A necessary correction

The first meeting in Chuck Strahl's effort to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board is now over, and Strahl is only showing his contempt for farmers who support the Wheat Board in the process he plans to follow from here on in:

There have been calls for Ottawa to put any changes in the wheat board to a farmer plebiscite, although Strahl says the government has the power to act on its own in some areas.

"We will be looking at what we can do by regulations, what we need to do by legislation and if necessary what we need to do by plebiscite," he said.

The problem with Strahl's explanation is that the Wheat Board is entirely a creature of a statute which explicitly provides (see ss. 45 and 46) that regulations may be made which allow for exports outside the Board. Which means that while Strahl find it convenient to muddy the waters by pretending to be willing to hold any "necessary" plebiscite, the reality is that there's no way a plebiscite can be "necessary" or "needed". Any plebiscite could only be based on the Cons reaching the reasonable conclusion that the farmers who stand to be affected by his party's desire to trash the Wheat Board should have some say in whether the process continues.

But one has to assume that if Strahl was the least bit open to letting farmers generally have a say on the future of the Wheat Board, he wouldn't have gone to such great lengths to exclude any dissenting views from his planning meetings. And his apparent intention to use the Cons' regulatory power regardless of farmers' views doesn't do anything to improve the odds that he'll suddenly start considering approval by those affected to be a "necessary" step. Which means that for those who hope to save the Wheat Board, the only way a vote can make a difference now is if Strahl's dismantling of the Board can be pushed past the next federal election.

More of the same

In reporting on the Vancouver-Kingsway Lib nomination farce, the Globe and Mail reminds us that a lack of democratic accountability is once against being hardwired into the Libs' slate of candidates for the next election:

(Lib national director Steven) McKinnon said the party has told its 102 MPs to hold nomination meetings this fall and said it will not allow any challengers.

Uncontested nominations were the norm under prime minister Jean Chrétien, but not his successor Paul Martin.

Not that Martin himself deserves much credit for improvement, particularly considering his penchant for appointing candidates (like Emerson himself), not to mention his determination to push his lone leadership rival out the door. But considering how little the Libs ever accomplished on the much-staffed democratic reform front, it's all the more stunning to see the party now undoing what little internal progress was made.

Of course, there's bound to be a principled Lib willing to speak out against the new lack of accountability. But until that happens, the sole quote from anybody in the party questioning the practice (which was apparently announced this spring) is instead another attempt by a fading leadership campaign to appear relevant:

The decision by interim Liberal leader Bill Graham to allow all sitting MPs to be renominated this fall does not sit well with at least one leadership candidate, MP Joe Volpe.

"Mr. Volpe doesn't think that there should be blanket immunity for all members of Parliament -- the blank cheque that Mr. Graham gave to caucus," said Mr. Volpe's spokesman Corey Hobbs. "He feels there should be democracy at the grassroots level."

It's not clear whether the quote is a new one or simply Volpe's original response to the announcement. But it is clear that Libs hoping for a revitalized party are in for a severe disappointment. After all, the lone leadership candidate (or prominent party figure period) willing to speak up for an open nomination process is the same one proudly trying to set a new ethical standard based on questionable donations and arm-twisting (at least as long as the arm-twister sticks around). Meanwhile, the other leadership candidates have at best tepidly mused about the decision to backslide toward lesser accountability, and at worst backed it outright.

Whatever else happens before the next election, the Libs have only shown their continued contempt for democratic accountability - both through the lack of many nomination meetings, and in the process followed in those which are taking place. And that can only ensure that the Libs remain tarnished with the same perception of entitlement that earned their trip to the opposition benches in the first place.

Positions and possibilities

The Star's Ian Urquhart nicely sums up the provinces' current positions on federal/provincial funding. But it's not clear why he so quickly dismisses the possibility of prioritizing increased funding both to equalization and program funding over another round of tax cuts - an option which would both leave the provinces with little scope for concern about the outcome, and offer Harper a somewhat more plausible answer to the (now well-deserved) criticisms about funding he's pulled away from existing initiatives. It may not fit with Harper's ideology, but when it's both good policy and good politics, there's no apparent reason to pull the option off the table.

It oughta be a crime

The federal Cons apparently aren't the only Canadian politicians more interested in looking tough on time than actually preserving and strengthening measures which help to reduce it, as B.C.'s Lib government is planning to scrap its provincial parole board:

The British Columbia government plans to get rid of the provincial parole board and turn over all parole responsibility to the national board, the province's solicitor general says.

The move will mean offenders serving less than two years in provincial jails will have to wait longer to apply for parole, removing an important safety net, said the chairperson of the B.C. Parole Board.

When the federal board takes over next April, those serving jail sentences of six months or less won't even be able to apply for parole.

Currently offenders in B.C. can ask for parole in as early as 90 days and the board monitors their behaviour until their sentence is complete.

"I believe it's a good parachute," said Tracey Thompson, chairperson of the B.C. Parole Board.

"To me if someone walks out of jail at the end of their sentence they still have all the issues they walked in with. They still need some support to parachute them back into the community."

Solicitor General John Les announced the boards would be merging after legislation is passed in next spring's sitting.

He said the added parole wait for some offenders would be the only difference caused by the change.

"There might be a few individuals who, as a result of that, serve a slightly longer portion of their sentence. Personally I don't think that's a bad thing," Les said Friday.

Unfortunately, the article doesn't provide any comparative perspective on the relative costs involved. But it seems far too likely that the added cost of keeping inmates in provincial jails longer will easily outweigh the apparent $700,000 saving from the elimination of the parole board (not to mention that some of the parole board functions are merely being uploaded rather than cut out altogether). And that's without mentioning the cost of increased crime resulting from inmates receiving less support in reintegrating.

In sum, the B.C. government is setting out to pay more for worse results out of its criminal justice system, solely for the satisfaction its Solicitor General apparently gets from the prospect of increasing the time spent in his province's jails. No wonder the Harper government doesn't seem to have a problem cooperating from a federal standpoint.

Predictable results

And this is what happens when a federal government shows its utter disinterest in protecting its trade interests. Word comes out that the U.S. is backing off its earlier plans to open up the border to some Canadian cattle, with the ever-present support of everybody's favourite group of litigious cattle ranchers:

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is seeking more information about a U.S. Department of Agriculture decision to maintain a ban on imports of older Canadian cattle...

Agency spokesman Alain Charette said it is not clear whether U.S. authorities are cancelling previously announced plans to permit imports of older cattle from Canada, or just postponing them.

It had been expected that U.S. authorities would soon lift the current ban on imports of cattle more than 30 months old...

A U.S. ranchers' group, R-CALF USA is lobbying to have the ban maintained.

Needless to say, R-CALF's position looks a lot stronger now than it would be if Canada's government was willing to push back against U.S. pressure, rather than seeking to bend Canadian industries to the will of the U.S. Any guesses as to how long it'll be before we end up paying R-CALF to dictate the terms of livestock management in Canada?

(Edit: typo.)

Shameful

BCer in TO highlights the Cons' attempt to twist tragedy in the Middle East for their own financial gain. If only anybody could claim to be surprised...

On shutting out the world

I wouldn't want to downplay the importance of educational issues as a matter of national policy. But judging from today's news that the Cons are decimating funding toward international academic relations, it may be for the best if education never gets mentioned again while the Cons are in power:

The Harper government is poised to cancel federal funding for Canadian international academic programs, including Canadian participation in the Fulbright program, one of the most prestigious international scholarships...

$13.5 million in funding for international academic relations programs will expire on June 21, 2007.

Programs at risk include: $5 million for Commonwealth Scholarships; $600,000 for the Fulbright Foundation; support for the Canada-China Scholars Exchange Program; a program encouraging Mexican students to study in Canada; and all funding for Canadian studies programs abroad.

And there's outspoken opposition to eliminating exchange funding within Harper's own party:

However, Conservative Senator Hugh Segal, chairman of the Senate committee on foreign affairs, called the decision "a calamitous misunderstanding" by Treasury Board.

"These scholarship programs have nothing to do with provincial jurisdiction," he said in an interview yesterday.

The scholarships play a crucial role in projecting knowledge and understanding of Canada abroad, and Canadian expertise about the rest of the world, Segal said...

Canadian studies programs in the U.S. are a major part of Canada's investment in awareness of Canada in the United States, and Canada's ambassador to the United States, Michael Wilson, is said to be very upset at the Treasury Board decision.

