Paper Dynamite Online Print Archive

Why Quebec is spurning Dion: the compact myth

2007-09-26T04:05:00.000-05:00

Why Quebec is spurning Dion: the compact myth

By WILLIAM JOHNSON
Author and a former president of Alliance Quebec

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 – Page A19

No, it's not possible. Can the federal Liberals have plunged so low in their once impregnable Quebec fortress? Some finger Stéphane Dion. Others smell poison lingering from the sponsorship scandal. But another factor, more fundamental, goes ignored: "the compact between the two founding peoples."

Brian Mulroney described it in his senior-college-year essay, according to his biographer, L. Ian MacDonald: "To the French, [Confederation] is a pact between French and English, which guarantees each group an equal right to its own faith, language, laws and customs." In fact, this compact theory is a myth. It was first enunciated in 1904 by nationalist icon Henri Bourassa; its progression is traced by political scientist Stéphane Paquin in his 1999 book, L'invention d'un mythe: Le pacte entre deux peuples fondateurs.

Soon taken up by nationalist historian Lionel Groulx, this invention spread among historians, then politicians. By the 1950s, it was articulated as the foundational fact of Canada by a royal commission launched by Maurice Duplessis. It's been the doctrine of every Quebec premier since, turning into an axiom, a historic grievance and a vision for reconstructing Canada. And every premier's duty is to rewrite the Constitution to make Quebec as equal as possible to English Canada.

Jean Lesage: "Today's Quebec must possess and control ... the economic, social, administrative and political levers that will enable it to realize its legitimate aspirations as an adult people." Daniel Johnson Sr. threw down an ultimatum: "Égalité ou indépendence." Under Claude Ryan, the Quebec Liberal Party published its constitutional policy, Une nouvelle fédération canadienne: "This reform aims above all at inscribing in the fundamental law of Canada the principle of the equality of the two peoples that founded modern Canada."

That included the right to secede at will, the abolition of the Senate, the transfer of all residual powers to the provinces and the repeal of the federal power "to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada." Such was the constitutional policy on which Robert Bourassa's Liberals were elected in 1985.

But the platform cautioned: "The current context is not favourable to a comprehensive reform of Canadian federalism. And so we must adopt a pragmatic approach and proceed in stages." And so Mr. Bourassa put forward five conditions for recognizing that Quebec was bound by the 1982 Constitution Act. Meech Lake was only to set the stage for later, as Mr. Bourassa's justice minister signalled, "the Quebec government wanted to establish on a solid basis the foundations of a comprehensive constitutional reform to come in a second stage of negotiations."

The "two founding peoples" doctrine clashed with the political culture of Canada. And so a constant tug of war emerged as Quebeckers voted simultaneously for politicians in Ottawa and Quebec City who were at odds with each other. Mr. Duplessis fought with Louis St. Laurent, Lester Pearson with Mr. Lesage, Pierre Trudeau with Daniel Johnson Sr., with Mr. Bourassa and René Lévesque. And this paradox was an accepted part of Quebec's political culture. The political class pushed for two founding peoples, and ordinary Quebeckers kept voting Liberal federally.

Mr. Trudeau patriated the Constitution against the Péquiste majority in the National Assembly, but all remained quiet. Polls showed support for secession dropping between 1980 and 1987, the year of Meech Lake. But everything changed after Mr. Mulroney thundered against patriation - and so the Constitution - as leaving Quebec betrayed, humiliated, isolated. The magician's conjuring proved so effective that ordinary Quebeckers converted to his view that the federal Liberals were guilty of high lèse-Québec.

Eventually, Mr. Mulroney and his Conservatives were discredited across Canada. But, instead of turning back to the Liberals, Quebeckers drew the logical conclusion of Mr. Mulroney's revisionism and voted for the Bloc Québécois.

The rest of the country turned the page on the Mulroney era after Stephen Harper reunified the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives. But, in Quebec, his influence lives on.

Quebeckers had accepted patriation, had accepted Mr. Trudeau's rejection of "two founding peoples," of special status, "distinct society," and his refusal in 1980 to be bound by the results of the referendum on sovereignty-association. But now, thanks to Mr. Mulroney, the Liberals are distrusted in Quebec, and Stéphane Dion is spurned for his Plan B and the Clarity Act.

