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.

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.”

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.

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...

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.

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.

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."

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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:

The Conservative government has withdrawn from an all-party trip to Beirut and other Middle East capitals.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Give it a look.

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:

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...

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.

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.

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:

Canada also fared poorly in the environment category, which looks at what rich countries are doing to reduce their disproportionate use of global resources.

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.

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:

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...

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.

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".)

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.

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:

(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.

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.

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.

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.

"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."

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:

(A) number of municipalities have banded together under the banner Fair Funding for Small Communities in Ontario...

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."

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.

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...

On division

A nice catch by leftdog, as PMS' apparent plan to divide and conquer the Libs on foreign policy is predictably causing some splits within the Con ranks as well:

Conservative Senator Anne Cools says she is not happy with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's position on the Middle East and plans to speak out about her concerns when the upper house convenes in the fall.

"Suffice it to say, I'm not that happy with the position that has been adopted and I remain very very concerned about the entire Middle Eastern situation," Cools said Thursday in an interview.

"I would have liked to see obviously an immediate ceasefire (without conditions). Canada is not a big power...but I do believe that in that part of the world we need to be even-handed."...

Cools...describes the carnage in the area as unspeakable.

"I belong to that group of people who finds the loss of life, the loss of civilian life, the desolation of Lebanon, the attacks on the Israeli people, I just find it so very troubling," Cools said.

Of course, it says something about Harper and company that the loss of life doesn't seem to bother them in the least. But hopefully more Cons will join Cools in pointing out the need for a policy which recognizes that civilians in both Lebanon and Israel deserve better than to be held hostage by militarism in their midst. After all, there's no better antidote to divisive politicking than for the unnecessary divisions to come back to haunt those who create and exploit them.

On poor representation

CanWest reports that the U.S., having failed utterly in its plan to design an alternative to passports for Canada/U.S. travel, will instead impose a full passport requirement next year for travel by air or sea:

In a regulatory analysis of proposed rules that are slated to go into effect Jan. 8, 2007, government officials write that "there is not sufficient time" to properly develop and produce a new piece of identification the size of a credit card an "alternative passport" that could meet all the standards necessary to secure the U.S. border...

The proposed requirements, published Friday by the Department of Homeland Security, require Canadians to present a passport, Merchant Mariner Document or Nexus Air Card when crossing the Canada-U.S. border. Currently, they must only show a driver's licence or birth certificate.

As emphasized by CTV, the U.S. wasn't entirely unwilling to delay implementation of the new requirements. But with the Cons spending more time pushing to force the U.S.' schedule on Canada than to pressure the U.S. to hold off until it has a complete plan in place, the 2007 pause will only be for a single week.

Mind you, the Cons are apparently claiming to have changed tactics belatedly. But judging from Stockwell Day's latest comments, the new stance couldn't be much more tepid:

"There is room within the U.S. legislation to have a delay or a pilot project at some point or region to see how a new card would work," (Day) said. "We're asking for that kind of consideration, but we respect the rule-making and law-making process."

Compare Day's meek suggestion to the active effort from a large group of legislators (including the majority of the U.S. Senate who have already voted to hold off on implementation) and businesses on both sides of the border supporting the view that the restrictions shouldn't be pushed forward without some semblance of a plan. Sadly, the group holding the strongest position from which to defend Canada's interests is once again ignoring a long list of allies and refusing to take a meaningful stand. Which can only encourage the U.S. to keep blindly pushing forward rather than considering the consequences of its lack of planning.

An end to principle

Remember back when Dalton McGuinty was leading the charge for a thorough review of federal/provincial funding rather than looking simply to maximize the amount paid out to his province in the short term? I ask because judging from Ian Urquhart's latest column, McGuinty apparently doesn't:

Premier Dalton McGuinty has narrowed down his federal-provincial fiscal agenda to a single core issue: that help from Ottawa for the have-not provinces should be confined to the equalization program...

(In a preview of a letter to Harper, McGuinty) says that Ontario supports equalization "as part of our historic commitment to ensuring quality services across Canada," but opposes expanding the principle to other programs.

In this respect, McGuinty focuses on two major federal programs that provide funding for all the provinces, not just the have-nots: the Canada Health Transfer and the Canada Social Transfer.

Urquhart's article goes on to note that the effective question will now come down to whether Harper chooses to put a very limited amount of funding toward ending "backdoor equalization" as argued by McGuinty, or adding to equalization as requested by Quebec. Utterly ignored are not only the foundational questions of the purpose of federal funding, but even more technical questions such as how fiscal capacity is to be calculated, and whether McGuinty's new enemy in "backdoor equalization" merely reflects actual costs of service delivery due to greater buying power held by the larger, wealthier provinces.

McGuinty's transformation may be only the most obvious about-face in the question of whether to genuinely seek a renewed federal vision, or merely to turn the "fiscal imbalance" into a one-time fight between the provinces for slight increases in federal funding. But it appears plain that any sense of principle or fairness (however often the term is used by premiers) has now been eliminated from federal/provincial talks. And with so many provinces plainly looking out only for number one, few if any will have a reasonable basis to criticize Harper for imposing a solution based on his own political gain.