Gun Registry - Libs in the cross hairs now.

I've been fairly outspoken in saying (and photoshoping - yes, that's now a verb) that Jack Layton needs to lead the NDP on defending the gun registry. If reports are to be believed, Jack has the votes to defeat Bill C-391 in the House. Apparently there is more than one way to whip a vote. If Jack delivers the NDP vote, I might just have to honour him with a somewhat more flattering photoshop job.

Now it's Michael Ignatieff's turn. If Bill C-391 passes because a handful of Liberal MPs are mysteriously absent or break with caucus and vote for it, Iggy's going to have some 'splainin to do. This is now an acid test of a united Liberal party. Rural Liberal MPs take note, if you don't support your leader on this, as the saying goes, it's time to kick ass and take names.

ToewsDeMort

What ever the leader says, I stand behind the leader.

(AKA - more fun with Photoshop)

More scientists muzzled by Tories.

The Vancouver Sun is reporting that once again, the Conservative Government is trying to muzzle scientists.

Apparently, NRC scientist Scott Dallimore needed ministerial clearance to answer a reporter's questions on a study he co-authored about a flood that reportedly occurred near the end of the last ice age (about 13,000 years ago). We can only imagine the political ramifications if Dallimore had been allowed to answer the reporters questions without pre-approved and vetted responses on this highly sensitive and timely issue.

I would be inclined to attribute this to the Tories having cabinet ministers who believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed and who think the Flintstones is a documentary. A more likely explanation however, is that this is yet another symptom of the Tories disdain for science and fear of information that they don't spin or control. This government does not want public policy that is informed and guided by scientific evidence or reliable census data. They prefer to look to think tanks like the Fraser Institute to cherry pick research questions and manipulate or spin the findings. And why not, most people don't know the difference between academic research and cruft that these think tanks churn out.

Water anyone?

Shotgun!

The problem with Faux News

What should progressives think about Faux News North?

Why are progressives so alarmed about SunTV? Liberals and progressives support free speech and a broad diversity or views. So why so much angst over SunTV - which if they really do follow the Faux News model, much of their vitriol is little more than fodder for humourists and their supposed logic is readily debunked?

The problem with Faux News is not with the message it's about the volume and persistence of the message. It's like that whack-a-mole game, you can't squash all of the lies. It's not just SunTV. It's the National Post, the Fraser Institute, the Manning Centre, the Sun newspapers, etc. The one thing they are good at is staying on message. By pushing the same lies out through multiple channels with dogged persistence, the right ends up controlling the language, and when that happens the battle is won. Look at the 2004 Presidential campaign in the US as an example. How did John Kerry's heroic military service end up being a liability against an opponent whose daddy pulled strings to get him out of active service? Kerry couldn't talk about Bush's cowardly wartime conduct without being constantly hectored by swiftboat lies. So in the end, he just said "we both served honorably".

Is it much ado about nothing? I mean Brian Lilley, Margarette Wente, Ezra Levant, Krista Erickson, David Aikin and Co. pale in comparison to the pundits the US has to offer. And no one really gives much credence to what the likes of Rush, Glen Beck, Bill O'Reily, Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter have to say. These extreme views however end up framing the issue. By staking out ground on the far right, it makes it more difficult, from that perspective, to distinguish the centre (or center) from the left. It's also not what they say - it's how often and persistent it is said. The average consumer of news and analysis is bombarded by the extreme right. If you repeat a lie often enough, regardless of how completely it has been discredited, it gets embedded in the popular consciousness.

If you mention global warming, someone will without fail bring up the "hockey stick" as if the Mann/Bradley/Hughes study was actually ever discredited and as if it were the only study to ever show the dramatic rise in global temperatures in the last century. We have our own example in Canada - a boatload of Tamil refugees shows up off the BC coast and most Canadian now believe that this represent a dangerous and massive influx of refugees (who must be terrorists). On average, over 100 refugees PER DAY arrive at airports across Canada. And refugees are not "jumping" the immigration queue. There are no queues or quotas for refugees. According to international conventions and treaties, each case is dealt with on its own merits with due process.

Unfortunately, it is not in the nature or character progressives to stay on message the way the right can and does. We embrace diversity, and with that comes a diversity of issues, concerns, priorities, and messages.