Quebec will fit uneasily in the federation so long as it is governed by the myth of the two founding peoples.

Dion's Quebec disconnect

2007-09-25T04:46:00.000-05:00

Dion's Quebec disconnect

By LYSIANE GAGNON

Monday, September 24, 2007 – Page A19

What's wrong with Stéphane Dion? Why is the Liberal leader unable to restore his party's fortunes in his own province? Why have the Tories replaced the party of Laurier, Trudeau and Chrétien as the first federalist party in Quebec?

These questions are more timely than ever, after the abysmal performance of the Liberal Party in last week's Quebec by-elections.

Not only did the Liberal Party lose its historical stronghold of Outremont - a multicultural riding in which, as the saying went, anything red, a pole or a pig, would be automatically elected - it ended up with less than 10 per cent of the vote in the French-speaking ridings of Roberval and St-Hyacinthe.

The Liberal establishment argues that by-elections don't mean much. Wrong. In this case, they do. By-elections usually bring out a protest vote and thus favour the opposition party; but this time around, the governmental party was the overall winner. The Tories won a landslide in the Bloc Québécois bastion of Roberval, and substantially increased their share of the vote in St-Hyacinthe. Even the victory of the NDP candidate Thomas Mulcair in Outremont is good news for the Tories, since the Liberal Party and the NDP compete for the left-of-centre vote.

The prospects for the Liberals in Quebec are bleak. A Leger Marketing poll a few days before the by-elections shows that among francophone voters, the Liberal Party, with 16 per cent of the vote, is trailing the Bloc (43 per cent) and the Tories (25 per cent). While 26 per cent of Quebec voters chose Stephen Harper as the best man for prime minister, only 9 per cent (and 7 per cent of francophones) chose Mr. Dion, who even comes far behind NDP leader Jack Layton (18 per cent).

The Liberal establishment argues that the party's misfortune in Quebec is a sequel to the sponsorship scandal. Wrong again. This scandal is history. Practically nobody talks about it, and in any case, Mr. Dion was not personally linked to the sponsorship operation. The simple truth is that Mr. Dion is not liked in Quebec and that francophone voters don't identify with him.

At the outset, when he ran for the leadership, Mr. Dion had very little support in Quebec. Most delegates sided with Michael Ignatieff. After becoming leader, he was unable to rally Mr. Ignatieff's partisans. Many Quebec Liberals are staying on the sidelines, waiting for a general election and a change of leadership.

The sovereigntists still hate Mr. Dion for having been such a staunch adversary of their cause, and Mr. Dion has been unable to connect with the soft nationalists who make up the larger group of francophone voters. At best, the non-sovereigntist francophones are indifferent to him.

The Liberal Leader's new image as an environmentalist serves him well, but only up to a point. He comes across as stubborn and arrogant, and his policies are hard to follow. On Afghanistan, for instance, his relentless insistence that the government fix a precise date for a retreat of the troops seems needlessly quarrelsome.

The Liberal leader is increasingly alienated from his home province. Either because he wanted it this way or because he couldn't find anybody reliable to work with, he is almost exclusively surrounded by anglophone advisers from Ontario. His rare francophone advisers - people like former cabinet minister Marcel Massé, press secretary Robert Asselin or Marc Lavigne, who was in charge of the organization for Quebec - resigned one after the other, allegedly because Mr. Dion wouldn't take any advice about how to deal with the province.

"The boss doesn't listen to anybody," an insider says, "and that's a problem, especially when one doesn't have a great deal of political instinct." As if to confirm this judgment, the day after his party's beating in the Quebec by-elections, Mr. Dion couldn't find anything better to do than to champion the cause of Omar Khadr, a terrorism suspect whose family had links with al-Qaeda.

Democracy

2007-09-10T16:45:00.001-05:00

WigWamWag (See profile | I'm a fan of WigWamWag)
HOW LONG DO WE HAVE TO SAVE AMERICA?

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government."

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."

"From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years."

"During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the
following sequence:

1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage"

Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

2007-09-03T13:09:00.001-05:00

Taking the pulse of the country

2007-08-29T18:18:00.001-05:00

Taking the pulse of the country
Globe and Mail Update
August 28, 2007 at 3:05 PM EDT

Canadians continue to have mixed feelings about Stephen Harper even as they grow more comfortable with the direction he is taking their county.

