On surveying the landscape

The Washington Post reports on the rebuilding effort in Afghanistan...and all indications are that while the war was more justified initially, the end results aren't much better than those in Iraq:

By September 2004, congressional figures show that the effort's centerpiece -- a $73 million U.S. Agency for International Development program -- had produced only 100 finished projects, most of them refurbishments of existing buildings. As of the beginning of this month, only about 40 more had been finished and turned over to the Afghan government.

Internal documents and more than 100 interviews in Washington and Kabul revealed a chain of mistakes and misjudgments: The U.S. effort was poorly conceived in a rush to show results before the Afghan presidential election in late 2004. The drive to construct earthquake-resistant, American-quality buildings in rustic villages led to culture clashes, delays and what a USAID official called "extraordinary costs." Afghans complained that the initial design for roofs made them too heavy to build in rural areas without a crane, and the corrected design made them too light to bear Afghan snows. Local workmen unfamiliar with U.S. construction methods sometimes produced shoddy work...

Last summer, Post reporters made an unannounced visit to (a) 15-month-old clinic, which was filled with patients. Mold and mildew stained the ceiling. In one room, the ceiling had fallen. Paint inside and out had blistered and peeled off in sheets. Cracks crawled across exterior walls. In a side yard, two girls labored in vain to pump water from a new, U.S.-built well. Mohammed Saber, a clinic guard, said the pump had stopped working days earlier...

In his October 2004 confidential memo, USAID's Fine answered the question of "What Went Wrong" with a sweeping indictment."The schools and clinics program has been marked by a series of missteps and miscalculations that resulted in a flawed business model, inadequate supervision and poor execution," wrote Fine, who at the time was the third head of USAID's Afghanistan program in a year.

The impetus to be seen getting things done appears to have led to a complete lack of incentive to plan for the best possible long-term result. Now, the combination of excessive promises and little foresight has led to nothing but frustration for all sides involved. The U.S. is facing added costs to try to accomplish a fraction of what it promised originally, while the Afghani citizens see large amounts of time and money put into construction which is of no benefit to them.

Unfortunately, Afghanistan appears to be one of the prime examples of the U.S.' assumption that what works at home (or at least, appears to work at home until Brownie's responsibilities come into play) can be exported abroad without any need to recognize local realities. And that apparently applies equally to such simple and verifiable realities as the layout of the terrain as it does to the complexity of local culture and values.

The nuclear option

Results are in from the provincial NDP convention, and of particular interest a panel discussion decided to reject a resolution to bar the prospect of refining uranium in the province:

A resolution that would have called on the government to stop consideration of uranium refining was defeated Friday afternoon in panel discussions behind closed doors...

Uranium has been a front-burner issue for Calvert since he returned from a trade mission to Asia last month and suggested that China's desire to build nuclear power plants presented an opportunity for Saskatchewan's uranium industry...

Party policy dictates that resolutions defeated in panel are not moved to the public part of the convention.

"I'm told there was a lively debate," Calvert said of the panel discussion.

While I'm not a fan of nuclear energy generally, there seems little chance of its use coming to an end anytime soon. And that being the case, it makes sense for the NDP to at least see whether it'll be possible for the refining process to benefit the province. While there'll hopefully be a more public debate when specific proposals are made, the defeat of the resolution should be the best possible outcome for both the party and the province.

Cooperative effort

It's no great surprise, but Jack Layton is on side with Saskatchewan's Raise a Flag campaign:

Federal NDP leader Jack Layton is backing Saskatchewan's push for an equalization side-deal from Ottawa.

Premier Lorne Calvert is currently running an ad campaign that urges the federal government to exclude Saskatchewan's skyrocketing resource revenues from the equalization formula...

In a campaign-style speech at the Saskatchewan NDP convention today, Layton praised Calvert's campaign.

He says the equalization formula needs to be fixed and, in the interim, Saskatchewan should be given some sort of deal out of fairness.

Now this campaign has turned into one involving both good politics and good policy. It would be all the better if the campaign seemed likely to lead to real change before the upcoming election. But at the very least, the failure of the Liberals (and Goodale in particular) to respond to Saskatchewan's reasonable claim to keep its resource revenue should help to push a few more votes from the Libs to the NDP. And that could work wonders in the seats that went narrowly to the Cons last time out.

Symbol over substance

The Star reports on some of the measures being taken to make next week's climate-change conference environmentally neutral:

Since the aim of the two-week conference is to negotiate steps to curb climate change, those involved feel obliged to make at least a symbolic contribution...

(T)o make the conference climate-neutral will require nearly 50,000 tonnes of savings.

One way to come up with them is to buy carbon "credits" from projects, such as wind or solar energy, that replace sources of greenhouse gas emissions, like coal-burning electricity generating stations.

Environment Canada is buying up to 14,000 tonnes of credits from an Alberta wind farm, at a cost that could hit $112,000.

The article discusses many far more worthy measures being takenas well, including the use of bio-diesel and ethanol-burning vehicles, "green-defensive" techniques for drivers, and the simpler measure of placing most hotels within walking distance of the convention centre. And there's plenty of merit to such measures, both to demonstrate the technology that's already available and to highlight how easy it can be to reduce emissions.

But the credit-trading idea has long been a controversial one, and for good reason. While Kyoto may be a start, the fight against climate change will be tough to win in a system based primarily on cancelling immediate gains out against immediate losses. And I'd be highly disappointed if Environment Canada can't come up with a better way to invest its money for long-term gain than to buy credits in order to keeping the convention symbolically neutral.

Regardless of how many emissions are generated by the convention itself, the convention's success or failure should be measured by the degree to which it encourages future action on a far larger scale than the scope of one gathering. Unfortunately, with the organizers apparently more interested in current symbolism than in the best long-term use of resources, it's difficult to expect much better from the delegates.

Equalizing access

The Saskatchewan provincial government takes a huge step toward giving some of its most vulnerable citizens the ability to speak for themselves:

The Saskatchewan government says an aboriginal court system will in place by next year in the northwestern half of the province.

Justice Minister Frank Quennell says it will be based in Meadow Lake and will offer services in Dene and Cree.

Quennell says the province is appointing justices of the peace who speak both of those languages, adding that the court will move around from community to community as required.

Just yesterday, the Globe reported about ineffective translation as a barrier to fair access to courts in Ontario. There's no reason why the very institution designed to adjudicate matters fairly should fail to do that job based on language barriers. Accordingly, it's great to see Saskatchewan ahead of the curve in ensuring that the legal system will allow more of its people to be heard in their primary languages.

Fly away home

I'm not quite sure how this is an afterthought in the Globe's business section rather than a top headline:

The U.S. House of Representatives has dumped a contentious law allowing American companies to profit from penalties on imports from Canada and other countries.

The resolution to repeal the so-called Byrd amendment was included in a sweeping spending-cut bill...

The World Trade Organization ruled in 2002 that the amendment violates U.S. trade obligations. It allows the U.S. Treasury to funnel money from duties on imports directly to the American competitors involved.

Not that the rest of the bill is one worth being happy about. And the vote won't have any effect until the Senate agrees on a similar deal.

But those concerns aside, it's still a huge step for the House to vote to repeal the amendment which provided a double incentive for American businesses to challenge foreign government action. And it's particularly important for Canada, given that it's the Byrd amendment which would allow the U.S. to distribute the withheld tariffs to its softwood lumber producers.

I'm not so optimistic as to think this is the start of a general U.S. strategy of acknowledging the validity of international opinions and rulings. But with Bushco, we have to take what we can get.

Downturn

According to the U.S. Commerce Department, the American housing bubble is at best deflating:

Housing starts tumbled in all regions of the United States last month, falling an average of 5.6 per cent to an annual rate of 2.01 million units, the U.S. Commerce Department reported yesterday...

Prospective home buyers are typically paying roughly $75 (U.S.) more a month for every $100,000 of mortgage money than they were just two years ago -- $624 a month versus $550.

Even more worrying for many economists is the damage that a stalled housing sector could inflict on the broader economy. In record numbers, homeowners have been cashing in the accumulated equity to renovate, buy cars and generally sustain their lifestyles.

The article cites several economists to the effect that the drop isn't likely to lead to a burst bubble, and shouldn't have too many implications for the wider economy just yet. And it would certainly be for the best if the effects of the drop can be minimized. But it's still worrisome to see such a massive change, particularly when interest rates seem likely to continue rising and therefore prevent any great rebound.

