Mad cattlemen

If there's one thing you can't criticize about R-CALF, it's the group's devotion to the cause even in the face of virtually certain defeat:

R-CALF USA has requested that all 11 judges who sit on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals review a ruling made by three judges on July 14 that overturned a temporary ban on young Canadian cattle imports. "The three-judge panel . . . missed or misunderstood numerous key aspects of this case," Bill Bullard, chief executive officer of R-CALF, said from Billings, Mont...

Russell Frye, R-CALF's chief lawyer, said if the Appeal Court agrees to review the case, and then rules in their favour, the border would close again to live Canadian beef.

"Probably the effect would be the preliminary injunction that had kept the USDA rule from coming into effect in March would be reinstated," Frye said from Washington, D.C.

The latter statement seems particularly optimistic on the part of R-CALF, as there's no compelling reason for the preliminary injunction to be reinstated. In essence, R-CALF will be left arguing against itself, trying to claim that the recent imports haven't done enough damage to make the injunction pointless, while at the same time claiming that future imports under precisely the same conditions would cause irreparable harm.

The article points out that 89,000 Canadian animals have already crossed the reopened border, and there's no particular reason for the court to conclude that cow #89,001 will prove fatal to the U.S. beef industry. Which means that Canadian producers should have little to worry about from the ongoing court process.

Laying the foundation

Tasteful Future has the rundown on Layton's recent speech in Quebec. The conclusion:

We need to reduce Bloc influence in Ottawa by showing up the majority of voters just how ineffective it is. We need to give Bloc-fearing Québécois another option than voting Liberal by default. Harper's not interested in Québec, it doesn't take a genius to understand that, so the path is clear for the NDP to move in and open up some new ground for a substantial amount of voters who suffer electoral fatigue. I've said it before and I'll say it again: modern history shows the province of Québec as a socio-democratic province with very left-leaning values. The NDP could make major, major inroads if they could help break their image in Québec of being a "farmer's party."

Layton's doing exactly what he needs to at this point: sending a message that'll resonate across the country, but more importantly questioning regional assumptions in the process. There's a substantial Bloc vote that's more a protest vote than a resounding endorsement of separatism, and it's about time to point out that the protest vote would be better given to a party which actually uses its position to change the status quo. A similar message should be the focus of the NDP's prairie campaign against the Cons: why keep voting for a party which utterly failed to do any good when it could have dictated the terms of the budget?

The biggest potential payoff in seats is likely an election or two away, as entrenched regional positions may die hard. This could be why the Cons are putting their attention elsewhere (along with the fear that a similar strategy might be effective against them elsewhere). But as pointed out by Case, that's a perfect opportunity for the NDP in the long term. And Layton's message shows that the NDP isn't going to pass this one up.

Long-term prevention

Today, Aileen Carroll will announce a $250 million to the Global Fund set up to prevent the spread of contagious diseases in Africa (and potentially to support health infrastructure buildup as well). Full credit to the Libs for a worthy investment. But as always, it's not quite that simple.

The new investment brings up the question of why money to fight AIDS is seemingly being shuffled around randomly. After all, nothing in the article suggests that Ottawa will reinstate funding for clinical trials of vaccines which were already developed by the Canadian Network for Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics, despite public pressure from Stephen Lewis. And surely the word of the UN Secretary General's special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa has to be worth something in figuring out which policies need to be pursued.

More investment in AIDS prevention is a plus. But no progress will be made, either in vaccine development at home or in infrastructure development abroad, unless funding is stable enough to ensure that long-term projects can be carried out. And on that score, Ottawa's unexplained change in focus can't leave anybody confident of how much support they'll receive in the future.

Responsible debt reduction

Not that it should come as any surprise, but word came out today that the Saskatchewan's finances are in great shape:

Auditor Fred Wendel says in his fall report that the government made $844 million dollars more than it spent for the fiscal year ending last March.

It's the largest annual surplus since 1991.

The result was that the government could reduce it's (sic) net debt from $9.3 billion to $8.5 billion dollars.

There's a good ways to go in paying down the debt, but taking care of over 9% of it in one year makes a substantial difference. And unlike some neighbouring provinces, Saskatchewan's fiscal health hasn't come at the expense of social well-being.

Of course, Calvert and company can't get much credit for high gas prices. But the NDP deserves plenty of credit for running the province responsibly when prices weren't so favourable, and it's reaping the rewards this year. Based on the combination of even higher resource prices and a great agricultural season, the province should be able to put an even bigger dent in the debt over the next year.

Positive investments

The Guardian reports on increased investment in alternative energy sources:

Big companies are also stepping up the pace of investment. In May, General Electric, the US conglomerate that makes products from jet engines to power generation, announced plans to double its annual investment in renewable energy technologies to $1.5bn (£816m) by 2010. In Europe, companies such as Spain's Iberdrola and Britain's Npower are making big investments in wind power projects...

According to New Energy Finance, a London-based energy research company, the second quarter of 2005 saw near-record levels of venture capital and private equity investment in the clean energy sector - some 45 deals worth an estimated $340m. "It is good to see that the number of renewable energy funds and the amount of money flowing into these funds is increasing," said Juliet Davenport, the chief executive of Good Energy, a UK supplier of 100% renewable electricity. "The renewable generation market is at an important stage in its development; it needs the continued support of the consumer, investor and government to ensure that it reaches its potential and really starts to make a difference to climate change."

Currently, only around $20bn a year is invested worldwide in renewable energy capacity; mainly wind and solar, with some in biomass and biofuels. A further $5bn is spent on research each year, particularly into hydrogen and fuel cells. But that figure is bound to grow. New Energy Finance expects the figure to increase to over $100bn within a decade - a sustained compound annual growth rate of 15-20%. That means there will be opportunities to make money provided investors make the right choice.

Now should be the time for pension funds and (especially) ethical investment funds to take a serious look at large-scale investments in renewable energy, as social responsibility intersects with high investment potential. It's unfortunate that it's taken this long for renewable energy to become a top investment option, particularly when some of the delay can likely be traced to government subsidies of the non-renewable alternatives. But however late it is, at least some investors are starting to look in the right direction - and the most influential ones should soon follow.

Within reach

The CP notes that softwood lumber isn't the only issue where Canada has strong motivation to lobby the U.S. at the moment - nor the issue where Canada's efforts could make the most difference:

An upcoming U.S. congressional vote on oil drilling in Alaska's national wildlife refuge is too close to call and strong opposition from Canada could make the difference, say environmentalists who want to protect the area.

"We're counting noses in the Congress," Monte Hummel of World Wildlife Fund Canada, told a news conference Thursday. "We figure we're within somewhere between two to five votes in the Senate. It's that close.

"We've been told by folks in Washington that having Canada come out and make a strong statement could just make the difference."...

The environmentalists applauded Prime Minister Paul Martin's recent statements opposing drilling, but they'd like to see a formal statement from the government.

Stephane Dion is apparently on the case to the extent of privately lobbying senators, but not in making a formal public stand. If there's anything to the Wildlife Fund's position, then Dion needs to pull out all the stops to make sure that momentary oil panic (which itself isn't solved to any meaningful extent by potential drilling) won't override basic environmental protection.

Ownership, evacuation and destruction

For those noting that the U.S. is reluctant to accept aid from Cuba, the explanation may have less to do with commie-bashing, and more to do with an attempt to avoid any comparisons between the hurricane management strategies of the two countries. Fortunately, Murray Dobbin doesn't let Bushco off the hook:

The horror of New Orleans is rooted in the extremes of American individualism. With lots of advanced notice of the terrifying category five hurricane about to hit the city, what did elected officials do? They announced that everyone should evacuate. Full stop. There would be no help. People would have to devise their own private way out of the disaster area. Yet, 35 percent of African American families in New Orleans had no cars.

Not for America a collectively organized, 'forced' evacuation as in Cuba where last year 1.3 million people were evacuated in advance of a similar category five hurricane. Not a single person died. And when Cuba evacuates people it also evacuates their most valuable possessions so they aren't destroyed.

Something to keep in mind next time Bush goes on one of his "ownership society" rants: not only have thousands died unnecessarily as a result of the lack of proper planning before Katrina, but those who survived have lost large amounts of personal property which would have been preserved had the same storm hit in Cuba. And the difference in evacuation plans (i.e. having one as opposed to not having one) is in spite of Cuba's lower amount of local resources.

Instead of retaining their most valued possessions, many Katrina evacuees (those leaving now whose property has been destroyed, and those who left earlier who lacked the capacity to take belongings with them) will have at best an insurance cheque, and at worst nothing (or perhaps FEMA's payoff after the fact) to replace everything that once was theirs.

