Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Damian Carrington reports on new research showing that the actual change in temperature caused by greenhouse gas emissions may be larger than anticipated in even the most cautious forecasts to date. And Chloe Farand highlights France's plan to rein in its contribution to climate change by banning all gasoline- and diesel-based vehicles by 2040.

- Meanwhile, D.C. Fraser reports on a study (with particular reference to the Sask Party's Boundary Dam project) finding that carbon capture and storage is an utter waste of money. And it's hardly a point in the Wall government's favour that updated numbers about the unit's operation make it only five to ten times more expensive than natural gas, rather than ten to twenty as found in the study.

- David Climenhaga comments on the need for Alberta's workers' compensation system - like its counterparts elsewhere - to focus on providing benefits for injured workers, rather than denying them in order to send money back to employers.

- Tabatha Southey observes that the "Proud Boys" incident in Halifax reflects a movement of bigots seeking to avoid responsibility for their actions through a facade of jocularity. And Scott Sinclair reviews John Judis' The Populist Explosion, including his warning that the rise of toxic populism generally represents a symptom of deeper political problems.

- Finally, Thomas Walkom writes that the federal government's settlement with Omar Khadr (based on violations of his rights by Lib and Con governments alike) represents a particularly obvious example of the damage done by political fearmongering about terrorism.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Danny Dorling writes about the connection between high inequality and disregard for the environment:

In a 2016 report, Oxfam found that the greatest polluters of all were the most affluent 10% of US households: each emitted, on average, 50 tonnes of CO2 per household member per year. Canada’s top 10% were the next most polluting, followed by the British, Russian and South African elites.

In more equitable affluent countries such as South Korea, Japan, France, Italy and Germany, the rich don’t just pollute less; the average pollution is lower too, because the bottom half of these populations pollute less than the bottom half in the US, Canada or Britain, despite being better off.

In short, people in more equal rich countries consume less, produce less waste and emit less carbon, on average. Indeed, almost everything associated with the environment improves when economic equality is greater.
...
It is only since the late 1970s that the 25 rich countries focused on in this article have begun to diverge widely in their levels of economic inequality. Because they have done so, a set of natural experiments has been set up which today allows research into the effects of these differences.

The preliminary conclusion, based on these natural experiments, is that the more economically equitable countries tend to perform better across a wide range of environmental measures. Once we know what the driving forces are, and become fully aware of the damage that is done by inequality in environmental as well as social terms, we will know how necessary it is to embrace change.

- Jordan Brennan makes the case as to why a fair minimum wage should be achievable by consensus in order to rein in longstanding economic unfairness.

- Anjum Sultana writes about the link between citizenship and the social determinants of health, highlighting how full inclusion leads to better results for everybody. And Seth Klein calls out the Fraser Institute for an especially dishonest and alarmist attack on Indigenous people just in time for National Aboriginal Day.

- Steven Chase reports on the Libs' refusal to be honest with Canadians about the use of Canadian troops in combat in Iraq.

- And finally, Stephanie Carvin, Aaron Wherry and the Globe and Mail each offer worthwhile reads on how the compensation being paid to Omar Khadr is the price for neglecting human rights - and how the way to avoid paying it is to respect rights in the first place.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Jim Coyle wonders whether or democracy is in decline, and cites as evidence the utter disconnect between the primary functions of elected representatives and the way politics are covered in the media:

(R)eal influence and authority has left the precincts — drifting inexorably over recent decades into first ministerial offices, where cabals of unelected appointees make most decisions that matter and tell elected members what to say and how to vote.

Luminaries such as economist Don Drummond have far more access to premiers, and far more sway over public affairs, than any mere MPP.

In exit interviews of federal members, conducted in 2011 by the Samara democracy research organization, MPs characterized themselves as “potted plants” and “clapping seals.”

Their greatest frustrations, they said, usually came from the arbitrary demands and punishments of their own parties. Many admitted to voting for bills or measures with which they did not agree.

