickCulture @Prof_K

Song:: Tricot Machine -L’Ours {Montréal, QC}

Notes from north of 49ºN.

I now live in a relatively small country, ranked 36th. in population, at 33.7M {versus 306.7M in the US}, but in the top 10 in terms of economies with a GDP of $1.3T {#9 ranking}, versus 13.8T for the US {#1 ranking}.  I mention this, as I wonder about scale and innovation, i.e., can smaller countries effectively compete in technology in a global environment?  One of my interests in innovation is biotechnology, a “new economy” area focusing on better outcomes for “health, the environment, and for industrial, agricultural and energy production.”  Advances in genetics are creating a race for companies and countries, with the idea of dominating the biotech field in order to enjoying profits and prosperity.

Last summer, I saw on a Canadian network a segment on how Canadian government investments in biotech were getting bought up by US firms, implying that the relatively small Canadian government was, in part, subsidizing innovations flowing south of the border.  The Matthew effect kicks in, as rich get richer and the poor get poorer, given that Canadian firms were being snapped up by US firms with deep pockets, transferring value southward.  According to a Globe & Mail article {click on license option}, another issue is that Canadian venture capital is lacking, so Canadian biotech firms often are capitalized by US venture capital firms that like to keep close tabs on operations and encourage offices/operations in the US.

Well, is Canada even a player in this biotech area?


According to 2006 OECD data, Canada is a player in terms of the number of firms {532}, the number of patents {ranked #6 in 2004}, and revenues {$83M}, along with an 11% compound annual growth rate {CAGR} of revenues from 1999-2005.

Given how collaboration and capital are now global, does it even matter where innovations are incubated?  A study by Bagchi-Sen & Scully {2004} is illuminating.  They divide biotech forms into two categories:: high R&D intensity and low R&D intensity.  Each has a different take with respect to strategies within the context of globalization::

  • High R&D Intensity:: Ties to local universities/Canadian researchers & collaboration with pharmaceutical companies, but desire global capital inflows.  Prototypical firm is in health theraputics.
  • Low R&D Intensity:: Emphasis on local production and development of Canadian market.  Focus on strategic alliances with foreign firms.  Prototypical firm is in diagnostics or agricultural biotech.

In terms of innovation policy, this brings up interesting food for thought for Canadian politicians in light of this recession.  Thanks to Barack Obama, Canada’s large neighbour to the south is pumping $21.5B of stimulus towards science and technology, which begs the question, how will this affect Canada?

It makes sense that Canadian policy would encourage the projects of low-intensity R&D firms with ties to the US, as these firms:: may be able to capitalize on relationships with stimulus-receiving firms, will develop innovations for the Canadian market, and will be focused on local Canadian production and manufacturing.  The high-intensity R&D firms could use funding {hint:: even more than $1B+CAN stimulus} that focuses on spurring innovations and the building of a sustainable base of Canadian talent and resources.  Dalton McGuinty’s {Liberal Premiere} efforts in Ontario might be a step in the right direction, but I’m not seeing clearly how this all fits together with an economic recovery plan.  Biotech. is not without risks, particularly with respect to agricultural biotech, which consumers are uncertain of.  Activists have alerted consumers with terms like “Frankenfood” for genetically-modified organisms {GMOs} and Monsanto’s lawsuits against journalists and farmers don’t help the cause.  So, maybe ag. biotech is a lose, but developing Canadian competitive advantage in innovations, in terms of other forms of biotech, nanotechnologies, clean energy, and green collar jobs, may provide fertile terrain for politicians and policymakers.

Well, enough of this talk of the “new economy” of biotech and innovations, what about the old economy, still prevalent in many parts of Canada?  Globalization has drawn Stephen Harper’s {Prime Minister} Conservative government into bailout fever to the tune of $9.5B, in order to secure that 16% of GM’s production remains in Canada.  This includes $3.1B that the Province of Ontario ponied up by Dalton McGuinty’s government.  Unfortunately, this might only save 4,400 jobs, after projected layoffs, according to CBC::

Given how the Tories and the Grits have played their cards in this {along with playing a current game of Federal “chicken”}, I see an opportunity for the NDP to make inroads with their platform based on developing new technologies and saving jobs.  Alas, more on “GMfail” and job losses in Canada in a future post.

So, it looks like nation matters, but in a global milieu.  Nothing surprising.  If you were to advise Canadian politicians, should new technologies {e.g., biotech, green, energy} be developed more aggressively {or at least explored} and does it make sense to commit billions to save jobs with an untested GM restructuring?

Twitterversion:: #newblogpost How should Canada compete {bio}tech, given globalzatn, US domnce, & recession? #GMfail bailout, good idea? @Prof_K

Song:: Genetic Engineering – Orchestral Manoeuvres In The Dark