It's glaringly obvious that everyone affected by Katrina would have been far better off if the new $2,000 per evacuee had been spent on either proper levee construction, or at least a genuine evacuation plan. But for a president far more concerned with political damage control than good policy, the actual choice shouldn't be surprising. Even if it means hundreds of thousands of "ownership society" members losing everything they owned.

On informed citizens

So much for the Cons not trying to be seen as threatening, as their heritage critic has explicitly come out in favour of slashing the CBC:

"If this [lockout] continues on for too long, there's a lot of people -- I've been reading the press and the letters to the editor -- and there are letters there that are questioning 'do we need a CBC?' Particularly English-language television," (Bev Oda, the Cons' heritage critic) said.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has never said his party would cut funding for the CBC, but has faced criticism from CBC advocates for failing to offer clear support for the public broadcaster in its current form.

The article notes that the Libs, much to their discredit, have done more than their share of damage to the network as well. But the Cons' extreme position should bring the issue to the forefront, and even highlight the cuts the Libs have made - to the benefit of both the NDP, and the general public.

If the CBC isn't seen as a good investment at the moment, that could easily be because it's been cut too far already to completely fulfill its mandate, or because it's been too busy trying to preserve what it has against yet more cuts to look for new ways to reach the public. If a debate on the CBC highlights those possibilities, then we'll be one step closer to having a network dedicated to informing Canadians; if it's purely a question of how much more to keep hacking at the CBC, then we'll be on the way to losing one of our national icons as well as a great source of information.

On appearing to blink

According to the usual anonymous Lib sources whose claims go unchallenged (as well as one Martin spokesman), PMPM doesn't want an election this fall, and will avoid bringing forward any legislation that would force a confidence vote:

The prevailing desire of the Liberal minority is to avoid tempting the electoral fates before Justice John Gomery issues his report on the sponsorship scandal at year's end, government and party officials said...

An official in Prime Minister Paul Martin's office agreed the government will avoid a pre-Gomery election but declined to discuss strategic details.

"The prime minister made a commitment to call an election 30 days after Justice Gomery reports," said Martin spokesman Marc Roy.

"What we intend to do between now and then is not to play chicken with the opposition. It's to govern and progress on our legislative agenda."

The big question in response to the Libs' current position is whether or not this is simply a bit of reverse psychology. The ideal situation for the Libs is probably to let the Cons use up a lot of resources planning for a fall election, have a successful fall sitting, then go to the polls after a positive result from Gomery. And another few months of Harper desperately trying to goad the Libs into a game of chicken can't hurt their chances in an upcoming election either. But if Harper boils over in the meantime, then Martin will have a strong incentive to force an election (though he'll want to be able to claim to have tried to avoid it).

As for the NDP, it looks to be in exactly the same position as this spring: the sole opposition party focused on anything other than trying to gain seats in an immediate election, which should allow it to wring at least some concessions out of the Libs as long as Parliament is in session. And there doesn't seem to be much to lose. If an election's going to happen this fall, it'll be because Martin decides that the Cons are far enough down and out not to pose a threat, and that's still the ideal scenario for Layton and company.

Is the end in sight?

You know NAFTA is coming under a ton of scrutiny when even the heads of business groups are mentioning that it's in jeopardy. But that's just the message that was sent today:

Lumber dominated Wilkins' one-hour meeting with the Business Council of British Columbia.

"There was really nothing new from the ambassador," said council president Jerry Lampert. "It was very respectful but frank."

Canadian business and political leaders see softwood as a litmus test of the entire NAFTA treaty. Business support for NAFTA is undermined when the U.S. is perceived as not abiding by its rules, said Lampert.

The conversation between Wilkins and the group was friendly from the CP account, but nothing indicated that either side is going to give on the lumber issue anytime soon. We'll see how long it takes for the issue to be put back on the front burner - but if even the businesses who benefit most from American sales don't think that NAFTA is worth preserving (and let's make clear that tearing up NAFTA doesn't mean slowing down trade in general), then the agreement may not last much longer.

Not mainstream media

As noted elsewhere, locked-out CBC employees have taken to creating their own news feed - and this article for one is exactly the kind of coverage the media normally lacks, connecting the mundane news of an increased interest rate to its impact on Canadians:

The rate hike will be a financial shock for some consumers, who are carrying more debt than ever before. Household debt has more than doubled since the early 1980s, reaching an average of $66,800 last year, according to the Vanier Institute of the Family.

“Even small rate increases are significant when you are so indebted,” says CIBC senior economist Benjamin Tal.

Canadians have fuelled rising spending by taking on more debt. While spending and debt have been growing, Tal says incomes have stayed about the same and saving rates have dropped. People can still service their debt because interest payments are so low, but are extremely vulnerable to rising rates.

All too true. Since the CBC's official site is otherwise only featuring wire content, and since the new site is a worthy link in its own right, I'll be switching the side link to CBC Unlocked until the end of the lockout.

Emerging markets, stagnating standards

While the Globe and Mail reported this week on booming business opportunities in Africa, a U.N. report released today shows that there's an awfully long way to go to alleviate African poverty:

Despite progress globally, many countries are falling behind, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, where the HIV/AIDS pandemic is dramatically reducing life expectancy and creating financial and social burdens that slow development.

The stark findings contained in the 2005 Human Development Report were presented to world leaders a week before they meet in New York for a UN summit to review progress toward the Millennium Development Goals. The goals include halving extreme poverty, reducing child deaths by two-thirds and achieving universal primary education by 2015...

Since the UN Development Fund's first report in 1990, more than 130 million people have been lifted out of poverty, Wednesday's report said. Life expectancy has increased by two years in developing countries, there are two million fewer child deaths annually and 30 million more children in school.

Yet 18 countries – 12 of them in Africa and the rest in Europe – registered lower scores on the UNDP's human development index than in 1990.

The progress that has been made should be celebrated, and it's a plus that private investment is increasing. But the investment so far has been fairly empty in terms of side benefits to local citizens: it's relied mostly on imported goods and separate infrastructure rather than creating jobs or needed services locally.

What's worse, the one country that's doing best investing in Africa still fell a long way in its standard of living: the AIDS epidemic has caused South Africa to drop by 35 places on the list despite moving out of the apartheid era. Just one more reason why it's unrealistic to try to draw a direct link between fiscal status and standard of living.

The U.N. report is yet another reminder that there's been a lot more talk than action on improving conditions in the developing world - no matter how many cell phones are selling in Congo. Unfortunately, with Gleneagles in the rear-view mirror, it doesn't look like that'll change anytime soon.

Softwood lumber after Katrina

With all the other federal leaders having made their points on softwood lumber in the last little while, Gilles Duceppe stepped up today and took a rather shocking position given the timing:

The Bloc Quebecois is urging the federal government to mount a global campaign to denounce the American government's "arrogant" attitude on the softwood lumber dispute.

Prime Minster (sic) Paul Martin should warn that the Americans "don't necessarily respect their word," Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe said in an interview Tuesday with The Canadian Press...

Duceppe said the prime minister should also make his case directly to Americans.

"He (Paul Martin) should tell American consumers that their government is to blame for them paying too much for softwood lumber," Duceppe said.

The unfortunate part is that Duceppe followed a terrible idea with a great one - and the former will likely get more press as a result. At this point, the world is largely focused on trying to help the victims of Katrina (even if Buscho is going out of its way to prevent that from happening); a campaign to kick the U.S. while it's down won't win any friends internationally, and will only make the U.S. seem relatively reasonable on the softwood file.

On the other hand, an appeal to the American people (and indeed to the world at large) as to the effect of protectionist tactics seems to have nothing but upside, particularly on a good that'll be necessary for reconstruction. My only caveat as to Duceppe's remark is that the campaign shouldn't be a direct attack, but should rather seek to present the benefits of affordable lumber to the States.

Consider the impression if Canada were to present a quick and public comparison as to the costs of reconstruction with and without the tariff, and combine that with a positive PR campaign about how Canada has helped in the recovery and wants to help in the reconstruction. We could simultaneously make a powerful point about the value of free trade, and win some points for presenting (sadly enough) a more practical plan to make reconstruction affordable than I've heard from any U.S. source.

Granted, the success of such a compaign would be far from guaranteed. But it would certainly beat doing nothing in the meantime, as seems to be the current plan. The costs are low - even if it doesn't work, as a positive campaign it wouldn't create any enemies outside the U.S. lumber producers who are backing the tariffs. And the potential upside, winning both some public opinion and potentially the market access we've long sought, would make the effort worthwhile.