We'll find out soon whether Harper is any more flexible in responding to the concerns of his own party elders than he is when it's merely a good chunk of the voting public opposing wrongheaded cuts. But it seems plain that the Cons have decided that building relationships with the rest of the world isn't worth Canada's time or money. And whether or not the Cons can be pushed into reversing the initial decision, that's a dangerous attitude for a government to hold in the first place.

Update: Denise Savoie chimes in, emphasizing the sudden turnaround the from Harper's seeming support for the same programs just a couple of months ago.

Making the best of it

It's all too clear that the premiers aren't close to reaching full agreement on a fix to federal/provincial funding. But even if there's no chance of getting a full plan worked out, it's not too late for the provinces to reaffirm their previous agreements on child care, the Kelowna Accord, post-secondary education, health and pharmacare, and other individual issues to keep the pressure on Harper, and highlight the fact that the lack of agreement on a solution doesn't mean the problems facing Canada's provinces have gone away.

Taking matters into their own hands

While the Cons are busy whining about how nobody could possibly get a better softwood lumber deal than they did, Canadian producers are actually talking to their American counterparts...and may well be making progress in improving the deal:

Canada's lumber industry is talking to its American counterpart and to provincial governments about amending the Canada-U.S. Softwood Lumber Agreement, despite federal insistence that negotiations are over, sources say.

The U.S. Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, the influential industry lobby behind punitive tariffs on Canadian lumber, this week categorically denied that it or its members were discussing changes to the softwood deal initialled July 1.

But Canadian industry sources told The Canadian Press on Thursday that informal contacts did take place between individual lumber executives on both sides of the border.

The industry now is trying to compile a single list by the end of next week of proposed modifications to the complex agreement, then get governments from the producing provinces to approach Ottawa with it.

Which means that the largest holdup for now may not be unwillingness on the part of U.S. actors to improve the deal at least somewhat, but instead...

However, the sources admit the plan has a very limited chance at success in what's become a high-stakes standoff with the Conservative government staking its political future on the outcome.

In other words, Harper appears to be standing all the more strongly against Canada solely for his own political benefit. And with Canada's PM so determined to ignore both positive court rulings and the possibility of a better deal than his government could negotiate, there's all the less reason to take the Cons seriously when they claim to have Canada's best interests at heart.

A lack of improvement

The Vancouver Sun reports the latest from Vancouver-Kingsway, as the Libs are apparently following up the Emerson debacle with a nomination mess:

So hasty has organization of the nomination process been that only two candidates have come forward to contest it, one having rushed mightily to meet the deadline for filing appropriate papers.

Manuel Pereda, who has spearheaded grassroots protests against Emerson, calls what's happening now in his riding "a travesty of democracy."

Pereda is not personally interested in becoming a candidate. But the Liberal party member wants to see clean politics returned to his riding. He tried for months to contact riding executives to learn when the nomination battle was to be fought.

"All my e-mails and phone calls have remained unanswered in spite of the role I played in the community since Emerson's defection."...

The party set the July 29 nomination date on July 17. Those interested in running had only until July 21 to be approved as party candidates. The cutoff date for selling new memberships was July 14.

Wendy Yuan, one of the two candidates vying for the nomination, looks to have benefited from the haste, as opposed to her competitor, lawyer Mason Loh. Yuan's campaign manager, Mike Hillman, is vice-president of national party and would certainly have been aware of the early date for the nomination contest...

Pereda asserts Yuan "has a huge advantage since her campaign manager knew of the plans well ahead of the association members. She sent her brochures to all members two weeks prior to the announcement and had more opportunity to sign new members."

The article goes on to conclude rather bizarrely that the Libs should enjoy a "cakewalk" in the riding - a conclusion which seems entirely unjustified given Emerson's fairly narrow win over Ian Waddell, the loss of their star candidate, and the fact that the Emerson fiasco has both undermined the Libs' core message ("vote for us to stop Harper!") and strengthened the NDP's.

But whatever the starting point for the riding, the lack of fairness and transparency in the Libs' nomination process can only make the party look all the less trustworthy in Vancouver-Kingsway and across the country. And it may not take long before Libs like Pereda who are still holding out hope of finding some principle in the party figure out they're better off turning their support elsewhere.

Unleashing the watchdog

I'm generally of the opinion that genuine free trade (as opposed to the selective protectionism that currently masquerades under the title) has to be seen as a positive, particularly when it's counterbalanced by equal cooperation on issues other than trade. But that multiple-issue cooperation has to actually accomplish something to be of any value. And as the Globe and Mail points out, the pollution watchdog created to try to dull opposition to NAFTA has been utterly ineffective:

NAFTA's environmental agency is supposed to be a watchdog that alerts North Americans to pollution threats, but it often doesn't have much of a bark, let alone a bite...

The commission's difficulty in explaining these kinds of pollution problems is being noticed. Those familiar with the workings of the Montreal-based organization say it is being hobbled by government meddling and shrinking budgets that don't allow it to do extensive work.

"The CEC was supposed to be the environmental watchdog of North America, and it's been turned into a house pet by government restrictions and budget cuts," contends Stewart Elgie, a University of Ottawa professor and environmental law specialist...

(The CEC's annual) Taking Stock report isn't a truly independent look at pollution trends. Like all of its reports, the CEC allows NAFTA governments to pore over its findings and try to alter them before they are released publicly. This is an unusual practice for an agency that is supposed to alert the public to pollution threats. Prof. Elgie says the governments have "raised an ever-increasing stream of objections and complaints" about CEC reports and try to "sanitize" them...

The CEC also appears to be gun shy about going after important environmental topics that risk irking the NAFTA governments. For instance, even though the trade bloc is the world's biggest greenhouse-gas emitter, the CEC doesn't work on climate change.

Critics say the Bush administration blocks such efforts, although Mr. Kennedy denies this...

(T)he CEC's next topic of investigation is guaranteed to offend no one. It's on energy-efficient buildings.

Mr. Kennedy says "there is a lot of support" by the governments for it. "I think we've got a real winner in this topic."

Needless to say, any remotely useful watchdog shouldn't be measuring success by its ability to act as a cheerleader. And the imbalance between trade and environmental issues is highlighted by the presence of so much political interference in the CEC even as NAFTA was designed in large part as a guarantee against political interference in trade.

It's far from clear from the article whether the CEC can be salvaged to any meaningful degree, or whether any true North American environmental cooperation will have to occur under a substantially different body (and presumably one created once some less reactionary governments are in power). But a commission with neither the resources to gather its own information nor the independence to publish anything controversial can't be making much of a contribution to public knowledge. And with the environment ranking as the top issue for a large number of Canadians, there's a plain need to ensure that Canada cooperates with its neighbours internationally to build knowledge and capacity - not only to divert attention from a trade-first attitude.

Exhibit A

As a follow-up on a previous post about the precarious state of Canada's museums, one can't blame the museums themselves for failing to try to bring attention to the problem, as the Canadian Museum Association is working to point out the need for additional resources:

The Ottawa-based Canadian Museums Association is spearheading an aggressive lobbying effort across the country this summer to convince the federal government, individual MPs, the news media and the public at large that the country's 2,500 museums need not just more money, but more importantly, stable funding. Otherwise much of Canada's heritage is going to disappear.

Auditor General Sheila Fraser said as much in a report in 2004, but that was a few elections ago, which, in political years, is at least a millennium. Besides, the residents of Parliament Hill were seized at the time only with her comments about another issue the Quebec sponsorship scandal. Consequently, Canada's crumbling heritage remained on the backburner.

The last Liberal government claimed it had a new museums policy ready to go last winter. But then came the election, which produced a Conservative government. The lobbying and policy process had to start all over again, there being little institutional memory on Parliament Hill. Hence the Summer Campaign...

The continuing uncertainty of the levels of operating funds is the biggest problem facing museums, according to the Canadian Museums Association. Under the federal Museum Assistance Program, the government pumps $9 million annually into museums across the country. That figure has remained relatively constant since 1972. Most of those funds are only given for specific projects and exhibitions. Those are not funds that allow museums to pay ordinary operating expenses, including staff salaries, artifact conservation, utilities and maintenance.

The association says that that $9 million should be boosted to $75 million, be used mainly for operational funds and allow museums to have stable funding for three to five years so they can plan ahead.

