At least one Lib blogger is proud of Gerard Kennedy's plan to devote .7% of GDP to child care by 2012. And in isolation, the plan is indeed one worth pursuing. But what kind of message would it send to make (and meet) a commitment to supply precisely that amount as just the public contribution to child care, when the same percentage commitment to foreign aid made 37 years earlier has completely fallen by the wayside?
Which isn't to say that there's anything but a glaring need for real investment in a child care system. But if Canada really can reach the same numerical target that much more easily on child care than to meet its commitment to improve the condition of those worst off in the world, that can only speak poorly of our willingness to participate in the improvement of the human condition generally. And the same applies particularly to Kennedy if he doesn't plan to ramp up foreign aid spending on at least a similar path.
Friday, August 25, 2006
On standoffs
CBC reports that the Senate is planning to take its time reviewing the Accountability Act, leading to threats from PMS to call an election over the issue:
From Harper's standpoint, though, there's equally no reason why calling an election would be a reasonable response to Lib obstructionism in the Senate. After all, what could possibly be accomplished by rearranging the composition of the chamber which has already passed the bill when the other one isn't going to be changed by the election in any event?
The simple solution would be for both sides to cooperate to make sure the Senate is able to carry out a reasonable review without unduly delaying passage of the Act. Unfortunately, there isn't much indication that either group is willing to make any good-faith effort at this point - nor any particular likelihood that either side will answer in any meaningful way for its posturing, regardless of how far the sniping escalates. Which only highlights just how far Canada has to go in ensuring genuine accountability for all of its political actors.
Liberal senators say they will not be bullied by the Harper government into making a hasty review of the federal Accountability Act.It's hard to have much sympathy for either side at this point. After all, while the Accountability Act is certainly a substantial piece of legislation which should be reviewed appropriately, it's also been available for public review and criticism since early this year (and indeed has been amended through the input of all parties in the House of Commons) - meaning that there's no valid excuse for the Senate to stall matters now.
The Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs is scheduled to begin public hearings on Bill C-2 when Parliament resumes sitting in September. The bill passed third reading in the House of Commons in early August but still needs Senate approval.
Liberal members of the Senate committee said they want to do a thorough review and will think carefully about amendments to the legislation. The Conservatives have threatened to call an election if the Liberal-dominated upper chamber stalls passage of the bill.
From Harper's standpoint, though, there's equally no reason why calling an election would be a reasonable response to Lib obstructionism in the Senate. After all, what could possibly be accomplished by rearranging the composition of the chamber which has already passed the bill when the other one isn't going to be changed by the election in any event?
The simple solution would be for both sides to cooperate to make sure the Senate is able to carry out a reasonable review without unduly delaying passage of the Act. Unfortunately, there isn't much indication that either group is willing to make any good-faith effort at this point - nor any particular likelihood that either side will answer in any meaningful way for its posturing, regardless of how far the sniping escalates. Which only highlights just how far Canada has to go in ensuring genuine accountability for all of its political actors.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Little comment necessary
Canada's supposed natural governing party in action:
Party officials provided reporters with three different times and two different locations for a leadership candidates' forum on Monday night.
Leadership contenders were given only a few hours notice that they'd be given a few minutes each to speak at a party rally Wednesday night.
The rally turned out to be a cocktail reception and by the time the candidates were introduced, the well-lubricated crowd was so boisterous that contenders had to shout to be heard above the din.
Martha Hall Findlay issued a piercing whistle to try to bring the crowd to order. She was ignored, as were all the other candidates...
Mercer declined to comment on another, more serious foul-up which the various leadership camps blamed squarely on party headquarters in Ottawa: The release Wednesday of the latest lists of donors to each of the leadership contenders.
The party posted the lists late in the day on its website, pages of donations that were not tallied to provide totals for any of the candidates.
Reporters were in the midst of adding up the numbers themselves when the party shut down the website, having discovered that it had inadvertently posted the home addresses and phone numbers of the candidates.
Privately, senior organizers with various camps were furious that the party had not posted tens of thousands of dollars worth of donations which had not yet been processed by the party, through which donations are funnelled for the purpose of issuing tax receipts.
The party has been taking three weeks or more to process donations, a delay that most cash-starved camps find incomprehensible.
Moreover, some camps were irate that the reporting of donations was inconsistent from candidate to candidate. For instance, loans were reported for some candidates but not for others...
The confusion had senior organizers privately grumbling about the "incompetence" of party officials and demanding a thorough "house cleaning" at headquarters.
Several insiders suggested party officials know their jobs will likely be over once a new leader is chosen in December and are, thus, putting in only half-hearted effort now.
Priorities
With little having been done to start reinvesting in social programs after the '90s cutbacks, Canada's poor are facing obscenely little support in a time of plenty. But in fairness, the Libs have managed to at least to significantly improve the current standard of living of one group of Canadians.
On threatened supplies
The Tyee reports on water management in B.C., and concludes that province is not only incentivizing the use of groundwater, but also completely failing to measure the effects of that use:
(M)any of British Columbia's fastest-growing municipalities...draw some or all of their water from underground. Among them: Chilliwack, Mission, Langley Township, South Surrey, White Rock, Squamish, Whistler, Pemberton and, on Vancouver Island, Duncan as well as most of the rest of the Cowichan Valley. "As municipalities that have a groundwater dependence grow," says Gwyn Graham, provincial groundwater specialist for the Lower Mainland, "I'm seeing an increase in well water use."Reporter Chris Wood discusses as well some ideas to try to replenish ground water supplies, including the prospect of using "recharge" wells to boost the amount of rainwater that finds its way back into aquifers. But there's a limit to what such action can do, especially when the province is only now beginning to collect a part of the information which would be needed to determine both the current condition of B.C.'s aquifers, and the best available means of replenishing them. And the current incentive for growing communities to use up groundwater makes it seem far too likely that the province's water resources may be irreversibly damaged before either the problem or the solutions are actually determined.
Exactly how much water are we sucking out of the ground each year? "That's a very good question," Gwyn says. "I don't know." Nor do provincial record-keepers know how many wells have been punched in B.C., or where. Until two years ago, there was no requirement even to register a newly drilled hole.
There is still no limit on how much water someone can pump (although rules do require the very largest users to report what they take). Unlike water in rivers or lakes, groundwater is free to anyone who can reach it. "If you want to pull out a couple of thousand cubic meters a day from a river, you need a license, and you'll pay some rate depending on use," Gwyn explains. "That doesn't apply to groundwater. [And] because it's groundwater, we don't charge for it. A farmer that wants to irrigate fields or a municipality that wants to supply urban areas can take as much as they want without worrying about the cost." The same laissez-faire attitude applies to industry.
That's a powerful motivator to keep on pumping as long as possible. In the Township of Langley, for instance, where about half of residents depend on municipal wells and half draw from the regional water system, "We pay much less for our [ground] water than we do for GVRD water," says water resources and environment manager Brad Badelt. "It's a real economic incentive for us to keep relying on ground water."
How long that can go on is anyone's guess. The water level in Langley's wells has been dropping recently. The province has only recently undertaken -- and has not yet completed -- an inventory of aquifers in the Fraser River basin. Of 153 identified aquifers, 132 are being tapped for drinking water. Nine of these are classified as both "highly developed" and "highly vulnerable" to contamination. The number of "boil water" advisories issued -- a telling indicator of declining water quality -- has doubled since 1995.
Defenceless
The Cons run into the obvious problems of trying to present the world in black and white, as it turns out that by their own standards Jason Kenney is with the terrorists:
Fortunately, the Cons can't avoid facing more attention than that, as the NDP's Peggy Nash nicely points out Kenney's hypocrisy (not to mention the folly of taking the Cons' actual black-and-white stance) within the article. But the laughable attempt at a defence by the PM's parliamentary secretary shouldn't pass without comment either, as it highlights the Cons' all-too-frequent habit of responding to controversy by spouting off as many exculpatory words as possible with no regard for consistency or plausibility. And if the Cons really do have this low a standard for due diligence, then those keeping an eye on the government will have to be doubly diligent to point out what are bound to be many other cases where the Cons have similarly failed to do their homework.
Conservative MP Jason Kenney, who likened Hezbollah to the Nazi party and condemned fellow MPs for urging dialogue with a terrorist organization, himself spoke to a rally organized by Iranian supporters of a banned terrorist group.But for those wondering whether any response is forthcoming, Kenney is on top of this in the proud Con tradition of doing and knowing next to nothing while claiming to have done everything possible:
A photograph of Kenney, who is Prime Minister Stephen Harper's parliamentary secretary, appears on the website of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, the political wing of the PMOI, or People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran.
The PMOI is one of the names used by the MEK, or Mujahedin-e-Khalq, an armed Iranian rebel group formally designated as a terrorist organization by the governments of Canada, the United States and the European Union. The Canadian government put the group on its official terror list in May 2005.
Kenney is shown addressing an April 6 rally on Parliament Hill, and the group says he welcomed participants "on his own behalf as well as the Prime Minister."
Kenney, MP for Calgary Southeast, said he "would be shocked" to hear his picture was posted on the group's political wing website.Note the seamless transition from Kenney specifically remembering his own words in the alleged conversation, to taking wild guesses as to the anonymous invitor's response. Though I suppose if the same low standard of scrutiny were applied to Kenney's response that he seems to have granted to an anonymous person requesting Kenney's implicit endorsement of his group, that answer could well pass muster, as the issue would be declared closed following a Google search of "laughed or denied it or something".
Directed to the website, Kenney said he was "completely unaware of the context as it is presented here, even though we had done our due diligence."...
Kenney said he is well aware that the PMOI is also known as the MEK and is listed as a terrorist group. He then specifically recalled questioning the man who invited him — whose name he said he could not recall — at a meeting in Kenney's office after the parliamentary committee meeting. He asked if the man had any ties to "those radicals in the People's Mojahedin. And he laughed or denied it or something."
"I wanted to be sure there wasn't a connection," said Kenney. "I came away with the impression that there was no connection whatsoever."
Fortunately, the Cons can't avoid facing more attention than that, as the NDP's Peggy Nash nicely points out Kenney's hypocrisy (not to mention the folly of taking the Cons' actual black-and-white stance) within the article. But the laughable attempt at a defence by the PM's parliamentary secretary shouldn't pass without comment either, as it highlights the Cons' all-too-frequent habit of responding to controversy by spouting off as many exculpatory words as possible with no regard for consistency or plausibility. And if the Cons really do have this low a standard for due diligence, then those keeping an eye on the government will have to be doubly diligent to point out what are bound to be many other cases where the Cons have similarly failed to do their homework.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Let's not make a deal
Saskatchewan's Con MPs have apparently emerged from hiding after their understandable frustration at Harper was revealed, with Con MP Brad Trost promising the best deal Saskatchewan has ever had. Which given the party's track record on negotiations, presumably means that the province can expect little more than a twisted arm.