Speaking of rebounds, the article tosses in one small sentence which may be the most significant information discovered by the report:

Interestingly, there was no evidence of post-hurricane rebuilding in the Gulf states.

Let this be a reminder that whatever measures do need to be taken, whether in the housing market or elsewhere, nobody can rely on the Bush administration to ensure that they're accomplished. Presumably there are many reasons for the lack of reconstruction, but it seems obvious that the money approved by the administration so far hasn't managed to do any good, either for the construction industry or for the families whose homes were destroyed. And that lack of effective action will be all the more glaring if the economists are wrong and the effects of the drop spill over into the wider economy.

On targeting

The Globe's web comment discusses the reality of the proposed Goodale tax cuts:

Realistically, the government had little choice but to offer this $500 increase to avoid a sudden devaluation of the basic personal credit all taxpayers are entitled to deduct from their tax payable. The amount of this credit is determined by multiplying the basic personal amount (currently $8,148), by the lowest tax rate (16 per cent), for a credit of $1,304 in 2005.

If the mini-budget is enacted, the dollar amount will be $500 higher, but it will be multiplied by only 15 per cent, for a tax credit of (wait for it) $1,297. In other words, this part of the mini-budget would decrease the net value of the basic personal credit by $7 in 2005...

(T)he rate reduction from 16 per cent to 15 per cent is not targeted to lower-.or middle-income earners at all, but applies broadly to all income tax payers, including the affluent and wealthy. This is why it is so expensive for the government, despite its modest value to individuals.

The mini-budget promises further cuts in 2010 for those in the higher brackets. It would be more accurate to describe these as the "targeted" tax cuts, since they will be received only by those earning more than $35,595.

Not that anybody should be surprised to have the Liberals trumpet their dedication to lower-income Canadians as the basis for policy targeted toward higher income-levels. But the proposed tax cuts may be a particularly brazen example. It's good to see Goodale called on it; the question now is whether Canadians will pay attention to the critique.

Disputed waters

CBC reports on another challenge to a long-disputed area which we may assume to be under Canada's control - and this one is a slightly bigger issue than Hans Island:

France wants control over a large section of oil-rich seabed in the Atlantic Ocean just off Newfoundland in what would be a controversial "leapfrog" over Canadian waters, according to a newspaper report.

The proposed area of French control, contained in a document presented to an international panel, is beyond the jurisdiction of Canada's current 320-kilometre limit, says the National Post...

An author of the report outlining France's possible claim for the portion of the continental shelf said he hopes Canada will file a counterclaim for the stretch of seabed, where "strong hydrocarbon prospects abound."

"It becomes a legal, political and diplomatic issue as to whether France can leapfrog Canadian waters," said Ron Macnab, a Canadian director with the Advisory Board of the Law of the Sea...

The document argues that since being hit hard by the collapse of its fishing industry, Saint-Pierre and Miquelon are testing the rights of all coastal states and their territorial waters.

It says the French possession and similar "shelf-locked states" could invoke aspects of the Law of the Sea to create "an extended continental shelf" and thus "claim their share of the common heritage of mankind."

While it's never a great position to have to be involved in a test case, it doesn't look like Canada has much choice on this one. The previous arbitration won by France would appear to put it in a fairly strong position, though I'd hope there would be some impact to the apparent fact that the challenge is an attempt to avoid the application of an already-negotiated international standard. If not, then Canada may be left absorbing a lot of environmental risk associated with French oil development. And that hardly seems the most reasonable way to handle the "common heritage of mankind".

Appointment delayed

The Globe and Mail covers the effect that an election will have on the Supreme Court selection process:

An advisory committee, now in the process of trimming Mr. Cotler's list of six candidates to three, has not completed its work, so a quick nomination before an election call is very unlikely.

The group was supposed to report back to Mr. Cotler this week with its short list, but they asked for, and were given, an extension of their deadline to Nov. 30...

In theory, Mr. Cotler would have the legal right to name a new judge during the campaign, even before he gets the advice of the committee. However, that would go against established practice, which says major government appointments should not be made during an election.

In any event, officials in the minister's office say that won't happen.

As noted by the article, any delay in naming a 9th member won't have an overly harmful effect on the Supreme Court, as it's functioned with less than a full complement of judges many times before. But even if the court itself will get along just fine, it'll be interesting to see how the lack of a newly-appointed justice will affect the campaign itself.

It seems all too likely that the vacancy, combined with the example set by recent U.S. elections, will lead to campaigning based on arguments about who deserves to be appointed to the bench (if in general rather than specific terms). And that's all the more so with Vic Toews still chirping about including public testimony as part of future confirmation processes.

It'll be a shame if the process is brought to a halt without an appointment...and there'll be plenty of reason to argue about who's responsible if that happens. (Hint: there'd be ample opportunity to consider the committee's findings between November 30 and early January.) But the last thing the Canadian political system needs is to follow the U.S. in tying party policy to judicial appointments. And it may be easy to tell which parties are concerned with keeping the judiciary above the political fray based on how they handle the vacancy in their campaigns.

Nicely timed

A good chunk of corporate Canada is now demanding action on climate change:

In a seismic shift for the business community, some of Canada's most influential corporate leaders have issued a call for stronger action to fight climate change beyond the Kyoto protocol.

In a letter to Prime Minister Paul Martin obtained by The Canadian Press, the heads of such companies as Alcan, Shell Canada, Bombardier, Power Corp. and Business Depot, come out solidly in support of the controversial climate treaty.

And they urge that Canada's climate-change plan extend beyond the 2008-2012 time frame of the Kyoto protocol.

And lest anybody think the CEOs involved would demand purely private-sector solutions rather than government action:

In their letter to Martin, the CEOs say their companies are already working to reduce greenhouse emissions and to minimize the adverse impact of climate change, but need policy certainty to guide action for post-2012.

"We need a strategy now for the next 50 years, with short and medium-term targets to guide us. Governments must set clear markers along the way to unleash competitive market forces and allow the discovery of a long-term value for carbon emission reductions.

"Only then will we secure the deep reductions needed to prevent human interference with the climate system."

It shouldn't escape mention that the CEOs have rightly concluded that the current Liberal "plan" on Kyoto falls short of policy certainty that would allow for meaningful change. And it's a shame that the current regime is so far behind the curve on any real Kyoto plan when even much of the business community has started to realize the dangers of inaction.

However, there's still very good news in the CEOs going public with their request. At the very least, the business community consensus is the type of agreement that may be able to prod even the Liberals into doing something an election cycle or two down the road. And perhaps more importantly with a campaign about to get underway, the letter highlights one of the many ways in which the NDP's focus on sustainability fits with the demands of the CEOs in particular, as well as the interests of the Canadian economy generally.

Poll vaulting

Apparently Robert's estimate was on the low side, as yet another poll came out today (this time from Decima) with some very interesting results:

Here's how the latest Decima numbers break down.

First, the horse race: Liberals 33 per cent, Conservatives 26, NDP 22, and Bloc Quebecois 13...

Decima also asked respondents how election timing would influence their voting behaviour.

Under a January-February election scenario, Liberal support actually rose a point to 34 per cent, the Conservatives remained static at 26 and the New Democrats fell two points to 20 per cent.

Some 58 per cent overall said they'd prefer an election in late March or early April - Prime Minister Paul Martin's preferred timetable. Just 28 per cent said they wanted a January or February date.

The biggest news is yet another jump in general approval for the NDP. But there are also some bizarre countervailing forces at work: based on the results of this poll, 2 per cent of all voters support the NDP generally, but won't back the party if gets its request for a February election.

It's not surprising that people want to avoid an election generally, and I presume that's the main reason for the difference in numbers between the NDP and its election policy. But it's anybody's guess as to whether Canadians will ultimately let the election timing affect their votes once the campaign gets underway. And if so, then the current politicking may well be a decisive factor as voters choose who to blame for an election.

Advice to ignore

John Geddes takes his shot at analyzing the impending election:

New Democrats are looking way past last year's disappointment for cautionary tales. They recall all too vividly how voters effectively punished them for propping up Liberal minorities in the early sixties and seventies. After using their House leverage to inßuence policy, New Democrats watched the Liberals bounce back at their expense. Could Layton's success last spring in reshaping the Liberal budget similarly fail to boost his party's ballot box clout? Jamie Heath, Layton's communications director, admits that is a real possibility. And an even more sustained negative Liberal campaign, designed to stoke voter fears about the Conservatives, seems to heighten the prospect of the NDP losing visibility in a highly polarized race. "It's consistent with the Liberal Party of Canada's approach over many years," Heath said.