They said the politics most commonly seen by the public “did little to advance anything constructive.” The most useful work by MPs was done away from the spotlight, they said, in caucus or in the less-partisan environment of committees not much covered by journalists. What is showcased, instead, is theatre, posturing, stonewalling and, too often, vicious personal attacks.

- But it's worth putting the concern about the disempowerment of elected representatives in context. And while the Cons' rejection of accountability in budgeting serves as a typical example of the executive decreeing that Parliament shouldn't be able to know what Canada's government is doing, it does seem noteworthy that Con MPs joined the opposition parties in agreeing that there's a serious problem to be addressed.

- No, we shouldn't put too much stock in the results of the federal by-elections called today for votes on November 26. But it's well highlighting how the Cons' spin about them lacks any basis in reality - and Kady is up to the task.

- Finally, Gerald Caplan writes about Canada's developing culture war:

(T)here’s something larger going on here. There’s an irreconcilable clash of cultures. There are two diametrically opposite ways of seeing the world constituting a profound conflict of values. So not only do the two sides disparage each other, they can’t begin to understand each other.

It’s a good bet that Rob Ford enthusiasts and Omar Khadr antagonists are mostly the same people and that both are part of Stephen Harper’s original and most reliable base. This 30 per cent – although not necessarily the support he has received beyond them, especially in the last election – disproportionately opposes abortion, gay marriage and gun control and denies global warming and evolution. Many, paradoxically, belong to the 99 per cent. As in the U.S. and Europe, culture often trumps class. They resent more successful peers rather than the 1 per cent.

These are the new conservatives, threatened by a world where the only certainty is constant dizzying change. They find less and less in common with other Canadians who in turn find them baffling, strangers in a strange land. The two groups can barely connect with each other. This is not the Canada we once knew and no one knows how to deal with it.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Vaughn Palmer discusses the unfortunate gap between the outrages that may lead to a government being pushed out of power, and a new government's ability to actually reverse what's been done. Which, a propos of nothing, makes it rather important to push lame-duck incumbents to respect the democratic will of citizens rather than pushing through controversial plans without even the bare pretense of public consultation.

- I don't have any problem with the idea of "hardheaded socialism" as a successful economic and political model, particularly as it fits the NDP's historical pairing of fiscal responsibility and social generosity. But I'm rather wary of any attempt to claim Canada has actually enjoyed a genuinely thick safety net under a series of federal governments who have consistently undermined it.

- Am Johal interviews Ryan Meili about A Healthy Society, including this on First Nations health:

AJ: Policies and programs directed towards the Aboriginal community too often are not culturally sensitive nor are they delivered by Aboriginal organizations. Do you see a shift in health care delivery related to Aboriginal communities. What changes would you like to see?

RM: The transfer of control of health services to First Nations communities has been a mixed blessing. The ability to make decisions about health services offered and to be directly involved in identifying community health needs is a necessary and important step. We can and should involve communities even more in determining the best means to address the health issues they face. Unfortunately, this policy has too often also served as a means for governments to wash their hands of responsibility, including the key responsibility of adequately funding health services. Many bands have seen their health funding frozen at 1990s levels, despite populations that have grown quickly and despite new health challenges that have emerged. This results in an underfunding of key services and worse health outcomes.

A responsible approach to health transfer needs to include transparency not only around decision-making in service provision and human resources, but also around the availability of sufficient funds to provide services.

- Embassy reports on what looks like the latest evidence that the Cons are going full-on Republican wingnut - as the Harper government is actually pushing to weaken an international arms treaty (including any tracking of ammunition or technology, as well as "high volume transfers") because of a laughable claim that they'll somehow affect individual hunters.

- Finally, Dan Gardner points out that the Cons' consistent mistreatment of Omar Khadr - with their breaking an agreement to process his readmission to Canada serving as just the latest outrage - actually speaks volumes about how little they value citizenship in general.