A new survey conducted in mid-August for The Globe and Mail and CTV by The Strategic Counsel suggests the Conservatives and the Liberals remain in a popularity deadlock with each party being named as the first choice of 33 per cent of respondents.

But as pollsters Peter Donolo and Tim Woolstencroft write in today's Globe: "Don't let the neck-and-neck party standings fool you. After a year and a half in office, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has built up some impressive political capital.

"Nearly six out of 10 Canadians think the country is on the right track. Even if he's not setting Canadians' hearts aflame, most have a neutral-to-positive impression of Mr. Harper. He's seen as a decisive leader. A majority believe he's kept his promises. And most Canadians trust him to do the right thing for the country.

Peter Donolo (Handout)
Related Articles
Recent
• Strategic Counsel: How Harper can increase his chances of winning a majority government?
• Globe-CTV poll: The Harper paradox
• Globe editorial: Why is Harper treading water?
Photogallery
• Graphics: Key findings of the poll
Internet Links
• Complete poll details (pdf)

Does that mean we can expect a majority Conservative government when the dust settles on the next federal election? And who does Mr. Harper need to court to make that happen?

Mr. Donolo is joining us today from 2-3 p.m. EDT to take your questions on the poll.

Join the Conversation by submitting a question or comment. Your questions and Mr. Donolo's answers will appear at the bottom of this page.

Mr. Donolo was director of communications for Prime Minister Jean Chrétien from 1993 to 1999.

He oversaw communications strategies for a number of the most important government initiatives and most contentious political and public policy issues of that decade and also directed the prime minister's personal communications.

He is now a partner with The Strategic Counsel, one of Canada's most respected market research and strategic communications consultants.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Christine Diemert, globeandmail.com: Mr. Donolo, thanks for joining us this afternoon to discuss federal politics and the most recent Globe and Mail/CTV Strategic Counsel poll. Since we've had a lot of comments and questions posted already, I'll get right to the discussion.

Paula Gaul from Rossland Canada writes: I believe that for the most part, Mr. Harper is doing the right things for the country, and I hope that he does win a majority. This may seem shallow, but he still strikes a lot of people as a bit cold.

Do you think that he can get outside and go for walks every day like the Prime Minister of Australia does — get a bit of a colour on his face, stay healthy and fight off the weight gain? I know it's a small thing, but that stuff really does matter, and it could make him seem more approachable.

Peter Donolo: There's no question that appearances matter. But what matters more, I think, is authenticity.

If Mr. Harper — or any other politician — tries to behave in a way that the public feels is too contrived, or synthetic, the public will sense it.

Moreover, let's not underestimate the public. They care about substance, not just style. Mr. Harper needs also to assuage the substantive concerns that potential voters still have.

Paul Faulkenham from Canada writes: I'd hate to think that one day Stephen Harper will lead this country, Canada to God knows where. Will we become the 53rd state of the United States as Harper seems to be more of a yes man to the United States than was Paul Martin. I have no doubt that there were things that went on behind the scenes of general Politics that we Canadians never knew about, but that being said at least Paul Martin knew that the word No existed in the English dictionary.

I'm afraid that Mr. Harper will forget that we Canadians are a proud lot and that most of us do know how to say no. I'm not a naysayer to the American Government but if it had of been up to Mr. Harper we would have been far more involved with the Americans in their war efforts with various countries and as a proud Canadian I don't think we need the hassles of war. Do you? It's bad enough that we are helping out now in foreign lands, buy hey, enough is enough.

Peter Donolo: There's no question that a majority of Canadians are very sensitive on the subject on Canadian independence from the US. That's why being perceived as being too close with an American President — especially one as unpopular among Canadians as Mr. Bush — can be politically dangerous for a Canadian government.

It's important to note that demonstrating Canada's independence and differentiating ourselves from the US don't need to descend into acts of blatant or cheap anti-Americanism.

For example, prime minister Jean Chrétien got along very well with Bill Clinton. That said, staking out an opposing position from the Clinton administration by championing an international treaty to ban land mines was smart politics, as well as solid policy - it showed a Canadian government marching to its own drum.