Nobody is hoping the NDP avoids that fate more than the Conservatives. Perhaps the most intriguing part of Tory strategy is what the party's strategists hope Harper will not have to do -- if Layton plays the role they hope he will. "A dream campaign for us is if the NDP can stay consistent -- and, Lord, please help them -- in attacking the Liberals every day on health care," said one senior Conservative. "We'll take care of attacking them on Gomery." The idea is that Layton has credibility when it comes to defending public health, which Harper lacks -- especially with Alberta's Tory government making untimely noises about health reforms that would shift toward more private care.

Now, if the statement from the Con strategist could be taken as a promise (i.e. that the Cons would talk about nothing but Gomery if the NDP would talk about nothing but health care), this would be an awfully tempting strategy for the NDP. But of course, neither party will want to be so limited in its scope of discussion. And in any event, this isn't the time for the NDP to start taking Conservative advice.

While health should indeed be one of the party's primary areas of attack, those attacks can't focus on only one other party. The NDP needs to use its credibility advantage on the issue to make clear not only that the Liberals have failed miserably, but also that the Cons would be at least as likely to do the same.

Moreover, there are larger governance issues than Gomery alone. Indeed, the health care issue itself is another symptom of the greater problems with a government which is eager to spend money but unwilling to take responsibility for its actions.

To capitalize on the bigger issue, the NDP's campaign needs to highlight the party's superior fiscal track record, and make clear that it's the party most interested in holding all future governments to high standards. If that position can stay in the headlines in contrast to a Conservative attack based narrowly on criticizing PMPM over the Gomery findings, then the NDP's current climb in the polls could be just the beginning.

Setting the terms

The political maneuvering continues, as the opposition has found a way to push any non-confidence vote past the impending first ministers' meeting:

Federal opposition parties said yesterday they would resist the temptation to topple the minority Liberal government when it brings forward two personal tax cuts contained in its election-style economic update. Instead, the Conservatives and the NDP will proceed with a no-confidence motion next week to trigger a winter election...

So instead of being defeated on a popular tax-cutting initiative, the government will likely fall as a result of a Conservative motion next week that will say the government has lost the confidence of the House of Commons. The motion could be introduced as early as Tuesday, but the opposition parties will likely wait another two days, which would prevent them from being blamed for cancelling a first ministers meeting on aboriginal affairs scheduled for Nov. 24-25.

The actual vote on the motion probably wouldn't take place until Nov. 28 or 29. Election campaigns must be at least 36 days long and elections must be held on a Monday, so that would mean a Jan. 9 vote, or Jan. 16 if the parties take a break from campaigning over Christmas.

Mr. Layton still plans to introduce a motion tomorrow thurs asking Prime Minister Paul Martin to agree to call an election in early January for mid-February. If the Liberals agree, the Conservatives would not move their confidence motion next week. But Mr. Martin has made it clear that is not an option.

Well played so far, as the delay not only avoids interfering with the first ministers meeting, but also allows a few government bills (including the one on heating relief) to be fast-tracked in the meantime. And that possibility of fast-tracking will highlight the contrast between priorities which are actually important enough for the Liberals to push forward, and which ones were idly presented in an attempt to shame the opposition into holding off on a confidence vote.

More fun with priorities

Remember the urgent purchase of military aircraft that couldn't afford to wait for a full public tendering process? Apparently some things are more urgent than others:

The federal government has delayed a $12-billion purchase of military aircraft until after the next election, deferring political fallout over buying foreign products, The Canadian Press has learned...

“It’s unanimous — we’re not moving with it now,” a government official said on condition of anonymity.

“We’re not moving with this before an election.

“It’s all on the basis of the ferocious lobbying by industry. It’s all Toronto-Montreal-Bombardier politics.”

While the Con take on this will surely be one of military weakness, the more important theme is that of good governance. The government's refusal to apply the full tendering process indicates that getting good value with public money isn't apparently a top Liberal priority. That's bad enough in itself, but it becomes downright inexcusable when contrasted with a willingness to reach the opposite conclusion based solely on a desire to avoid political fallout.

Once again, image ranks above substance when it comes to the Libs' policy choices. And that's a fact that needs to be pointed out when Canadians decide who they want managing the public purse.

Unretired debts

No wonder the Liberals aren't eager to see any positive pension reform, as it comes out today that some of the recent surpluses reflect money siphoned out of public pension plans - and that the money was taken out only a few years after the same workers' premiums were raised out of financial need:

Public service unions began a court battle on Tuesday to require the federal government to repay billions of surplus dollars taken from pension funds.

To get access to workers' funds, the government changed the law on pension surpluses in the late 1990s. The move made its financial position look better, at least in accounting terms, although its obligations to employees and retirees did not change...

One of the plaintiffs is the Professional Institute of the Public Service, whose president, Michele Demers, says the government slashed jobs, put a freeze on wages and increased pension premiums in the 1990s. She says pension money was never supposed to be used to help the government out of a financial jam...

Jose Aggrey, president of the Canadian Association of Professional Employees, says private-sector employers generally don't have access to pension money, and neither should the federal government.

This seems to be one more clear indication that the Liberals' reputation for fiscal management is merely a reflection of their ability to find ways to turn unrelated programs into general revenue funds. (See Insurance, Employment.) Hopefully added public knowledge of the tactic will push a few more Liberals toward having to make use of their own pensions.

On throwing away supporters

Thomas Walkom comments on the unhappy marriage that is the Conservative Party...and the former PC members who were left behind in the process:

In theory, (the Conservative Party) should be riding high. The 2003 union of the old Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance created, on paper at least, a viable right-of-centre alternative to the Liberals of Prime Minister Paul Martin.

However, reality has not lived up to the promise. Even the release last week of the Gomery report, with its detailed litany of kickbacks and corruption inside the Liberal party's Quebec wing, has given the Conservatives and their leader Stephen Harper little traction.

And while analysts blame the stiff and uncharismatic Harper for his party's failures, the roots of the problem are much deeper.

Give it a read.

All too true

Paul Wells comments on the impending election, featuring in particular this gem:

One last thing. The fourth Liberal theme I identify above -- the gullibility of New Democrat voters -- has bugged me for a long time. I don't write much about it lately because (full disclosure) my girlfriend now works for the NDP. But what the heck: if you like the New Democrats but you vote for the Liberals to stop Harper, you profoundly deserve to wind up with a Conservative MP. You're just as likely to wind up with a Liberal who won't do a thing about your issues until he suckers you in the next election. One question we're about to answer is whether the opportunists are the only people in this country with the courage of their convictions.

As noted by Wells, the health privatization fiasco is a great example of the Libs' ultimate refusal to stand up for their supposed core values. But I'm not sure they've ever been quite this brazen in putting politics over policy...meaning that while there is a danger of possible NDP votes flocking to the Libs again, there's also a real opportunity to hold PMPM's record against him.

(Edited to include my comment.)

Timber

The U.N. released a report on global forestry management today...and the best that can be said is that the destruction of forests is only marginally less bad than a decade ago:

Taking into account plantations, landscape restoration and the natural expansion of some forests, the FAO said the net loss of forest area between 2000-2005 was some 7.3 million hectares a year against 8.9 million hectares in the 1990-2000 period.

FAO officials hailed the improvement in the net loss figure, saying China in particular had embarked on a major tree-growing program to provide timber for its construction boom and to tackle the process of deforestation...

South America suffered the largest net loss of forests between 2000 and 2005 -- around 4.3 million hectares per year -- followed by Africa, which lost 4 million hectares annually.

While this may be one of the few areas where China is managing to be an environmental leader, the global outlook is still nothing short of frightening - particularly since, as pointed out in the article, the definition of "forest" means that the study doesn't account for the replacement of dense natural forests with sparse plantations. And even with that generous definition, net deforestation is still proceeding at a rate .4% of the world's forests each year. (Somehow, the FAO claims that to be a positive.)

If this is an improvement, it's only a sign that past policy was even more reckless...but unfortunately, it doesn't look like many states are taking the lead in trying to undo the damage.

Say the right things, we're electioneering

It's amazing that some seem to honestly believe that this is the result of an "autumn accounting" rather than an attempt to make up for a decade of neglect just in time for an inevitable election. The mini-budget is a predictable combination of policies co-opted from across the spectrum, with ample room to criticize the corporate tax measures as unnecessary.