Noteworthy

Of course it speaks poorly of the Cons that they've been misleading Canadians about their participation in Omar Khadr's plea agreement. But the more substantial issue looks to me to involve how little they can be trusted in the future.

Here's the background to the plea deal:

"On behalf of the Government of the United States of America, the Department of State brings to the attention of the Government of Canada Mr. Khadr's agreement to plead guilty to all charges against him," the note said.

"The plea agreement includes various undertakings and conditions, including that duly authorized officials of the United States and Canada exchange diplomatic notes reflecting United States and Canadian Government support for [his] transfer to Canada to serve the remainder of [his] approved sentence after completing no less than one additional year in United States custody … "
...
In response, the Canadian Embassy conveyed in a note that Canada acknowledged receipt of the State Department's note, that it took note of Khadr's deal to plead guilty to all charges against him and that it shared the U.S.'s view that were Khadr to request a transfer to Canada, such a transfer could be made under the Treaty between Canada and the United States on the Execution of Penal Sentences.

"The Government of Canada is inclined to favourably consider Mr. Khadr's application to be transferred to Canada to serve the remainder of his sentence or such portion of the remainder of his sentence as the national Parole Board determines …."

Which looks to me to raise the question of whether the diplomatic notes are actually seen as remotely binding - or whether they'll simply be ignored as much as Khadr's rights as a Canadian citizen have been during his entire stay in Guantanamo. And if the Cons are in a position to change their mind about "favourably considering" Khadr's application once it's officially made, then it's possible that Canada's negligence and embarrassment in dealing with its nationals abroad may be far from over.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday.

- The Economist weighs in on the Cons' census debacle:

(I)ntroducing a voluntary census was asking for trouble. The United States once attempted a similar experiment, but abandoned it after determining that data from voluntary surveys are unreliable, since marginalised groups are less likely to fill out the forms. Moreover, in order to keep the sample size constant despite a reduced response rate, the government would have to send out more forms, at an additional cost of C$30m ($29m). Canadians would be paying more money for less accurate information.

As a result, Canada’s statistical gurus staged a rebellion. The government’s chief statistician resigned in protest. Advocacy groups representing Francophone Canadians living outside the French-speaking province of Quebec launched an unsuccessful lawsuit, arguing that programmes for minorities require reliable census data on employment, education and immigration status. The Inuit have made a similar claim. The governor of the Bank of Canada said it uses census data to set monetary policy, and may have to look elsewhere after responses become voluntary. And ministers from Ontario and Quebec say they will no longer know how the labour market is changing and where to target spending on training and education.
...
Despite the uproar, Mr Harper is standing firm. The forms for the 2011 census have been printed, and the prime minister insists it will go ahead as planned, despite a parliamentary motion September 29th and a private member’s bill introduced the next day asking it to reverse course. The UN website promoting October 20th as World Statistics Day says it is meant to “to help strengthen the awareness and trust of the public in official statistics.” At Statistics Canada, currently without a chief statistician, the words have a hollow ring.

And even yesterday's festivities managed to turn up another example of the Cons' disrespect for Statistics Canada and/or basic math:

The first World Statistics Day was celebrated at Statscan on Wednesday with guest speakers, free coffee and enough vanilla cake to feed 400 of the agency’s 6,000 employees. Statistically speaking, that means 93 per cent of staff had to go without.

- From the "people I don't often agree with" file, I'll gladly concur with at least the first half of Warren Kinsella's sentiment here. Now if only we could get his more progressive partymates to recognize that the same can and should apply on the provincial and federal levels...

- And one more in the same category, as Kevin Gaudet gets this much right as part of his otherwise tedious attack on government generally:

TM: Given that the Harper government has run up the federal deficit, and particularly given recent controversial expenditures on G20 security and fighter jets, do you think the Conservatives are politically wise to be attempting to exploit the Liberals' platform shortfall?

