Criminal negligence

The good news is that Ottawa is now at least considering paying some of the costs it plans to impose on the provinces through its criminal agenda:

Ottawa plans to pay for its ambitious anti-crime agenda with a combination of new funding, cost cutting and a push to "streamline" the legal system, Justice Minister Vic Toews said Friday.

But provincial justice ministers were still worried about how they will absorb the costs of a slate of bills aimed at toughening the criminal justice system as a conference with their federal counterpart wrapped up at a resort in western Newfoundland...

Toews and Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day appeared to offer an olive branch - though no firm commitments - in pledging to press cabinet for a package that would share the costs for more police, jails, prevention programs and court time.

But the bad news is where the Cons would apparently draw the money from:

"The federal government does understand that cracking down on crime has some increased cost associated with it," said Toews.

Asked the price tag, he declined to be specific, saying only "they are not paltry...We have to all look around and try to be more efficient in the running of other areas of government, so we have the money available."

"This isn't reaching into a big bag of money and taking it out. This is a significant consideration for the government in terms of what it's doing and its current fiscal situation."

In fairness, Toews' immediate suggestions are based solely in other areas of criminal law - suggesting at least some rational link between efficiencies and the cost of the Cons' plan. But after the Cons' recent track record of merrily hacking away at a wide range of other programs just to prove they can, the reference to "other areas of government" may hint at an intention not to put a single dollar into the justice system which can't be extracted from a social program.

Mind you, the Cons do have another idea to make up the cost of more prisons and prosecutors. But unfortunately, it's based on a pipe dream:

Day argued crime may go down as a result of the threat of stiffer sentences.

"On the other side of the ledger is the deterring effect that the legislation...is going to have on those inclined who might be criminal activity," he said.

It's hard to blame Day alone for being utterly clueless about the complete lack of a link between higher sentences and crime rates when even the minister responsible hasn't bothered to read his department's reports. But it seems all too likely that the Cons are both planning based on fact-free assumptions about the effect of their legislation, and preparing to ensure that any difference is made up through even more social demolition.

Value subtracted

The Tyee discusses the effect of the softwood lumber capitulation on Canada's attempts to add value to its lumber before exporting:

Russ Cameron, president of the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association, said that of the 120 member companies in his association, 76 filed legal cases at the Court of International Trade. Of them, 24 have withdrawn, while 52 had not.

"And of those 24, there's probably about a dozen that have done that willingly," said Cameron, who claimed the government put pressure on firms to get on board. "The other guys [withdrew legal claims] because they were a little worried with all these phone calls from government."

Cameron said the duties have been especially hard on Canadian makers of products such as heavy timbers, flooring, shakes and shingles.

Because such value-added products are more labour-intensive and expensive to create, they sell at a higher price. A higher price meant higher duties at the border, and after years of trade wrangling, many remanufacturers are in financial dire straits.

Cameron doesn't see value-added producers faring much better under the Softwood Lumber Agreement.

"This deal basically institutionalizes this tax on us," he said...

"The more value you add in Canada, the higher the penalty for doing so," said Cameron...

How those business models will adjust to the new rules is anybody's guess, but Tate of the United Steelworkers said that the bigger companies are "looking to recoup [the costs of the Softwood Lumber Agreement] on the backs of the workers and the communities."

"We've already had meetings with employers, who are telling us that when this tax comes in...we're going to have to tighten our belts," he said.

He's concerned the deal could clear the way for a lot more exporting of raw logs instead of processing the wood in Canadian factories, which creates more jobs on this side of the border.

"Mark me, I know it's coming; [the mills] are going to ask for an exemption to export either [rough lumber] or raw logs in order to subsidize their manufacturing plants."

And of course, the recent job losses can only make matters all the worse for workers, communities, and anybody else who would like to see Canada do more than just cut down raw trees to be processed elsewhere.

While there's a tiny bit of good news in the surprising conclusion that the "good cause fund" may actually have ended up going to good causes after all, the long-term effects of the capitulation on Canada look to be even worse than the immediate ones. And if the Cons are willing to throw away Canada's role in adding product value to lumber in the name of avoiding conflict with the U.S., there's plenty of reason for many other Canadian industries to fear the same result going forward.

On smokescreens

The CP reports that a leaked version of the Cons' much-ballyhooed Clean Air Act is completely lacking in substance:

Environmentalists say they have obtained a leaked draft of the federal government's long-promised Clean Air Act, and they're not impressed.

The bill amounts to little more than a set of minor amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), according to a team of environmental lawyers who studied the draft.

"First they promised a made-in-Canada plan and there is no plan. Then Prime Minister Harper promised a new Clean Air Act. Now we know there isn't one," said Beatrice Olivastri, head of the Friends of the Earth Canada.

"Based on the draft reviewed, this bill is mainly housekeeping and minor adjustments in language. It shuffles air pollution and greenhouse gas provisions to a new section of CEPA."

Olivastri said the bill does not appear to enhance federal regulatory authority to curb greenhouse gases or other pollutants...

According to the environmentalists, the draft bill would give the provinces more authority over pollution, making national standards even harder to attain.

"There are no new (federal) powers and standards," said John Bennett, executive director of the Climate Action Network.

"This is a significant delay tactic," said Stephen Hazell, executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada.

"Obviously, this means that there is no Clean Air Act. We're still waiting."

It remains to be seen whether the Cons actually do have something more substantive in the pipeline to be introduced later, or whether they plan to continue pretending that the mere existence of a piece of legislation called a Clean Air Act makes for real progress on the environment.

But either way, it's looking all the more certain that the Cons' supposed interest in the environment is at best nothing more than a smokescreen for further inaction at best, and at worst another feeble excuse to get the federal government out of the business of governing. And neither of these outcomes can be acceptable for the large majority of Canadians who want to see actual results in the battle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Update: And it gets worse, as a follow-up article suggests that one of the Cons' unnecessary changes in wording may make the new bill vulnerable to a constitutional challenge.

Cause and effect

The results are in on the Cons' softwood lumber capitulation: an export boom when the deal looked to be delayed, and now thousands of job losses following implementation. Of course, PMS claims it's all a big coincidence, and that we should be happy with a "stable" lack of employment - which should be a status which Canadian voters should be more than willing to bestow upon Harper following the next election.

Unfair enough

Leftdog has been all over the Cons' attempts to silence the Canadian Wheat Board, as well as the CWB's rightful frustration with the unprecedented gag order. But it's worth noting a couple of additional factors in the fight to save the CWB.

First, while the Cons are apparently relying on their supposed aversion to having federal funds spent on advocacy as a basis for the Order-in-Council, they had no such concern when it came to organizing the CWB's opponents on the federal dime (and behind closed doors).

Second, on a more positive note, the CWB at least isn't lacking for a strong supporting movement even if it isn't permitted to defend itself. Meaning that while the Cons may be doing their best to tilt the playing field in favour of undermining the CWB, there's still no realistic prospect of their ideology winning out as long as the question is one of public opinion.

The trust issues continue

CanWest reports that predictably, the income trust issue has popped up again due to BCE's planned conversion. And the result could be both a major loss of federal revenue, and a transition by businesses toward a form of organization which further prioritizes cash payouts over long-term development:

BCE Inc.'s decision to go the income trust conversion route is ratcheting up pressure on Ottawa to find a way to put a stop to other large companies following suit, says a leading expert on trusts.

Jack Mintz predicted more corporate heavyweights are headed into the income trust structure with negative consequences for both government tax revenue and the ability of the economy to grow and innovate.

"The minister of finance has a big problem on his hands," Mintz, a business professor at the University of Toronto and former president of the C.D. Howe Institute, said.

"There is going to be tremendous pressure on the government to act...This has been going on for too long as it is.

"There are huge conversions down the road that could easily happen. We have to ask ourselves if this is how we want to allow corporate Canada to organize itself."

Income trusts pay almost all their cash to shareholders and pay little or no corporate tax. Last fall, Mintz estimated the tax hit to government revenues from earlier trust conversions was $500 million in 2004. Now, he says the bill is heading toward $1 billion and could go well past that depending on how many more companies convert...

As well, he said the tax advantages of the income trust structure are diverting capital to slow growth industries that are the most suitable to conversion to the income trusts.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty told reporters in Vancouver Wednesday he's concerned about the issue and the government will continue to monitor the market...

Analysts have speculated other candidates for trust conversions include grocery chains, cable companies, mutual fund firms, and the wealth-management arms of the big banks.

"The onus is going to be on management to explain to shareholders why they aren't doing it," said Ian Nakamoto, research director at brokerage firm MacDougall, MacDougall & MacTier Inc.