Heritage Minister Bev Oda, the minister in charge of culture, has been sending mixed signals about what will be done.

"She always told us this is a priority, we're No. 1 kind of thing," says John McAvity, director of the Canadian Museums Association. "And then all of a sudden she said this needs more time. We're starting to become concerned."

Of course, there's no reason to take the Libs' supposed commitment to the cause of museums seriously in light of their failure to do anything over their first decade-plus in power. (Not to mention their previous decade in power since the last time funding was increased.)

But at the same time, Canada's museums can't afford to see the Cons follow in those footsteps again. And hopefully the CMA will be able to convince Oda and Harper that they don't want to be responsible for causing the institutions dedicated to preserving Canada's heritage to be relegated to the dustbins of history.

Schooling

So much for the lack of discussion of the need for increased funding of postsecondary education, as the NDP moves the issue to the forefront:

As Provincial Premiers meet in Newfoundland this week in an attempt to reach a consensus on how to solve the fiscal imbalance, the federal NDP renews its pressure on the Conservative government to take action in response to the Premiers’ call for a $4.9-billion increase in transfers for post-secondary education.

“The Premiers could not have been clearer in February: the provinces desperately need core funding to be restored for post-secondary education,” stated Denise Savoie, Victoria MP and NDP Critic for Post-Secondary Education...

“Those massive surpluses that the Liberals and the Conservatives have blown on inequitable tax cuts were built on the backs of students,” said Savoie. “Tuition has tripled. Student debt has tripled. I have heard from countless students who are crushed under their debt load and who are taking twice as long to complete their programs, if they can afford to complete them at all.”

The federal share of post-secondary education costs has diminished from 80% in the 1980s to well under 60% today. Federal cash transfers to post-secondary education, as a percentage of GDP, have declined from 0.56% in 1983-84 to 0.19% in 2004-05...

Savoie urged the Council of the Federation to reaffirm its consensus of last February and re-issue its united demand that the federal government step up to the plate on post-secondary education. This is one crucial first step on the way to fixing the fiscal imbalance.

It shouldn't be too difficult for the premiers to confirm their agreement on education as they already have on the Kelowna Accord. And by pointing out yet another way in which past federal governments have fallen short of providing the funding needed for vital programs, such a move would ensure that the Cons can't pretend to have resolved the fiscal imbalance through tax cuts, smoke and mirrors as seems to be the plan.

Surprise, surprise

Was there any doubt that Harper would jump at the chance to declare some citizens to be less Canadian than others?

On points of agreement

While Gordo may be doing his best to prevent agreement among the premiers on federal/provincial funding, the provinces were at least able to agree with First Nations leaders that their last major deal shouldn't be thrown out the window:

Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams, the host of this year's annual premiers' meeting which gets underway this evening in St. John's, said the provincial leaders "stand behind" the terms of the Kelowna accord.

"We, as a group of leaders, sat around the table, we came to conclusions, we reached decisions, we made commitments to aboriginal people and we intend to live by those commitments. I fully believe that the federal government will live by those commitments whether it happens to be in that format or in another format. At the end of the day, as long as the results are delivered we will have achieved our goals."

Speaking to reporters earlier in the day, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty said the Kelowna accord is "in a state of suspended animation at this point.

"We have an opportunity before us (sic) am hopeful the federal government will understand how committed we are to this."

Williams' wording may unfortunately leave some wiggle room for Harper to claim that the "results" would be best delivered with his government doing as little as possible. But at the very least there should be no doubt that both First Nations groups and the provinces expect their agreement to be honoured...and there'll be plenty of opposition ready to mobilize against the Cons if they continue to insist on creatively interpreting the deal.

On obstruction

So much for the prospect of the premiers uniting behind a sensible plan to boost both transfers and equalization, as Gordon Campbell has torpedoed the effort for now by calling for tax cuts rather than any form of funding:

Canada's premiers appeared no closer to achieving consensus on the delicate issue of equalization as they gathered Tuesday in western Newfoundland for Day 1 of their annual meeting.

Despite assurances from some premiers they were willing to compromise, B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell dashed hopes for a quick deal by dismissing the idea of enhancing the federal funding program, as the so-called have-not provinces are demanding.

Instead, Campbell floated the idea of introducing a new federal tax cut as the best way to raise living standards across the country.

So far, most of the provincial positions have generally at least given rise to some prospect of a constructive agreement. But if Campbell really plans on demanding a policy of duelling tax cuts at both the federal and provincial levels rather than the stable funding needed to allow provinces to provide reasonable services to all Canadians, then there may be no reason for other premiers to move from their own positions. And if that type of stalement stays in place, then Harper may well get away with gutting the federal government and calling it a solution.

The real push-poll problem

While LKO is concerned about the Progressive Bloggers poll question on Lebanon, how has the bias in the Ipsos-Reid poll and resulting commentary claiming that Canadians largely support Harper's position gone without comment?

Almost two in three Canadians believe Israel's military action in Lebanon was either somewhat or completely justified, a new poll has revealed.

The survey, conducted online by Ipsos-Reid for CanWest News Service and Global National, found that 64 per cent of Canadians believed Israel's action was either somewhat or completely justified.

In other words, the premise of the article lumps together what was presumably the middle option with one of the extremes without differentiating between the two. A quick trip to the Ipsos-Reid site breaks the proportions down as 20% "completely justified" and 44% "somewhat justified", which paints a rather different picture than the suggestion that the two can be considered equally. (Indeed, one could equally describe the poll instead as reflecting a view that 80% of respondents see Israel's response as less than completely justified.)

But having started from that biased perspective, the headline and commentary go several steps further, implying that the combined group is absolutely united in support of the extreme position:

"When you look across the country, Mr. Harper has good support in every region on almost every measure of both foreign policy and his approach to this matter, except in the province of Quebec, where it tilts clearly to an Israeli compromise," said Wright.

One would think the credibility of the article and poll couldn't get much worse. But then there's this gem of a question from the original poll:

When asked which side of the conflict should make a major compromise in order to have a ceasefire, 63 per cent of Canadians said it was "those who kidnapped the Israeli soldiers," while 53 per cent of Quebecers said it was the Israeli government.

Let's leave aside the sheer absurdity of the implication that "those who kidnapped the Israeli soldiers" would actually be at the bargaining table such as to be able to make compromises. Even ignoring that obvious problem, does Ipsos-Reid really believe it's possible to get a fair result by comparing a neutral descriptor of one side to a loaded description of the actions of the other? Or by analogy, how much credence would be given to a poll asking "Who should compromise, Hezbollah or the army currently bombing Lebanese civilians"?

In sum, it seems painfully clear that the poll is bound to receive tons of attention as a sign of support for Harper's Middle East policy. But the poll was obviously flawed to begin with, and even from that starting point the results have to be twisted beyond recognition to be described as backing Harper's view. Which should only highlight the lengths the Cons and their friends in the media need to go to in pretending that Canadians share the values of their current PM.

Ever more effects

For those keeping track of the results of global warming, two more have been added to the list: a severe reduction in the size of Lake Erie, and an extended allergy season for those allergic to ragweed. Mind you, neither approaches some of the other potential effects...but considering the range of impacts on matters both large and small, there's all the more reason to take meaningful action now rather than waiting for the dangers to materialize or increase.

Edit: Yet another one to add, as the Guardian highlights the dangers associated with summer heat waves.

On forecasts

The Cons may want to introduce even more massive tax cuts now and deal with the consequences later. But fortunately, the TD Bank is looking to the longer term, and pointing out that tradeoffs will have to be made:

Ottawa could continue to have annual budget surpluses through to 2012-13, assuming a solid economy and modest interest rates, but days of ‘easy’ budget planning are gone, a TD Bank (TSX:TD) report says...

“Under the key assumption of continuing sound economic performance and implementation of the policy agenda set out in the 2006 budget, budget surpluses would continue to accrue. But they would be quite modest,” TD chief economist Don Drummond writes...

However, the TD report also notes there are several factors that haven’t been included in its estimates, including the additional one percentage point drop in the goods and services tax that the Conservatives have said they’ll introduce...

"(W)e should not lose sight of the fact that Canada is in great fiscal shape relative to its own history and the record of almost every other country...But difficult trade-offs will need to be managed in order to introduce changes with large budget costs.”

