On coalition-losing

I'll stand by my conclusion that the NDP's focus for now needs to be on making inroads in Quebec. But the Cons have made it mighty tempting to look to the West first with their inexplicable - and thus far unexplained - decision to cancel the planned transfer of a fleet of hopper cars to a coalition of grain farmers:

The new federal Conservative government has scrubbed a long-anticipated sale of 12,000 grain hopper cars to a coalition of farm groups.

Western farmers had struck a $205-million agreement-in-principle with the former Liberal government just before the federal election.

But Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon announced Thursday he will not proceed with the deal, which had been 10 years in the making.

The government will maintain ownership of the cars instead, and will cap the amount rail companies can charge farmers for maintenance.

"A decision had to be made. We made a decision," Cannon said outside the Commons.

"I think it's in the best interests of Canadians. It's also in the best interests of the people that are involved."

Of course, it helps to defend one decision with a stronger argument than "It's done. We did it. And we won't tell you why." And needless to say, the actual people involved are far from agreeing with the Cons' conclusion as to their best interests:

Sinclair Harrison, president of the Farmer Rail Car Coalition, which negotiated the sale with Ottawa, said he felt betrayed by the announcement...

The National Farmers Union said Thursday its members wanted some ownership stake in the transportation of their products...

The other problem, Boehm said, was that farmers had a plan to replace aging cars. The government made no mention in its announcement of how it will ensure that railways maintain the same-sized fleet.

On the surface, the decision seems to run contrary to anything the Cons could possibly want to accomplish. After all, it leaves the cars in government hands when a group of private operators was willing to take over. And it certainly doesn't seem to be meeting with a positive response from the Cons' rural base.

Moreover, it's hard to see how anybody stands to benefit from the decision: the railways presumably won't be too happy with the reduced maintenance rates, and there doesn't seem to be any compelling benefit for the government in maintaining ownership of the cars. We'll see if some interest affected leaps to the Cons' defence, but on the surface there's no apparent reason why anybody would.

With all those negatives, only two flimsy explanations seem to present themselves as to why the Cons would undo the deal.

First, it could be that the Cons decided that the deal fell into the category of "things which are inherently evil since the Libs had something to do with them". I tend to have my doubts on this one: it seems to me that the opportunity to take credit for the end result would be a more compelling interest than trying to avoid Chretien cooties.

More dangerously, perhaps the Cons don't want to create a positive example of what farmers can do as a united group for fear that it'll affect the Cons' plans to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board. This seems to be at least a plausible belief for Harper and company, but it could easily backfire. I have to figure there's a non-trivial chance that the Cons' action will drive the members of the Rail Car Coalition to make sure the Wheat Board is defended by an even more concerted effort, and of course the NDP will be waiting to present itself as the defender of farmers' ability to band together to improve their lot.

One way or the other, the Cons have wasted no time in showing that farmers' needs won't be any better served under Harper than they were under the Libs. And the pattern of Lib inaction followed by Con destruction is one that the NDP will be able to point out on this issue among so many others.

Update: Alex Atamanenko is on the case.

On suggestions ignored

In March, the Green Budget Coalition offered its suggestions to meet Stephen Harper in the middle, recommending ways of helping the environment while cutting government costs. Instead, Harper chose to cut positive environmental spending while continuing to toss money at harmful industries...and the Green Budget Coalition is none too pleased:

The Green Budget Coalition today expressed disappointment that the 2006 federal budget ignored prime opportunities to protect Canada's air and water, and to reduce climate change risks.

"There is virtually nothing in this budget to make good on the government's Throne Speech commitment to 'tangible' reductions in pollution and greenhouse gases," said Stephen Hazell, Coalition spokesperson, and Acting Conservation Director for the Sierra Club of Canada...

"Furthermore," added Hazell, "the federal government missed a great opportunity to announce the phase-out of the $1.4 billion in annual subsidies to the oil and gas sector, and the over $150 million annually to nuclear power. For decades, these 'pollution subsidies' have contributed to market failure, industrial inefficiency, unsustainable energy consumption, and unnecessary pollution and health damage."

