On quick turnarounds

The Cons show once again that while they may be looking for ways to appease the base behind closed doors, they'll cave the moment an issue goes public. This time, the issue is funding to women's groups, as the two groups highlighted by the NDP this week have both had their funding restored for the next year:

A pair of women's groups that had prepared to close their doors for fear of cuts by the Conservative government learned Friday their federal funding has been secured for at least another year.

The National Association of Women and the Law and the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action had both taken steps to scale down their operations because of unusual delays in getting approvals for their funding.

Uncertainty has reigned around programs supported by Status of Women Canada since a campaign began this summer by pro-Conservative groups to axe the department. Status of Women Minister Bev Oda has so far failed to publicly defend her department, and has instead made allusions to mismanagement and wasted funds.

Needless to say, there's no reason for confidence that the Cons would have extended the funding if they had the cushion of a majority Parliament. But for now at least, there isn't much doubt that the Cons can be pushed to reverse back-room decisions (or wilful inaction) as long as a group can call enough public attention to an issue. Which should only provide all the more incentive for Canadians to keep a close eye on what the Cons are and aren't doing in the meantime.

Scratching the surface of deep integration

I'd planned on putting together a roundup of posts on last week's Banff deep integration conference - that is, until Alison got there first. So stop by Creekside for the full details on PMS' latest attempts to bend over for Bushco. (Not to mention the pathetic excuse for media coverage when there aren't any press releases for reporters to repeat.)

While I'm not as opposed as some might be to additional cooperation agreements with the U.S., any positive agreement would have to be based on public input, balance between business and other interests, and mutual enforceability which all appear sorely lacking in the current talks. And the more people know about what's going on, the better the chances of avoiding being stuck with yet another capitulation on our hands.

Update: catnip has more.

A well-deserved win

The NDP has again managed to push the Cons to back off of a boneheaded course of action - this time to do with the Cons' plan to reduce the number of flight attendants on Canadian airplanes:

Today, NDP Transport Critic Peter Julian, MP (Burnaby-New Westminster) applauded the overdue decision of the Conservative government to back off on lessening air safety standards by decreasing the number of flight attendants on Canadian flights.

“It’s high time that this government recognized that there can never be any compromise on the safety standards that threaten people’s lives on Canadian aircrafts. Flight attendants have saved many lives through their prompt action and dedication. Today’s development is a prime example of what an effective public campaign can accomplish when people band together to put pressure on the minority Conservative government,” stated Julian.

For the past year, Transportation Critic Peter Julian along with his colleagues from the NDP and members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), which represents flight attendants, have worked to prevent the government from cutting the number of flight attendants on Canadian planes.

“By reducing the number of required attendants you reduce passenger safety,” said Julian. “We will watch this Conservative government like a hawk to make sure they do not backtrack on this decision and once again put public airline safety in jeopardy."

It's only amazing that the Cons took so long (and offered so much resistance) before deciding that air safety is worth preserving. But for the moment, the adults have won another round...and with any luck, the Cons won't figure it's worth their while to try to push for reduced staff on Canadian flights again.

Obnoxious emissions

There's plenty of news related to the Cons' take on global warming today, but sadly none indicating that the Cons are any more interested in dealing with the problem than when they started indiscriminately axing programs this spring.

First, there's Gary Lunn's attempt to disavow any connection to a Con riding association meeting which has invited noted anti-environmental propagandist Tim Ball:

Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn is distancing himself and his government from a Conservative party gathering in Victoria today featuring a controversial scientist who dismisses warnings about the dangers of climate change.

Retired climatologist Tim Ball, sponsored by the Calgary-based "Friends of Science" group that is partly funded by the energy industry, travels the country arguing global warming presents no threat and could even be good for Canada...

Lunn, a key player along with Environment Minister Rona Ambrose in developing a "Made-in-Canada" alternative to the former Liberal government's plans to adhere to the Kyoto accord, said the Ball event doesn't reflect the party's attitudes.

"Absolutely it does not reflect the views of the party in any way, shape or form," Lunn told CanWest News Service, noting the three riding associations bring in speakers discussing a variety of issues.

"You know, the next speaker will probably be on the other side of the issue."

It's enough to Lunn's discredit that he seems to think that the very existence of global warming is still subject to a meaningful enough debate to justify bringing in speakers from both sides of the issue.

But then, there's no apparent reason to think any voice on the sane side of the issue will be heard at this type of meeting. A cursory look at the website of the group in question suggests that past speakers haven't included a single voice which could be described but to the Con party line or further-right. Though it may be noted that the speakers have included many MPs who would presumably "reflect the party's attitudes".

Which means that Ball can very readily be taken to fit in with the Cons' general attitudes - and that the likelihood of a future speaker in favour of responsible environmental management is slim to none, whether one looks at only the Victoria group's track record or the Cons' own track record of shutting out differing opinions.

Meanwhile, Rona Ambrose is claiming to be interested in dealing with climate change by changing the subject:

Environment Minister Rona Ambrose fired back at critics Thursday, insisting she's engaging other countries to move forward on climate change.

Although environmentalists have accused her of shirking her responsibilities as the chairperson of ongoing international negotiations, Ambrose said she's an active participant who's doing her homework on the file...

Ambrose explained her upcoming domestic plan for Canada would deliver results the population would see.

"Our plan goes beyond Kyoto because the priority for our government is the health of all Quebecers and Canadians and so our plan will attack air pollution and climate change," she said in French.

It's never quite explained how conflating other air pollution with climate change does anything on an international level other than to give other countries a precedent to similarly try to escape any meaningful action. But given that the Cons' entire environmental message has consistently been based on misdirection and wilful omission, it certainly doesn't come as a surprise to see Ambrose continuing the pattern.

Finally, and related to the Cons' lack of meaningful action, today also brought news that the Cons were going to "get tough" on emissions, with just one slight problem:

The Conservative government will force the automotive sector to comply with tough mandatory vehicle-emission requirements, using California's stringent standards as its model...

The Harper government will focus its environmental policy on fighting smog and improving air quality, with less emphasis on reducing greenhouse gases -- largely carbon emissions -- that are at the heart of the Kyoto accord.

Environment Minister Rona Ambrose hinted at the new measures on vehicle emissions in the House of Commons yesterday, saying she is looking at matching the mandatory emissions rules found in some U.S. states.

Now, the move toward reducing automotive emissions would be a plus if it were part of a larger plan which would actually meaningfully reduce emissions nationally. But there's no indication that the Cons plan to do anything more beyond that tiny step - and hints that the Cons are indeed directing the policy elsewhere rather than toward widespread emission reduction.

Which is particularly comical since Ambrose herself spent much of this spring gleefully asserting that in order to reduce emissions enough to meet Canada's Kyoto targets by addressing the transportation sector of the economy alone, we'd have to take "every car, train and bus off the road". After all, there's no apparent reason why the Cons now seem to think that a small reduction in emissions from cars alone starting in 2010 is anything approaching "tough"...and why they haven't considered the obvious implications of their previous sector-specific snark by recognizing the need for broad-based action to actually put a meaningful dent in greenhouse gas emissions.

Of course, part of the Cons' refusal to put together any real strategy to reduce emissions may be readily traced to their main supporters:

Even though the government is expected to announce its environmental plan soon, sources say the cabinet has yet to make a final decision on a central question: Namely, how it will address carbon dioxide emissions from the energy and oil and gas sectors.

The most likely scenario currently on the table is that a new Clean Air Act will signal an intent to regulate a host of pollutants, but the time needed to consult industry and the provinces, as well as to pass the act through the Commons and Senate, will likely mean most of the new pollution limits won't take effect for at least two years -- and 2010 for the regulations affecting the auto makers.

In sum, the Cons are once again showing that while they're prepared to cut environmental programs without warning, consultation or thought, they aren't prepared to do anything to replace those programs until years down the road. And even with a timeline built for indefinite delay tactics, they aren't willing to suggest any meaningful action at the end. Which only confirms that despite the Cons' protestations to the contrary, they're still taking the side of Tim Ball and his sponsors against environmental sustainability.

Update: And only the Cons, faced with the above set of stories in the same day, could feel the need to clarify that they haven't even committed to the minor actions reported.

On weak responses

Not surprisingly, the Cons have responded to the Arar inquiry by immediately pushing toward all the recommendations which would tie other groups' hands, while doing as little as possible themselves. While the RCMP is set to undergo significant reforms (potentially including the ouster of Giuliano Zaccardelli), the Cons' response in dealing with the U.S. can only be described as pathetic.

