Good words, little action

There are contrasting views in the Liberal party about how to handle the CBC lockout. While Joe Fontana merely wants to ask both sides for plans to end the lockout, Sarmite Bulte is rightly making noise about forcing the CBC to account for government money received during the lockout:

Bulte asked Treasury Board officials yesterday whether dollars directed to the CBC during the lockout could be put into a trust or something similar, to ensure the corporation wasn't using the dispute merely to save money. But she was told the CBC's financing was part of the June budget and no one can simply revoke measures in it.

What she can do, she was told, is ask for a Heritage Department audit of how the CBC used government money during this lockout. Bulte says she intends to ask for that.

"They may have to give some of it back," Bulte said, especially if an audit reveals the CBC is using these savings from the lockout to cover other losses. She said she would also be annoyed if the corporation used those savings to beef up its resources after the lockout, as a way of regaining stature and goodwill.

"You can't buy back the public," Bulte said.

While any need to save money can be readily traced back to the Liberals in the first place, Bulte deserves credit for at least pointing out that there's no reason for management to be able to profit at the expense of its locked-out workers. But that does leave the question of what to do next. And despite some momentary appeal to back-to-work legislation (another Bulte-backed solution), it's not going to solve the underlying problems of the CBC unless it's accompanied by enough future funding to let the network function.

Progressives for Anders

The big blog story today has been the Progressives for Harper movement, and I'm not going to pretend that it doesn't hold some appeal.

But allow me to dissent at least in part. Canukistan has already pointed out one former leader who I think we'd all rather see in charge than Stevie Franchise. And I'd think there are more than a few other potential candidates. Just think how much easier it would be for the NDP to take over as the main opposition party if the Cons' leader was someone who genuinely goes out of his way to be scary, rather than someone who merely gets outmaneuvered at every turn and fails to counter Liberal attacks.

What's more, I'm not sure it's too implausible to think that the Cons' base could conclude that Harper has moderated party policy too much, and accordingly go even harder-right with the party's next leader. So by throwing our support to Harper, we may only prevent the Cons from making an even bigger and better mistake.

Granted, Harper has managed to squander what should have been golden opportunities to take over 24 Sussex Drive, and for that we remain grateful. But while he's managed to make the Cons into an also-ran, I don't think we can say he's made them completely toxic yet. And I for one will reserve my support until I see a Con leader who can.

Money in the bank

The CP clarifies the impact of Goodale's recently-released budget numbers, with plenty of good news for this year:

Ottawa took in an extra $2.3 billion in July 2005 - almost $1 billion more than it reported during the same period one year ago, the Finance department reported Friday. That brought the total federal surplus to $7.1 billion from April through July - near double the $4.3 billion recorded during the same period a year earlier.

As pointed out in the article, even last year's level of income had the federal government in line to bank a surplus over 8 billion until the late spending came into play. Barring a shocking turn of events, the NDP budget deal looks like it's safe based on the numbers...as long the government in power at the end of the 2005-06 fiscal year is still interested in implementing it.

Returning for the right reasons

A couple of days ago, the OECD threatened that Canada's economy can't afford to see workers retire early. But today, Statistics Canada pointed out that the movement back to work has been in progress for over a decade:

According to a study released by Statistics Canada on Friday, 22 per cent of those who retired between 1992 and 2000 at the age of 50 or older went back to some form of paid work.

The study shows that retirees in good health who have the right kind of education and skills just can’t stay away. While the number one reason for returning was financial – 38 per cent of respondents said it was about the money – most had something else on their minds.

A full 22 per cent said they did not like retirement, 19 per cent said they were after “the intrinsic rewards offered by work,” such as challenging tasks, social contacts and sense of purpose. And 14 per cent said they were needed.

The OECD report contains some eminently sensible suggestions: that mandatory retirement ages be eliminated, that more training be available for older workers, and that workers be able to receive some pension funds while going back to work. But the OECD also suggests making retirement less comfortable by reducing RRSP incentives, which sounds like an awfully dangerous road to start down - effectively trying to reduce the economic well-being of older workers in order to create a need for employment. And judging from the StatsCan data, a good number of workers already lack the means to support themselves following retirement; there's little reason to think more people should be pushed into the same situation.

Fortunately, the StatsCan study suggests that a good number of workers end up going back for far better reasons. Having already spent enough time and effort at work to have earned their retirement, they still have a desire keep contributing. That, rather than economic need, is a reason for working past retirement age that we can all get behind. And we should be looking for every way possible to make sure that people in those circumstances don't face any barriers to working.

Returns on investment

The National Post points out one possible reason why increased investment in health care hasn't yet produced the results we'd like:

Canada's health care system is rife with fraud that costs the public and private sectors an estimated $3-billion to $10-billion a year, the country's first-ever survey of health fraud indicates...

More than 100 players in the field responded to the survey, including almost 80 who represent the insurance companies and government agencies and departments that make payments to health care providers. Others were police or investigators in the field.

All respondents estimated at least 3% of claims were fraudulent, while about seven out of 10 pegged the prevalence of the problem at 6%-19%.

Naturally, this doesn't mean there's a need to criticize the vast majority of health-care workers who do their job without padding the numbers. But in such a rapidly-expanding field, there's lots of money to be made by claiming to be performing necessary health services. And that leads to a need for countermeasures to ensure that the money goes only where it's needed.

I'm not one to demand audits as a matter of course: in a lot of cases they may add additional costs without much benefit. But where as large a program as health care is facing such systemic problems, the cost/benefit analysis shifts. From the scope of the survey, it doesn't appear that any one province or field has escaped the problem - meaning that only a well-coordinated federal effort is likely to put a serious dent in the problem.

Stupid or worse?

E.J. Dionne gives his generous interpretation of Bushco's fiscal policy:

At least the Operation Offset crowd has produced this list of cuts and forced its own leaders to disown them. The exchange showed how fundamentally stupid our budget policies have been over the past five years -- and, yes, I'll defend that strong word...

Why describe our government's fiscal policies as "stupid," rather than, say, "ill-advised" or "misguided"? The softer words of conventional opinion writing imply disagreement but suggest an honest coherence in the other side's view. Hey, we all disagree on stuff, right?...

Which brings us back to that word "stupid." My dictionary tells me it means not only "lacking in ordinary intelligence" but also "dazed" and "stupefied." The crowd running our government is dazed and stupefied by a theory that sees throwing ever-larger sums to the wealthy in the form of tax cuts as so good, right and important that all the ordinary rules of finance and economics can be thrown out the window. If it was already stupid to pursue more tax cuts once the country decided to wage a large war on terrorism, it is supremely stupid to stay on the same course now that Katrina has added to our fiscal burdens and Rita, God help us, threatens to add more.

Dionne points out the current chasm in the Republican party, between the group of "fiscal hawks" which wants to cover added costs by slamming today's poor, and the White House-led faction which simply doesn't care about how anything should be paid for. While Dionne considers it a strong step to call the latter point of view "stupid", I'll take the view that it's both too generous a phrase, and wrong in its analysis of Bushco's motivations.

Rather, the right word is somewhere between "ruthless" and "malicious", though I'm open to suggestions as to even better fits. By completely ignoring the fiscal impact of current policy, Bush is managing to tie the hands of whoever succeeds him, ensuring that whatever future tax increases are necessary as a reaction to his tax-cutting must be used first to pay off his debt, rather than to repair the ever-increasing damage done to groups who don't form part of his core constituency.

Sure, there's some dishonesty in any claims of fiscal responsibility. But the bigger harm lies in the honest pursuit of a Norquistian "death to effective government" philosophy. And if Bushco's architects were genuinely stupid, they wouldn't have done quite so well at not only controlling the trappings of power, but also undermining bureaucratic and social systems built to outlast any one regime.

Well said

Scott Piatkowski tears into PMPM for his UN hypocrisy:

It's not uncommon for politicians to rehearse their speeches in front of a mirror. In Martin's case, if he's looking for someone to condemn for “empty rhetoric,” he should probably stick to delivering them in front of a mirror as well.

Not too much new information, but it's a nice summary of how Martin's lofty language so often runs contrary to his actions (or lack thereof). Give it a read.

Cellucci unmuzzled

Now that he's no longer Bushco's Canadian spokesman, Paul Cellucci has some worthwhile comments to make:

Mr. Cellucci also questioned sending a dual Canadian-Syrian citizen off to a dungeon-like cell in Damascus without notifying Canadian authorities. An agreement since signed between Washington and Ottawa will prevent it from happening again, he said.

