Sanity in the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Waddah (Martin) Mustapha is not entitled to damages for psychological damages as a result of seeing a fly in his unopened bottle of drinking water.

I have long been amazed at what trivialities courts consider worthy of hefty damages, although amazed is perhaps too nice a word.

In a 9-0 ruling issued Thursday, the Supreme Court decided that his reaction was exaggerated and that a "person of normal fortitude, a more reasonable person, would have had a more reasonable reaction," the CBC's Rosemary Barton reported from Ottawa.

"[The court ruled] it would have been impossible for Culligan Canada, the supplier of the water bottle, to foresee this sort of extreme reaction that Waddah Mustapha had," Barton said.

The court decided the psychological damages suffered by Mustapha were "too remote" to justify more than $300,000 in compensation Mustapha was seeking, and ordered him to pay the company's court costs.

In this precedent-setting ruling, the Supreme Court has effectively and unanimously declared that psychological damage has to be foreseeable before someone can be held accountable for inflicting it.

A few more rulings like this and perhaps our legal system will actually speed up as the backlog of trivial cases is cleared out and genuinely important cases have a little breathing room.

Technorati tags: Supreme Court, Psychological damage

The General has a point

General Roméo Dallaire (that's Senator Dallaire to you civvies) is upbraiding the Conservative government over the case of Omar Khadr. (In all fairness, the Liberals didn't do any better when they were in power, which may be why Stéphane Dion is threatening to discipline the senator, in yet another stunning example of Dion's lack of political and good sense.)

Dallaire's central point - and whatever you think of the General or Khadr or any of the political parties, it's a very good one - is that Khadr was only 15 at the time he was taken into custody and sent to Guantanamo. Someone that young is normally considered a victim of indoctrination and/or intimidation and is rehabilitated, not charged. He asks what makes this case different. And he's right. You cannot have two sets of standards, applied according to the political winds of the times. Either we stand for human rights and justice equally applied, or we don't.

Dallaire said Canadian soldiers have helped rehabilitate more than 7,000 child soldiers in Afghanistan. None of them have been prosecuted, he said.

"What is the political reason? What makes [Khadr] different from the others?" said Dallaire.

Technorati tags: Romeo Dallaire, Omar Khadr

Gleanings from the blogosphere, Sept. 23

Weekend Fisher has a great post on the shortcomings of pop spirituality. It's so nice to hear someone saying out loud what I've been thinking for a long time.

David Akin, on his blog On the Hill, has been commenting quite a bit on Tom Flanagan's new book Harper's Team: Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power. This, from Flanagan's "Ten Commandments of Conservative Campaigning" caught my eye:

4. Incrementalism: We have to be willing to make progress in small practical steps. Sweeping visions have a place in intellectual discussions, but they are toxic in practical politics.

I am so glad to see someone on the Canadian right finally articulating this. History teaches us that sweeping changes tend to get rapidly swept out the door. People resist large-scale change, viscerally and actively, unless their present reality is so dire they want out. Many good ideologies make no headway because their proponents perceive accepting incremental change as moral compromise. All or nothing usually leads to nothing.

Talk talk talk has on-the-fly notes about the Ontario political leaders' debate. Seeing as I missed it, this was helpful to me. A strong anti-McGuinty bias is quite obvious but I guess I can live with that. ;o)

Technorati tags: Tom Flanagan, Pop Spirituality, Ontario Election

What kind of Canada?

There was a very disturbing article (in French) in LaPresse today about a priest come to visit immigrant workers who was chased off the FraiseBec farm in Ste-Anne-des-Plaines by the irate owner, Isabelle Charbonneau.

There are a couple of things very wrong with this picture.

First, immigrant workers are being held in unacceptable conditions. A landlord, as Father Clement Bolduc pointed out very reasonably, has no right to restrict the visitors of tenants. Mme Charbonneau claims she has a "responsibility" to "protect" her workers, who are mostly women. There was nothing in the situation that indicated that these women were in any danger whatsoever. Mme Charbonneau, who was physically present, was well placed to evaluate this herself. She had no legal right to evict the priest.

Second, this eviction was carried out with active help from the Terrebonne police. Since when do the police assist people in asserting authority to which they have no legal right, and which, even worse, is oppressive in nature?