Apparently dealing with such problems is a secondary concern for the Cons. Instead, the Cons took only one action supported by the Coalition (the tax exemption for donations of ecologically sensitive land), while cutting and adding spending in all the wrong places...meaning that the Cons will have to do a complete about-face from their budgetary policy if they want to create a Clean Air Act that will receive or deserve the support of Canada's environmental groups.

A growing culture of waste

It shouldn't come as a surprise in light of historical experience. But on some level, it never ceases to amaze me how parties who are supposed to be the ideologically opposed to government waste also tend to be the most wasteful. And it's clear that on issues ranging from crime to emissions reduction to economic stimulus, the Cons are proudly following in the footsteps of Mulroney and Bush.

Update: And speaking of waste...

First priorities

Greg at Sinister Thoughts tells Jack Layton that now is the time to go on the road to reclaim the populist vote. I certainly agree with the general theme, but I do disagree as to where Layton's first priority should lie. While the Prairies will certainly be a battleground for next election, the aftermath of Harper's budget seems to be the perfect opportunity to make some waves in Quebec - and it's time to strike while the iron is hot.

After all, Gilles Duceppe's immediate acceptance of the Cons' budget suggests that the Bloc's hatred of the federal government far outweighs any commitment to progressive policies, whether Kyoto or otherwise...and it's likely that some of the voters who have supported the Bloc in the past would at least reverse those priorities. Meanwhile, the Libs are plainly too busy sorting out their internal mess to regain much ground in Quebec - and thanks to their track record, they don't have a much better starting point than the NDP. The Cons may well be the only other party in a position to try to make gains as a result of the budget, but that will only create a greater need for a party capable of demanding more from its government than random tax handouts.

The end result is that the door is wide open for Layton to win support among both the unions who have backed the Bloc as a progressive voice, and Quebec voters generally who see the federal government as able to do more than just buy votes through tax credits. And it's hard to see how the opportunity will ever be better than now.

On the Prairies, in contrast, the Libs have much less chance of reorganizing into a strong position in the immediate future, and the Cons will look even worse once their lack of support has time to settle in. Which means that the opportunity to win back Prairie support will be at least as good, and perhaps better, in the few months before the next election.

With a concerted effort to win new Quebec troops to its side now, the NDP may well be able to collect enough support to start winning seats in La Belle Province next time the country goes to the polls...which of course is a precondition to any chance of forming government a couple of elections down the road. And that kind of upside more than justifies making the Prairies only the second stop on Layton's populist journey.

An absence of green

A few weeks back in the comments to this post, one Tory commenter planned to come back and offer a defence of Harper's environmental plan once the budget was released. (And in terms of the Cons' loyalty to Harper that should say a lot, given that he didn't have any idea what he was committing himself to answering.) But I wonder if that plan has changed now that the budget is out, and limited to a tiny list of environmental priorities (see p. 115-117):

- $400 million (plus $900 million contingent on a year-end surplus) for capital investment in public transit nationwide;
- the individual transit tax credit, which by all accounts is far more efficient as a vote-buying scheme than an emissions-reduction scheme; and
- $10-20 million in corporate tax breaks for a form of bioenergy.

In other words, reducing emissions in any industry besides forestry doesn't even register as a priority. And neither does reducing individual emissions from any other source besides vehicles. If that's the Cons' "made in Canada" plan to reduce emissions, then frankly it's about time to see what can be imported to do the job better.

Amazingly enough, in the Con view, that's apparently more than enough environmental action for one budget. One can arguably classify the pine-beetle funding (p. 86) and the Ecological Gifts Program (p. 231) as potentially having environmental benefits as well, but the former is explicitly lumped in with all other aid to the forestry sector, while the latter is referred to only as a tax measure. From the Cons' classification of these initiatives it's pretty clear that the environment isn't their primary concern in including them, and in any event any environmental benefit is speculative at best.

With that little by way of new ideas, one would think the Cons would at least refer to the plans which already existed and were rumoured to be cut. But from what I can tell, there's no mention of funding for previously-existing emission reduction programs - which makes it unclear whether any or all of what progress had ever been made has been completely undermined.