Update: Time for credit where credit is due. While Harper's envoy plan doesn't make any sense, he nailed the reconstruction point:

Harper said the tab for rebuilding 500,000 homes in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina could cost $500 million more than necessary because of duties "imposed on American homeowners by the domestic political interests of a few companies and a few congressmen."

Making progress

While the rash of referenda against gay marriage in '04 shows that there's a long way to go toward equality in a lot of American states, California wasn't far behind Canada's federal government in approving same-sex marriage through the political process:

The California legislature on Tuesday became the first legislative body in the country to approve same-sex marriages, as gay-rights advocates overcame two earlier defeats in the assembly. The 41-35 vote sends the bill to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger...

(Rep. Mark) Leno's bill had failed in the assembly by four votes in June, but he was confident he could get it through on a second try after the Senate approved a same-sex marriage bill last week.

No word in the article on whether Schwarzenegger will sign the bill, though there doesn't seem to be much reason why not. To my recollection he seems to trend libertarian on social issues, and sadly a subsequent ballot initiative to reverse the decision could be his best shot at keeping power in '06.

Even if a referendum goes forward, Canada's experience shows that once civil rights have been won, there's not much public appetite for taking them away. Hopefully that will hold as true in California as it has here.

Update: According to the L.A. Times, Schwarzenegger is expected to veto the bill based a previous ballot initiative. We'll know for sure by October 9.

On being careful what one wishes for

Harper responds to another wave of bad press by demanding a chance to go to the polls:

A spring and summer of firings and resignations in Stephen Harper's office peaked Tuesday with a fall clearout of staff.

But the Conservative leader dismissed the half dozen or so layoffs as nothing startling and concentrated instead on challenging Prime Minister Paul Martin to test Liberal popularity by calling an election...

"The Liberal party thinks they've got great polls? Call the election - we've got the money, we've got the candidates, so ask them what the problem is."

In fairness to Harper, its sounds like there are reasonable explanations for the staff clearout. But even if the staff cuts were planned, the Cons would have been much better off keeping around some differing opinions on today's response.

Instead of putting the focus on the reasonable explanation, Harper went with the Macho Steve act - and we know how well that went over in Campaign '04. A couple more outbursts like this, and PMPM may just take Harper up on his offer, laughing all the way to a majority.

(As an aside, a research assignment for any entrprising readers. Harper claims in the article that that he never discusses his office staff; this might be worth comparing to his historical record, particularly at the time when people were hired. I'll take a look later on tonight, but any input is welcome.)

Gender imbalance

While gender disparity is becoming less of an issue in some higher-skilled professions, a new StatsCan study says that it's still a problem when looking at the wider labour picture:

As for women, although they made up less than have (sic) of the population in the workforce, they comprised 55 per cent of the chronically unemployed population. They also made up nearly two-thirds of the population that never found a job during the study period.

"Lone parents were especially over-represented among the chronically unemployed and the always unemployed. These were mainly women, as they head the vast majority of lone-parent families," StatsCan said in its report.

Lest there be any doubt, this wasn't a matter of the women in the study choosing to stay home with children. Membership in the labour force is based on attempts to find work, meaning that stay-at-home months may be a factor in the lower percentage of females in the workforce to begin with.

Instead, women in general and single mothers in particular are having a significantly tougher time finding jobs when making an attempt. And that suggests that there are still systemic factors (even if far less direct than once existed) operating against equality in the workplace - both in who's working to begin with, and in how much they get paid.

The rational explanation

One more link to Mike's post at Rational Reasons on why the response to Katrina should be political:

I've watched for a week now the unfolding tragedy in New Orleans and the US Gulf Coast. I have read a myriad of blogs, news articles and opinions. One of the more troubling themes emerging in the last few days of last week and over the weekend has been a "Now is not the time for recriminations" or "There will be plenty of time for blame later" or "Lets concentrate on rescuing and helping the victims, using Katrina for political cheap shots is improper" meme...

I feel I would do a great disservice to the thousands of people that died needlessly last week waiting for the rescue that never came, by remaining quite (sic) and polite. They demand justice. We all should.

Amen to that. And, as shocking as the possibility may seem in U.S. politics, that justice shouldn't be demanded on a partisan basis. Any problems at the state and local levels should also be thoroughly addressed, though from what I've seen (and Mike provides a nice rundown) the inaction started at the top.

In order to prevent similar tragedies in the future, the first step is to figure out exactly what went wrong. And that's necessarily going to involve a careful analysis of the political decisions that made Katrina far worse than it had to be.

Preparing for the worst

Paul Wells takes a look at the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, and notes that Canada's preparations for weather disasters may not be that much better than those in the U.S.:

McBean says the new federal Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is far more concerned with guarding against the long-shot danger of a terrorist attack than with the more mundane menaces of wind, rain, fire and disease. There's very little thought in federal infrastructure programs given to ensuring that infrastructure can survive a natural catastrophe. But even as he decries this, McBean says it's easy to understand. Disaster relief is bold work for politicians: swoop into the disaster zone, hug the bereaved, distribute largesse. Disaster prevention could hardly be more mundane. "What you're actually trying do to is create a situation where, when the hazard happens, nothing happens," he says.

Levees hold. Sewers don't overflow. Tornadoes fail to blow the roofs off houses that were designed to avoid such a fate. Power lines fall under the weight of ice and are reinstalled within hours, instead of transmission towers crumpling and taking weeks to rebuild. "What's the benefit of that?" McBean asks. It's obvious, of course, but hard to tally. Every dollar that could go to safeguarding against a vague threat is a dollar that can be spent today on health care or tax cuts or a war on terrorism. Today's needs are pressing; tomorrow's dangers are hard to see until it's far too late. Which is why specialists in disaster reduction live in a world of we-should and why-don't-they, while the victims of catastrophe are trapped in a world of should-have and why-didn't-they.

In that dichotomy lies precisely the reason why politicians' feet should be held to the fire in response to situations such as the aftermath of Katrina. If the political fallout from a poor response doesn't outweigh both the benefits of disaster-relief photo-ops and of spending the money on other projects, then there'll always be an incentive for governments to put their money into more visible projects.

As pointed out by McBean, the surest sign of a great prevention program is that potential crises never become severe. It's difficult to guess whether we've avoided Katrina-like disasters out of sheer luck or as the result of luck than of substantially better planning. But either way, now should be the time to demand a full explanation of what our governments have planned in case of a similar scenario - and to ensure that we're putting in a due amount of preparation against natural disasters as well as terrorist attacks.

Anteing up

Haiti's Lavalas party, facing the choice of running a candidate from jail or not running at all in the country's next election, chose the former today:

Aristide's Lavalas Family party said it would register the Rev. Gerard Jean-Juste as its standard bearer next week, apparently ending a heated internal feud over whether to participate in elections - the first since the bloody February 2004 uprising that helped topple Aristide.

"Even if he is in jail, we will register him," Rene Monplaisir, a Lavalas leader in the pro-Aristide slum of Cite Soleil, told cheering supporters in an assembly hall in Port-au-Prince, the capital.

This is the first possible positive sign for democracy in Haiti in quite some time: at the very least the party which has consistently won past elections is willing to come to the table.

But that doesn't mean Lavalas will accept the process if it doesn't turn out for them - and as long as Jean-Juste is trying to conduct his campaign from behind bars, there'll be ready backing for a claim that the interim government has stacked the deck. Meanwhile, there's absolutely no reason to think that the military groups who launched coups against Aristide will accept a Lavalas victory this time out.

Unfortunately, the election may be nothing more than a means to determine the parties' positions in another set of gang and military clashes. Lavalas' willingness to work toward again winning the upper hand democratically is a plus, but the table is still just waiting to be overturned.

Public opinion: a crude analysis

Leger Marketing releases a poll with remarkable results:

In the Leger poll, which was provided to The Canadian Press, 49 per cent of respondents wanted petroleum resources nationalized while 43 per cent said they would like to see the same fate for gas companies.

Quebecers were the strongest supporters of resource nationalization at 67 per cent, followed by residents of the Atlantic provinces at 53 per cent, Ontarians at 45 per cent and British Columbia at 42 per cent.

Forty per cent of respondents on the Prairies and 36 per cent of Albertans were in favour. Among those opposed, Albertans led the way at 49 per cent followed by British Columbians at 39 per cent...

Seventy-six per cent of respondents indicated they would like the government to intervene after recent gas hikes preceeding Katrina. Fifty-four per cent suggested they would like the government to fix the pump price.

Now, I don't agree with nationalization as a strategy (though hanging onto the federal government's Petro Canada shares would have been a good idea). And directly regulating prices is a potentially dangerous action which shouldn't be moved toward without very compelling reason to believe that there won't be serious unintended consequences.