There are too many cases of immigrant workers being exploited and oppressed in Canada. We do not need the police intervening on behalf of those who are taking advantage of them.

FraiseBec is apparently the largest strawberry producer in the country. I do believe I will be keeping an eye out for their produce, so that I can actively avoid it.

Technorati tags: FraiseBec, Immigrant workers

Evaluating Harper: patient wait times

Part five in my evaluation of the Harper government, Conservative priority number five: working with the provinces to establish a Patient Wait Times Guarantee.

Hmm, this won't take too long to comment on. Even the Conservatives are not pretending they have accomplished this yet and wait times have actually lengthened ever so slightly since they have been in office.

Of course, it is always a very tricky thing for the federal government to wade into the whole health care issue, seeing as that is provincial jurisdiction. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop voters from blaming the feds for whatever is happening in health care, so Ottawa is politically obliged to make appropriate noises. Seeing as they do actually contribute to provincial budgets, they have to try to leverage that influence in such a way as to impress voters without enraging provincial governments. It's not surprising that this was the last of their five priorities, as it will probably be the most difficult to implement. I don't know if they'll get a chance to try before the next election.

I'd be somewhat tempted to throw rocks at them for even making promises in this area, but really, this is a case of voters getting what they deserve. We shouldn't be holding the federal government accountable for something under provincial jurisdiction, but we do. This is pretty much a no-win situation for any party.

Havings said that, I would dearly love to see some new dialogue in the whole area of health care in Canada. It is time to start thinking outside the box and getting past old orthodoxies here. I am heartily sick of the "American system" red herring waved around with great mock indignation at every election. Every time a (Conservative) politician makes the obvious observation that we have problems with our health care system, the Liberals and NDP trot out the same hysteria. And it's a (I'm trying to think of a polite way to express this, as I am basically a polite person, but it is truly challenging...) um, logical fallacy. We are not restricted to two choices and two choices only. There are other things in the world besides the Canadian and American systems and even if there weren't, we could invent something new. It's time to get our heads out of the sand and start questioning the way we do things. This is going to be very difficult with so many different players, but somebody should start. This probably would fall to a province with some guts - probably Alberta - to just strike out and do something different and demonstrate that it can work. Alberta is the best candidate, first because they have never felt obliged to kowtow to Ottawa or the other provinces and second, because they have the budget to pull it off without help.

As far as Harper's government is concerned, I'll let them off with a neutral mark. Something to the effect of "not evaluated this term", like I have seen occasionally on my kids' report cards. There is only so much you can expect from a minority government in less than a year. In the somewhat unlikely event that we still have the same government a year from now, I will be less accomodating.

Technorati tags: Stephen Harper, Health care

Evaluating Harper: child care

Part four in my evaluation of the Harper government, Conservative priority number four: helping parents with the cost of raising their children.

This is another issue for which I am going to give the Conservatives some points. I really don't think they deserve the flack they've been getting on this one.

We are talking, of course, about the Universal Child Care Benefit, the $100 monthly given for each child under 6 to be spent on popcorn and beer - er, child care. Those who oppose the Conservatives say that first of all, $100 is nowhere near enough to pay for child care. Of course, it isn't. So? It will relieve the burden by $100, and that's not a bad thing. Why should the government fund daycare 100% anyway? Putting the same amount of money into subsidized day care spots would make a big difference for a very small number of people. For most people it would be no help at all. And the people doing the screaming never do address the issue that the $100 also goes to parents who take care of their own children, who really do appreciate getting a little positive recognition for a change.

The reason the opponents don't address this issue is because it would make them look really bad. They'd have to admit they don't care about those parents because they are - gasp! - taking their lives in their own hands instead of asking government to do it for them and that makes them highly suspect.

There is a fundamental difference of philosophy at play here. One mentality says it is the responsibility of government to solve all my problems and to make sure that I bear the weight of my own decisions as little as possible. The other mentality just asks for basic justice (read - protection from criminal abuse) and security from government and the freedom to make their own way in life. I come down pretty squarely on the second side. I dealt with some severely abused people some years ago and it became very clear to me that an attitude of victimhood effectively blocked any possibility of healing and moving on.