It may take a lot more sources pointing out the obvious limitations on federal finances to ensure that the Cons can't launch more major tax cuts without public outcry. But Drummond's report at least ensures some increased awareness of the need to balance priorities...and if the Cons are willing to stake their public reputation on more costly tax cuts, it shouldn't take long for Canadians to make all the more clear that they wouldn't agree with the tradeoff.

Higher learning

As already noted by BCer in Toronto, a new debate has broken out over Canada's universities. From the CBC article (which unlike the Globe and Mail equivalent also features the counter position of the Canadian Federation of Students):

Canada's student aid system is facing a crisis fuelled by rising interest rates and a politically motivated trend by governments to broaden assistance without regard to need, according to a report released Monday...

Authors Alex Usher and Sean Junor, who both previously worked in senior research roles for the scholarship foundation, noted that many studies have shown grants targeted at low-income students serve to expand access to post-secondary education, while subsidies to higher income students have little or no effect on whether they attend.

Despite this, the report said governments are spending billions of dollars annually on tuition freezes and tax credits and making subsidized student loans more broadly available without regard to need...

The Canadian Federation of Students immediately attacked the report, calling it an attempt to distort the legitimate pressures placed on Canada's student financial aid system to justify tuition fee increases...

The federation argued that tuition fee increases over the past decade are the primary force driving up the cost of providing financial aid to students.

"Student aid can only be effective if it is delivered in an environment where fees aren't skyrocketing," Aziz said. "The authors of this study fail to understand that simple fact."

There doesn't seem to be too much doubt that aid and loans are both in need of some significant support. But it seems to me that each side is only part right when it comes to the details of how to improve accessibility.

On the question of whether improved aid or loans should come at the expense of higher tuition or be considered a reasonable government investment in improving accessibility at all income levels, it's hard to disagree with the CFS' position. A good chunk of the debt loads now borne by many students can be readily traced to tuition increases over the past couple of decades, and any effort to at least slow that trend can only help matters - regardless of how the tuition fee is funded for a particular student. And with rising interest rates making individual loans (both through government programs and elsewhere) more expensive as pointed out by the EPI report, it's hard to see how it could be a bad investment to make sure that up-front costs are kept manageable.

At the same time, once the need to maintain reasonable tuition levels is recognized, the EPI report does have a strong point in that loans and aid should be targeted as thoroughly as possible toward need. If the loans system is now creeping into areas where students could realistically find alternate funding arrangements, then it may well be necessary to tweak the system to be genuinely needs-based. And a new program to match the intent of the Millenium Scholarship Fund would indeed be a plus...though of course if the original had been made into a sustainable long-term program that would have been all the better.

In sum, there's plenty of room for improvement in both general and specific accessibility to Canada's universities. And if nothing else, hopefully both sides to the dispute in the article will do their best to ensure that the end is kept in sight, whichever means they may prefer to get there.

A time to unite

The Star reports on the Cons' plan to change federal/provincial funding, which as with everything else Harper has done seems likely to prioritize random tax hacking over effective funding:

The Conservative government plans a something-for-everyone approach to fix the so-called fiscal imbalance — offering about a $1 billion boost in equalization that would appeal to the poorer provinces, as well as additional money for post-secondary education that would particularly please Ontario.

It also envisions income and corporate tax cuts it hopes will appeal across the country...

The government has projected "quite high" revenues over the next two or three years, the insider explained, so it can afford to cut taxes, continue to spend on social programs, "and deal in a modest way with this equalization and other federal transfer programs."

Needless to say, the provinces (and Canadians) would be far better served by making equalization and transfer payments the top priorities - not by having such core funding issues dealt with in a "modest" way while yet another round of tax cuts takes top billing. But the good news is that now that the Cons' cards are on the table, it should be a lot easier for the provinces to join forces to seek a solution which will strengthen their ability to deliver programs rather than undermining it.

A first move

Today's CP article on the upcoming premiers' meeting doesn't seem to pay a ton of attention to a significant shift in position. But if Dalton McGuinty's comment is any indication, it may not be long before the provinces are able to put some serious pressure on the Cons rather than arguing amongst themselves:

Mr. McGuinty, who has been firm in his stance against enriching equalization payments, risked entering the lion's den last week when he wrapped up a cross-country tour in Newfoundland to explain his position.

While he declined to reveal where he was willing to compromise, he hinted boosting the national equalization program would likely be one aspect of a solution that satisfies everyone.

“I think that's ultimately where the consensus will emerge,” Mr. McGuinty said after his meeting with Mr. Williams.

Considering that Ontario's desire to push more funding toward per-capita programs than toward equalization had been one of the largest barriers to any provincial consensus, McGuinty's willingness to agree to expanded equalization could go a long way toward getting a deal done. The question now is whether the other provinces will seize the opportunity to reach agreement - and all the provinces have plenty to gain if they can present a united front to get the best possible deal out of Harper.

On inconsistent positions

It shouldn't be much of a shock that Peter MacKay continues to trumpet an utterly one-sided take on the hostilities in Lebanon. But it's a bit more surprising that he's trying to pretend to do otherwise in the process.

First, the one-sidedness, as MacKay apparently takes the position that an end to civilian casualties on both sides would somehow be a bad result to the extent that it doesn't cause enough devastation to Hezbollah (with no regard for the equal or greater devastation caused to Lebanon's population generally):

"A ceasefire and a return to the status quo is a victory for Hezbollah," said MacKay in response to questions about why Canada has not joined other countries in calling for a cessation to hostilities.

It takes a fairly thorough abandonment of logic to consider a ceasefire to be a one-sided outcome - particularly while MacKay argues in the same interview that the justification for Israel's action is to defend itself from the same attacks which would presumably be ceased.

But leaving that lack of coherence aside, one would think MacKay would at least be prepared to defend that position by arguing some need to take sides. Instead, MacKay wants to combine the Cons' partisan analysis with a claim that it's still a neutral stance:

MacKay told CTV that Canada has not abandoned its neutral voice.

"That's not correct. We've changed nothing in the way Canada approaches these circumstances on a responsive basis."

It'll be interesting to see whether the attempt to sit on the fence will help or hurt the Con cause. It could well be that the more hawkish Libs will ultimately be able to portray that claim to neutrality as a sign of weakness. Meanwhile, anybody actually looking for Canada to stay neutral won't likely be swayed by an argument that by squinting hard enough, one can reach the government's current stance through the same type of reasoning which may have been applied in the past.

In other words, MacKay's attempt to have it both ways may only undermine his party's supposed strength of being willing to stick up for its principles. And if that opens up rifts in the voting public similar to those facing the Libs over Afghanistan, then Harper may rue the day his Foreign Minister decided to try to pretend not to be different from his Lib predecessors.

On lessons

Sheila Copps unloads on Harper for mangling Canada's role in the Middle East:

Harper's vocal support for the attacks that later resulted in the deaths of several Canadians plants him squarely in the middle of a self-inflicted political nightmare. Where was the Prime Minister's compassion when it came to the Canadian loss of life? Couple his steely response with images of angry, stranded fellow citizens, and you have a recipe for political trouble with a capital T...

(A) sage prime minister rarely supplants his foreign affairs minister as the public face of an international crisis. When mistakes are made, as was the case in the initial post-G8 declaration, the prime minister can always step in to rebalance things. Former Prime Minister Jean Chretien tread gingerly when it came to overriding his foreign affairs minister. He knew a good department would respond to a supportive prime minister.

Harper's decision to manage the crisis largely from his office reinforces a dangerous trend. He, and he alone, inflicted severe damage on the government this week.

It's tough to disagree with that part of Copps' commentary. But unfortunately, her conclusion (and some of the preceding text) is a bit more questionable in its apparent willingness to give Harper the benefit of the doubt so far, despite ample evidence of Harper's refusal to take a lesson in the past:

Command and control by the Prime Minister's Office appears to have hampered evacuation efforts and sorely tested the patience of the bureaucracy. Previous complaints about Harper's insular style have largely fallen on deaf ears but this time his penchant for control could prove costly...

If Harper has any chance of turning this situation around, he must abandon his controlling style. It is one thing to be a decisive, action-oriented leader. It is another to micro-manage the activities of cabinet ministers and those public servants who have more experience in the field than their political masters...

That being said, his international faux pas can be chalked up to inexperience. Only time will tell whether he is prime minister enough to learn from his own mistakes.