The article suggests a carrot-and-stick solution which both applies a higher tax to foreign trust distributions, and offers yet another set of tax breaks on corporate dividends. But there's no more reason now than there was earlier to use a loophole as an excuse to lower other taxes, rather than simply closing the loophole to avoid encouraging similar problems in the future. And two moves (one by Goodale, one by Flaherty) based on more generous tax treatment of dividends have obviously failed to stop the shift.

Whatever one's preferred solution, there's no apparent reason aside from political optics why the Cons wouldn't try to take effective action where the Libs didn't. But unfortunately, it looks like those politics will win out over the substantive need for change:

David Perry, senior research associate at the Canadian Tax Foundation, said he believes the minority Conservative government will be in no hurry to tinker with income trusts given the controversy that erupted when the former Liberal government announced it was looking at the matter last year.

"I think there's a sense of urgency in the Department of Finance but it's a tough one to get into cabinet," Perry said. He noted there are "powerful interests" involved and adjusting tax laws to discourage trust conversions is a complex undertaking.

Which means that a substantial portion of Canada's economy could soon shift to the income trust model with little regard for its pitfalls, taking a significant amount of government tax revenue with it. And with the precedent set that both the Libs and the Cons are perfectly happy to let new tax avoidance measures expand indefinitely until it's too late to control them, the door is wide open for more and newer schemes to exacerbate those problems in the future.

(Edit: Fixed formatting.)

Unequalization

If there ever was any rhyme or reason to the Cons' selective recognition of deals made before their took power, they've shattered any sense of internal coherence with their latest declaration about federal/provincial funding:

Canada's intergovernmental affairs minister says the Conservative government remains committed to the deals its predecessors made with the Maritimes and Ontario, but future funding commitments will be designed to benefit provinces equally.

Speaking at a luncheon Wednesday at the Economic Club of Toronto, Michael Chong said a long-term framework to address the fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and the provinces is in the works and will focus primarily on post-secondary education and infrastructure needs...

Chong said the "one-off" deals made with province's (sic) like Ontario are unfair, although he said his government is prepared to honour them.

It's not the least bit clear why the Cons would be willing to follow through on deals which they themselves consider to be unfair, particularly given their trigger-happy approach to other agreements such as the Kelowna Accord which couldn't reasonably face the same criticism. And the willingness to honour the equalization side deals is particularly bizarre when the probable effect is to give the provinces affected absolutely no incentive to cooperate when it comes to working out a new fiscal structure.

Meanwhile, those provinces who didn't get a signature on the dotted line before the election are left yet again without any prospect of improved funding - presumably as a prelude to the Cons ignoring yet another call for fairness between the provinces. And PMS shouldn't be surprised if Saskatchewan would rather change the channel than stay tuned to yet another program of excuses.

Consulted to death

The CP reports on Canada's sad recent track record of one-sided environmental consultations leading to minimal results - including consultations on climate change going back to the Mulroney era. Once again, it's hard to see what PMS could have to gain from tapping into the legacy of delay, but there can be little doubt that Canada's Crappy New Government has done nothing to change past dithering for the better.

On questionable purchases

The Chronicle-Herald reports on a planned $5 million sole-source contract being granted by the Department of National Defence to a partner of the company which employed Gordon O'Connor as a lobbyist:

The federal government intends to award a $5-million sole-source contract for armoured-vehicle tracks to a Quebec company whose partner has ties to Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor.

Ottawa plans to buy 55 sets of rubber tracks for the military’s M113 armoured personnel carriers from Soucy International Inc. of Drummondville, Que., according to an advanced contract award notice released Tuesday. It also wants to order "an optional quantity" of up to 90 more sets of tracks and as many as 500 half-sprocket assemblies from the same company.

In June 2002, Soucy International announced it had entered into a "teaming agreement" with United Defense, a Virginia company, "to commercialize the M113 rubber-band track system by developing and making this equipment available to customers in worldwide markets."

Mr. O’Connor, a retired brigadier-general, worked as a consultant lobbyist for United Defense from October 1996 to February 2004. At the time, United Defense was owned by the U.S. company FMC Corp...

Documents Mr. O’Connor filed with the federal government’s lobbyists registration system show his work for United Defense, among other projects, involved trying to win the company an M113 track contract with Canada.

On its own, that would be dubious enough. But it gets worse, as the vehicles in question apparently aren't even fit for use in the mission which is supposedly preventing Canada from deploying troops in significant numbers anywhere else:

Now more than 300 (M113s) have been upgraded, "allowing the army to assign the M113 as combat support and combat service support vehicles to tracked armoured, artillery and engineering units," said Lt. Adam Thompson, a Defence Department spokesman.

The military intends to use the vehicles until 2020 and it wants them ready for overseas missions, he said...

Brian MacDonald, a senior analyst with the Conference of Defence Associations, doubts Canada will deploy M113s to Afghanistan, where roadside bombs, rocket attacks and suicide bombers plague NATO convoys.

"The armour on them is aluminum," said Mr. MacDonald, a retired colonel. "It has roughly the same stopping power as the armour on the LAV (Canada’s eight-wheeled light armoured vehicle), but it’s not sloped. Sloped armour gives you an effective thickness that is greater than the actual thickness."

A decade ago, the federal auditor general reported that thousands of soldiers had been sent into combat zones in Bosnia and Somalia in M113 vehicles that Defence Department studies repeatedly found "seriously deficient" and "very vulnerable to anti-tank mines."

In other words, the apparent conflict isn't limited to the mere fact of rewarding O'Connor's former employer. Instead, there should be serious questions as to why the contract would be enough of a rush to justify sole-sourcing when, absent a change in government or a complete about-face from the Cons, it'll be at least two and a half years (and longer if the Cons continue in their stubbornness surrounding Afghanistan) before there's any prospect of using the affected vehicles in large numbers abroad.

There's certainly a need for legitimate investment in Canada's military. But a rushed process only seems likely to ensure that Canada doesn't receive value for its money. And particularly where there seems to be a serious possibility that the goods purchased won't be put to much use, the Cons' zeal to funnel money to O'Connor's friends can only reflect poorly on a government which seems all too happy to permit waste as long as it's in the name of national defence.

On toeholds

CanWest reports on some potentially great news for labour, as a Quebec store is on the verge of finalizing the first collective bargaining agreement at a North American Wal-Mart:

Contract negotiations between the retail giant and unionized workers at the Wal-Mart store in St. Hyacinthe, Que., have resolved all issues but salary, which is to be brought before an arbitrator in November.

Indeed, after a year of talks, the negotiations are further ahead in St. Hyacinthe than they were at the unionized store in Jonquiere, Que., which Wal-Mart shut in 2005, after citing poor sales...

"Certainly, Quebec has been the leader," said Bob Linton, spokesperson for UFCW Canada.

"Right now it's wait and see. Once, and if there's a collective agreement, we're pretty confident that other Wal-Mart employees will want to follow suit."

It still remains to be seen whether Wal-Mart will look for excuses to close the St. Hyacinthe store as well, or otherwise ignore the rights of its workers. But given that some results have already been reached through collective bargaining, it would seem awfully late in the day for that type of move.

Which means that despite a corporate culture aimed at demonizing unions, Wal-Mart may not be far away from learning that collective bargaining can easily be a part of a successful business model. And if that recognition takes hold, then barriers to unionization could start to drop both at Wal-Marts specifically, and across the retail sector generally.

A welcome addition

It's been around for a few months now, but Relentlessly Progressive Economics just came to my attention (and apparently joined the Blogging Dippers) over the last couple of days. Give it a read for a sampling of the ways in which genuine economics differ from the corporatized version so often taken as gospel by the Libs and Cons, as well as strong coverage of politics in general.

Dithers II: Delaying the Green

It hasn't gone without plenty of comment elsewhere. But particularly after all their ranting about PMPM's ever-maddening Mr. Dithers routine, one would think the Cons would follow six months of hype with something more than a decision to consult for yet another year before setting a timetable to do something about the environment.

On injustices

There was never much room for doubt that the provinces wouldn't simply go along quietly with the Cons' plans to impose massive new costs on provincial justice systems. And with a meeting of justice ministers coming up this week, the time has come for Vic Toews to deal with the fallout:

Several provincial justice ministers want Ottawa to help them pay for the Conservative government's get-tough crime agenda, which they said will cost the provinces more money by putting extra strain on their jail and court systems.

The pitch will be made to federal Justice Minister Vic Toews and Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day when they fly into western Newfoundland on Wednesday for a meeting with their provincial counterparts.

"Obviously all ministers are going to be interested in the impacts of the federal criminal justice reforms and how that will affect the provincial justice systems," said Newfoundland's Conservative justice minister, Tom Marshall, who will chair the meeting.