So I have completely lost patience with victimology. And screaming that the government isn't doing enough to make my life easier is just another form of it. Get over it. I raised five children without subsidized daycare. Yes, it meant I sacrificed a possible career or two, and yes, it meant that we lived at a much lower income than we would have with a smaller family. I didn't whine or complain about that. I figured the children were more important than a fancy house and a status symbol vehicle. And not one of those five kids believes that anybody owes them a handout. Of course, they'll take help if it's offered - I did too - but they won't complain if it isn't. They actually believe they should be prepared to make sacrifices to succeed. Somehow, I think that's a more meaningful contribution to society than most careers would have been.

You can see all this as a digression if you will, but I don't think it is. I'm not getting a cent out of the Conservatives' policies for helping families, and I agree that the help is more symbolic than substantial, but that's OK. I kind of appreciate the gesture anyway. It's refreshing to have the government help out more than one kind of family and give a little recognition to those families that have been overlooked in the past.

And I am one of those who think that popcorn and beer comment was very revealing, although it wasn't news. The message was loud and clear: We know how to run your life better than you do and we are going to make sure you do it our way.

If the Conservatives help start to turn that kind of mentality around, it may yet have been worth voting for them. I'll confess to being a little cynical about the possibility, but one can always hope. I can't see that anybody else is even going to try.

Technorati tags: Stephen Harper, Child Care

Evaluating Harper: crime

Part three in my evaluation of the Harper government, Conservative priority number three: making our streets and communities safer by cracking down on crime.

Well, I've got to start out with a horrific confession. This whole topic rather bores me. *Yawn* I don't see that crime has really got that much worse in recent years and the chances of any government doing anything truly effective to lower the levels we've got seem to be too small to matter. I don't even get excited about the gun registry, either keeping or scrapping it. Sorry. Although if they're going to keep it, they had better get costs under control. The cost/benefit analysis is practically enough to doom the programme all on its own.

But I can't avoid the topic altogether. Other than revulsion at Liberal corruption, the whole law and order question was probably the biggest trump card the Conservatives had in the last election. But as far as I'm concerned, the Liberals were not awful and the Conservatives are not wonderful in this portfolio. And vice versa.

Having said that, I rather like the recent "three strikes you're out" initiative. Under the proposed legislation,

a three-time repeat violent and sexual offender would have to convince a judge why he or she is not a dangerous offender -- a status that carries an indefinite prison sentence with no parole eligibility for seven years.

It's currently the Crown's task to prove repeat offenders are dangerous.

I just don't buy the slippery slope hysteria. I am personally a fierce defender of the "presumption of innocence", because it is at the base of an enlightened legal system. But the presumption of innocence is worn to tatters by the time someone has worked his way up to the third horrific offence, and I don't find it at unreasonable to say that at that point it is the offender who should bear the burden of proof. Protection of society should also be a major goal of the judicial system. I would like to hear opponents of this bill cite concrete cases of where the proposed bill would have brought about an abortion of justice.

Jason Gratl, of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, argued the justice system should be extremely cautious in how it asks for indeterminate sentences.

"We should bear in mind that an indefinite sentence is the nuclear bomb of the sentencing arsenal," he told CTV News last week.

"We don't have anything more harsh. We don't sentence people to death in this country, and we should be sparing in how we apply our most severe sentences."

Please, Mr. Gratl, get specific. I find it very hard to imagine how waiting until an offender has proven himself excessively nasty three times is not applying the most severe sentence sparingly. To get a real grasp of this issue we need two lists: first, a list of all the people who would have been prevented from committing further crimes if this provision had been in force, and the second, a list of all those who committed three horrific crimes, were convicted of them, and then turned into productive, law-abiding citizens without any further ado.

Please keep in mind, that three strikes you're out does not mean an inevitable designation as a dangerous offender. It just shifts the burden of proof, and in those conditions, I find it a very reasonable shifting. I would love to hear from anyone who can demonstrate (not argue) that I am wrong.

So even though this is not a portfolio that inflames me much one way or the other, I give the Conservatives a decent passing mark in this subject. Please feel free to enlighten my ignorance if you find that unreasonable.

Gleanings from the blogosphere, Oct. 19

Rafique Tucker at Liberal War Journal is bemoaning the use of "Rovian" tactics by lefty blogger Mike Rogers, who is busy "outing" Republican congressmen. OK, one Republican congressman. Rafique says the tactic smacks of McCarthyism.

