Subverting democracy

The Centre for Media Alternatives - Quebec has an interesting article on Canada's involvement in Haiti, featuring in particular this gem:

The ground is also being prepared for the privatization of Haiti’s state enterprises, a policy vigorously opposed by the Haitian people. The Interim Cooperation Framework (ICF), a document outlining the priorities of the “transitional government” and the donor countries, touts “private sector participation” in state enterprises and makes clear the anti-democratic nature of these reforms: “The transition period . . . provide[s] a window of opportunity for implementing economic governance reforms . . . that may be hard for a future government to undo.” Canada helped draft the ICF and has donated $147 million in support of it.

While it's tough to take a side in the apparent debate between this article and one from Rabble (criticized by the CMAQ) as to just how blameworthy the Aristide administration is, it should be glaringly obvious that there's plenty of blame to go around regarding Latortue and his international backers. And that's doubly so if the goal of the caretaker administration is to permanently undo the will of Haitians before they get another chance to go to the polls.

Vote for me and I'll go away

Much as I like to criticize Harper and company, this is a stroke of political genius:

In another part of his speech Friday, the Conservative leader also hinted that unlike former prime minister Jean Chrétien, who was a prominent target of blame in Gomery's report, he would not be a multiple-term prime minister.

Harper spoke about how admirable he finds it when people run for office, make a difference and then return to their normal lives.

"That is how I want my time in public office to be," Harper said. "I'm here to do a job. I'm not here to join a club. I'm not here to buy into a lifestyle."

Now, the article isn't entirely clear as to the definitions of "multiple" and "term"...and anybody who's seen the original text of the speech can feel free to clarify. But consider the possibility that "multiple" could mean "more than one", and "term" could mean "election in which Harper is elected as PM".

Under those definitions, Harper's promise would dictate that if he were to win a minority government in the post-Gomery election and have it collapse within a matter of months, he'd have completed his term in office and wouldn't keep running for the PM position.

Given the choice to rebuke the Liberals yet at the same time avoid any substantial implementation of Conservative policy, I suspect a good number of Canadians would take that opportunity. And getting rid of Harper at the end of that term would only be a bonus. Meaning that this may be the first good reason people have had to vote for the Cons since the party formed.

Tunnel vision

More confidence-inspiring material from Harper: now the Con leader has promised that if elected, he'll remain just as singularly devoted to criticizing the Liberals above all other priorities as he's been in opposition:

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper will sue the Liberal Party to recover more misspent sponsorship funds if he comes to power in the next election, saying this week's $1-million reimbursement by the governing party is far from enough...

The Conservative Leader said a civil lawsuit is necessary to find out exactly how much money was stolen from taxpayers by Liberal officials, arguing that a court process would force further confessions of wrongdoing.

Mr. Harper said he has received informal legal advice on the matter, and that as prime minister, he would instruct federal officials to obtain compensation for the misspending of sponsorship funds. He said up to $40-million is unaccounted for.

"You may in the end identify only $4-million or $5-million. But when you really want to get to the truth and get the money, you quite frankly, in the lawsuit, throw the kitchen sink at them."

Now, it's difficult to see why subsequent proceedings by any government would lead to "further confessions of wrongdoing" or added elements of truth beyond those which Gomery was able to elicit. And the money now unaccounted for seems to nicely match the amount currently at stake in the civil proceedings already launched by the government against the individuals and companies involved...making it likely that if there is any truth to a claim that the money ended up in Liberal hands, the defendants in the current proceeding would want to point out the party's wrongdoing rather than being liable for the amount themselves.

But never mind whether added litigation is either a good idea, or likely to produce positive financial results (particularly in light of the costs involved). And especially never mind whether the litigation avoids the ultimate issue of how to prevent future abuses, even as some parties actually have meaningful suggestions. (The Cons are supposed to present their proposal today, but it predictably sounds far more narrow and backward-looking than the NDP's policy.)

To Harper, even the prospect of forming government is merely an opportunity to use that power to keep attacking the Liberals. Regardless of one's ideology, surely that has to be seen as a problem.

None of the above is to excuse the Libs for anything related to the sponsorship scandal. But the mere fact that Gomery was the best thing to happen to the Cons in the history of the party doesn't mean that Canadians want to see their next government too obsessed with rehashing the '90s to govern in the present. One would hope this would lead people to look for a more viable alternative government, but it seems all too likely that Harper's dedication to bashing the Liberals is only helping to keep them in power.

Musical benches

For the ultimate example of the dangers of politicizing the judiciary, look no further than the wrangling now surrounding the proceedings against Tom DeLay:

A new judge was selected to preside over Representative Tom DeLay's conspiracy and money laundering trial today, after another judge became the second to step away from involvement in the case because of political contributions he has made.

Administrative Judge B.B. Schraub, a Republican who was to have selected the new judge for the case, withdrew after Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle filed a request to have him removed.

Two days earlier, District Judge Bob Perkins was removed from the case at DeLay's request because of his contributions to Democrats...

Lawyers on both sides in DeLay's case have argued that political contributions by judges have harmed at least the appearance of impartiality.

But in a state where judges are elected and free to contribute to candidates and political parties, it could be a challenge to find a judge who meets both sides' definition of impartial.

Fortunately, nobody in the mainstream (to my knowledge at least) is talking about going quite as far as electing judges in Canada. But we should be wary of taking any steps toward a legal system where partisan affiliation is assumed to override judicial independence.

And now we wait

The Libs' offer on health care will be made "late tonight", with an NDP response to follow tomorrow. We'll find out soon whether PMPM is willing to admit that privatization is a problem. If so, then there'll be far more reason for the NDP to want to make a deal than there was earlier this week; if not, then the supposed defender of public health care may have just staked his government's future on a refusal to defend the system.

Multiple benefits

As if increasing research & development capacity wasn't a good enough end in itself, a new study shows that the spin-off developments are helping to feed more money into the university system:

According to the Survey of Intellectual Property Commercialization in the Higher Education Sector released by Statistics Canada Thursday, the number of inventions reported or disclosed by researchers to universities and hospitals increased to 1,133 from 1,105 between 2001 and 2003.

This research has led to the creation of more than 875 new businesses to date. In 2002 and 2003, 64 spin-off companies from technologies developed by their researchers alone. These spin-offs covered a wide range of industries, from computer systems design, to medical devices manufacturing.

During that time, the income from intellectual property rose $3-million, to $55.5-million from $52.5-million.

Universities share in this revenue with the inventors was 44 per cent, while 38 per cent went to inventors and co-inventors.

Now, the amount put toward research is far more than the amount recouped to universities so far, and will remain so in the long term. But it's still noteworthy to trace back the positive effect that the new developments have already had on universities, and to note that their stake in new companies could lead to far greater gains in the future.

Of all the times...

Just after a week when an exceptional amount of attention has been paid to aboriginal issues, and just before a meeting with Canada's premiers, the leading coalition pushing the First Nations cause seems to be splintering:

The Assembly of First Nations' call for a united voice going into the upcoming First Ministers' Meeting began to unravel Wednesday as the Quebec chiefs pulled out of the process...

The Quebec chiefs maintained they want to protect and preserve their treaty rights and will not come to the table with the provinces to negotiate with a province, Quebec, that is continually challenging those inherent and treaty rights in the courts.

The problem with the action of the Quebec chiefs is that a seat at the First Ministers' Meeting has long been a (reasonable) demand of the AFN. By walking away from the table, these chiefs are in effect rebuking the premiers' demonstration of respect. And that doesn't seem likely to do much other than to make their relationship with the Quebec provincial government all the more contentious. If anything, a continued presence within the negotiations would offer a chance to better highlight, and perhaps resolve, the chiefs' concerns.

It's understandable that as with any political coalition, there are bound to be some divisions within the AFN. But both the timing and the nature of the current dissent within the AFN seems all too likely to undermine the work of all parties involved.

Unresolved claims

In the wake of Kashechewan, this is definitely the time for First Nations to point out how long some of their ongoing grievances have been ignored. And based on this story, it appears that the federal and Alberta governments both have a lot to answer for with regard to the Lubicon band.

First, the federal government's neglect:

The federal government should make every effort to resume land-claim talks with a northern Alberta Cree community that has been fighting for status for almost 70 years, says a United Nations report.

The UN Human Rights Committee also says the Lubicon band continues to be compromised by logging and large-scale oil and gas extraction...

(Lubicon band counsellor Alphonse) Ominayak said he is pleased the UN committee highlighted the band's concerns about resource development.

