¿Libertad personal o negocio millonario?/Get high, sell high

This fall I wrote a piece for El Cultural, the high-minded magazine supplement of Mexico's La Razón newspaper, about Canada's decision to legalize cannabis. The article was published in Spanish, translated by my friend Wenceslao Bruciaga. It was a complete privilege to work with Wences and be published in El Cultural.

Canadian readers might find this a bit 101, but here is the original English text of the piece.

Get high, sell high: Canada’s cannabis reforms are more about money than personal freedom

By Paul Gallant

One warm fall night two years ago, a lineup of people stretched down a block of Church Street in downtown Toronto, all of them waiting to get into the Cannabis Culture boutique. The store was run by Marc Emery, known as Canada’s “Prince of Pot,” a marijuana entrepreneur who has gone to jail a few times for the cause. The store might as well have been selling bottles of eternal youth, people were so excited. Each time the boutique’s front door opened, marijuana smoke rolled out into the street, but you’d hardly notice because there was already a cloud of pot hanging over the sidewalk—so many people in line were already smoking up. Mostly young, mostly middle-class, the patrons looked like attendees at a Drake concert. Inside, in glass jars on a glass counter, there was a choice of 12 strains of marijuana, with names like Sharks Breath and Girl Scout Cookies and prices ranging from C$5 to C$14 per gram.

At the store’s peak, more than 1,300 people visited the location each day. And it was just one of maybe hundreds of marijuana boutiques that sprung up across Toronto and across the country after Canada’s federal government announced its plan to legalize marijuana. After the government started preparing the policy in 2015, Canada quickly became the Wild West of weed, with entrepreneurs, the police and various governments pulling this way and that, trying to anticipate what the marijuana marketplace will look like after October 17, 2018. In the meantime, on sidewalks, in parks, at parties and at concerts, the smell of dope has become more common than the smell of tobacco. Canadians tokers embraced the transition period as an opportunity to experiment and push the limits. Walking to the grocery store, walking to my gym, in outdoor beer gardens and on restaurant patios, for the last couple of years, I smell weed everywhere I go.

During the 2015 election campaign, Trudeau had promised not just to decriminalize marijuana, like the Netherlands with its coffee-shop culture, but to fully legalize it and create a system for Canadians to grow it, sell it, buy it and smoke it. The system might also provide ways to export it, if the rest of the world wanted to buy Canadian. The old system, Trudeau argued a few weeks before the election, “makes it easier for young people to access marijuana than it is for them to access beer or even cigarettes and continues to fund the kind of crime… that is a real challenge for our communities.”

Soon after the election, entrepreneurs and smokers started acting like all the laws against marijuana had been wiped off the table. Boutiques and lounges like Cannabis Culture sprung up all over, sometimes several on the same block. It seemed like there were no rules at all.

But over the last couple of years, the government has made it clear that Canada’s version of legalization will not be a free-for-all. By the spring of 2017, seven Cannabis Culture locations, including the one on Toronto’s Church Street, had been raided and closed by the police, as had many other pop-up boutiques and dispensaries across the country. Emery and his wife Jodie were charged with drug trafficking, conspiracy and possession. (A year into the court process, Emery had been fined a C$5,000 for trafficking—a mere slap on the wrists.)

When the laws come into effect on October 17, cannabis will be much more tightly controlled now than it has been over the last few Wild West years. “On the face of it, the restrictions that the government is putting on the marketing and the distribution seems pretty strict,” says Jan Westcott, president and CEO of Spirits Canada, an organization that represents the distilled spirits industry. Pot growers might eat into the “good times” market share of his members.

The all-night pot shops and lounges that are still operating will likely be put out of business. The police will again become interested in teenagers smoking dope in playgrounds. Unlicensed marijuana dealers will be arrested and charged.

That’s because the legalization is not so much about fun, but about money. The days of big-business cannabis companies has begun. You’ve heard of Bacardi and Smirnoff, Marlboro and Pall Mall? Get ready to hear about Aurora and Canopy Growth. Sure, Canada’s new pot laws will make life more relaxed and convenient for smokers. No more need to do drug deals in dark alleys. But mostly it’s about going corporate, and most importantly, more taxes. Turn on, tune in, buy low, sell high.