At this point, experience (not to mention Harper's own refusal to back down from his initial position) should put the onus on Harper to show some desire to learn from his mistakes. In the absence of any clear evidence of change, the only possible impact of people like Copps giving Harper the benefit of the doubt is to reduce the public fallout from his stubbornness. And by the time Copps and her ilk decide the "inexperience" excuse doesn't apply anymore, it may be too late to replace Harper with someone better suited to dealing with the world.

On challenges

The CP reports on Tim Harvey's zero-emissions journey around the world in an effort to raise awareness of global warming. Harvey deserves plenty of credit for drawing attention to the issue, but it's hard to disagree with the comment of a David Suzuki foundation spokesman:

Ian Bruce of the David Suzuki Foundation said Harvey's efforts at raising awareness of what he calls the "greatest threat facing humanity" are crucial.

But he reminds Canadians they don't have to go to Harvey's extremes to make a difference.

"People shouldn't feel alone. Canadians feel this is a top priority," Bruce said.

In a sense, the metaphor of a harrowing journey around the world could only make tackling global warming appear both distant and difficult...when in fact many of the answers are already readily available and accessible. And hopefully that fact won't get lost as Harvey finishes the last leg of his trip.

The more things change...

There's been plenty of reason for concern early in the Cons' tenure in power about attempts by Harper and company to manipulate the media - most glaringly through Colin Mayes' well-reported musings about jailing reporters. But until I stumbled onto this case (Reference Re Alberta Statutes - The Bank Taxation Act; The Credit of Alberta Regulation Act; and the Accurate News and Information Act, [1938] S.C.R. 100) a couple of weeks back, I hadn't realized that attempts to control the editorial content of the media are nothing new in Canadian politics even well outside of wartime. So let's take a look at this example of an attempt to subvert the free press...and note the seeds of a similar attitude within the Cons' actions today.

The background to the linked decision lies in Alberta's provincial Social Credit government attempting to pass legislation to create a social credit-based economy, and seeking to ensure public support for its scheme by limiting media criticism of that effort (emphasis added):

Section 3 provides that any proprietor, editor, publisher or manager of any newspaper published in the province shall, when required to do so by the Chairman of the Board constituted by section 3 of the Alberta Social Credit Act, publish in that newspaper any statement furnished by the Chairman which has for its object the correction or amplification of any statement relating to any policy or activity of the government of the province published by that newspaper within the next preceding thirty-one days.

And section 4 provides that the proprietor, etc., of any newspaper upon being required by the Chairman in writing shall within twenty-four hours after the delivery of the requirement

make a return in waiting setting out every source from which any information emanated, as to any statement contained in any issue of the newspaper published within sixty days of the making of the requirement and the names, addresses and occupations of all persons by whom such information was furnished to the newspaper and the name and address of the writer of any editorial, article or news item contained in any such issue of the newspaper.

While the wider legislation was struck down based on its interference in federal jurisdiction over banking, even 44 years before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms the Supreme Court was less than shy in declaring that such an attempt to undermine the free press was not welcome. Cannon J. discussed the aims of the Alberta government as follows:

It is...essential to control the sources of information of the people of Alberta, in order to keep them immune from any vacillation in their absolute faith in the plan of the government. The Social Credit doctrine must become, for the people of Alberta, a sort of religious dogma of which a free and uncontrolled discussion is not permissible. The bill aims to control any statement relating to any policy or activity of the government of the province and declares this object to be a matter of public interest...The pith and substance of the bill is to regulate the press of Alberta from the viewpoint of public policy by preventing the public from being misled or deceived as to any policy or activity of the Social Credit Government and by reducing any opposition to silence or bring upon it ridicule and public contempt.

And lest there be any doubt what Cannon J. thought of such an attempt to slam the door shut on public debate:

(I)t seems to me that the Alberta legislature by this retrograde Bill is attempting to revive the old theory of the crime of seditious libel by enacting penalties, confiscation of space in newspapers and prohibitions for actions which, after due consideration by the Dominion Parliament, have been declared innocuous and which, therefore, every citizen of Canada can do lawfully and without hindrance or fear of punishment. It is an attempt by the legislature to amend the Criminal Code in this respect and to deny the advantage of sect. 133 (a) to the Alberta newspaper pub­lishers.

Under the British system, which is ours, no political party can erect a prohibitory barrier to prevent the electors from getting information concerning the policy of the government. Freedom of discussion is essential to enlighten public opinion in a democratic State; it cannot be curtailed without affecting the right of the people to be informed through sources independent of the government concerning matters of public interest. There must be an untrammelled publication of the news and political opinions of the political parties contending for ascendancy. As stated in the preamble of The British North America Act, our constitution is and will remain, unless radically changed, "similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom." At the time of Confederation, the United Kingdom was a democracy. Democracy cannot be maintained without its foundation: free public opinion and free discussion throughout the nation of all matters affecting the State within the limits set by the criminal code and the common law.

Needless to say, it doesn't seem likely that the Cons would attempt to pass any similar legislation now - particularly given that the notwithstanding clause would almost certainly be required for such legislation to be upheld under the Charter. But there are still hints of a similar view that information should be completely one-sided.

From Harper himself we of course saw a complete refusal to answer media questions on any terms other than his own, an attitude which he's now spread to Lebanese refugees being used for his political purposes, who have been told to send an e-mail to Harper's office rather than disturbing his flight of fancy. And then there's Peter MacKay, who has parroted the Social Credit view all the more strongly, demanding the names of sources and claiming that no critical article should be written without a government rebuttal.

Now as in the 1930s, there's little reason to think that public-pressure methods alone will manage to suppress information to any great degree. But there's still a serious danger in even a small incremental decrease in the media's willingness to report truths which the government doesn't want told. And in that sense, we can only hope that the Cons' current attempts to suppress dissent end up a historical footnote like Social Credit's...and not the start of any new pattern in Canadian media relations.

Recognizing the cure

Gordon Guyatt of the Medical Reform Group criticizes the CMA for refusing to consider the best option in dealing with health care:

Last month, the Canadian Medical Association presented the public with four choices regarding the future of Canadian medical care. Their options include the status quo and three progressively more extreme moves toward privatization.

Unfortunately, they left out the fifth, best choice — strengthening publicly funded health care, delivered by not-for-profit providers...

The position paper released last month, the CMA's next step, has major limitations. The first problem is that it endorses the myth that publicly funded health care is unsustainable...In the past 15 years, publicly funded health care has grown parallel with the rest of the economy. In a picture that differs from almost every other developed country, Canadian public spending on health care as a proportion of the GDP remains at the same level as in 1992, under 7.5 per cent.

Second, in setting up its four options, the CMA neglected the choice made by the three key health-care reports of the past decade: the National Health Forum of 1997, the Romanow commission, and the study by Senator Michael Kirby.

All recommended a strengthening of publicly funded health care, with national home-care and pharmacare programs.

Kudos to Guyatt for highlighting the all-too-often neglected facts showing that the public system is both completely sustainable, and the best option to ensure high-quality care for all Canadians in the long term. Hopefully between Guyatt's group and the Canadian Doctors for Medicare which formed earlier this year, there will be enough internal pressure to push the CMA to itself recognize those factors in making future decisions.

Choosing sides

Just in case there was any doubt which side the Con government is on in the softwood lumber dispute, take a look at the official Ottawa reaction to yet another win in court on the softwood deal, this one potentially resulting in an order of a full refund:

Friday's 74-page ruling sided with the Canadians in a decision an industry spokesman said opens the door to refunding about $5 billion US in duties and interest...

Federal International Trade Minister David Emerson was unavailable for comment but his communications director said the ruling changes nothing.

“The fact is this decision can be and most likely will be appealed rather quickly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the federal circuit,” Robert Klager said from Ottawa. “The final outcome of that probably wouldn't be learned until mid-2007.”

It shouldn't be much of a secret that the winning side in a decision should generally want to highlight the outcome, not minimize it. But for Harper and Emerson, a win for Canada is a personal loss, since they've staked their credibility on the claim that Canada can't do anything more than grin and bear it while the U.S. does what it wants. Which makes it less than surprising that Canada's supposed leaders are calling for us to declare defeat in the face of victory...but also begs the question of how long enemies of Canada's cause should be left in charge.

A predictable split

As would be expected, there's been lots of discussion of Jim Karygiannis' resignation as Joe Volpe's campaign manager, mostly in the context of wondering whether this will finally cause Volpe to drop out of the race just a few months too late.