First, there's Peter MacKay looking for an excuse to spend more time with Condi without actually filing the formal complaint recommended by O'Connor J.:

One of the judge's recommendations was that Ottawa file a formal protest with the U.S. and Syrian governments over Arar's treatment.

MacKay didn't endorse that idea Thursday, but neither did he shut the door on it.

He said he's had discussions with Conoleezza (sic) Rice, the American secretary of state, and added that more talks may be forthcoming.

And then there's Stockwell Day, whose request to have Arar's name removed from the U.S.' terror watchlists couldn't have been more timid and unconvincing:

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said Thursday that he has nudged the Americans to remove Maher Arar's name from their no-fly list after a public inquiry unequivocally cleared him as a terror suspect.

Day's appeal to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security - which he hinted was a gentle suggestion rather than a demand - comes after the Canadian government removed Arar and his family from a border watch list that is used to keep tabs on terrorism suspects.

"We have removed the Arar family name, and that of his wife, from any lookout list and passed that information on," Day said under questioning in the House of Commons.

"Also, we have sent an indication that the United States may wish to do the same."

And those are the governmental recommendations where the Cons have apparently done anything at all, as there hasn't been any apparent word on eliminating profiling in information-gathering or on clear lines of accountability within the government.

Again, it shouldn't be any great surprise that the Cons are utterly unwilling to follow any recommendation that involves showing some spine in discussions with the U.S. But the Cons' disinterest in making a meaningful statement shows all the more that entirely willing to continue unquestioningly the political culture that led to Arar's torture in the first place. Which may make it only a question of when, and not whether, more innocent Canadians will end up suffering the same fate as Arar.

On both their houses

In the latest development in the Access to Information privacy breach scandal, the Cons have issued their usual implausible defence. Frankly they could have fairly realistically claimed that the policy was a remnant of Lib procedures - but the Cons had to go a step further in claiming that not a single one of the Cons' staffers involved read their e-mail such as to know that the violation occurred. Which sounds utterly ludicrous on its face - and opens up an equally significant issue about the Cons' non-responsiveness to the civil service if it's true.

Not that it seems the least bit unlikely that the policy existed under the Libs as well, particularly given their plain willingness to attack the Cons for doing precisely what they themselves did earlier. But that isn't a defence of the Cons so much as a sign of the rot in both parties - and a hint that it's time to look to somebody besides the Libs and Cons for a real change in government.

On incredible sources

CBC points out that the results of Canadian foreign aid spending are currently far too difficult to trace:

Canada's access to information laws make it hard to find out how billions of our foreign aid tax dollars are spent, says an Ottawa researcher.

Amir Attaran, a professor at the University of Ottawa, said part of the problem is Canada's foreign aid money is now funnelled through third party agencies in other countries — such as the World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) — that are not required to release the information to the Canadian public...

Attaran filed an access to information request as part of his research and said he was told by a CIDA official that the foreign agencies running the projects must OK any information that's released.

"Because the money from Canada is pooled with that of other countries, those other countries may have a right of veto over whether Canadians can know how the money was spent," he said...

Alasdair Roberts, an expert on government secrecy at Syracuse University, said the World Bank and the UNDP have an abysmal record for releasing information, despite having very good transparency rules on paper...

"There's nothing blocking the Canadian government from saying that we want audits for programs that are being funded with Canadian money and that we intend to release those audits under Canadian access law," he said.

Based on that beginning, it would seem appropriate to highlight the issue with a quote from a remotely credible opposition party on the issue. Sadly, the article instead turns to Keith Martin:

Liberal foreign affairs critic Keith Martin said the secrecy about how the money is spent is only one disadvantage of funding development projects via third party agencies.

"When monies are going to large organizations like the World Bank, not only do we lose control — we also lose credit on the ground," he said, adding that people in countries benefiting from our aid seldom work directly with Canadians anymore.

Now, I'd hope it can be agreed that the main question in foreign aid should be how much assistance it can provide - not how much credit Canada can seek for it. But that aside, the even bigger problem with Martin's statement is that the aid structure he's criticizing is essentially the same as what the Libs themselves funded for over a decade before.

Need I even point out that current Afghanistan funding through the World Bank merely expands on funding long provided by Martin's own party? Or that in a document which appears to go up to 2003, the World Bank described Canada both as "deeply involved" in shaping the World Bank, and as a consistent top contributor?

It could well be that the benefits in providing funding through third-party agencies such as the World Bank may outweigh the costs - and indeed it's worth considering whether Canada may be able to get the best of all worlds by using its "deep involvement" to ensure more accountable structures. But one way or the other, it's plain that the Libs don't have the slightest bit of credibility in criticizing the aid structures which they put in place. And any plausible suggestions for improvement will have to come from a party which can't be held responsible for precisely the problems that may now exist.

On larger lessons

Thomas Walkom discusses the fallout from the Arar Inquiry report, pointing out that while the RCMP bore the brunt of O'Connor's criticism, it was a wider political demand for visible action against terrorism that led to the torture of an innocent Canadian:

(A) more careful reading of the three-volume report of O'Connor's judicial inquiry provides a picture that, at one level, is friendlier to the RCMP than the past two days of headlines suggest and yet, at another, is more chilling. For what the critics forget is that in the months following the terror attacks on New York and Washington, RCMP officers were operating in a context that they had not created. It was not the Mounties who passed, in record time, a sweeping anti-terrorism bill that turned upside down some of Canada's traditional liberties. It was the Parliament of Canada.

By criminalizing as terrorism an entire range of often vaguely defined activities, this bill did two things. First, it brought the Mounties, as Canada's national police force, back foursquare into the national security game.

Equally important, the new anti-terror laws gave the RCMP a mandate to ferret out activities which, in more normal times, would not have been the subject of criminal investigations — such as associating with the wrong people or carrying out otherwise lawful activities that could be construed as aiding the wrong people. Having once done this the Mounties were somehow supposed to collect evidence capable of passing muster in a criminal trial.

Lurking in the background was an overwhelming climate of fear. As O'Connor recounts, the operating assumption within government throughout the immediate post 9/11 period was that another terror attack was not only possible but imminent.

Few were calling on police to be careful. Quite the reverse. The public wanted quick action and so did the politicians. Normally sensible media commentators were recommending that security services engage in so-called "black operations" even if that meant cutting a few civil-liberty corners.

While the institutional reforms at the RCMP suggested by the report should be welcomed, the more important question is whether we've moved past a political environment where the desire for decisive action is seen to outweigh the need for such niceties as evidence and truth. And with the Cons trying to place all the blame on the Lib government rather than recognizing the wider context (which they helped to create), it doesn't seem unlikely that the current contrition toward Arar will be soon forgotten and replaced by a new thirst for blood.

More sorry excuses

The CP reports on the Cons' not-so-surprising unwillingness to argue in favour of PMS' refusal to apologize to Maher Arar. But needless to say, the Cons' failure to be so brazen as to continue trying to justify Arar's torture (as they did in opposition) hasn't led to any progress in Harper's actual position:

Maher Arar finally has a unanimous apology from the House of Commons for his detention and torture in Syria.

But a senior Conservative minister insisted Wednesday that he and other cabinet members were expressing their personal feelings by joining in the move — not necessarily speaking for the government...

The confusion arose after the Bloc Quebecois presented a motion stating that “in the opinion of this House an apology should be presented to Maher Arar regarding the treatment he has been subjected to.”

Prime Minister Stephen Harper had repeatedly refused to offer such an apology on behalf of the government since the release of a public inquiry report that cleared Arar’s name Monday.

But the Tories, apparently fearing political embarrassment, gave their consent Wednesday after the Liberals and NDP signed on to the Bloc motion...

NDP Leader Jack Layton welcomed Tory support for the motion but called it “unfortunate” that Harper couldn’t be present in the House when it passed.

“I hope that he will now, in writing, convey his sense of apology on behalf of all the citizens of Canada as the prime minister,” said Layton.

Ultimately, PMS' continued refusal to apologize in his capacity as Prime Minister may only keep Arar's plight - and the recommendations arising out of it - in the public eye longer than the Cons would like. But either way, it's a shame that it took an opposition motion to bring about any form of parliamentary apology...and it's to the Cons' discredit that they're still splitting hairs to avoid offering the same formally on behalf of the government.

Rallying time

NDP MP Irene Mathyssen points out that while the Cons may not have taken up the reactionary call for a direct frontal attack on Status of Women Canada, they're pushing SWC programs out of business by conveniently ignoring funding applications:

“By not responding to funding applications, the Conservatives are allowing programs to shut down, one by one.,” said NDP MP critic for the Status of Women Irene Mathyssen. "What's next? The entire department? It looks like Bev Oda is spoiling to dismantle the Status of Women department."