As for the more worthwhile portions, there are still important questions to be answered. For example, did it really take the Libs 11 years (and an NDP-negotiated budget last year) to figure out that the cost of university education is a barrier to entry? Did they manage to rule for a decade before noticing that the lack of resources to support new immigrants is a problem in need of attention?

(And why do I have a nagging feeling that the answer is "yes" to both of the above?)

Of course, there's a more important question underlying the whole process. Namely, will the Canadian public have a short enough attention span to give the Liberals credit for ignoring such important issues in the past? We don't know the answer to that one yet, but the success of the NDP's election campaign will depend on the public's conclusion.

Well put

Rafe Mair writes on Peak Oil:

What we do know is this - we are approaching a petroleum Armageddon. What we don't know is when it will become a world-class crisis.

What we also know, sadly, is that no government sees past the next election so that nothing will be done until the very last moment. Unless plans are made and implemented, when "too late" arrives, it's not going to be pretty.

While I disagree with Mair to the extent that at least some governments are working to get the jump on renewable energy, there's little doubt that the ones with the ability to make the most difference have failed utterly so far. Give it a read.

Looking outward

It's being met with some resistance on both sides, but Canada and Japan are now looking at closer economic co-operation:

Canada and Japan are moving closer to free-trade talks, sources say, with both countries now ready to sign an economic co-operation deal and launch a joint study that Ottawa believes will lead to full-fledged negotiations.

The framework deal ready to be inked would strengthen economic co-operation between Canada and Japan, while the joint study -- expected to take up to one year -- would probe the benefits of further liberalization of trade and investment rules between the countries...

The economic framework deal would promote closer Canada-Japan co-operation on matters including society, security, anti-competitive activities, food safety, customs, transportation, investment, science and technology, electronic commerce, energy and natural resources and tourism promotion.

It's apparently taken a wake-up call on both sides to get the initiative going, as Canada's softwood lumber dispute with the U.S. coincided with Japan's need to react to much stronger competition from India and China. The economic framework in particular should be nothing but a plus for both states, and it'll be all the better if a future free-trade deal can open up some new markets for Canada.

Protesting injustice

CBC reports on a creative effort to call attention to the softwood lumber dispute:

Two boys from Alberta and B.C. are organizing a one-day boycott of McDonalds restaurants to pressure Washington over the softwood lumber dispute...

"It concerns all of Canada and I've been interested for some time about justice issues," said Luke, 10, who has set up a website, called We Want Our Money Back, urging a Dec. 3 boycott.

They condemned U.S. President George W. Bush and his administration for refusing to respect several NAFTA rulings supporting Canadian claims that the tariffs were illegal – including a recent one by an international panel whose rulings were supposed to be binding in disputes under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

I'll accept the point of McDonalds Canada that the boycott doesn't seem particularly closely related to the dispute - even if the U.S. lumber producers benefitting from the tariffs don't themselves sell much in Canada, one would think that (say) a hardware chain would at least seem closer to the mark. But if nothing else, the two boys involved are taking more meaningful action than either the federal government or the official opposition have even proposed on the issue.

Fighting back against SLAPPs

I commented last week on some current problems with access to justice. Today, the CP reports on another case where the existing litigation process stacks the deck against all but the wealthiest of citizens:

A stay-at-home mother of three who created a website to alert the government about allegedly dangerous environmental problems in her southwestern Ontario neighbourhood is facing a $2 million libel suit by one of the developers she reported on.

Louisette Lanteigne of Waterloo, Ont., said she grew sick of what she saw during construction in her new subdivision and what appeared to be questionable building practices and labour-code violations...

The statement of claim outlines stories by Lanteigne involving diesel oil spills on subdivision sites, unlocked oil tanks, roofers working without proper safety equipment and possible contamination of soil and water.

There should be exceedingly little chance of the plaintiff being able to recover anywhere near the claimed amount even if it's able to prove that some of the stories were false. But as the article notes, the real issue is with the cost of litigation, as Lanteigne will bear the burden of paying for her own defence even if everything she's said proves to be justified. And it's particularly unfair for Lanteigne to bear all the costs when Ontario's Environment Minister has acknowledged the public good that comes from Lanteigne's reporting.

Lanteigne deserves nothing but credit for her efforts to bring the truth to light. But as important as it is to expose any problems in the local development, she may have an even more positive long-term impact if her story causes the government which benefits from those efforts to provide some protection to its citizen watchdogs.

The power and perils of bias

No evidence of right-wing bias or insufficient research here, nosiree. From the National Post's article on blogs:

Redstate.org is one of the most popular right-wing blogs in the U.S. Its lefty version is Americablog.com.

Others with high traffic include instapundit.com, dailycoast, powerlineblog.com, littlegreenfootballs.com and the Huffingtonpost. These blogs are essentially electronic newsletters about politics with large, open-ended letters to the editor pages where everyone's "letter" gets published, or posted.

While there's a slight numerical bias toward right-wing blogs (whither TPM and Eschaton?), that could probably be forgiven if it weren't for two other important factors.

Most obviously, I'm not aware of any "dailycoast" blog, and you'd think even an NP writer could be bothered to visit the top left-wing blog in the U.S. in order to get its name right. Second and more subtly, note that all of the right-wing blogs include the full URL to allow readers to find them immediately, while the left-wing blogs in the latter paragraph don't receive that courtesy. In following all the readily-available links in the article, you'd think the U.S. blogosphere was dominated by the right wing...when of course that's far from the truth.

Mind you, the NP article seems dubious about whether the listed blogs have much of a positive effect in any event. So the writer can surely claim she doesn't want to be subject to the scrutiny of having their facts and biases checked publicly. Fortunately, she doesn't have any choice in the matter.

Timing is everything

So much for waiting for an election in the new year, as the Cons are apparently looking to take down the Libs next week:

The Conservative Party wants to introduce a non-confidence motion in Parliament on Tuesday, CTV News has learned.

If all three opposition parties support the idea and it passes, the Liberal minority government will be defeated. This will put Canada into an election, with the vote to be held about the third week in December.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe and NDP Leader Jack Layton will meet Sunday afternoon to discuss how best to topple the government.

I can certainly understand a desire from the opposition to prevent the Libs from putting a series of popular bills before Parliament in the meantime, then blaming the opposition for halting their progress. But there are downsides to an immediate campaign too, notably the upcoming events (including the first ministers' conference and the climate change conference) which will be affected if the campaign happens now. And it's pretty clear that there are alternative strategies available to force an election in the new year.

While I suspect the Cons and the Bloc will be eager to push for the immediate election, my hope is that the NDP will insist on the February election date. Granted, that'll allow the Libs to do a lot more transparent campaigning in the meantime. But strategically that shouldn't make much difference, as no amount of politicking in Parliament is likely to put more votes in the Liberal column than Gomery II will take away. Meaning that the choice is whether to throw some worthy initiatives out the window in order to avoid a negligible advantage to Martin.

There's no doubt that there's a lot of empty Liberal bluster on its way in the near future, and that bluster deserves nothing but criticism from a good-governance standpoint. But there are also obvious substantive issues that need to be dealt with. And the NDP has the chance to be the only opposition party which pushes for good government without the gimmicks, rather than merely valuing an immediate election above all else.

Still obfuscating after all these years

PMPM announced today some funding to try to make up for Canada's treatment of Italian-Canadians during WWII. But it's more notable what Martin left out of his statement:

They were "treated in a manner we know to be offensive," Martin told members of Montreal's Italian community. He said those actions "were motivated by fear and suspicion."

But the prime minister didn't offer an outright apology or financial compensation for survivors as some in the Italian community had wanted.

Now, I can understand not seeing financial compensation as the best possible response this long after the fact. But it takes a special kind of arrogance to "make amends" for treatment based on fear and suspicion without acknowledging that the fear and suspicion had no basis in reality.

Of course, that type of acknowledgement would also force people to evaluate whether the government is equally wrong in its recent actions based on similar principles. And there's obvious reason for Martin and company to avoid that kind of discussion.

But the omission nonetheless makes Martin's public claims something less than genuine, and shows all too clearly that nothing has been learned from past mistakes.

Raise a Flag

The Government of Saskatchewan's Raise a Flag site is live, seeking an ongoing energy accord for the province.

I'd still prefer to see genuine equalization reform that would eliminate the current problems in all provinces. But there's no reason for Ottawa to refuse to talk to Calvert, or worse yet to claim that an earlier deal to eliminate past wrongs entitles it to ignore future ones. And it's all the more egregious that the federal government won't address Saskatchewan's legitimate concerns, but will hand Quebec $500 million for no particular reason.