KG: The whole "we’re better fiscal managers" conversation is peculiar in Canada because there’s a branding mythology out there that the Conservative Party is one with a strong fiscal history, except that when they govern they don’t seem to have any evidence of that. We can look to the Mulroney government and this government as well, both of which have run some of the largest deficits we’ve seen...I don’t think voters have much of an alternative between either parties (sic) to be honest with you.

- Finally, Dan Gardner's take on Omar Khadr actually deserves attention for its much wider application:

People are tribal. There is Us and there is Them. Us is always a cut above Them. But when the Them in question is as truly vile as the Taliban and al-Qaeda, modest partiality can become overwhelming bias.

In a telling experiment, psychologists asked some Israeli Jews to judge a peace proposal put forward by Palestinians. They said they didn’t like it. Which was interesting because the proposal had actually been drafted by the Israeli government — and other Israeli Jews, who had been told it was an Israeli proposal, rated it much more highly.

If Russians had treated you and John the way Americans did, and if you and John had been involved with a terrorist group people had never heard of, everyone would agree that you had been horribly abused. Yes, they would say, terrorism is odious and must be fought. But nothing justifies brutality and torture, the removal of fundamental human rights, or the punishment of a child soldier as if he were an adult with a choice.

But Russians didn’t do this to you and you weren’t with some group we’d never heard of. It was Us who did this and you were with Them. So it was right. No matter what.

Simple answers to questions that wouldn't have been asked by anybody paying a modicum of attention

The National Post's latest editorial on Omar Khadr contains this embarrassing bit of shoddy research:

In many cases, the treatment of different suspects has been wildly inconsistent. Why, for instance, has Mr. Khadr been kept at Gitmo for eight years, while many badder apples were repatriated to Britain, Saudi Arabia and Yemen long ago?

That would be because their home countries bothered to request their return. This has been another version of simple answers to simple-minded questions.

On first principles

As I've noted earlier, Alex Himelfarb has launched an interesting discussion of how to define progressivism in Canada - and I still plan to take a closer look at that issue in future posts, albeit with what I'd describe as more of an expression of what progressivism ought to be rather than how it's actually perceived. But before getting into that conversation in detail, I'll offer an aside that puts some of the Harper Cons' actions in government in a more philosophical context.

One of the observations in relatively recent political philosophy that strikes me as particularly important to any discussion of the role of the state is the concept that any theory of government even worth discussing has to proceed from the pursuit of equality in some form.

Of course, there's plenty of room for debate as to how to weigh the sometimes-conflicting goals of equality of opportunity or equality of condition, and what historical considerations or community interests ought to be taken into account. But a philosophy that actively denies equal consideration to any group of people is seen as a tribalist relic which has no place in informed political discussion. (See generally Will Kymlicka's Contemporary Political Philosophy, which is one of my regular reads as a reminder of some of the foundational principles of political theory.)

So what does that have to do with the current state of the Canadian government? There's been ample discussion here and elsewhere about the Cons' treatment of Ronald Smith, Omar Khadr and Abousfian Abdelrazik, along with their complete lack of interest in considering the human rights of Afghan detainees. And at least a few commentators have paired that with outrage at the Cons' constant excuse that nobody cares about such undesirables, and therefore everybody should just shut up and let the government continue to neglect or abuse them.

But I'm not sure there's been much analysis of the philosophy behind that repeated statement. And with the G20 security fiasco serving as a prime example of how such a worldview can very quickly come to apply to absolutely anybody, now seems like the time to drive the point home.

In effect, the Harper Cons have declared that the only measure of their treatment of people under the scope of their authority is whether it costs them politically. Never mind any conception of equality, whether founded in liberty, justice, opportunity or otherwise. As far as the Cons are concerned, the only question that matters is whether a particular action might help to tighten Stephen Harper's grip on power - and any opposition based on mere principles of justice can be dismissed as irrelevant.

As we've seen, such an outlook inevitably means that some people - and indeed those whose rights most obviously need to be defended - will be declared to be less than equal for the government's purposes. And that represents a concerted effort not only to set back any conversation about human rights by at least 70 years, but also to deny the very possibility of government operating on principles other than the consolidation of power.