Long Guns and Deregulation

If the LGR falls, it will be yet another sector where the public interest has been sacrificed over fear of "big government". Fear of "big government" has caused more harm than any "big government", at least a democratic one, has ever done. Deregulation was so in vogue in the 1990's that even democrats, 3rd way socialists and liberals were rushing to deregulate everything.

Not that I'm a fan of large bureaucracies, wasteful programs or over-regulation, but where there is a vital public interest and where market forces or self regulation are insufficient to achieve the public good, regulation is required.

We saw this happen with the US financial markets. Actually, this last financial crisis is the 3rd one in 20 years resulting from ill-advised deregulation. But many are too young to remember the S&L crisis of the late 1980's and the dot-com/Enron debacles of 2000. How long will we have to wait until the conservatives start pushing to deregulate the Canadian banking and financial sectors again?

IF you are a little fuzzy the S&L crisis, or the Junk Bonds debacle you have probably never even heard the short term fall out from airline deregulation in the late 1970's. The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 - while probably a good idea, led to the air traffic control strike of 1981 as an explosion of new airlines and cheaper air travel took its toll on the inadequate and antiquated ATC infrastructure and over-worked controllers.

Deregulation is partially responsible for the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and was contributory to the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. Meanwhile, some of the deepest offshore wells ever conceived are being planned off the Canadian Atlantic and Arctic coasts. Of course the oil companies are saying that a Deepwater Horizon type of catastrophe couldn't possible happen here, so there is no need to pre-drill relief wells or require better blow out protectors.

Deregulation of energy markets (under democrat Governor Pete Wilson) drove the richest and most populous state in the US to the brink of insolvency. I lived in California while utility rates shot up 1000% for some users and the State practically bankrupt itself trying to buy over-priced gas and electricity futures.

Energy, transportation, education, healthcare and public safety (gun registry) are areas of vital public interest. The government has an obligation to be involved. Those pushing the anti-big-government agenda need to stop with the fear mongering.

The 80% of Canadians who live in urban areas are well served by a long gun registry. The burden of a fairly lightweight (operationally) and unobtrusive service on the 20% of rural Canadians who bear this burden is not so high that we should allow the LGR to be dismantled.

Jack Layton should act in the public interest and whip the NDP caucus on this crucial up coming vote. This is not a hill he should sacrifice his principles on.

OMG

I used to be this smart.

More Caption this.

What ever the problem is, apparently it's growing.

Missed it by that much.

Stockwell Day - Un-reported Mime.

Caption This.

Make up a caption in a comment - best one sticks.

I'll start.

One of these days I'd like to leave a press conference with this much credibility intact.

Unreported Crime to Plummet!

Once "Failure to complete the StatsCan Long Form" is removed from the criminal code.

Truth, Lies and Un-Statistics

According to Stockwell Day, SOME statistics are useful and reliable for informing public policy; those would be the unreported ones. When asked why his government is planning on investing billions of dollars in new prisons during a recession when crime rates have been dropping for decades, Day responded that he is concerned about unreported crimes. Now to be fair, Statistics Canada does collect self reported data on crime victimization - on the soon to be voluntary Stats Can Long Form Survey. It is also true that some 34% of crimes are unreported - a number that has also been pretty consistent for decades. BTW - I wonder if they asked anyone if they were victims of homicide?

While the reporters present had some probing questions on what statistics the Treasury Board President was relying on, my question is a little more basic. Let's assume that unreported crimes (the majority of which the reason given for not reporting was that it was not important enough) are a cause for alarm. Why are we building prisons?

Generally unreported crimes are also un-investigated, un-prosecuted, un-tried, un-convicted and un-sentenced. So maybe we should spend un-billions to build un-prisons for these un-convicts instead.

In Bed with the Seperatists

Another point of paranoia on the right.

For those worried that the Bloc Quebecois' support of the opposition coalition will lead to the break up of the nation or another referendum on Quebec sovereignty; exhale, there is no need to stockpile water, ammunition and canned goods.