But what does it say about Karygiannis that he:
(a) left the campaign over disagreement over a single policy point (even granting that I'd agree with Karygiannis in the argument) rather than the continuing saga of Apotex, questionable donations and repeated shots by Volpe at his own foot; and
(b) apparently wasn't sufficiently aware of Volpe's track record of favouring Israel's position ahead of all else to identify the potential problem long before he signed onto the campaign?

Update: And to show the depth of the belief he's supposedly defending, Karygiannis apparently hasn't ruled out returning to the Volpe camp:

Later, Karygiannis said he quit, adding he might work for another candidate's campaign or even go back to Volpe.

"People's minds do change," he said.

Making the case

The NDP's Alex Atamanenko chimes in on the Cons' attempt to exclude many farmers from any say in the future of the Canadian Wheat Board:

“The Conservatives call this an opportunity for dialogue among farmers, but it’s really a setup to design an end to the Canadian Wheat Board,” said Atamanenko. “They’ve only invited their friends and people who tout the corporate dual-marketing agenda, and they’ve excluded all those who support the Board’s single-desk selling system.”

Atamanenko called on Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl to cancel July’s partisan event. He noted that the Canadian Wheat Board is a self-sustaining organization whose representatives are elected by farmers — and whose future should be driven by all sectors of the farming community.

“This event is an outrage,” said Atamanenko. “This government is spending tax dollars to cover expenses for a rent-a-crowd at a forum whose only goal is to discredit farmers’ own organizations and promote the corporate agribusiness agenda.”...

“The Conservatives must stop pretending that the last election was a plebiscite on the Canadian Wheat Board’s future. They have no mandate to apply a back-door process to dismantle what farmers have worked for decades to build,” said Atamanenko.

It remains to be seen whether the movement to force the government to acknowledge either the current democratic structure of the CWB or the vast number of farmers and groups who support it. But a little more attention now can't hurt...and may well be enough to force the Cons into a more reasonable process in the long run.

A plausibility gap

CanWest reminds us that the Cons' child care cheques will benefit those who need child-care support more than those who don't, in particular by eliminating the young child supplement under the child tax benefit. But don't worry, the Cons are at the ready with their excuse as to why that fact hasn't been highlighted:

Fiona MacLeod, a spokeswoman for National Revenue Minister Carol Skeleton, called the lack of an explanation about the benefit cut an oversight caused by "a communications gap."

So where does that gap in communications originate? Well, one could look to the Cons' platform, which promises "$1,200 per year for each pre-school child". Then there's Diane Finley's comments about "a $1,200-a-year benefit for all parents of preschoolers". And then again after the introduction of the budget, Finley continued to insist on an actual gain of $1200, with a convenient lack of any mention of the clawback. And I'm sure there are plenty more examples of the Cons trumpeting the $1,200 number while merrily ignoring the planned clawbacks.

But now, Canadians are supposed to believe that it was simply because of an unintentional oversight that the Cons went out of their way to avoid mentioning the clawbacks in their child-care plan.

Which I'd think is fair enough...but only if the Cons will at least acknowledge the need to close the gap starting now. So I can only assume we'll see a summer of Finley, Skelton and others giving their public appearances in front of a backdrop printed with "-$249. Screw the Poor" to even things out.

Fading issues

There's been lots of discussion of the latest Strategic Counsel poll. But I'm not sure there's been much attention paid to a couple of relatively well-hidden issue numbers which seem likely to cause some trouble for the Cons in particular, and possibly the Libs as well.

First, and not surprisingly, the sponsorship scandal has effectively dropped off the radar as a voting issue, going from the top-ranking issue with 11% of the population to 1%. It could be that the fact that the Accountability Act has passed will ultimately hurt the Cons in the long run: now that there's an impression that the matter has been dealt with, nobody seems particularly interested in continuing to hold the sponsorship issue against the Libs.

Of course, the counterbalance to the loss of such protest votes should be the Cons' current advantage in selling their message. And in that regard, it's amazing to see the decline in Canadians who see "government stability" as the top issue, dropping from 18% last year (when it ranked as the top issue) to 7% now - and that after a campaign which resulted in both a change in government, and a second consecutive minority Parliament.

As far as I can tell, that number has a couple of implications. First, it suggests that an awful of lot Lib votes in the last election may have been based more on inertia and incumbency than any great support for the Libs' policy platform. And if that's the case, the Libs have plenty of work to do now that "more of the same" isn't an argument in their favour anymore. (Indeed, the lessened fear of the unknown may only help the NDP's cause in presenting itself as the better alternative to Harper.)

As for the Cons, though, it also means that Canadians aren't buying Harper's arguments that a "stable majority" is needed to allow the government to deal with voters' priorities. Canadians are a lot more concerned with their health and their environment than with any fear of another election or change in government. And if Harper does want to force an election, whether on national security, softwood lumber or any of the other areas where he's threatened to drop the writ, the vast majority of Canadians have no fear of breaking whatever continuity the Cons may have created.

Recycled plans

Meanwhile on the home front, the CP reports that the Cons' much-ballyhooed environmental plan will take the general shape of...a plan which involves the environment in some way. Ordinarily I'd criticize any effort in reporting such glaringly content-free and self-serving leaks...except that it's not clear that some key parts of the plan will themselves be any more substantive:

Some elements of the proposed plan such as setting air-quality objectives for the long term but not the immediate future, mirror similar measures in the United States...

Pierre Sadik of the David Suzuki Foundation said environmentalists will be vigilant to ensure that the plan is not just a public relations exercise to boost Conservative prospects in the next election.

"We've seen this kind of green plan before, what with Mulroney's original Green Plan, and then the Liberal government had its Project Green, and in both cases, after the fireworks of the announcements and so on . . . the plans kind of fizzled.

"Unless this new plan has clear targets to quickly cut pollution in the short term, then the promised relief will always be just over the horizon, kind of just after the next election."

Sadik worries that the emissions-cutting targets will be set 10 or 15 years in the future.

"We'll be watching the government very closely to make sure the plan doesn't leave the government any wiggle room to get out of its environmental commitments to Canadians."

Needless to say, with several sources strategically leaking information on the issue as well, the Cons are trying to be seen doing something. But there's plenty of reason for concern Sadik's fears are well-founded. And it's worth pointing out now that the Cons won't be believed any more than the Libs in claiming that vague long-term goals are a meaningful substitute for real progress.

An obvious lesson

Shorter Stephen Harper: "So it turns out the rest of the world matters. Who'da thunk it?"

The hard-working face of poverty

The National Council of Welfare has released its most recent annual report, suggesting that not only is one full-time job insufficient to keep a lot of families out of poverty, but even two falls short of the mark in a large number of cases:

A job, even two, is no guarantee against poverty, indicates a new report, which notes one-quarter of poor families in Canada have a breadwinner who works full time.

"Employment is vital to avoiding poverty, yet, many jobs do not pay enough to keep a family out of poverty," the National Council of Welfare says in its latest annual report on poverty in Canada for the year 2003.

Even having two earners in a family is not always enough to lift a family above the poverty line, the federal advisory council says, noting 6.2 per cent of two-earner families were living below the poverty line.

Of course, since the report is discussed is in a CanWest article, there's bound to be some attempt to pretend that government can't do anything to help the situation. And sure enough:

Meanwhile, the report also notes that despite the impact of government transfers and income taxes the gap in after-tax incomes between rich and poor has widened.

Since 1980, the average income of the poorest 20 per cent of Canadians has, after discounting inflation, increased by four per cent to $12,000 while that of the richest 20 per cent has surged 14 per cent to $105,800.

It shouldn't have taken too much research to determine that the gap could easily be explained by decreasing government involvement via the mid-90s cutbacks and ensuing anti-tax fixation. But far easier to pretend that "government transfers and income taxes" have stayed constant yet failed to alleviate the hardships facing low-income workers.

Of course, that type of obfuscation is needed to try to pretend there's no available answer to a situation which all but the most extreme right-wing theorist would recognize to be a problem. It's painfully clear that many Canadians are indeed working extremely hard and playing by the rules, and still facing life below the poverty line as their reward. And that shouldn't be an acceptable outcome regardless of one's political stripe.

Update: The C.D. Howe Institute, meanwhile, is criticizing Canadians who don't want to pull up stakes and race to where the jobs are, with no apparent regard for the fact that the areas booming most also have severe housing and infrastructure shortages which could eat into any employment income in a hurry.