Which probably suits the Cons' purposes just fine: what better opening to excuse converting our public assets to the use of private actors for political gain, then create a culture of cynicism around any future attempt to rebuild? And it's even debatable whether making the point will be seen as doing the Cons any harm - at least, unless it becomes such widespread public knowledge as to affect Harper in the polls.

But for those of us who actually have some positive ideas as to what government can do to contribute to a more fair society, it's worth putting into context just how much damage the Cons are doing to the basic underpinnings of our political system with their efforts to declare particular individuals to be unworthy of any consideration. And when we recognize exactly how harmful Harper's governing philosophy really is, that should serve as incentive not just to work to replace Harper in power, but also to challenge at every opportunity his effort to focus political debate as far away as possible from the question of what principles we expect out of Canada's government.

(Edit: fixed wording.)

Burning question

Has anyone taken a close look at what government news releases might have been snuck in during the Olympics' opening ceremonies? No, no particular reason for asking.

Unappealing options

For those wondering what might happen based on the Cons' predictable refusal to do anything to correct the ongoing Charter violations against Omar Khadr recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada, there are a couple of possible options. But I wouldn't count on either of them coming to fruition.

If the goal is to have the Supreme Court revisit its decision immediately in light of the Cons' refusal to act, the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada allow for an appeal to be re-heard on an application made within 30 days of a judgment. But a re-hearing is only granted if the Supreme Court concludes that it "misled itself or was misled as regards what was the record before it, the nature of the issues, or the questions to be addressed" (Greater Montreal Protestant School Board v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 167). And while it seems clear that the Supreme Court's implicit assumptions about the federal government being interested enough in the constitutionality of its actions to rectify an identified and ongoing Charter breach have been proven wrong, it's hard to see how that risk wouldn't have been before the Court in light of the Cons' previous treatment of Khadr.

Moreover, the Cons's stance that they're still "reviewing" the decision leaves the door open to the theoretical possibility that they might take action in response to the decision - no matter how obvious it is to any observer that they won't do so. And I'd fully expect them to drag out any firm statement until after the normal reconsideration period has expired.

Assuming Khadr can't win a re-hearing, his other option will be to start again with an application to the Federal Court - this time with the Supreme Court's decision serving as a direct precedent on the court's authority to make any binding orders. And ss I've noted, the decision at least allows for the possibility that such an order could be justified. But I wouldn't bank on a lower court being willing to declare that circumstances have changed substantially since the Supreme Court's decision - or on the Cons actually following through even if an order requiring them to act in a manner consistent with Khadr's Charter rights survives the appeal process.

Update: Dr. Dawg has more.

On declarations

There's been a massive outpouring of criticism over the Supreme Court's latest Khadr ruling. And while it's probably not entirely accurate to say that the Supreme Court has decreed that courts can't ever make an order which will result in an effective remedy in a case such as Khadr's, the practical upshot of the decision in this particular case (and with a government that couldn't care less whether it keeps violating Khadr's rights) is effectively to limit the courts to offering suggestions to a government which has already said it isn't interested in listening.

That said, I'd hate for the Supreme Court's justified criticism of the government actions - Lib and Con alike - which violated Khadr's Charter rights to get lost in the fact that it failed to make an order with practical effect. So let's make sure that the following parts of the judgment are what get remembered in the long run:

[21] An applicant for a Charter remedy must prove a Charter violation on a balance of probabilities (R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265, at p. 277). It is reasonable to infer from the uncontradicted evidence before us that the statements taken by Canadian officials are contributing to the continued detention of Mr. Khadr, thereby impacting his liberty and security interests. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary (or disclaimer rebutting this inference), we conclude on the record before us that Canada’s active participation in what was at the time an illegal regime has contributed and continues to contribute to Mr. Khadr’s current detention, which is the subject of his current claim. The causal connection demanded by Suresh between Canadian conduct and the deprivation of liberty and security of person is established.
...
[24] We conclude that Canadian conduct in connection with Mr. Khadr’s case did not conform to the principles of fundamental justice. That conduct may be briefly reviewed. The statements taken by CSIS and DFAIT were obtained through participation in a regime which was known at the time to have refused detainees the right to challenge the legality of detention by way of habeas corpus. It was also known that Mr. Khadr was 16 years old at the time and that he had not had access to counsel or to any adult who had his best interests in mind. As held by this Court in Khadr 2008, Canada’s participation in the illegal process in place at Guantanamo Bay clearly violated Canada’s binding international obligations...Canadian officials questioned Mr. Khadr on matters that may have provided important evidence relating to his criminal proceedings, in circumstances where they knew that Mr. Khadr was being indefinitely detained, was a young person and was alone during the interrogations. Further, the March 2004 interview, where Mr. Khadr refused to answer questions, was conducted knowing that Mr. Khadr had been subjected to three weeks of scheduled sleep deprivation, a measure described by the U.S. Military Commission in Jawad as designed to “make [detainees] more compliant and break down their resistance to interrogation” (para. 4).

[25] This conduct establishes Canadian participation in state conduct that violates the principles of fundamental justice. Interrogation of a youth, to elicit statements about the most serious criminal charges while detained in these conditions and without access to counsel, and while knowing that the fruits of the interrogations would be shared with the U.S. prosecutors, offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects.
...
[30] An appropriate and just remedy is “one that meaningfully vindicates the rights and freedoms of the claimants”: Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education), 2003 SCC 62, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 3, at para. 55. The first hurdle facing Mr. Khadr, therefore, is to establish a sufficient connection between the breaches of s. 7 that occurred in 2003 and 2004 and the order sought in these judicial review proceedings. In our view, the sufficiency of this connection is established by the continuing effect of these breaches into the present. Mr. Khadr’s Charter rights were breached when Canadian officials contributed to his detention by virtue of their interrogations at Guantanamo Bay knowing Mr. Khadr was a youth, did not have access to legal counsel or habeas corpus at that time and, at the time of the interview in March 2004, had been subjected to improper treatment by the U.S. authorities. As the information obtained by Canadian officials during the course of their interrogations may be used in the U.S. proceedings against Mr. Khadr, the effect of the breaches cannot be said to have been spent. It continues to this day. As discussed earlier, the material that Canadian officials gathered and turned over to the U.S. military authorities may form part of the case upon which he is currently being held. The evidence before us suggests that the material produced was relevant and useful. There has been no suggestion that it does not form part of the case against Mr. Khadr or that it will not be put forward at his ultimate trial. We therefore find that the breach of Mr. Khadr’s s. 7 Charter rights remains ongoing and that the remedy sought could potentially vindicate those rights.

[31] The acts that perpetrated the Charter breaches relied on in this appeal lie in the past. But their impact on Mr. Khadr’s liberty and security continue to this day and may redound into the future. The impact of the breaches is thus perpetuated into the present. When past acts violate present liberties, a present remedy may be required.
...
[48] The appeal is allowed in part. Mr. Khadr’s application for judicial review is allowed in part. This Court declares that through the conduct of Canadian officials in the course of interrogations in 2003-2004, as established on the evidence before us, Canada actively participated in a process contrary to Canada’s international human rights obligations and contributed to Mr. Khadr’s ongoing detention so as to deprive him of his right to liberty and security of the person guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter, contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.

As predicted

Long before the Libs made their choice to keep propping up the Harper government, Paul Wells noted that the Cons weren't about to let the concept of a coalition go away even if Michael Ignatieff did try to distance himself from the one actually agreed to last year. And in yesterday's reporting on Omar Khadr, we saw the first hints as to how Con-friendly media will keep the Cons' talking points front and centre.