So with that in mind, give the site a look, and drop Goodale and Martin a note to point out that some provinces shouldn't be more equalized than others.

The power of Bushco compels you

The "good and evil" framing by the Bush administration takes a step toward the truly absurd:

In his comments, (U.S. Ambassador Francis) Rooney said Washington was committed to providing food aid to feed the world's hungry. But he said the advance of agricultural science could help people in "even the most difficult environments" produce crops to feed themselves.

"We look to the Holy See to help the world recognize the moral imperative of a true investigation of these technologies," he said.

Note how nothing in the discussion speaks to a moral imperative to actually end hunger. Instead, in the U.S.' view, it's morally wrong to seek to end hunger through means other than those which would benefit its biotechnology companies.

There's probably something to the argument that GMOs shouldn't be rejected entirely if due protections are in place. But there are also legitimate concerns about them, particularly where they're designed to both overtake existing crops and force farmers into a cycle of dependence on the supplier. And there's certainly no moral imperative to push forward with GMOs without reasonable answers to those concerns - no matter how infallible both Bush and the Pope are seen to be by their supporters.

Opportunity knocking

I'm not sure if there's a conscious effort on the part of both the CAW and the NDP to show the differences between the two groups. But if so, this should only help matters:

The Canadian Auto Workers union wants to make flagging sales of North American vehicles an election issue, president Buzz Hargrove said Friday.

The union says the reason North American auto companies are in trouble – and demanding concessions from their workers – is unfair trade rules that favour importers of foreign-made cars.

"The way to solve the problems of the auto industry today is to stop the imports from killing us or get the opportunity to export to those nations that won't let us sell our products today," Hargrove told CAW leaders on Friday.

Now, I'll agree with Hargrove that the federal government should be seeking to ensure that other markets are able to purchase Canadian-made vehicles, and I hope that'll form part of the NDP platform. But there's no justification at all for consciously reducing the choices available to Canadian purchasers. And that's all the more true when foreign-owned companies are going out of their way to invest in Canada, and when the domestic companies' problems are related so closely to their dependence on low-efficiency, high-price vehicles.

Which isn't to say that Hargrove is necessarily wrong to try to preserve the current position held by the CAW. But as with last week's effort by Hargrove to postpone any confidence vote, this appeal is one that the NDP should respectfully decline to agree with. And that in turn should help to dispel any Con claims that the NDP is too close to labour to appreciate the bigger picture.

Regaining ground

There was no good reason for polio to make its return to countries that had already eradicated it. But the good news is that 10 of those countries have once again beaten the disease:

An inoculation campaign has eradicated polio in 10 African countries where the deadly disease was reintroduced after 2003, when a vaccine boycott in Nigeria was blamed for an outbreak across Africa, the Middle East and Indonesia, the UN health agency said Friday.

The 10 countries were among 18 that had eliminated polio but saw it return after hardline Islamic clerics in Nigeria claimed the vaccine was part of a U.S.-led plot to render Muslims infertile or infect them with AIDS. Vaccination programs restarted in Nigeria in July 2004 after local officials ended the 11-month boycott...

“This is the light at the end of the tunnel,” said Bruce Aylward, co-ordinator of WHO's global polio eradication program. “The world can be polio-free in another 12 to 18 months everywhere, and the poorest countries in the world are committed to turning this around.”...

Polio is still classified as endemic in six countries: Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Niger, Afghanistan and Egypt.

The original suspicion about the vaccine is an all-too-clear example about how unwarranted distrust can overcome even the best of intentions and plans. But fortunately, the bulk of the damage has now been overcome. As long as the international effort is allowed to continue, it may not be long before at least one preventable harm may actually be prevented on a worldwide scale.

The next great threat

When a PMPM-appointed group criticizes Martin over his handling of climate change, you know there's a serious issue being ignored:

The danger to the country from climate change is "perhaps unmatched in times of peace," says the draft of a blunt report from the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Created by the federal government in 1994, the round table is a blue-ribbon advisory body of business and labour leaders, academics, environmentalists and civic activists. The 24 members are appointed directly by the Prime Minister, giving the group an inside track in Ottawa policy discussions...

But because the federal and provincial governments have so far fumbled the issue, most Canadians are cynical about climate change, taking a wait-and-see attitude. Political leaders must move climate change away from being a strictly environmental issue, urges the report.

"It must be seen as an issue that touches on the foundations of Canadians' way of life — jobs, economic competitiveness, human health and cultural values."...

Although the round table's analysis largely echoes the prevailing scientific views on climate change, its report is a forceful excoriation of both the public and private sectors in Canada for failing to rise to the challenge.

From Martin's standpoint, the report is apparently a convenient way to get climate change back in the news in advance of the upcoming Montreal summit. For the rest of us, though, it should be a reminder that the current government has done essentially nothing to date on an issue that has potentially disastrous implications for Canadians...and that contrary to the wishful thinking of the right, the private sector isn't going to change for the better without some serious motivation to do so.

In remembrance

Remembrance Day features to visit:
Royal Canadian Legion - National Ceremony details
CBC
Globe and Mail
National Post
MacLean's News
Star editorial

Good advice

Apparently the U.S. is starting to take Jim Reed's advice on dealing with Iran. From Reed's latest column:

The old war on communism cannot be fully equated with the new war on terrorism but the path to a solution looks increasingly familiar. It is becoming clear that the invasion of Iraq, the bellicose American rhetoric toward Syria, the absence of a clear and strong policy toward peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and the unwillingness to recognize Iran for the position of power it holds in the region have had the effect of leaving American policy in tatters...

A rapprochement with Iran may be an unthinkable idea. It may be anathema to U.S. policy-makers who still have vivid memories of the violent occupation of their embassy in Tehran back in 1979. But on the other hand, perhaps enough time has passed now to move on.

And the latest news about Iran's nuclear standoff?

The United States and Europe are ready to compromise with Iran over its nuclear program and have tentatively approved a plan that would allow it to make the gas used to enrich uranium, senior officials and diplomats said Thursday...

The official emphasized the plan would not formally be proposed by the Americans and Europeans. Instead, he said, they were looking to the Russians to make such an offer, which they then could approve.

Of course, the U.S. isn't willing to be seen taking the first step toward agreement. And the actual move may not be enough to win Iran's approval, as it still seems contrary to the recognition of sovereignty to act as it pleases that Iran has been seeking all along.

But at the very least, the U.S. and Europe seem to be waking up to the fact that any real solution with regard to Iran is going to come through negotiation rather than threats and posturing. We can only hope that Iran can recognize the same reality on this issue, and that success this time will in turn lead to more use of the same principle.

Access to justice

In the Globe's web comment, R. Roy McMurtry discusses issues of access to justice:

The challenges related to access to justice, however, go well beyond the problems faced by the poor. In fact, the current high cost of civil litigation is increasingly preventing almost all but the very affluent from pursuing a legal remedy through a trial.

I am hearing more and more frequently about the phenomenon of the so-called "disappearing civil trial." Disappearing because of the often huge cost of a trial. As a result, highly experienced civil litigation counsel may become an endangered species with the dramatic decline of the number of civil trials. This represents, of course, a serious access-to-justice issue and civil justice reform must remain a high priority for the legal profession throughout Canada.

In the criminal justice system in Canada, persons charged with serious criminal offences who cannot afford a lawyer are provided legal representation through legal aid plans. However, the financial resources available to these plans are not sufficient to provide the same assistance in civil law cases except to a certain extent in family law disputes. Indeed, the financial eligibility criteria restricts legal aid assistance to those who are below or close to the poverty line. The result has been and continues to be an increasing number of unrepresented litigants in both civil and criminal trials.

It's amazing to me that for all the time that gets put into determining what the law ought to be, there seems to be little will to ensure that the law can then be enforced by its subjects and beneficiaries. While McMurtry rightly notes the lack of funding in existing Legal Aid programs as well, the Charter right to counsel to defend an individual against the charges of the state seems to stand in stark contrast against the lack of resources to allow individuals to prosecute or defend claims against anybody else.

McMurtry suggests pro bono work as one solution, but that seems likely to end up far too limited in scope. Instead, I'd suggest that Legal Aid programs be expanded to ensure adequate representation in all matters. That could mean having Legal Aid simply hire more staff, or it could result in firms making themselves available through a regular retainer with Legal Aid funding to fill the added scope. More likely it would involve both of the above, given Legal Aid's lack of resources to even fill its current role.