The definition of insanity

It certainly can't speak well for the provinces' ability to reach a consensus on federal/provincial funding when not only has there been no apparent movement in previous positions, but they're trying to excuse their past inability to agree on anything by claiming they weren't really trying:

McGuinty said all 13 provinces and territories appear to have different positions but he remains optimistic they can find consensus.

Lord said he doubts that will happen next week at the Council of the Federation meeting in Newfoundland and Labrador.

"I'm hopeful and doubtful at the same time, in the sense that I'm hopeful we can arrive at a consensus, but I'm doubtful it can happen next week," said Lord.

Lord said their last meetings in Montreal and Edmonton were confrontational, but he feels confident everyone will seek common ground in St. John's, N.L.

It wouldn't seem too difficult to move toward a hybrid position which looks primarily at expanding the envelope of funding to the provinces, rather than arguing over whether to fund only equalization or program transfers to the exclusion of the other. But so far, the proposals moving in that direction seem to have fallen on deaf ears in Ontario and New Brunswick...and there's plenty of reason to think each of McGuinty and Lord is looking for the other to make the first move toward any compromise.

Needless to say, the only way a positive deal is going to come about is through concerted provincial pressure on the Cons - and surely most provinces want something better at the end of the day than another set of federal tax cuts coupled with a dare to raise taxes provincially. But as long as McGuinty and Lord are more concerned with posturing against their fellow premiers, there won't be any reason at all for optimism in St. John's or elsewhere.

On choosing one's words

CanWest reports on a focus group analysis discusing attitudes about Canada's First Nations. But while there's plenty to be dubious about the content of the analysis, a particular element of the structure of the focus group strikes me as even more questionable.

According to the article, the focus groups were held between November 7 and 21, 2005, and discussed in large part the question of aboriginal "entitlements", including issues such as housing and education within the scope of that term.

Technically, the use can be seen as accurate. But the choice of the word "entitlement" seems rather curious in light of the other way in which the term was making headlines around that time, referring of course to the Libs' "culture of entitlement" (with of course very little of the associated commentary being positive). For examples of the phrase being used in the time not long before the focus groups were conducted, it appears to have spread widely around May 2005 (see e.g. this column crediting Chantal Hebert with the phrase), appeared in an October 16 editorial in the Toronto Sun, and of course figured prominently in the first Gomery report released on November 1.

In case one wanted to argue that the term was likely drawn from another source, consider that the word "entitlement" doesn't seem to be used to any great degree by First Nations leaders in defining either treaty rights and commitments or Canada's general fiduciary duty. On a quick search of the AFN website, for example, the word "entitlement" is used primarily with respect to either individual pension entitlements or the formal Treaty Land Entitlement process - and hardly ever with respect to general funding for First Nations initiatives.

It's hard to say what impact, if any, the terminology would have had, though it seems likely to have had at least a slight effect in a couple of respects. First, it could easily have put a negative face on First Nations issues for the focus group participants. Second, and most dangerously, it could have presented an impression that necessary programs for First Nations should be classified under the same general title as Liberal Party corruption - which, needless to say, both unduly flatters the Libs in light of the sponsorship scandal, and unduly diminishes the importance of First Nations issues. And unfortunately, this latter effect is only amplified now that the focus group analysis has been made public and the label included in the headline.

It could be that the use of "entitlement" was unintentional, or indeed influenced unconsciously by the presence of the term in the media around the time the focus group was conducted. But nonetheless, the unnecessary inclusion of loaded political language in a study on attitudes about First Nations seems likely only to feed into the unfortunate tendency of many to minimize the importance of the issues in question.

With friends like these...

FBI Director Robert Mueller criticizes Canada for its continued insistence on fair trials and reasonable sentences. Can a future demand for a true Guantanamo North be far behind?

Worth a read

The Guardian's Rebecca Front takes the time to put into words what I always consider to be unstated assumptions about the value of libraries:

I find it hard to understand how anyone can fail to see that libraries are a great institution which deserves to be cherished. If someone said to you, "I know this place where you can go and hang around for as long as you like, browsing books, newspapers and magazines, using the internet, keeping out of the rain. And if you see a book you fancy, you can take it home - free. Take a few, why don't you, and some CDs and DVDs while you're at it. And then, when you've finished reading, and you're fed up with them sitting around cluttering your shelves and gathering dust ... you can take them back and swap them for something else"... you'd think that was pretty amazing, wouldn't you?

And yet, when you ask people how often they visit a library - if indeed they belong to one - you discover that they regard it in much the same way as having a composting bin in the garden. It's a great idea, you can't fault it and, sooner or later, we might get round to trying it. So it's no surprise that councils across the country are cutting back their funding, presumably working on the assumption that, famed as they are for their quietness, library users won't make too much noise about it.

Front notes the lack of funding facing many UK libraries...and it's not hard to draw a connection between that reality and the similar problems facing those at home. And while the challenges here have only confirmed that there's no lack of people devoted to making sure that the wonder of free access to information is maintained to the greatest degree possible, it never hurts to remind oneself just how important a concept is being defended.

Hurting those who can least afford it

Sun Media reports on an annual exercise in absurdity, as Canadian seniors who don't pay federal income tax face the prospect of losing their low-income pension supplement due to a failure to file tax forms this year:

Thousands of Canada's poorest elderly citizens are having their low-income pension supplement cut off without advance warning because they didn't complete this year's tax forms.

Service Canada is being bombarded with calls from stunned seniors who received letters advising them they won't be getting monthly payments because they failed to file tax returns. Many seniors don't realize they must return tax forms even if they don't owe money.

One Service Canada operator told Sun Media about 75% of the current incoming calls are from worried seniors recently advised that their Guaranteed Income Supplement, which tops-up the Old Age Security pension, will be cancelled if they don't fill out a new application or file a tax return. Many of them will now have to wait several extra weeks to get the payment...

NDP seniors' issues critic Chris Charlton said the sudden cut-off is an annual problem caused by an "irresponsible policy."

While there can be little doubt that there's a need to keep track of supplement recipients through annual returns, there's still a serious problem with the current process as described in the article. There doesn't seem to be any reason at all why notices couldn't be sent with enough lead time to ensure that low-income seniors can respond without facing a multi-week delay in an already-meager payment. And it's an embarrassment to both past governments and the current one that such an obvious step hasn't been taken to ensure that Canada's low-income seniors are able to make ends meet.

A booming market in echo chambers

As if we needed more examples of the Cons utterly refusing to listen to anybody with an even remotely different viewpoint from their own, two more glaring examples surfaced yesterday.

First, Diane Finley is supposedly in the middle of consultations to figure out how to try to get at least a couple of child-care spaces out of the funding which according to the Cons' campaign promises should create 125,000. But those consultations have completely excluded the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada.

Second, as pointed out by timethief, Chuck Strahl is holding meetings to determine how to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board. And in keeping with the "no dissenting views" policy, nobody from the CWB itself or any other group which would tend to support the CWB was granted any opportunity to join the discussion.

Of course, there is a downside to making decisions before tolerating any opposing view, as those who do disagree with the Cons will be all the more motivated to make sure they don't have the power to exclude anybody in the future. And considering how few Canadians have anything to gain from the Cons' stubbornness on both of these files, it's not hard to anticipate the bubbles being popped with a vengeance before too long.

More shady dealing

The NDP (led by MP Dennis Bevington) points out that the softwood lumber sellout may not be the only bad deal Harper's pushed for now that the Cons have played a supporting role in a natural gas partnership between PetroCanada and Gazprom:

“Canada has so many opportunities in the energy sector and in conservation that we don't need our government to be a cheerleader for Russian LNG,” said Bevington. “It doesn’t matter whether you look at this deal from a trade perspective, from the perspective of workers drilling for natural gas, from an energy security perspective, from a government revenue perspective, or from an environmental perspective, this deal is just plain bad for Canada.”