"It's going to have a major effect on our system. We will need more room in our prisons, we will need more prosecutors and we will need more legal aid lawyers so it's going to have a financial effect."...

Day has acknowledged the measures could cost the system more money and he said that Ottawa has set aside as much as $245 million over five years to pay for additional prison cells.

But the provinces - which are partners in justice and run provincial jails where people serve sentences of under two years - question how they are going to pay on their end.

"The costs will be borne almost entirely by the provinces and not just on the capital side, building new correctional facilities, but with legal aid and Crown prosecutors," said Saskatchewan Justice Minister Frank Quennell.

"All through the system it's going to cost more money and it's a cheque being written on provincial taxpayers' account by the federal government."

Although several ministers support the legislative proposals, others have concerns, including Quennell, who is skeptical that the tough-on-crime policies will actually make Canada safer.

Toews, through spokesman Mike Storeshaw, declined an interview in advance of the meeting. However, Toews hinted last spring there would be no additional money for provinces to carry out the justice reforms. He said at the time that the provinces largely supported the measures, so they should share in the costs.

It's clear from Quennell's quote that any support from the provinces is far from absolute or unanimous. Which in turn means that there's even less weight to the Cons' already-flimsy justification for imposing yet more costs on the provinces.

Of course, the Cons haven't generally been the least bit shy about making promises on behalf of the provinces. But particularly in what's supposed to be one of their bread-and-butter areas, the Cons' continued unwillingness to support increased provincial obligations with any funding can only lead to yet more unhappiness from the provinces - particularly in light of Jim Flaherty's challenge to provinces to justify any tax increases. And if the provinces understandably refuse to increase their own costs based on Toews' whims, the result could be a far less effective justice system than the one the Cons claim to want to improve.

More obnoxious emissions

Greg Weston catches Rona Ambrose lying about the nature of past funding of international environmental projects. But the bigger issue (which Weston seems to miss as well) is why Ambrose and the Cons seem to want to pretend that Canada's environment is wholly detached from the rest of the world, rather than acknowledging that reduced emissions around the world do help us here at home.

Update: CTV reports that the Cons have admitted that Ambrose was wrong. While NDP MP Nathan Cullen agrees with commenter Steve V that Ambrose should be summoned back before the environment committee, I'm not so sure that the Ambrose's reappearance would serve any useful purpose - why allow her yet another chance in the spotlight to spread more misinformation? Better to tag every Ambrose story with "Ambrose, who has previously misled Parliament with her claim that hundreds of millions of dollars were spent on international carbon credits...", and move on to somebody more credible.

The road to imbalance

While it's tough to disagree with Carol Goar that it's a plus to see Jim Flaherty's rare willingness to actually talk about substantive policy at the Fiscal Federalism conference, Flaherty's actual policy of looking for excuses to demolish Canada's federal government leaves much to be desired:

The government's objective is not solely to put money back in taxpayers' pockets, Flaherty said. It is to give the provinces an opportunity to increase their share of the national tax take.

By reducing federal taxes, Ottawa creates room for the provinces to raise theirs without imposing an additional burden on taxpayers.

There is a catch, of course. The provinces have to convince their citizens that they're better off paying for improvements in health care, education and social programs than getting a tax break.

But Flaherty considers that fair.

Needless to say, Flaherty is all too happy to ignore the realities facing provinces who would otherwise like to take over some of that tax room. But in fact, any prospect of provinces moving into the extra "room" is remote at best for the short term.

The first difficulty is that inter-provincial competition makes it difficult for any one province to take the first step absent some agreement. And the problem is magnified when most provinces are fighting to keep their workers from moving to a province which (for all its readily-visible warts) can afford to keep running for the foreseeable future without raising taxes no matter how much federal contributions are reduced. This problem could be overcome with a move toward tax harmonization...but the Cons don't seem the slightest bit interested in trying to create national movement in that direction.

Moreover, while Flaherty claims to have a genuine interest in opening tax room rather than merely cutting taxes generally, his party's public rhetoric is strongly to the contrary. And however little evidence there is behind the constant whine that Canadians pay too much in taxes, the Cons' constant repetition of that mantra will lead to an even greater perception problem for provinces who would otherwise want to make the case that program investment is worthwhile.

It's in order to deal with difficulties like those that it makes sense for the federal government to collect a relatively high proportion of taxes for distribution to the provinces. Instead, Flaherty's "road map" goes nowhere but to greater interprovincial disparity and poorer services for Canadians. Which may leave Canadians looking forward to the opportunity to put somebody else at the wheel.

5 things feminism has done for me

The "5 things feminism has done for me" meme has obviously been a major force in the progressive blogosphere over the last couple of weeks. I'm a bit late to the party and will probably be duplicating some previous comments, but here's my addition to the list.

(1) Feminism has challenged previous notions of equality, highlighting the fact that equality depends on one's ability to determine society's measuring sticks as well as how one measures up against them. (Though there's still an awful lot left to be done on both counts.)

(2) Feminism has fostered further inclusion by enabling a bevy of minority groups to better point out the barriers placed in their way. Minorities on their own may have faced an even more difficult path toward recognition - but a movement emphasizing the fact that even a majority could be subject to institutional discrimination has opened the door for other groups to raise similar issues.

(3) Feminism has changed the face of my profession. As recently as 50-60 years ago, some law schools were still awaiting their first female student; now over half of law school graduates are female. The result has been not only to double the pool of prospective lawyers, but also to result in exponential development to the law itself.

(4) Feminism has opened up the range of options for myself and my fiancee in planning our future together. Rather than facing a strong expectation of having children quickly, resulting in me supporting a family and her staying home and raising it, we're able to consider a multitude of possibilities (with or without children, with one or both of us pursuing multiple university degrees, etc.) in determining how we want to spend our lives going forward.

(5) And perhaps most importantly to me personally, feminism has enabled many of the people closest to me to be themselves and to develop their strengths. I can't say how many of the strong, intelligent females in my life would have been able to show those traits to the same degree in a society which did more to suppress those qualities - and it's thanks to feminism that the remaining barriers are ones which have been surmountable.

Crumbling

Only a few weeks before many Canadians will choose their new municipal leaders, the Globe and Mail highlights the severe underfunding of municipal infrastructure over the last three decades:

The Montreal-area overpass that collapsed less than two weeks ago was built in 1970 during Canada's Golden Age of infrastructure spending, when roads, sewers and bridges still enjoyed pride of place in government budgets.

New investment on infrastructure grew at a rapid 4.8-per-cent clip annually between 1955 and 1977...

Between 1978 and 2000, new government infrastructure spending grew at only 0.1 per cent a year.

Today, long-ignored demands to refurbish decades of bricks and mortar have piled up. Estimates of the infrastructure replacement backlog range from $60-billion for cities to $125-billion to fix everything that is not being fixed...

In Calgary, for instance, the city is only now overhauling a downtown bridge first built in 1912. Mayor David Bronconnier says the 94-year-old structure is among several bridges “literally ready to fall down” and “just one of many examples we have of deferred maintenance.”

He said Calgary needs $5.5-billion over 10 years to replace and repair old infrastructure as well as meet new demands — cash it can't provide by itself.

“In Calgary's case, 66 cents out of every tax dollar goes to the federal government, 29 per cent to the province and only 5 per cent to the local level,” he said. “That is a fiscal imbalance of epic proportions.”...

Municipal leaders say their infrastructure trouble is exacerbated by the increasing pressure they face to spend money on social problems that other levels of government aren't sufficiently addressing, from English training to immigration settlement to urban native needs.

“There's 3,000 people on the streets of Calgary who are homeless,” Mr. Bronconnier said. “Should property tax dollars go to service that when you've got a federal government running a $13-billion surplus?”

In retrospect, critics say, Canadian politicians should have set money aside regularly to prepare for replacement costs of the new infrastructure they were rolling out.

“Our present system is design, build and forget,” McGill's Prof. Mirza said.

While part of the problem lies with past (and in some cases current) underinvestment in maintenance by municipalities, it's too late to change that part of the equation. But there's no reason at all why the current strong fiscal position of both the federal government and the bulk of the provinces can't be applied to make up for some of the gap which those levels of government helped to create. And with the Laval overpass tragedy still fresh in the minds of Canadians, now may be just the right time for all three levels of government to reach agreement as to how to get maintenance funding where it needs to go.

On planning

A reader points out this essay at Global Research, which lists a significant military buildup in the Middle East and suggests that an attack on Iran may be imminent within the next couple of weeks.

