A friendly reminder

I generally agree with Warren Kinsella's theory that the Cons' plans to ship yet another chunk of Canadian sovereignty to Washington - in exchange for the bare hope that this time the U.S. will stop clogging up the border - should make for a powerful political issue for Canada's opposition parties.

But before anybody tries to claim that it doesn't matter which of NDP or Libs takes the lead on the issue, it's well worth pointing out that the Libs were working on exactly the same project the last time they were in power. And indeed after the last time the Libs campaigned against a trade agreement, they did nothing but expand it once they took power.

So if the Cons' current integration project raises many of the same opportunities used by the Libs in 1988, there's every reason to hope for a different outcome both on the policy itself, and in the party which earns the most benefit from it.

Monday Evening Links

Assorted reading material to close out your day...

- Aaron Wherry nicely highlights the proud Con/Lib bipartisan tradition of proclaiming a "first step" toward dealing with climate change. But it's worth noting that the phrase figures to be a particular favourite for the Cons due to the implication that virtually no progress has been made so far, suggesting that we shouldn't expect to reach a destination anytime soon.

- Andrew Potter's Canadian Business article on inequality is well worth a read:

While we are not living in anything like the original Gilded Age, rising inequality is not a myth, either. The good news about inequality in the United States and Canada is that, unlike inequalities of yore, where kings and aristocrats enriched themselves largely by confiscating wealth from the masses, it is not coming at the expense of those lower down the pay scale. The poor are not being economically impoverished — in fact, they are doing better in absolute terms than ever before. It is just that the very rich are running away from the rest of us. The bad news is that unchecked and runaway inequality, regardless of absolute income levels, and regardless of its causes, has unhealthy consequences that get worse as the chasm between rich and poor grows.

This is why the argument over inequality matters. The stakes are significant, and huge questions of public policy — including the shape of the tax system, the size and scope of social programs, and the priorities of the government — hinge on whether we care to rein in the widening divide between society’s most and least fortunate.

- John Ivison is at least somewhat skeptical of the Cons' current spin on a North American security perimeter. But do we really want to see the issue as merely a matter of political communication rather than one with serious substantive effects?

- Finally, Scott Taylor nicely calls out Peter MacKay for claiming to be the lone clairvoyant who can foresee exactly what F-35s will wind up costing:

Following that dog-and-pony show and some brief discussions with American industry officials, MacKay held a teleconference with Canadian journalists. Along with his counterpart, Industry Minister Tony Clement, MacKay told his selected reporters that the Conservative government is convinced the planned acquisition of 65 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters will be on time and on budget.

Such a ridiculous claim would be laughable were it not for the fact that, with an initial price tag of $9 billion and another estimated $7 billion in lifetime maintenance costs, the project will be the most expensive military purchase in our nation’s history.
...
When questioned about the cost overruns with the Cyclones and Chinooks, Ross admitted only that "in-service support estimation is very hard."

To support this argument, Ross pointed out to the parliamentarians: "We all drive cars . . . but who can tell me what the cost of gas will be next week?"

Apparently, MacKay can.

In fact, MacKay can assure us the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters — a developmental aircraft that is experiencing all sorts of technical teething troubles, a jet we will not officially contract to purchase until 2013 at the earliest and will not take delivery of until 2016 and plan to fly until 2050 — will absolutely be on time and on budget.

That’s unbelievable!

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading...

- I haven't yet commented on the latest effort to tie Canada's regulatory and structures to the U.S., and will plan to get there shortly. But for now, go read Alison on the inevitability that the Security and Prosperity Partnership would emerge in a new form, and Thomas Walkom on the futility of selling out sovereignty for supposed border convenience that's never going to come.

- I'll agree with Andrew Coyne that we could do wonders to improve the balance between party leaders and other elected representatives by eliminating the requirement that leaders sign off on all nominations.

But while I do think elected MLAs and MPs should have a greater role in being able to represent their constituencies, I do have to ask: since when are they the be-all and end-all of party preferences? And what rationale can there possibly be for deliberately excluding all ridings which don't have an elected member - but who may be crucial to the party's cause in seeking to form government - from a decision as to who's going to serve as the top figure within the party?

- Jeffrey Simpson rightly points out that while John Baird is providing his usual supply of hot air for domestic consumption, there's no reason for anybody at the Cancun climate negotiations to listen to a word he has to say:

Even before his departure, Mr. Baird began blaming China, India, Brazil and others for not doing nearly enough to bring down greenhouse-gas emissions. It was largely the fault of developing countries such as these that the Kyoto Protocol failed, he claimed, and why a new climate-change agreement wouldn’t work.

Canada is right to urge big developing countries to do better and more than what they’ve thus far proposed. Canada also would be right to do something serious itself before lecturing others, since Canada has the worst record in the advanced industrialized world.

Mr. Baird’s aggressive message – a classic instance of throwing stones at glass houses – was designed entirely for Canadian consumption, since Canada long ago lost any shred of credibility on the world stage for climate change.
...
The world understands this. It knows Canada is deeply hypocritical when it criticizes others, because Canada, as one of the world’s largest per capita emitters, attends every climate-change meeting with dirty hands, empty rhetoric and inadequate policies. It knows the Harper government doesn’t like the climate-change file, wants desperately to protect the oil and gas industries, and doesn’t believe there’s a single vote in climate-change action.

