Angry in the Great White North

From the National Post:

Canada's ambassador to the United States painted an unflattering picture of the way government works south of the border yesterday, calling it "dysfunctional," overly complex and in dire financial straits, while saying Canada has an efficient system on a solid fiscal footing.

Speaking at a business luncheon -- and with the U.S. ambassador to Canada sitting steps away -- Frank McKenna said the United States is "a great country in spite of its government structure, rather than because of it."

Right, a system in which elected representatives are sheep, all power is concentrated in the prime minister and his unelected aides, and the appointed head of state is a treasonous separatist, is a far superior scheme for government.

"The United States of America is a wonderful creation -- the Constitution is a spectacular thing," Mr. McKenna said.

"But it was anticipated that it would be established as a country in which there would be a check and balance on the exercise of power. And I can tell you categorically that what has been institutionalized instead is total gridlock. The government of the United States is, in large measure, dysfunctional."

Categorically? This is diplomacy? What about leaving some wiggle room? What about using language that had shades of meaning?

Need lessons? Look at the immediate response of the American ambassador:

David Wilkins, the American envoy to Canada, appeared to take his counterpart's speech to a joint meeting of the Empire Club of Canada and the Canadian Club of Toronto in stride.

Following the address, Mr. Wilkins told reporters that Mr. McKenna is "a great orator and he's a good friend and he gave a pretty compelling speech about the attributes of Canada."

Mr. Wilkins said he has been warmly received in Canada, adding: "The United States is a beacon of light for so many people throughout the world. I could not be prouder of my country and I, quite frankly, did not take personally the remarks of Mr. McKenna in any way, period."

Now just how good a diplomat is McKenna at predicting the reaction of the Americans?

He also appeared unconcerned about any potential reaction his current and previous criticisms of the United States may provoke.

"I find Americans are very direct people and they accept directness with equanimity," Mr. McKenna said.

Equanimity?

U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins "respectfully disagreed" yesterday with undiplomatic comments by his Canadian counterpart Frank McKenna, who called the United States government dysfunctional.

A day after Mr. McKenna, Canada's ambassador to Washington, told an audience in Toronto that his host country largely does not work, Mr. Wilkins responded that while such talk may be politically opportune, it was not helpful to relations.

"The majority of [Mr. McKenna's] speech was about building Canada up and bragging about the wonderful attributes of Canada and the government of Canada and I agree with that totally," Mr. Wilkins said.

"I simply don't think you have to tear one country down to build the other up, and that's where I disagree on that.... I think the United States can stand on its own and be proud of what we do."

I invite any American readers to disagree respectfully with Canada's ambassador to the US or display their equanimity with regards to his insightful analysis.

My take on it? Canada doesn't deserve friends like the US.