As of Sept. 12, The National Association of Women and the Law, has closed their doors due to insufficient federal funding. The Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action (FAFIA) will shut down on Sept. 26. Organizations have put in applications for funding, but have heard nothing from the Minister responsible for Status of Women, Bev Oda.

“It is clear that this government is not interested in consulting with the experts in the field and has no intention of investigating what is really needed to promote women’s equality in Canada” said NDP President Anne McGrath.

Women’s groups have complained that the Minister has not consulted them on the program review and will meet with them only after the Status of Women Canada mandate has expired on Sept. 26 this year.

While things may look dire now, keep in mind that there is a recent precedent for the Cons being shamed out of abandoning funding for social issues. And the Cons' attempt to eliminate SWC through neglect rather than a public execution suggests that they may not be comfortable defending the move once it's forced into the limelight.

So, stop in at the Progressive Bloggers' discussion of how best to handle the situation, and let the Cons know for yourself that they won't get away with trying to sweep this one under the rug.

On totalitarian tendencies

CTV and the Montreal Gazette confirm the Cons' paranoia and disregard for the law, reporting that the Cons are encouraging the disclosure of the names of Access to Information requesters in violation of the Privacy Act:

Federal government officials appear to be breaking Canadian law by revealing the identities of those who seek documents under the Access to Information Act, a newspaper reported Wednesday...

(T)he Montreal Gazette claims the identities of some requesters have been shared among government departments -- including the Prime Minister's Office.

Documents obtained by the Gazette under the Access to Information Act show that in one case, the name of a reporter about to receive documents under the act was revealed during a telephone conference call among federal government officials.

The reporter's name was disclosed by an official working on behalf of the Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Department, the Gazette reports.

The newspaper says documents show that officials from at least eight departments were involved in the telephone call and minutes of the meeting were sent to 19 other people -- including Stephen Harper's communications director Sandra Buckler.

Deputy information commissioner Alan Leadbeater told the Gazette there had been other cases of confidentiality violations --particularly when there was a concern that the information could result in embarrassing questions to a cabinet minister.

"We see situations where representatives from the minister's office will meet on a regular basis, sometimes weekly, with the access to information people to find out what access requests have been received and what material is being released, and in the course of those meetings there is a tendency to share with the minister's staff the identities of the requesters," Leadbeater was quoted as saying by the Gazette.

It isn't hard off hand to see some of the potential abuses resulting from disclosure of the identity of requesters - ranging from the Cons knowing which reporters may have damaging information and avoiding their questions, to having an advantage in Question Period by knowing which parties have been researching which issues, to knowing which current or potential government employees may be using requests to follow up on their own suspicions about what may be occurring within government departments.

It's tough to say which of those potential uses (or what other possiblilities) may be the greatest motivator behind the Cons' actions. But there should be little doubt that Con ministers wouldn't be systematically encouraging the illegal gathering of information, and the PMO wouldn't be micromanaging departmental Access to Information requests, if the Cons weren't planning on putting their illegally-gathered information to some use. And if the Cons are setting up an institutional culture which encourages the illegal disclosure of the identity of requesters, there's no reason at all to have any confidence that the information won't also be used illegally once it's acquired.

Just a few months ago, the Cons told the civil service to honour the spirit of the Access to Information Act. Now, it's clear that the Cons are themselves violating both the spirit of that legislation and the letter of the Privacy Act by wrongfully appropriating private information for their own purposes. Which means that if Canadians indeed want a culture of accountability, they'll have to start by taking away the Cons' ability to punish anybody who's interested in holding the government accountable.

Up in the air

The latest Strategic Counsel poll suggests a tightening battle for voters both in Quebec and nationally:

The Tories also dropped to third place in Quebec when respondents were asked about their voting intentions. Sixteen per cent said they'd vote Conservative if an election were held today, down from 23 per cent. The Bloc Québécois had the support of 48 per cent of those surveyed, up from 43 per cent; the Liberals were at 18 per cent, down from 21.

The NDP are up to 11 per cent in the province, from 6 per cent, likely due to the party's policy convention in Quebec this month...

Nationally, the Conservatives had the support of 35 per cent of those surveyed, followed by the Liberals at 26 per cent, the NDP at 19, the Bloc Québécois at 12 and the Green Party at 8 per cent.

Of course, it's tough to read too much into a single poll - and indeed even the seemingly-large changes in Quebec are within the poll's margin of error. But with both the Cons and Libs dropping and the Bloc not apparently doing much to earn its increase, it looks like there's plenty of potential for significant movement in La Belle Province based on relatively small changes from today's numbers. Which leaves only the question of which parties will seize the opportunity in the fall session of Parliament and beyond.

Consistent positions

PMS is refusing to apologize to Maher Arar, supposedly on the basis that he wasn't in power at the time of Arar's ordeal. Canadians may be surprised to find out that by this logic, Harper was apparently Prime Minister during the entire time span from 1885 to 1923.

On choosing one's focus

The Chief Electoral Officer effectively confirmed today that the Cons violated the Canada Elections Act in their 2005 convention scandal, putting a potentially-substantial amount of illegal money in their coffers for the 2006 campaign. Which of course means that it's time for Lib bloggers and commenters to blame their election loss on a single legal donation to the NDP.

Naturally, the Libs' own woeful campaign should be the even more obvious source of responsibility for the fall of PMPM. But even leaving that aside as requiring an impossible amount of self-reflection, more than a few Libs seem eager to overlook Con law-breaking in favour of another round of jeers at the NDP. Which should cast serious doubt on the Libs' interest in opposing PMS - not to mention their interest in winning any part of the NDP swing vote when past Dipper donations are seen as a basis for purging a candidate from their leadership race.

A minute to reflect

The Star reports on Canada's death toll in Afghanistan, including both the CCPA's conclusion that Canadian soldiers are facing three to six times the death toll of U.S. and UK troops, and the multi-casualty weekend which didn't make it into the CCPA report:

"A Canadian soldier in Afghanistan is three times more likely to be killed than a British soldier and four and a half times more likely than an American," said Steven Staples, co-author of "Canada's Fallen," a report he co-wrote for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

"And a Canadian in Kandahar is six times more likely to die than an American soldier deployed to Iraq," he said...

In England, statistician Sheila Bird did an earlier risk assessment study similar to that done in Ottawa. Yesterday, she said in a telephone interview that when the new fatalities are factored in, Canadian soldiers are now facing twice and possibly four times the risk of death that British soldiers faced in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The British had 46,000 troops engaged in the 43-day invasion but lost only 33 soldiers.

Since May 1 this year — a period of 141 days — the Canadian force in Afghanistan, numbering about 2,200, has already lost 21 soldiers.

Relating the number of fatalities to the number of military personnel deployed is crucial, Bird said, because "this helps to accurately measure the real rate of risk on the ground for coalition forces."

She emphasized that the risk Canadians face in Kandahar is "absolutely" riskier than what Americans face in Iraq.

And for those wondering if the casualties are at least helping to produce better conditions for Afghanistan or other measurable positive results, the all-too-obvious answer is not for a second:

One American analyst, John Pike of globalsecurity.org, wondered how long Canada's military could sustain such losses.

"Canada may reconsider how much more of this it wants," Pike said. He said he, too, was familiar with military pronouncements of victory with impressive numbers of enemy dead and low casualties for western forces.

"We spent years doing that in Vietnam," he said of the U.S. war there.

In Afghanistan, Pike envisions a near-endless scenario.

"It's not going to end," he said of the Afghan war. "And it may get worse before it gets better ... it's going to last for decades."

In the midst of this combination of bad news on the ground and justified skepticism about the Cons' self-promotion, the Cons still think that neither the soaring casualty rate nor any other aspect of the Afghanistan quagmire is worth more than a minute of their time. But Canadians may not be so quick to dismiss either the loss of Canadian troops, or the complete lack of actual or projected progress...which could lead Canadians to find an exit strategy from PMS' jingoism far sooner than the Cons would like to admit.

Hard to be hopeful

I'd mentioned earlier my plan to write about the recommendations in the Arar Inquiry report. While there's plenty of blame to go around, the recommendations appear to support existing policies and procedures to a surprising degree, with most of the changes only involving better adherence to the current rules. And what's worse, the real changes which are suggested don't appear the least bit likely to be undertaken anytime soon.