"Part of the unfairness was that we took a Canadian citizen, shipped him to a third country without consulting with Canada," Mr. Cellucci told The Canadian Press in a telephone interview Wednesday from Calgary.

Now just by acknowledging that there are some limits to the President's unfettered discretion to do anything in the name of fighting terror (even for reasons of comity rather than human rights), Cellucci goes against everything his former boss seems to stand for. But it gets better:

Often criticized during his ambassadorship for his outspoken "megaphone diplomacy," Mr. Cellucci openly acknowledged Washington got it wrong when it alleged deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction — even though he says such weapons were the "major reason for going in."

"We're not always right, and on that particular one it looks like we weren't right, although we know at some point in the past he did have these weapons," Mr. Cellucci said.

And while the book is highly critical of former prime minister Jean Chrétien's decision to keep Canada out of war in Iraq — saying Mr. Chrétien showed "indecision, mixed signals and confusion" instead of leadership — Mr. Cellucci said Wednesday he understands why Canadians applaud the decision.

Of particular interest is the fact that Cellucci's biggest criticism is Canada's lack of a strong stand rather than its ultimate position - and he acknowledges that we were right in the end. Which seems to provide all the more reinforcement for the idea that the biggest error the Liberals have made is to try to have it both ways rather than to clearly explain why the U.S. sometimes deserves to be opposed.

Contained inflation

Most news sources have prominently displayed the high inflation rate in August. But only CBC Unlocked gives as much attention to the cause as to the effect on its front page headline.* And its analysis is worth a look as well:

The surprising story behind high oil and gasoline prices is that they are not causing the prices of other goods to inflate.

Energy prices are driving up the costs of making many goods, such as plastics and paper, as well as the cost of shipping them. But that cost isn't being passed onto the consumer...

Statistics show companies have made their operations more efficient by reducing the amount of energy used. Companies are inventing new products for which they can charge higher prices because they can't boost prices on existing goods. If that doesn't work, they are shutting down production or moving it to countries with lower labour costs. Raising prices is a last resort for companies facing competition from abroad.

Unfortunately, only the first two of these strategies can really be seen as positive ones (and it seems particularly odd that anybody would move offshore when that would seem likely to increase shipping costs all the more). But to the extent that businesses are becoming more energy-efficient, there is reason to believe Steve Maich's argument that some good is coming out of the higher oil prices. And most of the potential harm to consumers from higher fuel prices doesn't seem to have materialized yet.

We'll see if that holds up as gas shocks get even worse. But for now, while there's reason to watch closely to make sure that price increases are legitimate, there's definitely no reason to panic. Let's hope the Bank of Canada keeps that in mind next time it decides whether or not to raise interest rates.

*In fairness, the National Post also notes the cause and effect on its business page headline. But the NP's front page doesn't appear to mention the inflation story at all.

Diversity of opinion

The Globe's web comment points out that another group of professional immigrants is having trouble finding a place in Canada - but that something is being done on at least a small scale:

When the Spectator let it be known that it was interested in talking with immigrant journalists in Hamilton, 20 showed up for the initial meeting. They came from India, Azerbaijan, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, Angola, Ethiopia and Colombia. Jim Poling, the Spectator's assistant managing editor who ran the program, wrote later: "Some struggle with English. Some are shy. Some are nervous. They tell us about being beaten, imprisoned, tortured. One woman tells us how the police in Central America raided her newsroom and pulled reporters out of their desks and off to jail. By the time we arrived at the final person," Mr. Poling observed, "our own journalists felt humbled, proud of being journalists, and sad. Sad because there was such rich talent in this community that deserved to be telling our readers about stories of importance to them."

Half of the original 20 journalists committed themselves to the program. They met every week with Mr. Poling. The aim was to prepare them to begin writing for the paper as regular paid freelancers. The program now has 20 participants, including a core group of about 10 who write regularly. It also has its own designated freelance photographer, who was a professional news photographer in Pakistan before coming to Canada. An Indian woman journalist who came to Canada three years ago to face consistent rejection by Canadian editors because she didn't have "Canadian experience," now writes regularly for the Spectator ,and with the newspaper's support, is now lecturing on globalization to journalist students at Sheridan College in Oakville, Ont.

Not much to add, other than that the Spectator's idea is indeed a great one, and one that will hopefully be emulated: both in order to make sure that the media includes a wide range of experience and viewpoints, and for the benefit of the journalists who have gone out of their way to have the chance to live in Canada. The writer suggests Michaelle Jean as a patron for such a movement, but even without her jumping into the fray the idea should be matched by other media outlets.

Busted

Ralph Goodale now, explaining the suddenly-reduced surplus:

Goodale said he had no other option...

"If you look at the factors that we had to take into account at the end of the year, they were factors that were absolutely compelling and unavoidable," he said.

Billions were set aside to settle an offshore energy dispute in Atlantic Canada, aid for cattle producers hurt by mad cow and environment problems at Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. which all had to be dealt with from last year's revenues, Goodale said.

Ralph Goodale this spring, answering a question on why the budget should be allowed to pass:

Mr. Speaker, this deal is hugely important to Newfoundland and Labrador and to Nova Scotia. The two premiers of those provinces have told me how very important it is for the opposition to support the government on this measure and get this passed at the earliest possible moment.

The measure is before the House at this very moment. It is called the budget, and it can be passed today.

And sure enough, there it is in part 12 of bill C-43. From the bill's official summary:

Part 12 enacts the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador Additional Fiscal Equalization Offset Payments Act. The legislation will implement the arrangements of February 14, 2005 reached with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia on offshore revenues.

Now, I'm sympathetic to the fact that some factors may legitimately change a government's financial situation. And the other two factors cited probably qualify (though they should at least have been on the radar at the start of the budgeting process).

But the Atlantic accord was agreed to in February and included as part of the budget in Parliament. It's not plausible for Goodale to now claim that one of the central features of the Liberals' budget managed to turn into an unexpected, "last minute" expense which blew a hole in a well-planned federal surplus. Rather than being a reasonable explanation, that's what's known as a "blatant lie".

This will be particularly egregious if the claim is used as a rationale to try to break the terms of the NDP budget deal. And from the article, it isn't clear whether the remaining surplus takes the deal into account or will serve to undermine the NDP's priorities. But regardless of the impact on C-48, Goodale's duplicity demands some serious attention when Parliament goes back to work next week.

Knowing when to fold 'em

To follow up after this post, word comes out today that as suspected, the Washington Post was glaringly wrong about Iran's current position before the IAEA:

Iran gained a reprieve in the standoff over its nuclear program Wednesday, with diplomats saying the European Union had decided to postpone its push to refer Iran to the UN Security Council.

The decision to delay a vote until a later board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency instead of demanding one this week appeared driven by concerns about strong opposition. More than a dozen of the 35 IAEA board member countries meeting in Vienna, including Security Council members Russia and China, are against the idea.

(A new EU draft) text is expected to be introduced at this week's IAEA meeting, but any vote on referral would come only at a future session, at the earliest when the board meets again in November, said the diplomats, who demanded anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss EU strategy at the meeting.

In other words, the speech that was supposed to crystallize world opinion against Iran has changed the position only of the EU, which not only wants to hold off on immediate referral to the Security Council, but isn't even discussing the possibility in its latest motion. And the only reason why the U.S. isn't fighting the change tooth and nail is that it's afraid of a veto if the issue comes to a Security Council vote.

Which isn't to say that the U.S./E.U. bloc can be seen as being reasonable in any event. But at the very least, the group has been forced to tone down its rhetoric lest it be exposed as having nothing to back up its words.

Speaking of empty rhetoric, the article has this bonus quote from Scott McLellan:

"We've expressed our concerns about Iran's behaviour," McClellan said. "They have a long history of deceiving the international community, of not abiding by their international obligations, and that's why we remain concerned about their true intentions."

No comment necessary.

Breaking in or breaking out?

Until reading this story, I didn't think the battle for hearts and minds in Iraq could have gone any worse. And I never suspected that British troops would be the ones to bring the conflict to a head:

Hundreds of Iraqi civilians and policemen, some waving pistols and AK-47s, rallied Wednesday in the southern city of Basra to denounce "British aggression" in the rescue of two British soldiers.