+++

Canada loves to regulate pleasure. Historically, there’s a culture of trying to protect people from their impulses and the consequences of too much fun. We had national Prohibition on alcohol from 1918 to 1920 (my home province, Prince Edward Island, outlawed booze until 1948). Until the 1960s in Ontario, Canada’s most populous and richest province, liquor-store customers carried booklets where their purchases were recorded, so employees could say “no” if a customer was buying too much booze. “Fundamentally, they don’t trust the users of these products and they want to be sure it’s not too easy to get and it shouldn’t be too easy for children to get,” says Craig Heron, professor emeritus at York University’s Department of History and author of the 2003 book Booze in Canada: A History. Since Prohibition, provincial and territorial governments have controlled almost all alcohol distribution. In some provinces you can buy hard liquor only from government stores, and the sale of beer and wine is also very tightly regulated. There are complex rules about when you can buy alcohol, where you can drink it and how much you must pay for it. Bar closing hours are taken very seriously.

And that’s just booze. Our tobacco laws are among the strictest in the world. Taxes make cigarettes very expensive (an average of C$14 for a pack of 20), and, in the stores that sell them, cigarettes packages must be hidden behind unlabelled doors. Health warnings must cover 75 per cent of the packaging. A new law expected soon will prohibit any branding on cigarette packages—all brands will be forced to use the same font on a plain brown background. So much for selling smoking as a glamorous lifestyle.

So nobody would have pointed to Canada as the first country, after tiny Uruguay, to legalize pot. Though almost half of Canadians (49.4 per cent of men, 35.8 per cent of women) will smoke marijuana at least once in their lifetime, according to the government agency Statistics Canada, only 14 per cent of Canadians aged 15 years and older reported use of cannabis products in the previous three months. Fewer Canadians smoke up than Icelanders, Americans, Italians and Kiwis.

Marijuana was made illegal in Canada in 1923—almost 100 years ago. Maximum penalties for possession of up to 30 grams are a fine of $1,000 or six months in jail, or both. Being convicted of trafficking pot can bring a sentence of life in jail. But since the 1990s, government and police haven’t been particularly interested in enforcing marijuana laws. The Baby Boomers generation, which still holds the strings of power, associate weed with happy memories of their wild, freewheeling youth—something to take as seriously as a few beers. The police have better things to do than arresting people for a joint. In Vancouver, the country’s most relaxed jurisdiction, growers like Marc Emery were mostly left alone to refine their products, creating hybrids for energy or relaxation. Canadian growers became known for more and more THC content in their weed, providing an intense high.

After a court ruling in 2000, the government was forced to permit the use of marijuana for medical purposes. At first, the government envisioned a system where medical marijuana was grown and distributed by the government, for people who had a prescription and a diagnosed health problem, like cancer. But cannabis clubs and lounges opened that were very relaxed about requiring a prescription. Their legality was questionable, but they were mostly discreet, and the police didn’t pay them much attention. But then Justin Trudeau and his Liberal Party won the 2015 federal election, after promising to legalize marijuana across the board. Suddenly the cannabis suddenly industry exploded. Nobody cared about discretion anymore.

+++

Although pot legalization is good for the “nice and easy” Canadian brand, Trudeau is not interested in making Canada a party destination, like the Netherlands. He’s mostly interested in making money. While there will be additional healthcare costs due to increased marijuana use, legalization is expected to be very profitable for all levels of government. Government revenue from the control and sale of alcoholic beverages was C$11.9 billion in 2016/2017. Government revenue from tobacco sales was an estimated C$8.4 billion in 2016/2017. Cannabis is expected to be taxed at C$1 per gram, or 10 per cent of a product’s price, which may earn the federal government C$100 million in the first year. But there will also be revenue from sales tax, government distribution profits, licensing and property taxes, leading some to speculate that various levels of government could make C$2 billion annually from pot.

Will crime go up or down? Right now, most crime in Canada related to marijuana are connected to its sale and use. About 58 per cent of police-reported Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences in 2016 were cannabis-related (the rest were for offences relating to the importation, exportation, trafficking, production and possession of other drugs). Of course, these marijuana-related “crimes,” 54,940 of them in 2015, will disappear off the books when marijuana becomes legal. Even then, cannabis-related offences have decreased over the last five years, maybe because the police aren’t even trying to enforce them any more. The rate of drug-impaired driving is low (8.5 incidents per 100,000 trips), especially compared to the rate of alcohol-impaired driving (186 per 100,000).