With respect to the RCMP, the primary subject of his report, O'Connor J. identifies primarily a need for improved training to increase consciousness of human rights issues (p. 323-327), and more precise wording both in classifying subjects of investigations (p. 335-337) and in the caveats attached to information provided to foreign agencies (p. 340-342). While the ideas are certainly worth implementing, there's no indication that they could be meaningfully enforced either in the present case or in general, meaning that these recommendations can likely be swept under the rug.

From a governmental standpoint, the most significant recommendations are a suggestion to object to the misuse of Canadian information (p. 344 in general, p. 361-362 in Arar's case in particular) and to avoid disclosing information to (p. 345-347), or placing undue weight on information from (p. 348-349), human rights abusers. But with the current regime obsessed with maintaining nothing but a positive face toward the U.S. and its ever-malleable "war on terror", matters aren't likely to improve anytime soon. And short of classifying the U.S. as a "foreign government with (a) questionable human rights record" which shouldn't receive Canadian intelligence information, there's little reason to think similar cases could be prevented in light of Bushco's consistent assertions of infinite power where national security is concerned.

Similarly, I doubt many readers can honestly expect the Cons to enforce a standard of information-gathering free of racial or cultural profiling (p. 355-358), or to be willing to draw a clear line of accountability to the Foreign Affairs Minister (p. 353-354) in future cases rather than leaving responsibility just as thoroughly undefined as it was in the Arar case.

Finally, the recommendations to provide better support to Canadians detained abroad (generally at p. 349-355) seem somewhat more likely to be implemented, but only seem to be dealing with serious problems after the fact.

While it's somewhat reassuring to see Maher Arar vindicated, there should be little comfort either in the lack of any clear accountability for his torture, or in the fact that the substantive recommendations to prevent similar incidents look highly unlikely to be implemented. Indeed, it's hard to say which is more scary: that relatively minor variations of wording based on insufficient RCMP training may been enough to lead to his torture, or that we're now stuck with a government which is even more willing to ignore the consequences of actions as long as they're nominally aimed at anti-terrorism purposes. Sadly, it'll be to nobody's surprise if more Canadians are now, or will be soon, subject to exactly the kind of terror suffered by Arar - and it may well be that the only lesson learned by the Cons will be to make added efforts to bury any similar stories.

Arar roundup

I'll deal with the recommendations which came out of the Arar inquiry in more detail later. In the meantime, Pogge, catnip, The Galloping Beaver, My Blahg and Le Revue Gauche all have discussion of what by all rights should be today's biggest story.

Questionable

In case there's any doubt which party is devoted to dumbing down Canadian politics, the Cons are now under the impression that all the issues surrounding the deepening quagmire in Afghanistan can be thoroughly dealt with in Question Period alone:

Parliamentary Secretary to the foreign affairs minister Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Alta.) said last week that there's no need to introduce a votable motion in the House by the NDP as the mission has already been extended until 2009...

Mr. Obhrai said the opposition parties could ask their questions during the daily Question Period.

"We will be answering all the questions [in the daily QP] that they have, so we don't feel there's a need for any debate," said Deepak Obhrai, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister in an interview with The Hill Times recently. "This is an open government and we have nothing to hide so we will be answering any questions they have, they can ask the same questions during the Question Period."

Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay (Central Nova, N.S.) also told CBC's The National recently that the government does not want another debate on Afghanistan...

In a sense, it shouldn't be much surprise that the Cons favour a format where Harper's inner circle of trained seals can recite talking points ad nauseum, rather than one where their backbenchers might either demonstrate that the party truly is intelligence-optional, or worse yet present better-informed opinions than those approved by Central Command.

That said, it takes an awfully low opinion of both the value of an interplay of ideas and the attention span of Canadians to think that serious policy issues can be addressed through Question Period alone. And if the Cons really have that little interest in meaningful discussion, then it may be time to restore them to their more familiar place on the opposite side of Question Period.

Pressing the issues

The Hill Times reports on the continued battle between PMO and the non-CanWest press gallery, where efforts from the press to work out an agreed solution have apparently been ignored by PMS:

The Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail and The Canadian Press still haven't heard a word from the PMO on setting ground rules for access...

"Not to be belligerent, but to be consistent," she told The Hill Times in an email, explaining that in June, the managers of the Star, the Globe and Canadian Press approached the PMO to try to come up with a compromise. "[We want] to have an intelligent, responsible discussion about what new conditions the Harper government was trying to enforce. We were promised a discussion. It still hasn't happened. Collectively, I believe the three news organizations still have hopes for that intelligent, respectful discussion. It is out of respect for that process that we aren't changing course at present. We await a proper, professional reply."

Ms. Delacourt said this is important because "it's incumbent on journalists to question arbitrary measures. It's in the Globe's motto, printed on the editorial page every day: 'The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures.'"...

A call to the Prime Minister's Press Office was not returned and as of last week, the Press Gallery Executive still hadn't heard from the PMO on the issue of lists and access.

It's worth noting that the gallery's willingness to concede some ground comes despite anecdotal evidence that PMS has already taken steps toward cherry-picking questions - which can surely only become worse as more contentious issues arise. But even with the gallery willing to make unnecessary concessions, it doesn't look like Harper is the least bit interested in considering their interests enough to look for a compromise.

But then, as the article points out, the Cons' policy doesn't prevent the press from holding PMS accountable in any way - and indeed should encourage the kind of reporting which is bound to get far more results than merely waiting around for scripted lines from PMS himself:

"On the face of it, you might argue that the PMO is seeking to have an unfair control," Prof. Winn said. "But I can understand the democracy advocates who say the Prime Minister's Office shouldn't have the right to decide who asks him questions. But an accidental byproduct of the PMO's policy, if it were actually implemented, would motivate reporters to go study policy as opposed to just report on the theatrics of press conferences."

Prof. Winn said that there are many issues that reporters don't look at because they are simply focused on what people say...

Journalists should focus more on what governments do, Prof. Winn said. "Journalists who are most upset that the Prime Minister's Office would control who asked the questions seem to be very cynical about the truthfulness and integrity of politicians including the Prime Minister. But the logical consequence of true skepticism about the value of what a politician has to say would lead one to say I don't care what they say, I'm going to find out what's happening."

Of course, that end result would be a far greater victory for accountability than any return to the previous scrum system - particularly when most of the reporting on the Cons seems to be based on self-serving leaks rather than anything resembling investigative journalism.

Which isn't to say that open and fair access to the Con cabinet wouldn't also be an improvement. But there's still plenty going on worth covering - whether that means a greater focus on the opposition parties who don't see the media as an enemy, or on investigating matters which the Cons almost certainly won't want to talk about. And the more time the gallery spends covering those issues rather than repeating the Cons' talking points, the better informed the Canadian public will be.

On hot air masses

The Cons have consistently demonstrated their complete disinterest in dealing with global warming as an international problem. But the CP reports that when it comes to investing in votes rather than environmental results, it may be a different story:

Environment Minister Rona Ambrose's emissions plan, set to be released in the coming months, is said to be strongly inspired by Quebec's own emission plan, adopted last June...

Officials in Quebec's environment ministry took advantage of the thaw in relations, sending Ottawa a long list of programs it wanted financed.

A draft of the federal plan, obtained by The Canadian Press, suggests Ottawa will place a priority on transportation projects aimed at cutting greenhouse emissions, thought to be responsible for certain elements of climate change.

Provincial Environment Minister Claude Bechard said in an interview Friday that Quebec decided to ask for "more rather than less" in the hopes of hitting the jackpot.

Bechard, who met with his federal counterpart last Monday, said he expects Quebec to receive "at least $328 million and maybe more."

But sources close to the negotiations say the $328 million figure is "a paltry sum," and believe the Tories will give Quebec significantly more in the hopes of improving its electoral fortunes in the province come election time.

Funding became a hot-button issue during Quebec's negotiations with Martin's government.

The Liberals handed over $538 million to Ontario in 2005, and Quebec calculated that it deserved $328 million.

Needless to say, any solution actually targetted toward dealing with global warming should involve targetting funding based on what's most likely to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And it's no surprise that the Cons are utterly unwilling to move in that direction. (In that regard, it's worth noting that the Cons only claim to be "inspired" by the Quebec plan, which presumably means ignoring Canada's committed Kyoto targets which Quebec plans to meet.)

But far be it from the Cons to miss an opportunity to use a facade of interest in emission reductions as an excuse to hand money to Quebec's provincial government. And even more striking is the Cons' apparent willingness to delegate its policy-making to a single province, with no regard for the varying issues that face different regions of the country in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Which should emphasize that while the Cons are doing their best to claim to be environmentally conscious, they're much more interested in the theatre of announcing funding than actually achieving any results. And that leaves only the question of whether enough Canadians will see through the mask to ensure that the Cons aren't rewarded for their cynicism.