Here's Kelly McParland introducing the opposition leaders' joint letter regarding Khadr:

The little-loved coalition has revived itself in support of Omar Khadr, the Canadian held at Guantanamo Bay.

And from Don Martin:

That vilified coalition of the three opposition parties staged a family reunion of sorts yesterday, demanding U. S. President Barack Obama immediately free Canadian Omar Khadr from his six-year imprisonment in the Guantanamo Bay detention centre.

The Liberal, New Democrat and Bloc Quebecois party leaders all put their signatures to paper, regrouping to argue their position as the majority of MPs in the House of Commons.

Now, it's worth noting that the attempt to link opposition cooperation to a coalition has no basis in reality. The same three parties worked together on an issue-by-issue basis in the last Parliament without the slightest intention to form a coalition government, and the possibility of a coalition forming is no less remote today.

(Not to mention of course that the Bloc was never to be part of a coalition government, which further highlights the lack of any connection between the proposed coalition and the current opposition cooperation. But that fact already seems to have been edited out of the history books.)

It does seem clear though that regardless of the accuracy or lack thereof, at least some portions of the media will see reason to write about a "little-loved", "vilified" coalition every time the opposition parties so much as agree on a lunch order. And that will pose some interesting choices for the Libs and the NDP.

Having passed up the opportunity to shift the focus from the theoretical possibility of a coalition to the reality, the Libs will now face an entirely unpalatable choice of main options.

On the one hand, they can choose to play dead in Parliament once again so as to avoid a constant association between themselves and the idea of coalition which they apparently see as poisoned. But that of course involves not only giving the Harper government both exactly what it wants politically, but also willingly taking on the Dion brand of ineffective opposition.

On the other hand, they can take up the task of defending the concept of coalition in principle in order to justify any steps they might take to actually oppose the Cons. But that many only raise all the more questions about why they didn't follow through in practice - particularly as Canadians continue to suffer from ineffective Con government.

Either way, the Libs figure to spend an awful lot of time trying to explain their own choices rather than being able to focus all that clearly on the Cons. And that only figures to help let Harper off the hook for his own failures.

Meanwhile, the NDP will face a challenging dilemma as well. Having spent the better part of the last two months spreading the word about a multi-party solution while mostly ignoring direct attacks, it now has plenty of work to do in trying to restore Jack Layton's public impressions to their usual levels. And for the moment, it looks to be trying to put the focus back on its effective work in Parliament in order to turn the page on the events of the last couple of months.

But if the Cons and their media allies aren't about to let talk of a coalition die down, then the NDP's most obvious means to turn that into a plus is to appeal to the broader pool of coalition-friendly voters by playing up its own role in creating an alternative to Harper (and the Libs' weakness in not following through). Which may make for a choice between the relatively safe route of trying to move back to the branding the NDP has set up over the last few election cycles, or an all-or-nothing push to try to unite the left under the NDP's tent.

Whatever happens, there doesn't seem to be much reason to doubt that the now-defunct coalition will continue to affect the opposition parties' choices going forward. And it's probably not too early to suggest that both the Libs and the NDP would be better off if Ignatieff had recognized that reality before he decided to leave the Cons in power.

Scary thought for the day

From Lawrence Cannon:

Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, every other country that had nationals in Guantanamo fulfilled their basic obligations and got them out, every country but Canada.

Lieutenant Commander Bill Kuebler says that attempts over the past year and a half to speak to senior officials at the Prime Minister's office or in the Department of Justice or the Department of Public Safety have met with the same closed door. This is no way to treat a Canadian.

Will the Prime Minister commit today to raise the issue of Omar Khadr when he meets with President Obama next week?

Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, officials in my department have carried out regular discussions with both the defence and the prosecution in this case. I also want to point out that consular services have been offered to this individual. He is being treated as any other Canadian citizen in detention would be treated.

Now, it seems fairly obvious that Cannon is far off base. But considering the lengths the Cons have gone to in refusing to assist Khadr, how damning would his claim be if it's true?