September 2010 Archives

Updated below.

Then updated some more.

I believe it was the case of Sebastien Togneri, a senior aide to Christian Paradis during the latter's stint as Public Works minister, that prompted the Conservatives to insist that political staffers would no longer appear before parliamentary committees because the minister, and only the minister, should be held responsible for anything that happened in his department. At the time Togneri was suspected of inappropriate interference with an access to information request and in the end it was characterized as a mistake. That story just got harder to buy.

OTTAWA - A Conservative political staffer meddled in at least four access-to-information requests at the Public Works Department, not just the one he testified to this year.

...

Documents tabled with a Commons committee and obtained by The Canadian Press show he had his hands in at least three other access-to-information files.

Since, clearly, Paradis was responsible for these violations of the Access to Information Act I trust we'll hear shortly that he has resigned from cabinet and is taking a seat on the back benches.

Any minute now...

Update:

There's a more complete version of the story up now at the Globe and Mail. It would appear that Mr. Togneri behaved quite badly. It would also appear that the sudden insistence by Conservatives that political aides shouldn't be called to testify at committee and the circus that committee meetings were turned into — I seem to recall a particularly notable performance by John Baird — was designed to distract from a more complete investigation. I'm sure you're as shocked by all this as I am.

Update the second:

Tory aide resigns after probe into meddling

These guys are a hoot, aren't they?

The reaction to last night's vote in the House of Commons to censure Maclean's magazine has been quick and vocal. And I agree with some of it — the whole exercise reminds me of the sanctimonious "sense of the House" motions that American legislators were particularly fond of during the Bush administration (remember when MoveOn was censured for the General BetrayUs ad?). Yes, it's political posturing. It's also symbolic with no actual effect in law. Maclean's is still free to continue to express themselves even if they sometimes offer a substandard product (which some of parliament's critics are also acknowledging the magazine did in this case).

But if this largely symbolic gesture is worthy of such immediate reaction, I'd like to refer everyone back to the George Galloway case. There was nothing symbolic about that. As of earlier this week we have a written opinion from a Federal Court Justice who examined the documentary evidence and reached a clear conclusion: a cabinet minister and his communications director abused the power of the state in an effort to prevent the expression of opinions they don't like on Canadian soil. In the course of doing so they attempted to influence a law enforcement agency in the conduct of its duties for purely political reasons. Censorship is a word that's often abused but this — a blatant attempt to use the power of the state to prevent speech — looks like censorship to me.

It doesn't matter whether or not you like George Galloway or agree with his opinions. In this context he's the canary in the coal mine. Given this government's record of attempting to prevent the disclosure of inconvenient facts and the expression of points of view they don't like, does anyone doubt that if they were successful in censoring Galloway they'd attempt to use the same methods again?

So can we expect at least the same level of protest and from all the same actors concerning a real attempt at censorship as we're seeing when the subject is a gesture that everyone acknowledges is just theatre?

Outrage fatigue as described by the outgoing Washington Editor at Harper's Magazine:

When you can read an entire column by the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz and never once feel the urge to cut out your own heart with a dull knife, you know that you no longer have the sense of outrage that is essential to reporting from our nation's capital.

H/t to Glenn Greenwald (in the Update at the bottom).

There was a time when political interference by a cabinet minister in the operation of an agency like the Canadian Border Services Agency was grounds for resignation. It was incumbent upon a minister to both understand and respect certain boundaries in the exercise of his power and authority, and to assume responsibility for ensuring that his staff did the same. This is one area where I'd be a fan of restoring the status quo ante.

In fact, Jason Kenney appeared to reinforce the doctrine of ministerial accountability when he appeared on CTV's Power Play this past May and said this:

The principle is a very simple one: that ministers are accountable to Parliament for the conduct of their ministries and their offices... The political staff of ministers are there to serve the minister. The minister answers for their conduct, is responsible for their conduct to Parliament... They're not accountable to Parliament; their boss is. We're saying it's the bosses who should be answering for their conduct and that of their office. And that underscores the principle of parliamentary responsibility.

I picked up that quote from an article by James Clark who writes in response to this week's court decision in the Galloway case. His article is worth a read but here's a key quote he provides from Justice Mosley's ruling:

Last week an article in the Ottawa Citizen warned us to expect a visit from Mark Sedwill, the NATO ambassador to Afghanistan. He was scheduled to visit Ottawa this week to press Prime Minister Harper for a commitment on a continued Canadian military presence in Afghanistan, with a particular emphasis on providing training for the Afghan army.

While NATO was acutely aware of the political "sensitivity" in the Canadian capital of what Sedwill called this "delicate issue," he said "I don't regard the door closed with Canada or any other country."

It seems that Sedwill has since been informed that Canada is even more sensitive than he thought and that he'd best not knock on that door for now. The visit has been cancelled.

While a NATO spokesperson said Sedwill cancelled the trip because of "an ever-changing schedule and personal and other work commitments," there is speculation he was asked not to come by Canadian officials who didn't want him stirring the political pot over Canada ending its military mission in Kandahar next year.

I'd go with the speculation. I still believe that the subject will be raised at a time when those who continue to support the mission — Conservatives and enough senior Liberals to get something through parliament — believe they can get it done quickly and avoid any serious public debate. Until then the issue will be managed fairly carefully as we see here.

I think it's hilarious that the same government that rages against elites thinks it appropriate to assemble the presidents of high-tech companies to lecture our elected representatives on their duty to "all Canadians."

Liberals' objection to fighter-jets deal puts high-calibre jobs at risk, industry warns

The Canadian aerospace industry has entered the political fray to accuse the Liberal Party of putting high-quality jobs at risk by refusing to endorse the government's plans to purchase new stealth fighter jets.

Perhaps these captains of industry would like to enter the political fray by running for office. Failing that, perhaps they'd like to sit down, STFU and let the people we actually voted for do their jobs and represent us. That would include getting competitive bids on what would be the largest defence procurement in our history. Or are we to believe that not a one of these leaders of the business community would operate that way when it's the bottom line of his own business that's at stake?

The Harper government quickly joined in the attack...

Of course they did. They orchestrated it.

Given the number of times I've complained about stenography passing as journalism and the phony he said/he said approach in which both sides of the debate are presented as equal when they're obviously not, may I commend to you this Canadian Press article as picked up at CTV News. It concerns today's debate in the House of Commons on a Liberal motion to restore the mandatory census long form.

It sounds as though the government MPs, led by Industry Minister Tony Clement, tried to pretend that the lengthy debate that took place in the media over the summer months occurred in some parallel universe — they played back all the arguments that have been repeatedly debunked. They "fumed" about the intrusiveness of questions that have never been part of the census. They pretended not to notice that the opposition has already volunteered to cooperate in eliminating the possibility of prison time for failure to complete the long form. And they harped on the possibility that your neighbours who are also census workers could be privy to the information you include on your census forms. And the article methodically rebutted all the points. It didn't just present quotes to show that someone else disagreed — it presented facts as facts.

The article did miss one point, though. Where the Conservatives insist on sneering at the opposition as a coalition, the CP failed to make the simple point that when all three opposition parties get together on an issue, they represent an overwhelming majority of voters.

Baby steps, I guess.

The headlines for these two stories are currently sharing space on the CBC News/World page.

U.S. bill to loosen online government wiretaps

Broad new regulations being drafted by the Obama administration would make it easier for law enforcement and national security officials to eavesdrop on internet and e-mail communications like social networking websites and BlackBerrys, The New York Times reported Monday.