Some of the piece undoubtedly needs to be taken with a grain of salt, particularly its willingness to pretend Iran's leaders are any less bellicose or more credible than Bush and company. And in the bigger picture I'd have a hard time seeing how there's enough public support for the U.S. to launch another war, particularly with the administration discredited as thoroughly as it has been over Iraq.

But it's still worth noting the actions being taken by both the U.S. and Canada which could only be explained by at least some plan for war - and keeping the background in mind if the U.S. does seek to ramp up tensions in the short term.

On disadvantages

This weekend's stories add a lack of housing and systematic deficiencies in service to the list of costs in following the hype to Alberta. Which can only add to the well-known lower cost of living and similarly-booming job market to make the province to the east look all the better in comparison.

Irrational

The CP reports that the Cons are following through on a previous Lib plan to cut off food aid to Afghani war widows:

A long line of widows in tattered blue burkas waited for hours Sunday for Canadian-bought rations of flour, cooking oil, dried peas and medicine...

They are the poorest of Afghanistan's poor, yet their monthly food support is to be cut off by April.

That's when the Canadian International Development Agency plans to replace the rations, worth C$2.5 million a year, with training designed to help widows support themselves.

Ottawa planned to end them last year but extended funding for another 12 months when the widows planned a protest - an extraordinary act for one of the country's most voiceless, marginalized groups.

Zainab Wahdi, deputy manager of women's programs for CARE Afghanistan, hopes Canada will reconsider.

"Vocational training is the best, but it will not be enough," she said.

Proposals being considered so far would only cover about 5,000 widows - and many will face child-care issues and resistance from men who don't want them to work, she added.

The reality is that thousands of women still desperately need help to feed their families, Wahdi said.

Now, providing minimal food support for war widows would seem to be a fairly affordable means of making sure that Canada is seen positively by the Afghani citizens whose choices will determine the country's future direction. And indeed the plan for increased training would seem to be more appropriate as a supplement to food aid, rather than a substitute for it.

But apparently, food aid doesn't fit into the Cons' priorities for Afghanistan. And unless another protest again succeeds in shifting the current position, the move may soon give both the widows and those who are paying attention to their cause plenty of reason to doubt Canada's commitment to doing anything to improve the lives of Afghanistan's citizens.

Repugnant indeed

Linda McQuaig unloads on the Cons' potential gay-bashing legislation.

About the only problem with McQuaig's take is that she misses the extent to which hatred is already sanctioned even without a federal bigotry bill: contrary to her statement that current law provides "not a whit of protection", the scenario seems to be taken from a case where just an ad was ultimately held not to result in a human rights violation. Which makes it all the more disgusting that the Cons are trying to turn back the clock even further.

Powerless

The CP reports on Northern Ontario's power problems, as a region capable of producing large amounts of cheap and clean energy is instead suffering from poor distribution and post-deregulation prices:

Some 25,000 direct and indirect jobs have been lost in the past year as a result of a battered forestry industry - a crippling loss for small towns, which have seen their tax base shrink and unemployed workers move away, leaving empty homes, shops and schools.

In acknowledging a weakening industry, the government has helped lower wood fibre costs by improving forest access roads and offered loans for plants that want to expand and modernize. But the coalition says mill owners have repeatedly cited electricity as the most crippling part of doing business in Ontario.

Since the deregulation of Ontario's $10-billion electricity market in 2002, prices have jumped about 60 per cent, even as the price of generating and producing energy in northern Ontario has stayed the same - roughly $40 per megawatt-hour...

Northerners consume just 2,000 megawatts of power compared to the 25,000 swallowed up in the south, said New Democrat Leader Howard Hampton, whose Kenora-Rainy River riding depends heavily on the forest sector.

Unlike the south, where consumption and supply are the problem, the north's electricity challenge is high rates, he said. That's why a northern pricing scheme is so fundamental to the region's economic future.

"The electricity system has totally turned their world upside down," Hampton said.

"Even though they built their mills in the middle of the best wood fibre in the world and in the middle of power dams where they have a surplus...somebody turning on their air conditioner in Toronto will shut them down."...

Since the 1970s, there's been talk of beefing up the north's puny transmission lines. But the province seems more interested in buying power from Manitoba and Labrador, and spending billions on nuclear plants, he added.

"That ticks me off...We have the power right here in our own province. We're just not looking at tapping into the renewable energy up in northern Ontario."

Upgrading lines near the Parry Sound area could get 600 more megawatts flowing south at a cost of $50 to 60 million, less than the cost of a nuclear plant, he added.

It's hard to see what Ontario could possibly stand to gain from its current refusal to make better use of its northern generating potential. But it's far too clear that the McGuinty government isn't the least bit interested in investing in connections across the province. And the end result is not only that the northern part of the province is losing out on both power generation and other industries, but also that the power-hungry southern part of the province is stuck looking to unduly expensive and hazardous alternatives such as nuclear power to meet the demand that could be met further north.

Pound-foolish

So much for giving the Cons credit for dealing with Canada's northern sovereignty issues, as they're inexplicably pinching pennies on exactly the diplomatic efforts which would otherwise have stood to be strengthed by an increased Arctic presence:

Ottawa dismissed its ambassador to the world's main circumpolar council, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said, putting efforts to bolster its claims to vast Arctic territories in doubt.

Arctic Council envoy Jack Anawak was fired last month and his job was eliminated...

Anawak's duties would be assumed by senior officials at Canada's foreign affairs department, officials said.

But critics said the move undermines Canada's dealings with its Arctic neighbors on common issues, including land claims and measures to fight global warming...

The move could weaken Canada's fight over several territories claimed by other countries in the Arctic, critics said.

Canada is currently at odds with Denmark over the tiny, uninhabitable Hans Island between Ellesmere Island and Greenland, and is feuding with Russia over rights to overlapping parts of the Arctic continental shelf.

As well, Ottawa and Washington disagree over control of the famed Northwest Passage and the resource-rich Beaufort Sea, which touches both Alaska and Canada's northern territories.

The disputes have grown in importance as scientists believe that global warming could open up the Northwest Passage to year-round cargo shipping by 2050, and allow the exploitation of resources like oil and natural gas in the Arctic...

The Arctic Council is an intergovernmental forum set up to address Inuit or Arctic people's concerns and challenges. Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the United States and Russia are members.

Considering the billions of dollars being poured into icebreakers in an attempt to assert sovereignty over Canada's northern areas, it would seem a reasonable investment to have at least one envoy dedicated to working with our northern neighbours within a well-established structure.

But for the Cons, diplomacy across the polar region and the concerns of Canada's Inuit are apparently of so little value as not to be worth dedicating a single position. Which only makes it all the more certain that the most important challenges and opportunities present in Canada's north will continue to be ignored as long as the Cons are in power.

(Via catnip.)

On misappropriation

The Cons have done their best to pretend that valid critiques of the Libs' failure to act on climate change somehow support a conclusion that it's simply not worth bothering to do anything meaningful. But at least one expert cited by Rona Ambrose is less than pleased to be cited in support of the Cons' painfully slow approach:

Daphne Wysham, a fellow from the Institute for Policy Studies, said Ambrose is using her think tank's criticism of the Clean Development Mechanism to abandon Canada's responsibility to live up to its commitment under the international agreement.

"I'm horrified by that," Wysham said in a phone interview. "I certainly don't want to see Canada pulling out, did not want to the U.S. pulling out. We want to see Kyoto strengthened."

Ambrose made reference to the think tank on Thursday during a parliamentary committee arguing that the mechanism, which allows countries to get credits for investments in developing nations to reduce emissions, had no accountability...

"There is a lot of evidence now about the lack of accountability around these kinds of products," Ambrose told the committee. "I'll tell you what a clean development expert said at the Institute for Policy Studies...(She) said 'you're creating all kinds of incentives for corruption.'"

Wysham admitted she criticized the mechanism, but explained that she was urging countries to develop alternatives to make more effective progress in the fight to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that cause climate change...

"In the meantime, Canada should absolutely be shooting for their emission targets reduction at home," Wysham said. "It's no excuse if you're saying we can't trust the system abroad. Let's see you put your money where your mouth is at home."

Needless to say, it doesn't look likely that the Cons will want to highlight Wysham's actual position anytime soon. But in the absence of anybody more credible than Tim Ball willing to back their refusal to take broad-based action, it's only a matter of time before the Cons once again try to base their argument on sources who abhor the Cons' actual philosophy. And hopefully Canadians will pay enough attention to that pattern to recognize that the Cons simply lack any honest rationale for their continued neglect.

Heh

Linwood Barclay brings some high-quality snark on the Cons' literacy cuts. Give it a read.