"They can't harvest our natural resources and our forests before they settle with us," he said.

"We have never ceded our rights or given anyone any of our natural resources, including oil and gas, in our traditional territory."

Based on the lack of negotiations, it's the federal government that receives the brunt both the U.N. report and Ominayak's comments. But at least the federal government didn't go out of its way to push the band away from a table to which it was invited:

Two energy firms signed an agreement last month with the Lubicon that gives the band a veto over some oil and gas drilling on land it claims.

Key parts of the deal signed by Surge Global Energy and Pan Orient Energy give the Lubicon the power to say no to the use of surface or potable water in the drilling or operation of wells. The band will also have a say in where wells or pipelines will be situated.

The agreement signed by the two companies was reached despite the objections of the province, which urged the firms not to negotiate with the band, the Lubicon say.

It's tough to conclude that the band isn't able to negotiate constructively when it's been able to reach settlements with both the province and the private companies using its historic territory. Which means that the lack of any ongoing negotiations falls squarely on the shoulders of the federal government. But both levels of government deserve blame for trying to prevent the Lubicon from exercising reasonable control over their own land.

Priorities

In response to the obvious fact that the Cons can in fact take down the Liberal government with only the support of the Bloc if they see fit, Harper emerged today with the worst excuse imaginable:

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has said he is ready to go to the polls any time but he also indicated again Wednesday that, because of numbers in the House of Commons, an election call depends on the rest of the opposition. Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe has also suggested that he is willing to go to the polls on the issue.

"We have a number of members who for health reasons their attendance is unreliable," Mr. Harper told reporters. "We simply don't have a certainty. Frankly, it's Mr. Layton who has kept the government in office and it is Mr. Layton who has to make that decision."...

"We're willing to bring the government down but we're not willing to lose another vote."

In other words, Harper is more than willing to try to take the step of bringing down the government - as long as there's absolutely no risk involved. And this the day after Harper criticized Layton on the basis that trying to negotiate better policy isn't a good enough reason to hold off on an election.

In sum: in Harper's world, good policy comes only after punishing wrongdoing...but both are subordinate to risk aversion and personal image. And to think the Cons can't figure out why hardly anybody wants to see Harper anywhere near 24 Sussex Drive.

Unbelievable

After a centuries-old legacy of offloading problems onto Canada's First Nations, the federal government is now funding what may be the harmful initiative yet:

David Gorman, one of the AFN's four co-ordinators for the dialogue, has been visiting reserves to let chiefs and tribal council members know that key decisions are being made about storing nuclear waste that could affect native reserves in the coming decades...

"I would just say, 'Be aware that industry might approach [your community] to build a facility on your territory and they might sweeten the deal with economic opportunities and money.' "...

The AFN's nuclear dialogue is being paid for with money from the nuclear organization and Natural Resources Canada.

Mr. Gorman would not say how much money the AFN received from the nuclear organization, but the AFN's own summary report of its dialogue reveals the funding arrangement doesn't sit well with some.

While it's obvious that much needs to be done to improve the lot of First Nations, it should be equally obvious that the answer isn't to try to strong-arm them into accepting nuclear waste on their traditional or treaty land.

Given the current funding disparities as well as the often-higher costs on reserves, it may appear tempting for some First Nations to try to make up the funding gap through a waste storage program. But if so, that only signals the utter failure of the federal government to appropriately provide for First Nations to date. And that lack of funding should be dealt with directly, rather than with nuclear strings attached.

The outside perspective

It doesn't seem to be mentioned at any big Canadian media outlets in the wake of Gomery, but CNN's top international headline is rather more alarming than anything being given much attention domestically:

One of Quebec's top politicians said Tuesday that separatists in the French-speaking province would launch a new referendum on independence from Canada after the next provincial election.

The leader of the Bloc Quebecois, the separatist party in the federal Parliament, which fields candidates only in Quebec, was speaking after an inquiry reported that senior members of the Quebec branch of the ruling federal Liberal Party had engaged in kickbacks and illegal campaign financing...

Asked if Tuesday's report would hasten the next referendum, Duceppe said: "I'm pretty sure we'll win the next federal election, the Parti Quebecois will win ... the election in Quebec, and then we'll go for a referendum."

Granted, nothing Duceppe had to say on the subject should be all that surprising. But then the same appears to go for the content of the report. And the sovereignty implications are surely more important than the speculation/name-calling over whether or not the opposition parties will force an election.

We'll see whether Duceppe's separation comments find their way into the mainstream Canadian media soon...or whether it's a subject that nobody really wants to write about at this point.

Still stalling

There shouldn't be much doubt why this news was timed so as to be buried:

Ottawa will announce today that it has no plans to introduce a refugee appeal division, a move certain to anger refugee advocates and placate critics of the system who feel there are already too many reviews for asylum seekers.

Immigration Minister Joe Volpe is expected to tell the standing committee on immigration that his department has decided not to introduce an appeal division, although Parliament recommended its creation in 2002.

I'll grant that the current process appears to be improving as stated later in the article. But even if that's the case, there's still a need for a streamlined, merit-based appeals process - particularly when contrasted against the current system of forcing refugees to apply to a painfully backlogged Federal Court process for an appeal based solely on errors of law.

Instead, Volpe has sent the message today that his department is willing to ignore the merit of refugee claims. And given the media circus surrounding Gomery, it's all too likely that the rest of the country will follow suit for the foreseeable future.

Well said

Thomas Walkom discusses Canada's international hypocrisy with regard to Syria:

Pettigrew does not intend to be consistent. If the Canadian government seriously opposed the torture of Canadian citizens, it would pull out all the stops to have Washington return teenager Omar Khadr from the Guantánamo Bay prison camp, where he is being held outside of international law and where, according to his lawyers, he has been physically abused.

If the Canadian government seriously opposed torture, it would not allow its soldiers in Afghanistan to hand over captured prisoners to U.S. forces operating outside the Geneva Conventions who, according to numerous accounts by human rights agencies, routinely abuse their charges.

Nor would it exchange information on Canadians with regimes that deliberately engage in physical abuse as an accepted form of interrogation — like Egypt, Syria and the United States.

But Ottawa is not serious. Hypocrisy has long been a staple of Canadian foreign policy. But the government's level of hypocrisy in this affair is breathtaking.

If you have a moment in the midst of Gomeryfest, give it a read.

Destabilizing influence

While CSIS isn't willing to disclose how far it's extended its mandate, some of the end results of its work are worth highlighting:

10 days ago (CSIS Director Jim) Judd said the U.S. war in Iraq was creating "long-term problems" for other countries. And testifying before the Senate committee he said Iraq provides militants with both motive and opportunity.

"It's been an issue in terms of providing individuals more of an opportunity to learn new techniques and expertise in this. And more generally, it may serve as a motivation. It's a serious concern," he said...

Judd says the main terror threat facing Canada comes from radicalized Canadians. And he says CSIS has seen Iraq cause that radicalization in real cases.

That last paragraph is particularly worthy of note: for all the U.S. criticism over Canadian immigration controls, the bigger risk doesn't involve the new arrivals to a country so much as it involves people already present in a given country who later become radicalized. And there can be little doubt which of the two countries is causing more harm in that regard.

We can only be thankful that the increased risk hasn't yet manifested itself in the form of serious attacks in Canada. But if it does, we should bear in mind that the U.S.' response to terrorism is more likely to be one of the causes than a solution.

Zero tolerance for logic

It's always worth paying attention when initiatives which are supposed to be "tough on crime" end up being just the opposite. With that in mind, kudos to Howard Hampton for pointing out the absurd results of Ontario's Safe Schools Act:

The law, introduced four years ago by the previous Conservative government, imposes automatic suspensions and expulsions for offences such as assault, drug trafficking or selling or carrying weapons or alcohol...

Hampton called the statistics "startling," noting the number of suspensions in Ontario shot up 40 per cent to 24,238 in the 2001-02 school year, the first year the law was in force.

The numbers have stayed that high ever since, even in the two years since Premier Dalton McGuinty was elected, said Hampton, who accused the governing Liberals of doing nothing to provide alternative programs for students who were suspended or expelled...

"Criminal justice has moved towards making sure only the most dangerous kids are dragged into the court system, and most other things we try to deal with in the community," McKinnon said.

"Schools are taking the opposite tack by throwing people out of their community for the most minor things."

Many of the suspensions are for offences such as swearing, she added, noting that the law leaves boards no choice but to kick students out instead of dealing with the problem within the school.