The same applies to prime minister Brian Mulroney's aggressive opposition to apartheid in South Africa in the 1980s. Mr. Mulroney was very closely aligned with then-US President Ronald Reagan, who was in the opposite camp on the issue. By tacking a different course on this particular issue, Mr. Mulroney was able to demonstrate an independence that many Canadians wanted and expected from Ottawa.

G G from Canada writes: Don't let the neck and neck poll standings fool you' is an understatement if I ever heard one. When it comes time to vote the Liberals are going to be buried - they have currently been cremated.

Peter Donolo: It's a little premature to predict the outcome of the next election.

Our poll suggests a number of steps that Mr. Harper can take to try and win over soft Liberal voters.

But the Liberals also have opportunities to augment their vote base. For example, negative attitudes toward Mr. Harper are deepest and most entrenched among NDP voters - who also told us they had a higher propensity to switch votes. What's more, these voters overwhelmingly pick the Liberals as their second choice. The same is true — to a greater or lesser degree — for Green voters.

So if the Liberals can effectively polarize the choice — convincing these voters that they are the best way to get rid of Mr. Harper and his government, they could benefit considerably.

The problem for the Liberals is that they will be fighting on two fronts. While they're trying to win over those NDP and Green voters, Mr. Harper will be doing the same thing with their vote.

Dan Green from Toronto Canada writes: I am convinced, regardless of who was prime minister, Canadians prefer a minority government.

Peter Donolo: That's an interesting thesis. A number of commentators have written about the moderating effect a minority has on governments.

We didn't ask about it in this survey. Though, we did in April. And the results were interesting. Forty five per cent didn't think it would make any difference to them whether Mr. Harper had a majority, and it was essentially a saw off between those in the rest of the population who thought a majority would be a good or bad thing.

Of course, that's absent an election campaign focused on the issue. But I think it's a good reminder that those of us more closely focused on the day-to-day politics may make a bigger deal about the whole majority/minority issue than does the general public.

Adam Berel Wetstein from Toronto Canada writes: Why wasn't the biggest difference addressed: gender split on Harper? I have seen polls that except in Alberta, Harper trails Dion by fifteen per cent. Maybe having two guys interpret a poll just made them miss this critical difference.

Peter Donolo: In terms of party support, there is indeed a gender gap.

Conservative support skews more toward men than women. In fact in its coverage last month of our July poll on party standings, The Globe and Mail outlined the Conservatives' lower levels of support among women.

That said, on the questions we asked this month about Mr. Harper's personal characteristics, the attitudes of women respondents were not as dramatically different as those of men. They were about as likely to describe Mr. Harper as "controlling" as were male respondents, and actually somewhat less likely to describe him as "partisan."

Maureen Haslehurst from Courtenay Canada writes: Mr. Harper appears to be a worthy strategist. What makes me nervous is his shoot from the hip mentality. This behaviour is evident with his co-authoring of the Alberta firewall letter in 2001 suggesting the Federal government was aggressive and hostile, his letter to the United States apologizing on behalf of all Canadians for not participating in the Iraq war and finally his statement as opposition leader that greenhouse gases were in fact the breath of life. He later backtracked from these missteps but what will be his knee jerk reaction to a future situation which could leave our country in peril?

Peter Donolo: There's no question this is concern — broadly speaking — that is shared by other Canadians and is inhibiting their support.

The legacy of statements like these is one reason so many believe he "does whatever George Bush wants", or is too controlling or right wing. By now the risks of striking such a tone should be clear to Mr. Harper. And if he wants to broaden his vote base, he needs to keep it in check.

Z S from Montreal Canada writes: Hi Mr. Donolo, Thank you very much for your coming to this conversation. I read the 'The Harper Paradox' in the globe and mail today. The interpretation of survey data isn't fully convincing. The main conflictive point is that majority of Canadians think the country is on the right track but the PM still doesn't win the majority of Canadian hearts. As we know, data is fixed.

Interpretation is flexible. People can argue that the country is on the right track because the minority government under checking of opposition but Canadians still don't trust the PM. The second unconvinced point is Liberal voter shifting. According to experience of past two federal elections, liberal voters and NDP voters often shift between these parties, some may be protest voting, some may be strategic voting.

Fewer liberal voters go to the conservative side. The author seems not to mention this point. What do you think? Thank you.