What's worse as things stand now, a successful court process doesn't really restore the party to his or her original position. Even when a party is entirely right in law, the current costs system doesn't usually provide for full financial recovery in the enforcement of one's rights, to say nothing of the cost in time and effort in going through the litigation process.

It would seem a simple enough change to provide for solicitor/client costs (i.e. the amount typically expended to hire a lawyer reasonably suited to the case) as a standard rather than party/party costs (which are an arbitrary and artificially low estimate of actual costs) so as to ensure that a fully successful party doesn't lose out even while winning in court. That should make one's chance of success a stronger motivator in settlement discussions, rather than making the cost of trial the strongest motivating factor even for a party who justly expects to be successful.

I can sympathize with a desire to encourage settlement and avoid litigation where possible, which are obviously primary goals of the current system. But litigation should be avoided based on positive reasons to pursue other options, not on a process that prices itself outside the range of most and then punishes people who seek to enforce their rights. As it stands, efficiency within the legal system seems to be a higher priority than the rule of law itself.

Safe again...for now

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is once again safe from drilling, as the same strategy which won approval for the drilling initiative in the U.S. Senate doomed the plan in the House:

U.S. house leaders late yesterday abandoned an attempt to push through a hotly contested plan to open an Alaskan wildlife refuge to oil drilling.

They dropped the plan because they feared it would jeopardize approval of a sweeping budget bill today...

The House repeatedly has approved drilling in the refuge as part of broad energy legislation, only to see the effort blocked each time by the threat of a filibuster in the Senate.

The budget bill is immune from filibuster, but drilling proponents suddenly found it hard to get the measure accepted by a majority of the House.

That's because Democrats heartily oppose the overall budget bill, giving House Republican opponents of drilling in the Arctic enough leverage to have the matter killed.

The story may not be over just yet, but it appeared when the Senate passed its budget bill that there would be little chance of preserving ANWR. Due credit to the members of the House who took the initiative to force the removal of the pro-drilling language.

It'll only take one common vote between the House and Senate to permanently undermine the refuge...but at the very least, that common vote has been pushed back once again.

Well said

For the nearly definitive commentary on the NDP's proposed non-confidence motion, CalgaryGrit has it. All I'll add is that I have a few more doubts that it'll actually force a February election - not because anybody will choose to force a Christmas election instead, but because it'll be tough to hold the Libs to the motion, particularly since Parliament won't be in session when the writ would drop under its terms.

Ultimately, PMPM will get to choose whether he'd rather accept the motion and see the second Gomery report go public mid-election, or ignore the motion and continue on his previous timetable while facing a Parliamentary mutiny. I'm less sure than CG that the Libs will prefer the former result, though either way the motion is ultimately a plus for the opposition.

Update: I stand corrected, as the motion may apparently itself require that Parliament reconvene in January:

(S)trategists for the opposition said they have the numbers to use their opposition days this fall to force the Commons to reconvene in January and allow them an opportunity to table a no-confidence motion to defeat the government. That would effectively enforce Mr. Layton's new timetable.

Planning ahead

You know it's the NDP's day when David Dodge puts the party's signature issues in the headlines:

Bank of Canada governor David Dodge says the country's pension system must be strengthened so it can continue to play an important role in the economy and contribute to the efficiency of financial markets.

Mr. Dodge noted that defined-benefits pension plans, which make up the bulk of private employer-sponsored pensions, have been in decline in recent years as they face bigger and bigger deficits...

Mr. Dodge said provinces and the federal government must all get involved in the overhaul.

The central bank's governor discussed incentives under which large pools of capital of different types of pensions are accumulated and invested.

Not that Dodge proposes much of a solution at all, let alone one that the NDP would get behind. But the comment should highlight the fact that the Liberals have failed utterly to protect pensions thus far, highlighting the fact that only one federal party wants to take action to help workers who want to see the benefits they've bargained for.

Taking action

While Martin complains about not wanting a Christmas election and the other opposition parties whine about not wanting to do anything, it's once again left to Layton to figure out a workable solution:

NDP Leader Jack Layton has proposed an election call for early January, resulting in an election the following month.

He says called the move a “reasonable” compromise that allows Canadians to avoid a holiday election but doesn't let the Liberal government decide the timing.

Mr. Layton said the NDP will introduce a motion to that effect on Nov. 24, its first Opposition day in the House of Commons.

In other words, the motion will successfully avoid interfering with the November first ministers' meeting, and will allow the opposition parties to bring down the government without having to vote against the fiscal update. About the only out left is for Harper to complain now that the confidence vote isn't on his desired terms - though that would conflict rather thoroughly with Harper's equal demand that Layton be the one to bring forward the motion.

One would think that at least one other party could have spotted the solution as well, rather than leaving all the work to Layton. But I suppose this is par for the course for the current Parliament. If the NDP's going to continue to be the only party getting anything done around Parliament Hill, the new election had better bring some added reinforcements to help Jack and company to run the place.

Voted down

Contrary to earlier speculation, Tony Blair decided to push ahead with a 90-day period for detention without charges. And now he's reaped the just rewards of that choice:

British Prime Minister Tony Blair lost a crucial parliamentary vote on sweeping anti-terror legislation Wednesday, the first major defeat of his premiership and a serious blow to his authority.

Legislators blocked plans to detain terror suspects for 90 days without charge by 322 votes to 291, a majority of 31 against the government.

British lawmakers later voted to detain terror suspects for 28 days without charge — an option favoured by opposition parties and rebels in Mr. Blair's Labour party.

The end result is still somewhat of an increase in the detention-without-charge period, and that's cause for concern. But the vote sends a strong message that in the U.K. at least, "trust me" isn't going to be considered a good enough reason to grant the executive carte blanche when it comes to civil rights.

Inside each of us

The Globe reports on an experiment to see just what toxic substances are present in the blood of Canadians generally. And not surprisingly, the results aren't good:

The results, to be released in a report today, show that despite his clean-living ways, Mr. Bateman's body is a repository for 48 different toxic substances. These include heavy metals; PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls used in electrical transformers and now banned); PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl ethers used as fire retardants); PFOs (perfluorinated chemicals used in stain repellants, non-stick cookware and food packaging), pesticides and insecticides.

While this may seem startling for someone who lives on B.C.'s idyllic Saltspring Island and eats organic food, Mr. Bateman's so-called "body burden" is that of an average Canadian.

"The bottom line being that we are all polluted," said Dr. Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence Canada, a Toronto-based environmental health group. "The message to Canadians is -- it doesn't matter where you live, how old you are, it doesn't matter how clean living you are or if you eat organic food, or if you get a lot of exercise. We all carry inside of us hundreds of different pollutants and these things are accumulating inside our bodies every day."...

Tests were done on 11 volunteers, including Mr. Bateman, for 88 chemicals believed to be carcinogenic, to disrupt reproduction and hormonal function and interfere with fetal development. Researchers found that, on average, participants had a cocktail of 44 in their bodies...

The report noted that younger test subjects had much lower levels of PCBs, chemicals banned in 1977, and said that shows regulation works.

Note that Health Canada (unlike other state health administrators) hadn't taken any steps to even find out about the concentration of these toxic substances, meaning that it took a non-profit effort to even begin gathering information.

Obviously some of the substances are ones about which we now know enough to avoid. But the group which did the testing notes that there's been a delay in regulating some of the substances which are already known to be harmful. And more importantly, it shouldn't escape our notice that a past lack of information can't be undone once the truth about a substance becomes known.

Feet to the fire

Lorne Calvert has gone public to point out that the federal government's quick fix to equalization hasn't really fixed anything. And the Liberal government's response has been predictable:

After finding out Saskatchewan won't get a dime in federal equalization payments next year, Premier Lorne Calvert is accusing the federal government of renegging on a promise.

Calvert says Prime Minister Martin promised Ottawa would stop the practice of clawing back more than 100 per cent of resource revenue when calculating payments to the provinces – but Calvert says that's exactly what Liberals are planning to do...

An equalization panel is working on a new approach that might be more favourable to Saskatchewan. However, on Tuesday, federal Finance Minister Ralph Goodale said the panel wants more time to write its report. The report was supposed to be handed in next month, but now that won't happen until spring.

As a result, Goodale says, next year's equalization payments will be based on the old formula.

The origins of the problem lie in the Libs' original willingness to sign side deals rather than fixing the system generally. But at the very least, you'd think they'd know better than to try to back out of those side deals just before election time. And if that has the electoral consequence of cutting down on Lib/NDP vote-splitting at the polls, Calvert's move could do much more for his federal party than any amount of action from the premier next door.