The Basra governor threatened to end all co-operation with British forces unless Prime Minister Tony Blair's government apologizes for the deadly clash with Iraqi police. Britain defended the raid...

Some protesters met with the Basra police chief, Gen. Hassan Sawadi, to demand a British apology, said police spokesman Col. Karim al-Zaidi. Heavily armed soldiers and police watched the protest but didn't intervene. Al-Zaidi said the demonstration was arranged spontaneously by some policemen, not by the force or its commander.

Several hours after the protest, Basra's provincial council held an emergency meeting and voted unanimously "to stop dealing with the British forces working in Basra and not to co-operate with them because of their irresponsible aggression on a government facility."

Note that the question at this point isn't whether the raid was justified as necessary to save the soldiers. Even if that's true, the effect of the raid only points to a deeper issue: any potential gains from continued occupation are diminishing with time, as even the security forces and placeholder governments put together by the occupiers are eager to turn against the foreign presence.

As pointed out by the article, the domestic security forces which are supposed to take over responsibility for Iraq are largely controlled by extreme groups which are looking to expel the occupiers. That means that the domestic troops can pick fights (such as by kidnapping the soldiers) and put the foreign troops in a no-win situation: the occupiers can either allow the kidnapping to happen and lose any remaining morale or sense of purpose, or they can fight back and turn the entire local population (including their own successors) against them all the more.

There may have been some chance to avoid this problem from the start of the occupation if it had been well planned. (Pause for laughter.) But that chance would have required thoroughly training a set of local troops without extremist infiltration. That opportunity was scrapped in favour of trying to recruit large numbers, training and loyalty be damned.

As a result, the occupiers now have two choices: they can try to start over, scrapping the existing security forces and trying to rebuild them without the same extremist presence; or they can recognize that there's no chance of salvaging anything resembling a democratic vision, and slink away as quietly as possible.

Needless to say, public opinion (in both Iraq and the occupying states) won't allow for option number one. Which makes the kidnapping the first step in an eventual withdrawal - whether or not either Bush or Blair wants to admit it.

Equal treatment

Several Muslim and Arab groups have proposed what seems to be an eminently sensible change to Canada's terrorism laws:

Courts should be able to convict people of terrorism even when there is no strong evidence of a political or religious motive for the crime, Canadian Muslim and Arab groups told a parliamentary panel reviewing the federal Anti-Terrorism Act yesterday...

The groups suggest a definition of terrorism along the lines of one adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada in a refugee case: as an act intended to cause death or serious injury to civilians in order to intimidate a population or to compel a government action.

The article doesn't actually present an argument against the proposed definition; instead, it cites a Con MP who argues against equal focus on all religions, without answering the critique that the focus shouldn't include religion in the first place.

But let's see if readers can do better. Is there a situation included in the proposed definition that we wouldn't want handled as a terrorism investigation?

To start things off, it looks like a case could be made out that targeted violence within gang wars would fall under the definition to the extent that it has the effect of "intimidating a population". But then I'm not entirely sure it's a bad thing to deal with gangs on those terms.

Have at it.

The Sex Police State

There's been talk lately that Bushco is alienating its base for the first time by throwing money at hurricane relief rather than putting it solely toward tax cuts and the military. But while fiscal conservatives have one more reason to hate Bush (and really, could they have avoided noticing the consistent deficits anyway?), there's good news for more fundamentalist wingnuts:

Early last month, the bureau's Washington Field Office began recruiting for a new anti-obscenity squad. Attached to the job posting was a July 29 Electronic Communication from FBI headquarters to all 56 field offices, describing the initiative as "one of the top priorities" of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and, by extension, of "the Director." That would be FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III...

The new squad will divert eight agents, a supervisor and assorted support staff to gather evidence against "manufacturers and purveyors" of pornography -- not the kind exploiting children, but the kind that depicts, and is marketed to, consenting adults...

Popular acceptance of hard-core pornography has come a long way, with some of its stars becoming mainstream celebrities and their products -- once confined to seedy shops and theaters -- being "purveyed" by upscale hotels and most home cable and satellite television systems. Explicit sexual entertainment is a profit center for companies including General Motors Corp. and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. (the two major owners of DirecTV), Time Warner Inc. and the Sheraton, Hilton, Marriott and Hyatt hotel chains.

But Gonzales endorses the rationale of predecessor Meese: that adult pornography is a threat to families and children. Christian conservatives, long skeptical of Gonzales, greeted the pornography initiative with what the Family Research Council called "a growing sense of confidence in our new attorney general."

For Gonzales, this is a perfect way to get in the good books of the religious right to try to win their approval in the event of a SCOTUS nomination. But for Mueller, as well as the congressional leaders who voted to fund the group, this can only be seen as a bad joke. As pointed out by the article, there's absolutely no mainstream movement against pornography - and indeed prime Bush donors and supporters profit from the industry.

But let not consistency stand in the way of pandering. The Republicans will solidify their standing among their most staunch supporters with the project. As for the rest of the country, hopefully it's paying attention to the fact that Bushco is more interested in interfering with consenting adults than in dealing with child porn or child endangerment.

Think about the children indeed.

(Via Kos.)

Money management

A new study from the UK shows that far too many Britons spend beyond their means every month:

A third of Britons are unable to make their wages last an entire month, with 34% running out of money five days before payday, research revealed today.

As a consequence, the research claims, the average Briton spends 23 days every year living in the red...

The bank said that this poor budgeting is proving expensive for consumers, who often borrow at an average overdraft rate of 12.6% and unauthorised rate of 24.3%. Almost a third of consumers paid an average £27 in penalty charges over the year.

Much as I'd like to think Canadians do a better job handling their money, there doesn't seem any particular reason to draw a distinction between residents of the two countries. And overdrafts and penalty charges may be the least of a consumer's problems compared to the rates charged for a payday loan in an effort to avoid them.

Not to repeat myself too much, but there's no reason for individual fiscal situations to follow radically different principles than those followed by government. In either case, an occasional deficit is sometimes unavoidable when things don't go as planned for a period of time. But a systemic deficit is never a reasonable outcome, as the cost of poor planning only makes a money crunch worse in the long run. The sad part is that over a third of the UK's population either hasn't realized that fact, or is unable to act based on it.

Pressing the issue

Layton unveils a huge legislative priority for the NDP - and one which will force the Liberals to put their money where their mouth is on defending health care:

NDP Leader Jack Layton says his party will bring in a bill this fall to ban private medicare...

His bill wouldn't ban existing private services but would stop any future expansion across the country.

Now if the Liberals were willing to enforce the existing Canada Health Act, the new bill would be unnecessary (at least unless a province was willing to give up federal funding in order to allow private care or, for that matter, user fees under s. 19). But Layton is making it clear that if the Liberals won't take obvious steps to defend public health care, then the authority to do so should be placed elsewhere. And that'll leave Martin and company the choice of either playing along, or trying to defend their complete lack of action.

Waiting in the torture chamber

The Globe and Mail points out that even as Canada tries to figure out what went wrong in Maher Arar's rendition, another Canadian remains trapped in a Syrian jail after three years:

In July of 2002, Mr. al-Boushi travelled to his native Syria to visit his dying father. He was arrested immediately on arriving at Damascus airport and, except for a brief period of freedom soon after to attend his father's funeral, the 46-year-old manager and former Ottawa resident has spent every moment since in jail...

The newly appointed Syrian ambassador to Canada, Jamil Sakr, says he would like Mr. al-Boushi freed as well. "I hope he will be released soon," he said in Ottawa. "It is a big hope for me."...

Hopes that Mr. al-Boushi might be freed were raised in February when Mr. Pettigrew went to Damascus. According to Mrs. al-Boushi, Syrian prison officials told her husband he was about to be released but "nothing happened." It's believed that the Syrians were willing to let Mr. al-Boushi go provided he would not speak publicly about his experience.

As the article points out, there's a slightly stronger "guilt by association" factor in al-Boushi's case: rather than merely having social contacts with suspected terrorists like Arar, he was convicted in Syria of being a member of a revolutionary group when he was 19. (Not that that justifies even the jail sentence, let alone any torture.) And unlike Arar, al-Boushi travelled to Syria of his own volition, meaning that Canada's responsibility doesn't extend to his initial detention.

But just the same, al-Boushi's case demonstrates that Canada still isn't managing to get its citizens freed from prisons known for torture - even when Syria's ambassador seems willing to make that happen. And Dan McTeague, who to his credit played a large role in having two other Canadians released, appears to be sitting back and seeing what happens rather than pressing Syria to meet a past commitment to allow al-Boushi to meet with consular officials.