In other words, the Cons don't have much by way of new ideas, and don't even appear to acknowledge the existence of existing environmental plans. And even the Cons' claim that the environment would be a top priority this fall seems rather empty when the government has suggested that it will be completely reworking federal/provincial relations at the same time.

In that context, does anybody still want to try to defend the Cons' environmental plan? Or can we all agree that at least to date, Harper has a black thumb when it comes to environmental issues?

(Edit: typo.)

On weak positions

It's hard to see how anybody besides the most ideological of Cons could like today's federal budget. But whether or not it's based on the assumption that he doesn't have any choice other than to prop up Harper, Gilles Duceppe seems to be putting on an act to that effect:

Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe says he's willing to support Prime Minister Stephen Harper's budget and prop up his minority Conservative government.

"This is a transition budget. The real budget will be next year," said Duceppe, whose party's 51 seats can combine with the Tories' 125 seats to deliver enough votes to pass the budget...

Duceppe said Harper's "firm commitment to settle the fiscal imbalance" within a year is the main reason his party will support the budget.

Harper campaigned on a promise to address the fiscal imbalance, or the difference between what the provinces send to Ottawa and the amount they receive back in federal transfer payments and other spending.

"This is the one thing we've been fighting for for quite a long time. The burden of proof is now on their side," said Duceppe.

From a quick review of the Cons' "fiscal balance" document, it seems pretty clear that any commitment is much less than firm: the Cons are leaving only a few months for discussion with all stakeholders, then banking on being able to win provincial agreement this fall. Which means that the Cons have plenty of built-in excuses if (and when?) the effort fails - and that contrary to Duceppe's statement today, the burden of proof may soon fall on the Bloc to justify its belief in Harper.

Out of sight, out of mind

For those who missed it, Haiti's new president visited Canada yesterday to make a pitch for aid in order to ensure that the current incarnation of Haitian democracy lasts longer than the previous one. But if you did miss the news, that may not be by accident:

Preval's visit was almost invisible, with few of the normal trappings associated with a foreign dignitary.

There were no news releases or briefings on his meetings with Harper, MacKay or Jean.

There was no joint news conference. The prime minister's office made no announcement of the visit beforehand.

Unfortunately, it appears that Harper has classified Haiti's democracy as an issue to be hidden rather than acknowledged. And if Harper doesn't even want Canadians to be reminded of what Haiti's needs are, there's little reason to think that his regime will look past ideology to help Preval develop a stable government in a country which sorely needs it.

On your marks...

For those wondering how far one may go in bashing a government before facing legal recourse, an Ontario court has ruled that municipalities and other government bodies aren't entitled to bring a civil claim for defamation:

(A)ny restriction on the freedom of expression about government must be in the form of laws or regulations enacted or authorized by the legislature; the common law position, in the absence of such legislation, is that absolute privilege attaches to statements made about government.

The ruling does note that government has the power to pass laws to address concerns about defamation against it - at least to the extent that such a law can survive a constitutional challenge. So nobody can claim to be entirely without some danger of retribution.

But my guess is that by the time any appeal is heard, there'll be plenty of added evidence to suggest why an absolute privilege may be going too far. In the meantime, it's effectively open season on Canada's governmental authorities.

(Via the Law Society of Saskatchewan.)

Second time as farce

I didn't think any of the U.S. election-year war rally against Iran could possibly be qualitatively more absurd than the pre-Iraq Bush demand that Saddam Hussein prove a negative (the absence of WMDs) beyond a reasonable doubt. (Of course, that demand was all the more ridiculous given that the jury was already firing up the electric chair even as the trial took place.) And it's downright shocking to see a nominally left-wing Canadian blogger managing the feat. But Jason Cherniak is up to the task, suggesting that military action in Iran is appropriate unless the Iranian regime can prove the future negative that it will never acquire nuclear weapons.

It should be clear that it's in everybody's interests to make our best reasonable efforts to avoid the proliferation of nuclear weapons - no matter which country might be developing them. And Iran's regime makes the general principle all the stronger.