(h/t to leftdog.)
(h/t to leftdog.)
Secrets and lies
Your open, accountable governing party in action, as the Cons try to avoid explaining why a nomination challenge to Rob Anders will not be tolerated:
So how squeaky clean must a potential candidate be to challenge one of the most controversial members of Parliament?And just in case there was any danger of the buck being passed to somebody with something to say:
Nobody knows for sure since no reason has been given as to why the former Conservative riding president for Calgary West has been disqualified in his bid to challenge four-term incumbent Rob Anders for the riding nomination. James Bereznay, vice-president of the riding association, said Wednesday that businessman Walter Wakula's bid to run against Anders was rejected earlier this month.
Bereznay dismissed suggestions that information should have been released or that the public should be told why Wakula, a member of the University of Calgary senate, was turned away.
The move wasn't secretive, he said, but further comment would have to come from Michael Donison, the Conservative national executive director in Ottawa.
Donison did not immediately return calls.It's hard to imagine what candidacy standards the Cons are applying to Wakula's nomination that wouldn't disqualify Anders himself from continuing to embarrass the party. That said, it does seem glaringly clear that while claiming to want to keep their MPs accountable, the Cons are more than willing to go to great lengths to prevent challenges from being viable or even (in this case) possible - particularly in light of a similar disqualified challenge to Nina Grewal mentioned in the article. And that pattern of arbitrarily preventing challenges should leave PMS as silent as his party is now next time he has to defend the Cons' track record on internal democracy.
On sovereignty
While the Cons have spent plenty of time turning attention to the need for Canada to maintain sovereignty over its Arctic areas, Charlie Angus rightly highlights the fact that with sovereignty comes responsibility:
Update: Stephane Dion offers his ideas on Northern sovereignty as well. But while setting up parks and inviting scientific cooperation are nice plans to be sure, they're far less significant steps than actually cleaning up Canada's own messes - which Dion of course conspicuously failed to do as Environment Minister.
MP Charlie Angus (Timmins-James Bay) says that if Stephen Harper is serious about asserting Northern sovereignty he will take responsibility for a growing toxic crisis caused by the Department of Defense. At issue are 17 radar bases that were abandoned in the 1960s by DND. Government documents obtained by the NDP reveal a disturbing picture of PCB contamination of water, animals and human residents.Of course, taking responsibility for Canada's past damage to the North would require more cost and effort than a flawed military maneuver. But besides improving the living conditions for Northern residents and making for responsible resource management, such a move would also ensure that Canada is recognized as taking on all aspects of sovereignty and control over the North. Which gives the Cons an excellent opportunity to demonstrate whether they're really out to preserve Canada's Arctic region, or only looking for excuses to throw money at military contractors.
Angus says the Federal government continues to stonewall on taking responsibility for the threats posed by this contamination.
“Negligence on the part of DND has resulted in the steady poisoning of the land and people of the far north. DND has been aware of the threat. And yet, they have done nothing to mitigate the threat posed to wildlife and citizens,” says Angus. “It’s time Stephen Harper put boots on the ground to deal with the toxic time bomb ticking away on the shores of the northern waters.”...
Among the toxic threats revealed:
- Along the shores of the Winisk River, there are 50,000 abandoned barrels that are seeping unidentified quantities of oil, diesel and PCBs. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands more barrels have already been washed away by spring flooding.
- At Site 60 groundwater contamination has been found to have PCBs at 16 000 times the allowable limit.
- High levels of PCBs have been noted in humans and animal life in the region.
Update: Stephane Dion offers his ideas on Northern sovereignty as well. But while setting up parks and inviting scientific cooperation are nice plans to be sure, they're far less significant steps than actually cleaning up Canada's own messes - which Dion of course conspicuously failed to do as Environment Minister.
On head-scratchers
CanWest reports that a change in federal government hasn't changed the habit of underestimating federal surpluses. But the explanation from the Finance Department for part of the reason can only be described as curious:
At worst, it could be argued that the Cons are trying to emphasize current "progressivity" within the tax system as both an effort to paint the Libs as left-wing, and as a justification for a swing toward more regressive taxation. Though if that were the intention, it's odd to see the concept listed alongside such positive elements as growth in employment and wages which Canadians presumably won't want to see reversed.
At best, the explanation could be seen as a statement of the glaringly obvious: that under a progressive system, a boost in jobs and wages will result in increased receipts. But then, it's hard to see how the progressivity element is relevant enough to be worth mentioning. After all, the same would presumably be true in all but the most absurd of tax systems.
Mind you, the current system might well not be that far away from such absurdity in any event, given that stronger-than-expected economic growth didn't manage to push receipts above expectations. Instead, the increased surplus is based on unprojected spending cuts - which leads to questions both as to how corporate tax receipts have managed to go down, and as to where the Cons have been cutting funding beyond the environmental programs and other matters which were discussed around budget time. And these questions in turn give rise to one last theory: that the Cons are simply repeating as many buzzwords as possible in order to avoid answering the real questions raised by the update.
The federal government's surplus this year will be fatter than forecast in the May budget, the Finance Department said in a fiscal update Tuesday.Now, I'm normally among the first to applaud any recognition as to the value of progressivity, especially coming from a Con-controlled department. But it's hard to see what the update intends to say by highlighting the concept in this context.
The department credited lower-than-projected spending on government programs for its expectation that the surplus will be "somewhat" higher in the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007, than the $3.6 billion it forecast in its May budget, noting that revenues are expected to be in line with the budget projections...
(B)ased on the results of the first three months of the current fiscal year which began April 1, it now expects that corporate tax revenues will be weaker than forecast in the budget but that personal income revenues will be greater.
"The strong growth in personal income tax receipts seen last year is continuing so far this year, reflecting strong growth in employment and wages and salaries combined with the progressivity of the personal income tax system," it said.
At worst, it could be argued that the Cons are trying to emphasize current "progressivity" within the tax system as both an effort to paint the Libs as left-wing, and as a justification for a swing toward more regressive taxation. Though if that were the intention, it's odd to see the concept listed alongside such positive elements as growth in employment and wages which Canadians presumably won't want to see reversed.
At best, the explanation could be seen as a statement of the glaringly obvious: that under a progressive system, a boost in jobs and wages will result in increased receipts. But then, it's hard to see how the progressivity element is relevant enough to be worth mentioning. After all, the same would presumably be true in all but the most absurd of tax systems.
Mind you, the current system might well not be that far away from such absurdity in any event, given that stronger-than-expected economic growth didn't manage to push receipts above expectations. Instead, the increased surplus is based on unprojected spending cuts - which leads to questions both as to how corporate tax receipts have managed to go down, and as to where the Cons have been cutting funding beyond the environmental programs and other matters which were discussed around budget time. And these questions in turn give rise to one last theory: that the Cons are simply repeating as many buzzwords as possible in order to avoid answering the real questions raised by the update.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Zombie nation
More fun commentary on the Libs' current mess courtesy of John Ibbitson:
This week, the Liberals are holding a caucus retreat of the Undead.Mind you, Ibbitson goes pretty far afield in the rest of the column. But it's still striking to see that just what a (deservedly) cool reception the media has given the Libs during what was alleged to be a time for renewal rather than experimental reanimation. And with the Libs using what little force they can summon for another round of wrong-headed finger-pointing at the NDP rather than anything which could justify any positive press in the future, there's little reason to think the Libs will be brought back to life anytime soon.
The party is in limbo, stuck in the middle of an interminable leadership race that is sucking all the political life from the caucus. MPs are valuable for their endorsements and as organizing fodder for leadership candidates. Otherwise, these honourable members will have little to do in the approaching fall session but perch, insensate, behind whoever is manufacturing outrage in Question Period.
Until there is a new leader, shadow cabinet and platform to sell, the Liberal caucus is little more than an assemblage of animated cadavers.
On barely-lesser evils
James Travers writes that previous Lib governments had managed to overwork and mismanage Canada's civil service to the point where even Stephen Harper's paranoia and disinterest in facts has managed to look good in comparison. Now just imagine how much better matters would be under a party which is both interested in taking advice and willing to get things done...
Softwood in all the wrong places
The Cons have officially declared that they think there's enough support for a softwood capitulation to put the question to Parliament. But as noted by CBC's article, there's no indication just how far the Cons relaxed their standards from the 95% approval requirement built into the initial agreement. And it wouldn't be too surprising if the standard for "support" was similarly loosened to "any company who neither hung up on nor swore at David Emerson".
Meanwhile, Canada's industry group doesn't approve of the Cons' Parliamentary tactics any more than their strongarming of lumber producers:
Update: Scott Tribe has more on the parliamentary implications.
Meanwhile, Canada's industry group doesn't approve of the Cons' Parliamentary tactics any more than their strongarming of lumber producers:
David Gray, a western spokesman for Canada's Free Trade Lumber Council, said he was disappointed Harper is making the deal subject to a confidence vote.Needless to say, Harper hasn't made any friends by shoving the deal down producers' throats. The question now is whether the industry will respond with similarly generous tactics when the next election rolls around.
"If I was in politics what I would suggest to the opposition is that they just walk out and refuse to vote and leave this for the Conservative government to wear," said Gray, who runs the Mill and Timber Co. Ltd. of Vancouver.
Update: Scott Tribe has more on the parliamentary implications.
On bravery
Rafe Mair issues a challenge to PMS and other Canadian politicians, making the argument that any truly brave leader should be at the forefront of the movement toward proportional representation:
Not only is PR hurt by being on what's generally the right side of all of those issues, but it would also likely limit the Cons' power in the long run, due to the end result of allocating more seats to Canada's left-leaning majority. Needless to say, PR thus doesn't seem likely to receive any serious attention from the Cons anytime soon - though a toothless task force may well be seen as enough of a political advantage to win Con support.
That said, there shouldn't be much room for doubt that the current system indeed prioritizes polar arguments in the name of the "order" that comes with a majority over good (and inclusive) government. And if the Libs and their leadership candidates are looking for a principle to bring together the anti-Harper opposition, a brave stand in favour of PR would be a great place to start.