The newspaper said the White House plans to submit a bill next year that would require all online services that enable communications to be technically equipped to comply with a wiretap order. That would include providers of encrypted e-mail, such as BlackBerry, networking sites like Facebook and direct communication services like Skype.

Bearing in mind that changes in the laws in recent years have already made it much easier for American law enforcement to obtain those wiretap orders, here's our second story:

The Hill Times has an article this morning on Ivan Fellegi, a man who currently fills a position that was created for him. Fellegi worked for Statistics Canada for 51 years, serving as chief statistician for 23 of those years. When he retired in 2008, the position of chief statistician emeritus was created for him and he continues to go into the office a couple of days a week — without pay — to lend his expertise to the organization he helped to build for so long.

Fellegi, who ought to know, tells us that the Harper government's decision to kill the mandatory census long form in favour of a voluntary survey is not just a bad decision but represents unprecedented meddling in the census methodology and StatsCan's operations. You can follow the link to read more about his opinions on the matter and on the kind of independence he feels the organization should have.

I found the current Industry Minister's reaction on learning about Fellegi's continued involvement at Statistics Canada interesting, to say the least. In Fellegi we have a man so proud of the results of his years of public service and the organization he served, that at the age of 75 he still wants to share the expertise he developed over a long career. Clement is a career politician who routinely asks the public to vote for him so he can continue to serve the public. You might think the minister would express some admiration for Fellegi's dedication to the integrity of Statistics Canada and applaud the man's desire to continue to be of service. Based on what's reported here, you'd be wrong. Quoth Clement:

I find it kind of odd, I've got to tell you.

Perhaps that puts the issue of the census long form in some perspective.

Alison reminds us of Jim Flaherty's outburst speech at a Canadian Club luncheon last week and one of the bits she quoted from it got me to wondering.

There is going to be an election, sooner or later.
The coalition may make it sooner.
Regardless, when it comes, Canadians will face a stark choice.
The outcome will be a majority government, one way or another.
A stable, national majority under Stephen Harper's leadership.
Or the reckless coalition of Michael Ignatieff, the NDP, and the Bloc Québécois.

A majority government "one way or another." The implication here is that if Stephen Harper's Conservatives only manage to win a plurality of seats, rather than form another minority government Harper will resign and recommend to the Governor-General that the opposition parties be allowed to govern.

Do you think that's what Harper and Flaherty have been telling us? Perhaps someone ought to ask them.

Sometimes I live in the country
Sometimes I live in town
Sometimes I take a great notion
To ...

Ok, we won't finish that verse. Not tonight, anyway. (Great novel spun off that line, though.)

pogge is responsible for ruining me by introducing me to this incredible concert. I love these guys, including the clanging percussion. And is there anything on the I'm-having-a-meltdown scale even close to a hard-working guy in a sweat-soaked T-shirt?

Ry Cooder, Flaco Jiminez, and the Moula Banda Rhythm Aces, "Goodnight Irene" (1987)

That's the new motto of the Democratic Party of the United States, as presented by Tim Kaine who is chair of the Democratic National Committee. I thought of that motto a few minutes ago when I read this from Glenn Greenwald. There's change that matters. It's also change that sucks.

Barack Obama, through his Department of Justice, has gone beyond even George W. Bush in his claims concerning the power of the executive branch and its ability to operate outside the law and without accountability. Not only is he claiming the right to target his own citizens for extrajudicial assassination but to consider his list of targets and his reasons for marking them for death as "state secrets", thereby preventing the possibility that any court would ever be able to rule on the legality of his decisions.

Obama is the most disappointing American president of my lifetime. I can state that unequivocally because I expected George W. Bush to be a disaster. But Obama presented himself as something altogether different and while I knew all along that he's a conservative Democrat — not very progressive by most definitions — I at least believed his claim to want to restore the rule of law to a country that had seen it badly abused. Instead he's claiming the kind of absolute authority that normally belongs to your average military dictator.

But give Tim Kaine and the DNC credit for choosing their motto well — it certainly matters.

The diplomat who said that didn't want to be identified but I have to wonder if he's British given the degree of understatement. This New York Times article on last Saturday's parliamentary election in Afghanistan confronts the key issue. Here's the lede with my emphasis:

Evidence is mounting that fraud in last weekend's parliamentary election was so widespread that it could affect the results in a third of provinces, calling into question the credibility of a vote that was an important test of the American and Afghan effort to build a stable and legitimate government.

Last year's presidential election was touted in advance as an important step in nation-building until the amount of corruption in the electoral process became too much to ignore. This year's election began with a conscious effort on the part of some to lower expectations. And rightly so as it turns out — election day saw lower turnout, increased violence and more widespread corruption than last year's affair.

If the mission in Afghanistan was solely to defeat the group of terrorists responsible for 9/11 then the war was over a long time ago. By all accounts there aren't many members of Al Qaeda left in Afghanistan but it's mainly because they've relocated. And if the mission in Afghanistan was a more ambitious attempt to build a liberal democracy there, it appears that NATO is losing that war if it isn't lost already.

Here's a bit of required reading for a Saturday morning. There have been a number of media reports recently concerning the choke hold this government has on information coming out of the civil service. This article suggests that no matter how bad you thought it was, it's even worse. And particularly so at Environment Canada.

University of Alberta ecologist David Schindler states: "Muzzling under the Harper government is the worst it's ever been."

The Vancouver Sun quoted University of Victoria climatologist Andrew Weaver: "The concept of free speech is non-existent at Environment Canada." Weaver is close to the epicentre. As one who regularly co-authors studies with EC colleagues, he understands the impacts on federal scientists. He calls it "Orwellian," and says that as a result, "morale is at an all-time low."

Perhaps the free speech warriors could look into this.

Hope you like guitar playing. Let's see if I can get your toe tapping right off the top. And as a bonus, it's Canadian content. This is Dutch Mason's son Garrett.

This is the lede of a Reuters story picked up by the Globe and Mail:

A computer virus that attacks a widely used industrial system appears aimed mostly at Iran and its power suggests a state may have been involved in creating it, an expert at a U.S. technology company said on Friday.

Some of the experts referenced by the story are speculating that this is a cyberattack backed by a specific (though unidentified) government, targeted at Iran and intended to disrupt the Iranian nuclear program. Would that be considered an act of war?

And if that's really the case, can anyone blame the Iranians if they step up their efforts to procure whatever weapons they can build or buy? After all, there's nothing illegal about the Bushehr nuclear plant, which is assumed to be the specific target of this attack. The development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes doesn't violate the NPT.

In an op-ed published about ten days ago, while congratulating himself on his role in helping the Conservatives push through the free trade agreement with Colombia, Liberal MP Scott Brison held Canada up as the shining example:

A generation ago many of Canada's indigenous peoples deeply opposed the activities of Canada's extractive sector. However, by working in consultation with our aboriginal communities Canada's extractive sector has developed corporate social responsibility (CSR) best practices to help make mining profitable for all.

From an article in yesterday's Calgary Herald reporting on a First Nations delegation that traveled from Alberta to Washington D.C. to try and get someone to pay attention:

"I think it's a very sad commentary that (we) have to leave our own homelands to impress upon other countries the significance of our challenges and the treatment we are receiving," George Poitras, a former chief of the Mikisew Cree First Nation in Fort Chipewyan, said Wednesday in Washington.