But that's a far cry from saying that there's reason to launch a military action to preempt an outcome which by any reasonable account is at least a decade in the future. And we certainly can't afford to let the issue be defined by as simplistic a theory as "we must avoid a nuclear Iran at absolutely all costs" - especially keeping in mind who would be making the final decision as to what "all costs" will include.

Labouring on

While it may be easily drowned out by both the hype surrounding tomorrow's budget and speculation about the future of the Accountability Act, the NDP is once again putting federal anti-scab legislation before Parliament:

NDP MP Pat Martin (Winnipeg Center) is introducing legislation today that would ban the use of replacement workers during labour disputes and work stoppages under federal jurisdiction...

"Workers have the right to organize, the right to bargain collectively, and the right to withhold their services in the event negotiations fail," said Martin. "Using scabs to replace striking workers undermines those rights."...

"Anti-scab legislation means fewer and shorter strikes and lockouts and less likelihood of violence or property damage," said (NDP MP Yvon) Godin. "Anti-scab legislation helps keep workers on the job and businesses on the go."

"Look at jurisdictions where you have anti-scab legislation," said Godin, "there are fewer days lost due to strikes and lockouts. Disputes are settled quickly and peacefully because the system is working the way it was intended."

It'll be interesting to see whether the Libs are determined enough to polish up their left-wing credentials to actually cooperate in passing the bill now that they're in opposition. Unfortunately, it seems highly unlikely that the Libs will stop sulking long enough to back the NDP's effort, meaning that the bill won't likely make it through Parliament.

Even with the bill likely doomed to rejection in Parliament, it's nonetheless worth the NDP's while to highlight both the problems in the current labour relations scheme, and the presumptive unwillingness of the Cons and Libs to be part of any solution. And Canadian workers should once again take note as to which federal party is looking out for their interests.

On backup plans

The Cons can't say they weren't warned about the lack of interest in their scheme to create child-care spaces through corporate tax credits. But in case there was any hope left that spaces would be created under the plan, a survey by CTV should put an end to the notion, as even corporate figures with an interest in tax incentives generally won't claim there's any likelihood of success:

An informal CTV News survey found that not many major employers are interested in creating new child-care spaces for their employees' children -- even if the upcoming federal budget offers tax incentives to do so...

"A day-care centre at our downtown office is not the optimal solution for most of our employees," said Karen Wensley, a human resources specialist with Ernst and Young.

"It wouldn't make sense for us to provide day care for each of these branches," said Ann Leckie of VanCity...

"I'm a big believer in tax incentives," said John Watts, president of General Dynamics Canada, whose firm has company sports teams. "Whether it would make any difference with day care, I couldn't say."

If there's any good news in the apparent lack of interest in the program, it's that the Cons surely can't argue that there's no need for a backup plan when the targets of the tax credit have absolutely no interest in making use of it. And that could sow the seeds of a compromise on child-care space creation.

After all, the Cons' current plan involves continuing to fund the provinces until March 31, 2007. Assuming companies can be required to notify the federal government in advance of any intention to use the tax credit, it should be abundantly clear by then whether or not any of the money allotted to child-care space creation will be used for the 2006 taxation year. (Even if an advance notice requirement can't be built into the credit, it shouldn't be difficult to monitor any announced intentions to offer child care under the plan.)

Since the Cons themselves would presumably consider it a failure for the pool of child-care money go untouched without any spaces being created, it would only make sense to work out a deal with the provinces to transfer any unused amount of the credit in order to allow for space creation under the existing provincial plans (or better yet, an NDP-drafted child care framework).

Naturally there'd be plenty to be worked out about such a plan. In particular, there would be an obvious need to expand the pool of money available: even with advance notice both the NDP and Lib plans involved substantially more money going to the provinces than the Cons have set aside, and any deal would have the added disadvantage that provinces wouldn't know for sure how much money was available under the first few months of each year. The exact terms of any transfer to the provinces would also have to be hashed out...which could be complicated all the more by the need for multiple federal parties involved.