Any sort of proportional representation gets the insiders upset because they lose control for the same reason prime ministers and premiers do. When there's a minority government such as will certainly happen under proportional representation, the MPs gain power at the expense of the government, which is to say the prime minister and cabinet -- especially the prime minister.I don't see much reason to share Mair's optimism that Harper could be the "very special sort of politician" in question: instead the Cons seem devoted to defining their ideal government in terms of simplicity of thought and the singleminded pursuit of additional power. Which all too often makes their actions "brave" only in the sheer audacity needed to defy public opinion, logical reasoning and readily-available data all at once.
I don't have the passion for majority government that many Canadians do. I think that many Canadians are far more concerned with "peace, order" than with "good government." They like things settled -- who it is they like, who it is they hate...
Political bravery, defined
In effect there can be no meaningful change without the unanimous consent of all the provinces and the federal government. It takes a very special sort of politician to propose changing the way he got elected for a system wherein he might lose. And the Canadian woods aren't full of such people.
Not only is PR hurt by being on what's generally the right side of all of those issues, but it would also likely limit the Cons' power in the long run, due to the end result of allocating more seats to Canada's left-leaning majority. Needless to say, PR thus doesn't seem likely to receive any serious attention from the Cons anytime soon - though a toothless task force may well be seen as enough of a political advantage to win Con support.
That said, there shouldn't be much room for doubt that the current system indeed prioritizes polar arguments in the name of the "order" that comes with a majority over good (and inclusive) government. And if the Libs and their leadership candidates are looking for a principle to bring together the anti-Harper opposition, a brave stand in favour of PR would be a great place to start.
Politics over policy
The Star reports that despite their supposed commitment to encouraging mass transit use as a means of cutting pollution, the Cons refuse to commit funding to a TTC subway line largely for political reasons:
Update: Peggy Nash and Olivia Chow are on top of it.
Federal funding to help extend the Spadina subway line to York University and into Vaughan is far from a sure thing, warns Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.It'll be particularly egregious if the money which would be needed to complete the TTC line instead gets used on highways which only encourage additional single-vehicle traffic rather than doing anything to promote transit use. But in any event, this looks like just one more area in which the Cons are looking for an excuse to put their own political gain over any semblance of good government.
In his most pointed comments yet on the proposed $2 billion TTC expansion, Flaherty had some sobering news yesterday for subway riders.
"There isn't any firm money on the table," he told the Toronto Star.
While Flaherty said he has been having "constructive discussions" about the long-awaited subway extension with Ontario counterpart Greg Sorbara — including a private meeting Aug. 14 in Ottawa — a final decision is not expected until year's end.
The federal minister noted the Conservative government is balancing competing transportation priorities, including new highways...
Insiders note that partisan politics could also be at play. The extended Spadina subway line would run through ridings that are held provincially and federally by Liberals. That would likely help Premier Dalton McGuinty's provincial Liberals in their re-election bid on Oct. 4, 2007.
But it is less clear how a new subway in that part of Toronto would be politically advantageous for Harper's minority Conservatives, who could face the electorate as early as next spring.
Conservative sources point out that the federal largesse could be more fruitfully spent on other transit priorities in and around Toronto, where the federal Tories have a better chance of winning seats in the next election.
Update: Peggy Nash and Olivia Chow are on top of it.
Monday, August 21, 2006
On empty victories
The CP offers an interesting survey of industry "support" for the Cons' softwood lumber capitulation:
Emerson may yet try to claim enough support from the industry tomorrow to declare his intention to push the deal forward. But as I've discussed before, the Cons have really done nothing more than win a fight against the very group whose side they were supposed to represent. And that decision to side against Canada won't be soon forgotten - either by the lumber industry, or by every other Canadian who wants to see our government representing our interests abroad rather than undermining them at every turn.
The lumber agreement would end years of legal and trade wrangling between Canada and the United States. But it appeared that any support for the deal would be half-hearted at best.And these aren't even apparently the most unenthusiastic voices available, given that the article doesn't even directly cite any of the actors who wouldn't be brow-beaten into agreeing with the deal - a group which includes the anti-capitulation side of the B.C. council cited in the article, as well as Saskatchewan's industry group which according to tonight's CBC local news is maintaining its stance against the deal.
A source said there is a split within the B.C. Lumber Trade Council that has made it impossible for council president John Allan to express a position on behalf of his members.
Allan had been expected to appear at a House of Commons committee hearing with other softwood industry representatives Monday but did not show up.
A senior Ontario industry official who did appear called the deal a "capitulation," one which eliminates Canada's numerous legal victories before international trade panels.
A Quebec counterpart said the agreement follows a "bastardized" process where the industry faced frequent take-it-or-leave-it threats from the federal government.
The head of Canada's Free Trade Lumber Council said the federal government's own political calculations were behind the deal.
"I think the government's political will to draw closer to the U.S. has played a major part," said Carl Grenier.
He said the industry will likely take the deal because struggling softwood producers are desperate to get their share of a $4.3-billion-US refund from the American government promised under the agreement.
"They want to have the money right away. They need that money," he said.
"They're in very serious trouble, just think it's been four years that they've had $5 billion taken from them."...
Grenier scoffed at Wilson's suggestion (that the U.S. had offered the best deal possible).
"Of course not," he said. "Just look at the previous (Canada-U.S.) deals - in 1986, 1996. They were demonstrably much better."
The Ontario Lumber Manufacturers' Association criticized the deal but suggested many of its members were prepared to "capitulate."
The group's president also mocked the suggestion that Canada achieved the best possible agreement. David Milton said previous Canada-U.S. agreements were better than the one currently in the works.
"Enough of the propaganda and the face-saving. It's a very bad deal," he told the Commons international trade committee.
"Yet the OLMA has members ready to accept it because the threats of the government are impressive: no future help, no co-operation, no negotiation."...
Guy Chevrette, head of the Quebec Forest Industry Council, bemoaned Ottawa's heavy-handedness, which included warnings to the industry that the deal was final.
He said industry officials were twice told they could "take it or leave it" - on April 27, when Prime Minister Stephen Harper first announced an agreement in principle, and again when a so-called final text was unveiled July 1.
Both times, Ottawa was able to extract improvements after having proclaimed the negotiations over, Chevrette noted.
"We will need a much more intelligent and sophisticated process (to negotiate next time)," Chevrette told the committee.
Emerson may yet try to claim enough support from the industry tomorrow to declare his intention to push the deal forward. But as I've discussed before, the Cons have really done nothing more than win a fight against the very group whose side they were supposed to represent. And that decision to side against Canada won't be soon forgotten - either by the lumber industry, or by every other Canadian who wants to see our government representing our interests abroad rather than undermining them at every turn.
The firing line
Another rare instalment of Rider blogging due to the firing of Roy Shivers. Having attended one of the better and more entertaining Riders games I've ever seen on Saturday, I'm not quite sure whether the over/under on keeping Shivers was 52 points. But in a general sense, it's seemed to me that the team's problem has been more one of talent deployment rather than player acquisition ever since Shivers first took over, which makes it surprising for Shivers to get the axe while Danny Barrett stays on. And the specific timing is even weirder, as it leaves the team effectively unable to sign players at a time when it's stuck with approximately 1.5 healthy CFL quarterbacks.
We'll see whether the move ends up sparking the 'Riders the rest of the way. But I'm not sure many fans realize just how big Shivers' shoes will be to fill - and his replacement will have to fill that role and more in a big hurry for the move to actually help the team this season.
Update: In fairness, the move looks a lot less problematic now that Eric Tillman has been brought in to fill the GM role.
We'll see whether the move ends up sparking the 'Riders the rest of the way. But I'm not sure many fans realize just how big Shivers' shoes will be to fill - and his replacement will have to fill that role and more in a big hurry for the move to actually help the team this season.
Update: In fairness, the move looks a lot less problematic now that Eric Tillman has been brought in to fill the GM role.
On gatherings
The Hill Times reports on the NDP's upcoming policy convention in Quebec City. Unfortunately the article is long on discussion of the convention itself, and short on any talk of how that will translate into support at the polls. But hopefully the reality on the ground will include more of a long-term presence to help get the NDP into the race in La Belle Province.
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Deal or no deal
The Financial Post points out just a couple more ways in which the supposed concessions which allegedly made the softwood lumber capitulation palatable enough to accept are ultimately meaningless:
With tomorrow's deadline looming large, it's not too late for the industry to recognize a bad deal when it sees it. And if Harper faces the embarrassment of seeing one of his few supposed achievements die out because the industry doesn't agree with the Cons' claim that Canada can't do better, then it may not be long before we have a new federal government who's actually willing to defend Canada's interests.
The U.S. industry had initially bristled at reports this week out of British Columbia that it and the U.S. government had made major concessions to see the deal conclude.So the Cons had managed to negotiate a deal which was initially worse than the law which applies to every other industry in a similar situation. And now, the key provinces involved have decided to back the deal based on its including the minimum treatment which would apply with or without any agreement, as well as the unenforceable "comfort letter" discussed as the lead in the FP article.
As it turns out, some of the apparent concessions -- such as those dealing with when the U.S. could end the deal or the timing of when prices are calculated -- are essentially the same as allowed under U.S. trade law.
"Keep in mind, it would take the U.S. over a year to build a new case against Canada so now giving six months' notice instead of one month doesn't really mean all that much," said one industry observer.
With tomorrow's deadline looming large, it's not too late for the industry to recognize a bad deal when it sees it. And if Harper faces the embarrassment of seeing one of his few supposed achievements die out because the industry doesn't agree with the Cons' claim that Canada can't do better, then it may not be long before we have a new federal government who's actually willing to defend Canada's interests.
On false positives
The CP reports that Garth Turner apparently won't face a nomination battle after all. But in discussing the story the writer, Michael Hammond, seems far too ready to pretend that the Cons alone have a system which allows MPs to be held accountable:
By my count, that leaves exactly one of the federal parties with any seats to defend which is currently immunizing its members from challenge. And however divided the Libs may be in the midst of their leadership race, describing them alone as "other political parties" is a bit of a stretch.
But Hammond's statement looks all the worse when considering the Cons' record, as that party itself doesn't value such challenges enough to have permitted them before this year. Which stands in stark contrast to the other two non-Lib parties which hold federal seats.
Unfortunately, Hammond does not appear to have looked into either the current reality or the Cons' history. Instead, he outright says that a pluralized set of federal parties allow for less accountability than the Cons - and implies in the process that the Cons are unique in their willingness to force MPs to defend their record, rather than joined to the Libs as the parties who allow internal democracy only when it seems convenient.