Although legal pot is a new frontier, it will probably look a look like a combination of existing alcohol and tobacco regulation. Canada’s 10 provinces and three territories will be in charge of distribution, just like with booze. The provinces and territories will also make rules about who gets to sell (in some cases, just the government; in others, government and private stores) and under what conditions. Municipalities will be able to create their own rules, and may be able to prohibit the sale of marijuana altogether—some Canadians may have to buy their legal dope online from government websites. Better than striking a deal in an alleyway from a dealer who’s a friend of a friend, I suppose, but not as convenient as popping by one of Amsterdam’s coffeeshops.

Actually, when you look closely at the provincial laws, there will be very few places outside the home where Canadians will be able smoke marijuana; there’s been a debate about whether it should be allowed in places like seniors’ homes. Smoking tobacco isn’t allowed inside most public buildings, including bars and nightclubs, and, so far, it looks like pot will be treated the same way. Though some provinces will allow “public” smoking, there are rules to keep it away from where children might be.

Just weeks before the official legalization date, there is a tremendous uncertainty about how things will unfold. Alberta, the province with the most liberal liquor laws, will allow as many as 250 retail locations, some private, some government, to open in 2018. Ontario first planned to open government-run stores. Then the provincial government changed and declared that pot will be sold only through a government website until April 1, 2019, when a plan for private retailers will come into effect. Most provinces will allow consumers to grow as many as four plants at home for personal use; Quebec, usually seen as a liberal province, won’t allow it.

“Where we are going to be on October 17 is going to be vastly different from where we’ll be five years from now,” says Westcott. “One of the aspects of this whole thing is that there’s almost no medical research. Almost zero, partly because it’s been illegal.”

The reforms are a dream for medical, sociological and crime researchers, who will finally be able to conduct experiments, and observe how legal access to marijuana plays out in various jurisdictions. Will violent crimes go up or down? Will productivity at work go up or down? Will there be more health problems or fewer? Will the black market shrink and disappear? Will more people smoke more pot in the provinces where pot is more freely available? What we do know already about marijuana is that it’s less harmful than alcohol, at least in the short term.

“When it’s legalized, it’s likely that cannabis will in many cases substitute for alcohol,” says Tim Stockwell, a professor of psychology at the University of Victoria and director of the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research. “[For example,] although cannabis is not a good thing to use while driving, people tend to go slower, while people who are drinking tend to go faster. There is some evidence that impaired driving and road crashes could be reduced. That may also apply to violence…. There are 60 ways that alcohol can harm you; there are only two or three ways cannabis can.”

It will take years to collect statistics on how legalized pot will transform Canadian society. But the most dramatic change has already been taking shape on the business side. Because the provinces will be the main distributors—and they’ll want to buy in bulk—the playing field will be skewed toward big players that can cut deals to sell to uniform-quality pot to populations of millions. This new industry, perhaps one that will eventually rival alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceuticals, intends to go global. Although nine U.S. states now permit the sale and use of marijuana for recreational purposes, and 36 permit it for medical purposes, the drug remains illegal in the U.S. nationally. Federal enforcement officials in the U.S. have let the pro-pot states do their own thing—within reason. That’s kept their industries small, more local and less corporate. In Canada, companies like Canopy Growth (WEED.TO), Aurora Cannabis (ACB), Aphria Inc. (APH) and Cannex Group Holdings Inc. (CNNX) are listed on the Canadian Stock Exchange. Investors have already made millions on this industry, which, in the U.S., still has difficulty accessing traditional financing.

This summer, Corona beer maker Constellation Brands invested C$4 billion into Canopy Growth, which already had an estimated value of C$10 billion. Just last year, Constellation Brands had made a C$200-million investment last summer to help Canopy produce a non-alcoholic cannabis-based beverage (which will not be legal in the early days of legalization). Canopy predicts as many as 30 countries are likely to allow medical marijuana in the near future. Its chief executive, Bruce Linton, says the company is targeting C$1 billion in overseas acquisitions over the next 12 months. With the right strategy, Canada could become to pot what Hollywood is to movies or Silicon Valley is to tech.