Compromising positions

The CP reports on yet another broken softwood lumber deadline...and the possibility that the Cons' latest workaround to avoid industry dissent may involve a forcible end to the efforts of Canadian producers to challenge the U.S.' initial illegal duties:

Late Friday, International Trade Minister David Emerson said the two countries "have found a satisfactory resolution to the outstanding legal and administrative issues."

Emerson was unavailable for comment but his communications director, Bob Klager, said the two governments found a similar method for terminating the litigation.

"Under this new process only a limited number of cases will need to be terminated in order for the revocation of the duty orders," he said. "I think by virtue of the fact we've developed with them this simpler process, it satisfies the interests of both countries."

But an opponent of the deal said the "simpler process" involves unilaterally quashing the cases.

NDP trade critic Peter Julian said lawyers for the Canadian and U.S. governments filed a status report in the U.S. Court of International Trade on Friday that tramples on the legal rights of Canadian opponents of the lumber duties.

The brief says that on Friday the Canadian and U.S. governments tentatively agreed to amendments in the July 1 softwood deal that, if implemented, would affect one of the cases the New York-based court was hearing.

"The litigation aspects of the agreement are currently under review by officials of the United States with the authority to approve the compromise of the claims in litigation," the document says.

"On the day that the agreement enters into force, the governments of Canada and the United States will stipulate to a dismissal of all claims raised by the Government of Canada (in one softwood case)...and the United States Department of Commerce will revoke in their entirety the underlying anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders on softwood lumber from Canada."

The article notes that there's some controversy as to the precise effect of the deal. But the difference seems to be more in form than in substance: even if the deal doesn't lead to any outright legislative bars to continued litigation, forced implementation could well put a stop to the ongoing cases if they're found to be moot. Which means that at best the Cons' most recent move to reopen the supposedly-closed deal may have "won" some uncertainty as to whether or not the claims will be allowed to continue - and at worst they've won nothing whatsoever.

Moreover, it seems glaringly clear that the latter interpretation will be pushed by the Cons themselves: surely neither government would have gone to the trouble of submitting a joint brief to the effect that their actions would "compromise" the claims at stake in the litigation. Which means that while the Cons may be trying to have it both ways in their words, their actions once again reflect a clear stand against Canadian interests.

Meanwhile, if you're searching for coverage which completely ignores the issue of ongoing litigation in favour of undiluted right-wing spin, ConWest has what you're looking for.

No help at all

Tony Clement has predictably refused to do anything to deal with the obvious problems with a wait-times plan that narrowly focuses on only a few procedures, suggesting that provinces seek to improve wait times across the board but offering neither funding nor ideas to get there:

Clement said the task of reducing wait times shouldn’t stop (with the five procedures), and he would be willing to look at reducing emergency room wait times, given recent problems some Ontario ERs have been experiencing...

However, he says the federal government won’t be doling out more money to the provinces to lessen wait times.

Clement said his government is adequately funding health care, including $5.5 billion over several years earmarked for reducing wait times.

“It must be a question of management,” he said.

“That’s my only conclusion, because it certainly isn’t a lack of resources.”

Needless to say, Clement's apparent view is wrong on more than a few levels. On the question of whether the issue is a lack of resources, the steady correlation between increased inputs and better results should suggest that there's plenty of reason to believe that a lack of money is indeed the issue. And to the extent that management issues are in play, the disproportionate focus on the Cons' five procedures to the exclusion of reducing waiting lists across the board is a far more obvious source of resource misallocation than anything Clement seems prepared to point out.

Of course, Clement can't really be expected to deviate from the Cons' general view that any government funding is too much. But it's clear that he sorely lacks anything resembling a prescription to improve the condition of Canada's health care system. And both the provinces and Canadians generally should rightly be seeking a second opinion as to what can cure the system's current ailments.

Content and connections

Steve Anderson questions whether corporate ownership of citizen media outlets may hurt participatory media in the long run:

Current TV is far from the only corporation in the participatory media game. Fox Interactive Media recently spent $580 million to acquire MySpace.com. Google, a large and ever more powerful media corporation, owns one of the most popular blog platforms: BlogSpot.com. Furthermore, YouTube — the most popular online video site on the Internet — has now partnered with Time/Warner/AOL (the largest media company in the world), and is seeking other such partnerships (YouTube is also a private corporation).

The fact is that because these corporations are operating to make a profit, they simply want to have a popular website and then sell our eyeballs to advertisers and marketers. As Wired magazine put it, “Rupert Murdoch is betting he can transform a free social network into a colossal marketing machine.” It's no wonder that going to the homepage of many of these corporate participatory communities often slams an ad, trailer or product placement in your face.

The more these sites bow to advertisers the less exposure users will have. This flies in the face of everything these websites are supposed to be about: an open space for citizens to communicate and share media. The basic openness of these sites is now the bait with which these corporations have caught a large audience.

These sites are starting to feel like newspapers that have front pages filled with ads, with the opinion section way in the back. Citizen produced media is often buried, their voices largely unheard, while paid content enjoys everyone's attention. How far can this process go before citizens move on and create a new place to openly communicate?

Anderson's commentary does appear to miss some of the benefits of the commercial site in providing a simple content-delivery system whose users can then link up elsewhere. While sites such as Blogging Dippers and Progressive Bloggers may be required in addition to a corporate site to facilitate connections among people of similar interests, it's equally clear that the amount of content available for linking would be far lower if Blogspot didn't enable users to put up their own content at no cost and with little requirement for technical knowledge.

Of course, ownership may matter to some extent, particularly where corporate media interests may seek to limit the content accessible through their sites. But thanks to the ease with which connecting sites can be set up, the issue of "front" or "back" is essentially irrelevant as long as content is still available. Which means that while the participatory sites mentioned by Anderson are likely worth a look as well, we're still a long ways away from having reason to think that corporate ownership is significantly curtailing individual participation.

Entirely expected

The Globe and Mail reports that a narrow focus on a few types of wait times may be leading to increased waiting lists for other types of surgery not included in the Cons' proposed guarantee:

Doctors across Canada who perform hysterectomies, colonoscopies and gallbladder surgeries say the operations are being delayed as politicians channel resources into the five waiting-time priorities established in a federal-provincial deal crafted two years ago.

Specialists who do not provide cancer care, heart operations, cataract removal, hip and knee replacement, and diagnostic imaging — the five priorities spelled out in the 2004 accord — say they watch resources flow to those areas while their own patient queues grow longer. The situation, which calls into question the strategy adopted by successive federal governments in their effort to cut lineups, is of such concern that it was raised at a meeting of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons two weeks ago.

And because there is so much anecdotal evidence to support the complaints but no hard data, the problem is a major focus of an on-line study launched this week by the Canadian Medical Association...

The original proposition was that the provinces would begin by targeting the five high-visibility areas and then gradually increase the number of procedures that must be treated within clinically acceptable time frames. But that hasn't happened, said Andrew Padmos, chief executive officer of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons.

“The funds made available and the process to deal with them has not been able to address all of the backlog in those specialty areas that were selected and it's certainly made things worse for the other areas in general,” Dr. Padmos said.

More than that, because hospitals and health districts are given money for volume in the five target areas, there is justification and encouragement to shift resources — such as operating rooms, anesthetists and operating-room nurses — in those directions because it will bring in new and additional funding.

“So it's a bit of a double whammy because everything else is seen as a cost whereas these five areas can be construed as revenue producing,” Dr. Padmos said.

It's not clear yet whether the problem is truly a national one, or whether some provinces or regions have properly prioritized general patient care over the Cons' arbitrary targets. But there's now at least anecdotal evidence showing an effect even before any guarantee has been formally implemented, and it may not be long before more substantive data is available as well.

Mind you, Tony Clement has never been one to accept the prospect that evidence should trump his party's plans. But now that the predictable (and predicted) effects of a narrow focus are already materializing, it may not be long before the wait-times guarantee not only drops out of the Cons' main priorities, but drops off the radar entirely in favour of more thorough coverage.

Cooperative efforts

CBC reports that while it took awhile to materialize, a new coalition has come together to defend the Canadian Wheat Board against the Cons' intended attack:

A newly formed coalition of Prairie farm groups is trying to put the brakes on moves to end the Canadian Wheat Board's grain-marketing monopoly.

It's called the Prairie Producer Coalition and includes the National Farmers Union (NFU), the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM), the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan, Keystone Agricultural Producers and Wild Rose Agricultural Producers...

The coalition, which met for the first time in Winnipeg on Wednesday, plans to examine the issue and then release a report which they plan to make available to farmers...

NFU president Stewart Wells said farmers have to regain control over the wheat board.

"Over the last couple of months, the federal government has given every indication that it has no respect whatsoever for the Canadian Wheat Board Act and the actual laws of the country," he said.