But based on the poll, many or most members of the Canadian public favour major interventionist measures which haven't received a significant amount of press or discussion. And it isn't strictly a regional issue either - even in Alberta, a substantial minority backs nationalizing the province's strongest industries. Rather than Ontario against Alberta, the bigger faultline is between the public at large and the political sphere.

It's clear from the poll that the traditional "we can't do anything" line isn't resonating with the public. And when the public so obviously believes that something needs to be done, that view provides a platform from which to encourage more government action toward reducing our oil dependency.

Looking for a payoff

Dalton McGuinty makes his presence felt again - but rather than pushing a good plan for a commission on equalization, he's looking for another handout just months after previously securing $5.75 billion extra from PMPM:

Mr. McGuinty says he will not shy away from trying to get another potentially divisive debate on the federal election agenda: the estimated $23-billion gap between what he says the province pays Ottawa and what it gets back to help pay for federal services...

“We will continue to campaign on behalf of Ontarians to reduce the $23-billion gap before, during, after any federal election, and we will work with all the parties at the federal level to ensure that we're just getting a fair deal here in Ontario,” Mr. McGuinty said during the interview.

Translation: never mind taking a close look at the entire system, Ontario will apparently accept the status quo if it gets enough hush money (aka "fairness") in the heat of a campaign. A rather different position from last week, to say the least.

This should be the time for Martin (and the rest of the federal leaders) to hold McGuinty to his previous plan. If the system needs fixing, which hardly seems to be in dispute, then the only appropriate response is to take a complete look at how to change it - not to sign even more side deals to complicate the picture. And if a commission finds that Ontario isn't suffering in the current system, then McGuinty should be willing to accept that fact and deal with underfunding at home rather than looking for more federal money.

Flypaper and breeding grounds

Meanwhile, with U.S. attention focused elsewhere, the War on Terra isn't quite going as planned:

Abu Musab Zarqawi's foreign-led Al Qaeda in Iraq took open control of a key western town at the Syrian border, deploying its guerrilla fighters in the streets and flying Zarqawi's black banner from rooftops, witnesses, residents and others in the city and surrounding villages said...

Zarqawi's fighters were killing officials and civilians seen as government-allied or anti-Islamic, witnesses, residents and others said. On Sunday, the bullet-riddled body of a woman lay in a street of Qaim. A sign left on her corpse declared, "A prostitute who was punished."

But surely that'll only turn the locals against Al Qaeda and concurrently make them trust their occupiers, right? Not exactly:

Karim Hammad Karbouli, a 46-year-old resident still in Qaim, said he was waiting only for his brother to come with a pickup truck so Karbouli could load up his household and leave. Karbouli feared both Zarqawi's fighters and U.S. bombs, he said.

So not only is Al Qaeda now establishing strongholds in Iraq, but the local citizens don't see any difference between them and the supposed liberators. In other words, the battle for hearts and minds is even more of a failure than the battle for territory.

Hail to the Chief

Bush nominates John Roberts as Chief Justice of SCOTUS. It's surprising for a couple of reasons - not least because Antonin Scalia, the apparent frontrunner, has been on the court for ages and has a much more reliable record of pro-conservative judgments.

But if Bush trusts Roberts completely enough to want him in the top job even without any experience on the court, that'll only make the Democrats dig even harder to make sure of his credentials. And judging from some of the material that's popped up so far, there may be ample reason for concern if a lot of prior documents are combed more thoroughly. Why would Bush be willing to call that much more attention to Roberts' track record?

It could be that the nomination is a means of calling public (or at least pundit) attention away from Katrina's aftermath; a simple one-level promotion for Scalia would have been much less interesting. So far, so good on that front, as the nomination is now the top story on the New York Times and Washington Post websites.

But there's a simple counterattack from the Dems' standpoint as well: that just like the current heads of FEMA and DHS, this is another example of Bush promoting somebody based on ideology rather than qualification related to the task at hand, with potential to do damage to ordinary Americans for several decades. There's valid reason for the comparison in some of Roberts' known writings, as well as the fact that there are 7 other justices who are plainly more qualified in the SCOTUS setting, as well as countless others with more experience (both judicial and administrative) on lower courts. The main question now is whether the Dems have the guts to make the connection.

Failing negotiations

A rare piece of relatively good news for Bushco lately: contrary to earlier appearances, the U.S. is only one of many countries making it difficult for anybody to agree on UN reform:

"We are in a crisis situation at the moment," said Pakistan's UN ambassador, Munir Akram. "There has to be something for the heads of state and government to adopt, but obviously we're not going to reach a conclusion by doing what we've been doing."...

Seven issues are snagging talks: poverty and development, terrorism, collective action to prevent genocide, disarmament and nuclear nonproliferation, a new Human Rights Council to replace the discredited Human Rights Commission, a new Peacebuilding Commission to help countries emerging from conflict; and the overhaul of UN management.

Diplomats involved in the negotiations said the United States, Egypt, India, Pakistan, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela had taken hardline positions on different issues...

India's Sen said differences remained on all the key issues and that some "are insurmountable," citing disarmament and nonproliferation and intervention in another country in case of genocide or war crimes.

Now, to any state genuinely pursuing UN reform, this is a disastrous state of affairs. The issues still in dispute don't appear to be ones that can possibly be worked out without some serious give and take - and two of them (disarmament and nonproliferation) are plainly ones where the U.S. stands alone against most of the rest of the world.

But it's clear from the above list that the U.S. doesn't mind being seen as a rogue state, even if it means taking a very curious side when it comes to the total picture. The U.S. is now fighting against the entire E.U. and 100 other countries who have signed onto the current draft. On Bush's side is a group of nuclear proliferators (India and Pakistan), human rights abusers (Egypt and Iran) and countries which are going out of their way to try to counter the U.S.' influence (Cuba and Venezuela).

(Of course, some of the holdouts fit into more than one of the above categories. Mix and match as needed.)

Needless to say, there doesn't appear to be much chance of a meaningful deal being reached. But don't expect Bushco to be too disappointed. Because if the goal is to try to prove through sheer obstructionism that a multilateral decision-making body is unworkable, then this is on the verge of truly being a Mission Accomplished.

Vacation time

For those not bombarded with the Expedia commercials making the same point, Ipsos-Reid notes that a quarter of Canadian workers don't take all the time off that they're entitled to, largely out of fear that time off will hurt their standing in the workplace:

Stefane Kabene, a professor of human resources and organizational behaviour at the University of Western Ontario, said many employees worry about losing their footing as they climb the corporate ladder.

He says workers are increasingly avoiding taking off large blocks of time, in exchange for two- or three-day breaks.

"Their biggest fear is what's going to happen at work when they're not there," said Kabene. "If you leave for three or four weeks, you don't know who might be replacing the place you're leaving."

The most surprising part of the survey is that of the people who don't take time off, more work on vacation days out of fear (30%) than out of financial need (20%, based on the article's statement "one in five" - thought note that it's not clear that the number is from the same survey).

This isn't a matter of choice, it's a matter of corporate culture. And some added recognition that most workers need time to recharge could do as much good for employers as for the workers who stay on the job when they don't have to.

(Edit: typo.)

Respect for those worst off

The Star has the terrible story of a homeless man being beaten to death in Toronto - allegedly by three members of Canada's Armed Forces Reserves:

Paul Richard Croutch, 59, died at St. Michael's Hospital on Wednesday as his case manager stood nearby. An autopsy performed Friday found the cause of death was trauma to the head, and the injuries were consistent with being punched, kicked or stomped.

Police were called to an assault in Moss Park, near Sherbourne and Shuter Sts., shortly before 5 a.m. on Wednesday. An unconscious Croutch was rushed to hospital but died later that morning.

A woman who witnessed the beating and intervened was treated for soft-tissue damage and bruising, police said.

There can be no doubt that whoever committed the crime, it reflects utter contempt for human decency. And based on the assault on an innocent bystander who tried to help, there'll be awfully little basis for any claim that there wasn't some serious thought behind the act.

It's too soon to say much about the alleged perpetrators without delving into the realm of speculation. But I'll take one small step into that realm: if it's true that three well-trained Canadian forces members were responsible, then it'll be time for a serious look at Canada's current recruitment and training methods. Canada must demand that its representatives abroad demonstrate more respect for humanity than was demonstrated in the attack.

Making news accessible

The BBC plans to make all television and radio programming available for up to a week after it airs:

"I accept the premise that if the BBC remains nothing more than a traditional TV and radio broadcaster then we probably won't deserve or get licence-fee funding beyond 2016," Mr. Thompson (the BBC's Director General) said at Edinburgh International Television Festival. "That is very definitely not our plan."