Although great fortunes await, the pot business still carries risks. Some employees at legal-in-Canada cannabis companies have been turned away at the U.S. border and banned for life from entering the U.S., deemed inadmissible because they are considered to be living off the profits of the drug trade. Going global might be trickier than some investors think. Unlike in California, one of the nine U.S. states where recreational marijuana is legal, medical marijuana outlets may not get preferential treatment in getting licences to sell. The provincial and territorial governments that will be doing the licensing are unlikely to issue licences to businesses that broke the law during the Wild West period. Mark Emery, for example, by being a pioneer, may have shut himself out of the legal pot business. There have been calls for a “marijuana amnesty” to clear the criminal records of people convicted of past marijuana offences. Considering that the government apologized last year to LGBT Canadians for past laws against homosexuality, you have to wonder if the government might apologize to potheads for past government persecution.

After three Wild West years, it may be hard for the government to restore Canadian-style law and order. Businesses that have made big profits in the last few years may be reluctant to close, even if they don’t get licences. Potheads who have grown accustomed to smoking up wherever they want may not want to limit their use to their own home. Police officers who have spent years turning a blind eye to marijuana use will have to again become diligent, arresting black-market dealers, people who are smoking in the wrong places and people growing more plants than they’re allowed. Sounds like a real nuisance.

Habits are hard to break. This month I dropped by the fifth annual Karma Cup, a cannabis trade show held in a parking lot on Church Street in Toronto, across the street from where Cannabis Culture did its booming business. Crowds packed in to sample the wares of dozens of booths selling “elite cannabis products” that were judged for quality. There were lots of Guns N' Roses T-shirts, leather jackets and dreadlocks. Many of the products—edibles, for example—probably won’t be legal after October 17, but at this point who cares? I didn’t see police anywhere, even as the clouds of marijuana smoke wafted down the block.

Yet now there is a multi-billion-dollar industry with lobbyists and the power to create thousands of jobs and fortunes for investors. Industry demands for a level playing field will put the police and the government under much more pressure than worried parents, priests and school teachers ever did. The stakes are much higher than a few joints in the school playground. Canada has created a new industry and the world is watching.

Revisiting the albums of my youth: I’m Your Man

In my university years, my musical tastes started to stray from the pop charts, but mostly on a quest for the newest thing, and what was fun to dance to. The Sugarcubes, The Pogues and The Smiths, house-y hits like Inner City’s “Big Fun” and the slick delights of Black Box. If the band was British, like Fine Young Cannibals, or from Narnia, like the Cocteau Twins, so much the better. This was before Canadian music went global with the likes of Alanis, Shania and Celine. National acts like Glass Tiger, Corey Hart, Doug and the Slugs, and Haywire were starting to feel uncomfortably provincial. National treasure? I’d probably have said Anne Murray with an ironic laugh.

I had a roommate who played a passable guitar and I have to admit that I did not find his rendition of Leonard Cohen’s “Suzanne” compelling, no matter how many times he played it. Hippie Canadiana from the 1960s. Ugh. Even my admiration for Joni Mitchell leaned toward the overproduced Dog Eat Dog and the guest-laced Chalk Mark in a Rain Storm (Peter Gabriel! Don Henley! Billy Idol! So many indicators of global hitdom!) over Blue, which seemed like a quaint artifact (history loves proving people wrong). 

“Suzanne” was driven by little more than a plink-plunky guitar; no Thomas Dolby in sight. The voice was whiny. The lyrical imagery, I felt, was something between Medieval and “White Rabbit,” far beyond my experience and interest. I think my roommate also played me “Who by Fire,” which I found repetitive and naively romantic (not a good thing when you're in your early 20s). I have no memory of hearing “Hallelujah” in those days, which has come to be a song that I, along with the rest of the world, love. But if I had, I imagine I would have dismissed it as quickly as something by Gordon Lightfoot or any singer my dad might like.

So when Cohen’s 1988 album I’m Your Man started to filter into my consciousness, I was initially resistant. “Ain’t No Cure for Love,” the first song from it that I remember, had radio-friendly production—a little meh. But its chugging bassline reminded me of John Waite’s “Missing You (I Ain’t Missing You at All),” which I had liked a few years earlier. Yes, I am framing my discovery of Leonard Cohen, one of the last century’s towering artists, by way of a one-hit-wonder. But that’s how the process of musical discovery works.