Reader_iam at Done with Mirrors tells a kafkaesque tale of the limits of free speech on campuses, which is unfortunately becoming all too common. It appears classrooms are free speech zones, but office doors aren't. Dave Barry is verboten, a truly offensive subversive.

Will Garth Turner go Green? Devon Rowcliffe has an interesting and well-researched post on the topic.


Technorati tags: Mike Rogers, Garth Turner

Access to Information Act needs mending

The Toronto Star ran an excellent editorial on problems with the Access to Information Act.

This is one file the Prime Minister should promptly take under his wing. He campaigned on open and accountable government.

The Access to Information Act should be amended to include tight and protective restrictions on sharing the names of people who make requests for information under the law. And there must be stiff penalties for anyone who breaches it.

The public's right to know must not be subverted by protective bureaucrats, politicians and spin doctors who would prefer controversial issues to remain out of sight. Canadians own the information government vaults contain. Openness must be the order of the day.

Technorati tags: Access to Information

Evaluating Harper: taxes

Part two in my evaluation of the Harper government, looking at campaign priority number two: providing real tax relief to working families by cutting the GST.

Now seeing as they promised to cut the GST by 1% immediately and by a further 1% within five years, we can fairly say they've come through on this one. Whether it provides "real" tax relief is quite another question and one that is, quite frankly, over my head AND excruciatingly boring to me. Please feel free to rant on this point all on your own.

I always saw this promise as a purely political move and a particularly brilliant piece of politics it was too. I will confess to chuckling in malicious glee the first time I heard it. Unlike most tax policies, it was blissfully simple, the effects - although very small - immediately apparent, and the Liberals could not possibly argue against it without reminding every voter with a memory that they had loudly promised to completely abolish this self-same tax and never lifted a finger to do so. It also made the Conservatives look prudent and non-radical because it was a gradual, measured approach that would not disrupt government coffers too severely. My admiration of this tactic had little to do with policy, being very similar to the awe a die-hard sports fan feels when they have seen a particularly lovely play. You have to admire it, no matter who you're cheering for.

Honestly, I think abolishing the GST altogether in an incremental fashion is probably a good idea. It's far from a comprehensive tax policy, but on its own, I think it's a good thing. Of course, I do hail from the school of thinking that believes that anything beyond very moderate taxes kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. I also tend to believe that most changes are better brought about incrementally, because abrupt change - however needed - tends to create enough disruption to cancel out any positive impact. I know, it's boring, but it works.

So on the very small point of the GST, I will give the Conservatives full marks. On the question of real tax relief, I reserve judgement. As far as I can see, they haven't done anything dramatic, just something visible.

Technorati tags: GST, Stephen Harper, Conservative Party of Canada

Gleanings from the blogosphere, Oct. 16

Dave Schuler at the Glittering Eye explains, facts and statistics in hand, why he thinks it will make little difference whether the Democrats or the Republicans take control in November's elections. He compares the historical results of Democratic or Republican dominance.

It didn’t make a bit of difference. Taxes went down during periods of complete Democratic control. Taxes went up during periods of complete Democratic control. Taxes went down during periods of complete Republican control. And up. We’ve been to war, expanded entitlements and civil rights, had booms and busts under both Democrats and Republicans.

Media distortions seem to be hitting all sides. Vues d'ici tells us (in English) how Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff has had his words twisted by removing the context.

Technorati tags: Michael Ignatieff

Evaluating Harper's government

I am planning on starting a bit of a series here, evaluating the Harper government on its famous five priorities and throwing in an extra two priorities - the environment and foreign affairs - seeing as they have come to have at least as much importance as the originally stated five. So the seven points I will be looking at are (the first five are word for word from the Conservatives' website):

1. Clean up government by passing the Federal Accountability Act
2. Provide real tax relief to working families by cutting the GST
3. Make our streets and communities safer by cracking down on crime
4. Help parents with the cost of raising their children
5. Work with the provinces to establish a Patient Wait Times Guarantee
6. Effective action on the environment
7. Foreign affairs

In the interests of disclosure, I voted Conservative last election. The reasons for that were relatively simple; the Liberals had disgusted and alienated me on so many issues I couldn't even keep track any more. And that was BEFORE the sponsorship scandal. Think Talisman Energy, Shawinigate, and a slew of broken promises. There's more, but that gives you an idea. They had dug a hole so deep I couldn't - and can't - imagine it getting filled back in until they've spent a few years in the political wilderness and done a major overhaul job.