As a result, there's serious reason to doubt that the Liberals have learned a thing from the Arar case. We can only hope that a scathing enough report in the inquiry will lead to greater efforts to protect Canadians abroad.

Enforcing responsibility

From the LA Times: as if there weren't enough problems with Wal-Mart, a class action suit which has just now made it to trial is pointing out one more way in which the company has mistreated workers:

Lawyers representing about 116,000 former and current Wal-Mart Stores Inc. employees in California told a jury today that the world's largest retailer systematically and illegally denied workers lunch breaks.

The suit in Alameda County Superior Court is among about 40 cases nationwide alleging workplace violations against Wal-Mart, and the first to go to trial. Wal-Mart, which earned $10 billion last year, settled a lawsuit in Colorado for $50 million that contains similar allegations to California's class action. The company also is accused of paying men more than women in a federal lawsuit pending in San Francisco federal court...

The lawsuit was brought in 2001 by a handful of San Francisco-area former Wal-Mart employees, and took four years of legal wrangling to get to trial. During that time, Wal-Mart produced internal audits that plaintiffs' lawyers maintain showed the company knew it was not granting meal breaks on thousands of occasions...

One company document called results of the audit "a chronic problem." A one-week review of company policies showed thousands of instances in which workers were not given a meal break in accordance with the law, according to the documents provided to the jury.

Given that this time Wal-Mart hasn't been able to wriggle its way out of handing over the pertinent documentation, it seems like a waste of money to even bother going to trial on any issue aside from damages. But the strategy appears less pointed toward winning this case than toward making sure that any other workers who would otherwise stand up for their rights know that they'll be fought tooth and nail.

Fortunately, as the article points out, there are multiple suits across the U.S. attempting to hold Wal-Mart to its legal obligations. The problem with a company built on systematically flouting the law is that eventually, enough people are affected to make it worth their while to challenge that habit. And it looks like Wal-Mart is beginning to get what's coming to it.

(Edit: Apparently it's Brain Fart Week here at the blog.)

No guts or no plan?

In the face of Alberta's plan for private health insurance, any federal government actually wanting to defend one-payer care should be eager to speak out. Instead, Ujjal Dosanjh's response was only marginally less forceful than crickets chirping:

"Alberta has basically said they are reviewing the situation and I don't think it's appropriate for me to make any pre-emptory comments," Ujjal Dosanjh said Monday. Dosanjh - buoyed by a new poll which shows Liberal fortunes soaring over Stephen Harper's Tories federally and even rising in traditionally anti-Liberal Alberta - did not seem to want to say anything that might rock that boat...

Dosanjh said no one expects the changes to happen overnight.

"I think the people of Canada know progress is going to be slow but there is going to be progress," he said.

There's a flip side to patience, which is that nobody can reasonably expect the health care system to fix itself - and that, along with a healthy dose of buck-passing, seems to be the extent of Dosanjh's action plan. While Dosanjh's office devotes itself to a thumb-twiddling marathon rather than so much as meeting with the provincial ministers responsible, others are examining or making changes which may not be reversible once started.

Fortunately, Parliament isn't far from starting up again, meaning that Dosanjh will at least have to answer publicly for his inaction. But he's already frittered away nearly a third of the one-year grace period offered after Chaoulli - and we're still a long ways away from even hearing a workable plan to genuinely fix health care.

Leaders and followers

As if there was any doubt whether the border closure was based on anything resembling rational evidence, the U.S. announced today that it will implement more stringent feed regulations - which happen to match Canada's:

The government will close a gap in the U.S. defence against the spread of mad-cow disease by changing feed regulations to mirror those in Canada, FDA commissioner Lester M. Crawford said Monday...

Canada has regulations banning at-risk tissues – brains, spinal cords and other parts that can carry mad cow disease – from feed for all animals, including chickens, pigs and pets...

Mr. Crawford did not say whether the new regulations would ban cattle blood and restaurant leftovers, also considered potential pathways for BSE, from cattle feed.

“Our regulations will mimic theirs,” he said.

The choice to match Canada's current regulations was apparently the solution proposed by an international team put together by the U.S. Agriculture Department. Not coincidentally, that's the same department that implemented the ban on Canadian cattle in the first place, and a similar international team helped to draft the Canadian version of the regulations as well.

It's nice to see the U.S. now agreeing on what should be a solid continent-wide standard for feed. But it would be all the better if the U.S. hadn't decided to shut out Canadian beef and cattle while it figured out that our solution would be the most effective.

On consistency

Word comes out this morning that Paul Martin spent time this weekend pitching exports to China:

Mr. Martin made his pitch to sell more softwood in China during weekend talks in Vancouver with Mr. Hu, who was finishing a 10-day visit to North America.

There was talk of improving human rights in China during the visit, but also a deep focus on increasing trade with the most populous country in the world.

“We discussed softwood lumber, in terms of the ability for Canada to increase its exports of softwood lumber to China,” Mr. Martin said after the meeting.“We obviously discussed the strategic partnership which the Chinese announced that they wanted to have with us in a wide range of areas, from higher technologies to natural resources.”

All this is well and good, not to mention long overdue. But the interesting part to me is the reaction from the Cons:

The Conservative Party welcomed the government's efforts to help open the Chinese market to more softwood, saying that Opposition Leader Stephen Harper called last month for that exact approach.

But then, let's look at what Conservatives have done with regard to China over the last year. They've demanded an end to Canadian aid, on the basis that China's regime is "corrupt and abusive". They've also put forward a bill to grant greater recognition to Taiwan. And they've even tried to get Martin to cancel a planned trip to Beijing. Does anybody think that China would have been looking to make Canada a "strategic partner" if those views were seen as representing Canadian policy?

In fairness, NDP members have also taken a harder line than necessary at times, and that's an area where the party needs to make some choices as to whether it wants to take an internationalist focus. But at least the NDP isn't now trying to take credit for the idea of increasing trade with an obvious trade partner.

It's a plus that the Cons are on side in terms of trade with China. But it's tough to take the current claims seriously when they seem to run directly opposite to the party's usual position. And it'll take a lot more diplomacy, and a lot less anti-China rhetoric than usually displayed by the Cons, for trade with China to meaningfully reduce our dependency on our neighbours to the south.

Contrasting perspectives

Here's a brief survey of the coverage given to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's address to the United Nations.

From the Star:

Ahmadinejad, elected in June, insisted his country wanted to produce nuclear power for peaceful purposes only.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates its previously and repeatedly declared position that in accordance with our religious principles, pursuit of nuclear weapons is prohibited," he said.

But while taking a defiant line, Ahmadinejad stressed that co-operation with the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, would be the "centrepiece of our nuclear policy" in the future.

In general, the tone of the Star's article makes Ahmadinejad out to be reasonable and conciliatory, having no desire to produce nuclear weapons and pointing out the hypocrisy of the U.S. in maintaining its own stockpiles. And it's hard to believe that the intended tone of the speech would be anything but. But then, not everybody sees the speech the same way...

Here's the Washington Post's take:

On Saturday, dozens of international diplomats, including the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany, gathered at the United Nations to hear how Ahmadinejad planned to stave off a crisis.

Instead his speech, followed by a confused hour-long news conference, was able to do what weeks of high-level U.S. diplomacy had not: convince skeptical allies that Iran may, in fact, use its nuclear energy program to build atomic bombs.

It is even possible for both of the above analyses to be based on the same speech? The Post focuses on a lot of rhetoric which, while undoubtedly offensive, doesn't seem to relate to the nuclear issue. It also glosses over the offer of international cooperation, and doesn't mention the assurance that nuclear weapons wouldn't be pursued. Now, I'm all for taking a healthy dose of skepticism to what's bound to be a self-interested address, but how exactly does Ahmadinejad's saying one thing become proof of the opposite?

There is a third option, that being the take from the AP:

In a fiery speech to the UN General Assembly, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defiantly rejected the European offer of economic incentives in exchange for Iran giving up its uranium enrichment program.

Ahmadinejad denied his nation had any intention of producing nuclear weapons. To prove that, he offered foreign countries and companies a role in Iran's nuclear energy production...

Iran said Sunday that it has no plans to resume uranium enrichment soon but warned that it might change its mind if the IAEA were to ask the Security Council to consider sanctions.