Poitras was part of a First Nations delegation that concluded a three-day visit to the U.S. capital aimed at persuading the Obama administration to block a proposal by Calgary-based TransCanada Corp. to build a new pipeline that would carry oil from northern Alberta to the Gulf Coast.

The native leaders said the trip was necessary because the governments of Canada and Alberta regularly exclude them from talks with U.S. officials over the impact of future oilsands development.

Over to you, Scott.

This is drawn from a much longer quote that's reproduced at a post at Climate Progress. The author is Mark Brayne who spent 30 years with the BBC.

... I often ask myself -- and, obsessively, others -- what it will take to get Western-style, ratings-and-profit-led journalism, reflecting as it does the emotions of politics, economics and public opinion, to take climate change and sustainability as seriously as it deserves, as a present, existential threat to the very survival of our species.

Putting it bluntly, I regret to have concluded that this will only happen once very large numbers of people start dying. As in, hundreds of thousands to millions, and quite clearly climate-change-related.

The Pakistan floods were shocking, as were the Russian summer peat fires and the landslides in China. But in order for enough of humanity to wake up (as we all ultimately, of course, will), not enough people died. Ouch.

That would be one of the two main points I take from today's installment of the story of the breach of veteran Sean Bruyea's privacy. Yesterday the prime minister was trying to put the whole issue on the previous Liberal government even as the Canadian Press was reporting that a Harper cabinet minister had seen the personal information, done nothing about it and allowed it to continue to circulate for another six months. Today we learn:

Mr. Bruyea's complaints should not come as a surprise to the Harper government, however. The documents he has obtained show a September, 2006, meeting took place at the Prime Minister's Office - involving senior political aides Keith Beardsley and Danielle Shaw - to discuss the "alleged harassment" of Mr. Bruyea with Veterans Affairs officials.

Notes of the meeting, which was triggered by Mr. Bruyea's letters to the PMO, reveal there was a general discussion about the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder and a specific discussion of Mr. Bruyea's massage-therapy claims.

If senior political aides to Harper sat around talking about Bruyea's medical history more than six months after Harper was sworn in as PM, it's a little difficult to claim total shock at the breach and simply try to pin it all on Paul Martin's government.

But there's further indication here that the breach began under the Liberals.

Van Loan 'erred' in prison transfer requests

The Federal Court has ruled that former public safety minister Peter Van Loan erred in not allowing two Canadians back into the country to serve their U.S. prison sentences.

...

The rulings by Justice John O'Keefe question Van Loan's denials for transfer and contend that he committed a "key error" in one of the cases. Van Loan, who is now international trade minister, refused the transfers to Canada in May 2009, based on ministerial "opinion" that the offender will commit a "criminal organization" offence.

The judge seems to feel that Van Loan's opinion isn't good enough and that Canadian citizens are entitled to something a bit more substantial. It would appear that Van Loan felt that as the guy in charge, he could have things his own way even if the law and the evidence didn't support it.

Have we ever had a government get spanked by the courts as often as the Harper government? The current public safety minister, Vic Toews, has 44 days to offer better explanations for these decisions or reverse them.

The Globe and Mail has a follow up by the Canadian Press to its own story of yesterday on the privacy breach involving veteran Sean Bruyea. Prime Minister Harper indicates that his government will cooperate with the Privacy Commissioner's investigation though doesn't intend to take any further action. But he's shocked, shocked, that such a thing could happen and, predictably, puts it all on the previous Liberal government.

A briefing note prepared for former veterans affairs minister Greg Thompson in March, 2006, was laced with private medical and financial information about Mr. Bruyea, including a quote from a psychiatrist's letter.

...

The briefing note, in various updated forms, circulated through the department for at least six months after the March, 2006, meeting, in which Mr. Bruyea urged Mr. Thompson to delay the implementation of the Veterans Charter.

So a minister in Stephen Harper's cabinet saw this personal information in a briefing note, said nothing, did nothing, and allowed the briefing note to circulate for another six months. Are we to believe that Thompson just didn't recognize the breach of privacy when he saw it? Are we to believe that he's that stupid?

Thompson has since left politics.

Thank God for small mercies.

Woman deported for tie to gang she never joined

A Toronto woman has been deported to Chile for associating with a gang, even though she has lived virtually all of her life in Canada and has no criminal record.

Carla Campagna, 23, was placed on a flight to Santiago late Tuesday night, hours after losing a deportation appeal in Toronto.

Her association with the gang in question was apparently very short-lived and let me repeat: no criminal record.

The [Refugee Board] ruled that it didn't matter that she never actually joined the Latin Queens.

Its decision stated that membership in criminal and terrorist organizations has been interpreted broadly by the courts, "so much so that it ensnares even those who did not partake, nor intend to partake, in criminal or terrorist behaviour."

Then the courts are screwing up. And legislators need to revisit the laws in question and amend them so that people who have done nothing wrong aren't being punished. Based on what's in this report, there's simply no way this woman should be forced to leave Canada.

H/t to My Blahg.

Our greed is morally superior to their greed.

Verbatim me: If the difference between the two is all there is to discuss then just shoot me now.

Edited to add: It occurs to me that one day even I may be scratching my head, wondering what I was on about here. So by way of context, here's another recommended article from Andrew Nikiforuk at The Tyee. Nikiforuk isn't so much reviewing Levant's recent book as he is responding to the whole attempt to distract us from the discussions we need to have. I don't think the "ethical oil" meme began with Levant — he's part of a larger push to do what the oil industry has been trying to do all along: stall any constructive debates about climate change and energy alternatives as long as possible.

This Canadian Press story is just going up at media outlets this evening and is just making the rounds on Twitter. It tells the story of a veteran whose privacy was grossly violated by federal bureaucrats and politicians.

Highly personal information about Sean Bruyea was contained in a 13-page briefing note prepared by bureaucrats in 2006 for then minister Greg Thompson, a copy of which was obtained by The Canadian Press.

Bruyea has been an "outspoken critic of Veterans Affairs" which may provide the motive.

Retired colonel Michel Drapeau, a lawyer and expert in privacy law, expressed shock on viewing the documents.

Drapeau said it was the worst breach of privacy he'd seen in decades of practising law, calling it "totally, totally illegal" under the federal Privacy Act, which allows for the collection of information for specific purposes.

"The way I read the briefing note, it clearly comes across that this is a way to impugn his reputation and to come across as someone who is less than stable, less than able to speak confidently and accurately about veteran's issues," Drapeau said in an interview Tuesday.

There's a lot more detail in the story including the fact that the breaches of privacy may date all the way back to 2001 which has obvious implications concerning previous Liberal governments as well as the current Conservative one. Go read. I'd expect we'll be hearing more about this one.

Paul Wells predicted a while back that in the next federal election campaign, the Conservatives had every intention of running against an imaginary coalition. Now that Jim Flaherty is parroting the same rhetoric — even in a luncheon speech to a business audience — I'd say Wells' prediction is looking pretty good.

"Under an Ignatieff-NDP-Bloc Québécois government, nothing would be safe," Mr. Flaherty told a Canada Club business audience. "No part of our economy would be spared. No taxpayer would avoid the hit."

Of course he can't help but include this:

... any coalition that would give a veto on national policy to a party dedicated to the breakup of our country is unacceptable.

Of course the original coalition agreement that inspired this scary story gave no such veto to the BQ. But Flaherty isn't one to let reality intrude when he has a message to deliver to the public. Remember the non-existent deficit in Ontario? Remember the recession that would never hit Canada?