Denying responsibility

Chuck Strahl appears to want to sound philosophical or wise in the CP's preview of the fall session in the House of Commons. But in trying, he nicely hints at the Cons' unwillingness to accept their own power in government:

"The things you can't control, you can't control. It's a fact of life," Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl said following a Conservative caucus meeting Friday.

"Can you control drought on the Prairies? Can you control what happens in Afghanistan, or when Israel and Lebanon tie into one another? You don't control any of those things, and I don't know who could suggest that you should or you can."

Of course, in each case it's clear that nobody holds total control - but it's equally clear that Strahl simply wrong in trying to downplay expectations of his government doing anything on issues where there's plainly some significant ability for the government to influence events.

After all, the Cons not only have the ability to assist farmers affected by a drought, but are going out of their way to avoid the fight against global warming - a decision which is likely to increase the incidence of drought in the future. The Cons have similarly gone out of their way to present continued aimless war in Afghanistan (and the resulting casualties on all sides) as an inevitability rather than a choice. And the Cons helped to egg on the Israel/Lebanon conflict by taking sides immediately and rejecting any attempt to end the violence, rather than stepping up by seeking peace from all sides.

In each case, there are undoubtedly limitations on what the Cons or any other government can do. But that doesn't excuse what looks like an attempt to disclaim all responsibility or ability to act on these issues either. And if the Cons really think their place in government gives them no ability to influence events whatsoever, then it's long past time to give power to somebody who's actually willing to use it to good ends, rather than to deny that it exists.

On dangerous lessons

The Sun reports on the lessons which David Emerson believes he's learned from the softwood lumber debacle. And judging from what Emerson seems to believe, it looks like the softwood sellout may be just the beginning of what the Cons are willing to give away in order to avoid disputes caused by Canada seeking to hold the U.S. to its previous bargains:

Swallowing staggering legal bills and heavy spinoff costs was Canada's tough lesson that trade disputes like softwood lumber must be resolved before they explode into a cottage industry, says Trade Minister David Emerson...

"The No. 1 lesson out of softwood lumber is that there will be disputes, but you've got to solve them in a relatively timely and more immediate way," Emerson says.

"Because once a dispute is allowed to simmer and percolate for a long enough period of time, it almost becomes a self-perpetuating dispute where people become dependent upon it to earn their income and positions become entrenched and animosities develop."...

"It's been a real problem, a festering wound, and to have that dealt with is a fundamental step forward that will allow us to continue to broaden the number of issues and the number of co-operational opportunities with the U.S. in particular we can take advantage of," he says.

"It became very broad and affected many areas, and I don't think you can overstate how important it has been for the reshaping and the re-engagement of Canada's economic relationship with the U.S."

Needless to say, the "cottage industry" suggestion is about as ridiculous a straw man as one could try to create under the circumstances. The only "cottage industry" which Canada should be concerned about on the softwood lumber file is CFLI - which of course was rewarded for its efforts with half a billion dollars. Now, equivalents in other industries will have nothing but added incentives to perpetuate themselves with a continual stream of baseless trade complaints against Canadian exporters - knowing that PMS will readily pay their bills in the end if it'll make the U.S. happy.

But as long as a cottage industry is working against Canada's best interests, the Cons don't seem to have the least bit of problem funding it. The Cons only seem to want to step in with their "co-operational" philosophy to ensure that Canada's businesses won't endanger complete goodwill between Canada and the U.S. by inconveniently pointing out the illegal wounds inflicted by American protectionism.

Which means that there's little reason to think that other industries will start with anywhere as strong a bargaining position as the Cons happily frittered away on softwood lumber. Instead, Emerson and company are looking to make sure that future capitulations are immediate. And from the softwood lumber experience, there can be no doubt that the Cons are willing to throw any Canadian industry under the bus if it'll add to PMS' reputation for "co-operating" with Bushco.

Light Blogging Warning

I'll be out of town for most the weekend; as a result, blogging will be somewhere between light and nonexistent in the meantime. Enjoy the weekend, and I'll be back sometime Sunday.

History repeating

The federal Libs went from a majority government to a minority to a three-ring circus by focusing on an all-negative, all-the-time strategy. Now, despite the earnest warnings of party supporters, Ontario's provincial Libs appear to be taking the first steps down the same road:

The provincial Liberals lost more than a by-election yesterday in the west-end Toronto riding of Parkdale-High Park; they also lost their innocence.

Under Dalton McGuinty's leadership for the past decade, the Liberals have generally been on the receiving end of negative campaigning and election smears...

There were, to be sure, attack ads aimed at the Conservatives in the last provincial election, including a highly effective series with the tag line: "Not this time, Ernie." But these ads were sponsored by a coalition of unions called "working families." That gave McGuinty and the Liberals plausible deniability of responsibility.

Not this time, Dalton.

In a desperation move in the final days of the Parkdale-High Park by-election campaign, the Liberals issued press releases smearing their NDP opponent — 56-year-old United Church minister Cheri DiNovo. On the basis of some old sermons, DiNovo was described as a "radical" whose judgment should be called into question.

Liberal bloggers went even further, calling DiNovo "DiNutso" and accusing her of being "a former drug dealer."

Some Liberals — including Gerard Kennedy, who held Parkdale-High Park for the Liberals before resigning the seat to run for the federal leadership — deplored these tactics.

But McGuinty himself refused to disassociate himself from the smearing of DiNovo despite repeat attempts by the media to get him to do so...

(T)he consequences are greater than the loss of just one riding. Now, if the Conservatives and New Democrats go negative in next year's province-wide campaign, which they sure will (with repeated references to broken promises by McGuinty), the Liberals will no longer be able to play the injured innocents.

Of course, there is another possible consequence of the by-election results: that the defeat will strengthen the faction within the Liberal party that detests negative campaigning and wants to take the high road to re-election by stressing the government's record.

On the other hand, the "go negative" faction was arguing last night that the tactic helped to close the gap between the Liberals and the NDP, which was even wider in internal party polling last week.

And there may well be federal Libs who believe that the "soldiers in our streets" ads against the federal Cons were all that stood in the way of a Con majority as well. But on any realistic analysis of the by-election, both the result and the tactics were a complete failure for a party which more than tripled its nearest opponent in the same riding in the previous election. And if the Libs really do see pure smearing as their best tactic for the next general election, then it'll take a wholesale move from the Libs to the NDP to keep Tory's Tories from winning power on the backs of understandably disillusioned voters.

The spite continues

The Financial Post reports that slapping "special" taxes on companies who recognize that capitulating isn't in their interest may not be enough for the Cons. Instead to really put the screws to independent thought, they may use the Competition Bureau to try to force Domtar Inc. to sign on, under penalty of having a merger rejected:

Domtar Inc.'s refusal to sign the softwood lumber agreement with the United States may put at risk its $3.3-billion merger with Weyerhaeuser Co. because the transaction requires Ottawa's approval, sources said.

According to several people familiar with the matter, Domtar is the last major forestry company to hold out against the agreement signed by Ottawa and Washington on Tuesday. It's believed Ottawa is prepared use the Competition Bureau to stall Weyerhaeuser's bid for control of 55% of the paper products company unless Domtar changes its position.

Bob Klager, a spokesman for Mr. Emerson, said the idea Ottawa would use the Competition Bureau as a lever to win support for the softwood agreement is "pure speculation." A spokesman for Domtar declined to comment.

According to one source, Ottawa has set a deadline for companies to sign onto the softwood agreement of Sept. 19, when the agreement is expected to go to a vote in Parliament.

The Conservative government has shown its willingness to use hardball tactics to wrestle support for the deal from industry.

"There's always been this issue out there of how to incent companies to come on board -- a carrot or a stick," said Mr. Quinn. "[The government] has gone the route of the big stick."

Of course, it was once "pure speculation" that the Cons would twist industry arms to force them to accept a laughable deal under penalty of losing all support from their own government - yet by the end of summer the Cons had done just that. And even Klager himself doesn't deny the possibility of using the Competition Bureau to punish Domtar; he only suggests that it lies in the future rather than in any completed action.

Mind you, if the Cons do plainly influence the outcome of what's supposed to be an impartial Competition Bureau process, then there would seem to be a fairly strong bias argument from Domtar's perspective. (Which may indeed explain Klager's vagueness in leaving the threat hanging while admitting to nothing.) That, however, would leave the Cons merrily forcing Domtar into yet another of the litigation processes which they claim to want to avoid - that is, if Domtar continues to be the largest holdout against PMS' self-image of infallibility.