Of course, the quoted line forms a relatively small part of an article devoted mostly to other issues. But Hammond's careless assumption allows the Cons to benefit from an unwarranted appearance of principle. And the more undeserved positive press the Cons get now, the more difficult it will be to point out the Cons' actual governing record (which has of course tended toward central control rather than actual grassroots involvement) during the next campaign.
Unlike other political parties, the Conservative party does not guarantee that incumbent MPs will receive the party's nomination.Now, the first question which comes readily to mind is what "other political parties" are included. Surely somebody writing on Canadian politics should have at least some awareness that one NDP MP actually lost a riding challenge last year, and another recent article which actually appears to have looked into the issue suggests that the Bloc also provides for open nominations.
By my count, that leaves exactly one of the federal parties with any seats to defend which is currently immunizing its members from challenge. And however divided the Libs may be in the midst of their leadership race, describing them alone as "other political parties" is a bit of a stretch.
But Hammond's statement looks all the worse when considering the Cons' record, as that party itself doesn't value such challenges enough to have permitted them before this year. Which stands in stark contrast to the other two non-Lib parties which hold federal seats.
Unfortunately, Hammond does not appear to have looked into either the current reality or the Cons' history. Instead, he outright says that a pluralized set of federal parties allow for less accountability than the Cons - and implies in the process that the Cons are unique in their willingness to force MPs to defend their record, rather than joined to the Libs as the parties who allow internal democracy only when it seems convenient.
Of course, the quoted line forms a relatively small part of an article devoted mostly to other issues. But Hammond's careless assumption allows the Cons to benefit from an unwarranted appearance of principle. And the more undeserved positive press the Cons get now, the more difficult it will be to point out the Cons' actual governing record (which has of course tended toward central control rather than actual grassroots involvement) during the next campaign.
On caricatures
Throughout the 2006 election campaign, the main charge levelled at the NDP by the Libs was the complaint that the Dippers were treating the Libs and Cons differently. Never mind that the Libs and Cons were indeed in different positions (the former as a longtime government with a record which could be thoroughly assessed, the latter as an opposition party who couldn't reasonably be attacked for anything but its stands on the issues), or that the consistent "wrong on the issues" line toward the Cons surely can't be taken as a compliment in any fair analysis. The mere fact that the NDP opposed the Cons in a different way from the Libs was somehow interpreted to mean approval of the Cons, helping to fuel the Libs' irrational blame of the NDP for their own election failures.
Never ones to be bothered by consistency of thought, Lib bloggers are now starting to include just the opposite complaint within a "blame Jack" framework, claiming that the NDP is unfairly lumping together Libs who accomplished little on progressive issues with Cons who are actively avoiding accomplishing anything in a "same old story" narrative.
Contary to the position of these bloggers, there would be more than a bit of justification even if the NDP's position was generally to highlight a relatively similar lack of results from both the Libs and Cons in government. After all, wasn't it the Libs that prioritized corporate tax cuts over reinvestment in the programs which were slashed during Martin's reign as finance minister? And who was it that admittedly didn't have Canada on target to meet its Kyoto commitments, and who hemmed and hawed over daycare for over a decade before doing anything? If the Libs had cared about progressive issues in the least when they held a majority (or even early in their minority tenure), then there would be established structures in place today which the Cons could never have undercut, rather than a series of preliminary ventures which the Cons could back away from at relatively little political cost.
Instead, it took a resurgent NDP to push the Libs to finally reinvest in the health care system and move forward on child care, and an NDP budget deal (which, in case the Libloggers haven't noticed, was the only reason the NDP voted for a budget associated with Martin) to reinvest in postsecondary education and housing. And the NDP has pressed Harper in much the same manner as it pressed the Libs on all counts, calling PMS' bluff when he threatened not to fund the NDP budget and successfully pushing the Cons to fund housing programs.
So it would be fair enough to recognize some similarity between the results of Lib and Con government in any event. But then, any realistic portrayal of the NDP's position reveals that the party's actions have been far more nuanced than that: working with either the Cons or the Libs where appropriate, similarly casting blame on the Libs and/or the Cons alone where justified, and recognizing the difference between the Libs' relatively-minor failings and the major Con equivalents where matters really have gotten worse.
For those wondering just who's really been opposing Harper when it counts, though, the NDP has opposed the Cons on each issue of interest to progressives - unlike the Libs, whose ranks provided enough votes to hand Harper his desired vote on Afghanistan even when the mission was going to continue in any event, and who chose to support Rona Ambrose's continued mismanagement of the environment file when the NDP moved to hold her accountable for her failings. And now one of the leading leadership contenders is buying without question Harper's spin that Canada can't meet its Kyoto targets - even though the Libs' own platform still recognized the need to fulfill our commitments earlier this year.
About the best that can be said about the Libloggers' argument is that the NDP has indeed disappointed in the polls since the election, and presumably thus hasn't taken advantage of the opportunity created by a Lib party in disarray. But the Libs continue to be as fantasy-based as ever in trying to explain that drop - and with the Libs still aiming their fire at something which in no way resembles the NDP, the door still appears wide open for the actual NDP to be recognized as Canada's best progressive alternative.
Update: Meanwhile, there's no need for any caricature to show that at least some Libs haven't learned anything from Canadians' concerns about the party's arrogance and sense of entitlement.
Never ones to be bothered by consistency of thought, Lib bloggers are now starting to include just the opposite complaint within a "blame Jack" framework, claiming that the NDP is unfairly lumping together Libs who accomplished little on progressive issues with Cons who are actively avoiding accomplishing anything in a "same old story" narrative.
Contary to the position of these bloggers, there would be more than a bit of justification even if the NDP's position was generally to highlight a relatively similar lack of results from both the Libs and Cons in government. After all, wasn't it the Libs that prioritized corporate tax cuts over reinvestment in the programs which were slashed during Martin's reign as finance minister? And who was it that admittedly didn't have Canada on target to meet its Kyoto commitments, and who hemmed and hawed over daycare for over a decade before doing anything? If the Libs had cared about progressive issues in the least when they held a majority (or even early in their minority tenure), then there would be established structures in place today which the Cons could never have undercut, rather than a series of preliminary ventures which the Cons could back away from at relatively little political cost.
Instead, it took a resurgent NDP to push the Libs to finally reinvest in the health care system and move forward on child care, and an NDP budget deal (which, in case the Libloggers haven't noticed, was the only reason the NDP voted for a budget associated with Martin) to reinvest in postsecondary education and housing. And the NDP has pressed Harper in much the same manner as it pressed the Libs on all counts, calling PMS' bluff when he threatened not to fund the NDP budget and successfully pushing the Cons to fund housing programs.
So it would be fair enough to recognize some similarity between the results of Lib and Con government in any event. But then, any realistic portrayal of the NDP's position reveals that the party's actions have been far more nuanced than that: working with either the Cons or the Libs where appropriate, similarly casting blame on the Libs and/or the Cons alone where justified, and recognizing the difference between the Libs' relatively-minor failings and the major Con equivalents where matters really have gotten worse.
For those wondering just who's really been opposing Harper when it counts, though, the NDP has opposed the Cons on each issue of interest to progressives - unlike the Libs, whose ranks provided enough votes to hand Harper his desired vote on Afghanistan even when the mission was going to continue in any event, and who chose to support Rona Ambrose's continued mismanagement of the environment file when the NDP moved to hold her accountable for her failings. And now one of the leading leadership contenders is buying without question Harper's spin that Canada can't meet its Kyoto targets - even though the Libs' own platform still recognized the need to fulfill our commitments earlier this year.
About the best that can be said about the Libloggers' argument is that the NDP has indeed disappointed in the polls since the election, and presumably thus hasn't taken advantage of the opportunity created by a Lib party in disarray. But the Libs continue to be as fantasy-based as ever in trying to explain that drop - and with the Libs still aiming their fire at something which in no way resembles the NDP, the door still appears wide open for the actual NDP to be recognized as Canada's best progressive alternative.
Update: Meanwhile, there's no need for any caricature to show that at least some Libs haven't learned anything from Canadians' concerns about the party's arrogance and sense of entitlement.
On targets
CanWest reports on the Young Libs' contest to track down photos of some Con MPs who are generally kept away from the press. But doesn't it seem a little pointless for the contest to involve only a photo (which on its face seems likely to make the MPs look relatively positive) rather than an actual quote showing the extremism of the Cons involved? Or are the Libs rightly concerned that for any quote from one of the Cons' most embarrassing MPs, there's bound to be a Paul Steckle special to match?
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Lowered expectations
Amid all the hype about Michael Ignatieff's soon-to-be-announced environmental plan, it's worth noting that Ignatieff appears to be wrongly buying into the Cons' claim that Canada's Kyoto commitments aren't worth keeping:
Michael Ignatieff's environmental plan, to be released Monday, calls for a “polluter pays” system that would include lower taxes at the pumps for consumers who use greener fuel.It's not clear how such a plan is supposed to present any meaningful opposition to Harper and the Cons, who have generally assumed a similar effect to be reached through miraculous technological steps with no encouragement from a public policy perspective. But it's glaringly clear that Ignatieff is perfectly willing to buy into Harper's defeatism to at least some extent while ignoring both the commitment Canada's government made in ratifying Kyoto, and the readily available and cost-neutral policy ideas which would put Canada on a path to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now. Which means that the possibility of an Ignatieff win is looking more likely by the day to boost the NDP's fortunes as the sole party willing to actually take a truly progressive stance.
The perceived front-runner in the Liberal leadership race will also concede that Canada cannot meet the Kyoto Protocol's target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 6 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012.
Instead, his plan would reduce Canada's carbon dioxide emissions to at least 50 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050, with interim targets set for each decade, according to a senior campaign official familiar with the plan.
More selective jurisdiction
Vic Toews tries to explain how extending the criminal law process to 10-year-olds won't necessarily result in children that young being sent to criminal training. But in doing so, he seems rather happy to use the criminal law as a response to perceived failings on areas which should plainly be the responsibility of the provinces:
Once again, the Cons apparently have no interest in respecting either side of the actual constitutional division of powers except where it fits their ideological purposes. Sometimes that means imposing massive burdens on the provinces without any support; others it means claiming helplessness when a federal program causes direct harm to workers. But either way, it's not a situation that either provinces or Canadians generally should be willing to abide.
(Edit: fixed link.)