No one at Cancun would pay serious attention to Mr. Baird. His bluster was intended for domestic consumption, to reassure those Canadians – many of whom are lodged in the Conservative Party and the media’s right-wing elements – who want no action taken against climate change.

- And finally, the Star nicely comments on the need for a serious push to deal with inequality in both power and money between the corporate sector and mere citizens:

For generations, people have come to this country to find a better life for themselves and their families. They have helped build a prosperous nation, where most people had access to a decent job and reasonable income.

Governments created laws that struck a balance between the power of corporations and the rights of working people. Most of us were able to find respect for our skills and knowledge, and to be paid accordingly.

In recent years, however, much has changed. The immense greed that fed the global financial markets has seeped into the core values of Canadian business.

Nowadays companies are only happy if there are tax cuts, subsidized profits and a pliable workforce. The same powerful actors who nearly wrecked the world economy are now shamelessly demanding that governments and workers do their bidding — or suffer the consequences.

There’s no doubt that a lot of these guys wear quality timepieces worth more than the rest of us earn in a year. The gap between rich and poor in this country has grown tremendously in recent times.

And unless something happens, it will only grow wider as mid-level incomes disappear from the reality of many families.

On internal obstacles

Conservative MP Terence Young's story is certainly a poignant one. And one can't help but to wish him all the best in his efforts to establish an independent drug safety agency with the authority to pull dangerous drugs off the market.

But there's just one tiny little problem with his plan, as it runs directly contrary to what the Harper government has already done:

The border announcement is one of several expected at the summit. (Bush, Harper and Calderon) also plan to announce that they will recognize the research of each country's food and drug regime in an effort to reduce costs and avoid duplication.

So Young's party leader has already decreed that in his view, it isn't worth the time and effort for Canada to determine which drugs are and aren't safe. Which means that Young's greatest obstacle to any progress lies within the party which he chose to represent.

On selloffs

Shorter National Post editorial board:

Huzzah! We'll face much less resistance to Stephen Harper's fondest wish of selling out any Canadian independence now that the buyer is more popular!

When all you have is a bag of hammers...

Shorter Canada-U.S. Project:

Having spent the part two decades agitating for deep integration with the U.S. under a number of different names, rationales and structures, we can surely be taken seriously when we say the Obama inauguration represents a unique opportunity to do what we've been demanding all along.

A steaming pile by any other name

A sneak preview of Barbara Yaffe's column for May 2, 2009:
So it turns out that renaming the SPP as the "North American Standards and Regulations Area" didn't manage to fool anybody. But I'm sure if we just rename the exact same type of integration as the Motherhood, Frolicking Puppies and Wealth Beyond Your Wildest Dreams Coalition, we won't have any trouble selling it.

Incidentally, with the SPP back in the news, it's worth drawing a contrast between the Cons' stance on deep integration and their obstruction against World Health Organization labeling requirements. Apparently they're all for setting international standards when it means avoiding democratically-made regulations to make sure that more goods get sent from country to country. But when it comes to actually allowing consumers to find out what it is they're buying, the Cons' appetite for cooperation disappears.

h/t to Alison and pogge.

Pointers

A couple of quick links for those who haven't seen the posts yet...

First, IP points out the Greens' remarkable lack of any apparent comment on the prospect of bringing down the Cons over their environmental negligence. I'll add only that even if there isn't an official larger deal between the Greens and Libs, it could be that May has simply decided that it's easier to say nothing about the party's signature issue than to risk having to answer questions about how she can justify cutting back-room deals premised on the need to remove Deceivin' Stephen from power when the other party involved is itself refusing to do just that.

Second, Alison highlights the contrast between the Cons' talk about the importance of Radarsat-2 to Canada's sovereignty, and their apparent intention to facilitate the sale of the satellite to an American arms manufacturer. If anything, this story would seem to be the one that deserves more focus from the opposition parties - as the gap between the Cons' rhetoric and their desire to auction off Canadian interests has seldom been quite this stark.

A purely private partnership

Berlynn catches an important story from the Council of Canadians which all too predictably went unreported in the media, as the North American Forum (linked to the Security and Prosperity Partnership) held another summit last month. But while the subject matter doesn't seem to have changed, the spin about the ever-more-secretive process is getting even less plausible as time goes by:

The North American Forum, a high-profile sister organization to the Security and Prosperity Partnership, is co-chaired by George Schultz, Peter Lougheed and Pedro Aspe, who are quite proud of how discrete these meetings are. Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day attended the 2006 summit in Banff and to date refuses to disclose the contents of his speech.

According to a CanWest article from March 23, 2007: "A 'media management plan' for the event in Banff last fall imposed a gag order on all participants, except the head of the Calgary-based media consulting firm, Corpen Group, John Larsen. Participants were directed 'to avoid direct media engagement where feasible,' say the notes... But Mr. Larsen said 'the conference wasn't secret. ... It was private, and that's an entirely different thing from being secret.'"...

"The Co-Chairs do not intend to make public pronouncements advocating specific policy approaches on the NAF's behalf," says the forum's website. "Rather the outputs of the NAF will be ideas and approaches that are individually pursued by participants at their own initiative and in their own name."

At least when the SPP met at Montebello, the participants were willing to admit to some influence over the jelly bean industry.

But apparently even that's seen as too much disclosure within the NAF - leaving citizens of all three countries unable to do more than guess as to what policies are being influenced by the privileged few invited to participate. And it seems like a safe bet that the summit wouldn't be so meticulously hidden from view if its results could bear public scrutiny.