This deal will have the following negative impacts:

- Under the North American Free Trade Agreement, the amount of natural gas Canada must provide to the United States would increase if we imported gas from Russia, however, if Russia cut back on the amount it was supplying, the American quota would stay the same, thus forcing Canadians to give up supplies we might need for ourselves;
- Canadians working in the natural gas exploration and development industries will face loss of employment as Russian imports replace the need for new wells;
- Canada’s energy security will be undermined as we come to rely on imported sources of energy, when we could be self-sufficient;
= The federal government will see a loss of potential revenue as every cubic metre of Russian LNG means lost royalty revenues from an equal amount of Canadian natural gas; and
- The liquefaction, transportation and regasification of LNG are energy intensive processes which would result in as much as 40 per cent more Greenhouse Gas Emissions than would result from burning domestic natural gas supplied by a pipeline.

In case you were wondering, that's the same Gazprom which Harper bashed just days ago based on its history of manipulating gas exports for political purposes. But now that it's Harper's political purposes at play, the problem seems to have vanished rather quickly.

So what comes next? It's worth taking a closer look to see if there are ways of mitigating the harmful effects of the natural gas deal (I hear the Standing Committee on International Trade has a few meetings planned already). But based on the Cons' track record, it doesn't seem likely that any of the potential negative effects have been taken into account in the deal as negotiated...and once again there's no basis to justify substantive problems down the road based primarily on Harper's desire pretend to be a competent dealmaker now.

Don't get your hopes up

In his column this morning, James Travers somehow came to the conclusion that Stephen Harper would learn based on this weekend's events to place a higher value on good policy than politics, and as a result avoid embarrassments like his knee-jerk response to last week's events in the Middle East in the future.

Later this morning, Harper proved that optimism to be unfounded, refusing to retract a word of his original comments despite this weekend's G8 diplomatic intervention.

Sadly, Travers and others in the media seem no less resolute in their determination to claim that Harper is willing to be flexible than Harper is in his own infallibility. And there isn't much reason for optimism that anybody is interested in budging from their position anytime soon...no matter how often Harper proves his media supporters wrong.

Update: As Woman at Mile 0 points out, it's far from clear that Harper succeeded on the "good politics" angle either. But the "knee-jerk response" part seems all the more certain.

Ever less doubt

A BBC poll takes a look at opinions about energy around the world. And lest there be any doubt, the poll confirms that those in favour of improved conservation and energy use are in a massive majority both in Canada and around the world:

Nine in 10 Canadians fear that the way the world uses and produces energy is harming the environment. Only in Australia and Great Britain are levels of concern higher.

Canadians are also among the most concerned that energy shortages or rising prices will destabilize the world economy, with 85 per cent expressing that fear.

And more than eight in 10 Canadians are worried that competition for energy will lead to greater conflict between nations.

On all three questions, Canadians express higher levels of alarm than the international average. In all 19 nations, 81 per cent fear that energy use is harming the environment, 77 per cent think energy shortages and prices could harm the world economy and 72 per cent think energy competition could spark more conflict.

Canadians are among the most enthusiastic supporters of tax incentives for renewable energy, with 91 per cent in favour, and for requiring automakers to increase fuel efficiency, with nearly eight in 10 backing the idea.

It remains to be seen whether the Cons will continue going against the weight of public opinion by remaining disinterested both in the environmental implications of further energy development, and in the need for national conservation programs. But if so, then it may not be long before Harper and company become inextricably associated with problems which a vast majority of Canadians want to see addressed.

An obvious cause

The CP reports on the Con cheque-swapping scandal, with a distinct flavour of "but everybody does it" based on the fact that cheque-swapping was a common practice until a couple of years ago. Unfortunately, that angle largely misses the central point, which is that there's a very good reason why the other two main parties stopped the practice in 2004:

(U)nlike the Tories, who continued to promote the scheme to help defray delegate expenses at their 2005 convention, the two opposition parties say they stopped the practice in 2004 after political financing laws were overhauled...

Political financing reforms in 2004 addressed he (sic) practice. Under the reforms, personal donations were capped at $5,400 each year and, in a bid to prevent attempts to circumvent the limit, a clause was added expressly forbidding anyone from making a donation in the name of or on behalf of another person or entity.

But while the other two parties made sure to comply with the new law, all signs point to the Cons failing completely either at determining the effects of the law, or at making sure that their riding associations complied with it:

MMike Donison, the Conservatives' executive director, has said the party had no knowledge that local organizers were using cheque-swapping and did not approve or condone the practice...

(Liberal national director Steven) MacKinnon said the Liberals went to considerable effort and expense to analyse the complex political financing reforms and to ensure no one in the party inadvertently breached the law.

Similarly, (NDP federal secretary Eric) Hebert said he spent six months on the phone with officials at Elections Canada, going over every detail of the changes in the law. He acknowledged that some of the complicated details might have been lost on local Tory organizers, but he said it's the responsibility of the central party to ensure all party members respect the law.

Needless to say, given how clear it appears that the Cons couldn't be bothered to ensure that their riding associations understood or followed the law, it's hard to have any confidence that the Con government is any better at policing itself now that it's taken power. And Harper may well have one more reason to push for the earliest election possible in order to minimize the likelihood of anybody else tracking down any similar tendency to play fast and loose with the rules within the government before Canada next goes to the polls.

Questionable period

It's always amusing to see how Question Period's Craig Oliver will warp the facts to fit his message, and he was in fine form today asking his guests how many casualties it'll take before Canadians "lose faith" in the Afghanistan mission. Now if only any of the guests had been paying enough attention to the consistent public consensus against the mission already to call Oliver on his false premise.

(Edit: typo.)

Democracy on the brink

A couple of stories have come out this week suggesting that the relative calm following Rene Preval's election in Haiti is now coming to an end. First, supporters of the exiled Jean-Bertrand Aristide held a peaceful protest to demand Aristide's return:

Thousands of people have demonstrated in Haiti's capital, Port-au-Prince, demanding the return of exiled former President, Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Supporters chanted "Aristide or death!" and "Aristide's blood is our blood!" as they marched to the National Palace on the ex-leader's 53rd birthday...

President Rene Preval had said during this year's election campaign he would consider allowing him to return home...

Saturday's march was largely peaceful although there were some stand-offs with riot police.

Of course, such a non-violent protest should be exactly the type of freedom of speech which should be available to Haitians as well as to citizens of other countries. But while Aristide's supporters took peaceful democratic action, the violent gang warfare that has marked far too much of Haiti's recent history also made its return:

The killings began before dawn. Men armed with automatic rifles walked through the hillside slum of Grand Ravine, warning of a fire and yelling for residents to come out of their cinder-block and sheet-metal shacks. Those who obeyed were gunned down.

Several hours later, Haitian morgue workers and UN peacekeepers from Sri Lanka piled bodies in one of the slum's main thoroughfares, a rocky stream bed at the bottom of the ravine after which the neighbourhood is named. The body count totalled 21, including three women and four children. Most of the victims were killed with a bullet to the head...

The massacre was as unexpected as it was gruesome. For several weeks, rival gangs had exchanged fire in a turf war over control of the slum. But the massacre that took place last Friday was so arbitrary - family members, neighbours, human rights observers and police all agree the victims were not gang members - that UN and Haitian officials believe it may have been in part an attempt to destabilise the newly elected government of President Rene Preval.

Whether or not Aristide returns to the country, it's readily apparent that plenty more international support will be needed to ensure that the democratic will of Haiti's people won't be overturned yet again. Hopefully Canadian and other leaders will take notice of the current instability, and take action to make sure that Haiti's new regime continues to respect legitimate protests while also having the means to clamp down on its gang wars.

(h/t to catnip.)

Just curious

Around Canada Day, a number of Con bloggers were up in arms over the change in the holiday's name from Dominion Day 24 years ago. Will a single one of those people who were so concerned about the "tradition" and "heritage" implicit in the name of the July 1 holiday bother lifting a finger to comment on today's word that Canada's museum system is in dire need of funding in order to preserve the tangible objects most closely linked to Canada's history?

Theory and reality

Due credit to Belinda Stronach for her suggestions on how to reform the Liberal party's internal structure. But is there any real chance that Stronach's ideas will win out when the leadership race which Stronach chose to sit out is so solidly based on Lib politics as usual?

Contrasts

Stephen Harper's comment when Russia limits gas supplies to the Ukraine for political reasons:

We believe in the free exchange of energy products based on competitive market principles, not self-serving monopolistic political strategies.

Stephen Harper's comment when the U.S. holds up Russia's entry into the World Trade Organization for political reasons (in this case an expectation that Congress won't settle for anything less than increased guaranteed access for U.S. agricultural products):

*sound of crickets chirping*

(Edit: cleaned up wording.)