For Domtar now as for so many other companies before, it may well be true that preserving its non-capitulation rights through successful litigation isn't worth the cost of the wrath of the Cons. But once again, that would only reflect the Con government's determination to bully its own country around - and should offer plenty of reason for anybody else who might become a future target to remove that opportunity for once and for all.

(Edit: cleaned up wording.)

Leaks and lies

Yesterday, Colin Hansen, the B.C. minister responsible for the 2010 Olympics, hinted that an Auditor General's report to be released today would show that the Olympics were set to go forward within the government's budget. Crass politics in the "self-serving leak" department to be sure, but one would think it would at least bear some resemblance to the report itself.

Today, word comes out that Hansen's claim couldn't have been much more wrong:

British Columbia taxpayers are already on the hook for more than double what their provincial government estimated for the 2010 Winter Olympics and audit reports released Thursday suggest things could get worse.

B.C. Auditor General Arn van Iersel's report indicates British Columbia has little wiggle room to meet its targets for the Games and that there are several risks that could blow the budget.

The contingency fund the province has set aside has mostly been gobbled up and what's left likely won't be enough, he concluded...

The budget, said van Iersel's report, has increased to $2.5 billion for the B.C. and federal governments. Most of that - $1.5 billion - will be covered by British Columbia.

At best, the provincial government can claim that it may stay within its cap for "direct costs of staging the Games" by creatively redefining overruns not to fall into that category. At worst, it looks like Hansen's statement may have been nothing more than a desperate attempt to pretend there's some good news in advance of a scathing report. And one way or the other, B.C.'s citizens have to hoping to have both a more honest and a more competent government in charge by the time the Olympics actually roll around.

On standards

The CP reveals what is and isn't important for a Con candidate being vetted under Harper's command:

Neither intelligence nor political acumen are vital for would-be Conservative candidates, according to a top party official — just don’t be tagged a loser.

The blunt assessment was made last fall by Doug Finley, the Tory national campaign chair, as he was embroiled in efforts to oust Alan Riddell as a candidate in the riding of Ottawa South.

Party brass figured Riddell was a sure loser — he’d lost in 2004 — and made it clear in e-mails that they wanted him out.

“Neither IQ level, nor political astuteness are prerequisites to be a candidate — just a citizen over 18 with a reasonable credit record, no serious crime sheet and a surname other than Riddell,” Finley wrote in a December e-mail to Ian Brodie, who now is chief of staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Now, the contents of some of the Cons' seats in Parliament would have long since put to rest any question whether a lack of intelligence would serve as an obstacle to election as a Con - and indeed one could argue that it may more a negative than a positive, particularly in PMS' top-down structure. But it's still striking to see the Cons' inner circle being so explicit in being perfectly happy with warm bodies filling the back benches, rather than placing any value on the possibility of representatives capable of adequately representing their constituents.

As an added bonus from the article, note that part of the Cons' justification for wanting to oust Riddell as the candidate was concern that he would be "unpredictable". Which stands in rather stark contrast to the Cons' willingness to immunize even their most embarrassing MPs from any nomination challenge - though in fairness one could say that Anders is downright predictable in his removal from reality.

On cover-ups

Rob Wipond follows up on the Victoria Times-Colonist's firing of a reporter, Vivian Smith, who dared to encourage readers to enjoy free entertainment rather than patronizing the newspaper's advertisers. While Smith is now back with the paper, that seems to be based purely on public outcry which went beyond the reach of the paper, rather than any internal commitment to providing thorough information to readers:

Features writer Janis Ringuette and University of Victoria writing professor and regular columnist Lynne van Luven quit the Times-Colonist in protest. Then the Canadian Association of Journalists started probing, and issued a formal complaint.

When B.C. newsweekly Monday Magazine and online magazine The Tyee also started asking questions, CanWest Global vice-president David Asper stepped in and reassured everyone the company “vigilantly” protected “unencumbered” journalism in their media empire. CanWest Global president Dennis Skulsky ordered Smith's re-hiring and issued a statement saying, “We value the editorial independence of each our news outlets and under no circumstances should advertising influence the content of newspapers.”

McKenzie then assured his T-C staff in an email that “we do not allow advertisers to influence the content of this newspaper”, and admitted his “error in judgment” in firing Smith. Both van Luven and Ringuette were also invited back; all of them with promises their writings would only be constrained by whether they were newsworthy and “fair and accurate.” ...

(S)o far no CanWest Global media outlets, let alone the T-C itself, have yet covered the events or even included comments about them in opinion-editorials. Meanwhile, front-page T-C stories over the last several weeks have included a gushing welcome to a visiting U.S. battleship's sailor-tourists, extensive glowing coverage of Victoria's “Symphony Splash” tourist attraction, and a damning attack on panhandlers for hurting tourism.

But the Smith story was a natural choice for van Luven. Her commentaries for the T-C have regularly explored social and economic issues surrounding Canadian books, media and writers. Van Luven also felt it was crucial that loyal T-C readers, the people for whom the events were most relevant, should hear about them.

“I think it's important for T-C readers because they need to have a sense that they're being respected as readers, and that if there is a controversy, if it's in the paper's management of news and public affairs, that they know about it,” she explained to rabble.

But editor-in-chief Lucinda Chodan said she would not be allowed to discuss the story in her column. And much like in the Smith firing, Chodan uncharacteristically did not provide any reasonable editorial reasons...

So why is the T-C resolutely refusing to let its journalists cover or discuss the story?

Chodan notably did not take the opportunity to suggest to rabble that there were any legitimate concerns about newsworthiness, reader interest, editorial space or fairness and accuracy involved in the decision. “I have no comment,” she said. “It's an internal matter.”

It shouldn't be too much surprise to see CanWest apparently prioritizing advertiser relations over either the reporting of real news, or general principles of journalistic integrity. But as noted by Wipond, the bigger question is the degree to which similar policies have spread throughout the CanWest chains - and what important stories might be under wraps for similarly arbitrary reasons. And unfortunately, there's no way for the public to find out just what its large media outlets are trying to suppress for their own gain.

A revealing comparison

CanWest reports that David Emerson is trying to justify the "special tax" against lumber producers who haven't yet been brow-beaten into accepting the Cons' capitulation with the argument that the agreement is like a "labour contract".

Naturally, that comparison from Emerson only gives rise to more questions about the Cons' handling of the deal. For example, why did the Cons choose to imitate most extreme possible caricature of a corrupt and ineffective union in reaching the agreement? Since when does a union get to establish private and arbitrary standards for support rather than conducting fair and confidential voting processes? And more importantly, where can the producers go to challenge the Cons' clear failure to meet any duty of fair representation?

Environmentally-damaging recycling

The National Post reports on the underwhelming emissions-reduction strategies from the Cons' planned environmental legislation:

In the short term, the government will rebrand a Liberal program to retrofit homes, which was killed after the Auditor-General's department criticized it for failing to justify its hefty price tags with effective results.

The Conservatives have also indicated previously that money will be directed toward new clean technologies such as carbon capture and storage, which experts suggest could mitigate climate change by trapping carbon dioxide instead of releasing it into the atmosphere. The technology for capturing CO2 is already commercially available, but storage remains a relatively untested concept. Some estimates suggest up to 90% of CO2 emissions could be reduced by applying carbon capture and storage to a conventional power plant.

But while the government will maintain its commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the longer term, it is likely to be attacked for having no short-term plan. The Climate Action Network, a coalition of 40 environmental groups, reiterated its call yesterday for the government to regulate carbon pollution under Canada's existing environmental protection law.

It's worth noting that the Cons' plans are even less original than suggested by the article. In addition to the retrofitting idea being nothing more than a repackaged program which was slashed earlier this year, the Cons were also completely dismissive of previous plans to study carbon capture this spring.

If the Cons wanted to take credit for another party's ideas to deal with greenhouse gas emissions, they didn't have to look far for a plan which would actually make a dent in the problem. Instead, it looks like they're salvaging only a small portion of the Libs' patchwork plan which itself fell fall short of meeting Canada's obligations. Which means that any attacks on the Cons' shortsightedness, whether from the Climate Action Network or elsewhere, will be well-deserved.

A show of contempt

While the Cons may be looking to fill the Information Commissioner's job with somebody who by their own estimation is likely to turn toward making information less available, let's at least grant that they care enough about the position to be taking steps to find a replacement. Which is apparently more than can be said about their commitment to the environment.

On access to information

The Cons have already gone from claiming to want to open up access to information, to narrowing access as best they can. Now, they're apparently doing an about-face from their initial call for the civil service to change its culture to follow the spirit of the Access to Information Act, setting requirements for the next Information Commissioner with a heavy emphasis on recruiting a candidate from the culture the Cons claimed to want to change:

The fix may be in for a candidate to replace Canada's information ombudsman, warns the man who currently holds the job.