As I've noted before, the movement may be starting off on a questionable legal footing to the extent that it seems to view a plebiscite as a required step in the CWB's destruction. But the coordinated effort should force the Cons to come to terms with just how much of their rural base stands to lose out if the Cons force the change on Western Canada. And that effect will be particularly strong since the inclusion of SARM means that the fight to preserve the CWB goes beyond producers alone - which means the Cons may have no choice but to pay attention to the fact that their apparent disdain for the interests of the rural Prairies may easily be repaid in kind at the polls.

On selective sovereignty

The Cons did their best to pretend to stand up to the U.S. when it came to talking tough about the Arctic. But when it comes to Canada's southern border, they apparently don't have the slightest problem with the U.S. doing as it pleases on Canadian territory.

The Lieberman Party strikes again

There's plenty not to like in the Senate defence committee's recent report. But perhaps the most inexplicable part of the report (which is highlighted by the CP) is the call for PMS to take over the public airwaves to launch another jingoistic "defence" of combat in Afghanistan:

The government has to do a better job of explaining Canada's mission in Afghanistan, a Senate committee said Thursday...

Senator Colin Kenny, the committee chairman, said two successive governments left the explanations to Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of the defence staff.

"This was not his job."

Kenny said Prime Minister Stephen Harper should speak to the country on TV, explaining the rationale of the mission.

"We think there needs to be a very clear statement about what the government expects to get for putting the lives at risk and spending all of that money," he said. "It's up to the government to make that case and we think if the case is made well, there will be a significant amount of public support for it."

In fairness, the Senate's call is officially for some real content in response to many of the questions which have gone unanswered about the mission. But there's no reason why the answers should have to come in one particular forum as opposed to another - and indeed the Libs in the Senate (not to mention those in the House) have plenty of opportunity to ask for the same information from their Con counterparts.

Instead, the report adds nothing to the frequent calls for some real justification for the Afghanistan mission. And it shouldn't take much of a prognosticator to predict that PMS is politically canny enough take the invitation to free air time without meeting the Senate's request for actual information.

It's easy to see why the Cons in the Senate want to give Harper more air time and spread blame across the past two governments. But for the Senate's Libs, the willingness to hand a platform and political cover to Harper shows only exactly the same type of naivete that's kept the U.S.' Democrats from being a remotely effective opposition party over the past few years. Fortunately, Canada's voters (unlike their counterparts to the south) do have a real option which is able to speak out for what Canadians want rather than being caught up in insider politics...and the sooner that choice is able to win power, the better.

(Edit: typo.)

Unsustainable

A new Natural Resources Canada report suggests that current Canadian petroleum reserves are substantially less than usually assumed - but that even at a lower production level than projected by the industry, petroleum production will singlehandedly cause a major increase in greenhouse gas emissions:

Canada's natural gas exports to the United States will fall by nearly two-thirds by 2020 as new unconventional sources fail to offset declining production in Alberta and rising domestic demand, a new study from Natural Resources Canada suggests.

Meanwhile, the country will have to rely on expensive and heavily polluting oil sand projects to provide as much as 80 per cent of its oil production, up from 40 per cent currently, according to a department report, entitled Canada's Energy Outlook, which was released yesterday...

The government analysts have projected that Canada's natural gas production will peak at 6.6 trillion cubic feet a year by 2011, and then it will decrease, although they expect the decline will be partly offset by the production of coal-bed methane and gas from the Mackenzie Delta.

Still, with rising domestic demand, the energy outlook says net exports of natural gas will drop to 1.3 trillion cubic feet in 2020 from 3.7 tcf this year...

The analysts are also less bullish on oil sands production than is CAPP, which forecasts that capacity to reach four million barrels a day by 2020.

The NRCan report says it will be 2.9 million barrels, which would still represent 80 per cent of total Canadian oil output...

Under the NRCan scenario, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions would climb to 828 megatonnes in 2010 -- 253 megatonnes above the country's Kyoto commitments -- and would rise to 897 megatonnes in 2020. Nearly 60 per cent of that increase is expected to occur in the oil sector, primarily from producing and refining the bitumen from the oil sands.

It's worth noting that the article (and by association the report) doesn't seem to tackle the question of whether Canada will even be able to reduce natural gas exports under NAFTA. But one way or the other, it seems rather plain that some of Canada's resource industries aren't far away from dying out.

The only rational response would be to recognize the need to use what's left of our dwindling oil resources to help fund a move to more sustainable energy sources. The question now is whether the Cons will ignore the report (and perhaps declare research to be beyond the mandate of NRC), or take seriously the likelihood that the oil industry is less sustainable both economically and environmentally than its proponents would like to admit.

Neglect by any other name

It isn't often that a party that's both as image-conscious and as loose with the truth as the Cons acknowledges the need to correct itself, especially on a matter of form. Which makes it noteworthy that the Cons have the party's admitted that their environmental policy falls short of anything that can be called a "plan":

After months of promising a comprehensive "Made-in-Canada" environment plan, word from the federal Conservative government is there won't be a formal plan after all.

A senior official in the office of Environment Minister Rona Ambrose said the word "plan" is no longer being used. It's now an "approach."...

Since being elected last winter, the Conservatives have deferred most questions about environmental issues by referring to the coming plan.

Environmentalists say they're not surprised at the shift in terminology.

"We've known for month's (sic) there's no plan," said Louise Comeau of the Sage Climate Project. "What they're planning is a series of announcements."

Now, it's understandable that the Cons may have recognized how empty their own set of disconnected ideas looked in comparison to an actual plan. But the sudden lowering of the Cons' target only emphasizes just how far they're out of touch with a Canadian public which already recognizes the need for far more action than the Cons have any intention of delivering.

On backroom deals

Mitchell Anderson reminds us why the federal Libs have been strangely absent from the debate over the Cons' apparent intention to do as little as possible about greenhouse gas emissions originating from the oil industry:

The Environment Commissioner warned last week that the federal government must do "something drastic" to begin to deal meaningfully with climate change. But don't count on anything more than hot air when Harper releases his long awaited "Made in Canada" climate policy sometime this month.

The reason dates back to a deal quietly penned between Ottawa and Canadian oil industry in 2002 that essentially killed any chance Canada had to meet our obligations under Kyoto agreement.

It seems that the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers was concerned that the newly ratified accord to limit emissions of greenhouse gases would limit their profitability. Apparently, Ottawa was only too happy to accommodate.

Calling these documents a "deal" is a bit of a misnomer, since the Canadian public got essentially nothing in return. Incredibly, this sellout was almost completely ignored by the mainstream press.

Among other things, Ottawa committed to the fossil fuel sector that they would "set emission intensity targets for the oil and gas sector at no more than 15 per cent below the projected business-as-usual levels for 2010."

"Large final emitters" like the oil sector account for fully 50 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. In order to comply with Kyoto, the rest of the Canadian economy -- namely you and me -- would have to cut our emissions by more than 40 per cent.

Meanwhile, the oil and gas industry has cheerfully increased their emissions by 47 per cent since 1990, and they are set to double again in the next decade.

Of course, it's now clear that the Libs' plan at the time was never on track to reach Canada's Kyoto commitments - meaning that the lack of action was across the board, not only with respect to industrial emitters. But then, Canadians in general didn't demand or receive a signed agreement as to how much (or how little) the federal government would do to regulate emissions.

As Anderson notes, there's little reason to think the Cons will demand more from their own supporters than the Libs were willing to from industrial polluters generally. Which means that this deal is one of the few signed by the Libs that the Cons may actually follow, and that another change in government is a prerequisite to any real action toward dealing with emissions.

Anderson may be wrong in suggesting that Canada's doesn't have any realistic means of meeting its Kyoto obligations. But the chances of reaching the goal are diminishing by the day thanks in large part to the Libs' choices. And Canadians will have every reason to doubt any claim of environmental commitment by a party which was so willing to sign away any effective action.

Excuses for bigotry

The big news today is the federal Cons' apparent decision to bring forward a bigotry bill to enshrine gay-bashing as a statutory entitlement. But as offensive as the idea is generally, it's even more striking to see the lengths the Cons are going to in trying to invent problems to justify the bill:

Justice officials have also been told to search for ways to protect the rights of individuals to criticize homosexual activity because it contravenes religious teachings, or to refuse to do business with organizations whose purposes he or she disagrees with, without being brought before a human-rights tribunal.

In other words, the intention of the bill isn't even to deal with what the Cons perceive as current limitations on the ability of gay-bashers to go about their prejudice. The plan is to first look for every conceivable area where it's possible to insult gays, and then introduce the bill as a pre-emptive strike to cover all such contingencies.