When young people fall victim to the criminal element before they reach 12 years of age, it represents a failure of the justice system and the social services that governments provide...In other words, Toews tries to justify getting the criminal law involved earlier because of a view that social services aren't currently addressing the needs of such youths. But apparently it would be too easy to deal with such a deficiency by talking with the provinces to try to ensure that appropriate resources exist to provide the needed services. Instead, Toews' solution is not only to raise the spectre of criminal prosecutions for the youths involved, but also to impose his vision of social services on the provinces (and without any additional funding to help provinces meet that obligation).
In some cases, young people have had extensive police and social service interaction before age 12. For these youth, the justice system has no mechanism to ensure that they get the treatment they need. To prevent them from falling through the cracks, we need to discuss whether the courts should have some legal recourse to intervene in a positive fashion.
Once again, the Cons apparently have no interest in respecting either side of the actual constitutional division of powers except where it fits their ideological purposes. Sometimes that means imposing massive burdens on the provinces without any support; others it means claiming helplessness when a federal program causes direct harm to workers. But either way, it's not a situation that either provinces or Canadians generally should be willing to abide.
(Edit: fixed link.)
On progress
The pattern of good news in Saskatchewan health care continues, as Saskatchewan Health reports a major reduction in the province's waiting lists:
The number of patients sitting on surgical waiting lists in the Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region and Saskatoon dropped by nearly 1,600 last year compared to 2004-05, the report states, noting in 2005-06 the two regions completed about 2,000 more surgeries than the previous year.With the increased capacity within the system obviously being used to great effect, it looks like the province's waiting lists will be reduced to almost nothing in the public health-care system well before it would even be possible to add a competing private system to supposedly speed up the process. Kudos to Sask Health for having made so much progress to date. And while there's still much to be done, I for one look forward to seeing just how much better yet the system will work in the future once today's investments have had time to fully take effect.
The annual report also indicates the seven largest regions performed more than 19,000 surgeries in the first three months of this year, an increase year-over-year of nearly 1,000 cases...
Sask. Health has also made some headway in improving access to diagnostic imaging services last year. Since March 2004 the total number of people waiting for an MRI has decreased provincially by 35.6 per cent.
According to the department's annual report the province increased the number of MRI exams it performs by 22 per cent last year for a total of more than 19,600 and increased its CT exam capacity by 14,400 for a total of about 105,000 or a 16-per-cent increase over the previous year.
Friday, August 18, 2006
Nicely done
Not a bad day's work for the NDP, as the party along with housing groups has managed to force the Cons to reverse their apparent attempt to wriggle out of funding the SCPI, even as the Dippers found time to point out just how far the Libs are from being a real progressive alternative. I only worry that somebody at Burger King will worry about having the good name of the Whopper sullied by association with the Libs.
On principles
Since the softwood lumber deal seems to be headed down to the wire, there's no time like the present to keep pointing out the folly of entering into the deal from Canada's perspective. Having already dealt with the problems with the process here, let's take a look at the principles at stake - and how Harper has managed to sell Canada out on all counts.
The two main issues are free trade and other principles of fair treatment, and Canadian sovereignty. The dispute as currently phrased arises entirely out of alleged tension between the two: CFLI claims that Canada's sovereign choices as to forestry policy impede on its members' right to be treated fairly in matters of international trade. And no matter how many panels rule otherwise, CFLI has consistently kept a stream of allegations of preferential treatment before the U.S. Commerce Department, which has in turn happily ignored higher rulings to order duties to make up for supposed advantages held by Canadian producers.
(Not that CFLI or another pressure group wouldn't likely find another excuse to try to suppress imports if this weren't the most obvious one. But that's a story for the next round of litigation.)
But then, the alleged "advantages" to Canadian producers in the form of lower stumpage fees come at a price, including benefits to workers and tax differences. In other words, Canadian governments have decided to take a lesser amount in stumpage fees in exchange for other social benefits. And NAFTA tribunals have consistently concluded that this exercise of legitimate authority doesn't give rise to any valid retaliation on the part of the U.S.: that Canada's choice to exercise its sovereign will doesn't make for an unfair playing field.
But then the Cons stepped in.
One can dispute all day long which is the more important principle: Roy McLaren takes the position that free trade should trump all, while I tend to the view that the more important question is the ability of Canadian policymakers to make meaningful decisions rather than having their hands tied. But there shouldn't be any doubt that whichever of the principles one wants to value most, the deal agreed to by the Cons is an unmitigated disaster.
On the free-trade side, the deal is substantially worse than the status quo. Rather than being able to trade fairly freely subject only to whatever U.S. duty is in force at any given time, Canadian producers will now be subject to specific limitations on the amount of lumber they're able to send south of the border, in addition to facing an export tax and other restrictions. In sum, the deal amounts to a trade suppression agreement - which is rightly raising the ire of those who fully believe in unfettered free trade.
On the sovereignty side, the deal limits the freedom of action by Canadian provinces through the much-discussed "veto" over forestry policy changes. But perhaps even more importantly, it involves a Canadian concession to the position that anything which in any way deviates from U.S. policy must be in some way wrong.
In the comments to this post, Olaf asked why Canada couldn't simply adopt the U.S.' policies in order to resolve the existing dispute. And I've wondered to some extent whether a similar solution might work - perhaps involving an export tax in the amount of the existing duties, without the rest of the baggage that comes with the Cons' deal.
But in addition to the likely result that CFLI would only find new excuses to try to close off the border, such an action would put Canadian producers at a tangible disadvantage - unless, of course, Canada also adopted every other U.S. policy surrounding forestry, including lesser protection for workers. The question is ultimately whether Canada has any freedom to balance priorities differently from or independently of the U.S. - and both a solution based on adopting U.S. policies and the Cons' deal itself answer that question with a stark "no".
Now, Canadian policymakers are most certainly free to conclude that measures similar to those applied in the U.S. are worth applying here as well. But they equally certainly shouldn't be prevented from exercising legitimate judgment as to what type of policy to apply within the range of policies fair to all parties involved. And the effect of the Cons' sellout is to open the door for other industries to similarly challenge any area where Canada has taken an independent view as to the policies which best suit Canadian interests.
In sum, both free and fair trade and Canadian sovereignty can readily coexist. But rather than seeking an outcome that moves toward such an end, the Cons have managed to sell out Canadian interests on both issues. In the end, the partial return of money being wrongly held by the U.S. is coming only at the cost of Canada completely abandoning both of the principles at stake in the deal. And that amounts to a statement of Con principle which should make all Canadians wary of Harper and his troops.
(Edit: revised wording.)
The two main issues are free trade and other principles of fair treatment, and Canadian sovereignty. The dispute as currently phrased arises entirely out of alleged tension between the two: CFLI claims that Canada's sovereign choices as to forestry policy impede on its members' right to be treated fairly in matters of international trade. And no matter how many panels rule otherwise, CFLI has consistently kept a stream of allegations of preferential treatment before the U.S. Commerce Department, which has in turn happily ignored higher rulings to order duties to make up for supposed advantages held by Canadian producers.
(Not that CFLI or another pressure group wouldn't likely find another excuse to try to suppress imports if this weren't the most obvious one. But that's a story for the next round of litigation.)
But then, the alleged "advantages" to Canadian producers in the form of lower stumpage fees come at a price, including benefits to workers and tax differences. In other words, Canadian governments have decided to take a lesser amount in stumpage fees in exchange for other social benefits. And NAFTA tribunals have consistently concluded that this exercise of legitimate authority doesn't give rise to any valid retaliation on the part of the U.S.: that Canada's choice to exercise its sovereign will doesn't make for an unfair playing field.
But then the Cons stepped in.
One can dispute all day long which is the more important principle: Roy McLaren takes the position that free trade should trump all, while I tend to the view that the more important question is the ability of Canadian policymakers to make meaningful decisions rather than having their hands tied. But there shouldn't be any doubt that whichever of the principles one wants to value most, the deal agreed to by the Cons is an unmitigated disaster.
On the free-trade side, the deal is substantially worse than the status quo. Rather than being able to trade fairly freely subject only to whatever U.S. duty is in force at any given time, Canadian producers will now be subject to specific limitations on the amount of lumber they're able to send south of the border, in addition to facing an export tax and other restrictions. In sum, the deal amounts to a trade suppression agreement - which is rightly raising the ire of those who fully believe in unfettered free trade.
On the sovereignty side, the deal limits the freedom of action by Canadian provinces through the much-discussed "veto" over forestry policy changes. But perhaps even more importantly, it involves a Canadian concession to the position that anything which in any way deviates from U.S. policy must be in some way wrong.
In the comments to this post, Olaf asked why Canada couldn't simply adopt the U.S.' policies in order to resolve the existing dispute. And I've wondered to some extent whether a similar solution might work - perhaps involving an export tax in the amount of the existing duties, without the rest of the baggage that comes with the Cons' deal.
But in addition to the likely result that CFLI would only find new excuses to try to close off the border, such an action would put Canadian producers at a tangible disadvantage - unless, of course, Canada also adopted every other U.S. policy surrounding forestry, including lesser protection for workers. The question is ultimately whether Canada has any freedom to balance priorities differently from or independently of the U.S. - and both a solution based on adopting U.S. policies and the Cons' deal itself answer that question with a stark "no".
Now, Canadian policymakers are most certainly free to conclude that measures similar to those applied in the U.S. are worth applying here as well. But they equally certainly shouldn't be prevented from exercising legitimate judgment as to what type of policy to apply within the range of policies fair to all parties involved. And the effect of the Cons' sellout is to open the door for other industries to similarly challenge any area where Canada has taken an independent view as to the policies which best suit Canadian interests.
In sum, both free and fair trade and Canadian sovereignty can readily coexist. But rather than seeking an outcome that moves toward such an end, the Cons have managed to sell out Canadian interests on both issues. In the end, the partial return of money being wrongly held by the U.S. is coming only at the cost of Canada completely abandoning both of the principles at stake in the deal. And that amounts to a statement of Con principle which should make all Canadians wary of Harper and his troops.
(Edit: revised wording.)
Early returns
It may only be the beginning, but the Financial Post reports on a wave of Saskatchewan citizens who are returning from Alberta due to a similarly thriving jobs market and a substantially lower cost of living:
A campaign by Saskatchewan to lure former residents back from Alberta appears to be hitting home. In Calgary, where the housing market has surged at an astonishing rate, stories are growing increasingly common about families cashing out to return to their roots in Saskatchewan, where the jobs market has taken an upward turn and they can live mortgage-free.The evidence may be largely anecdotal for now, but then there's plenty of room for the phenomenon to grow - particularly if employers start to follow suit based on the lower costs of operating in Saskatchewan.