But on the whole, a solution along these lines would seem to be one of the better possible outcomes. The Cons could claim to have made their best effort to give the private sector the first crack at expanding child care, while the provinces would likely receive enough money at the end of the day to proceed with at least part of their previous plans. And assuming that businesses don't take the Cons up on their tax incentives, it shouldn't be long before the provinces would make a concerted push for increased stable funding, this time armed with proof that the Cons' own plan for private-sector expansion has failed.

(Edit: cleaned up wording.)

On solutions

While all federal parties seem to operate under the assumption that the national debt should be largely left alone for the moment, Robert from My Blahg presents a simple yet realistic plan to pay off the federal debt within 15 years with no spending cuts, and with only one tax increase (which would still leave corporate tax levels well below the percentages in place a few years ago). Naturally the plan is far too sensible to ever be implemented. But it should be an interesting exercise to compare the priorities funded by Canada's federal government to a straightforward path to being debt-free - and to ask whether tax cuts with a small individual impact are worth the long-term debt which Canada will continue to carry.

Promise and reality

The CP reports that the Cons' next set of major priorities (to be implemented this fall) will be headlined by a new Clean Air Act. If such legislation is actually going to be based on viable environmental ideas rather than Bushesque newspeak, then it could be a terrific step for both the party and the country. But it's hard to be optimistic when the Cons' current blueprint for the environment is to plow money into only the least efficient program possible.

Must-see

As already pointed out by the Galloping Beaver, Stephen Colbert delivered a fairly brilliant performance at last night's White House Correspondents Dinner. Click here and here for some of the highlights, and here for part of the video.

(Edit - only part of the video is at Crooks and Liars - I'll be on the lookout for a full one.)

Suspicions confirmed

The Canadian Press confirms my concern that while every possible voice against Canada's position was consulted during the softwood lumber negotiations, Harper deliberately left Canada's stakeholders away from the table in order to force them to buy in afterward:

Canadian industry leaders, who'd been closely consulted in past talks, were kept out of the loop initially. The concern was too many voices might create static before the outlines of a proposal were ready.

U.S. negotiators, meanwhile, consulted directly with the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, whose trade complaints produced the duties.

Keep in mind that even the historical composition of past talks had failed to include some stakeholders with an interest in eliminating the tariff, including particularly lumber importers and construction groups who just a month ago were urging Canada to defend its position. But rather than seeking to strengthen his side to move negotiations toward a more favourable result, Harper secured his deal only by ensuring that Canadian interests wouldn't be represented (or even consulted) at the negotiating table.

Also unsurprisingly given the outcome, the Cons' focus was purely on short-term gains rather than the long-term implications of the deal - and that fact was made clear in the Cons' message in trying to secure agreement:

Federal officials pushed Canadian producers to think of the big picture. Would they be any happier, any better off, a week from now if they rejected this deal?

Had the time frame been expanded beyond the honeymoon period of the next week, producers would surely have had a different perspective. The cash infusion may well be a strong short-term incentive, but it's not hard to anticipate that years down the road, producers will wish the government had pursued one more line of litigation to secure payment of the illegal tariffs, rather than locking the industry into managed trade for the next seven years or more.

Not that anybody should be surprised with a short-sighted, poorly managed effort from Harper's government. But seldom are the facts laid bare quite as thoroughly as they have been on softwood lumber...and that will give Canadians a strong frame for comparison next time a similar situation comes up.

Rock and a hard place

Maple Leaf Politics discusses how Harper has apparently cornered the Bloc for the moment. Noteworthy in the article is the Bloc's apparent flattery-by-imitation of one of the NDP's central themes from the last campaign:

Bloc officials say their party won't be fooled again when the next federal vote rolls around.

It's hard to blame Duceppe for picking up on what was a generally successful strategy for the Dippers. But with enough repetition of a line that's rightly associated with Jack Layton, the Bloc may just end up unwittingly reminding Quebeckers of yet another federalist competitor. And if the NDP is able to take over the support of any significant chunk of the Bloc's left wing, then the Bloc may well reached its feared extinction before long.