"Enrichment is not on the agenda for the time being, but if the IAEA meeting on Monday leads to radical results, we will make our decision to correspond to that," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said.

Just a friendly reminder to keep an eye out for contrasting coverage - even among what are generally seen as mainstream news outlets. Whether a given action was really a provocation or a conciliatory gesture is entirely in the eye of the beholder...and it's all too clear that media beholders are no less likely than political ones to assume that the facts fit with their opinions.

I'll avoid commenting further, other than to remind readers trying to decide which of the above to believe of the Post's recent willingness to serve undiluted Kool-Aid.

Civilized solution

It shouldn't be a great surprise, but Canada and Denmark have apparently reached agreement on a process to resolve the Hand Island dispute:

Insiders say Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew and his Danish counterpart, Per Stig Moller, plan to announce in New York that the two countries will draft a protocol for managing their dealings over the tiny island...

The longstanding dispute now moves from the political arena to the realm of bureaucrats, who will develop a set of mutually agreed rules.

They would address such issues as notification of the other country in advance of an official visit to the island.

To some extent, it's frustrating to see top officials of both countries putting as much time as they have into such a minor dispute. But at the very least, all that time seems to be moving the two states toward a constructive resolution.

(Edit: Typo.)

Proudly oblivious

For the most part, David Wilkins has done a better job sounding reasonable than most Canadians expected from a Bush appointee. But when asked about the Maher Arar inquiry, Wilkins showed one major blind spot within his home state:

Mr. Wilkins, who took up his post in Ottawa about two months ago, seemed puzzled when asked whether he or his government had any regrets about the affair.

“You talking about regrets by the United States?” he said...

The ambassador, a former speaker of the South Carolina legislature and a close political ally of President George W. Bush, was also at a loss to explain why American authorities refused to participate in a public inquiry in Canada into the Mr. Arar affair.

“I honestly don't know the answer to that,” said Mr. Wilkins. “Were they asked? I don't know.”

Based on Wilkins' other answers, the central problem seems to be an outright absence of consideration of the people who, through no fault of their own, get caught up in terrorism-related speculation. But it appears that not only is Bushco unwilling to try to defend its position on torture, but it's also unwilling to even acknowledge the debate, to the point of refusing to give its own members information needed to perform their jobs.

After all, Wilkins is the representatives abroad charged with maintaining U.S./Canada relations - and he was apparently unaware of one of the more toxic issues between the two states. Surely he should have been well-informed as to the background on Arar, even if only in order to allow him to best defend the U.S.' actions publicly when asked inevitable questions about the inquiry.

Wilkins must bear at least some responsibility as well, since his study of Canada apparently hasn't extended to taking notice of an inquiry that's made ample news over the last year. We'll learn a lot about Wilkins based on whether he follows up on the question as a critical Canadian issue, or seeks to bury it as would be the case at home.

But the bigger issue is the culture of ignorance among the handlers who apparently decided that the torture of Canadian citizens based on faulty U.S. information wouldn't be an international issue. Unfortunately, we know too much about the rest of the Bush administration to think that they'll start paying attention now.

Majority territory

Obviously it's dangerous to rely too much on any one poll result - but this one should have all opposition parties worried:

The federal Liberals had the support of 40 per cent of respondents in a new poll - virtually the same level of backing they received in rolling to their majority government in 2000.

The Leger Marketing survey, conducted Sept. 6-11, pegged Conservative support at 24 per cent, while the NDP stood at 15 per cent and the Bloc Quebecois at 13 per cent...

Marois said the poll revealed strong growth for the Liberals in Western Canada, including a jump of 16 percentage points in Alberta in two months and an increase of 14 percentage points in British Columbia...

While the poll had the Liberals way out in the lead in popular support, 53 per cent of respondents expressed dissatisfaction with Martin's government, compared with 40 per cent who were satisfied.

The article notes that there would be serious risks for the Liberals in trying to push for an election anytime soon. And the dissatisfaction numbers show that a lot of people are willing to push Martin out of power given the right alternative.

But it does seem clear that the Libs are getting credit for the bulk of the good that's been done during the current Parliament, and that's a trend that the NDP will have to fight - particularly if it's not able to set its terms for cooperation as publicly as it did this spring.

From one who knows

The man who's studied the Canadian health care system more thoroughly than anybody else in the past few years has stepped forward to give his view on Chaoulli - and it's tough to disagree with any of what he had to say:

In a hard-hitting speech in Toronto yesterday, (Roy Romanow) accused the four-judge majority in the Chaoulli case — which many see as opening the door to two-tier health care — of meddling in social policy decisions better left to elected politicians.

"The net legal effect of the Chaoulli decision is that, in grappling with medicare, the court has ventured beyond constitutional and legal principles and into complex social policy, an area that has traditionally been in the domain of elected lawmakers," said Romanow, who was speaking at a legal forum on the implications of the June ruling, organized by the University of Toronto's faculty of law...

The ruling flies in the face of what Canadians told him they want in their health-care system, he said.

"The implied conclusion that timely access to health-care services will be improved with the establishment of a parallel private scheme flies in the face of all the evidence with which I grappled for 18 months as a royal commissioner," he said.

There can be little doubt that the Supreme Court went through large amounts of evidence as well, but toward a much more narrow end, examining only the position of one person within a complex system rather than the underpinnings of that system itself. Hopefully a future look at health care, on Charter grounds and with both a full SCC panel and a more balanced set of intervener submissions, will lead to a result that better accounts for the society-wide impact. And if not, then Romanow and his report offer forceful arguments as to why saving health care is one of the few areas where use of the notwithstanding clause could be entirely justified.

How to lose the blame game

According to the AP, the need for a scapegoat after Katrina has led the federal government to start searching for reason to blame environmental movements:

The Clarion-Ledger said Friday it obtained an internal Justice Department e-mail sent out this week to U.S. attorneys that asks: "Has your district defended any cases on behalf of the (U.S.) Army Corps of Engineers against claims brought by environmental groups seeking to block or otherwise impede the Corps work on the levees protecting New Orleans? If so, please describe the case and the outcome of the litigation."...

The newspaper quoted unidentified federal officials as saying the query was prompted by a congressional inquiry.

The Justice Department apparently refused to comment on the source of the e-mail, so it's not entirely clear whether the finger-pointing started in the White House or Congress. (Not that either can be seen as anything but a fund-raising and patronage arm of the GOP the way Bushco is set up.)

Either way, this should be a nice little tidbit for the press to throw back at Scott McLellan next time he talks about avoiding blame. Assuming, that is, that his talking points don't already include a new wave of finger-pointing.

Reversing trends

For those wondering whether there's any merit to trying to fight global warming when it's already gone this far, the example of the ozone layer should remind us that concerted action can help to reverse environmental decline:

The hole in the ozone layer this year will probably be slightly smaller than the all-time largest of 2003, in line with the general trend of a gradual healing of the ozone layer's depletion, a UN agency said Friday...

Mr. Braathen said agencies such as his must continue to closely monitor the ozone layer via satellites and ground stations. Signatories to the anti-CFC treaty known as the Montreal Protocol, particularly developing countries that had looser phase-out schedules, should respect the accord, he stressed.

More than 180 countries have signed the Montreal Protocol, which took effect in 1997.

Based on this example, it's clear that nobody can expect instant results: for a few years after the Montreal Protocol was signed, the cumulative impact of previous CFC use still made the hole worse than it had been before. But once a determined global effort takes hold, we can see quantifiable positive results.

It's already happening with regard to the ozone layer, despite the negative impact that global warming itself may have on the ability of the layer to repair itself. The next step is to get the world's largest economies to agree to recognize global warming as an equally important priority. With enough cooperation, we may yet be able to point to similar results on global warming within the next decade.

Making connections

The provincial governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta have finally reached an agreement to complete a road between La Loche and Fort McMurray:

The governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan announced Thursday that the $45-million La Loche Road will be completed within the next three years, cutting travel time between La Loche and Fort McMurray from 10 hours to less than two.

With up to 15,000 new jobs expected to be created by the massive oil sands projects in northern Alberta, La Loche Mayor Georgina Jolibois believes the road will open up new opportunities for residents of northern communities such as Buffalo Narrows, Ile-a-La-Crosse and her own village.

Note that it was Alberta that dragged its feet on completing the road: despite Alberta's recent budget surpluses, Saskatchewan has been waiting for years since completing the road on its side of the border.