"We see it as a huge trend, in any one day we'll have two or three people from Alberta in our office," said Larry Stewart, a broker with RE/MAX Saskatoon. "They're people who are coming back, quitting their jobs and finding new jobs here."...
The average sale price of a single-family home in Calgary hit $403,630 last month, which is up 32% from a year ago.
In Regina, the average residential price is $137,195.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., which tracks movement between provinces, acknowledged the rush from Saskatchewan to Alberta could be slowing.
"Theoretically, we're now considering that Alberta is on the verge of becoming the second most expensive real estate market in the country," said Richard Corriveau, a Calgary-based market analyst with the federal government's mortgage insurer.
"A family that sells their home and moves from Saskatchewan to say, Calgary, maybe has enough for a down payment -- if they'd built up some equity.
"Move from Alberta to Saskatchewan, however, and you pay cash, live mortgage-free and maybe put a couple hundred grand into your pocket. That's a pretty strong pull."
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Aiding and abetting
I gave the federal Libs the benefit of the doubt and didn't throw any blame their way when Gordon Campbell decided to take a stand in favour of capitulation. But now that the predominant large-L Liberal provincial government in the country has joined those who don't think extortion is worth opposing, there isn't much room for doubt which party is actually defending Canada's interests against Harper, and which one is still looking for excuses to fold with the upper hand.
That said, whether or not the current coalition of Lib provincial governments and federal Cons is enough to push Canadian lumber producers to sign onto the deal, it's worth keeping in mind just where the Cons' deal came from, how it's been pushed so far, and what it means for the bigger-picture relationship between Canada and its current government.
Remember first that the Libs themselves had a relatively similar deal ready for an announcement last fall...which was pushed until after the election by the same minister now carrying the lead on the Cons' file based on the fact that it would be (rightly) seen as a sellout.
Once the Cons took power, they made an agreement of some sort into the sole requirement. And to make sure no pesky Canadian demands could stand in the way, the Cons took the U.S.' side and systematically excluded Canadian interests from the bargaining table, while the leading American voice was consulted throughout the negotiations.
Of course, the deal in principle still had to be hashed out. And the Cons had negotiated so poorly that the U.S. figured it was worth trying to find ways to win even more ground while filling in the details. Which, judging from the outcome, they succeeded in doing, as Canada's great "progress" now being trumpeted by Gordon Campbell included merely winning the right to study just how much the added burdens created by implementation of the agreement will harm Canadian industry.
Having predictably reached a terrible deal through this process designed to achieve agreement through a steady stream of concessions, the Cons then went about trying to sell it. After they finally realized that nobody was buying an attempt to claim the deal was actually positive, they eventually settled on their recent strategy of claiming that it's the least among evils - and publicly derided Canada's continued success in litigation as part of the process. Of course, even if the "lesser of the evils" argument were true, that could only be so due to the Cons' own threats to undermine the Canadian lumber industry if it wouldn't play along.
In light of that consistent record of the Cons siding against the Canadian lumber industry, it may well be understandable for the industry to decide the least of the evils is to accept a defeat which would have been entirely avoidable with a more reasonable government in charge - better to accept the Cons losing their shirt at the bargaining table than to find out whether Harper is crazy enough to burn their entire wardrobe out of spite.
While I still hold out hope that the industry will realize it can do better litigating for itself, PMS may ultimately succeed in finalizing the agreement - particularly now that he has Lib voices once again joining in the trained-seal chorus of "we can't do better". But even if he wins the fight he picked with his own country, that doesn't let him off the hook for causing it in the first place. And if the Libs are willing to once again side against Canada as well, then there's all the more reason for Canadian voters to start turning their eyes and their votes elsewhere.
That said, whether or not the current coalition of Lib provincial governments and federal Cons is enough to push Canadian lumber producers to sign onto the deal, it's worth keeping in mind just where the Cons' deal came from, how it's been pushed so far, and what it means for the bigger-picture relationship between Canada and its current government.
Remember first that the Libs themselves had a relatively similar deal ready for an announcement last fall...which was pushed until after the election by the same minister now carrying the lead on the Cons' file based on the fact that it would be (rightly) seen as a sellout.
Once the Cons took power, they made an agreement of some sort into the sole requirement. And to make sure no pesky Canadian demands could stand in the way, the Cons took the U.S.' side and systematically excluded Canadian interests from the bargaining table, while the leading American voice was consulted throughout the negotiations.
Of course, the deal in principle still had to be hashed out. And the Cons had negotiated so poorly that the U.S. figured it was worth trying to find ways to win even more ground while filling in the details. Which, judging from the outcome, they succeeded in doing, as Canada's great "progress" now being trumpeted by Gordon Campbell included merely winning the right to study just how much the added burdens created by implementation of the agreement will harm Canadian industry.
Having predictably reached a terrible deal through this process designed to achieve agreement through a steady stream of concessions, the Cons then went about trying to sell it. After they finally realized that nobody was buying an attempt to claim the deal was actually positive, they eventually settled on their recent strategy of claiming that it's the least among evils - and publicly derided Canada's continued success in litigation as part of the process. Of course, even if the "lesser of the evils" argument were true, that could only be so due to the Cons' own threats to undermine the Canadian lumber industry if it wouldn't play along.
In light of that consistent record of the Cons siding against the Canadian lumber industry, it may well be understandable for the industry to decide the least of the evils is to accept a defeat which would have been entirely avoidable with a more reasonable government in charge - better to accept the Cons losing their shirt at the bargaining table than to find out whether Harper is crazy enough to burn their entire wardrobe out of spite.
While I still hold out hope that the industry will realize it can do better litigating for itself, PMS may ultimately succeed in finalizing the agreement - particularly now that he has Lib voices once again joining in the trained-seal chorus of "we can't do better". But even if he wins the fight he picked with his own country, that doesn't let him off the hook for causing it in the first place. And if the Libs are willing to once again side against Canada as well, then there's all the more reason for Canadian voters to start turning their eyes and their votes elsewhere.
Guilty by association
Gordon Campbell appears to be auditioning for a regular role as PMS Shill #1: first by inexplicably demanding that the federal government cut taxes and call it a fix to equalization, and now by claiming that tiny changes to the softwood lumber capitulation somehow make the deal worth supporting:
Meanwhile, the rest of the points appear to be nothing but tinkering around the edges: making the deal as a whole enforceable for 24 months rather than 21, a similarly slight increase in the deterrents against the U.S. terminating the deal (when the U.S. surely recognizes that it can instead simply ignore its obligations in any event), and including an additional acknowledgement of B.C.'s ability to set policy which is more than counterbalanced by the policy limitations implied by the rest of the deal.
And of course the changes do nothing to address the underlying question of why Canada would want to voluntarily hand over half a billion dollars to which CFLI has no legal entitlement in order to secure the return of part of the money which the U.S. is wrongly withholding.
Based on a combination of empty promises and insignificant changes, Campbell seems happy to forfeit his government's future ability to oversee the B.C. forestry industry. But hopefully the other provinces and producers who have opposed the softwood deal to date will recognize that Canada deserves better...and B.C. voters will reward Campbell for his ridiculous serious of recent stances by electing a government which isn't looking to undermine the province's ability to act at every turn.
Update: In fairness, it is tough to blame Campbell for wanting to turn attention toward the federal government in order to deflect it from the effects of his own policies.
Campbell said the latest deal includes new language on:The latter two points appear to deal with Canada's largest substantive problems with the specific terms of the deal (leaving aside for the moment the question of why Canada wants to negotiate away any of its consistent legal victories). But the changes suggest only that our grave concerns will now be "addressed" through non-binding future commitments to review just how badly Canada gets shafted in the deal. (And we should all know just how effective similar sidelights to trade agreements have been to date.)
- The B.C. market-based timber pricing system.
- Changes to the deal's technical language.
- A six-month termination clause after the agreement in force 18 months, up from the previous three months.
- New conditions if the seven-year agreement is not renewed or if the Americans bail out before it expires.
- A commitment to review the tax status of timber from privately owned lands.
- A promise for a binational panel to review the so-called running rules covering the agreement's day-to-day operations, which critics say handcuff Canadian exporters.
Meanwhile, the rest of the points appear to be nothing but tinkering around the edges: making the deal as a whole enforceable for 24 months rather than 21, a similarly slight increase in the deterrents against the U.S. terminating the deal (when the U.S. surely recognizes that it can instead simply ignore its obligations in any event), and including an additional acknowledgement of B.C.'s ability to set policy which is more than counterbalanced by the policy limitations implied by the rest of the deal.
And of course the changes do nothing to address the underlying question of why Canada would want to voluntarily hand over half a billion dollars to which CFLI has no legal entitlement in order to secure the return of part of the money which the U.S. is wrongly withholding.
Based on a combination of empty promises and insignificant changes, Campbell seems happy to forfeit his government's future ability to oversee the B.C. forestry industry. But hopefully the other provinces and producers who have opposed the softwood deal to date will recognize that Canada deserves better...and B.C. voters will reward Campbell for his ridiculous serious of recent stances by electing a government which isn't looking to undermine the province's ability to act at every turn.
Update: In fairness, it is tough to blame Campbell for wanting to turn attention toward the federal government in order to deflect it from the effects of his own policies.
On investment timing
The Star follows up on the Toronto implications of the Cons' apparent (though denied) decision to put an end to promised housing funding:
Of course, that also means the Cons can succeed in undermining the purpose of the funding by obfuscating and delaying matters until it's too late to make any effective use of the money. Which is why the current public pressure is only a start to make sure that Canada's citizens who need the help the most actually get the support which the SCPI can offer.
Earlier this year, city of Toronto officials were told they would be getting $17.3 million in the 2006-07 fiscal year under the Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative (SCPI).The current Con excuse is an ongoing "administrative process". At best, that claim doesn't do anything to explain the initial funding cuts - and there's no apparent reason why any administrative process should be taking this long when the Cons committed to the funding over two months ago, and when the deadline for spending the money is approaching so quickly.
But after a July meeting the amount was abruptly cut to $11.4 million, with no explanation, and there is no indication the city will get the remainder, said Phil Brown, Toronto's general manager of shelter, support and housing administration.
A contract — authorizing the city to spend the money — has not yet been signed, making it impossible for the city to sign agreements with community agencies that provides services for the homeless, he added.
"It has cast a lot of uncertainty. We've had a lot of projects ready to go," Brown said, adding the money must be spent by March 31, 2007. That makes it especially difficult to proceed with building projects including new transitional housing and the renovation of a drop-in centre...