Bluff called

Let's see what Harper finds to whine about now:

Jack Layton sent the Conservatives the clarion signal they have been demanding, stating unequivocally Tuesday that he is committed to helping them bring down the government at the next available opportunity...

The NDP leader could hardly have been more adamant. In fact he sounded even more gung-ho than Harper about defeating the Liberals.

"We are very clear," Layton told reporters in Vancouver.

"If there's non-confidence motions before the House (of Commons) we'll be voting against confidence.

"We don't believe the government deserves our confidence any longer."

Layton went a step farther than Harper, stating that he would also vote against the Liberals' supplementary budget estimates Dec. 8 or any other confidence matter.

Frankly, I'm surprised that Layton isn't at least leaving the door open to negotiations with the Liberals. But now Harper has no excuses left: if he wants his election, he's got it, and can precipitate it as early as next week.

We'll find out very soon whether or not the Cons are truly committed to ending Liberal government as soon as possible, or whether they'll decide to do so only when it seems politically convenient.

The end or the beginning?

Larry Zolf comments on the ongoing Arar saga:

Arar seemed subdued and cautious on television. He seemed less a man exonerated than a man with a lot of problems. He can’t find a job in his chosen profession of engineering, is shunned by his fellow Muslims and is treated very poorly by Canadians in general...

The press and politicians are now falling all over themselves to defend Arar and give him his place in Canadian society. But to the Americans he is still a pariah and in Canada he fares no better.

We haven’t yet heard the end of the Arar story.

I for one hope Zolf is right about that, but for that to happen the media will have to be willing to point out that the current Liberal crocodile tears over Arar's treatment are in stark contrast to the complete lack of action when Arar was rendered and tortured. They'll have ample opportunity to do so when the results of the inquiry are released, but it seems all too likely that the results will be a one-day story rather than being seen as a continuing need for change.

Ebb and flow

So much for post-Gomery outrage turning the tide against the Liberals, as a new poll puts the Libs squarely in the driver's seat electorally:

In the new sampling, the Liberals enjoy the support of 35 per cent of voters, up seven points. The Tories garnered 28 per cent compared to 31 per cent, while the NDP dropped to 16 per cent, from 20 per cent, on the weekend. The poll of 1,000 Canadians was conducted Saturday and Sunday and is considered accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, 95 per cent of the time.

While some may have seen the temporary NDP boost in the polls as reason to force an election, to me last weekend's results were about the worst possible outcome for the NDP: enough of an increase to make pundits say the NDP should want to go to the polls, but also a drop as compared to the Cons that was bound to result in votes bleeding over to the Liberals. The new poll is simply the inevitable result, as moderate-left voters make clear that they don't want to see Harper in power.

With that said, there's no reason now to go back on this weekend's decision on health care. Bad policy is bad policy no matter what the polls say, and moreover those moderate-left voters are exactly the ones most likely to wonder why the Liberals were willing to precipitate an election in order to avoid defending health care. While the NDP should still be receptive to any meaningful offer from the Liberals, and should still be looking to push their ethics package among other policies within Parliament, the plan should be to vote the government down at the next opportunity barring a compelling reason to do otherwise.

After all, the backlash from the previous poll should be over, and there's a good ways to go before any election. The key for now is still to displace the Cons as the best possible alternative to continued Lib government...and that's easy enough to do by encouraging Harper to be Harper.

How to use a surplus

While the federal Parliament is on the verge of falling apart, times in the provincial Legislature are just getting interesting:

The suddenly oil-rich Saskatchewan government plans to improve business taxes, come up with a strategy to build more roads in the North and study issues surrounding missing persons.

It also plans to move toward regulating and funding midwifery in the province, as well as fully fund its share of the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program for the second straight year...

Long-term commitments include transforming 10 per cent of the province's arable land to harvestable forests in the next 20 years and ensuring one-third of Saskatchewan's energy needs are met by renewable sources by 2030...

The premier also said the budget will remain balanced and some of the extra cash will be used to pay down debt.

From the sound so far, the budget should be an excellent example of how best to use a short-term surplus for long-term results. Most importantly, with the debt continuing to be paid down there should be all the more money available next year if oil prices stay anywhere near their current level.

Unlike at the federal level, the added funds are resulting in a serious move toward sustainability on many levels. Kudos to Calvert and company on a great start to the fall session.

Action vs. inaction

It shouldn't be news by now that the NDP has rejected the Liberals' "proposal" to preserve health care. The CP has the details as to why:

The Liberal document restates the guiding principles of the Canada Health Act (CHA), along with a commitment to end "double dipping" by doctors who work in both the public and private sectors.

But it is not clear how the government could enforce these promises without full information on how provinces are using those dollars - something the provinces refuse to provide.

The proposals leave plenty of room for political discretion about enforcement, as in this sentence:

"Where private involvement threatens the integrity of the single payer system, the federal government will act to ensure that the terms and conditions for any new federal dedicated funding require that these funds be spent within the public health care system."

It is not clear how the government would decide when the integrity of the single payer system was threatened, but it would presumably be a matter of political judgment.

Nor is it clear how an informed judgement could be made without full accounting by provinces of how they use federal money...

The Liberal proposal promises Dosanjh will seek new studies about "the nature and role of the private sector" from the Canadian Institute for Health Information and the Health Council of Canada.

But the federal government has already conducted countless studies of the health system, including the royal commission led by Roy Romanow, but few of their recommendations have been implemented.

Evidently, the Liberal line is that more empty words should be enough to make up for the lack of past action. But the NDP will gladly take the position of being the party that wants to do more than just study the system to death - especially if the Liberals' best argument is that they're supposedly catching up on past negligence in other departments.

Monitoring the establishment

Through his submissions to the Gomery inquiry, Rafe Mair points out that there's reason to wonder whether either the media or Parliament has both the ability and the will to confront wrongful government action:

"The sponsorship scandals and all your work, with respect, will just be matters to airbrush from the scene too, once enough time passes, if this commission doesn't recognize that the scandal itself is secondary to the public cynicism it fuels and doesn't see clearly that for all the sins committed, the greater sins may be the system itself and the passiveness of the national media."

"You can have, Mr. Commissioner, the best access to information laws and procedures in the world, but if neither our elected members nor the national media have both the means and the motive to use that access vigorously and often, we might just as well not have it."

"If we the people cannot have a constant bright light looking into the goings on of the government, there is no democracy."

Of course, in the context of Gomery it should be pointed out that media involvement played a meaningful role in allowing the story to be publicly known. But Mair is right to point out that access to information is fairly useless if it's not put to good effect - and media amalgamation seems very likely to have reduced the amount of attention directed toward trying to find new stories, rather than making use of press releases and public statements.

Granted, there are some countervailing forces which have at times put meanstream media coverage to shame in sorting out the details of an issue. But such examples may only highlight the fact that the traditional sources aren't doing their job. And that means there's all the more need for ongoing attention to issues which aren't yet in the public eye...in hopes that the truth about the next equivalent to the sponsorship scandal won't be discovered only several years and a new administration after the fact.

Trying again

Telus and its union have reached another tentative agreement, putting the decision back in the hands of individual workers:

Telus Corp. and its unionized workers reached a new tentative agreement, the company announced late Sunday.

Canada's second-biggest phone operator said negotiations with the Telecommunications Workers Union resumed Sunday.

At that meeting, the company made changes to its previous offer which unionized workers rejected last week, the union said on its website.

While the stand by workers in rejecting the first deal was an important one (it's always helpful to be reminded that unions run based on the will of its members), hopefully there'll be enough improvement in this offer to put the dispute to rest.

The inside view

The Guardian posts an overview of a new book by Sir Christopher Meyer, the UK Ambassador to Washington at the time when the Iraq war was planned (and thus somebody who saw the run-up to the war with full access to the best information in the hands of both the U.S. and the U.K.). In sum, Meyer argues that the U.S. wasn't about to go to war without Blair's support and was willing at least to delay the invasion to give inspectors more time. Meyer thus argues that Blair is culpable for failing to ensure that the invasion plans included at least some thought to what would happen following the occupation.

Give the article a read, and look forward to the book.

Scattershot

The CP reports that the federal gun registry hasn't yet been implemented at all in Nunavut...and that in fact the territory has no real gun safety program to speak of:

"There is no territorial gun safety program," said Steve Pinksen, director of policy planning and legislation for Nunavut's Environment Department...

Robertson is the lone staff member in Iqaluit for the Canadian Firearms Centre, the organization responsible for the gun registry in Canada.