Not much to add...other than that it would be a plus if the governments implementing such an obviously-flawed policy were judged anywhere near as harshly for their actions as the children now forced out of school by the legislation.

Beyond the boundaries

I'm not quite sure what's worse: CSIS' apparent history of acting outside the scope of its statutory powers, or the Liberals defending the practice only after the fact:

As part of the listing process, CSIS prepares a security intelligence report on possible additions to the terrorist roster. The Public Safety minister then makes a recommendation to cabinet as to whether the group should be included.

The review committee said this kind of activity is not accounted for in the CSIS Act, the law governing the spy agency...

A spokesman for Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan said the government rejects the argument that CSIS's involvement in the listing process unduly expands the service's scope of activity.

The article also indicates that CSIS hasn't been providing full reports to its watchdog agency (as it used to in the past).

It's bad enough to have a government agency tacitly approving of the use of torture as CSIS appears to have done. But even if that weren't a problem, there's no reason at all for an expansion of CSIS' powers based at best on a 14-year-old ministerial directive, and at worst on nothing but the bare assertion that the powers are needed for reasons which can't even be shared with CSIS' supervising agency.

If the Liberals truly feel that policy needs to be changed in order to meet national security goals, then that should be dealt with in Parliament...or at the very least through new public announcements or regulations. And that policy should at least be subject to a full review from the agency charged with the task.

Instead, the Libs' reluctance to present and defend CSIS' expanded powers publicly makes it seem all too likely that there isn't much defence to be mounted at all. And that has to leave Canadians wondering just how much hidden authority CSIS may hold.

Diplomacy at work

The AP reports on the new UN resolution on Syria demanding cooperation with the investigation into the Hariri assassination:

The UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution Monday demanding Syria's full co-operation with a investigation into the assassination of Lebanon's former prime minister and warning of possible “further action” if it doesn't...

The three co-sponsors agreed to drop a direct threat of sanctions against Syria in order to get support from Russia and China, which opposed sanctions while the investigation is still under way. Nonetheless, the resolution was adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which is militarily enforceable.

The resolution requires Syria to detain anyone the UN investigators consider a suspect and let investigators determine the location and conditions under which the individual would be questioned. It also would freeze assets and impose a travel ban on anyone identified as a suspect by the commission.

There's a lot to like about the final resolution as compared to earlier drafts. While recent press focused on the dispute as to whether or not sanctions would be explicitly mentioned (and they aren't), the issue of greater concern was the U.S.' initial demand that the resolution also condemn Syria for actions along the border with Iraq. The application of Chapter VII seems potentially problematic, but at the very least any sanctions would require a new Security Council resolution, and one presumes those would be applied before any military action would be taken.

Unfortunately, the agreement on today's resolution will probably give rise to future disagreements on its meaning. But as long as "future action" isn't given the same ridiculous scope once applied to "serious consequences", today's resolution should help show the world's desire to deal with Syria's non-cooperation on the Hariri investigation firmly but peacefully.

The opening offer

Word comes out that the Liberals are willing to tighten one loophole in the health care system - but it looks like there's ample reason for the NDP to continue to hold out for more:

Ujjal Dosanjh will meet today with NDP health critic Jean Crowder. He is expected to say he is amenable to tightening regulations that restrict for-profit health care.

Mr. Dosanjh intends to make it clear the provinces will not be permitted to turn over federal cash transfers to doctors who deliver the same services in both the insured public system and in the private sector for higher fees, a senior adviser to the Department of Health said yesterday.

While it is not a widespread phenomenon, Health Canada has been concerned in recent years that some physicians are in effect "double-dipping" by offering some patients faster, more expensive treatment in private facilities than they do in the public system, the adviser said.

Now, it's always a plus to make a dent in one problem that's been ignored to date. But the bigger problem all along has been that of entirely private clinics which make no pretense of involvement in the public system. Dosanjh's proposed reform would merely have the effect of legitimizing the spread of such clinics, and would apparently allow "double-dipping" in any event as long as the private fees matched the public ones.

That said, Dosanjh's offer is at least a useful starting point as long as some of the NDP's already-stated positions can be worked into the picture. A combination of the tightened regulation with the NDP's proposed ban on new private operations would go a long way toward preventing further privatization, even if it doesn't do much to undo past damage.

And it shouldn't be unrealistic to get at least that concession out of the government for now. The Liberals may need a deal on the issue in order to preserve PMPM's (however comical) claim to be the defender of public health care. And that should give the NDP a strong bargaining position to demand changes which will actually do something to preserve the system.

Democracy in need of support

The AP reports on a political showdown in the Ivory Coast:

Ivory Coast's president vowed to stay in power for another year Sunday as security forces fired into the air and hurled tear gas at opposition militants protesting a bitterly disputed, UN-backed extension of his mandate.

Laurent Gbagbo also said he would name a new prime minister within days to ensure presidential elections are held within 12 months. Late Sunday, rebels issued a statement proclaiming rebel leader Guillaume Soro the new premier, although they have no legal authority to do so. The move was sure to increase tensions in the West African country...

The rebels issued a statement after the speech declaring Gbagbo's mandate over and saying they would no longer recognize him as head of state. The statement said Soro would set up a "government of national reconciliation" but did not say how.

Half a dozen cabinet ministers also have said they won't recognize Gbagbo's authority after Sunday and claim he no longer has the right to command the army, which has remained loyal so far.

The truly sad part of the current situation is that the major parties agree both that elections need to take place, and that the Ivory Coast isn't ready to hold them just yet. But the question of who's going to run the country in the meantime seems contentious enough that it could derail the entire process.

A dispute along these lines (internal actors with relatively common interests) is exactly the type where diplomatic involvement should be able to result in a deal. But it doesn't look like anything of the sort has been in the works just yet...and it'll take quick action now to get a deal done before the dispute turns all the more ugly.

Making a bad idea worse

The CP reports on a proposal to fund the federal government's new wiretap requirements through property seized as the proceeds of crime:

Money forfeited through the federal proceeds-of-crime program should help pay for the new eavesdropping initiatives, says the ad-hoc coalition of police chiefs and communications companies.

The idea, spelled out in a recent confidential letter to the Public Safety Department, is intended to avoid a public outcry from phone and Internet subscribers, who might otherwise be stuck with the tab...

Under the federal proposals, service providers would be required, when upgrading their systems, to build in the technical capabilities needed by police and intelligence agencies, such as the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to easily tap communications.

The controversy revolves around the ongoing costs of looking up phone numbers, hooking up to networks and relaying communications from one city to another - individual services that may cost anywhere from pocket change to thousands of dollars.

Now, I'll readily agree with the coalition to the extent that individual users of communications technology shouldn't be stuck with the bill for wiretaps.

But the article indicates that in most recent years, the proceeds-of-crime program has actually run a deficit rather than a surplus. And we surely don't want to see police work diverted in any way toward trying to hunt down proceeds of crime (as opposed to, say, perpetrators) solely because that's the only way to keep programs funded.

If the wiretap technology is necessary for the government's use (and I'm not sure that's anywhere close to being proven), then it should be general government revenues that pay the bill. Maybe the government will be lucky enough to see the proceeds of crime pay the entire cost. But neither the implementation of the program, nor the conduct of police, should be altered based on whether or not that happens to be true.

Preparing for the worst

Much has been made of the potential effects of a flu pandemic, and I don't have much to add to the great work done at the flu wiki in an effort to prepare communities for the potential harms. But CTV has a useful commentary on how the effects of a pandemic could cut far into our economic well-being - and how few businesses are prepared for the problem:

Sherry Cooper, chief economist at BMO Nesbitt Burns in Toronto, said a flu pandemic could potentially result in a 25 to 35 per cent absentee rate at workplaces across the country...

As a virus spreads, Cooper predicts travel could be restricted, as the flow of goods and products across borders becomes limited. And manufacturing plants that rely on a global supply chain could be forced to cut back...

The challenge facing companies during a pandemic would be to keep operating. But Jason Myers, a senior economist with the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, said most operations just don't have the capacity to carry on through a crisis.

"I think for the majority of businesses in Canada, it's not on the radar," said Myers.

In fairness, it's difficult for a given business to divert resources away from its ongoing operations in order to perpare for what's only a possible outcome. But the lack of private-sector preparation should highlight the fact that governments can't count on other actors being ready in the all-too-foreseeable event that a pandemic does hit...and they thus need to be all the more prepared themselves.