I've mentioned before the value in trying to make current-affairs programming more accessible for public scrutiny. BBC is already ahead of its Canadian counterpart in making transcripts available, and it looks to be taking the lead on further accessibility. Kudos to the BBC; it's about time for Canada's networks to start planning for similar policies.

Double standards

In the last couple of days, Robert from My Blahg has been slammed by numerous Cons for suggesting that aid dollars should be sent to deal with Africa's famine instead of the U.S.' response to Katrina.

I'd like to point out here the difference between the suggestion of aid to the U.S. now, and the discussion a month back about Canada's aid to China. At that time, a group of bloggers (from across the political spectrum) agreed with Con MP Helena Guergis that Canada should cut off aid to China.

From the CBC at the time:

Guergis asked why the Liberal government is giving money to a country that:

* Has the biggest army in the world.
* Abuses human rights.
* Has the second-largest economy in the world.
* Has a space program.
* Has a nuclear-weapons program.

China doesn't need Canadian aid, and has even been trying to buy up Canadian companies, she said.

The aid going to China included funding to set up a legal aid program as well as food aid to impoverished areas. Some of the funding involved partnerships with government agencies, but all funding was targeted toward trying to improve the plight of the worst-off who hadn't seen the benefits of wealth collection elsewhere in the country.

Given that background, my question for discussion is this: if Guergis' criteria for refusing to give aid are valid, then how can an individual advocate giving aid to the U.S.? (Note that both Guergis herself and at least one blogger have personally taken the position of no aid to China, but aid to the U.S.)

To make it more challenging, I'm not buying any argument that we should respond differently to suffering caused by an emergency than to ongoing problem. The purpose of humanitarian aid must be to respond to humanitarian suffering, regardless of whether an immediate natural phenomenon is one of the most obvious causes. And even if there was a basis for distinction, it would surely evaporate in light of the U.S.' failure to properly fund measures which would have prevented the worst of the suffering. If we're concerned about indirectly supporting bad policy choices in China, we should have an equal concern about doing the same on our own continent.

So, have at it. If China is too rich and powerful to be a worthy aid recipient, why then should we send aid to the U.S.?

I'll mention in closing that I also disagree with Robert's position, for substantially the reason why I disagreed with the majority on the question of aid to China. The fact that there's a lot of wealth elsewhere in the U.S. doesn't mean that the people affected by Katrina aren't in a situation of urgent need. And to the extent that our aid can make a difference, it's entirely appropriate to try to do what we can.

Yes, we should be doing a lot more for Africa as well (i.e. actually meeting the .7% aid commitment). But as part of an effort to strengthen a global sense of community, we should be engaging in all reasonable efforts to try to help the worst-off. And those efforts should be made whether the need is in Africa, in the U.S., or in China.

Within whose means?

From the title of this article, it looked like Ralph Goodale might be sending a (perfectly valid) message of fiscal prudence to Canadians in general. But based on the article itself, Goodale (and his merry band of anonymous sources) is merely trying to lower government expectations again, while not even hinting that individual Canadians should try to live within their own means:

As always, though, Goodale will warn that everything must be done within a tight budget.

And for once, federal finances might be almost as tight as the minister claims.

In the next few weeks, Goodale is expected to announce the surplus from fiscal 2004-05 will be no more than $3 billion - as he forecast.

Sources say that's likely as good as things will get, after a flurry of last-minute adjustments to the books for the year that ended March 31.

Oddly, the sources don't take the time to explain how the government's fiscal situation could have deteriorated in an economy where everybody else's income is improving. Or how Goodale's plan is the least bit radical when the only apparent added funding is in post-secondary education - which, as we should all know, was addressed in the last budget thanks to the NDP's input.

The only other government policy put forward, a plan for streamlining regulation, is a good enough idea. But there's no particular reason for the issue not to have been addressed long ago - and it certainly doesn't seem to be a top-priority issue for most Canadians. Meanwhile, the three top public priorities (health care, the environment and child poverty, according to an Environics poll cited in the article) are ignored.

The other supposedly-fresh initiative to be pushed by Goodale is an increase in private-sector investment in education and research. Which is well and good in theory, but unlikely at best in practice since nothing in the article suggests that the request will be backed by policy supports. With interest rates rising, there's not much reason to think employers will suddenly decide that added training is a good investment at a higher cost now when it wasn't at a lower cost previously.

So, Goodale's plan is a combination of unduly minimizing the federal government's means and role, while simultaneously making demands of other sectors of society to support his vision while the public's priorities get ignored. Somehow this doesn't strike me as the epitome of responsible government.

Finishing the job

While Iraq hasn't yet worked out its new constitution, Afghanistan is far from anything resembling safety or democracy as well:

Suspected Taliban gunmen have kidnapped a district government chief, a candidate in upcoming legislative elections and three others after ambushing their vehicle in southern Afghanistan, police said Saturday...

Taliban rebels have stepped up attacks in the lead-up to the elections, leaving more than 1,100 people dead in the past six months...

Four elections workers and four candidates in the polls have been killed in recent weeks.

The abduction of the five also comes just days after a British engineer and his interpreter were abducted in Farah province in western Afghanistan.

Obviously the problems aren't constrained to any one part of the country, and the death toll (while widely ignored) is still mounting. Afghanistan has always been a military mission worth getting right, but there's an awful lot of evidence that the worthy goals there are slipping beyond reach.

The next best thing

So far, Wal-Mart has managed to delay and close its way out of any unionization. Having conceded temporary defeat on that front, organized labour has found a new way to put pressure on the company:

Having failed to unionize any Wal-Marts, American labor unions have helped form a new and unusual type of workers' association to press Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to improve its wages and working conditions.

With its first beachhead in Central Florida, the two-month-old group is already battling Wal-Mart, the nation's largest corporation, over what it says is the company's practice of reducing the hours that many employees work, often from 40 a week to 34, 30 or even fewer, jeopardizing some workers' health benefits...

The association says it has nearly 200 current and former Wal-Mart workers and is growing by 30 workers a week. Members pay dues of $5 a month. In Florida, its membership includes workers from 30 stores in the Tampa, Orlando and St. Petersburg areas, and it is also seeking to enlist Wal-Mart employees in Texas.

We'll see how far the idea goes, but this seems like it could be the start of something big.

Given the low current rates of private-sector unionization, there are without a doubt a lot of workers with strong pro-labour leanings who lack a natural connection point to the labour movement. It isn't difficult to anticipate a wide variety of service workers being eager to join in an effort which has a plausible chance of improving their lot.

For now, it's very early going. The focus is naturally on the one business with the widest social impact (not to mention the one most noted for labour concerns). And the number of people involved for now is far from imposing.

But the small start should be primarily a way to build the profile of the movement, not a limitation on how far it can go. With a lot of hard work and some good luck, worker's associations could conceivably a labour connector along much the same lines that unions were a few decades ago - but with a less centralized, more diverse structure that's less prone to splits and in-fighting. And that's the type of force that the North American political scene sorely needs.

Making a difference

Not many people could possibly give up a Supreme Court seat for a job presenting a greater opportunity to change the lives of many people. But Louise Arbour did just that, and her efforts are paying off:

Ms. Arbour met this week with the president of China's supreme court, cabinet ministers and several activist groups and signed an agreement to help China enact legal reforms that would pave the way for its ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The article (quite rightly) points out that there are a lot of serious human-rights problems in China which Arbour is also trying to call attention to. But the positive here shouldn't go unnoticed: one of the world's most severe human-rights violators is on the verge of agreeing to international standards. It's a small step, but a necessary one.

Minor issues and diversionary tactics

More news from that other violent and chaotic disaster area, as ongoing constitutional discussions in Iraq are "fine-tuning" the current document:

Iraq's Arab neighbours also have been unsettled by language in the draft identifying Iraq as an Islamic - not Arab - country. Arab League diplomats said they were concerned about language that would appear to weaken Iraq's ties to the Arab world...

"(P)robably some words will be changed here and there, and this issue is under discussion, especially the Iraqi identity," Kurdish negotiator Mahmoud Othman said. "We are discussing this article aiming at achieving an aspiration of the Arab League as well as to satisfy some parties."...

To the Sunnis, however, the biggest obstacle was the article paving the way for creation of federated states, the chief demand of the Kurds to protect their 14-year-old self-ruled area in the north.