On positive trade agreements

While Stephen Harper has been putting on a clinic in how to utterly mangle trade agreements (both in effectively ceding Canada's rights under NAFTA and in negotiating the new lumber deal itself), two stories come out today suggesting that not all leaders are similarly clueless.

First, surprising kudos to the Klein and Campbell governments for agreeing to remove barriers to interprovincial trade in a way that may help business while at the same time raising regulatory standards:

Western Canada's two strongest economies agreed to a landmark internal trade pact aimed at creating the dominant economic region in Canada, the premiers of British Columbia and Alberta announced Friday.

The comprehensive deal, which took three years to draft and goes into effect in April 2007, is intended to break down internal barriers that limit trade, investment and the movement of skilled labour across the B.C.-Alberta border. The agreement also forces both governments to harmonize rules and regulations to the higher of the two standards, a process that will take place over the coming three years...

Klein added that he hopes other western provinces will see the potential of the agreement and sign on.

Taking the deal at face value, it looks like nothing short of a brilliant means of benefitting both businesses and citizens generally. From a business perspective, the cost of researching and complying with several different sets of requirements is likely to be far higher than the cost of simply meeting a higher uniform standard. From a citizen perspective, the application of the higher standard should eliminate the usual concern that free-trade agreements tend to lead to a race to the bottom; instead the top possible level of citizen protection is included.

Of course, the details can easily undermine a positive general idea, and there are some legitimate concerns about the structure of the deal both in its current form and in any future expansion. For the present, it's worth wondering whether either Klein or Campbell has preserved any meaningful standards during their respective anti-government movements, and some sources in the article are unsure as to whether the higher of even those low standards will actually be applied.

From the standpoint of future expansion, it almost certainly would be a worthwhile effort for Saskatchewan and Manitoba to sign on in the future if their own respective higher standards are also applied. But I worry that the B.C./Alberta bloc will assume that its harmonized set of standards should take precedence over any higher requirements in Saskatchewan or Manitoba law.

Those concerns aside, and even if the model isn't well applied in the Alberta/B.C. agreement, the idea is one that could easily be replicated in both interprovincial and international agreements.

Meanwhile, on an international level, several countries are joining together to show that a U.S. model for free trade isn't the only one available to states wanting to foster closer cooperation:

Bolivian President Evo Morales was joining fellow leftist leaders from Cuba and Venezuela on Friday to endorse their concept for shared regional commerce that follows socialist principles and rejects U.S. control.

Morales has said on Saturday he will officially include his Andean country in the "alternative" trade pact presidents Fidel Castro of Cuba and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela devised a year ago...

The agreement will allow Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela to trade some products with zero tariffs and strengthen already close ties among the three countries, whose leaders are known for their strong opposition to U.S. policy.

Again, there are some obvious problems both with the agreement and with the inferences drawn about the countries' intentions. It's dangerous to accept the article's implication that the new bloc is outright "anti-U.S." rather than merely an alternative to the current American model for partial free trade. Along the same lines, it's unfortunate that free trade in the hemisphere appears to be sprouting only within competing blocs rather than based on a general agreement which doesn't proceed only along ideological lines. Finally, it appears clear that the agreement only frees up trade to a fairly limited extent, meaning that there's plenty of room for further improvement in the future.

But those flaws aside, the agreement makes clear two aspects of free trade which are all too often forgotten.

First, free trade doesn't need to be a right-wing concept. While our current models have all too often been hijacked by corporate interests, free trade is a desirable concept for a population as a whole as long as any agreement is designed to properly balance the interests of businesses and citizens.

Second, free trade doesn't have to be entirely separate from other forms of cooperation. The agreement as drafted includes an obligation for the countries involved to work together in providing charitable programs and other common goals...meaning that within the Bolivarian bloc, free trade is to be applied as a general source of agreement rather than of irritation as has often been the case between Canada and the U.S.

It remains to be seen whether any of the good ideas contained in the above agreements will be applied on a greater scale than they are now. But both models should be kept in mind as governments look for ways to develop increased business and trade without inflicting needless human costs as a result.