Still empty words

It's official. PMPM has used his first radio address, and the associated cost to his party, to say absolutely nothing. Is anybody surprised?

Radio active

Word comes out that PMPM is going to start giving weekly radio addresses similar to those in the U.S.:

Faced with a daunting list of challenges, Prime Minister Paul Martin is taking a tip from his U.S. counterpart by delivering a weekly radio address to the country starting Sunday.

Unlike the American presidential broadcasts every Saturday, however, Mr. Martin's talks are considered commercials and the air time will be paid for by the Liberals, said party director Steven MacKinnon.

What the article doesn't mention is that in the U.S., the opposition party also gets air time to deliver a weekly message. Obviously the Liberal party won't be funding that in Canada, but the other two national parties should be eager to take the chance to speak directly to Canadians...not to mention get their issue of choice in the headlines for the week.

And whether or not the opposition parties follow suit with paid messages, it might be worth examining whether air time should be provided to all parties under the Broadcast Act. Of course, that might result in a bit more democratic discussion than the Libs are eager to see.

Deal-making

In contrast to the many other contentious labour disputes over the past year, Saskatchewan's nurses had little trouble reaching agreement with the Saskatchewan Association of Health Organizations:

A contract agreement that will provide Saskatchewan nurses with a base 7.5-per-cent pay raise over three years was reached Friday.

The tentative deal will also provide senior nurses with five years or more experience an additional two-per-cent pay raise at the start of the third year of the agreement.

Kudos to both sides for getting the deal done. It's great to have a reminder that it doesn't take a lengthy strike or lockout to reach a contract that's all parties can be happy with - and that indeed avoiding unnecessary combativeness is a great way to ensure a positive end result.

On equal attention

The CP releases an otherwise exhaustive article on the political implications of the impending Gomery report. But while all three other parties with seats in Parliament receive both multiple paragraphs within the article and a specific reference in the headline, any mention of the NDP is limited to this:

If it's scathing, the Tories and Bloc Quebecois could decide to topple the government in their first available opportunity later this month - although that would mean an election around the Christmas holidays. Those two parties probably have enough MPs to defeat the Liberals but the Tories are reluctant to fight that battle without help from the NDP.

Now, surely any thorough coverage should actually take the time to at least explain what considerations would influence the NDP's choice. Or perhaps to explain the NDP's middle ground between the Con/Bloc desire to force an election at all costs, and the Libs' desire to avoid one.

Instead, the writer chooses to utterly ignore the party. Which means that as much as the NDP has managed to win attention in the populace at large, it still has a ways to go in getting the media to recognize that fact.

Update: See the Globe and Mail's similar article as an example of how to actually cover everybody involved.

On judging the judges

I didn't think anybody would waste their breath trying to argue that the Harriet Miers nomination fiasco was a mark of a system worth copying. But leave it a prominent Con to prove me wrong:

Conservative justice critic Vic Toews said yesterday that Ms. Miers's move, rather than reflecting badly on the U.S. system, "demonstrates the accountability of the president to the elected houses for his nominations." The fact that Ms. Miers was forced to drop out after her qualifications were questioned "demonstrates that transparency is a good thing," he said.

It's bad enough that Toews claims that the reason for the withdrawal was based on "the elected houses" rather than pressure groups from the religious right. But it should be all the more obvious that it was an initial need for political calculation that led Bush to nominate somebody who was seen across the spectrum as something short of the best available candidate. And despite that consensus, Miers may well have been confirmed if she'd gone up for a vote, as senators themselves would have cast their votes based on their own political considerations rather than truly answering the question of whether anybody else was a better candidate.

Meanwhile, the arguments against questioning judicial candidates in Parliament aren't based only on criticism of the U.S. process. A realistic appraisal of Canada's political scene suggests that Canada's own political system isn't well-designed to handle such a process:

One roadblock that may slow any future move to give Parliament a bigger role in the selection process is the committee system itself, said Frederick Vaughan, a retired political science professor from the University of Guelph and author of two books on the Supreme Court.

"I think the parliamentary committee system as it works in Canada is in such disrepute that I can't imagine how it would improve the selection of judges," he said. Committee sessions are so "bitterly partisan" that it would add little to the nomination process to subject a candidate to them, he said.

It's easy to forget at times that the Canadian system is unlike the U.S. system in that it's characterized almost entirely by party-line votes and rhetoric rather than individual positions and perspectives. Meaning that as terrible as the partisan wringer can be in the U.S., it could be many times worse here. And that's doubly unjust when past nominations in Canada have been far less politically-based than those to our south.

There are always some political aspects to Supreme Court jurisprudence. But it doesn't improve matters at all to explicitly politicize the process in response, particularly in the absence of any plausible need to change the status quo. The only end result of a U.S.-style hearing process would be to drag Canada's top judicial institution closer to the low levels of trust associated with typical partisan political wrangling. And we're all worse off if the effect is to cause less respect for the law and the people who interpret it.

The right direction

It may be sparking controversy on both sides of the Atlantic, but the EU has made an important offer to reduce its internal agricultural subsidies:

Peter Mandelson offered to cut EU farm subsidies by 47% today in an attempt to prevent world trade talks collapsing, but his proposal received a cool response from both French officials and US farm groups.

The EU trade commissioner put a new offer to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) that stated Europe would reduce the highest tariff rates by 60% and eliminate all subsidies for farm exports if trading partners made similar moves at a WTO meeting in December...

The commission said its new proposals bridged the different plans tabled by other WTO members and "must unlock immediate progress in other areas of the [WTO] negotiations, particularly trade in industrial products and services"...

Agriculture has been the main stumbling block to progress on the Doha "development" round of trade talks. Unless there is a deal on farm subsidies, the prospects for progress at the WTO ministerial talks in Hong Kong in December look bleak.

Unfortunately, key actors are trying to undermine the move from both sides. France is criticizing the lowering of subsidies at all, and claiming that the E.U. lacks the authority to make the offer. The U.S., meanwhile, doesn't want to look at opening markets generally unless deeper cuts are made to agricultural subsidies.

There's little doubt that the result of the E.U.'s proposal may not be the ideal scenario for anybody...and indeed, the longer-term goal should be greater cuts to both the subsidies, and other trade barriers toward the developing world. But all parties involved should recognize the move as both a necessary step, and a useful starting point which can be built on through further negotiations.

Making progress

Yesterday, PMPM promised to deal only with the issues surrounding Kashechewan. Today, his promises have extended to dealing with drinking water issues on reserves across the country:

Prime Minister Paul Martin said Friday that the government will do “whatever is necessary” to make drinking water safe on Canada's native reserves, including committing more federal dollars.

He said a government program already in place will provide $1.6-billion to correct what he calls a 100-year-old problem on reserves.

In 2001, Indian Affairs found that nearly one-third of 740 water systems tested in native communities posed a potential high risk of poor water quality. Only 25 per cent were in the low- or no-risk category, the study reported.

There's still plenty of reason to be suspicious, particularly given the lack of any apparent action over the 4 years since the study addressing on-reserve water quality. And it can't be a good sign that Martin seems to think that present commitments will deal with the problem.

But at the very least, the Liberals seem to be very much aware that they can't pretend the current problem lies only on Kashechewan...with the result that a meaningful nationwide plan may not be out of the question in the near future.

A long time coming

The good news is that all parties involved have agreed to a plan to rebuild Kashechewan:

Last night's deal allows for the construction of 50 new homes to be built in Kashechewan in 2006 and 50 more annually for the next 10 years, and money will be made available immediately for renovations to at least 60 houses. There will also be an increase in family services, counselling, family violence and suicide-prevention services and for federal facilities to house those who have been moved from the community.

It's definitely a huge plus for the people of Kashechewan. But lest this be seen as a due response to an immediate emergency, the precise problem has been known to the federal government for nearly a century:

Chief Friday said that the federal government had been urged to build the community on higher ground during construction in 1912 and the community urged the same thing in 1957 when the current houses were built, again on flood-prone land. Flooding from James Bay has forced people to leave the community in the past and has caused significant damage to the local houses.

If anything, Phil Fontaine's response to the agreement was too generous: while it may appear "wonderful" to have one agreement worked out, there appear to be far more first nations still in need of similar attention. And they shouldn't all have to wait to make the headlines individually in order to get their concerns dealt with.

Some of us aren't surprised

Did it really take the word of a law professor to make it clear to government officials that the Canadians rendered to Syria were tortured once they got there?

Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew called in Syrian ambassador Jamil Sakr today following the release of the fact-finder's report that says the four men tell credible stories of being brutally abused in Damascus prisons.

Pettigrew said he expects Syria to investigate the findings and prosecute the jailers responsible: "These people should be convicted."

The report, prepared by law professor Stephen Toope for the federal inquiry into Arar's case, concludes the Ottawa engineer was repeatedly tortured in Damascus...

Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan said she had yet to review the document in detail, but made her concerns clear.

"It is a shocking (report) of what Syrian officials did in the case of Mr. Arar and others."

What should be shocking is that government officials are just now taking action when much of what happened has been publicly known for at least two years. While counsel for the Arar commission points out the value of having the stamp of official fact-finding, it shouldn't have taken that to cause Canada to start seeking answers from Syria. And now, there's little chance of Canada's concerns ranking as a top priority in light of Syria's other diplomatic problems. Meaning that as is so often the case, the Liberals' outraged response is all bluster with no prospect of substance to follow.

The larger issue

PMPM is predictably promising as little action as possible, trying to limit any federal action or responsibility to Kashechewan itself...

Prime Minister Paul Martin promised swift action Thursday to help hundreds of residents of a northern Ontario reserve who have been sickened due to tainted water.

He told reporters that Ottawa will begin to take action "today," when asked whether the Liberals were embarrassed by the situation, in which more than half of Kashechewan's residents have been made ill by drinking water laced with E. coli bacteria.

Note that Martin made no effort to explain the complete lack of action to date, but merely suggested that his government will meet with community and provincial leaders and present some proposals. Even when PMPM is embarrassed into action, it's amazing not only how quickly the scope of action gets reduced, but also that the reduced action is supposed to erase all memory of the original embarrassment.

Meanwhile, Jack Layton and Phil Fontaine rightly took the opportunity to demand action on the nation-wide problem of which Kashechewan is only a symptom:

NDP Leader Jack Layton and Assembly of First Nations Chief Phil Fontaine called on the Liberal government Thursday to address severe housing shortages on Canadian reserves by immediately releasing funds from an NDP-Liberal budget agreement for housing.

After the two discussed a coming first ministers meeting on aboriginal issues in Ottawa, Mr. Fontaine said the native housing situation has been highlighted even more this week because of water problems on the Kashechewan community in northern Ontario...

Mr. Layton and Mr. Fontaine said they will ask for a commitment to address a backlog of about 80,000 housing units.

Needless to say, there shouldn't be much doubt which federal party actually wants to take meaningful action to deal with the housing shortage. It's a shame that it took Kashechewan to bring the issue to the forefront...but now that it's there, the Liberals have an awful lot of neglect to answer for, and PMPM's attempt to minimize the problem shouldn't be able to fool many.

Unhealthy decisions

Yesterday, the Tyee covered the issue of public-private parnerships generally. Today, Murray Dobbin examines the role of P3s in the medical system in particular. And it's not a pretty picture:

The mix of profits and hospitals is deadly and costly, as revealed by McMaster University studies published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. "Canadian governments would pay an extra $7.2 billion in annual health care costs if Canada switched to investor-owned private for-profit hospitals," reported the study. According to Dr. P.J. Devereaux, the lead author of the study, "With for-profit care, you end up paying with your money, and your life." He based his statement on a previous study by the group that showed the switch to for-profit hospitals would result in an additional 2,200 unnecessary deaths every year.

It could also result in massive fraud, as it has in the US. In the mid-1990s, health-care fraud by U.S. corporate giants was estimated as high as $100 billion annually. Washington actually started catching up with some of these crooks by 1994 -- the year that National Medical Enterprises paid a then-record $379 million in fines and restitution for fraud in psychiatric services. In 1997, the mega-giant Tenet Healthcare Corp. agreed to pay $100 million to settle claims that patients were kept in psychiatric hospitals simply to maximize insurance payments. Columbia/HCA Health Corp., America's largest hospital company, agreed to pay $745 million to settle civil fraud charges for systematically ripping off Medicare.

As models worth following go...well, this isn't one of them.

But then, the U.S. system is a more private-based one where there probably isn't as much government input into the initial costs. Surely there must be some record of success elsewhere, whether in Canada or abroad, to explain the provincial move toward P3s?

The record of P3 hospitals in Britain is so appalling that the Labour government (still inexplicably committed to the model) has said it may have to raise taxes to pay for the huge additional costs attributed to the P3s. The P3 promise of cost-saving has been debunked so thoroughly that most advocates no longer even make the claim. The P3 contractor not only pays a higher interest rate for financing but also extracts a return on investment averaging 16 percent. Add to that the astronomical executive pay packages and you can see why costs skyrocket. The only course left to "save" money is to decrease staff and downgrade their qualifications. In Britain, after almost fifteen years of P3s, the number of nurse managers was down 35 percent, registered nurses down 14 percent and untrained staff was up 24 percent.

The P3 hospital in Brampton, Ontario provides a good example of how costs get out of control. The original price was set at $350 million. But then the government sat down and negotiated with the overall contractor and all the individual service providers. By the end of this process the price was $550 million. The Abbotsford example is just as telling. Before the 35-year contract was even signed, the payments to lawyers and consultants were a staggering $24 million. The total cost went from $210 to $355 million; the cost of the yearly operating contract went from $20 million to $41 million.

It should be fairly obvious that reduced services for a higher price means a bad deal for the taxpayer. But in fairness, the immediate political benefits of a low cost estimate can make such a move appealing to a government. The essence of a P3 is to lock the government into an inefficient long-term commitment solely for the sake of being able to present an artifically low current cost number...but that lower number undoubtedly looks nicer on the current balance sheet. And if the costs under the contract soar under a subsequent government, that's all the better politically for the party which first signed the deal.

In order to prevent that sort of political calculation, we need to remind our elected officials that the long-term costs of P3s will come due eventually...and that they'll be held responsible for imposing those costs on us. We know the dangers of deficit spending; we shouldn't be fooled into what amounts to a less efficient, more dangerous way of accomplishing the same thing.

Nomination accepted

Good news: I've been nominated for two Canadian Blog Awards. Better yet, thanks to Robert's criteria for inclusion, I've been able to confirm that this is indeed a blog, dumbass.

I'm especially pleasantly surprised to have been nominated in a couple of the higher-ranking categories (Best Blog and Best Liberal Blog) despite having only run the blog for a few months. While I suspect I'm a year or two away from having the reader base to compete, it's great to be included in such elite company already.

Thanks to both Dale and Deanna (see comments section of this post) for the nominations. And I'll do my best to produce as much nomination-worthy content as I can.

Getting by

It's taken far too long since popular demand forced the Regina Public Library to reconsider plans to close several branches, but the library finally has a plan to keep running in the longer term:

Board chair Darlene Hincks announced Wednesday the first step will be their first-ever home lottery set for next spring.

Hincks said the lottery could potentially bring in $500,000 annually toward the RPL's goal...

The plan for the new direction came after a widespread public campaign prevented the closing of three library branches as well as the Dunlop Art Gallery and the Prairie History Room.

A new board has since supplanted the board that recommended the closures and moved toward the fundraising and donations system.

It may not be the ideal way of keeping afloat; I have to wonder whether there's room to make much money off a new home lottery given how many are already in place, and it's certainly a less stable source of funding than the city should be. But at the very least there's now a plan to avoid cutting services...as long as Reginans are willing to vote with their donations as well as with their signatures and words.

Opening markets

There doesn't seem to be much doubt that it's in our best interest to expand our export markets for our goods. And this week's trip by provincial officials is a step in the right direction...both on oil:

With its oil consumption continuing to soar, China has been increasingly anxious to develop a reliable new chain of energy supplies, including foreign oil sources and an expanded domestic nuclear industry. Saskatchewan could be a vital source of supplies for both of these sectors, according to provincial leaders who held two days of meetings with senior Chinese officials in Beijing this week.

Mr. Calvert Tuesday reached agreement with the chairman of China National Petroleum Corp., the biggest Chinese state-owned oil producer, to set up a high-level working group to pave the way for Chinese investment in the Saskatchewan oil patch as quickly as possible. The goal is “to take our conversations to tangible action,” the Premier said in an interview in Beijing last night.

CNPC is keen to invest in the heavy oil sector in Saskatchewan, he said. “They are demonstrating some real interest. They floated some ideas for the actual purchase of [oil field] properties that they would develop themselves. They gave every indication that it's on their option list. And they mentioned the possibility of joint ventures with Canadian players.”