So all that's left to be worked out are Iraq's national identity and its system of government. To people grounded in reality, disagreements on such core issues would indicate some serious differences of position leading to a need for a lot more negotiations to come. Unfortunately, for Iraq's puppet government, they're considered "minor issues", since adherence to timelines is apparently a lot more important than actually having a workable constitution.

Meanwhile, the article also points out that Saddam Hussein's trial is scheduled to start just after the constitutional vote. Supposedly the reason is to try to avoid polarization before the vote, but on that score there was no reason for the trial to start as soon as it will.

More likely the trial is simply a diversion. Even if the country descends even further into the abyss after the vote (as seems likely regardless of the outcome), Bushco will then start ranting ad nauseum about how Saddam's trial is the great accomplishment which justifies the invasion. Because in Bush's world, it's better to put thousands of innocent people to death than to let one guilty man go free.

Cutting back

It's a shame that it's taken a natural disaster for the issue of energy conservation to be pressed publicly, but now everybody's in on the act due to Katrina:

"As a major energy producer, Canada has the ability, and the obligation, to be a part of this important effort," Natural Resources Minister John Efford said in a release.

"Canadians are asked to exercise judgment in reducing the use of oil and gas at this time."...

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, which speaks for all of Canada's major oil and gas producers, said tight supply in hurricane Katrina's wake should be a "call to action for conservation."

Granted that the result for the moment is good, but this shouldn't merely be a momentary response. Hopefully it'll instead be an opportunity for people to learn some good habits which can carry over long after the U.S.' refining capacity is back to normal.

Centennial Celebration

The list of events is here. Take a look, and take the time to celebrate Saskatchewan this weekend.

Stability, respect and good work

For all the talk of societal economic stability, there's a huge difference between an economy that's doing well in numbers, and one in which individual employees actually have any stability for themselves. The Globe's Web comment features an excellent discussion on point:

Since the 1980s, many Canadian employers have responded to economic competition by shedding permanent full-time employees and replacing them with temporary employees on short-term contracts. Many companies have increased their reliance on temporary employment agencies. Hospitals, manufacturers and even universities have become increasingly reliant on these temporary employees...

For most employees, control is not based on being able to choose when, where and even whether to work, but rather on being in an employment relationship that has some degree of permanency and has a system of joint determination of compensation and working conditions.

The reality for most temporary workers is that they do not know from week to week if they will be working, where they will be working, or at what rate of compensation. For young workers, this uncertainty makes it difficult to plan a future. For workers with families, it makes it difficult to arrange child care, participate fully in their children's lives or play a role in their communities. For all temporary workers, the need to remain flexible, should work become available on short notice, makes it difficult to make fixed commitments to family, friends and society.

Obviously, there's a serious problem with a labour system effectively designed to detach employees from society at large. And what's worse is that public-sector employers are buying in: surely a public broadcaster or health-care provider, with greater social obligations itself and at least somewhat less market pressures than other employers, should be expected to be leaders in taking the wider societal implications into account.

Another point worth mentioning from the above passage is the importance of "joint determination" of many aspects of workplace life. Even among employers which provide full-time work, there's all too often a condescending view that workers should view their jobs as a privilege and accept all terms in order to keep them - see e.g. Regina mayor Pat Fiacco's "sober up" comment to city workers (which likely prevented a contract from being approved). The wrong-headed position that employees can't reasonably present a differing (and sometimes, more accurate) view of the workplace leads only to irritation on both sides.

Of course, employees and unions should be willing to accept reasonable terms of employment when offered. But so too should employers recognize not only that stability can be as much a plus for them as for workers, but also that the best solutions to most workplace issues come from both sides respecting and listening to each other. At both the CBC and City of Regina, that seems to be sorely lacking.

Commission Salesman

Dalton McGuinty is set to make his case for a review of equalization:

Ontario is stepping up pressure on Ottawa to review the way it calculates provincial transfer payments with a national commission to address what the province says is a fiscal gap.

Such a commission would be the first since 1937 to look at the fiscal arrangements between the provinces and the federal government. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty presses for the analysis in an op-ed piece scheduled to be published Friday in CanWest newspapers across the country.

"I believe passionately in Canada. I believe in federalism. But I am equally convinced that the fiscal arrangements designed to support it are terribly outmoded and in need of significant reform," McGuinty says in the article.

Amen to that. At the moment, one of the great problems with the current Liberal provincial-relations strategy has been its complete failure to compare priorities. The equalization side deals may be justifiable in principle, but there's been no principled reason for the way money has been tossed around except for the relative political bargaining power held by a given province. Needless to say, that's a problematic recipe for responsible spending - and while it appears that nobody's losing out in the short term, the long-term effect is a much weaker federal system.

That said, McGuinty seems to miss a very important point. While Ontario will surely claim it's facing an unfair fiscal gap, it's far too early to prejudge just what such a commission would decide. There's thus some risk for McGuinty in proposing the commission, as his province could "lose" as easily as it could "win" in the final analysis

For the country as a whole, on the other hand, a commission should have some hugely positive effects.

First, it should shut down the side-deal structure as long as the commission is in progress. From a provincial standpoint, there'll be little incentive to put resources toward demanding a temporary fix rather than putting forward the best possible case on a permanent program. Meanwhile, the federal government will get temporary political cover from any immediate demands that provinces do make.

Second, during the course of the commission it should provoke a sorely-needed public debate on the question of the purpose of equalization. I've mentioned before my position that the ultimate goal should be meaningful equality of opportunity from province to province, without guaranteed equal results. But the submissions should run the gamut from virtually no equalization to nearly total equalization, and that debate would be the most meaningful policy discussion this country has seen in recent memory, bringing back to the table questions of both the services which we expect from government in general, and the relative control that each level of government should hold over those services.

Finally, after all is said and done, there's the benefit of the end result - presumably a system that most Canadians are happier with, and that the rest can at least see was the production of a transparent process with the good of the country in mind. And if that means less of the current sniping, both between provinces and between levels of government, then maybe it'll be another 68 years before we need to go through the process again.

My main fear is that the commission would be too good an idea to be put into effect - that it would have the effect of moving issues above partisan lines which the Liberals see as holding the potential for partisan gain. But now that McGuinty is on board, it'll be awfully tough for Martin to outright dismiss the prospect. Kudos to McGuinty, and hopefully this worthwhile idea will soon become reality.

Worth a reminder

Does anybody think it's a coincidence that following the NDP budget deal, tuition increases are at their lowest level since the '70s?

Of course, credit goes to the provinces as well for making education more of a priority, both in adding funding and in regulating fees. And Calvert is leading the pack there:

(F)ees will remain virtually unchanged in Newfoundland and Labrador and Saskatchewan.

"For a couple of decades we have seen governments providing a diminishing portion of our operating costs ... and that's right across the country," said Peter MacKinnon, president of the University of Saskatchewan...

MacKinnon said the Saskatchewan government's support was such that his university was able to keep fees at last year's levels.

But more attention to the issue on the national stage, as well as the promise of added federal funding, has to be a huge part of the reason. To Jack and company, well done.

The threat at home

The Tyee reports on the all-too-common presence of PBDEs in our homes - and notes a stark contrast between the apparent threat and the lack of action:

In the late 1990s, scientists discovered that levels of PBDEs in people's bodies was skyrocketing, doubling every two to five years. Worse, testing on laboratory animals suggested that PBDEs can pose some of the same risks as their chemical cousins, the PCBs. As with PCBs, a single dose of PBDEs administered to a laboratory animal during a critical phase of early development can cause permanent aberrations in memory and behavior. "Background" levels of PCBs -- the levels to which someone could be exposed in a fairly ordinary diet in the 1970s and 1980s -- are known to impair the human immune system and reduce IQ, and some scientists worry that PBDEs may have some of the same effects...

Recent tests in Japan, Europe and North America have detected PBDEs in virtually everyone examined, as well as in fish, wildlife, foods and housedust. A February 2005 study, for example, found that Canadian foods were among the most contaminated in the world, with PBDE levels up to 1,000 times higher than those found in tests in European countries...

Fortunately, the most troublesome forms of PBDEs were removed from the North American marketplace last fall. But that doesn't mean that PBDE levels in people have halted their meteoric rise; crumbling foam furniture and other consumer products may continue to be a reservoir for contamination for decades...

So far, most of the political attention paid to PBDEs has focused on removing them from commerce. This is all well and good, but it fails to address the literally billions of pounds of PBDEs already sequestered in homes and workplaces.

While it may help to respond by dusting more often and replacing furniture with PBDE-free models, the article points out that there's a bigger issue in the reckless use of chemicals without proper testing.