It's worth noting also that the timing of the bill appears intended to make sure that courts don't have an opportunity to actually balance the interests involved. (Which, as pointed out by Vues d'ici, fits nicely with the Cons' elimination of the court challenges programs) Instead, the Cons' intention is to conclusively resolve any dispute against the rights of gays - effectively denying that there could be any competing rights worthy of court protection.

Needless to say, the proposed bill shouldn't stand a chance of making it through the current Parliament. And indeed the news of the bigotry bill may only encourage opposition members to vote against reopning the gay marriage issue. But it's still striking to see the Cons going this far out of their way in favour of discrimination while holding onto a tenuous minority government - and the move should only highlight just how much more damage the Cons' reactionaries would do given a chance at a majority.

On non-apologies

The CP claims that Rona Ambrose has apologized for dismissing Quebeckers' concerns about the environment. But if it's possible to apologize more disingenuously or disrespectfully, I'm not sure how:

Environment Minister Rona Ambrose apologized Tuesday for saying that "Quebec is not really a concern to me" in developing plans to combat climate change.

"I'm very sorry if my remarks have been misintepreted," Ambrose told the Commons in response to a complaint from Liberal MP Lucienne Robillard. "I know Quebecers love their environment."

Naturally, Ambrose starts with the classic non-apology trick of implying that the fault lies with others misinterpreting her remarks. But just to go that extra mile in showing her disrespect for Quebeckers, Ambrose's comment goes on to turn their concern about the environment into a stereotype to be dismissed glibly, rather than anything worth taking seriously.

If there's any good news in Ambrose's apparent contempt for both Quebec and the environment, it's that it shouldn't be long before voters have a chance to pass judgment on Ambrose and her party. And Ambrose can't expect too many apologies if the Cons' dismissiveness now leads to their electoral downfall later.

A study in contrasts

The CP's coverage of the Cons' plan to regulate auto emissions lumps together the responses of Buzz Hargrove and Jack Layton into a general category of "criticizing the plan". But a closer look at the statements shows a stark difference between a pseudo-progressive who allows narrow interests to outweigh any concept of the greater good, and a vision based on a shared commitment to environmental progress.

Hargrove's position is essentially based on a view that any regulation whatsoever is an unfair imposition on the car industry:

Hargrove said in an interview the proposed standards would force billions of dollars worth of changes to the way North American automakers manufacture cars, at a time when they’re already “on their knees.”

“The timing is ludicrous,” Hargrove said. “The industry has made major strides on emissions reductions, and a more appropriate way to handle this would be to introduce incentives for people who have older vehicles to trade them in for newer vehicles that are much more fuel efficient.”

Never mind that the regulations would only match planned standards in the U.S. - or that they'd only come into effect on four years' warning, which should offer a significant amount of lead time for the industry to adjust. For Hargrove, any solution which results in possible limitations on the car industry must be unfair. And in turn, the only solution which could be applied to the auto industry is to base an environmental strategy entirely on subsidizing new car purchases.

Granted, it's understandable that Hargrove wants to boost the fortunes of his own members above all else. But the result is a criticism of the Cons which completely misses the point, demanding an even less effective and more narrowly-focused means of dealing with greenhouse gas emissions than the one the Cons are proposing. And that position leaves the Cons able to take the side of defending the need for environmental action despite their own woeful record on the issue.

In contrast, Layton's position doesn't oppose the regulation at all, but rightly recognizes that it should form only a small part of a wider solution:

NDP Leader Jack Layton said the car industry should also be supported in embracing new technologies, and consumers should be given incentives for buying more efficient vehicles.

“It should be a package, a full approach toward a green auto strategy that allows us to get past that old contradiction between jobs and the environment,” Layton said.

In other words, the regulation may form part of a viable solution. But the next question is how to do more than the Cons are proposing, not how to justify doing less. And that places the onus on the Cons to explain both their embrace of joke standards for the oil industry and their lack of support to assist in the auto industry's transition to a lower-emission regime, rather than suggesting that it's simply an either-or question as to which out of the oil industry and the auto industry should face meaningful regulations.

Considering Hargrove's past efforts to undermine the NDP in the name of stopping PMS, one might expect him to pay more attention to what will achieve more progressive results and put the Cons on the defensive. Instead, he's shown only how narrow his interests really are when push comes to shove. And that should in turn cement Layton's position as the strongest national voice for progressive Canadians.

Unsettling

The Sun reports that the RCMP has paid out a settlement in excess of $2.2 million for malicious prosecution - but that the Canadian public will have no way to find out why:

The RCMP has made a secret $2.2-million settlement for "malicious prosecution," but Canadian taxpayers footing the bill are in the dark over details of the case.

According to the federal government's recently released public accounts documents, the name of the victim is being withheld "in accordance with terms of settlement."

NDP MP Joe Comartin said such confidentiality clauses are common when a government agency has wronged a citizen, but slammed the hush clause as contrary to public accountability.

"It's a simple way of them covering up misconduct on the part of members of the force," he said.

Comartin, a lawyer, said the right to request privacy should rest only with the victim -- not the government agency guilty of wrongdoing.

In the interest of public accountability, the Tory government should set new policy that prohibits a confidentiality clause unless the victim insists on it, he said.

Osgoode Hall Law School Prof. Alan Young, who runs the Innocence Project to help the wrongfully accused, said the massive $2.2-million settlement suggests an "egregious" violation of the plaintiff's rights. The victim deserves to expose details of his experience and the public deserves to know more in the interests of accountability, he said. "Because there's a public interest here, and police serve the public, and because the award is paid out of taxpayers' money, one could make a very compelling argument that this is contrary to public interest to allow these confidential settlements," he said.

If anything, Comartin's suggestion should be taken a step further: even where requested by the plaintiff, any confidentiality clause should be limited to the information which would tend to identify that individual, so as to ensure that Canadians are able to find out as much as possible about the incident without causing further harm to the plaintiff.

Sadly, that type of accountability appears to be a long way off from the current practice. And without any public information as to what happened in the specific case, there's no way for Canadians to be confident that there's any incentive for the RCMP to avoid similar abuses in the future.

On questionable accounting

Will McMartin continues his demolition of Carole Taylor's attempt to pretend that health care is unsustainable, highlighting double-counting and implausible assumptions which make Taylor stand out even among previous questionable financial practices in the province:

In the current fiscal year, B.C.'s Legislative Assembly approved a health expenditure increase of just $446 million. That's all.

But Gordon Campbell's government presents three-year spending plans with each annual budget. So this spring, while the budget for the current year lifts health spending by $446 million, it also outlines an increase of $237 million next year (2007-08), plus another $138 million in the year after that (2008-09).

The latter two increases have not been approved by the legislature, and they may never occur. But that hasn't stopped the BC Liberals from claiming credit for them.

Moreover, where most people -- you know, taxpayers, and other simple, honest folk -- would calculate the three-year increase at $821 million ($446 million + $237 million + $138 million), the Campbell government adds up those same numbers and arrives at $1,950 million. (See pp. 11 and 20 of Budget and Fiscal Plan, 2006/07-2008/09, here.)

That's because they figure that the $446 million will be spent this year, and then it will be spent again next year along with the $237 million. And in the final year, the $446 million and $237 million will form a base for the $138 million. You add it up like this: $446 million + $446 million + 237 million + $446 million + $237 million + $138 million.

Got that? The new, improved total is $1.95 billion.

Just like that -- presto! -- a rather modest funding lift of $446 million has been transformed into a gargantuan boost of "almost $2 billion."

(Do not try this at home. If you measured the growth of your children in this fashion, they'd be over 20 feet tall by the time they left home, and your grocery bills would be huge!)

We can only hope that McMartin will be a strong enough factor in B.C.'s health-care "conversation" to shout down the government's obfuscation. But there should be no doubt that however many voices may be worth considering in the discussion, the Campbell administration lacks anything approaching enough credibility to be taken seriously when it speaks about the need to demolish public health care.

Foreseeable dangers

CanWest reports that simultaneous drops in automotive sales and housing markets will likely combine to wreak havoc on Canada's economy. Which means that contrary to his hopes, Jim Flaherty looks likely to get pegged as "Canada's slowdown-inducing finance minister" - especially if he does stick with his current direction toward random tax cuts rather than looking at ways to counter the looming economic storm.

Hiding the evidence

A great catch by both leftdog and 1337hax0r, as the Cons are arguing against releasing documents related to Rob Anders' coronation on the basis that the truth could cause "irreparable harm" to the party.