Robertson arrived in March. Before that, the office was empty...

Officially, Nunavut has no gun safety trainers, so Robertson sends Canada Firearms Safety Course textbooks to volunteer trainers, who are able to ship the books, tests, registration forms and decommissioned gun kits to remote communities...

(The course) has never been translated into Inuktitut, the first language of some 85 per cent of the territory's residents. It has no information on gun safety at -40 temperatures, or how to carry a loaded weapon on a Ski-Doo in polar bear country.

One would think that with the territories falling generally under federal jurisdiction, the federal government would have ensured from the beginning that the program would be funded, and that gun safety information would be available. Instead, it's done nothing but undo whatever good already existed: as noted in the article, there was a territorial gun safety program until the federal government declared that the original program wouldn't be recognized for the purposes of the registry.

It's well and good to have the registry governed by federal standards. But there's no excuse for creating such standards while undermining the ability of significant parts of the country to meet them. And as a result of the Liberals' poor planning, Nunavut residents lack both the ability to comply with the law, and the resources to inform themselves about gun safety as well as other Canadians can.

Making strides

Good news from the U.K.: Tony Blair is in retreat over his attempt to pass a law allowing for individuals to be detained for 90 days without charges. And that seems to be in part a response to some prominent legal figures who have lent their support to the anti-detention side:

The retreat reflects the strength of feeling not only in the Commons, but within the legal establishment. Lord Woolf, who retired as Lord Chief Justice only a month ago, becomes the most senior judicial figure yet to criticise the measures today, warning of the gradual erosion of 'what is acceptable' in the effort to combat terrorism.

He spoke after chairing a London lecture at which Israel's chief justice, Aharon Barak, said judges must 'protect democracy both from terrorism and from the means the state wants to use to fight terrorism'.

Woolf agreed, adding in an unprecedented intervention: 'Every time you move the goalposts, you are accepting a different level of what is acceptable. That then becomes the new starting point, whereas before it was the last point. And that is the case with the length of time one can hold people in custody without charge.'

Friends of Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General, have also disclosed that he is not convinced of the 90-days case because he 'has not seen evidence that robustly supports this' - contradicting Blair.

It doesn't appear that many people are pressing to eliminate detention without charges entirely. Current UK law already allows for 14 days detention, and the article speculates that all sides will ultimately compromise on a 28-day period. Which is itself far longer than should be faced by an individual not subject to any reasonable criminal suspicion.

But at the very least, Blair's claims that the House of Commons should simply take his word as to the necessary period have fallen on deaf ears...leading to the possibility that the UK will set a positive example for the rest of the Western world in rediscovering the importance of civil rights in the face of unsupported state suspicion.

Necessary services

The federal prison ombudsman points out that the prison system isn't providing sufficient resources to treat mentally-ill prisoners:

In his annual report released yesterday, Correctional Investigator Howard Sapers said the number of inmates with “significant, identified mental health needs” has doubled over the past decade, but treatment services have declined. “The level of mental health services is now seriously deficient.”...

In all, about 12 per cent of federal inmates are seriously mentally ill, Mr. Sapers said, while the system is able to deal with only half of them.

Leaving mentally ill patients untreated violates their legal and moral right to health care, he said: “It's also a real public-safety imperative and it's also a very cost-effective way of approaching the problem.”

Sending money to offer services to prisoners is seldom the politically popular thing to do, and I can hear the reactionaries now complaining about prisoners having better access to psychological treatment than the general public. But in this case it should be obvious that there are substantial public-safety benefits to offering the service, as untreated illnesses may themselves lead to future criminal behaviour. And one has to question how the government can send a message about the importance of following the law when the lack of funding means that court-ordered treatment isn't available.

The plan to deal with all types of inmates is in place through Correctional Service Canada; the only need now is for funding. If PMPM wants to make sure that some real progress is made during the current Parliament, providing that funding would be a good place to start.

Learning experience

The CP reports that student dissatisfaction with private career colleges is finally leading to government action. And it's about time, given examples like this:

A former sales associate at three CDI College campuses in Toronto, who asked not to be identified, says complaints against CDI like those of Aliza Bernstein and Laura Menzies are familiar.

"I had a man come into my office crying because of his son. It was a horrible, horrible situation," she said of the last customer she spoke to before she quit. "I advised them to sue."

She says the man paid $14,000 toward his son's CDI tuition only to later learn his son was without a teacher for eight months.

The ex-employee says there was pressure to meet enrolment quotas, even if that meant convincing students who couldn't afford tuition to take out loans.

The most disturbing part of the article is the extent to which CDI tries to minimize a series of examples of shoddy education at its schools - including two in the article alone citing classes which lacked instructors. While CDI is probably right that the majority of students derive some value from the institution, that doesn't do much to help those whose legitimate complaints have apparently been ignored.

Part of the issue appears to be a matter of administration, which is apparently being dealt with. And that's the part of the equation where it's relatively easy to sympathize with private colleges: it may well be difficult to plan for all contingencies as to which instructors will and won't stay around.

However, the problem not covered in Bill 197 (aside from a registration requirement) is that of recruiting tactics which are naturally designed to push as many students as possible into the college rather than to move them toward the most suitable individual choices. That may be a particularly difficult issue to handle with regard to a private actor whose interest is best served by maximizing the in-flow of students. But the same issue in turn should highlight the problems with for-profit education. And in taking steps to regulate the industry, the provincial government will now bear some onus to ensure that students know the risks.

Wider protection

CBC reports on a Manitoba initiative to extend protection against domestic violence and stalking to situations where a couple hasn't lived together:

Under the old legislation, only those who had been living together could apply for such protection. The amended Domestic Violence and Stalking Act now extends to those who are only dating...

Mackintosh says Manitoba is the first province to put such legislation in place.

A protection order can prohibit the people named from coming to the victims' homes or workplaces and following or communicating with them. It may also force them to turn over any weapons they may have.

Oddly enough, one of the points made in opposition to the legislation is that it's unclear how soon in the dating process the legislation could apply. I would seem to me that application after one date would be entirely appropriate if the order is necessary - stalkers should be dealt with as stalkers, regardless of how close the two people involved were at some previous point.

Kudos to Manitoba for taking the lead in this area, and I'll hope to see other provinces following suit soon.

Work to be done

For those looking for a truly worrisome poll result (and at least somewhat interested in local Regina politics), here it is:

A substantial majority of Regina residents believe Mayor Pat Fiacco is doing a good job, a new public opinion poll indicates.

Of 824 city residents surveyed, 70 per cent said they either approved or strongly approved of the way Fiacco is doing his job.

Only 12.8 per cent said they disapproved or strongly disapproved while another 17.2 per cent offered a somewhat neutral opinion.

This in the midst of an administration marked by a dogmatic determination to avoid tax increases even at the expense of necessary services, and just shortly after a strike where the city tried to claim that mandatory pension contributions were a raise to city workers.

The numbers are moving in the right direction from the even more ridiculously high approval ratings earlier in Fiacco's tenure. But there's a long way yet to go to try to restore any sense of balance to City Hall next year.

When rights don't apply

Amidst the furor over Kashechewan, another case of discrimination against First Nations people has drawn the U.N.'s notice...and this one is contained in a statute which is supposed to guarantee equality:

The United Nations Human Rights Committee is calling on Canada to act immediately to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, a section that excludes some First Nations people from protection under the Act.

The Committee tabled its Concluding Observations on November 2, following the review of Canada's Fifth Periodic Report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In this document, the Committee raises several issues regarding Aboriginal rights in Canada, including the fact that section 67 allows discrimination as long as it can be justified under the Indian Act. The Committee goes on to say that it is concerned that the discriminatory effect of the Indian Act against Aboriginal women and their children in matters of reserve membership has still not been remedied, and that the issue of matrimonial real property on reserve lands has still not been properly addressed.

This only a few days after the Canadian Human Rights Commission released its own report, A Matter of Rights, asking Parliament to immediately repeal Section 67. Chief Commissioner Mary Gusella said at the time of the release, on October 26, 2005, that section 67 was a hole in the fabric of human rights in Canada that needed to be fixed and that this exclusionary provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act was nothing less than "a national and international embarrassment to Canada."

Fortunately, it seems that the movement to change the current Section 67 is already afoot...so it may not take much more public attention to get the change made. But the current text is just one more reminder of how the law has historically treated Canada's aboriginal people as something less than complete citizens...and how much further we have to go to try to undo the effects of that prejudice.