There is nothing that the Bloc, or any other federal party can do to bring about separation of Quebec from Canada. The Government of Canada is not going to call for a referendum - that would be for the Quebec National Assembly and is unlikely with a Liberal minority government in Quebec. In fact, with their support for the coalition government, it would be very hard for the Bloc to make the case that the federal government is not listening or is insensitive to Quebec. What are they going to do? Intentionally introduce measures to alienate Quebec? All that would prove is that the Bloc is insensitive to Quebec and would lose them the support that they now enjoy from federalists in Quebec who vote for the Bloc simply to maximize their Quebec's voice in the House of Commons.

Rather than seeing this coalition as a threat to national unity, I prefer to see this as evidence that the needs and concerns of Quebec are not that different than those of of the rest of the nation.

Constitutional or Political Crisis?

I guess it takes extraordinary events to bring me out of retirement.

Listening to talk radio, reading blue blogs, one would think Canada is facing an unprecedented crisis that threatens to bring down the nation. As overblown hyperbole and rhetoric are the stock in trade of these media, it is not surprising to hear terms like treason and coup d’etat, hijacking the government, etc. thrown around. But let’s be reasonable. There is no constitutional crisis. There may be a political crisis, particularly for Conservatives, but the constitution anticipates these situations and in other parliamentary systems and commonwealth nations around the world, these situations are commonplace and in some cases, even the norm.

Many are saying that Canadians elected a Conservative government and that the proposed actions of Stephan Dion, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe would somehow usurp the will of the people. Nothing could be further from the truth. Canadians did not elect a Conservative government, or any government. They elected (413 - oops 308) individual Members of Parliament, 143 of whom were members of the Conservative Party of Canada. As a result of the CPC numbers in Parliament, the Governor General, in keeping with the Constitution and traditions of Parliament, asked Mr. Harper to form a government; which he did. As it now seems that Prime Minister Harper's government has lost the confidence of the House of Commons, it falls to the Governor General, with the advice of the Prime Minister, her own conscience, and the any constitutional law experts she may seek out, to either dissolve Parliament or ask the opposition parties to form a government that may be better able to hold the confidence of the House of Commons.

What shouldn’t be lost in the rhetoric are the points that brought us to this extraordinary (for Canada) situation.

Federal budgets provide the primary planning framework for the government of Canada and to a great extent set the parliamentary agenda. The last federal budget was brought down (I believe) in late February. Since then we have experienced a slow grinding recession which accelerated in the summer and fall into a full blown global financial crisis. There was a banking sector bail package passed back in October – but even this was not planned response to the financial crisis by the Government of Canada, but was a global G-20 initiative. Also since the last federal budget we have had a federal election, a throne speech, a new cabinet, new Parliament and a US federal election. In other words, the environment in which the last major planning framework for the Government of Canada was crafted has changed dramatically. The assumptions, projections and data are no longer valid. If Prime Minister Harper thinks that Canada can run without a new financial plan for another 2 or 3 or more months, he is so out of touch that he doesn’t deserve to be PM. Prior to the last election, PM Harper said that Parliament was dysfunctional. The petty, vindictive and self serving attempts to financially ruin the opposition parties and remove collective bargaining leverage from public sector works is simply an exclamation point to this statement. Clearly the dysfunction has not been remedied by an election and is unlikely to be remedied by another election. Maybe it’s time for the opposition parties to see if they can make Parliament work again.

Finally, these types of situations - minority governments and coalitions going forward very well may be the norm, rather than exceptional circumstances. Both the Conservatives and Liberals enjoy the support of about 25% of the voting public from their core or base constituents. The NDP and Bloc enjoy the "core" support of somewhere around 10% each with about 30% of voters being either "soft" supporters of the CPC, Liberals, NDP or Bloc or swing voters. As it takes close to 40% of the popular vote to form a majority government, a majority government is not impossible, with these numbers, unless the NDP and Liberals merge, one is unlikely.

The events of this last week have shown that the political parties have not fully appreciated this new reality nor adjusted their tactics and strategies in response. It is also going to take the public some time to come to terms with this reality. An election is not going to solve this. As the parties adjust we may see consolidation on the left OR more formal coalition agreements. As the voters adjust, we may see more strategic voting.

Harper's Folly

Some of Stephen Harper's recent initiative are starting to resemble high risk political gamesmanship with little regard for the unity of the nation.