What does it say about a government that increasingly relies on fear — fear of refugees who spend months huddled together in slow boats to get here, fear of unreported crime and fear of an imaginary coalition. Of course there are things we should all be worried about but the Conservatives don't seem to have any answers for those.

I wonder if Flaherty checks under the bed every night to make sure Gilles Duceppe isn't hiding there, waiting to jump out at him.

Last month it was reported that CSIS had quietly ordered an internal review of its activities in Afghanistan. The review was initiated in March but wasn't reported until August when the Canadian Press got hold of an internal CSIS memo. I wondered at the time if CSIS was checking its closet for skeletons, i.e. conducting a preemptive investigation to see if the agency might have any exposure on the matter of the abuse of detainees. Apparently by June they had decided their closet is clean.

OTTAWA -- Canada's spy service admits interrogating up to 50 Afghan prisoners captured by the Canadian Forces, but insists they were never mistreated, federal documents reveal.

...

The documents, obtained under the Access to Information Act, were drawn up to brief Fadden for a June interview with the CBC...

The story confirms what has been revealed in bits and pieces in previous reporting: CSIS was active in Afghanistan from 2002 through 2007 supporting the Canadian Forces, who found themselves with prisoners to interrogate and, apparently, not a lot of experience in interrogation. But there's still a lot we don't know.

University of Ottawa law professor Errol Mendes said the notes raise the spectre of spies travelling along with soldiers in combat -- or perhaps taking part in ultra-secret special forces operations. Such actions exceed CSIS's legislated mandate, he said.

"We've got to look at that very carefully and ask many more questions," said Mendes. "Intelligence gathering is absolutely within the mandate of CSIS, but actually going out on missions is a legal issue as to whether it's within their jurisdiction."

Perhaps we'll get more answers from that special parliamentary committee that's reviewing classified documents. Stop laughing! Meanwhile I'll refer you back to a long post I wrote shortly after the "War Logs" document release at WikiLeaks for an idea of the questions I have in mind.

Americans Renew Call for Third Party:

Americans' desires for a third political party are as high as they have been in seven years. Fifty-eight percent of Americans believe a third major political party is needed because the Republican and Democratic Parties do a poor job of representing the American people. That is a significant increase from 2008 and ties the high Gallup has recorded for this measure since 2003.

Kenney wants tougher rules for refugees

The federal government is planning to create a new class of asylum seeker -- the "mass arrival," The Canadian Press reports.

That proposed new designation, outlined in a leaked memo, would subject certain asylum seekers to tough new detention rules as part of the Stephen Harper government's crackdown on human smugglers.

And skipping down to the last paragraph:

The proposed changes would give the immigration minister new powers...

There it is again. It's a pattern that runs all through the legislation from these Conservatives. Decisions aren't delegated. New powers aren't granted to arms-length bodies and accompanied by some method of accountability. Instead new discretionary powers concentrate in cabinet which means, ultimately, in the PMO. And again, the trend toward increasing executive power didn't begin with the Conservatives but it certainly seems to be accelerating since they first formed government.

Yesterday and this morning I read a lot of reports on Saturday's election in Afghanistan. One thing I kept stumbling over was the supposed 40% turnout. Many of the articles that quoted that figure also supplied numbers for votes cast and registered voters and no matter how I tortured my calculator, I couldn't make those numbers come out to 40%. Now I understand.

Fazil Ahmad Manawi, the head of the Independent Election Commission, said turnout this year had been 40 per cent, compared with 33 per cent last year. He based his percentage not on the total electoral roll but on figures for the number of polling stations that had opened.

That would be a novel way to measure turnout. The most frequent numbers I saw reported were 3.6 million votes cast out of a total of 17 million registered voters which is 21%. When you consider the anecdotal reports of higher turnout in the north where security was better that means that in the south, where the legitimacy of the government is most in need of improvement, turnout was even worse.

Over the next six weeks or so, they'll be trying to determine how many of those 3.6 million votes should be disqualified due to forged ballot cards and/or ballot stuffing on the part of corrupt election officials. There were reports of both including this from Paul McGeough:

... in Kunduz, in the north, journalists watched in amazement as electoral officials and members of some campaign teams locked the doors for a couple of hours and filled out a small mountain of ballot papers themselves.

Supporters of a true counter-insurgency strategy are going to have a tough time presenting this as a legitimate government.

Last week we were encouraged to believe that "the future of the mission in Afghanistan" was a subject the Harper government very much wanted to discuss. But it seems they want someone else to go first.

The minority Conservative government's willingness to give opposition MPs a say in the civilian reconstruction mission after the withdrawal of Canada's 2,800 troops next year appears to hinge in part on whether their outcry over treatment of Afghan detainees has been defused.

...

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has repeatedly said there will be no military mission after 2011. However, his spokesman, Andrew MacDougall, said the government has not "categorically" closed the door on a military-training role....

MacDougall said the government wants proposals, if there are going to be any, to come through the special House of Commons committee on the mission in Afghanistan.

"I don't see us initiating that discussion," MacDougall said.

MacDougall's trying to make the case that the government's lack of specific policy on Afghanistan is the fault of opposition MPs who have "hijacked" the special committee to discuss the detainee issue — as if that has nothing to do with Afghanistan. But I suspect this is just a bit of theatre.

When Veterans Ombudsman Pat Stogran learned that the government wasn't going to extend his term, he decided not to go quietly. Now it seems that if some of our veterans have their way, he may not be going at all.

A petition circling some legion halls urges the Conservative government to keep popular veterans ombudsman Pat Stogran on the job awhile longer.

...

... the petition makes it clear the veterans want Stogran to stick around. Among other things, it calls on the government to "renew the mandate of the Veterans Ombudsman, Col. Pat Stogran"

The article notes yesterday's announcement from the government concerning its plan "to boost monthly payments to seriously wounded soldiers" (though thankfully doesn't reproduce that silly photo of Peter MacKay) but indicates that the veterans behind this petition aren't going to be satisfied with that.

The petition also calls on the Tories to address a central complaint of veterans, the new system of lump sum payments and income replacement. Veterans want the government to restore the post-Second World War practice of granting them lifetime pensions.

Which puts Stephen Harper in bit of a spot. His is a government that's loathe to publicly admit error and change direction based on outside pressure. But it's also a government that wants desperately to be able to invoke support for the troops as a rhetorical cudgel in any given argument on any given day, even when it's completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. Without that weapon in his arsenal, Harper would be sending his new house leader into battle with one hand tied behind his back.

Stogran may not be unemployed come the end of the year after all.

There were a number of stories this week in the national media about the "mutant fish" down river from the tar sands, but the most thorough article I've seen was Friday's contribution from Andrew Nikiforuk at The Tyee. That's the recommendation. I'd tip my hat to someone but I can't remember now where I got the link. I just got around to reading the piece this morning.

This, from Nikiforuk's article, caught my eye:

A model for stringent PAH monitoring can now be found in northern British Columbia. Several years ago the Haisla Nation in Kitimat, B.C., asked the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Alcan Primary Metal aluminum smelter to monitor PAH levels in Kitimat harbour, due to rising concerns about their food supply: salmon and shell fish. (At the time Environment Canada, once a leader in freshwater science, didn't have the expertise to do it, says Schindler.)

My emphasis. Schindler is an acknowledged expert in his field and should know. Is it just me, or are we seeing more and more references to things we were once good at or contributions we used to make but don't any more? Yes, that's rhetorical.

And why is there no Ontario equivalent to The Tyee (and I don't mean the fish)? Think George Soros would be willing to front me some seed money?