Fortunately, the waiting will soon be over, and both sides stand to benefit. Alberta will have easier access to labour for the tar sands and will probably also see increased retail sales now that Saskatchewan residents can get to larger shopping facilities, while Saskatchewan should see both increased tourism and access to better jobs. Such an obvious win-win shouldn't have taken this long, but at least it's going to get done.

Empty gestures

Not surprisingly, PMPM is much more willing to give symbolic support to CBC workers than to actually deal with the underlying problems. Martin has declared that no cabinet minister will cross a CBC picket line for Michaelle Jean's swearing-in. Which in and of itself is a reasonable enough show of support for the workers, were it not for this:

Even in absolute dollars, CBC funding still hasn't caught up to where it was in the early '90s. Think that might play a role in management needing to cut costs by eliminating the benefits of secure full-time work?

Mind you, the chart ends a few years ago. And there's a chance that now that the deficit isn't the concern that it used to be, the situation is better, right? Not so, according to this:

Canadians should be outraged at the manipulative way this government has dealt with our national public broadcaster. Not one additional cent for Canadian programming, but for the 5th year in a row the Liberals have trotted out the same $60 million in extra one-year funding. This creates the public impression of giving the CBC an increase without actually doing so...

The CBC has repeatedly begged the government to add that $60 million to its base budget so it can be used for program production commitments that have to be made a year or two in advance. But the Liberals clearly relish dangling the money in front of CBC supporters every year as if it were something new.

It's well and good not to cross the picket line. But it was Martin's cuts that put the CBC in dire straits in the first place, and it's his political games that are preventing it from being confident of even stable funding for now.

As soon as Martin reverses the choices of the last decade, then he can claim to be looking out for the interests of CBC's workers (not to mention the millions of Canadians who enjoy CBC's programming). Until that happens, PMPM deserves at least as big a target on his back as does Robert Rabinovitch. Both sides of the dispute know this; the general public needs to as well.

The war on ignorance

I'm amazed it took Paul Martin to point out the utter disgrace that was Pervez Musharraf's comment on rape victims in Pakistan:

Musharraf, speaking to the Washington Post newspaper earlier this week, questioned the motives of rape victims in Pakistan who now want to emigrate to Canada and other western countries for their safety.

"You must understand the environment in Pakistan...This has become a money-making concern," the Post quoted Musharraf saying in a long interview.

"A lot of people say if you want to go abroad and get a visa for Canada or citizenship and be a millionaire, get yourself raped."

There may be more noted issues in play at the U.N., but for sheer detachment from reality it's awfully hard to top a claim that the likes of Mukhtar Mai are greedy for wanting to escape Pakistan alive. Of course, making that part of official Pakistani policy may well do the trick, and Musharraf managed that already before being shouted down.

On the other hand, maybe Musharraf's constructive solution to deal with rape is to have the victims follow through on Nazish Ashgar's threat of self-immolation following a gang-rape. Or perhaps to follow through with the charge of "loose morals" that was leveled at Ashgar after her rape.

Yet another option would be the action taken toward Shazia Khalid, who was forced out of Pakistan through repeated death threats. The apparent message from Musharraf on this one: here's your homicidal mob, what's your hurry?

Meanwhile, Musharraf feels unfairly singled out on the basis that rape happens everywhere. The latter fact is unfortunately true, but most governments at least have the sense not to actively vilify the victim, or accuse her of seeking to be raped for profit. And until Musharraf gets in line on that point, no other state with any respect for human rights should be putting large amounts of trust in Musharraf.

Neglecting the obvious

The Globe and Mail presents a poll showing a pessimistic outlook as to future of Canadian health care. Which in and of itself is fair enough - but wouldn't it behoove the Globe to at least mention the main cause for concern?

A poll released Thursday by the Canadian Medical Association and Ipsos-Reid found that on the one-year anniversary of the plan, 54 per cent of Canadians are less hopeful about the future of health care services in their community than they were in 2004...

Many of those surveyed in Thursday's poll, however, said they did believe that the 2004 first ministers' accord, worth $41-billion, could help rebuild the system. But they did not feel that the federal and provincial governments would live up to the ten-year deadline.

Nowhere does the article bother mentioning the Chaoulli decision...or for that matter the ensuing barrage of "single-payer health care is dead!" alarmism, to which the CMA has contributed extensively. Instead, it sounds from the article as if the new pessimism is purely a question of trust in governments rather than a matter of both a rather significant court decision, and an extended PR campaign to try to make privatization inevitable. (Incidentally, if talk of a multiple-payer system leads to less confidence in health care, that should say a great deal about what people ultimately think of privatization.)

The CMA is right to point out that there's a long way to go in making sure that the health care accord leads to definite results, and to call attention to the urgency of the issue. But it could help matters greatly by not doing so much to undermine the system it claims to want to improve. And any fair report on the CMA's activity should make mention of the contradiction.

Regression

More evidence comes out showing that while Canada's economy is growing, it's leaving an awful lot of people behind in the process:

Inequality and homelessness are rising in Canada despite a sustained economic boom and repeated federal promises to cut poverty, says an international study.

Poverty is rising among children and new immigrants, the middle class is finding it increasingly difficult to afford education and housing, and there are 250,000 Canadians living on the streets, says the study by Social Watch, a coalition of 400 non-government organizations from 50 countries...(which) was founded to monitor commitments made at 1995 U.N. social summits in Copenhagen and Beijing...

More than 1.7 million households live on less than $20,000 a year, and most are precariously housed. They do not own their homes and spend more than 30 per cent of income on rent.

With the economy growing and corporate profits booming, it's reasonable enough to expect some period where inequality would increase...at least until wages catch up to profits, assuming that's allowed.

But two other factors do thoroughly undercut any claim that the Liberals are an even remotely progressive party: first, the precipitous drop in the federal government's role, and second, the absolute increases in poverty in the face of a generally booming economy.

That's not to say that government involvement is inherently good. But there's an obvious correlation between the lessened federal role and the increase in poverty - and an even more obvious set of ways in which the federal government could reduce that poverty by spending just a tiny fraction of the percentage amount cut over the past 12 years.

Unfortunately, it seems the Liberals are more interested in pushing toward even further inequality and poverty than in remembering this particular promise. And it'll take a lot more monitoring efforts, by Social Watch and by other groups concerned with poverty, before the issue will even register on the political scene.

On credibility

The U.S., having figured out that two permanent members aren't interested in buying its claims, seems to have given up on attacking Iran's nuclear program through the U.N. Security Council:

Apparently lacking the votes to win, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice indicated Wednesday President George W. Bush's administration is prepared to delay again a showdown with Iran over its nuclear weapons program...

Rice last week appealed openly to China, Russia, India and other countries to support threatening Iran with sanctions for refusing to halt its nuclear program...

But Russia quickly registered its opposition to trying to impose sanctions now on Iran in the UN Security Council and the White House acknowledged Wednesday that Bush was unable to obtain a commitment from Chinese President Hu Jintao.

As far as I can tell, the stand by Russia and China should close the door on any military diversion in Iran. The tactic of crippling a state with sanctions made the Iraq invasion a lot easier, but without that weapon in its arsenal the U.S. can't expect to easily take out the Iranian regime without bringing out the nukes, and that's simply not feasible in an administration already trusted as little as this one is.

Rice spoke of trying to send a "political message" to Iran instead, but the true message here was sent by Putin and Hu: the U.S. has lost the benefit of any doubt on the Security Council, at least as long as Bushco remains in charge. And that'll remain true no matter how determined the U.S. is to ignore any exculpatory evidence or lack of immediate risk.

To the neocons, the position of China and Russia will be taken as evidence of the U.N.'s stubbornness and irrelevance. But to most of the rest of the world, it's evidence that the veto is doing its job, ensuring that speculation and posturing can't be equated with a guilty verdict from the world. It's only a shame that the same factors were able to win some measure of Security Council approval one time too many.

On trying to keep secrets

If there's any justice at all, this announcement will result in the Arar report making a splash in the thick of the next federal election campaign. But don't count on it, even if the timing of the Gomery report is just right:

A public report on the Maher Arar affair will be delayed until next March, largely because of haggling over how much of the evidence ought to remain secret on national security grounds.

Paul Cavalluzzo, chief counsel to the inquiry headed by Justice Dennis O'Connor, said Wednesday that nobody realized, when work started last year, how arduous a task it would be to balance security concerns with the public's right to know.