The Conservatives had a few ideas I liked, and had spent enough years mouldering in opposition to effect a real purging. The Mulroney cronies were gone and the band of neophytes and lightly seasoned MP's they were could not possible learn the levers of corruption as well as the Liberals in a mere single term, especially the short term of a minority government. So it is quite likely that I will vote Conservative again, although not necessarily with any great enthusiasm. That could yet change.

The NDP? Well, honestly, while I occasionally agree with some of their concerns, I almost invariably think that they choose the worst possible method of trying to address them. And that's when I agree...

You may have gathered that ethics in government is a major point for me. You gathered correctly.

I am not a political expert and I don't intend to spend hours and hours (a couple maybe) researching each point, so your input will be highly valued. Cheap insults won't be welcome, mind you, but thoughtful, factual input, however passionate and whether in favour or opposed, is definitely what I'm hoping to see.

If you're interested in participating, please bookmark this blog or this post (I will link the entire series back to this post) and come back to weigh in. All viewpoints are welcome, as long as they're expressed respectfully. Some of the topics plan on widening to the general principles behind them, not necessarily the very narrow focus of the stated priorities. And extra points could get added, if they seem to warrant the attention.

Technorati tags: Stephen Harper, Conservative Party of Canada

Second Muslim mole helped foil bomb plot

We now find out that there was not one, but two Muslim moles working within the terrorist cell that was planning attacks in Toronto. The first, Mubin Shaikh, seen at fight, came to public attention about a month after the arrests.

The existence of the second, who is now in a witness protection programme and whose identity will not be revealed, was reported today by the CBC.

However, the CBC has learned that he played a key role in the investigation that led to dramatic raids in the Toronto area in June.

"He really felt, as a loyal Muslim Canadian, like he owed Canada something, to give back to it," said a close friend and former business associate who, for security reasons, can't be named. "And it's not surprising to see that he did that for the cause of Canada."

The mole, a young agricultural engineer, apparently provided key evidence to investigators and will be an important Crown witness when the matter comes to trial.

This is exactly what many Canadians have been calling for: members of the Muslim community who will put their loyalty to Canada and the protection of innocents ahead of any sympathies with misguided co-religionists. I suppose it won't carry much weight with those who are determined to hate all Muslims and to see them all as terrorists, but it should. These men didn't just talk the talk, they walked the walk.

And if terrorism is to be defeated in the West, this is the kind of collaboration that is absolutely essential. The Muslim community itself is our first line of defence.

Technorati tags: Mubin Shaikh, Toronto terrorists

One thing the SWC has done for me

Glaze my eyes over with endless bureaucratese, without giving me any solid information to chew on.

My SWC meme hasn't exactly been a riproaring success, for three reasons. First of all, this blog is still pretty obscure, so most people are probably still unaware of it. Second, those who are aware of it don't have a clue what to say about Status of Women Canada if they aren't allowed knee-jerk, partisan generalities. And third, I haven't tagged anybody specific.

Well, there's not much I can do about the first, at least not quickly.

As for the second, I sympathize. I had nothing to say off the top of my head either, positive or negative. Research wasn't very helpful. The government documents were full of meaningless flow charts, bureaucratese that must be designed to thoroughly discourage anybody trying to find real information, and page after page of vague generalities. After a couple of hours, my brain was numb and I was no closer to finding out what programmes were actually funded by SWC, nor what practical difference they made to anybody. I am still therefore basically without an opinion, although my suspicions have been raised. One of their main emphases is GBA - Gender Based Analysis - which seems to be a programme to make sure there isn't any gender bias in the public service. In a 2002 document they said it was too early to have any concrete results, but they should be able to say something more precise in a couple of years. In 2005, they were saying much the same thing. This has all the earmarks of a government sinkhole, money being spent on endless, perpetual studies that never make recommendations or even come to any kind of conclusion. What I really want to find is a list of organizations that SWC has sponsored, how much money they were each given, and what they accomplished with it. If anybody can help me, I would love to know where to find it.