On fiction-based policy

The softwood lumber file may tell us all the more about what a "mature" Canada/U.S. relationship actually means. But with the release of the U.S.' Country Report on Terrorism, it's worth asking whether it's possible to have a mature relationship (even on Harper's terms) with a country which is even more obviously than usual basing its foreign policy on fantasy rather than reality:

The Bush administration on Friday said Canada has become a "safe haven" for Islamic terrorists who exploit lax immigration laws and weak counterterrorism enforcement to raise money and plan attacks...

The State Department's harsh language on Canada contrasted with its statements in the report of Iraq, which it said was "not currently a terrorist safe haven" despite the continued attacks carried out by al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi and other groups in the country. (Ed. note: The article later notes that according to the same report 30% of all documented terrorist acts, and 55% of all resulting fatalities, took place in Iraq last year.)...

(According to the report), "The Arar case underscores a greater concern for the United States: the presence in Canada of numerous suspected terrorists and terror supporters."

Last week, the Federal Bureau of Investigation accused two Muslim youths from Georgia of traveling to Toronto in 2005 to plot attacks against American military bases and oil refineries. The arrests were part of an ongoing FBI investigation into Islamic terror cells in Canada, the agency said.

The State Department cited the presence of five other terror suspects -- Mohamed Harkat, Mohamed Mahjoub, Mahmoud Jaballah and Hassan Almrei and Adil Charkaoui -- as further evidence of an ongoing Canadian problem with Islamic extremists.

Harkat, Mahjoub, Jaballah and Almrei are being held on security certificates in the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre, dubbed "Guantanamo North" by human-rights activists. Charkaoui is free on bail.

With respect to the last paragraph, the Globe and Mail's coverage points out that such "freedom on bail" includes surveillance and reporting conditions. Also of note within the Globe and Mail's coverage is that the U.S. report doesn't bother to tell the truth about the Canadian suspects' status:

The latest U.S. report takes the unprecedented step of naming “other known terrorists in Canada” and then lists five. It doesn't mention that all but one have been detained, without charge, for years on controversial Canadian security certificates.

In other words, the Bush administration considers itself entitled to omit the fact that every example of a potential threat in Canada has already been addressed. Which to me makes it appropriate to point out the U.S.' failure to address the grave threat to Canada posed by Jose Padilla, Richard Reid, Zacarias Moussaoui and other terrorist suspects who at last notice were "present" in the United States.

Once that minor omission is rectified, the evidence to claim that Canada is a "safe haven" is based on a total of seven suspects arriving or living in Canada, all of whom are already either detained or under regular surveillance. And the dangers associated with the monitoring of those suspects is considered to make for a worse situation than actual attacks which killed over 8,000 Iraqis last year.

Of course, it's also worth noting the U.S.' treatment of the Arar situation. The report not only refuses to acknowledge Arar's innocence in the matter, but cites the Canadian public outcry over Arar's torture as evidence that Canada is soft on terrorism. From the tone of the article, this appears to present Bushco's real problem with Canada's security certificate system: while suspects are detained or supervised indefinitely and thus pose no actual threat to the U.S. or to anybody else, their documented presence in Canada means that any suspects also face no apparent risk of being illegally rendered elsewhere. And one could technically argue that the suspects are thus to some extent more "safe" in Canada than in the U.S. or Iraq. (Even more cynically, I suppose the Canadian-held suspects are more "safe" in their likelihood of survival than Iraqi insurgency members, 360 of whom died in suicide bombings last year.)

By any remotely reasonable standard, though, the U.S. has classified one of the safest countries of the world as a worse risk than the world's leading terrorist breeding ground. And one would think that Bush's newest and best international friend would have a close enough relationship with the U.S. to be able to point out the problem. But instead, Canada's response to date seems to indicate that Stockwell Day's office will respond to the report with immediate cooperation - regardless of whether or not the U.S.' position is even faintly based in reality:

"What I can tell you is that Canada's new government believes in maintaining a vigorous counter-intelligence program to safeguard our nation's security," said Day's communications director Melisa Leclerc.

"This government does not tolerate inappropriate activities and will restore our reputation as a leader and dependable partner in defending freedom and democracy in the world."