As noted in the Sun's coverage, it doesn't look too likely that the Cons will succeed in the argument in any event since the matter could be made moot by any real delay. But it says plenty about a party when it genuinely believes that the truth about its internal decision-making is too damaging to be allowed anywhere near public eyes - or has a low enough regard for the court system that it's willing to launch sketchy applications solely to try to avoid having the matter heard. And if there's anything damning enough in the materials that could form part of the review, then it may be worth keeping a lookout for any PMS brinksmanship to provoke an election before the matter can be heard.

A window of opportunity

Today offers yet another indication of just how bad the softwood lumber capitulation is for Canadian industry in the longer term, as the CP reports that Canadian producers are scrambling to ship as much lumber south as they can before the deal goes into effect:

A delay in implementing the Canada-U.S. Softwood Lumber Agreement is angering American lumber producers.

The Washington-based Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports said Monday that Canadian exporters are taking advantage of the delay to flood the U.S. market with lumber before export taxes kick in under the agreement...

The federal government announced late Friday that the planned Oct. 1 implementation would be delayed until Nov. 1 to give more time to work out technical problems, especially related to the withdrawal of dozens of legal cases connected with U.S. lumber duties.

The American duties totalling 10.8 per cent are supposed to be replaced by a Canadian export tax of about 15 per cent, based on current lumber prices.

A spokesman for the U.S. Trade Representative's office would not comment on the coalition's complaints except to say it wants the agreement to come into force as soon as possible...

Vancouver lumber analyst Kevin Mason said that while statistics aren't available yet, his discussions with U.S. buyers and lumber brokers suggests the coalition is right.

“Definitely the Canadians are shipping every stick of wood they can because effectively you're operating on a duty-free mindset,” he said...

Canadian companies must sign waivers agreeing to accept about 80 per cent of their refunds — in a program administered by the Export Development Corp. — to satisfy that clause in the deal.

But Mr. Mason, a partner in Equity Research Associates, said once the U.S. payment is accounted for, exporters will get back 100 per cent of their duties, which makes it attractive to ship lumber now instead of waiting for the higher Canadian export tax to kick in.

While I naturally wouldn't be one to take CFLI's word for much, it appears that a neutral analysis also suggests a surge in current exports in an effort to avoid the Cons' export tax.

Of course, the increase only goes to show how much better off Canada's producers would be in the absence of the U.S.' wrongfully-imposed duties. Which should make it all the more appalling that PMS has managed to lock the industry into even higher levies in the long term...but should also offer the producers still pushing ahead with litigation a glimpse of what the market could look like if they follow through. After all, given the choice between actual free access and a deal so bad that its only positive effect lies in the fact that it hasn't been implemented yet, it shouldn't be hard to tell which will actually lead to a sustainable industry.

Unsafe at any height

The Cons may have given up on their first attempt to make air travel more dangerous by reducing the number of flight attendants on Canadian flights. But that appears to have been only the first battle in an inexplicable war on aviation safety, as the Cons are now planning to eliminate a requirement that pilots know First Aid:

The federal government may lift a regulation requiring air transport pilots to learn first aid, saying the move will save the aviation industry $93 million over 15 years and help bring aviation labour safety standards in line with Canada's Occupational Health and Safety Regulations.

The proposed change would exempt all cockpit crew members aboard passenger aircraft from having to receive first-aid training "due to their critical involvement in the safe and effective operation of an aircraft."...

The proposal is part of a package drafted by an industry and government working group aiming to incorporate new technology and industry standards and ensure aviation's occupational health-and-safety code gives airborne workers protection similar to that found in other sectors.

The rest of the package of changes does appear to be more reasonable. But it seems fairly obvious that pilots trained in first aid could potentially be a crucial factor both in helping to avoid aerial accidents in the first place, and in addressing the aftermath of any accident after it occurs. And that the fallout from a lack of such first aid could easily do far more damage to the airline industry than even what sounds like a highly-inflated cost estimate.

But for the Cons, such trivialities as safety are once again secondary to the desire to let industry write its own rules. And even if this trial balloon gets burst as quickly as the last one, Canadians have to wonder how long they want to leave a government in power which shows such a consistent desire to increase the risks to its citizens.

Demanding solutions

CanWest reports on yet another poll showing the Cons opposing the majority of Canadians, this time with respect to global warming:

Nearly two-thirds of Canadians believe the Conservative government will fail to take adequate steps to fight global warming, and blame the oil and gas industry for making matters worse.

And a similar number 63 per cent are "desperately concerned" that the "world may not last much longer than another couple of generations" if drastic action isn't taken immediately.

Those findings from a recent Ipsos Reid survey of 1,296 adult Canadians are released as the Tories prepare to unveil their long-awaited green plan within weeks.

But this being CanWest, there has to be some pro-Con spin to be had. And sure enough:

The Ipsos survey conducted for CanWest found only 35 per cent of Canadians trusted that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government would "take the right and most reasonable steps to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions to protect against global warming."

The low expectations could be good news for the Conservatives, who only need to take small steps on the environment to improve their popularity, said John Wright, senior vice-president at Ipsos Reid. "The expectation of the public is that they will not deliver a program which really goes very far," said Wright. "But if they are focused, and can get some positive spin on a made-in-Canada solution, they may exceed expectations and get some political mileage."

If anything, even the current level of expectation seems to leave some room for disappointment. But it's still hard to see how Canada's belief that the Cons won't do much can reflect positively on a government which has been going out of its way to selectively leak details of its plan for months now.

Moreover, all indications now are that the Cons' plan will end up being based on U.S.-inspired junk science rather than any real reduction in greenhouse gas emissions or anything "made in Canada" to begin with. Which should give the two-thirds of Canadians who already don't trust the Cons on the issue all the more reason to ensure the Cons don't stay in power any longer than can be avoided.

More arrogant than thou

I didn't catch it at the time, but CTV's coverage of the Lib race today suggests that Michael Ignatieff's campaign is now undisputably based on nothing but a sense of complete entitlement - both to the Lib mantle at the end of the leadership race, and in elections beyond:

On Saturday, after jumping out to an early lead, Ignatieff said he expected to stay in front through the three days of voting.

"Our team is happy with where I am right now, and we believe that where I am right now is where we'll be at the end of the weekend," he said.

Ignatieff even went so far recently as to declare that Rae -- his former college roommate -- would be a member of his cabinet.

If anything can help to crystallize an anybody-but-Iggy movement, this should be it: a clear declaration that Ignatieff sees no need to earn either the leadership, or power in future elections. But it looks far too likely that Ignatieff's bravado actually will fool a Lib party which should know better after ex-PMPM. And if Ignatieff succeeds in persuading the Libs that it's not too soon to start handing out cabinet positions, that could do more than anything to ensure they don't actually win back power anytime soon.

Proudly showing weakness

It isn't often that I manage to overestimate the good sense of the Cons. But even I would have taken Stockwell Day to have enough political instinct to avoid increased attention to his pitiful response to the U.S. in the wake of the Arar inquiry report, rather than looking for new opportunities to confirm his weak excuse for action:

Critics have asked the government to issue a formal complaint to the U.S. for the deportation. But Day told CTV's Question Period on Sunday that he wrote to U.S. officials soon after the report's release, asking them to clear Arar's name.

"It was a pretty clear letter. It was saying that Justice O'Connor had found that there had been inaccurate information passed on," said Day. "And that following the inaccurate information, there had been accurate information and that we had, within 24 hours of seeing the report, removed all the so-called 'look-outs' on our security systems about Mr. Arar and his family, who went through this very unfortunate time.

"I also shared in that letter with (Homeland Secretary Michael Chertoff) that as we had taken that particular step, I would sure appreciate if they would do the same."

One would think the Cons would be willing to point out the failures of the U.S. government where they're intricately linked to the Lib regime's failure to have any idea what was going on during its watch. But instead, the Cons have apparently concluded that they'd rather discuss their feeble suggestions to the U.S. regarding current security lists than the possibility of a legitimate complaint. Which only highlights the lengths the Cons seem willing to go to in order to curry Bush's favour - and the complete abandonment of Canadian interests in that process.

Not that the Lib response is at all credible given their utter failure to defend Arar's rights at the time. But Day's willingness to try to address the Arar fiasco with nothing more than a single letter oriented toward papering over the U.S.' contribution to Arar's torture suggests strongly that the Cons will be even weaker if similar situations arise in the future.

Security issues

CanWest reports that Jack Layton is stepping up in the foreign affairs department, planning a visit to Afghanistan on the invitation of Hamid Karzai to get a view from on the ground. Which means we can likely expect a fresh new wave of security concerns as PMS seeks to keep anybody but his party from being seen with Canada's troops.

Predictable

CTV reports on Gordon Campbell's plan for a "conversation" on health care. Is there any doubt that every second sentence from the Libs' government will be "the sky is falling"?