As for the third reason, I will try to put together a politically diverse list of both genders and see if that gets the ball rolling better. In the meanwhile, I would like to hear from you: what difference has the SWC made in your life, for better or worse? You can comment here or at the original post, email me (make the necessary changes to the address), or post on your own blog and link back or let me know.

Technorati tags: Status of Women Canada, Feminism meme

Time for an SWC meme

I imagine most Canadian bloggers are aware of the "Five Things Feminism Has Done for me" meme going around, in protest of the Conservatives' reduction of the funding to the Status of Women Canada. I didn't get tagged and didn't offer to participate on my own, because I found the meme irrelevant. Reading some of the many posts entitled "Five Things..." confirmed my impression.

Most bloggers came out with thoughtful, sometimes quite personal meditations on the positive contributions of feminism. Few of them were controversial: the right to vote, equal pay for equal work, the right to own property and the like. You'll get no debate from me on the value of such contributions.

But the meme was a red herring. It's not feminism, particularly not early feminism, that is the issue. It is the value of the work done by Status of Women Canada and to what extent they are representative of the women of Canada.

Now, I could give you my knee-jerk reaction based on a few reports more or less vaguely remembered, but of what value is that? About the same as the majority of the reactions, one way or another. Quite honestly, I know virtually nothing about what the Status of Women has accomplished in concrete terms, or what practical effect it has had. And really, to have an intelligent opinion on the cutting of funding to SWC, you have to know this kind of stuff.

So I want to know, can you name one single thing SWC has done that has impacted your life, positively or negatively? No vague partisan rhetoric, please.

If you are a Canadian blogger, please consider yourself tagged. (I've never participated in a meme before, so please bear with me. I'll probably tag some specific individuals later as well.) And please let me know about your posts, so I can index them here. In the meanwhile, I'm going to go do some research, so I can participate in my own meme. Hopefully we will all come out of this with a better and more informed idea of whether cutting SWC funding is a positive or a negative.

Technorati tags: Feminism meme

Get your department under control, Minister O'Connor!

The Ottawa Citizen has been highlighting some of the nonsensical censoring going on at the Department of National Defence. To wit:

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has no intention of dealing with the wave of censorship that has seen his department classify as secret information ranging from the fact that Canadian commandos fought in the Second World War to the hourly cost of operating the military's VIP jets.

O'Connor's spokesman Etienne Allard said it is up to Defence Department bureaucrats to manage the release of such government records to the public through the access to information law.

As part of its latest secrecy push, the Defence Department on Tuesday declared that releasing information showing Canadians fought with the famed Devil's Brigade during the Second World War could harm national security. Also censored from the records, released to the Ottawa Citizen under the federal access law, are the locations where the Devil's Brigade fought in Europe in the 1940s.

Additional details now being kept from the public are the costs to the department to run individual pieces of equipment, a list that ranges from electric snowblowers to forklifts. Information about the hourly cost of flying the military's Challenger jets, used to ferry politicians and bureaucrats, is also now secret. Such information had been available to the public through the access law up until 2004.

Bureaucrats, it is commonly known, seem to have a natural aversion to being under scrutiny. Government bureaucrats develop particularly severe cases, and those in military departments push the pathology to ridiculous levels. This is true of all governments in all countries, under parties of all political stripes.

It is therefore an essential part of the minister's job description to implement frequent reality checks, and it doesn't look like Gordon O'Connor has quite grasped this. It is crucial that he understand that the knee jerk, compulsive secrecy that military departments so naturally fall into is highly destructive. And the group that it hurts the most is the military.

Nobody in his right mind debates the fact that there are real military secrets that it is not in our best interest to have bruited about. Plans for dealing with terrorists, technical details of military hardware, and other similar things are best kept under wraps, for obvious reasons.

But covering up details of 60-year old missions - many of which have been or still or in the public domain - is sheer lunacy and it just plays to the negative image of a military out of control. The question we all ask ourselves when we read stuff like this is "How much can we trust our military? Anybody so reflexively terrified of normal scrutiny must have something bad to hide."