"The commission had little appreciation of how much information would be subject to national security confidentiality claims," Cavalluzzo told a news conference...

O'Connor, who finished hearing the bulk of testimony this week, had hoped to deliver an interim report by the end of the year. He's now aiming at March 31, 2006.

It's not entirely clear from the article whether the change is more a result of the commission failing to anticipate how sensitive the information would be, or whether it's simply a matter of the government seeking to suppress more of it than expected. But even if all the information doesn't end up being released, at the very least the final report should give the best possible summary as to how much and what type of information has been subject to the claimed confidentiality. The mere invocation of the "war on terror" shouldn't insulate any government (including our own) from justifying its actions.

Unfortunately, it appears that it'll be possible for the Liberals to avoid most electoral consequences if they choose to do so. The story notes that the government could go to court in an attempt to challenge O'Connor's conclusions as to what information should be disclosed and what should remain public. That means that if anything in the planned report is particularly damaging to the Liberals' image, there'll be a ready means to make sure that it isn't released until after an election...no matter how far out of his way O'Connor goes to ensure that sensitive information isn't included in the report. (On the flip side, the government can also avoid any challenge if the report exonerates the ministers responsible.)

As Cavalluzzo points out, there is a chance for public pressure to prevent any delays in the release of the report. And that pressure should be directed toward O'Connor as well, to make sure that we know just how complicit Liberal MPs were in the rendition of Canadians before the electorate decides whether they're still trusted in government.

Mandating change

It may be a few decades too late, but a bipartisan group of U.S. representatives is proposing new requirements for fuel efficiency:

A bipartisan group of House lawmakers on Wednesday introduced a bill that would require automakers to boost the fuel efficiency of new vehicles to an average 33 miles per gallon over the coming decade from the current 25 mpg...

New York Republican Sherwood Boehlert and Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey said the stricter mileage standard proposed in their legislation would save an estimated 2.6 million barrels of oil per day by 2025...

The lawmakers cited a 2002 National Academy of Sciences study which said technologies already exist to squeeze more mileage out of a gallon of gasoline, without sacrificing safety. Boehlert also noted U.S. automakers recently signed a voluntary agreement with Canada on greenhouse gas emissions that effectively raises fuel efficiency by 25 percent for vehicles sold in that country.

While it's a plus that Canada is being used as a positive example, it's a shame that we haven't yet taken a serious look at requirements similar to those which may soon be in effect in the States. As pointed out in the article, there isn't now (and hasn't been for years) a lack of technology capable of making vehicles more fuel-efficient; all that's been needed is a spur to make use of that technology. By avoiding any action until this year, and then acting only to the point of a voluntary agreement, the Liberals have deliberately avoided that spur to action.

In the end, it may turn out that Canada's fuel efficiency will improve only as a spin-off from new mandatory standards in the U.S. And given the disdain with which global warming and other environmental issues have been treated to the south, it's a truly sad position to wind up free-riding off of U.S. emissions policy.

Flatlining

Remember the National Post's claim that a flat tax movement was about to sweep over much of the world? Not so fast, say the voters who get to make the choice:

While Germans, battered by a weak economy and unemployment rates well above 10 per cent, at first seemed to welcome her economic-reform proposals, their enchantment ended abruptly. As soon as a 25-per-cent flat tax was mentioned last week by Ms. Merkel's outspoken economic-policy adviser and candidate for finance minister, professor Paul Kirchhof, the seemingly unassailable Christian Democrats began falling in the polls.

Yesterday, polls for the first time showed Social Democratic Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and his left-leaning allies in a dead heat with her conservative coalition. Her colleagues turned on her yesterday, telling reporters that Mr. Kirchhof's economic ideas have poisoned the campaign...

So dramatic has been Ms. Merkel's fall from grace that tax experts are now saying that, if she loses the election on Sunday night, the flat-tax concept will effectively be dead in the Western world.

We can only hope that the experts are right on this one. But the lie peddled by the National Post (and even picked up by the Globe's headline) is laid all the more bare by the ongoing German election. The flat tax isn't a concept with substantial popular support which simply hasn't been brought onto the political scene. Rather, it's a politically toxic idea which can even torpedo the public standing of an otherwise popular party running against an unpopular incumbent. Even if Merkel manages to eke out a win, it's clear that it'll be despite the flat tax, not because of it.

As for any potential spread of the concept elsewhere, there's little that I'd like to see more than for Canada's Conservatives to try to run with an idea that will get a similar public reception. We can only hope that Harper is just that desperate in the upcoming election.

Spend, spend, spend

More bad consumer news: a CIBC economist points out that Canada's personal savings rate is at its lowest level since the 1920s:

Statistics Canada said last month that the rate plummeted to 0.5 per cent in the second quarter. In the U.S., meantime, the personal savings rate stands at minus 0.6 per cent, the lowest level on record.

While the methodology of calculating the rate may be flawed because it doesn't include asset prices, it's been compiled in the same way for decades. Ten years ago it stood at 10 per cent, 20 years ago at 20 per cent — an indication of a significant downwards trend, he said. Moreover, all age groups have seen a steady drop in their savings rate, Mr. Tal said in the report.

(W)hile financial assets, or more liquid assets, have been climbing in recent years, it's been mostly concentrated among older Canadians. At least 40 per cent of Canadian households have no financial savings outside of their personal savings and chequing accounts...

The rise in home prices is well and good, but the lack of any breadth of investment is an extremely dangerous situation which affects far too many Canadians - and a good number of the people without financial savings likely don't have much by way of home investment either. With luck, we'll avoid a '30s-style crash, but that doesn't mean the near-zero savings make for a remotely sustainable economy.

Going public

It's only a small start, but a group of former Conservative candidates is now actively calling for Harper's head:

Senior party officials dismissed the move as an insignificant push by only four Quebecers and said their leader will stay on to fight the Liberals. But the authors of a statement calling for Harper's resignation said they're tired of seeing their party competing with the NDP and the Green Party in the province.

"We will never win the next election," said the statement released Tuesday.

"Harper will resign afterward, it's certain. But why wait for the elections? Wouldn't it be better for him to leave now?

"We have ample time to find a new leader before the next election."

The statement said Harper was a good transitional leader but showed little interest in Quebec. It was signed by four people who ran as candidates and were defeated in last year's federal election.

Naturally, the Con spin has started, ranging from "if 4 candidates signed the letter against Harper then the rest must all be for him" to "blame Belinda!". And there's little doubt that this individual call won't make much difference.

But even through consistently dropping poll numbers, the one thing Harper supposedly had was the support of his own party. Now, even that's taken a very public hit...and not from anybody who seems to gain directly from his potential departure either. That doesn't look the least bit prime ministerial - which should only help to hasten Harper's exit if he can't find a way to win the next election.

A first time for everything

When I first saw the title of this post, I could only assume that it was a joke. But if it was, the joke appears to be on Bush himself:

"To the extent the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility," Bush said.

The president was asked whether people should be worried about the government's ability to handle another terrorist attack given failures in responding to Katrina.

"Are we capable of dealing with a severe attack? That's a very important question and it's in the national interest that we find out what went on so we can better respond," Bush replied.

I'll note that I disagree with Zaphod in his interpretation of this passage: the reference to terrorism in the interview isn't a justification at all, but rather an admission of even deeper failure. The DHS, for which Bush tried to take credit as the agency capable of keeping Americans safe in response to any threat, failed miserably when it came to Katrina - and the tone of the question and response makes clear that Bush wasn't willing to back up the DHS in its ability to respond to any future terrorist attack either.

In essence, Bush has admitted that despite his constant references to 9/11, he's actually done nothing that he can point to as making people safer, and as a result everything he's done has to be questioned. Needless to say, this is a substantial shift from a man who once maintained that the only mistake in his first term was being insufficiently partisan. And in the aftermath of Katrina, there shouldn't be any lack of people willing to ask the necessary questions.

Delayed response

Apparently, the Liberals managed to remember some unfinished business last week - though it's unclear whether the reason was increased attention on natural disasters, or mere election speculation:

The federal government has given Nova Scotia another multimillion-dollar cheque to help with damage caused by provincewide flooding in March 2003.

The $6-million cheque under the disaster financial assistance program was accepted Tuesday by Ernie Fage, minister responsible for the Emergency Measures Act.

Nova Scotia has now received a total of $10 million from Ottawa for the flood damage...

The federal disaster assistance helps communities recover from the devastating effects of natural disasters.