John Reid, the outgoing information commissioner of Canada, raised the alarm Tuesday, saying a recently posted job notice strongly suggests the Conservative government wants to fill the coming vacancy with a senior bureaucrat rather than someone more independent...

Reid, who's scheduled to end his term Sept. 29, noted the Privy Council Office posted the job vacancy on an obscure government website on the Friday before the Labour Day weekend, and allowed just seven days for interested citizens to deliver their applications. The web posting has since been removed.

"The notice of vacancy was not published in the Canada Gazette, nor was it published in the national press," said Reid, who has frequently clashed with prime ministers and civil servants bent on withholding information.

The job description also appeared to be tailored to the most senior levels of the federal bureaucracy, he said later in an interview.

"It's basically for a deputy minister," he said. "I can't think of anyone who would come from the private sector."

It shouldn't take an access-to-information request for potential candidates to know about the opportunity to seek a role as Information Commissioner. But for the Cons, even the office most focused on ensuring public access to information is apparently one to be hidden out of sight.

As noted by the article, it remains to be seen whether the Cons are actually hiring out of the hidden process, or whether they'll at least backtrack enough to make the position openly available. But the mere attempt to suppress any information about the opening should serve as an indictment of the Cons' commitment (or lack thereof) to transparent government - and however the next commissioner is hired, that attitude will present a major challenge.

Predictable

The Cons' report on how to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board has gone beyond the expected plan to remove its single-desk position in the West, to include cutting the Board off from public funds as well. Now if only anybody had seen this one coming...

The independent thought tax

The CP reports that the Cons will impose a 19% "special tax" on softwood lumber companies who dare to recognize that they can do better in litigation than under the Cons' capitulation:

The federal government plans to levy a 19 per cent special tax on lumber companies that withhold their co-operation with the newly signed softwood lumber deal with the United States, The Canadian Press has learned.

A federal official confirmed Tuesday the tax will be imposed in a way that penalizes lumber exporters who refuse to sign a waiver that allows Ottawa to leave about US$1 billion in lumber duties in American hands after the agreement comes into force...

The deal requires companies that are due refunds to sign waivers allowing Ottawa to kick money back to the Americans because otherwise they would be entitled to a 100 per cent refund...

A posting on International Trade’s softwood website says the special charge will be included in legislation needed to implement the agreement.

Klager said enabling legislation will likely be introduced next week when Parliament resumes sitting but could not say what percentage of companies due duty refunds had formally signed onto the agreement.

The tax is supposedly required to prevent "free riders" from obtaining their refunds without paying their share of the extortion. But on a cursory look, any payment from Export Development Canada under the agreement is limited to companies who complete a set of form documentation which sounds likely to include a commitment to drop all litigation. (I'd confirm that fact, except that the Cons have hidden the actual documents behind a registration wall with access open only to lumber exporters themselves. Openness and accountability, anyone?)

And if a company doesn't sign up for the EDC refund process? Well, one choice would be to try to recoup its partial share of the duties through a two-year-long US Customs process, which would itself presumably require agreement to drop all litigation. And the other choice is not to pursue payment under the capitulation agreement - which means having to pay the "special tax" on top of an exporter's bottom line without receiving anything back.

In sum, the agreements without the tax already ensured that there would be no risk of free riding. Unless, that is, the mere privilege of operating in a country governed by His Big Daddyness is construed as a "benefit" worth imposing some cost to match.

But that doesn't seem to be enough for PMS and company. Instead, the tax turns the Con government into a free rider on the backs of companies who want to continue with litigation, ensuring that those companies pay their proportional cost of the protection money, plus the export tax imposed under the agreement, while receiving nothing back but the Cons' eternal scorn for having the nerve to continue with successful litigation rather than an utter failure of a deal. And in the Cons' world, this apparently counts as "fairness and equity".

With the Bloc already having committed to voting for the Cons' sellout, it seems all too likely that this additional thumb in the eye to the softwood lumber industry will also manage to pass. But the tax should also highlight the Cons' utter spite against anybody who doesn't want to play along with their every whim - and should ensure that all Canadians in danger of facing similar tactics in the future do everything in their power to remove the Cons' opportunity to do any more damage to Canada.

The price of attention

One can't accuse Elizabeth May of failing to generate attention as leader of the Greens, and May makes the news again today with her effort to recruiting sitting Senators to her party. But the move appears far too likely to undermine what seems to be an important Green goal of seeking institutional change in Ottawa:

The new leader of the Green Party said yesterday she is talking with "more than one" senator about joining her party.

"I am talking to a couple of friends who are in the Senate to find ways that they may be able to help the party, including whether they can become Green Party senators," Elizabeth May said in a telephone interview.

Ms. May, a career environmentalist who was elected Green Party Leader last month, also said she is solidly in favour of the present unelected Senate even though that is "not yet" Green Party policy...

Senators count in the funding formula used for caucus research money, but it is unclear whether Green senators would qualify as a caucus without a presence in the House of Commons.

Ms. May said she hopes that having Green Party senators would allow her to take part in the daily scrums with reporters outside the House of Commons.

Aside from the benefits mentioned in the article, it's not hard to see how the Greens would otherwise stand to benefit by recruiting a Senator or two. A switch would offer an opportunity for the Greens to participate in at least one formal Question Period, and the seat in the Senate might well offer a close enough approximation to a seat in the Commons to bolster the Greens' claim to appear in televised debates.

But then there's the problem of the principles involved. While the Greens don't appear to have taken a formal position on the Senate in their last platform, at least a few of the party's statements regarding democratic reform suggest some distaste for the chamber. For example, the Greens promised to:

- Create a Government Accountability Act to ensure that all those who monitor government are selected at arms length from those they monitor, and to guarantee transparency and openness for all government activities...

- Reform the appointments system to discourage patronage.

Needless to say, the Senate as currently structured couldn't be much more antithetical to avoiding patronage and ensuring arm's-length selection processes for overseeing bodies. But the bigger problem isn't so much in the Greens' past positions, as in their presumably-continuing commitment to PR in the House of Commons. After all, how credible can a party be in claiming to want to improve the electoral accountability of the chamber which at least faces regular elections in some form, while defending the ability of completely-unaccountable partisan appointees to wield equal power?

It is possible for a party to stick to its principles even when offered the chance for a slightly larger platform. Unfortunately, May's action today indicates that she isn't the least bit interested in doing so...which can only lead to the impression that the Greens are looking less to reform Ottawa's power structures than merely to carve out the largest possible chunk for themselves. And if that perception takes hold, the damage to the Greens as a party supposedly dedicated to doing politics differently will be far greater than the potential benefit of a bit more of the spotlight now.

Ever more power

The Star reports that the Ontario Power Authority's controversial plan to pour $40 billion into new and refurbished nuclear reactors is effectively based on both a massive increase in small-appliance purchases, and an assumption that no government policy will operate to make those appliances (or any other energy consumer) more efficient:

A "load forecast" discussion paper released by the Ontario Power Authority estimates that minor appliances — everything from plasma screen TVs and DVD players to toaster ovens and iPod chargers — will be the single largest contributor to residential energy growth between now and 2025.

"Minor appliances include quite a few things," said Vipin Prasad, director of power system planning with the Ontario Power Authority. "In the old days, there was one TV (in a home); now there are at least two TVs. It's the same for computers, and that is all reflected here."...

As a load forecast, it takes into account voluntary conservation, changes in the economy that might reduce energy intensity of homes and businesses, and the replacement of old equipment with newer, more energy-efficient versions.

It excludes the impact of new laws, regulation and incentives designed to boost conservation and energy efficiency — for example, amendments to the provincial building code that go into effect next year...

"It's a fair chunk of consumption," said Mark Winfield, director of environmental governance at the Pembina Institute.

But Winfield disputes the assumptions being made about growth. He said the fact most minor consumer appliances and electronic devices have a short life cycle means they will likely be replaced with more energy-efficient versions every few years, unlike major appliances such as dishwashers.

"Essentially they assume there will be no improvements beyond the current commercially available technologies," Winfield said. "Given the current pace of technological development, this seems a very conservative assumption."...

José Etcheverry, a climate change analyst with the David Suzuki Foundation, said the power authority's projections ignore recent historical trends that suggest annual growth in electricity consumption is well below 1 per cent.

"They should be asking how to bring demand down to 0.5 per cent and not assuming that it will go up 1 per cent," he said. "Their estimates are high and represent a self-fulfilling prophecy approach."