...and on other Saskatchewan products:

China's nuclear industry, meanwhile, has a strong appetite for possible investments in Saskatchewan uranium mines, according to Eric Cline, the Saskatchewan Minister of Industry and Resources.

He said the Chinese are beginning to realize that Saskatchewan's uranium is much richer than the uranium in Australia, its main rival. Some Chinese investors have already visited the head office and mining sites of Cameco Corp., the province's main uranium producer...

China is also a major customer for two of Saskatchewan's biggest commodities: grain and potash. Chinese demand for both is likely to increase because of the growing affluence of Chinese urban consumers and their rising appetite for more expensive food products, Mr. Calvert said.

Chinese consumers are buying more products such as pasta and beer, for example, which helps creates a market for Saskatchewan's durum wheat and malting barley, he said. Saskatchewan potash, meanwhile, helps China grow its own variations of these crops.

As the article focuses mostly on the reaction of Calvert and Cline, it's tough to say what the Chinese position is coming out of the trip. But it seems readily apparent that Saskatchewan's leaders are in position to both develop more of the province's resources, and diversify the country's export markets in the process. And their own initiative is just as much a factor as the natural fit between our products and China's needs.

(Via the Saskatchewan Desk.)

Scratching the surface

While McGuinty's well-deserved tirade against the federal government seems to be winning headlines, did anybody else notice this little tidbit from the Globe and Mail?

(A)bout 50 other native communities in Ontario are operating under a boil-water advisory.

David Ramsay, the provincial minister responsible for native affairs, said he has given up waiting for Ottawa and the province is now conducting its own assessments of other reserves.

The article doesn't follow up as to which ones are involved, or how many more there may be across the country. But that should be the biggest story here: that as appalling as the conditions are at Kashechewan, they reflect a far-too-common problem when it comes to the standard of living on Canada's First Nations reserves.

Due credit goes to Ramsay for at least starting the assessment process in Ontario. But this should be a nationwide issue rather than a provincial one. And it looks like if the heat is kept on, the federal Liberals may just be embarrassed into finally taking action.

Public-private politics

The Tyee also discusses the economic implications of public-private partnerships...and points out that studies which purport to claim that these are a better means of development tend to leave out a crucial detail:

The private sector has always built the infrastructure we need. The key difference with P3s is that the developers, not government, borrow the money needed to pay for the projects. The government just has to pay an annual fee to use whatever is built...

The rhetoric in support of P3s is no longer about private sector contributions to public infrastructure projects in B.C. They understand that the private financing of public infrastructure projects does not allow government to undertake projects it otherwise could not afford. Their rationale is more subtle, based on 'value for money' studies purporting to show benefits from P3s compared to more conventional contracting arrangements.

The shocking problem with these studies, however, is that they consider only the potential benefits of P3s while they explicitly ignore the extra cost they entail. It is much more expensive for private developers to raise the money needed for these projects than for government to borrow the money itself. The cost of private financing could add 3 percentage points or more to the interest cost taxpayers must ultimately pay.

I'm not one to be a slave to ideology when it comes to service delivery: if it's genuinely possible to save money while delivering the same quality of service, then every government should be looking to do so. But that process will be utterly useless if the government involved wilfully ignores some of the costs involved in one of the options.

It seems that in many cases, governments eager to privatize have chosen that wilful ignorance over a realistic evaluation of costs and benefits...leading to added expenses on every project undertaken as a result. And that's the kind of government waste that we should all be able to agree to eliminate.

Following blindly

The Tyee reports on the upcoming election in Haiti, in an article which I'll criticize only in that the analogy between Haiti and Iraq underestimates the added injustice of a democratically-elected leader being toppled while the perpetrators of past massacres are set free:

Human rights have taken a step backwards since Aristide's departure.

"The scale of which human rights abuses are taking place - there's no comparison," said Anthony Fenton, a Vancouver-based activist and co-author of the recently published Canada in Haiti: Waging War on the Poor Majority.

"This was a very young democracy that was overthrown and there were problems, but the seeds for democracy were being planted," said Fenton who returned from a two-week visit to the country on October 4th. "Now those seeds have been torn out and the soil has been overturned. Haiti's gone back 50 years."

A May 3rd Supreme Court decision mirrors Fenton's words: the sentences of 15 members of the military and a paramilitary organization, who had participated in a massacre of pro-Aristide villagers, were rescinded...

Amnesty International said that the decision to overturn the sentences "constitutes a major setback in the fight against impunity in Haiti."

I've said before that notwithstanding any unfairness surrounding Aristide's ouster, Canada's role now should be to accept a peacekeeping role in exchange for reason to believe that the upcoming elections will be fair. Based on the article, though, it appears that not only is situation deteriorating generally, but Canada's involvement has included training some of the same police officers who have targeted potential Lavalas supporters, and defending the holding of prisoners without trial.

It's probably still not too late for Canada to demand a fair election in exchange for its involvement in Haiti. Unfortunately, there's been no action toward that to date...meaning that we're only a part of the problem.

Recognizing the current

For those trying to figure out why neither conservatism nor separatism is winning out in Canada, a new poll posted by the Star has many of the answers. First, on Quebec:

The poll asked Quebecers about various advantages to being part of Canada and 67 per cent said they drew benefit from Canada's international reputation, 65 per cent said they enjoyed the protection of the Canadian charter of rights, 64 per cent said they liked having access to federal transfers for social programs and 62 per cent said Canada helped protect them against terrorism.

The result regarding Canada's international reputation is especially interesting in light of the Quebec government's recent calls for more leeway to operate internationally.

Next, the particularly fun numbers:

(T)he poll reveals other potentially significant findings about what is knitting together the Canadian identity today — not just in Quebec, but in the nation overall. Again, some of the results are surprising. For instance, while it could be expected that 87 per cent of Canadians would say that the country would be worse off without public health care, strong majorities also said the same about bilingualism, the CBC and increasing the number of visible minorities in Canada.

A full 79 per cent of respondents said that a Canada with no more bilingualism would be a "negative" change for the country, while 81 per cent said the same thing about the potential loss of the CBC and 80 per cent wouldn't want us to be without Canadian peacekeepers.

While there's something to be said for sticking to one's principles even in the face of public disapproval, it's fairly obvious that the Cons' desire to turn the focus away from the above issues puts them at odds with the vast majority of Canadians. And no number of diatribes from Manning and Harris will change that fact.

Of course, there's still the question of why Canadians keep voting for a governing party which prefers to let those institutions die a slow death instead. But there shouldn't be much doubt which side of the political spectrum better reflects Canadian values.

Focusing attention

More word from the CP on the water problems at Kashechewan: the provincial government will evacuate more than half of the reserve's population starting tomorrow:

David Ramsay said the province plans to fly roughly 1,000 of the Kashechewan First Nation's 1,900 residents off the reserve on the western shores of James Bay starting late Wednesday.

"It is a medical emergency so these people really need to be removed," Ramsay said after a two-hour meeting with native leaders and Premier Dalton McGuinty.

It's good to see some action taken toward the most immediate health concerns. And it looks like any decision to move the reserve generally will be made by its residents rather than being imposed from either level of government - though it's worth watching whether funding concerns are used to try to encourage one choice or the other.

While there are some positives in the action now being taken, the evacuation shouldn't be seen as a meaningful fix for anything. As pointed out by the MPP for the area, it's only a small measure to deal with one of many reserves facing substandard conditions, and was only dealt with due to a media blitz:

New Democrat member Gilles Bisson, who represents the riding of Timmins-James Bay, believes the province would not have acted if the native leaders did not come to Toronto to fight for their community.

"It's rather unfortunate that we have to drag people down from Kashechewan and have to show pictures to get this government to act on what I think is a most basic issue: the question of people's safety."

If Walkerton helped to highlight the issues associated with privatization and encouraged other communities to also watch their water management, hopefully Kashechewan can lead all levels of government to take a serious look at improving conditions on reserves across Canada...rather than refusing to act elsewhere until similar public pressure is applied, and then only once the existing structure is too far gone to salvage.

Time to start selling gold

I'm not quite sure which audience Condoleezza Rice's statement was targeted toward, but it certainly can't give much comfort to Canadians:

The United States' word is "as good as gold" when it comes to international agreements and the current Canada-U.S. dispute over softwood lumber — while important — needs to be kept in perspective, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Tuesday...