Which means that Canada may soon look forward to being just as unsafe as the U.S. for any person (whether Muslim or Quaker, environmentalist or whistleblower) who happens to find his or her way onto one of the Bush's hit lists. The problem is that it's hard to see how anybody besides Bushco's collective imagination (and the echo chamber which sustains it) will be any better off as a result.

Standing up against Canada

Several major media sources have somehow claimed that Harper's softwood lumber deal is a victory rather than a complete concession - a fact which hasn't gone without due comment. But within one of the attempts to fawn over Harper's betrayal of Canada lies the surest indictment of Harper's actions:

There will be many complaints, protests and bellyaches from interest groups, opposition parties and sectors of the lumber industry that have been shortchanged in the agreement. They had already started before the seven-year deal was announced.

But the big political message of the day is that Mr. Harper pulled off a feat that eluded Paul Martin, by both strong-arming and smooth-talking Canada's provinces and lumber industry, and by cozying up to U.S. President George W. Bush. In doing so, he managed to get the two countries and the three major lumber-producing provinces -- Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia -- to reach a near-unprecedented consensus.

Now, I tend to the view that Canada should never have been looking to negotiate its wins in the first place. And there's plenty of reason to doubt that there's any point in negotiating another deal when the conflict itself arises out of the U.S.' refusal to live up to the last major trade agreement between the two countries.

But let's put that aside, and ask what policy should have been adopted if Canada was going to look to negotiate a settlement. From my perspective, the best strategy would have been to assemble Canada's allies on the issue...which if played right, could have included its domestic producers, its provinces, a Bush administration which for all its faults has at least tried to pay lip service to freeing trade rather than shackling it, and American industries who would be better off if Canadian lumber was traded freely rather than subject to CFLI's obstruction. Perhaps the Libs' stated animosity for Bush kept them from putting together that combination, but there's no reason why the Cons couldn't have put in more effort to band those groups together in order to counter CFLI's lobbying.

With all those groups lined up together, there would have been a serious chance to negotiate an agreement worth signing (to the extent the U.S. could be trusted to keep it). Maybe Canada would have had to leave some money in the hands of the U.S. government, or maybe it would have accepted a few lesser restrictions on its own industry...but surely an effort to negotiate the best possible deal wouldn't have led to Canada turning legal victories into negotiated defeats on every issue involved.

But instead of uniting those who share his interests and dividing his nominal opponents in order to secure the best possible deal for the country which he was elected to represent, Harper took the exact opposite tactic in order to make sure that some type of deal got done. Hence his strong-arming Canada's provinces and domestic industries, ignoring the potential for support for a reasonable deal from within the U.S., and accepting a deal which the Libs almost certainly could have achieved themselves if they'd been irresponsible enough to see it as a positive outcome.

It's been well pointed out that the end result will almost certainly be more arbitrary actions against Canadian goods as other industries (or perhaps CFLI again) decide that they'd like to take advantage of the next Harper windfall. But as bad as that end result may be, it's even worse knowing that the man nominally speaking for Canada in any conflict is perfectly willing to harm his own side for political gain.

On starting points

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released its alternative federal budget yesterday, with plenty of good ideas worth adopting. But even more interesting than the suggested policy is the CCPA's starting point in evaluating the federal government's fiscal position. From page 3 of the CCPA's Budget in Brief:

The presentation of a plausible federal forecast in last November’s Economic and Fiscal Update was a watershed in federal fiscal politics. Commentators on federal fiscal policy may no longer have to engage in arcane debates over the accuracy of forecasts and instead can concentrate on the real debates we should be having over budget policy and spending priorities. Certainly, there is now no longer any need to debate whether the federal government has sufficient funds to afford AFB priorities.

Based on this more realistic forecast, the AFB departs from past practice and relies on the official fiscal framework rather than generating an independent forecast.

Needless to say, it's an embarrassment for Canada when an accurate public presentation of our government's finances represents such a radical departure from how the country has been run in the past. As the CCPA notes, there's still plenty of work to be done to make sure that governmental resources are used for the greatest possible benefit. But that task should be easier to accomplish now that the resources involved are being more accurately assessed.