You can now be arrested for participating in a panel discussion in a university classroom. I imagine that would vastly increase the number of people who might end up serving time.

I look forward to the next time the Toronto Police Service or the RCMP publicly lament the fact that we, the people, don't appear to trust them.

Three American Senators paid a visit to the tar sands in Alberta yesterday with Premier Ed Stelmach as their tour guide. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that Stelmach ignored my suggestion for the dinner menu.

I'm also going to assume that Stelmach is reasonably pleased with the outcome of yesterday's exercise in public relations. Sounding like nothing so much as a blurb from the back cover of Ezra Levant's latest book, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina pronounced Alberta's oil to be "acceptably clean".

"Dirty oil and dangerous oil come from rogue regimes in the Mideast. The oil coming from Alberta in my view is not only acceptably clean, it is safe," Graham told CBC News. "Dirty to me would be oil that you buy from parts of the world where the people that sell it to you hate your guts and part of the money winds up in the hands of terrorists."

Notice how environmental issues and climate change aren't even part of the discussion. They were never going to be.

St. James Infirmary Blues is an old American folk song based on an older English folk song. Care to know how old? St. James Hospital in London was closed in 1532 when Henry VIII "acquired the land to build St. James Palace." So at least that old. This particular version of the song involves Harry Connick, Jr. on vocal and piano and an excellent trombonist named Lucien Barbarin.

Scott Lemieux, defining his terms while considering Evan Bayh:

Def·i·cit Hawk (adj.) 1. A political figure who favors deeply regressive tax cuts, unlimited defense spending irrespective of efficacy, and high deficits that can be used an excuse to cut (or, better yet, to oppose the enactment of) any program that might possibly help a poor person. 2. A loathsomely pompous fluffer of plutocrats.

In the commentary I've been reading about Jack Layton and the long gun registry, there's a point I don't believe I've seen anyone else make. This isn't to take anything away from him — if he ends up where he's trying to go with this issue it will certainly count as a political win for him. But it seems to me the way he's handled it follows naturally from his background. He spent most of his career as a municipal politician where cracking the party whip isn't an option, every issue is far more likely to be a fresh exercise in persuasion and coalition-building, and it's not over 'til the day everyone's on the floor casting votes. So while everyone else has been counting heads weeks in advance and trying to pronounce the matter settled, Layton has calmly gone about the business of getting the votes he needs, one at a time, and in time for it to make a difference.

And in the process he's managed to annoy John Baird, which is a bonus. Okay, annoying John Baird isn't all that difficult to do.

Imagine what this government could accomplish if they worked this hard at actually governing.

The big news out of Alberta this morning is that Premier Ed Stelmach will personally conduct a tour of the tar sands. Three American senators, all members of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, are coming to Canada for a close look at the source of all that oil their armed forces use. Premier Stelmach plans to take the opportunity to refudiate some of the scurrilous myths people have been spreading about the negative impact of his province's oil industry.

I'd like to make a suggestion. After a hard day out on the tar sands I'm sure our American guests will have worked up quite an appetite. I think their host should treat them to a nice dinner. I'd suggest fish, fresh from the Athabasca River. Clean it and cook it in front of them. Better yet, have Ezra Levant flown in and let him do the cleaning and cooking. And eating.

I'm sure a good time will be had by all.

How does a career politician get away with throwing the word "elite" at someone else as a pejorative? I can't put that one down to stupidity.

Maybe John Baird's head will explode. As Chris Rands at the CBC reminds us, Stephen Harper is the first prime minister of Canada born in Toronto.

In his report on Tuesday's testimony at the MPCC hearings, Steven Chase of the Globe and Mail suggested that the military brass had decided to push back aggressively against all the controversy surrounding the treatment of detainees in Afghanistan. But after putting his reporting together with that from Juliet O'Neill of Postmedia News it looks more to me like a continuation of what Paul Wells previously referred to as "the bucket defence".

The witness was Lieutenant-General André Deschamps and as O'Neill wrote:

Deschamps testified about the May 2006 to September 2008 period when he was No. 3 in command at CEFCOM, the defence wing that oversees Canadian Forces operations abroad.

These hearings are to address the specific charge that provost marshals and members of the Canadian Forces investigative service failed to investigate transfers to Afghan custody. Obviously it isn't strictly necessary to prove any actual abuse; the issue is the failure to look for it. And since hearings resumed last week, the defence the military brass is putting up against this charge appears to go as follows.

Ignatieff ruining Forces morale over F-35s: MacKay

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff's call for review of the $16-billion plan to buy 65 F-35 fighter jets demoralizes the Armed Forces and undermines confidence in Canada among its allies, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Wednesday.

Right. If you want to strengthen morale among our brave fighting women and men you need to uphold the standards of the democracy they risk their lives to protect: a government with the support of a minority of the population that abandons good management practice to make decisions behind closed doors and then hides behind the troops while throwing spitballs at anyone who dares to question them.

I told you to expect more of this but even I didn't think I'd have an example so quickly.

And by the way ... those allies who will lose confidence in Canada if we take some time to review this purchase? At last report most of them were still considering their own options.

Kady O'Malley was on the scene earlier this morning when Kory Teneycke announced that he had submitted his resignation — effective immediately — to Quebecor yesterday afternoon. You may have already noticed the outbursts of schadenfreude in various corners of the blogosphere.

I don't really have much to add to the story; I just wanted an opportunity to use that title. Of course it would be merely speculation on my part to surmise that Teneycke didn't jump but was pushed. Yesterday's announcement that Avaaz had referred the matter of the sabotage of their petition to law enforcement, while publicizing the fact that all the suspicious entries came from one Ottawa IP address, is purely coincidental. Right? And Teneycke's claim that his resignation is entirely motivated by his altruistic desire to see the Sun TV project succeed is sincere. The last thing a project like that needs is the additional publicity that comes along with controversy. Right? And the fact that no mention was made of his desire to spend more time with his family was merely an omission on O'Malley's part. Right?

I do hate to harsh the buzz but I wouldn't assume that Teneycke's departure marks the end of the Fox News North project. I've never felt that Teneycke was a good choice to actually bring a new television station into being. I'm sure Quebecor can find someone else to step in if they're determined to move ahead. You may yet see them make a better personnel decision and come right back at us. Happy to be wrong.

RCMP foot-dragging blamed for complaints backlog

OTTAWA -- The RCMP has been sitting on a pile of complaint findings for months, sparking concern about timely justice for those who have grievances against the national police force.

The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP says that as of last week it had been waiting 300 days or more for final signoff from the Mounties on 11 complaint investigations. Among them was a high-profile probe into the case of Robert Dziekanski, who died after being stunned with a Taser at Vancouver airport in October 2007.

Another 11 reports have been on the RCMP's desk for between 180 and 300 days, while a further 22 were sent to the force between 30 and 180 days ago.

The story makes a passing reference to Bill C-38, a pending piece of legislation designed to overhaul and strengthen the Public Complaints Commission. The Winnipeg Free Press had a report on it last month which I wrote about here. The "foot-dragging" described here wasn't an issue I focused on but the Free Press article raised it in reviewing former Public Complaints Commission chair Paul Kennedy's criticisms of the bill.

The new law also lacks time limits for the RCMP to respond to the commission's interim reports. That's problematic because, in one case, Kennedy waited over 800 days for the Mounties to reply, delaying his final report.

"That is just an intolerable situation, that someone can frustrate the process so easily," he said.