On Tuesday, Ms. Rice acknowledged the differences between the two countries on the issue — which the U.S. says it would like to resolve through negotiation — but insisted that those differences don't characterize overall trade relations.

"I know that the softwood lumber issue is extremely important to Canada and extremely important particularly to parts of Canada," she said.

"It is a small percentage of our overall trade, and most of the time, as a matter of fact, the great majority of the time, our trade simply goes on.

"When we have disputes we resolve them."

Unfortunately, given the U.S.' gleeful ignorance of existing dispute resolution procedures, the statement would have been more accurate if the last sentence had been left out. There's not much to take away from the rest of the statement except that the U.S. isn't interested in anything but business as usual...i.e. with no Canadian recourse against illegal U.S. actions. And in the U.S.' view, even at its most diplomatic, that still constitutes a difference of opinion rather than a problem worth solving through any means other than Canadian surrender.

(Edit: typo.)

Excessively wide scope

Need more proof of how far anti-terror legislation has gone overboard? Thomas Walkom points out that now, even former Defence Minister David Pratt acknowledges that the legislation went too far:

Known as a military hawk during his time in the Commons, David Pratt now says Canada's post-9/11 anti-terror laws are so broadly — and so badly — written that they leave those working for the Red Cross and similar humanitarian agencies open to criminal prosecution for just doing their jobs.

Even someone who simply donates money to a legitimate aid agency could be liable to 10 years in jail says the former Liberal MP, now special ambassador for the Canadian Red Cross...

"What's key to us is to get aid to vulnerable people," Pratt said in a telephone interview from Ottawa yesterday.

"And sometimes aid does get diverted. It's a fact of life in a conflict zone."

Yet when such diversions occur, he said, the law as written makes the Red Cross, as well as its workers, donors and supporters, vulnerable to criminal prosecution.

The provisions are now under review before a Senate committee, and hopefully a bit more thought will be put into any replacement provisions. But it's a testament to the political obsession with being seen as strong on terror that this issue doesn't seem to have been identified when the bill was first passed. And it'll be an even stronger indictment of all MPs who don't act on the obvious problems pointed out by Pratt now that they've been publicly identified.

And the verdict is..."hard place"

As expected, Iraq's constitution has officially passed, with no indication that the suspicions of ballot stuffing will be seriously investigated. It's a step in some direction for sure...but whether that direction is a stronger insurgency feeding off a more-entrenched anti-Sunni framework remains to be seen.

Reality-based foreign policy

Jim Reed writes one of the first reasonable discussions of Iran to find its way into the media recently:

The invasion of Iraq has altered the balance of geopolitical power in the Middle East, and Iran is emerging as a big winner. It may be time now for the rest of us to acknowledge this. If we are ever to win the war against terrorism, we need a prosperous Iran to be onside.

A confrontation at the UN in the Security Council would be doomed to failure because China and/or Russia would veto any attempt to impose sanctions against one of their principal economic partners and energy suppliers.

So we are left with only one rational approach. That is to work harder at trying to understand what Iran is all about, to refrain from bellicose rhetoric, and to listen to, and perhaps even heed, what the Iranian leadership has to say.

In case anyone was wondering (see the comment) why the CBC is such an important part of the media, commentary like Reed's is just one of the reasons why. Give it a read.

Noxious emissions

The Guardian comments on the Suzuki Foundation's environmental rankings - and shatters Stephane Dion's attempts to criticize them. Dion's criticism focussed on Turkey being at the top of the rankings, and Mexico supposedly ranking higher in water quality. But those critiques don't come close to standing up to the slightest prodding:

Only Belgium and the US ranked lower than Canada in their environmental performance overall. Turkey was the least blameworthy but, the report says, that is because its economy is less developed than other nations in the OECD. The same went for Poland, ranked fourth, and the Slovak Republic, fifth...

Canada's environment minister, Stephane Dion, while conceding the country had room to improve on the environment, was critical of the report when it was released last week.

"Who can give a lot of confidence to a study that said the country that had the best performance regarding the environment is Turkey," he asked. "Mexico is 13th. Mexico! Would you drink Mexico City water from the tap?"

The report considered the consumption of drinking water per capita rather than its quality. Canadians drink double the OECD average; Danes use one-10th the water Canadians consume.

(Emphasis added.)

It would be a plus if Canada's Environment Minister would at least pay attention to basic elements of a report before pretending to be able to debunk it - or at least noticing if the very elements that he criticizes have already been explained. But then, the Liberals have never had much more than pretense on their side when it comes to the environment.

The popular will

Once again, the Canadian public seems to be going in precisely the opposite direction from its political leader. While PMPM seems to be retreating on softwood lumber, 77% of the public backs retaliation through restricted oil and gas exports. But the issue is one of trade fairness rather than America-bashing:

Three of every four Canadians believe Canada should restrict oil and gas exports to the United States if the U.S. does not repay the $5-billion in softwood lumber tariffs that were ruled a violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, a new poll suggests...

An overwhelming majority of the 1,001 adults surveyed -- 81% -- disagreed with a statement that the United States is Canada's best friend, a secure market for Canadian goods, and that Canada should let the United States keep the billions of dollars in softwood tariffs and move on to other issues...

Seventy-one per cent of respondents agreed with the statement: "I value and respect the United States and its citizens -- it's just that I disagree fundamentally with their government."

Martin's position, meanwhile, has been to essentially concede the U.S.' position that the next step is to negotiate a new agreement. And through the ever-popular "senior government source", it's also clear that Canada won't be demanding repayment of the withheld money before entering into talks.

The only demand from Martin's side has been "an indication that the United States understands the importance of fulfilling the terms of NAFTA", with absolutely no suggestion as to what that indication might be. Essentially, a mere change in Bush's public posture can be seen as enough of a "sign" to bring Canada to the table, where we'll once again face both a stacked deck and an opponent who'll walk away from the table if the results don't go his way.

Which means that while Martin may once again have won political points by seeming to stand up to the U.S.' bullying, it appears that he's also once again giving away precisely what he claims to be standing for. And that's a political point that should be held against him - particularly by those 77% of Canadians who simply want us to do the most we can under the rules.

Update: According to another poll, a plurality would rather see negotiation than either of two other options (retaliation or expanded exports). The difference seems to be based on the all-or-nothing nature of the latter poll: as phrased, it seems to imply that the U.S. would have no chance to repay the tariffs, while the earlier one is based on the premise of continued refusal to pay. Which seems to be the all-too-likely outcome.

Finding fault

South of the border, the cost of litigation is normally cited by the right as the sole reason for spiralling health-care costs. But given an opportunity to correct any such problem while at the same time protecting injured patients, the Liberals have dropped the ball:

The judge who presided over the public inquiry into the tainted-blood tragedy is sharply criticizing the federal government for failing to create a no-fault system insurance plan for victims of medical errors.

In a rare public comment, Mr. Justice Horace Krever told the Canadian Healthcare Safety Symposium that there is an "urgent need" for a no-fault scheme because the adversarial litigation route is failing patients who suffer harm from medical procedures such as blood transfusion, vaccination, anesthetization and surgery.

"While we must strive to reduce risk, risk cannot be eliminated," Judge Krever told more than 500 safety experts gathered in Calgary.

"We must incorporate that reality into public policy."

Justice Krever highlights the fact that a no-fault scheme would be better for patients than having to fight their way through the courts. But it's worth emphasizing that the same should also be true for medical practitioners who would face less time taken away from their practice due to litigation. While (contrary to the position of the U.S. right) it's essential that patients be able to recover for their losses, it's hard to see how either doctor or patient is better off under the status quo.

A national embarrassment

The Globe and Mail goes into more detail about the conditions at the Kashechewan reserve. No comment necessary.

Providing good advice

The Guardian reports on a proposed UK program to make financial advice available to lower-earning workers:

A former insurance broker who made millions when his company merged with a rival earlier this year will today call on the financial services industry and the government to create a national network of advice centres to help lower-paid families make better financial decisions...

According to Mr Cowdery, most advice from the state caters to the needs of the unemployed, while the financial services industry ignores those earning less than the average because they are simply not profitable. "We all have four or five big financial decisions to make in life. Basic-rate taxpayers have the most to gain from getting these decisions right and the least access on doing so," he said.

I'm not entirely in agreement that the focus should be on "four or five big decisions": it seems to me that while making the big decisions wrong can be fatal to one's financial standing, so too can enough small expenditures easily undo the good of a solid overall plan. And any effective financial-advice program should take that fact into account. But aside from that quibble, the idea is one which we too should strongly consider.