Etcheverry's point nicely highlights the most important problem with the OPA's assumptions. If large amounts of money are put into creating enough generating capacity to allow for stagnant design standards (both in manufactured goods and in building construction), then the result will be a disincentive toward any increased efficiency.

It may be understandable that the OPA needs to keep in mind a potential worst-case scenario for increased power consumption. But surely that type of scenario would lead to exactly the kind of regulatory and legislative measures that the OPA has instead assumed away - that is, unless the province has already spent a bundle to enable and encourage the increased use.

Well said

While I'd like to have been able to make it to this weekend's NDP convention, Idealistic Pragmatist's recap sounds like about the next best thing to having been there. Give it a read if you haven't already.

Update: Or for less thorough and insightful coverage, you know where to look. I'd worry about the last couple of paragraphs in the context of Zolf's consistent wrongness, but they can probably be written off as a CYA strategy, allowing Zolf to claim prescience if the NDP does keep up its positive momentum.

Back for more

Having been thoroughly beaten back in her attempt earlier this year to move toward private health insurance under Ralph Klein, Iris Evans is now at it again, suggesting a coordinated national movement to "review" (and presumably gut) regulations which prohibit private insurance - regardless of the lack of support for increased privatization either in terms of its apparent effectiveness, or public opinion about the issue.

Evans' apparent spur to action is a lawsuit filed by an Alberta resident seeking payment for the cost of a hip replacement. But rather than responding in any way to the immediate cause (either by talking to the plaintiff directly or by using some of the province's overflowing coffers to eliminate the age restrictions which gave rise to the suit), Evans once again seems to be looking for excuses to weaken health care across the country. Needless to say, the response should be no less forceful this time than before - and if there's going to be a coordinated movement, it needs to be to bolster public health care in the wake of Chaoulli, not to look for reasons to demolish it.

Mission Creep II: Send In the Tanks

The Globe and Mail reports that the final numbers are in on the current "internal reassessment" in Afghanistan, with the result being another 5% jump in the number of troops in the line of fire:

The Canadian Forces' main tank unit is racing to prepare 120 troops and 15 Leopard tanks to send to Afghanistan as early as next week, in what would be a major boost in Canadian military capability there, according to a military expert who observed them.

The Lord Strathcona's Horse unit has been asked to ready a tank squadron so they could be shipped out by Sept. 19, the end of a current training exercise, and possibly sooner, said Bob Bergen, a military expert with the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary...

Mr. Bergen said the preparations have reached a hectic pace, including a scramble to centralize all of Canada's tanks at CFB Wainright, so that future rotations of the tank squadron could be trained there. Canadian troops are sent abroad for six-month rotations and return home for at least a year before they are sent again...

The Lord Strathconas are essentially Canada's major tank unit. But it has only 330 soldiers, enough for two rotations, but not three.

It's particularly noteworthy that the likely deployment is one that's unsustainable on its face in light of the number of troops within the squadron. Which means that in order to keep the planned numbers abroad past the one-year mark, Canada will have to either follow the U.S.' pattern of extended stays overseas, or rush to try to train replacements - neither of which will provide much comfort to those who'll be in combat outside the usual timelines or training routines.

But then, the Cons have always been more interested in shows of bravado than in sustainable plans, and this latest consultation-free increase in troops in Afghanistan certainly fits that bill. The question now is whether the House of Commons will withdraw its symbolic acquiescence in PMS' militarization...or whether the Cons will be allowed to "reassess" Afghanistan into yet another entirely new mission, whether or not Canada's military is equipped to handle it.

Update: It turns out that the actual increase in the number of troops is 450, including an additional 125-150 soldiers beyond those needed to operate the tanks.

On credibility gaps

While the Libs' Quebec leadership debate appears to have descended into farce, the more lasting harm to the party today may come from a report from its own ethics panel which sounds in part like something taken directly from the most blunt of PMS attacks:

The federal Liberals have almost no credibility left with the Canadian public and will have to arm themselves with an exhaustive code of conduct in order to regain that trust, says a report by a panel of ethicists.

The Liberals will also have to take steps to ensure ethical behaviour among their candidates, parliamentarians and employees, says the report commissioned by the party.

“The Liberal party must bring order to its own affairs if it wants the public to one day confer another mandate to govern,” concluded the panel which included Michael Bloomfield, a Victoria-based biologist and ethicist, and Penny Collenette, spouse of former Liberal minister David Collenette.

“Many estimate that, on just about every issue, the party has absolutely no credibility in the eyes of the public,” said the recently released report, a frank analysis of the Liberals’ behaviour during the federal sponsorship scandal...

Liberal scandals have given rise to cynicism among the public when it comes to politics, the panel found.

“During the commission (of Judge John) Gomery, no minister or bureaucrat took responsibility with regard to the program or its failures,” said the report.

One member of the panel noted that “it’s the party that gives rise to politicians and that completely missed the opportunity to reprimand them for their unacceptable behaviour.”

The report dovetails nicely with the NDP's appeal to replace the Cons with a credible government as soon as possible, rather than letting the Cons continue to damage the country while the Libs decide who to put at the head of the same institution which lost the trust of Canadians to begin with. "One day" may eventually come for the Libs...but in the meantime, Canada needs and deserves better than PMS.

On trade-offs

The Cons' long list of commitments broken grows by one, as PMS' inexplicable hostility toward any greenhouse gas emission trading has led them to cancel promised funding for the clean development mechanism under Kyoto:

The federal Conservatives are cancelling a $1.5-million pledge by the previous Liberal government to help developing countries cut greenhouse emissions under the rules of the Kyoto Protocol.

Abandoning the pledge made at a United Nations conference in Montreal last December is another blow to the teetering climate treaty which the Conservative government still claims to support.

The money would have gone to the treaty's clean development mechanism (CDM), which allows industrialized countries to earn credits by investing in emissions-cutting projects in the Third World.

“Taxpayers' dollars will not be spent on international credits,” said Ryan Sparrow, spokesman for Environment Minister Rona Ambrose, in an interview.

“That's what our government's position has been since taking office.”

Needless to say, there's a significant difference between declaring an intention not to use a particular mechanism as Canada's means of reducing its emissions (i.e. purchasing credits as the Cons have indeed planned not to do), and reneging on a commitment to actually create such a mechanism in the first place. And indeed the more sound approach would be to make a genuine commitment to meeting the Kyoto targets based on domestic emission reductions, while also helping to build the institutions which can help other countries to reduce their emissions through the market mechanism.

But once again, the Cons aren't the least bit interested in seeing anything associated with Kyoto succeed. And if that means taking an action which may ensure that developing countries have far less reason to reduce their emissions than they would under a functioning CDM, then so be it - no matter how much that flies in the face of the Cons' constant criticism of Kyoto in failing to reduce emissions from those same developing countries.

Thanks to their hostility toward Kyoto in particular and any global perspective on environmental management in general, the Cons have gone out of their way to avoid even a relatively minimal amount of funding which could pay off many times over in its effect on greenhouse gas emissions. Now, Canada instead stands to pay an awfully high price in the future due to the costs of dealing with global warming. And it'll take a quick change to a government which actually recognizes the risks and rewards involved to reverse that current path.

Planting seeds

You wouldn't know it from the CP's coverage, but Layton's keynote address from the NDP policy convention included plenty of material for discussion beyond Afghanistan - including what amounts to a dare to the Libs to choose Stephane Dion as their leader:

And then there's a son of this city -- Stephane Dion.

A man with whom I have fundamental disagreements about how Canada should build and renew itself.

But also a man who is, if I may say so across the partisan divide, distinct from his principal opponents in being a committed Canadian and a man of principle and conviction.

And therefore almost certain not to be elected leader of the Liberal party.

It'll be interesting to see how (or whether) the Libs respond. Presumably Dion won't want to echo Layton's words based on their being a bit too aggressive toward the other frontrunners. But it seems entirely possible that Layton's statement could get wielded against Dion by another candidate seeking to portray Dion as too far left to win the leadership. And if that type of strategy succeeds (whether or not making reference to Layton in particular), the NDP should be nicely positioned to pick up votes of Quebeckers whose current preference might be a Dion-led Lib party.

A vote of confidence

The second-largest NDP convention ever has set a new standard for leadership support, with 92% of delegates endorsing Jack Layton as leader. While the larger question is whether the NDP can expand its reach, it certainly helps to have a united party working toward that end. And with what's already a disparate group of NDP delegates having this much confidence in Layton, it may not be long before voters who haven't before put their support behind the NDP start to do the same.