It's downright amazing that more than half of the aid needed in response to a natural disaster would be delayed until two and a half years after the event. The delivery of the cheque this long after the fact signals one of two things on behalf of the federal Libs: a complete breakdown in response after the initial flooding, or a desire to be seen handing yet more money to provinces outside any properly defined standards. Either way, they don't deserve anything but criticism for the action.

Prevention and cooperation

In the Globe's web comment, the UN University points out the cost savings in preventing a disaster rather than dealing with its effects:

We need better, more scientifically grounded information on risks and vulnerability. We need new and improved warning systems and infrastructure, including nature's gifts of mangroves, coral reefs and wetlands. We need to prioritize professionalism and competence above partisan and personal loyalty in appointing people to responsible positions of disaster preparation and management. This means people committed to good governance and efficient delivery of services rather than ideologues who dislike government and want to starve it of cash and privatize all its functions.

Most importantly, we need to shift from a culture of reaction to one of prevention, from the local to the global. The present pattern is to spend $1 on preparedness for every $100 on relief, when in fact prevention shows a cost-benefit ratio of 10, or 15 to 1. The capacity of governments to respond to natural disasters must be strengthened and sustainable land- and resource-management practices must be promoted. And the accumulated experience and comparative advantage of the United Nations must be acknowledged and exploited...

(M)ember states have the capacity to disable decision-making and policy implementation by the UN but lack the vision and the will to empower and enable global problem-solving. The UN cannot displace the responsibility of governments (local, state, national), but it can and should be the locus of multilateral diplomacy and collective action to solve collective problems.

All of the above measures sound so sensible that it's a wonder anybody could disagree. But then it's always easy to forget the importance of disaster prevention, especially when it's working. Katrina seems to have focused the world's attention on the realities of preparedness, but it remains to be seen whether or not that focus will last.

Naturally, not all disasters can be contained preemptively. On that score the article also points out problems in the current lack of cooperation. There's been a lot of active resistance to any collective response to most problems. When a rare exception is made (as was the case with the Asian tsunami), the resulting response is far more efficient than is possible when anybody tries to go it alone. Which is something that the world would do well to keep in mind as it tries to agree on the future shape of the UN.

Beyond Kyoto

Canada will soon be sitting down with most of the largest nations that refused to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol in an effort to make sure some that some action is taken on global warming. But according to a Canadian official (who apparently managed to remain anonymous while delivering a press briefing), there isn't much reason for optimism just yet:

"We don't expect outcomes on this at Montreal because this is the first discussion of the post-Kyoto regime," the official told a briefing.

"But what we want to do is build bridges between developing countries and industrial countries -- including the industrial countries that are not members of Kyoto -- as to the kind of regime which might exist in the future."...

Australia agreed in July to work with the United States, China, India, Japan and South Korea to curb global warming but the six countries did not set targets for emissions cuts.

In principle, if all these states are onside, there shouldn't be much reason why a serious solution can't be worked out: the U.S.' opposition has (at least on its face) always been based on concerns about China and India taking a competitive advantage, so if they're willing to come to the table there should be a chance for positive action.

But part of that solution will likely have to involve better-developed states being willing to share technology at least at a discount, though perhaps not for free as requested by India. If developed states are willing to look at this as an investment in a healthier planet, then there's a chance to put a meaningful dent in global warming. On the other hand, if developed states see the meeting as a matter of trying to push China and India into line without recognizing the global good in emissions reduction, then the potential to help the planet will go up in smoke.

The Flat Tax Society

The National Post predictably decides to argue in favour of a flat tax. But before jumping to the conclusion that there might be some data to back the Post's ideology, take a look at the examples the NP puts forward in favour of its claim.

From the article:

In most jurisdictions that have adopted flat taxes, economic activity has increased and government revenues have risen. The lower rates spur greater investment, and also encourage greater compliance with tax laws, which means government's tax take increases from both a rise in national production and a fall in cheating.

Since 1994, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia and Ukraine have all adopted flat taxes on personal income ranging from 12% to 19%.

Keep a very close eye on the alleged reasons for increased investment, then consider that all but three of the examples of current flat-tax countries are former Soviet-bloc states, while the other three were also completely state-owned until at least 1989. The cause and effect for those states is "legalizing investment increases investment", not "flat tax increases investment". The flat tax may have made for easier collection in a state with very little means to set up a revenue agency, but that doesn't make it a good fit for the first world.

Every other jurisdiction discussed in the article (aside from Alberta) is one which has yet to implement a flat tax - and in at least one case, even the proposal was only made by a firmly-entrenched opposition party. Judging from the standards set by the Post, the mere publication of the article makes Canada a country "considering" a flat tax, and thus evidence in favour of implementing one.

In the end, the only jurisdiction that apparently provides any meaningful support for the flat tax is one which has done well largely due to resource revenues, and which was booming long before the flat tax was implemented.

The tax system probably could stand to be a lot more simple. But as I've pointed out before, there's no need whatsoever to link tax code reform with a flat tax - regardless of the connections that the Post chooses to invent.

To nobody's surprise...

...Layton once again takes the lead in trying to make good things happen in Parliament:

"We'll have to see how the fall unfolds," NDP Leader Jack Layton told globeandmail.com in an interview Monday.

"We took what was an unacceptable budget, made it better, and it passed," he added, suggesting that similar agreements could be worked out in the fall session, which begins Sept. 26...

Mr. Layton said in general, the topics of discussion include how to address what Canadians see as a failed leadership in terms of the federal government and trade agreement violations, especially related to the softwood lumber issue...

The NDP Leader said the party will also be discussing worries over privatization of health care and the continued environmental deterioration in Canada.

Needless to say, this is an excellent start to the session for Layton: it helps to shape the fall agenda, and also makes clear that any failure to get things done lies with the Liberals rather than with the NDP. My only quibble is that it would be all the better if PR were mentioned in the public lead-in, but hopefully that'll make its appearance once Parliament gets underway.

On standing for nothing

Luiza Ch. Savage's Maclean's BMD column in a nutshell: We're already under the U.S.' boot. So we'd might as well be proud to be there.

Savage rightly points out that Canada has contributed a lot more to global stability than has Australia, but that Americans are suspicious of Canada due to political disputes such as BMD and involvement in Iraq. But in pointing out Canada's moral opposition to Iraq, Savage utterly fails to ask a fairly obvious question: namely, was Canada justified in its opposition?

(Note to reader: if that answer seems to be in doubt, please stop by this blog again after all the Bushco Kool-aid is out of your system.)

The value in Savage's column is the point that Canada has continued to cooperate with the U.S. in substantive ways - some where should be proud to have done so (i.e. in Afghanistan), some where we should be much less so (i.e. tacit mission support in Iraq, participation in BMD-related activities).

The converse to Savage's position is that we need to be careful to make sure that our support abroad ultimately goes to positive ends: if the U.S. is leading others in the wrong direction, our best course of action is to reserve our cooperation for worthy goals. And the complicit involvement in BMD pointed out in the article is a solid example of that. In a world where the vast majority of states are committed to disarmament, Canada shouldn't be encouraging proliferation either directly or indirectly. And Martin should have to answer for every step he takes which has the effect of boosting BMD, even if he publicly claims to be against it.

Savage rightly points out that Canada's actions haven't always matched its rhetoric. But the problem is with actions that undercut positive goals, not with the position of opposing proliferation and invasion.

When we're right, nobody wins out if we either claim or act otherwise. Even if standing up for what's right (in both words and actions) makes Australia more popular in Rupert Murdoch's book.

Jailing democracy

Time to counterbalance this morning's good news with a terrible incident of press repression. Rabble points out that two Haitian journalists have been jailed for particularly appalling reasons - Kevin Pina for shooting factual footage of Haiti since the 2004 coup, and Jean Ristil for reporting Pina's arrest. (More details of the arrests here, where it appears both reporters were covering a police search of the church run by presidential candidate Gerard Jean-Juste.)

Between the search and the arrests, it seems all too clear that the Lavalas party's position is being deliberately silenced in advance of the upcoming election. And Canada has been offered a leading role in trying to maintain order to allow the election to proceed. As a result, Canada has a great opportunity to take up that offer, on the conditions that reporters aren't jailed for doing their job, and that the elections aren't a complete and utter sham.

Stop by Marguerite Laurent's list of Canadian contacts, and let them know that Canada shouldn't be complicit in press intimidation.