This isn't to say that all chemicals should be avoided at all times. But the potential cost/benefit calculation needs to be far more rigorous than it seems to have been. In exchange for the ability to use polyurethane foam in furniture, we're left with a massive stockpile of indestructible, harmful material which was (according to the article) known to be a cousin to long-banned substances such as PCB and DDT. And it appears that Europe and Japan have managed to avoid much of the damage.

Part of the answer should lie in greater international consultation - every country shouldn't have to reinvent the wheel in trying to determine which substances are acceptable for use. But the foundational principle is simply one of risk awareness, whether the threat is as obvious as a hurricane or as subtle as housedust. And neither Canada nor the U.S. has much to brag about on that point.

Weapons of mass confusion

The U.S. claims it's too preoccupied by Katrina to take care of softwood lumber for now. Fair enough, as long as it's dealt with as soon as possible once the immediate emergency subsides. But is Katrina any particular reason to avoid accepting aid to the affected areas?

Planes are ready to load with food and medical supplies and a system called "DART" which can provide fresh water and medical supplies is standing by. Department of Homeland Security as well as other U.S. agencies were contacted by the Canadian government requesting permission to provide help. Despite this contact, Canada has not been allowed to fly supplies and personnel to the areas hit by Katrina...

Canadian agencies are saying that foreign aid is probably not being permitted into Louisiana and Mississippi because of "mass confusion" at the U.S. federal level in the wake of the storm.

Canada has since made concrete offers to help through DART, through the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, and possibly through other means. But the only Canadians already on their way are members of a provincial force from B.C., at the request of Louisiana's state government, as well as Ontario power workers who appear to have travelled on their own.

According to the what seems to be the most recent information, the U.S. federal government is still "assessing its needs". Shouldn't a country completely focused on minimizing and recovering from a disaster have at least some handle on its needs this long after the disaster strikes? And how many people who could be helped by foreign contributions are going to suffer as a result of the lack of organization?

Double standards

Deborah Bourque and Maude Barlow discuss how NAFTA has been interpreted in nonsensical ways, and always to the benefit of the U.S.:

Canada has lost two Chapter 11 cases, and paid to settle another. Mexico has also lost two. But the U.S. thus far has emerged unscathed. When panels interpret the provisions of Chapter 11 broadly, they seem to do this only in cases brought against Canada and Mexico.

In one case directed at the U.S., a panel ruled against a challenge by the Canadian funeral company Loewen even though the panel agreed that Loewen had been treated with "manifest injustice" by U.S. courts. Just this month, a panel ruled against Canadian investor Methanex's challenge to California's ban on a gasoline additive. It even awarded costs to the U.S. government that were 30 per cent higher than what the U.S. had sought...

Legal scholars had predicted that, if Methanex had won its case, American politicians would not have stood for this intrusion into U.S. sovereignty and Chapter 11 would have been finished.

As perhaps it should be anyway. But that could be something to discuss in a new session of Parliament.

There's more to some of the cases than the writers indicate (e.g. to my recollection in the MMT case the ban was actually on transportation of the chemical rather than use of the chemical itself), but the central point is absolutely right: a dispute resolution mechanism that was supposed to give Canada some recourse against the U.S. has done nothing but give American corporations a hammer to use against Canada.

Speaking of preventable tragedies...

For those still trying to claim with a straight face that privatizing parts of health care will somehow lead to lower costs and better coverage, Bob Herbert points out a fine example of what can happen when governments try to cover services at private-sector prices:

Thanks to Mr. Bredesen's leadership, Tennessee is dumping nearly 200,000 residents, some of them desperately ill, from TennCare, the state's Medicaid program. Cindy Mann, a research professor and executive director of the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University's Health Policy Institute, concisely characterized the governor's efforts:

"What he's decided to do is save health care costs simply by not giving people health care."...

What is happening in Tennessee is profoundly cruel. The people being removed from the rolls - some of them disabled, some suffering from such serious illnesses as cancer and heart disease - are mostly working-poor individuals who cannot afford private insurance. They are being left with no coverage and in many instances are in a state of absolute panic.

And I doubt anybody will call in the National Guard or take up an international collection for the victims of the decision either.

Planning for the worst

Billmon writes on how a lack of foresight is responsible for most of the damage to New Orleans:

The real lesson of Katrina, though, is that the scenes we've been watching in New Orleans could be repeated in many other places in the decades ahead, if the worst-case scenarios generated by the global climate change models become realities.

It's easy, even for reasonable people, to disregard those scenarios. The worst case, after all, doesn't usually happen. But the flooding of New Orleans, like the destruction of Pompeii, is a graphic demonstration of the fact that sometimes the worst case (or something like it) does happen, especially if it is preceded by years of willful ignorance and blind self interest.

If the worst case for global climate change comes to pass, the environmental and economic losses will dwarf, many times over, the costs of Hurricane Katrina. They'll also reduce into insignificance the price tag on the Kyoto Treaty -- which itself may be too little, too late. If Shrub really thinks that doing something about climate change would "wreck the economy," he should spend some of his unused vacation time thinking about what just happened to New Orleans.

Go read. As tragic as is the loss of life caused by Katrina, it's doubly so for the fact that it was readily preventable.

On learning

The Tyee points out that North America's obsession with standardized testing is not only harmful in itself, but the exact opposite tactic from that being taken by its global competitors:

It seems that in North America we conduct more research on education, learning and brain development, and ignore more of it, than anywhere else in the world. This needs to change. Studies have proven time and time again that standardized testing is unable to measure things that truly determine success or failure in life. Ironically, North American school reform, like the Fraser Institute's rankings, or the American "No Child Left Behind" act, are trying to bring our children's standardized test scores up to the level of Asia's students, some of whom have famously set the bar with dazzling displays of mental computation that beat the speed of calculators. At the same time, booming Asian countries are trying to reform their education systems to encourage innovation, creativity, social responsibility, and the capacity to engage in creative solutions and problem solving- none of which can be measured by a standardized test.

The ultimate standardized test will be the question of which countries wind up doing better from the standpoint of employers. And there's no reason for them to choose the less creative workers out of a crop of similar test performers.

Still growing, for now

StatsCan's latest economic data is out, and Canada's economy is again growing faster than anticipated by economists. And the peripheral data sounds equally promising:

The Canadian economy grew at an annualized rate of 3.2% in the second quarter of the year, compared to 2.1% in the last quarter...

Growth in final domestic demand slowed to 0.7% in the second quarter, down from a very strong 1.5% jump in the first quarter. While the growth in final domestic demand was much stronger in the first quarter, much of it was satisfied through a surge in imports rather than domestic production, moderating the overall growth in GDP. The opposite was the case in the second quarter; even though final domestic demand slowed, a much greater share of this demand was satisfied through domestic production, resulting in an acceleration in GDP...

Personal expenditures grew 0.6% following a stellar performance in the first quarter. Strong demand for durable and semi-durable goods continued to drive output up in the retail trade (+1.1%) and wholesale trade sectors (+2.3%).

Some of the recent growth in personal expenditures has been spurred on by the growth in labour income. Labour income grew 1.5%, outpacing the growth of consumption for the first time since the fourth quarter of 2003.

In other words: Canadians are making more money than before, spending a good amount of it on Canadian-made goods, and also using more for purposes other than consumption (which would hopefully include added investment and paying down debt).

That's the good news. The bad news is that the Bank of Canada will predictably use the increased spending and general economic activity as added reason to put an end to the progress:

The report will reinforce the view that interest rates will rise next week. The Bank of Canada meets a week from today and is widely expected to raise rates for the first time in 11 months, by 25 basis points to 2.75 per cent, in an effort to keep inflation in check.

The moral of the story: make good use of any raises and opportunities while they're there, as once again your central bank is going out of its way to make sure they don't last for long.

Foreseeable dangers

If the stock market crashes in the next couple of months, Donald Coal will be able to say "I told you so" thanks to his list of five factors that could lead to a financial storm. Of particular interest is the most plausible threat:

Alan Greenspan is headed for retirement, and he wants to go out as the man who slew the speculative excesses that threaten the U.S. economy -- notably the housing bubble. In all past periods of sustained Fed tightening, long-term interest rates rose. Most importantly, the yield on the 10-year treasury note, which is the basis for home mortgage loan yields, always rose, and that cooled out -- or sometimes killed -- the housing market, along with other kinds of asset speculation. Not this time.

In what Greenspan calls "a conundrum," 10-year yields have actually fallen since he began raising the Fed funds rate from its surreal low level of one per cent to the current 3.5 per cent. In percentage terms, that's the most dramatic Fed tightening ever, but money is still loose, speculation is still robust, and house prices remain, as he puts it, "frothy" in at least some parts of the country. (Greenspan resists using the term "bubble," because he has never identified a bubble until after it burst, even Nasdaq at 5,000.)