The black and grey album-cover design was decidedly of the moment. But what was he doing, dressed in a suit and wearing sunglasses? Eating a banana? He was definitely an old guy. That was a strike against him. I wasn’t totally dismissive of music that was sought higher meaning and deeper emotions, that sought to qualify as poetry. I loved Bruce Cockburn (always timely). I loved Suzanne Vega (and still do). But Vega was only 10 years older than me, a wise older sister, really, whose sharp observations could be applicable to my own life. Cohen was definitely of my dad’s generation, though definitely not to my dad’s taste.

On I’m Your Man, the voice that had irritated me on “Suzanne” had grown deep, growly and menacing. The voice was so deep, it almost seemed capricious, like he was doing it on purpose, like Prince using his falsetto to bring other characters into a song. Now that kind of playfulness and pretence was appealing! I loved the band Shriekback for their tribal rhythms and primordial imagery (“We drink elixirs that we refine/ From the juices of the dying”) and The Cocteau Twins for their perverse avoidance of any lyrical sense. As an over-caffeinated student in my early 20s, I welcomed any sort of audacity.

It was probably “First We Take Manhattan” that sold me and built the foundation of my future Leonard Cohen fandom. The churning bass synth sounds seemed dated—but, I was realizing, knowingly so. The violins, the choir in the background, the fluttering sci-fi sounds were all apocalyptically over-the-top, allowing for another reading of Jennifer Warnes’s otherwise MOR vocals. This was like the devil’s misjudged attempt at huggable that ends up scorching its recipient.

Digging into the album, “Jazz Police” seemed to confirm my suspicious that the whole thing was a dark joke. (I remember being at a party and forcing people to wait in silence while I cued up the song over and over again on cassette, perhaps in an effort to drive my fellow students crazy.) The cheesy drum machines sounded as if someone was gleefully testing out how many beats their new Yamaha Portasound could jam into each measure. The silly high notes of the background vocalists, the lyrics about being mad about turtle meat. Here was an old geyser pulling a Sigue Sigue Sputnik.

In hindsight, I can see that only a couple of the songs were that wacky (Cohen took the grand apocalypticism even further on his 1992 follow up The Future), though it’s what got me hooked. Pushing past the leftfield production and getting used to the voice, I started to appreciate the lyrics. Oh, man, the lyrics. These days, I love Cohen’s poetry as much as his music. I chuckle at it. I memorize it. I try to learn from his poems even as they cleverly thwart any attempt to marshal them into a fixed world view, ideology or something you’d see on an inspirational poster.

Where the lyrics of “Suzanne” had seemed like a rambling chore (I’m still not a fan of it), every line on I’m Your Man was a potential quotable quote. There was built-in irony: “Everybody knows that you've been faithful/ Ah, give or take a night or two.” But there was knowingness a listener could bring along too. You can chuckle or feel wise at how a lover’s declaration of “I love your body and your spirit and your clothes” mixed the sacred and the shallow.

That very line is one I put to use back in my university years. “I love your body and your spirit and your clothes” is what I once said in reply to a classmate’s tender confession of a growing attraction for me. I sang the line a few times, warbling on “clothes.” At the time, it seemed like both a way forward and a way out. A sly reciprocity. Now I realize it was a way of being an ass without entirely betraying another person’s vulnerability.

Leonard Cohen’s I’m Your Man was simultaneously of this world and beyond it, a love letter to the human condition and an escape hatch from it. It's an album that divides his career into two halves, the first of which was, for me, merely a sketch for the masterpiece of the second. 

If you don't like the political script, why not do a rewrite?

When people say they don’t think Liberal leader Justin Trudeau is up to the job of being PM—that he’s a lightweight or gaffe-prone, for example—I always think about how, even if they have formed this opinion on their own, it feeds into and is shaped by the Conservative party’s preferred narrative. Running the country is about competency, it goes, and Stephen Harper, whatever his other faults, is surely more competent than Justin Trudeau.

Competency is a tough narrative to compete with, especially considering that Canadians are a particular risk-adverse people. But you could reframe the question, “Who would be the best prime minister?” as something like, “Who has the best vision for the country?” Skills can be learned, attracted, appointed, bought or rented; vision, not so much. If Justin Trudeau were able to articulate a cohesive and attractive vision for Canada, Canadians might have confidence that he could call in the right people to make it happen. What does our future look like? Who are we in the world? Can we rise above pure politics to bring the country together? Of course, you can't just ask these questions to articulate a vision, you have to provide some sort of answer to them.