I'll give him political points for picking up the Quebecois Nation issue from the Liberals and turning it (possibly) to his political advantage - at least in Quebec. I'm still angry at Michael Inatieff for thrusting this whole issue on to the national stage, but just as pissed at Harper for picking it up and taking political advantage of it (if there really was any political advantage). I am not against the concept of a Quebecois nation within Canada, but using such a divisive issue as a political chip is cheap, crass and takes an enormous risks of backlash from Quebec. The Quebecois people have an identity, they don't really need a meaningless gesture from Parliament to bestow a national identiy upon them. But it did manage pit anglo and francophone Quebecers and Canadians against each other.

The same can be said for Bill S-4, Harpers constitutional amendment to limit the term of new Senators to 8 years. It is really a gesture towards western aspirations for equal representation and a triple-E Senate. Again, Senate reform is a sensitive and potentially divisive issue. With a minority government and the Senate controlled by the Liberals, the Bloc and NDP on record as opposing any Senate reform short of abolishment, there is little hope of the bill passing the Senate, or the House of Commons let alone passage in 7 of 10 provincial legislatures. This is nothing more than a bone thrown to the western wing of the Conservative Party and cheap politicing to get the Liberals and NDP to vote against Senate reform. Perhaps it will make up for the anger from western conservatives over the Quebec Nation thing. Does national reconciliation and unity mean so little to Harper that he is willing to gamble and play one regions aspirations for constitutional reform off against another region?

I wonder what hopeless constitutional bone he will throw to First Nations to make up for reneging on the Kelowna Accord? Probably none - first nations have never really ranked very high on the Conservative agenda.

In their own words

November 18, 2002
Stockwell Day

When [Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham] thought everything was lovely about this gentlemen, he was talking about him all over the place. But when he gets information he's dangerous, all of a sudden it's 'Oops maybe I shouldn't have said anything.'

Diane Ablonczy:

Mr. Speaker, it is time the Liberals told the truth: that their system of screening and security checks is pathetic. Arar was given dual Syrian and Canadian citizenship by the government. It did not pick up on his terrorist links and the U.S. had to clue it in.

Stephen Harper:

While the minister participated in high level consultations to defend a suspected terrorist, it apparently took a trip by the U.S. Secretary of State for the minister to admit what he really knew.

September 28, 2006
Giuliano Zaccardelli:

[In 2002] I personally became directly involved in the file after Mr. Arar was detained and sent to Syria. I asked for the file and I asked for specific documents relating to what happened. That was the first time it came to my attention that there was a possibility, or that we had mislabelled or mischaracterized Mr. Arar in our dealings with him in the investigation.

September 29, 2006

Maher Arar:

We are still anxiously awaiting an apology from the prime minister on behalf of the entire Canadian government, It is extremely disappointing" that apology has not been forthcoming.

October 30, 2006 Peter McKay:

I don't want to jeopardize or compromise the legal standing of Mr. Arar or any other government, To that extent the issues of apology will be dealt with in the future.

December 4, 2006
Giuliano Zaccardelli:

When ministers were briefed about the circumstances of the Arar case, their briefings did not include the fact that some inaccurate information had been provided to the Americans by the RCMP. This was not recognized by the RCMP at the time and senior officials, including myself, were not informed until the commission of inquiry had completed its work.

December 5, 2006
Giuliano Zaccardelli:

I realized after my testimony (in September) that my testimony was not as precise and as accurate as it could have been and I had made a mistake. I recognized that I made a mistake in inferring or leaving an impression that I knew information . . . in 2002 when, in fact, I couldn't have known. I knew it in 2006.

Correspondence

On November 21, I wrote the following letter to Premier Gordon Campbell. It concerns two proposed coal fired electrical generation plant proposals under review for the Princeton area and in tumbler ridge. While there are several websites sponsoring mail-bot form letter protests, I would urge those who oppose these projects to personally write to the Premier and Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Richard Neufeld to voice your well reasoned opposition to these projects. Personally writted letters carry far more weight than form letter protests.