When he was a private economist, Greenspan was known as a poor forecaster. Perhaps that record encourages him to proclaim the impossibility of identifying asset price excesses. Still, he keeps raising interest rates by .25 per cent at every meeting. The gap between his rate and the 10-year yield is now a relatively tiny .8 per cent, aiming toward almost zero by year-end. Flat or inverted yield curves (in which short-term interest rates are as high, or higher than, long-term rates) usually produce recessions. They even more usually produce stock market sell-offs.

Of course, there's no easy way out of the problem for Greenspan: while holding the Fed rate down would avoid the inverted yield curve, that would also help to encourage more spending and expand what Greenspan surely knows to be a housing bubble. Unfortunately, it was bad policy choices over the past four years that made the situation what it is now - and like it or not, Greenspan's legacy will likely be as the man who could (and should) have prevented both the reckless Bush tax cut and the current bubble. It seems the best he can do now is to try to shift some of the blame.

For the rest of us, meanwhile, now might be a great time to let some investments go on vacation.

More good commentary

Thomas Walkom writes on the death of NAFTA:

The death of NAFTA was confirmed this month when Washington refused — again — to obey a trade tribunal requiring it to let Canadian softwood lumber into the U.S. duty-free.

Yet the dying has been going on a long time. In some ways, it is as if NAFTA never lived.

Canada's federal government finds this hard to accept. The governing Liberals, once stoutly opposed to the Canada-U.S. free trade deals, now swear by them.

Prime Minister Paul Martin seems to think a light slap on the American wrist — say, punitive duties on California wines applied at some vaguely indeterminate time in the future — will pressure the U.S. into doing what Canada wants.

But the point is that the U.S. is not abiding by NAFTA rules because, in a fundamental way, it does not intend to — and never did.

Particularly useful is Walkom's historical perspective: businesses on Canadian soil have steadily demanded added integration with the the U.S. at any cost since before Canada was a country. There has been some subtle improvement in that this time out nobody's actively calling for annexation (to my knowledge), but for the most part the song remains the same.

Take a look.

I can't wait for the salute to show tunes

It's bad enough that the Cons seem to want to put Supreme Court nominees through a U.S.-style publicity wringer, but criticizing Cotler for inviting public input into the nomination seems way off base:

Some critics are dismissing it as nothing more than Canadian Idol for the legal set, as Justice Minister Irwin Cotler seeks public input into who should fill the next vacancy on Canada's Supreme Court.

The federal Justice Department issued a release today asking Canadians to submit suggestions for potential candidates to replace Justice John Major, who retires Dec. 25.

While I'm more than willing to be critical of Cotler when he deserves it, this strikes me as a solid balance to be struck in appointing a Supreme Court justice. Many different people and groups will get a voice in the selection, and in fact there are a couple of points where any overly partisan judges could be filtered out (not that that's an issue among the top candidates anyway), but ultimately a prime ministerial appointment carried out in good faith goes a long way toward avoiding a SCOTUS-style circus.

Of course, there are those who seem to think that the SCOTUS frenzy doesn't go far enough. In the article, Democracy Watch suggests giving each federal party a veto over any one candidate for the nomination. A brilliant suggestion, if one's goal is to force the government to horse-trade other policies in order to get the best candidate to the bench against a threatened veto. But the most I can say from a democracy perspective is that it'll provide for equal-opportunity mudslinging as parties slam each other's motives for using (or threatening to use, or not using) the veto.

Sadly, the article doesn't actually name anybody willing to go on record comparing a life appointment to the bench to Canadian Idol. Anybody with a better idea of the source of the reference, please post a comment.

Cause and effect

This should come as little surprise:

The U.S. poverty rate rose to 12.7 per cent of the population last year, the fourth consecutive annual increase, the Census Bureau said Tuesday...

The last decline in overall poverty was in 2000, when 31.1 million people lived under the threshold — 11.3 per cent of the population...

Sheldon Danziger, co-director of the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan, said the poverty number is still much better than the 80s and early 90s.

“The good news is that poverty is a lot lower than it was in 1993, but we went through a hell of an economic boom,” Mr. Danziger said. “Nobody is predicting we're going to go through another economic boom like that.”

I'm not sure there could be a more obvious connection between political leadership and the poverty rate. But even for Bushco, this is an impressive feat. Based on a rough calculation (1.4% of 300 million people), this means 4.2 million more people in poverty than there would have been under the poverty rate at the start of Bush's tenure. Compassionate conservatism indeed.

We'll see now how many employees of the Census Bureau join the sub-poverty-line group for having the gall to release the facts.

No hard evidence of competence

More insanity from the Arar inquiry. The diplomat who met with Maher Arar in Syria concluded that there was no "hard evidence of torture", even though he didn't actually have any training as to what hard evidence might be:

It was clear from Arar's body language that he didn't feel free to speak on certain subjects, said Martel.

It also appeared the Syrians had been holding Arar in jail for longer than they had previously admitted.

Martel insisted repeatedly that he saw no visible signs of torture. But he admitted he had no specialized training in how to detect warning signals of physical or psychological mistreatment.

The testimony raises a couple of issues. First, shouldn't diplomats who might be expected to have to deal with a situation such as Arar's receive training that would allow them to fully evaluate the behaviour of a detainee? Maybe it's only obvious in hindsight, but as far as I can tell an office charged with upholding the interests of Canadians abroad should be well aware of the risk posed by states with a history of violating human rights.

And second, the question underlying the entire inquiry: what exactly was Canada's standard for taking meaningful action? It appears that many officials at least had substantial concerns about Arar's treatment, and the main justification for doing nothing was a lack of information as to what as going on. Under those circumstances, why wouldn't Canada have demanded at least the opportunity to speak with Arar without supervision?

At the very least, thanks to the inquiry we should have some answers as to what went wrong. But these should be open questions for the future as well, lest more Canadians become collateral damage in the war on terror while their government sits idly by.

Edit: Note also this Globe and Mail piece, as Cotler tries to have it both ways on torture. Though I suppose if one squints hard enough, Cotler's may not be an entirely contradictory position: torture is indefensible, ergo Cotler will refuse to comment when it happens rather than trying to defend it.

Adding to the confusion

As if softwood lumber wasn't enough of a mess, now the U.S.' 2004 trade ruling upholding the existing tariffs is being upheld by the WTO:

The WTO panel ruled yesterday that the United States adhered to international law when it issued a revised finding in late 2004 that Canadian softwood lumber imports threatened its mills, said a U.S. trade official, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

The confidential ruling, confirmed by Canadian officials, further complicates an already tangled web of legal decisions in the long-running trade feud.

Not that this accomplishes anything in terms of ending the matter: it gives the U.S. more bargaining power in negotiations, but it looks like we're well past that point anyway. It's only an interim ruling, even if it is expected to be upheld later. And while I'm not sure exactly how the WTO and NAFTA rules interrelate, I'd have to presume that compliance with one set of rules doesn't justify violation of the other.

Even assuming that the WTO finding will definitely give justification to the U.S.' 2004 trade ruling, the U.S. has gone out of its way to point out the difference between its 2002 and 2004 rulings. Now it's Canada's turn to draw the distinction: a valid ruling in 2004 couldn't possibly have justified tariffs in 2002-2003, so Canada should still have a claim to all money collected in that time.

It's a good thing we have all these international agreements to bring predictability and logic to trade, isn't it?

What I did on summer vacation

The NDP wants Parliament to reconvene and take action on softwood lumber. The Libs are open to the idea. But one party's not done with the barbecue circuit just yet:

We have no plans for early return,” Mr. Harper's acting communications director William Stairs said Monday, dismissing an idea first floated by NDP Leader Jack Layton...

Mr. Stairs said if the New Democrats wanted to see progress on the issue of U.S. duties on construction-grade wood, they'd agree with the Conservatives and pressure Prime Minister Paul Martin to call U.S. President George W. Bush.

Mr. Stairs said the Tories have been urging Mr. Martin to talk to Mr. Bush for weeks to resolve things at the highest political level but he has refused to pick up the phone.

Just in case there's any doubt, I'll agree that Martin should have been on the phone to Bush long ago. But that's no excuse for the rest of Canada's MPs to shy away from representing their constituents as best possible. Not to mention that a session of Parliament would put Martin on the hook in question period every single day he refused to make the call.

Apparently the Cons still haven't figured out how best to apply pressure to the PM. Which may be why the party with a fifth as many seats had five times as much effect on the budget. No wonder the Cons want more time to get their act together before meeting their rivals face-to-face again.