Shot down

So much for Brazil's big gun control idea, as it appears that the referendum to bar gun sales is headed for defeat:

Brazilians appeared to soundly reject a ban on gun sales in a national referendum Sunday that stirred a fierce debate in a country with one of the world's highest gun death rates.

With results from over 71 per cent of the polling places tallied, 64.78 per cent of Brazilians voted against the ban, while 35.22 per cent voted in favour of it, according to the Supreme Electoral Court, which oversees elections.

Brazil has 100 million fewer citizens than the United States, but 25 per cent more gun deaths at nearly 40,000 a year. While both sides in the debate agree that violence is excessive, opponents of the gun ban have gained support in recent weeks by playing on Brazilians' fears that the police can't protect them.

While I'm disappointed not to see the initiative pass, particularly when its failure seems closely tied to an NRA-style vigilante message, it's fair enough that Brazilians decided that the measure wasn't for them, particularly when other controls are already putting a dent in the death toll.

The tragedy for the rest of the world is that we won't get to see how such a policy could work in practice...which could be essential information in allowing other states to consider similar measures. It appears someone else will have to take the lead. And there's no indication yet as to who will fill that role.

The influence of activism

We may find out soon just how influential Jeffrey Sachs actually is, as the prominent economist has joined the chorus calling for PMPM to meet the 0.7% benchmark for foreign aid:

The world can and must do more to end poverty and cannot continue to ignore the billions of people dying needlessly, said Sachs, who has been named one of Time Magazine's 100 most influential people.

At a speech Saturday before executives, researchers and politicians at the annual conference of the Centre for International Governance Innovation, Sachs said Canada needs to reconsider and agree to the terms of the United Nations Millennium Project, which is based on a Canadian idea...

He said many people have come to blame the poor for their misfortune, or find excuses with their local governments to avoid helping.

"A day doesn't go by in my work for the United Nations or as a specialist in development where the claim is not made that there's nothing that can be done because (of) the level of corruption and mismanagement," he said.

"That's such a poor diagnosis and such a weak misunderstanding of the realities of the planet. It is shockingly negligent of the lives we're losing."

Of course, Martin has ignored many public pleas in the past, and likely won't pay any more attention to this one. But Sachs is right in pointing out that it's the general public which has the capacity to force a change...and that few people would choose not to help given a full picture both of the actual problems, and the degree to which they can be solved through reasonable investments. We'll see how many more calls to action it takes before the message begins to seep into the public consciousness.

An end to selective tracking

More bad environmental news, this time from CBC: for all the attention given to the problem of Amazon deforestation, the actual damage is twice as bad as previously estimated:

The area of land cleared of trees in the Amazon is twice the estimate, according to a new study of the environmental damage from previously undetected logging...

Using new high-resolution satellite imaging techniques, researchers at the Carnegie Institution of Washington have detected openings in the forest canopy down to one tree.

Once selective logging is taken into account, the deforested area is estimated to be 60 per cent to 128 per cent larger than the official records for 1999 and 2002.

It definitely helps to have a better idea of the extent of the deforestation. The question now is whether any meaningful action will be taken in response. The researchers have provided the data to the Brazilian government in hopes that they'll be better able to fight against illegal logging as a result...but unfortunately more reason to fight a problem doesn't necessarily equate to more resources for the task.

Imposing costs

The AP reports on the effect that global warming is having on Africa:

African nations account for a tiny percentage of the emissions but are already suffering the consequences, researchers say.

The ice cap is receding on Africa's highest peak, Mount Kilimanjaro. Desertification is spreading in the northwestern Sahel region.

Droughts, flooding and other extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and severe. Numerous plant and animal species are in decline...

Hotter, drier weather in the semiarid west of South Africa could reduce production of maize, a staple, by up to 20 percent and generate a proliferation of pests, researchers said.

In the moister areas to the east, where rainfall is forecast to increase, thickets are encroaching into productive grasslands, threatening livestock and wildlife activities.

Rising temperatures at higher altitudes could also quadruple the number of South Africans at high risk of malaria by 2020.

Not that any of this should be too much surprise to those who pay attention to the interconnectedness of actions. And I won't pretend that it's likely to convince anybody who's already unconcerned about the damage that global warming can do closer to home.

But it's still worth noting that while developed countries take all the main benefits of their consumption, they may not bear the most important costs. And it's all the more worth wondering just how our purchasing patterns would differ if that wasn't so.

Security of and for all

The CP reports on the fairly obvious point that Canadian security services will be more effective if they reflect a wide variety of backgrounds:

Federal security agencies need to recruit more employees from diverse ethnic communities to foster trust and co-operation, says the deputy minister of public safety.

Security organizations run the risk that some cultural groups will close ranks and stop communicating with the government if support is lacking, Margaret Bloodworth told the annual conference of the Canadian Association for Security and Intelligence Studies...

Roger George of the CIA University's Sherman Kent School for Intelligence Analysis argued a workforce with “a very diverse set of backgrounds” would help bring the perspectives needed to tackle international security issues.

As observed in the article, the issue isn't merely one of representation in terms of numbers. Rather, agencies which have to be able to identify potential threats in any community need to build enough trust to secure information from those communites - not just by surrepetitious surveillance, but also through community cooperation. And that depends on a widespread belief that the security agency will ultimately act toward the community's greater good.

There's a good ways yet to go on that front. But at the very least the issue is getting attention within security organizations. And more media focus on the actions being taken could help ensure both that the organizations earn public respect, and that they actually receive it.

Differences between neighbours

While the U.S. goes out of its way to prevent the gun industry from being held accountable for anything, Canada is looking at ways to ensure at least some responsibility for gun violence:

Government sources told the Star yesterday that Canada will be looking into "every legal option" to stem a tide of crimes involving weapons that make their way into this country illegally from the United States, whether they're sold through the Internet or smuggled across the border.

That includes possible suits against U.S. manufacturers, launched either in the United States or in this country if the firm has assets here as well, the sources said. Though no precise estimates are available, Toronto police have said repeatedly that almost half the gun crimes committed in Canada involved illegal, U.S. weapons.

I'm not entirely sure why it's the federal government taking a position on the issue when responsibility for the court system generally lies with the provinces. But to the extent the federal government is looking to make sure that gun companies (as well as smugglers and offenders) have to own up to their conduct, this is a good sign for now. We'll see soon whether there's any follow-through, or whether it's just public posturing to be forgotten long before anything gets done.

On choosing one's response

It's difficult to believe that so many European states are still taking Bushco's word on so many issues. But consider these respective responses to the U.N.'s report on the assassination of Rafik Hariri.

Hariri's son wants to see the perpetrators brought to justice through an international tribunal:

Hariri, who had demanded the UN probe into his father's killing, called for an international tribunal to try the alleged killers.

"Reaching justice presents the Arab and international community with additional responsibilities that prompt us to urge them to continue all aspects of the investigation in the crime and refer it to an international court that is capable of punishing the criminals," he said.

"We do not seek revenge. We seek justice," he said.

Sounds to me like an eminently reasonable request. But for Bushco, the response was a bit different: never mind the people directly responsible, let's punish Syrians in general instead:

The United States, Britain and France are preparing to ask the United Nations next week to impose sanctions on Mr. Assad's government in the wake of a damning UN report that pointed to Syrian complicity in the Feb. 14 bombing that killed Mr. Hariri and 20 others.

Of course, we should be familiar with the ultimate effect of sanctions: whatever government assets get frozen abroad, the cost is passed along to its citizens. Meaning that however much the Syrian government was responsible (and presumably its own members hold varying degrees of responsibility in any event), it'll be the general public in Syria that loses out the most. One more step in Bush's brilliant battle for hearts and minds.

In fairness, France is seeking a more reasonable scope for the threatened sanctions (demanding only justice for those responsible as well as Syria's commitment not to meddle further in Lebanon). But the U.S. also wants to condemn Syria for defending its own border on Iraq, since apparently U.S. incursions into the country haven't gone as smoothly as planned. And when any state goes into talks with the U.S. as to how to present a "united front" before the Security Council, there shouldn't be much doubt as to who will set the terms of that front.

Meaning that as with the initial Iraq invasion, the U.S. is using the aftermath of one event which demanded accountability to try to impose its will on completely unrelated issues. It's far beyond me why any other country is still willing to play along with such charades, rather than listening to those closest to the victim in their calls for justice rather than vengeance.