Without the kinds of time limits Kennedy talks about, the situation reported today is probably what we can look forward to. The RCMP cites the Olympics and the G20 as explanation for the backlog but that's just the current set of excuses. This abuse of process has been going on for years.

C-38 was just introduced in June and can still be amended. When it comes up in committee, I'd suggest that Kennedy be called as a witness. Get a thorough critique of the legislation from him. Then rewrite it.

Tories look to change - and control - fall storyline

OTTAWA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives are drafting a new storyline for their government in the coming session of Parliament, after a summer where control over the plot seemed to drift from their grasp.

Tory sources tell The Canadian Press that Harper wants high-profile policy initiatives and debates that will play on some of the party's familiar themes: law and order, the economy, respect for the military, the future of the mission in Afghanistan. Details are being held close to the vest by a tight circle of ministers and advisers.

First, let me get this out of the way: THEY'RE NOT TORIES!

Now, the emphasis in the second paragraph is mine. There may be an implicit admission here that the image of Conservatives as supporting the troops was undermined by their refusal to extend the term of outspoken Veterans Ombudsman Pat Stogran. But if history is any indication, the Harper government's idea of showing respect for the military will mainly involve claims that the other parties don't have any. In other words, I suspect the coming session of parliament will have at least the normal allotment of gutter politics and possibly more. When even the Americans are talking to the Taliban Harper's attack poodles may have to get a little more creative than they've been in the past but I'm sure they'll give it their best efforts. It's one of the few things they're genuinely good at.

Early in July Paul Koring at the Globe and Mail reported on new allegations of abuse by the NDS of prisoners transferred from Canadian Forces. The report was based on documents that had surfaced in a British court proceeding and involved accusations of mistreatment from the summer of 2009.

The same two allegations appear to be at the centre of a Canadian Press story that CTV News published yesterday evening. The timeline matches as does the description of the actual abuses the detainees claimed to suffer. And both stories note that in the end Canadian officials were content to take the word of the NDS which investigated itself and pronounced itself innocent of any wrongdoing.

There is a discrepancy. The original story reported that prisoner transfers were halted briefly while what passed for an investigation was conducted. The CP story reports that a halt was considered but never implemented. And the CP story contains a detail not previously reported.

New Afghan docs show feds prepared in 2007 to duck questions

New Afghan detainee documents reveal the government was prepared in late 2007 to duck questions about suspending detainee transfers because of torture in Afghan prisons and avoid confirming the fact that the transfers had already been secretly halted.

The documents, released at a Military Police Complaints Commission inquiry last week, also demonstrate concern within the Canadian government about torture soon after it had reached a new agreement with the Afghanistan government that was supposed to give Canada greater access to prisons to ensure abuse and torture were not taking place.

Close observers of the Harper government won't be surprised to learn that the government had a formal policy of keeping us in the dark while carefully managing the message. But it seems to me these documents reveal that the powers that be weren't just intent on ducking questions, they were ducking their responsibilities.

Robocalls are the work of the devil. Just stop it.

Love,
pogge

Majority of Canadians say Muslims don't share their values

Nine years after the devastating 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, a majority of Canadians don't believe Muslims share their values, according to a new public opinion poll released exclusively to Postmedia News.

A quote from the executive director of one of the organizations that commissioned the poll caught my eye:

I think the principal thing that worries me when you see these results is the tendency to generalize

And yet the poll you've commissioned encourages people to do just that by assuming that Muslims as a distinct block all share exactly the same values as do the rest of the population — the real Canadians as implied by the story's headline — who all embrace another set of values. Which is nonsense. In case it's not obvious by now, I'm white. And I was raised in the United Church. And I can point to a whole lot of white Christians who don't share my values. One of them is currently prime minister.

Blues, blues and more blues. Jumper On The Line was first recorded by a country blues artist named R. L. Burnside. This is Moreland & Arbuckle.

Justice Dennis O'Connor wrote that in the report resulting from his inquiry into Maher Arar's dentention. Arar himself quotes it in a post he published at Prism last Saturday on the national security establishment's use of strategic leaks to the media.

If anything the security people in Canada have mastered the art of selectively leaking investigative information to the media. By doing so they have succeeded in charging and convicting the arrested individuals in the court of public opinion. Of course this wouldn't have been possible without the direct complicity of some journalists and reporters.

He would know since he was smeared repeatedly in the press by unidentified security officials who assured us that there was no doubt about Arar's terrorist credentials. The leaks stopped when that same Justice O'Connor, after reviewing even the material you and I will never see, assured us that there wasn't a shred of evidence tying Arar to terrorists or terrorism. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever been held to account for lying about Arar in the media.

In yesterday's Calgary Sun:

OTTAWA -- Another Canadian general denied knowing Afghan detainees faced torture at the hands of local authorities and suggested an officer who raised those concerns with him was out of line.

And on the subject of the same officer's testimony at the same hearing, published yesterday at the CBC:

A senior Canadian military officer who helped manage the early days of Canada's combat mission in Kandahar has admitted torture likely occurred in Afghanistan prisons, but says reports of abuse were overblown.

I see a difference. Do you see a difference?

And incidentally the CBC story continues with this:

Maj.-Gen. Mike Ward told the Military Police Complaints Commission in Ottawa on Thursday that he didn't think the Canadian military had a responsibility for detainees it captured after they were passed to Afghan authorities.

The question of responsibility on the part of the Canadian Forces to ensure that detainees aren't being transferred to torture is the whole reason this story has been in the news to one degree or another for over two years now. It's a shame no one checked with the Major-General in the first place. It would have spared us a lot of trouble.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic. Ward's testimony certainly contradicts my understanding of the Geneva Conventions and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. Unless we're all wrong and he's right, how did he end up as "a senior staff officer at the Canadian military headquarters responsible for Afghanistan" without having his misconception corrected?

H/t to JB on Twitter for the Sun link.

Federal government should contribute over $100M towards Regina stadium: Liberal MP Ralph Goodale

REGINA -- The federal Conservative government should be contributing "well in excess of $100 million" to a new domed stadium in Regina, says Liberal Wascana MP Ralph Goodale.

Goodale -- a former federal finance minister who was recently named deputy leader of the federal Opposition Liberals -- said in an interview Wednesday that the other partners in the stadium project should expect at least that much from Ottawa.

Read on to learn that Goodale is demanding even more from the feds than the other partners in the project had asked for.

And when the Harper government decides to go ahead with their rumoured plan to buy votes in Quebec by funding an arena to house a National Hockey League franchise in Quebec City, the Liberals will of course call the Conservatives out for that cynical use of taxpayer dollars. Right?

It's too bad blogging doesn't require a stadium of some sort. I could be in line for some serious cash. (Yes, I'm in favour of stimulus when properly done. But sports arenas aren't infrastructure. And they typically end up costing the taxpayers even more than predicted while somehow, mysteriously, the people who own the sports franchises remain, you know, rich.)

This Postmedia News article was published yesterday and reports that the Military Police Complaints Commission hearings into the transfer of Afghan detainees were to resume today and should wind up by Christmas "despite two legal challenges in which the Federal Court has been asked to review the proceedings." It also includes details on the subjects of the inquiry that I'm not sure I've seen reported before. The two organizations referred to in the following are Amnesty International and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

The two human rights organizations that brought the complaint to the commission allege the military police failed in their duty to investigate the transfers to the custody of the Afghan police or National Directorate of Security.

...