That’s why the Liberal support of Bill C-51, known as the Anti-Terrorism Act, seems particular odd and self-sabotaging. On a spectrum from “Protect Civil Liberties” to “Maximize Security,” the bill leans toward the latter, at least in public perception. And that direction seems to contradict the Liberal values of a country built on trust and reason rather than fear. Trudeau’s explanation of his support for the bill was sharply devoid of any philosophizing or even any real emotion.

“We are hopeful that the government is serious about reaching across the aisle to keep Canadians safe, while protecting our rights and our values. There are concerns with this bill, and we hear them. But we need to do what we can to keep Canadians safe. And I believe that many of the concerns with this bill will be addressed through Parliamentary oversight,” he said in his February remarks. “There are gaps in this bill, including on oversight and mandatory reviews. And we in the Liberal Party will offer amendments to address these gaps.”

Gaps, oversight, review, amendments? These words are absolutely beholding to the Conservative’s competency narrative. Trudeau is claiming the Liberals can be more fussy that the Conservatives if you give them a chance; the devil is in the details; civil liberty is important, but then again, so is security. His words, and even his way of defining the issue, neither build on the established Liberal brand at its best (the country we want, not the best political compromise we can manage) nor offer a new manifestation of the Liberal brand under Trudeau.

There might narratives other than vision that Justin Trudeau will use to get people to stop comparing his level-headedness to Harper’s. But Trudeau has so far failed to present one, so busy is he following the Conservatives script.

Bothering billionaires

Having worked on a project for Canadian Business magazine a couple of months ago that involved chasing down retired CEOs, I can tell you that contacting billionaires for the Richest People in Canada feature was much much harder. I didn't talk to a single one, though I did chat with the son of one of them.

My billionaires mostly made their money on real estate development, food retail and franchises. Aside from that, it's hard to generate advice based on their successes. Some started poor, some were born into money. Some have been impressive philanthropists, others not so much. Some are highly social, others more reclusive and/or belligerent.

All of them, by the time they're worth billions, are pretty hard to get access to. Although there is no record that Louis Reichmann, for example, the most reclusive of the Reichmann brothers, has passed away, I had difficulty finding evidence he is still alive. So writing the simple sentence, "Paul Reichmann is survived by three brothers" was not so simple at all.

Link to 'This' article

When out came out in the fall, my piece on queer politics was paper-only, but, ever slow to catch up, I just realized it's now online.

A clever balance

The uproar over how Prime Minister Stephen Harper has prorogued Parliament has focussed mostly on how it helps him escape the controversy over the allegations that Afghan detainees under the care of Canadian troops were handed over to be tortured.

But the strategy is also effective for a minority PM who has struggled with not looking too scary to moderate Canadians. People talk about how legislation dying on the order paper must be a disappointment to him. But perhaps some of it--copyright, the end of conditional sentencing and the overhaul of the national sex offender registry--was introduced to keep his core right-wing supporters happy without Harper caring if the laws ever passed. You introduce legislation to please the core and kill the legislation to please the moderates. The result is that nobody hates you and you can wield the powers of a Canadian prime minister, powers that are much grander than the lowly enacting of legislation.

And the fury over the proroguing? Name me somebody who lost an election due to the abuse of Parliamentary procedure.

Hardly surprising

Strange how it's not legal to discriminate in law but in cash, well, the Tories run a slightly more segregated ship. Can anybody say "sponsorship scandal"? The key difference seems to be that the Liberals showed preferential treatment to certain Quebec ridings while the Conservatives show contempt for LGBT Canadians.

Muldoon's tears

Although I wish Canada could leave the 1980s in the distant past, I have to say I am in awe of former prime minister Brian Mulroney's mendacity. It's not just the theatrics, which are fantastic. It's how invested he is in them. I think he totally believes that it was okay to not admit during questioning in 1996 that he got money from German-Canadian businessman Karlheinz Schreiber. Well, he got money, of course, but it wasn't Airbus money and the questioning was about Airbus so he wasn't really asked. That hairsplitting helped him earn $2.1 million of taxpayer money in his lawsuit over an RCMP leak that implicated him in shady dealings. Sure, there were shady deals, but not the shady dealings they were talking about. Rock on, Brian! Rock on! You could have taught Bill Clinton a thing or two.