Funding under the seven-year-old program has helped create shelter beds and permanent transitional housing as well as projects to make shelter residents job-ready and get them identification to qualify for housing and health care.
Of course, that also means the Cons can succeed in undermining the purpose of the funding by obfuscating and delaying matters until it's too late to make any effective use of the money. Which is why the current public pressure is only a start to make sure that Canada's citizens who need the help the most actually get the support which the SCPI can offer.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Caught in the act
The NDP catches the Cons lying about their plans to fund a national housing initiative:
As news of widespread cuts to federal funding of housing programs across Canada is revealed, the NDP is calling on the Conservative government to immediately restore all funding to the Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative (SCPI), a federal program that funds the construction of affordable housing.Fortunately, with the NDP collecting the cities' respective grievances, it shouldn't take long to mount a concerted effort to make sure the Cons don't lose sight of the importance of housing again. But with the Cons evidently showing no more respect for their than for their parliamentary promises than for their campaign commitments, there's all the less reason for Canadians to trust them in the future.
According to the City of Toronto’s Shelter Support and Housing Division, SCPI funding for the city will be cut by $5.8 million and details from the London Housing Coalition confirm that city has lost $513,000. The NDP has also learned of an impending $1 million cut to the City of Ottawa’s and a $416,000 cut in Yellowknife - a city that has been one of the hardest hit by homelessness. Details are currently being sought of potential cuts in other cities across the country.
“The Conservative government must reverse these cuts and make the funds available immediately,” said NDP Housing critic Irene Mathyssen. “Stephen Harper’s government must reassure Canadians that his government will keep its word that federal funding for housing will move forward. Canada’s most vulnerable citizens are counting on it.”
During a June 6 House of Commons committee meeting, Conservative Minister of Human Resources and Social Development Diane Finley assured the NDP’s Tony Martin that funding for the program would be extended.
According to the minutes of the Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities (HUMA) Committee proceedings, Finley stated: “You asked about SCPI. No problem: that's going forward. That's all been blessed and approved. We recognize the importance of these sectors and the dependence they have on federal funds.”
On unwanted development
The good news from the AP is that at least one industry is downright thriving in Afghanistan. The bad news is that not surprisingly, it's the industry which Canada's forces are supposed to be eradicating:
Opium cultivation in Afghanistan has hit record levels — up by more than 40 percent from 2005 — despite hundreds of millions in counternarcotics money, Western officials told The Associated Press...From the article, it's not entirely clear whether the Karzai government has backed away from its previous interest in working with drug traffickers to try to rebuild the country. But it's beyond question that to the extent that Canada's role is based in part on an attempt to control opium production, the reality on the ground has only been getting worse. And with the profits from the resulting production likely to make Canada's other objectives more difficult as well, it's getting less and less likely that Canada's military sacrifices will have any positive long-term influence either at home or in Afghanistan itself.
A Western anti-narcotics official in Kabul said about 370,650 acres of opium poppy was cultivated this season — up from 257,000 acres in 2005 — citing their preliminary crop projections. The previous record was 323,700 acres in 2004, according to the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime...
The U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime estimate that opium accounted for 52 percent of Afghanistan's gross domestic product in 2005...
This year's increased poppy cultivation follows a 21 percent drop the previous year, suggesting the government has not followed through on warnings to farmers against planting poppies. Although 37,065 acres of poppies were eradicated this year, according to the Ministry for Counternarcotics, a campaign by police to destroy crops fell short of expectation.
On reviews
While the fallout from PMS' refusal to attend the International AIDS Conference continues, the Cons' highest-ranking representative at the conference is also earning well-deserved criticism for his insincerity on the file:
Clement said the government intends "to do this comprehensively, do it rationally to get some good information and advice because really this is our first opportunity as a new government to consider this legislation."At the very least, Canada can be proud to be home to one of the leading figures in the effort to fight AIDS. And it's certainly a plus to see another prominent voice highlighting the gap between rhetoric and action from the Cons. It's just a shame that Lewis' role is limited to a diplomatic one, particularly compared to the consistent disinterest by both Lib and Con governments.
But Stephen Lewis, the United Nations special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, was skeptical of when the review will be held.
"This gives new meaning to the word immediate. They were elected eight months ago. If this is the nature of their particular dictionary, I wouldn't trust any word."
If there was a sense of urgency about it, the review would already have happened six months ago, he said.
"We've lost another six months, in other words, and now we'll lose even more time."
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Slowly learning
Saskatchewan's Con MPs appear to have figured out the seemingly-obvious truth that repudiating campaign promises doesn't tend to have positive results:
Conservative MPs from Saskatchewan are urging Prime Minister Stephen Harper to keep the party's campaign promise on federal equalization payments.Of course, Fitzpatrick's realization doesn't mean PMS will stop taking Saskatchewan for granted and follow through on the party's campaign commitments. But it does mean that Saskatchewanians now have the Cons' own words to turn against them if Harper decides that keeping his promise isn't a priority.
If he doesn't, according to a letter signed by Saskatchewan Conservative caucus chair Brian Fitzpatrick that was leaked to the media, it will cause "no end of political difficulty" in the next election.
Excuses, excuses
As an update to this post, you know the Cons recognize they've screwed up when they start reciting random, inconsistent excuses this quickly:
“Suffice to say, (Foreign Affairs officials) don't feel the timing is right,” Mr. Del Mastro said Tuesday.Now, if Del Mastro actually planned to stick with the new justification, one would think he'd at least mention what about the timing would justify putting off the trip. But it appears more likely that Del Mastro wants to leave open the option of spinning the Cons' Wheel of Specious Excuses again tomorrow rather than pretending there's an explanation worth sticking with. Which only highlights the pointlessness of the original decision, as there obviously wasn't enough thought put into it to allow Del Mastro to have a tenable reason for it now.
“They don't object to the trip, they don't object to the initiatives of the trip, they don't object to the agenda of the trip, it's just the timing of the trip.
“It's not the best time for that type of agenda I suppose. I'm going to respect their opinion.”
However, Mazen Chouaib, executive director of the National Council of Canada-Arab Relations, said Mr. Del Mastro had a different story when he called to cancel Monday evening.
Mr. Chouaib said the MP told him the Prime Minister's Office had security concerns about the trip and asked him to withdraw.
Mr. Chouaib said he didn't buy that explanation.
On security concerns
The Cons' complete disinterest in engaging with reality takes another turn for the worse, as Con MP Dean Del Mastro has withdrawn from the planned multi-party fact-finding mission to Syria and Lebanon:
Which may go a long way toward explaining Harper's real reason for not wanting his MP to participate. As long as Del Mastro stays at home, PMS can claim that the reports from the trip are tainted by partisan bias, and argue that the damage wrought on Lebanese civilians is being overstated by opposition members. The PMO's real "security concern" is likely the danger of allowing a party member to be exposed to the facts which MPS wants to deny - though it remains to be seen just how long the Cons can hole up in their bubble against intrusion by the real world.
The Conservative government has withdrawn from an all-party trip to Beirut and other Middle East capitals.One wonders how it is that the PMO didn't determine until the past day or so that Lebanon and Syria may not be the safest places on the face of the planet. But then, the risk faced by the parliamentary delegation has to be far lower than that encountered daily by Lebanese civilians thanks to actions which Harper has gone out of his way to defend.
MP Dean Del Mastro, who had been the government's liaison with Canada's Lebanese community, was to join Liberal, Bloc and New Democrat MPs for the trip starting Tuesday.
Accompanying MPs as principal organizer is Mazen Chouaib, executive director of the National Council of Canada-Arab Relations.
Chouaib says Del Mastro told him he could no longer go because the Prime Minister's Office has security concerns.
Which may go a long way toward explaining Harper's real reason for not wanting his MP to participate. As long as Del Mastro stays at home, PMS can claim that the reports from the trip are tainted by partisan bias, and argue that the damage wrought on Lebanese civilians is being overstated by opposition members. The PMO's real "security concern" is likely the danger of allowing a party member to be exposed to the facts which MPS wants to deny - though it remains to be seen just how long the Cons can hole up in their bubble against intrusion by the real world.
A pattern of victory
Canada has won yet another round of softwood litigation, this time before a WTO appeal court on the question of whether the U.S. can ignore sales above Canada's domestic prices in calculating duties:
A WTO appeal panel has overturned an earlier ruling that upheld the U.S. Commerce Department's right to use a method called zeroing in determining anti-dumping duties levied on Canadian lumber imports.Needless to say, the ruling should only highlight the fact that following through with litigation continues to hold the potential for far better results for Canada's industry than accepting Harper's capitulation. And the downside is at worst comparable considering the degree to which Harper's giveaway would shackle Canadian policymakers looking to support the industry in the future. The decision is between continuing with a winning strategy or unnecessarily conceding defeat - and for now it looks like Canada's producers will end up making the right choice.
In simple terms, zeroing tosses out cross-border lumber sales above Canadian domestic prices, which Canada argues artificially inflates the anti-dumping duty the Americans can impose.
Canada won its argument initially but the WTO sided with the Americans in an appeal last May.
Now the world body has reversed itself and ruled the practice of zeroing illegal.
Reporting by analogy
The Globe and Mail reports on the fallout from a a trip taken by two high-level federal advisers to study privatization in the UK, featuring high costs, cancelled meetings with British departments, and apparent plagiarism and fabrication in the final report. Though in fairness, that type of shoddy return on investment might well provide the most accurate possible summary of the outcome of further privatization.
Monday, August 14, 2006
Worth a read
Rafe Mair asks why the precautionary principle isn't given its due place in environmental management when we recognize its importance elsewhere:
Why do we insist that commercial airlines, big and small, constantly prove the airworthiness and safety of their planes?Give it a look.
Right wing philosophers would argue that companies will always police themselves because it's just good business. But we know that's not true. Left to their own devices, companies will fudge, take just a little bit of a chance, have that pilot fly just an hour or two more.
Airlines don't like the involvement of government, i.e. the public, because it sets standards that, to the industry, seem unreasonably high. But governments, with the public behind them, demand that the "precautionary principle" be adopted and the onus be on airlines to constantly prove their safeness and not on the public to demonstrate the opposite.
That principle must apply to government and industry that use the environment to ply their trade.
Going to the polls
It's great to see the CP contrast two polls on the Middle East to demonstrate the lengths to which Harper supporters have to go in order to try to claim public support. It's just a shame the article tries to be somewhat neutral when Compas' methodology, questions and subsequent interpretation are all so comically off base - but there shouldn't be much doubt who's actually seeking to measure public opinion, and who's out to distort it.