In November and early December, the commission plans to hear from the eight men who are subjects of the complaint by the human rights groups.

They are four Canadian Forces provost marshals -- military police mangers -- and four commanders of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service. The service investigates alleged crimes and breaches of conduct and reports to provost marshals.

And in news that isn't really news, apparently the feds are still trying to block the commission's access to the documents they need to conduct their business.

Taken together, a pair of stories in this morning's news demonstrate a pretty nifty piece of bookkeeping.

A story in the Toronto Star reminds us that the enhancements to the Employment Insurance program that were implemented last year will expire this Saturday. People who lose their jobs next week will no longer qualify for the extra five weeks of EI benefits that were designed to mitigate the effects of the recession. That's if they qualify for EI at all which is a controversy of long standing. The story reports that only thirty per cent of the unemployed in Ontario are even entitled to benefits.

But the story also reminds us of another long standing controversy — when Finance Minister Paul Martin tightened the eligibility rules for EI it created a significant difference between the premiums coming in and the benefits going out. This report places the accumulated surplus in the program at $57 billion, which is in line with other reports over the years. (Google "Canada employment insurance surplus" for hours of reading material.) What the Star doesn't specifically remind us is that the money wasn't placed into a fund specifically earmarked for EI benefits; it was streamed into general revenue. The Conservative government of Stephen Harper was kind enough to fix that, which brings us to the Globe and Mail's contribution to this morning's tale.

"State Secrets" Trump Justice Again

The prospect of any legal accountability for the government's rendition, detention, and interrogation program dimmed dramatically this week. On Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the so-called "state secrets" privilege protects the government and its contractors from a lawsuit brought by five men who say they were kidnapped, flown to foreign countries, and tortured on the behalf of the American government. Even the ACLU, which supported the men in their suit, acknowledged that the decision "all but shuts the door on accountability for the illegal program."

I think this is one of those areas where a lot of people originally believed that the Obama administration would do things differently. But in this case they picked up right where the Bushies left off, using claims about "state secrets" to shut this lawsuit down cold. The best known of the five plaintiffs is Binyam Mohamed. Is there anyone left on the planet who now doubts that the man was kidnapped, detained and tortured? But no one is ever going to be held to account for it. The only course of appeal left is to the Supreme Court and given the Roberts court's history of deference to power, I simply don't see any possibility that they would overturn this ruling.

Afghan intelligence officer bragged about torture, documents show

A member of Afghanistan's notorious intelligence service boasted to Canadian military officers last year that his organization was able to "torture" or "beat" prisoners during the course of its investigations.

This is a Canadian Press story and it credits this disclosure to "federal documents" but doesn't explain how CP came by the documents. If this revelation is because of that special committee of MPs, it certainly snuck up on us. I'll keep an eye out for more news on that front.

Meanwhile the story reports that this incident occurred in May of last year and that as a result the government temporarily stopped the transfer of prisoners to the NDS. That halt in transfers was acknowledged in the House of Commons by Peter MacKay last fall but he didn't disclose the reason. That would be the same Peter MacKay who has repeatedly — and loudly — insisted that there isn't a single shred of evidence — not a single shred, I tell you — to support the possibility that any prisoners transferred from Canadian custody have ever been mistreated.

No, this revelation won't get us a public inquiry. But I'm going to keep asking anyway.

H/t to Steve Hynd on Twitter.

The Toronto Star reports that a naval officer in the Canadian Forces is taking climate change quite seriously.

A recently published article by Lt.-Cmdr. Ray Snook of the defence department's directorate of maritime strategy says the military may have to step in if conflicts flare over dwindling supplies of food and water.

"There will be a clear need for peace support operations too, and being called upon to intervene overseas and to help prevent or to resolve conflicts may occur more frequently," he wrote in the summer issue of the Canadian Naval Review.

In fact, Snook makes a succinct and unequivocal statement that I can heartily endorse.

Climate change has the potential to be a global threat of unparalleled magnitude and requires early, aggressive action in order to overcome its effects.

Absolutely right. Now have you ever heard a statement like that from the Harper government? Outside of beating their chests in the north where the warming trend is opening up maritime access and potential resource extraction, are they actively drawing attention to the magnitude of the problem posed by catastrophic climate change and pursuing strategies to minimize it as much as possible? Perhaps the DND can enlighten us further as to any conversations they've had with our civilian leadership on the matter.

The department declined further comment on Snook's article.

Wouldn't surprise me a bit. And I note that the focus here seems to be on potential intervention in other parts of the world and not on getting our own house in order. Still, it's good to know that DND personnel are at least looking ahead and trying to come up with contingency plans to meet some pretty dire possibilities. Perhaps the government should try that. And if they already are, perhaps they should consider sharing.

Ezra Levant.

I had thought about something on a grander scale, such as "Wanker of the Millennium", but I'm fairly certain that the crew at Sun Media will find ways to equal or even surpass this particular load of wankery. I have confidence in them.

Experts predict unemployment rate will stay steady

Canadians scouring want-ads or those nervously hoping they'll hang on to their jobs are unlikely to get much comfort from job figures in the coming months as the unemployment rate is expected to stubbornly hover around the eight per cent mark, experts predict.

As the engines of economic growth gear down -- to a mere two per cent of Gross Domestic Product in the latest quarter --Canadians should get used to seeing the number eight in headlines and feeling its effects on their finances.

Economists say the eight per cent unemployment rate will persist and cast a pallor on prospects for hiring and income levels into next year.

Early on in the proceedings that article informs us that the 400,000 jobs lost during the recession have returned. But farther down it quotes the CLC's Andrew Jackson pointing out that many of those jobs have returned as part-time or temporary positions. So the reality is actually worse than a casual glance at the numbers would suggest.

Of course the numbers are even worse in the U.S. where they're also predicting that the current rate of unemployment will persist for quite a while, which is another way of saying that the American government doesn't intend to do much about it. The phrase "structural unemployment" seems to surface more often in their media, suggesting ominously that the powers that be are not only prepared to accept the formation of a permanent underclass of unemployed but are prepared to acknowledge it publicly.

But the banking sector is healthy and corporate profits have bounced back so it's all good. It's time to tighten our belts so we can balance the books and cut corporate taxes.

They seem to grow a lot of excellent musicians in Louisiana. This is Galactic performing Chris Cross.

Susan Delacourt of the Toronto Star weighs in on the Sun Media/Avaaz.org dust-up and refers to an issue I noted in a post yesterday. From Delacourt's post:

... Kory Teneycke seemed to have inside knowledge of the fake names on the petition, and thanks to some dogged inquiry by O'Malley and Avaaz, we learn that these fake names were submitted by one person -- either known by Kory or Kory himself.

When Teneycke originally tweeted in response to O'Malley's question he said he'd received the information from an anonymous source. I took that at face value yesterday and merely pointed to the failure of journalistic standards involved in taking a single anonymous report that couldn't be verified and publishing it without qualification. But the timing, the fact that the anonymous source was also the person who sabotaged the petition and the way it conveniently provided ammunition for Teneycke to use made it easy to suspect an inside job. Delacourt rightly points to the problem that would raise.

Care for some blues?

There's some interesting guitar technique here. I can't make out a lot of the lyrics so they're here if you want them. But I can make out enough to know that he doesn't sing them in the same order. This is Booker T. Washington White. He was also known as Bukka White but he apparently preferred the proper spelling of his first name. The song is Aberdeen, Mississippi Blues.