Canada's military has only recently recovered from a long slump in public affections. It is not in its best interest to foster suspicion and mistrust and this kind of anal behaviour can do only that. O'Connor needs to make it clear to both the bureaucrats and the generals that the enemy they are fighting is neither the Canadian public nor Canadian journalists. Admittedly, we can be a little foolish at times, but not everything the military does and has done is of a sensitive nature and any informtion that isn't genuinely sensitive should be available to anyone who asks. A free society depends on civilian oversight of the military and civilian oversight depends on information.

It is the minister's job to defend the military's interests to the Canadian public. It is also his job to defend the Canadian public's interests to the military. You're the boss, Minister O'Connor! Put your foot down!

Email Gordon O'Connor.

Technorati tags: Gordon O'Connor, Ministry of National Defence

Union leader and Liberal premier oppose Conservative pollution controls

We have now officially entered the twilight zone. Union leader Buzz Hargrove opposes the Conservatives' plan to enforce emissions controls because it will hurt the auto industry. And Ontario Liberal premier Dalton McGuinty plays the national divisiveness card on top of that, portraying Ontario and its auto industry as a victim of the nasty feds. Meanwhile the Conservatives are cheerfully assuring them both that they fully intend to hit the oil and gas industry equally hard.

Are you confused yet? Did you think some gremlin had been switching labels in the news reports? No, you read right. The left wing is attacking the right wing for being too hard on industry and wanting to enact environmental controls.

I was strongly tempted to think that the commitment of the left wing to environmental issues was really just a stick to beat conservatives with and that they had no intention of ever actually DOING anything about it, an impression that was greatly fortified by Paul Martin's shameful and hypocritical finger-wagging at the Americans in the last election. (It was at that moment he lost me completely. Anybody with the slightest interest in the environment knew that the Americans were doing better than us.) Now it has been confirmed. As soon as the Conservatives make a move to pick up that stick themselves, the left wing immediately switches camps. Or at least some of them do.

It was all about politics, not policy.

I certainly hope that the Rona Ambrose's environmental policy will not just contribute to global warming through another mass emission of hot air, but will actually accomplish something. I am one of those quaint people that believes good policy is good politics. If I'm lucky, the Conservatives will be equally quaint.

All of this illustrates how flexible the labels right and left wing are. Which cause belongs to which camp shifts with the political winds. (Remember when supporting Israel was a hard-core left-wing thing to do?) And all the more reason to vote according to your core beliefs, not according to political labels.

Note to Dalton McGuinty: they still sell cars just fine in California. You are seriously eroding your credibility with this mock indignation. We recognize political opportunism when we see it.

Technorati tags: Rona Ambrose, Buzz Hargrove, Dalton McGuinty

Conservatives talk the environmental talk

Conservative Environment Minister Rona Ambrose says she will abandon the voluntary deal with the auto sector that the Liberals made and will especially tackle the oil-and-gas and transportation sectors, the two biggest culprits in the greenhouse gas emissions department.

The David Suzuki Foundation has been cautiously optimistic in its reaction.

Environmentalist Pierre Sadik of the David Suzuki Foundation said Ms. Ambrose's strong language “sounds promising” but requires tough action to be credible.

“It has to lead to meaningful cuts in pollution emissions,” Mr. Sadik said. “Regulations in terms of intensity are a waste of time because emissions continue to rise.”

It remains to be seen whether they will walk the walk also. I certainly hope they do. There is wide-spread support for some meaningful action on the environment, even among Conservatives. If the oil industry can't read the writing on the wall, they need to get their heads out of the oil sands and start cleaning up their act.

The environment has been one of the major weaknesses of the Conservatives, and even while I voted for them, I hoped they would give me some pleasant surprises in this department. It makes great political sense. Follow the Bismarckian strategy of stealing your opponents' best policies and consolidate your hold on power. If they can reverse the Liberal strategy of "Talk loudly and carry a small stick" they'll gain a lot of supporters, and solidify some of their softer support too. The industry may not like it that much, but even they must be resigned to the inevitability of it. We just can't go on fouling our own nest indefinitely. Jobs are important yes, but a balance has to be struck.

I'm not a single-issue voter, so the more areas that the Conservatives can show decisive and positive leadership in, the longer they'll have me voting for them.