False opposition
CBC follows up on one of the less-reported aspects of Harper's trip up north, pointing out PMS' call for the U.S. to finally sign on to the Law of the Sea Convention:
Of course, the Cons may well see the U.S.' likely disinterest as a positive outcome, presumably trying to spin the issue as an example of Harper not giving in to U.S. interests. But in reality, Harper's attempt to be seen standing up to Bush on the Law of the Sea is just as empty as his claim to be able to work with Bush by capitulating on other issues. And the ultimate lesson for Canadians should be a reminder that Harper's attempts to cozy up to the U.S. won't move Bushco an inch when it comes to issues where even Harper can't find an excuse to buckle under.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has called on the United States to ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which would signal recognition of Canada's sovereignty over its Arctic coastal waters...In principle, it would certainly be a plus for the U.S. to finally agree to follow the rules that govern countries generally. But there's no reason to assume that its present narrow orientation (supported by Harper when it comes to global warming) will give way to a new recognition of multilateralism based solely on a call from Harper. And since PMS has also signalled that he's more than willing to relieve the U.S. of its international obligations in exchange for what he perceives to be positive PR, there doesn't appear to be much upside for Canada even if Harper could convince the U.S. to play along.
The Law of the Sea, which originated in the 1970s and was revised in the early 1990s, recognizes a 200-nautical-mile, or 370-kilometre, exclusive economic zone off a country's coast. While 150 nations have ratified the treaty, the U.S. Congress has refused to do so.
Of course, the Cons may well see the U.S.' likely disinterest as a positive outcome, presumably trying to spin the issue as an example of Harper not giving in to U.S. interests. But in reality, Harper's attempt to be seen standing up to Bush on the Law of the Sea is just as empty as his claim to be able to work with Bush by capitulating on other issues. And the ultimate lesson for Canadians should be a reminder that Harper's attempts to cozy up to the U.S. won't move Bushco an inch when it comes to issues where even Harper can't find an excuse to buckle under.
On sketchy interpretations
Both CanWest and the Star cover Canada's mediocre-to-poor rankings in the latest assessment by the Centre for Global Development. But it doesn't take a particularly close look to see which of the two sources is going out of its way to give PMS a boost in the process.
The Star covers Canada's poor environmental ranking (17th out of 21 wealthy countries) in the following passage:
It shouldn't take long to see that the survey says nothing about whether it's possible for Canada to make progress on greenhouse gases. What it instead says is that Canada hasn't yet taken the readily available measures which could bring it in line with its Kyoto commitments, resulting in an embarrassing lack of results to date.
If anything, Canada's rankings of 17th on the environment generally and 19th with respect to greenhouse gases should lead to a recognition that Canada can do more for a relatively low cost compared to other countries who are ahead of us - not be used as an excuse to do even less. But CanWest appears to have once again decided that where logic runs contrary to the end of boosting PMS, it won't hesitate to side with the latter.
The Star covers Canada's poor environmental ranking (17th out of 21 wealthy countries) in the following passage:
Canada also fared poorly in the environment category, which looks at what rich countries are doing to reduce their disproportionate use of global resources.In sum, a relatively neutral assessment which doesn't seek to spin the results or draw conclusions which aren't rationally based in the report. Which unfortunately is in stark contrast to CanWest:
High per-capita greenhouse gas emissions, relatively low gasoline taxes and generous fishing subsidies outweighed the country's main strength — that it imports hardly any wood from endangered tropical forests.
Canada is ranked as one of the least environmentally friendly countries, placing 17th in a new survey of 21 of the world's richest nations...Now, take a moment to review both articles (and for that matter the Centre for Global Development's Canada results page) to see if there's a single word to the effect that it's impossible for Canada to live up to its Kyoto commitments. (As an added bonus, check to see if there's anything in the survey to suggest that Canada has suffered from an "inability" to implement better policy rather than an "unwillingness".)
Canada's high levels of greenhouse gas emissions and its inability to implement policies to reduce them helped drag down its overall ranking.
The survey data also appears to lend credence to claims made by Prime Minister Stephen Harper that inaction by the former Liberal governments has made it impossible to live up to its climate change commitments under the Kyoto protocol, a treaty that Canada has ratified.
It shouldn't take long to see that the survey says nothing about whether it's possible for Canada to make progress on greenhouse gases. What it instead says is that Canada hasn't yet taken the readily available measures which could bring it in line with its Kyoto commitments, resulting in an embarrassing lack of results to date.
If anything, Canada's rankings of 17th on the environment generally and 19th with respect to greenhouse gases should lead to a recognition that Canada can do more for a relatively low cost compared to other countries who are ahead of us - not be used as an excuse to do even less. But CanWest appears to have once again decided that where logic runs contrary to the end of boosting PMS, it won't hesitate to side with the latter.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
On selective jurisdiction
The Cons are once again attempting to disguise ideology in claims of jurisdictional helplessness, as the CP reports that the federal Human Resources department is refusing to deal with the concerns of temporary immigrant workers by pretending they should be the provinces' problem:
It's not clear from the article whether the Libs invoked similar arguments or simply failed utterly to address the issue, though judging from their record the latter explanation appears more likely. But once again, the Libs' failures shouldn't serve as an excuse for the Cons to avoid responsibility for the federal government's role. To the extent that foreign workers are currently being mistreated as a result of a federal immigration program, the buck most certainly stops with the federal government. And any attempt to claim otherwise can only be judged as a show of false respect for the provinces which should cast all the more doubt on the Cons' honesty in the future.
(M)any academics, unions and non-governmental groups that assist foreign agricultural workers say the labourers often must be subservient if they want to return to Canada annually, although they enjoy exceptional salaries compared with their home-country earnings. The fact that they have basically no social ties in Canada means they are ready to work almost whenever needed.Note that there doesn't appear to be any similar attempt to explain away responsibility for dealing with the concerns some businesses have about the scheme. But when it comes to the concerns of temporary immigrant workers themselves - whether or not there's a means of dealing with those concerns through the same program which brought the workers to Canada - the federal position seems to be one of utter disinterest. At best, the feds seem willing to "consider" the workers' interests while warning against any willingness to act...and even that's a step up from the existing legacy of ignorance.
Toronto's ecumenical group Kairos says workers often lack English or French and are isolated in rural areas, so they don't know how to protect their rights. They sometimes put up with sub-standard housing and unsafe working conditions, a Kairos report says.
Heather Gibb of Ottawa's North-South Institute says she wants the government to look at how the workers are treated.
he institute conducted a major study of similar, long-standing agriculture programs for Mexican and Caribbean workers and concluded that, while foreign workers in theory are protected by the same law as Canadians, in practice it's difficult for them to communicate their concerns or have them investigated...
Human Resources says worker concerns fall under provincial jurisdiction, but will be considered during the assessment of the program. The department acknowledges that since the Mexican and Caribbean projects began in 1966 and 1974 respectively, it has never examined how workers' concerns and complaints have been addressed.
It's not clear from the article whether the Libs invoked similar arguments or simply failed utterly to address the issue, though judging from their record the latter explanation appears more likely. But once again, the Libs' failures shouldn't serve as an excuse for the Cons to avoid responsibility for the federal government's role. To the extent that foreign workers are currently being mistreated as a result of a federal immigration program, the buck most certainly stops with the federal government. And any attempt to claim otherwise can only be judged as a show of false respect for the provinces which should cast all the more doubt on the Cons' honesty in the future.
On foul policy
While Vancouver and Toronto appear to have respectively neglected and contracted their way to sewage disposal problems, the CP reports that smaller communities are facing a severe cash crunch trying to keep their sewer infrastructure in reasonable repair:
(D)eteriorating and outdated plumbing leaves (rural municipalities who rely on septic systems) vulnerable to the risk of raw sewage seeping into rivers and storm drains that could poison water systems.One of the options for each smaller municipality is to take a five-figure bite out of each of its residents in order to fund everything on the local level. But a group of municipalities is banding together to recognize where the problem originated, and who has the resources to better address it:
"Sewage is coming up out of the ground. Kids are playing in it," said Ken Oke, a councillor for the municipality of South Huron, which needs to install a sewer system for two of its villages.
"Their animals are walking through it. There's E.coli in the municipal drains."
(A) number of municipalities have banded together under the banner Fair Funding for Small Communities in Ontario...Considering that the Cons are supposedly working on a fix to the fiscal imbalance, now would be a great time for a concerted municipal/provincial push to ensure that the added burden that was placed on municipalities throughout the '90s gets addressed with proper funding today - no matter how eager the Cons are to pretend it's not their problem. After all, a few dollars in tax cuts will surely become a rather hollow gain for those who would otherwise face a five-figure municipal bill to make up for a history of downloading.
The group wants the two top levels of government to change the way they fund infrastructure projects, arguing not enough attention is paid to the needs of small communities.
"We just don't have a voice," said Ralph Kreutzwiser, chairman of the group and mayor of South Bruce, where the hamlets of Formosa and Teeswater need $21 million to lay sewer lines for about 900 homes...
Ontario estimates its infrastructure deficit is at more than $100 billion.
After years of ignoring infrastructure, it's coming home to roost, said Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal David Caplan.
"As budgets were restrained or as there were pressures...capital and infrastructure were often the first areas that were cut," he said, adding that the projects were usually "out of sight and out of mind."
Trust issues
I'm not sure anybody was about to accuse Gordon O'Connor of suffering from an excess of credibility. But just in case there was any doubt...
On incomplete reporting
It's been confirmed that the New York Times had a story on Bushco's illegal surveillance ready to print before the 2004 election - but declined to run the story in part based on the risk that voters might be influenced by the facts. No wonder Harper has gone to such great lengths to try to rein in the Canadian media to date in order to similarly avoid scrutiny of his own government when Canada next goes to the polls. But hopefully our press corps will remain willing to report the news when it's known, rather than buying into the argument that the media shouldn't bother reporting anything that would disturb the parties' campaign messages.
Priorities
I'll grant that the need to take action to defend Canada's north is one of the few areas where the PMS administration can be seen as a genuine improvement over its predecessor. But that doesn't mean Harper is justified in prioritizing territorial politics over the global fight against AIDS. And it seems all too likely that Harper's refusal to join the cause on an issue which unites the world will only give other countries an excuse not to listen when he tries to speak for Canada - whether in defence of the Arctic, or in other international disputes.
Update: Lest there be any doubt as to whether anybody was offended by Harper's absence...
Update: Lest there be any doubt as to whether anybody was offended by Harper's absence...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)