For a news channel that hasn't even made its first broadcast yet, the Sun TV News Channel is certainly generating a lot of buzz. If you can call it that. A number of other bloggers have already noted today's op-ed by Kory Teneycke. He seems to be quite agitated at the idea that some people aren't altogether thrilled with the prospect of what they've already dubbed "Fox News North" (and believe me, now that I know the phrase irritates Teneycke, I'm likely to use it every chance I get).

The piece was apparently prompted by Margaret Atwood's public endorsement of a petition which Teneycke — proponent of "Hard News and Straight Talk" — characterized as "opposing the television licence for Sun TV News." Actually the petition itself makes a specific objection to pressure alleged to be applied to CRTC Chair Konrad von Finckenstein, apparently responding to reports that Prime Minister Harper might intervene to get the project a type of licence, and funding along with it, for which it wouldn't otherwise qualify. It doesn't say anything about denying Sun TV any kind of licence. Perhaps Teneycke feels that's implied but if that's the case, he might have said so. Wouldn't hard news reporting include reporting the exact meaning of the language used?

In the inevitable exchanges on Twitter that followed there was also an intriguing question raised about this paragraph.

Atwood is not the only A-list "celebrity" that has signed. Dwight Shroot (from The Office), Boba Fett (of Star Wars), Snuffaluffagus (Sesame Street) and Homer Simpson are also signatories. Clearly the CRTC should take note of such distinguished individuals lending their name to this smear job.

I believe it was Kady O'Malley who first wondered aloud how it was that Teneycke knew which fictitious characters had signed the petition when the names hadn't been published. It was definitely O'Malley who followed up and then tweeted just a few minutes ago.

alright, just chatted with @KoryTeneycke , who was sent those names by an unnamed source who had added them him/herself.

So someone intentionally messed with the petition and then contacted Teneycke to report that someone was messing with the petition. Some anonymous person told Teneycke something that he can't otherwise verify and he reported it in a national newspaper without qualification.

Hard news and straight talk. I think it's going well so far, don't you?

Ibbitson has the Globe and Mail's version of today's big political news: the announced departure of the PM's Chief of Staff Guy Giorno by the end of this year. After dealing with that specific issue, the story provides a bit of a forecast on what we can expect in federal politics in the coming months, including this:

...the Conservative Leader is already test-driving what will doubtless become a relentless message: that Canada is really a two-party state, with the Conservatives on one side and a "coalition," as he calls it, of the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois on the other.

Never mind that the other parties don't think of themselves as a coalition. It is Mr. Harper's political good fortune that a coalition is governing Britain and will eventually be cobbled together in Australia. And a coalition is just what Mr. Ignatieff's predecessor, Stéphane Dion, attempted. So the idea is in the air.

If countries with which many Canadians are familiar and can more easily identify are now (or are soon to be) governed by coalitions and haven't descended into bloody chaos and anarchy, doesn't that make the idea of a coalition seem more familiar and benign as opposed to more exotic and dangerous? How is that good for Harper's intention to base his whole campaign on the idea of running against a coalition?

Or is this a case of: it's always good news for Conservatives?

Harper hints at extraordinary terror measures

Lapsed anti-terror provisions -- extraordinary measures the Conservative government has been trying to revive -- might have been useful in the current effort to round up suspects in an alleged bomb plot, the prime minister hinted Wednesday.

...

Asked whether the government planned to bring back exceptional powers to arrest terror suspects, Harper pointed to the bill, which is still at first-reading stage.

"There is some legislation in this regard that we would like to see passed, but obviously as we watch these particular incidents we'll carefully examine our laws to make sure they're adequate to deal with the circumstances that do arise from time to time," Harper said in Mirabel, Que.

Harper was referring to Bill C-17, aka The Combating Terrorism Act. It was introduced in April of this year and is intended to revive controversial measures — preventative arrests and investigative hearings — that were first implemented after 9/11 but with sunset clauses. Those measures were allowed to lapse when an extension of them failed to win majority support in the Commons in 2007.

Impolitical applauds a column by Lawrence Martin that encourages Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff to create a Bring Back Democracy platform. Martin suggests a number of specific points designed to reduce the concentration of power in the PMO and make government more open and accountable.

I think Martin overlooks an important one though. We have an electoral system that allows a party with the support of roughly 40% of the electorate to govern as if it has an absolute majority. Surely fixing that should be at the top of the list of Things To Do Today for anyone who wants to make this country more democratic.

And I'm going to disagree with Impolitical on one point.

Bring. It. On. At the appropriate time, of course.

This is the appropriate time. Stephen Harper has clearly indicated his intention to run his next election campaign based on misconceptions about our system of government. What better way to combat that than to encourage a conversation that, by its very nature, will help to educate people about how the system actually works? But can we do justice to the subject in the thirty-odd days of a federal election campaign?

It's conventional wisdom among pundits and politicians that Canadians have no appetite for discussions about governance and constitutional issues. I would have thought that all the attention paid to that last prorogation of parliament would have disabused a lot of them of that notion.

Don't hide information, governments advised

Canada's governments, in the interest of gaining public trust and building a "robust democracy," should open their files and provide much more information to Canadians.

This is the message that emerged Wednesday in a joint resolution released by information and privacy commissioners representing the federal, provincial and territorial governments.

That would represent a complete reversal in policy for our current federal government just as it would have for previous Liberal governments. The trend in Canada for years has been towards greater government secrecy and the politicization of the Access to Information system. I guess it can't hurt to keep encouraging governments to do better and I applaud these folks for trying. But there's a part of this issue they overlook.

In particular, the commissioners are calling on politicians and bureaucrats to embrace the principle of "open government" -- a shift they say is occurring in other nations such as the United States, where President Barack Obama has made it easier for Americans to get access to information, usually online. Meanwhile, government leaders in Britain and Australia have also recently endorsed the idea.

In some respects, it's true that Obama has improved access to information. He has also done far more than his predecessor ever did to cast a chill on whistleblowers by attempting to prosecute those — including journalists — who have tried to shine some light on government abuses. If this discussion is about being able to hold governments accountable then protection for whistleblowers has to be a part of it. If the U.S., Britain and Australia are so good at it, why is WikiLeaks striking up relationships with Iceland and Sweden?

This is a conversation we should be having. But there are so many of those these days.

Budget cuts hurting embassies: DFAIT reports

Recent budget cuts at Canadian embassies and high commissions are having dramatic ramifications on the country's representation abroad, according to Foreign Affairs reports.

In particular, the documents reveal that last summer's decision to slash travel and hospitality budgets has made it difficult to make key contacts and build trade relations, and has kept missions from covering more than one country effectively.

This is a story that has been unfolding for at least three and a half years — a Conservative government that has publicly boasted about restoring Canada's place in the world has quietly closed consulates, sold off property, slashed budgets and hollowed out the Department of Foreign Affairs. Harper's foreign policy appears to be fairly simple — do what the Americans and Israelis tell us to do and pretend it was our idea. I guess that doesn't require a very big budget. Except for the weapons systems, of course.

Court clears way for Abdelrazik torture lawsuit

The [Federal Court of Canada] has dismissed the federal government's attempt to strike out much of the lawsuit filed by Abousfian Abdelrazik.

...

Abelrazik (sic) alleges negligence on the part of Canadian Security Intelligence Service officials that resulted in his detention and caused him severe physical and mental injuries.

I would add negligence on the part of the federal government, and specifically Lawrence Cannon, who refused to lift a finger to aid Abdelrazik until the courts forced the issue. Needless to say I'll be watching this one.