Hat tip to The Prairie Wrangler

Technorati tags: Rona Ambrose, David Suzuki Foundation

RCMP apologizes to Arar [Updated]

The head of the RCMP has stayed mum on the Arar affair, promising to speak to the matter today before a House of Commons committee. He came through.

RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli apologized on Thursday to Maher Arar, and said he accepts all the recommendations of a report criticizing the Mounties for their role in the Canadian's deportation to Syria, where he was tortured.

"Mr. Arar, I wish to take this opportunity to express publicly to you and to your wife and to your children how truly sorry I am for whatever part the actions of the RCMP may have contributed to the terrible injustices that you experienced and the pain that you and your family endured," Zaccardelli said.

The RCMP commissioner made the statement at the House of Commons committee on public safety and national security, which is looking at Justice Dennis O'Connor's report on the Arar case.

This is his first public statement about the report, which was released on Sept. 18.

"I accept the recommendations of the report without exception," Zaccardelli told the committee.

But he said he personally wasn't aware of Arar's case until after Arar was already in jail in Syria.

The agency has learned "valuable lessons" since Arar's ordeal and "some of them we learned painfully," the commissioner added.

Good for Zaccardelli. Since the O'Connor report, the RCMP has been consistently pleading inexperience in their handling of the Arar case. Zaccardelli is now pleading personal ignorance as well, which could very well be true.

I get a few things out of this, mostly in the RCMP's favour. Seeing as they were abruptly thrown back into the national security business after 9/11 and had lost all savvy in the field after 20 years' absence, their plea of inexperience is more than plausible. They messed up, big time. At least they are willing to admit it. No weaseling out, no finger-pointing at others, no lame justifications.

This is where the Canadian police force is outshining the authorities on the American side of the border, who have issued no apologies, allowed no investigations or court challenges, and who still have not removed Arar and his wife from their no-fly list.

I also like that they aren't arguing with the report recommendations, following in the footsteps of the government. It's a great start. Following through with actual implementation will be more impressive.

Now if Zaccardelli would do something about the RCMP's consistent and chronic stonewalling of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, the national police force could again become a source of national pride, instead of fueling our cynicism. It is one thing to make an apology before a House committee, quite another to bring about a sea change in the culture of the RCMP, which has been to stall, deny and stonewall whenever there are allegations of wrong-doing. If Zaccardelli could effect this kind of change, he would deserve a place in history as one of the all-time great commissioners. Unfortunately, he's had several years to start work on it and to date has done nothing. Today's apology might be nothing more than political smarts and unfortunately, the bulk of the evidence is in favour of this conclusion.

[Update]

Other major points from Zaccardelli's testimony:

He has no intention of offering his resignation over the Arar affair.
There is no ongoing investigation into Arar or his wife.
He also flatly denies that the Conservative government has muzzled him in any way.

Maclean's characterizes him as "fighting to keep his job", which I think is yet another example of journalists taking themselves way too seriously. Just because the occasional journalist or back bench politician might have uttered the opinion that Zack should step down, the man isn't fighting to keep his job until the people who can fire him are starting to emit opinions like that. Get over yourselves, people. You don't run the country.

Technorati tags: Giuliano Zaccardelli, Maher Arar

Big day in Ottawa

It was a busy day in the nation's capital.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai addressed a joint session of Parliament, thanking Canada for its military presence in Afghanistan and specifically thanking the families of fallen soldiers. In response to a reporter's question, he also made it clear that Canadians were welcome to stay even beyond their present mandate. (This in stark contrast to the highly deceptive spin put on some of his remarks taken out of context on the NDP website.) In his speech to Parliament, he presented in concrete terms the progress that has been made in Afghanistan. And, without naming names, he ascribed his country's problems to abandonment by the international community after the Soviet withdrawal.

He later laid a wreath at the National War Monument, and reacted to a protester's curses by smiling and waving his hat. The man definitely has class.

I don't know if he stuck around to see it, but at noon there was a large rally (8-10,000 people, which is huge by Canadian standards) on Parliament Hill in support of Canadian troops. There have been conflicting polls in Canada lately on whether the majority of Canadians support the Afghan mission, but it is clear that the supporters are more willing to stand up and be counted in public. Prime Minister Harper addressed the enthusiastic crowd.

Technorati tags: Hamid Karzai, Stephen Harper