Dear Mr. Campbell:
Cc: David Chudnovsky, MLA

I understand that as a part of the BC Hydro 2006 Open Call for Power, Compliance Energy Corporation and AES Global Power Corporation have been awarded 30 year Independent Power Producer contracts to build and operate coal fired generation plants in the Similkameen Valley and at Tumbler Ridge. While BC Hydro is to be commended, for the first time, for also awarding IPP contracts to three wind generators in this same call for power, including coal in the power mix for the first time is breaking ground that is best left unbroken. Even though BC has abundant coal reserves, coal has not to this point been a part of the energy generation mix in BC for good reason - of the alternatives available, coal has the most damaging environmental impact. I would urge you to rethink your support for these projects.

While proponents of these projects have described them as "clean coal" projects, in reality they are far from clean. While described as state of the art, in reality they are run of the mill. In fact, the proposed plants would generate 70 times the nitrogen oxide, 260 times the sulphur dioxide and 7 times more particulate matter than the Sumas II power plant in Washington State that your government successfully opposed. In addition to this the plant would emit mercury and over 1.8 million tonnes of greenhouse gasses every year.

I would remind you that two components to your environmental plan for British Columbia were to promote alternative energy sources and to implement a new climate change action plan. While BC needs additional generation capacity, there are far better alternatives available than coal. Additional proposed wind projects on Vancouver Island, the North Coast, Peace River and offshore in Hecate Straight and a variety of small hydro, waste heat and biomass projects stand ready to take up the slack. I can't imagine a climate change plan calling for an increase in greenhouse gasses. The proposed coal projects are completely incompatible with your stated environmental platform.

Climate change is not just some future risk. British Columbia is already starting to face social, economic and environmental shifts as a result of global warming. In the interior, and area of forest the size of New Brunswick has been devastated by the mountain pine beetle - a natural pest that has been traditionally controlled by severe winters. This year, the south coast has been hit by "once in a life time" storms first in February and then again in November. Salmon stocks on the Fraser River system are threatened by lower summer time water levels, rising water temperatures and higher spring and fall surges which scour and destroy spawning habitat. I have children ages 5 and 7. We hiked up to Garabaldi lake this fall and I was shocked to see the extent to which the glacier has retreated since I last was there only 10 years ago. At this rate, the 2010 winter Olympics may just be the last hurrah for Whistler. Let's not leave a wasted environment as a legacy for our children.

I would also call your attention to two recent surveys, one national, and the other in British Columbia both indicating that over 70% of the population is very concerned about global warming. While an election has not yet been fought over climate change policy, public sentiment is clearly trending in this direction. If voter initiative were an option in this province, these projects would be overwhelmingly killed. That should be your moral compass. One only need look south of the border at the US mid-term elections to see what happens when a government loses the support of its citizens. While I have never voted NDP, if you insist on supporting the development of coal generation plants in BC I will hold my nose and do so in the next election. I represent a constituency you can't afford to lose: educated, urban, professional, fiscal conservative, socially liberal, environmentally progressive.

My MLA, NDP David Chudnovsky responded almost immediately saying he appreciated my letter and would forward it to NDP Environmnet Critic, Shane Simpson and NDP Energy Critic John Horgan. Today I got a response from the Premier's Office.

Thank you for your email regarding our energy policy.

I appreciate having the opportunity to review your comments and have forwarded a copy of your email to my colleague, the Honourable Richard Neufeld, Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, for his information. I assure you that the Minister will give your input every consideration.

It was good of you to write me on this matter and I wish you all the best over the holiday season.

The response is boilerplate, but I didn't expect a personal visit from the Premier or a "Eureka" moment where the government would reverse its direction based on my letter. But if they consider it representative of a significant constituency, and one that is important to them, it may be acted on.

Barak in Black

On Saturday, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak was in Vancouver as a keynote speaker at the Schara Tzedeck Synagogue. His appearance was vociferously opposed by a crowd of pro-Palestinian protestors gathered across the street. I support Mr. Barak's right to speak and the synagog's right to invite him to do so as protected free speech and religious expression. I also support the Palestinian protesters right to gather across the street and oppose his message. Democratic dialogue is often noisey and unruly. It is not the appearance of Mr. Barak that has me blogging this morning, but his message - at least as it was reported this morning by CKNW radio.

Apparently Mr. Barak sees a crucial role for Canada in the middle east peace process - which he hopes will include a Palestinian state. In his vision of the future however, after hostilities between Israel and the Palestinians cease, Canada would be a perfect new home for all of the displaced Palestinians. I am assuming Mr. Barak is refering to the decendents of the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who fled Israel during the 1948 war and were denied repatriation afterwards. This is a sticky issue for the middle east peace process because the decendents of these refugees now number in the millions and if repatriated enmass would pretty much spell the end of the Jewish state. But the right of return has been a key issue with the Palestinians from the beginning and remains a critical point of contention as there is little room for either side to compromise on this issue. It appears that Mr. Barak's solution is to export the Palestinian refugees to Canada. I suppose this is because Canada has such a spotless history in its handling of displaced indigenous people. Palestinian reservations anyone? Perhaps we can abduct their children and put them in residence schools?

Urgent sCare Centre

The Vancouver Sun reports this morning that after meeting with Minister of Health George Abbot, the False Creek Surgical Centre's new Urgent Care Centre will not bill patients directly for medically necessary procedures, but will abide by the Canada Health Act and Provincial medical billing regulations. This after Abbot and the BC Medical Services Commission promised to audit the clinic and prosecute any violation s of the Canada Health Act. Bravo, the province did the right thing. But was this whole little even staged?

If you really think about it, this really serves the agenda of a lot of people who would like to see more privatization of health care in Canada. Federal Health Minister Tony Clement got to wring his hands and say the Feds have no authority to shut down the clinic (and no desire either). This of course is true, but they do have the authority to withhold health and social transfers to the province if the the province allows the clinic to operate. The Campbell government got to demonstrate their commitment to the public payer principle of the Canada Health Act by forcing the clinic to comply. But they also got a chance to float a trial balloon to measure the public response to the opening of a private clinic. Apparently, if you glean from the press coverage, three patient showed up and got to pass on the message that they would be willing to pay for prompt medical service. This message was echoed in the Vancouver Sun's letter of the day (sorry only in the paper version) in which a Mr. Jim Gilmore said:

"I am one of thousand of British Columbians languishing on waiting lists, and I think the opening of the clinic is good news. While I might not exercize my choice to use the clinic, many others will, and it does not take a math professor to figure out that this will ease the pressure on the public system."

Did you notice how Mr. Gilmore managed to get all the key talking points in? Consumer choice, waiting lists, relieving pressure on the public system - sounds awefully similar to Mr. Klein's trial balloon exercize and the key messaging around it in Alberta last year.

Let me first get to Mr. Gilmore's argument. It doesn't take an economics professor to figure out that the method in which a provider bills and is remunerated for services in no way impacts the supply/demand for medical services. What makes the business model (as initally advertized) illegal under the Canada Health Act is not private ownership, but direct billing to patients rather than through BC Medical Services Plan. The clinic should be free to operate as long as all medically necessary procedures are billed through MSP.

If a provider is permitted to "double dip" i.e. to provide services for both MSP and private paying patients it creates a perverse incentive for that provider to keep wait lists as long as possible because this enhances the value of the privately billed practive. If provider only provides privately billed services, it will serve only a very small number of people who can afford private medical insurance or fees. Neither approach increases the capacity of the system to handle more patients nor do they allocate services according to urgency of the need. Unless the public becomes better informed on the issues we are going to slowly creep towards a two tier system that does not serve the public interest. It will be justified as a solution to wait lists, but in fact it will make wait lists worse. This little trial balloon is just a step in measuring the public's sentiment towards something that (it appears) few really understand.

EZ

NDP ethics critic Pat Martin claims that the Liberals new Climate Liberal website, is a "sleazy" end run around campaign finance laws. And that it may be. But perhaps he meant cheasy as in Jack Laytons new green house tour - showing off his home's energy saving and green technology - such has his low flow toilet. Or perhaps breasy as in what was blowing through Layton's ears when he devised his plan to divide the opposition on climate change by sponsoring a competing bill to C288 - an alternative to the Conservative's Clean Air Act that would force action on global warming. Or perhaps he meant easy - as in the effort required for progressive voters to switch from the NDP to the Liberals if they adopt their proposed new green agenda, or Greens if they don't.