Peter Donolo: You're right that there are many factors that contribute to the sense that the country is on the right track. Though, I'm not sure an appreciation for the fact that we have a minority parliament is one of them.

I would think the state of the economy is a contributor — especially with a 6-per-cent unemployment rate. It's worth noting, however, that these strong economic conditions existed two years ago, but that didn't keep Quebec respondents at the time from being pessimistic about the direction of the country — at the time fewer than 30 per cent felt Canada was on the right track. Today the number is closer to 60.

In terms of Liberal-NDP switching, two points. One: the good news for the Liberals is that the percentage of NDP voters open to switching is large and growing — and they overwhelmingly opt for the Liberals as their second choice.

Here's point number two, the bad news. The percentage of Liberals who say they would change their vote is growing too. It's up to almost half the Liberal column. And here's the rub: unlike the last election, when they would likely opt NDP before voting Conservative, today they tell us they're just as likely to go Conservative as NDP.

Emperor Joshua Norton from Toronto Canada writes: The polls continue to suggest that Canadians are not impressed with either Harper or Dion — at least not enough to give them a majority government. How long will Harper or Dion try to hold onto power? Will they decide to step down for the good of the party or will their party have to force them out?

Peter Donolo: As it stands now, barring some kind of act of nature, both Mr. Harper and Mr. Dion will lead their parties into the next election. That's the way our party system works.

I would also beware of blanket statements about any given leader's electability. How many people wrote off Stephen Harper's chances in the months before the last election? Conversely, how many pundits in the early part of this decade were predicting Paul Martin would win a majority of historic proportions?

The fact is that election periods and campaigns are very important. They do two things: the focus the public's mind on choices and priorities, and they test the mettle of party leaders. Sometimes those leaders surprise by meeting or exceeding the test, and other times by flaming out. And the history of our elections has plenty of examples of both experiences.

John MacDougall from Iqaluit Canada writes: Yes, Harper is decisive. But so was Hitler. I'm sure Mr. Donolo doesn't admire Hitler. Could he be more specific as to why he likes Harper's decisiveness?

David Imrie from Winnipeg, MB writes: Stephen Harper fails to excite many people. How can the Liberals appear to look stronger? Dion is a very solid individual with similar ideas to your old boss, but how can he jump ahead of Harper, get rid of the NDP as a major political influence and win some votes in Quebec?

Peter Donolo: I clump these two questions together not because they have anything in common, but because they illustrate my point.

John's question (or, more accurately, statement) points out the polarizing, highly-charged reactions Mr. Harper brings out among some voters.

My old friend Dave Imrie asks how Mr. Dion can defeat Mr. Harper. One thing he has to do is to become the default choice for those who have this strong aversion to the Conservatives. Right now, he's not. Those votes are being shared with the NDP and Green Party, and to a lesser extent, the Bloc. If he wants to win, he can't afford to split or share those votes.

The Quebec issue is even dicier. The fact is that Mr. Harper has turned some heads in Quebec. Whether it's recognizing Quebec as a "nation" or being perceived to correct the so-called fiscal imbalance, he's made some inroads — particularly outside Montreal. And by the way, here the right track/wrong trtack turnaround is important.

Mr. Dion needs to focus on the areas where Quebeckers are much less comfortable with Mr. Harper: Kyoto, Afghanistan, Canada-US relations. Incidentally, these are issues that Mr. Harper kept a million miles away from during his Quebec byelection foray over the weekend. That is pretty strong proof of how vulnerable he feels they make him.

Rita Pollock from Canada writes: I'm not too happy with the Liberals or the conservatives. Both have ignored enhancing Universal Medicare and allowed private clinics to rise up instead of expanding the Public care.

Also, I am mystified why Canadians would think it was okay to increase our allowance of foreign ownership of our companies. With Stelco being bought by a US company and countless others now foreign owned, we wont have any control over our resources. A prime example is how much of our gas and oil is owned by others. Canadians and politicians say they want Canada to be a sovereign nation as they sell it off to the highest bidder. I think it is time to stop shareholders from selling us off for a few extra cents on the dollar while our country goes down the drain.

Peter Donolo: This head office "hollowing out" issue may be a real sleeper. Our polling shows that a large majority of Canadians - including a majority of Conservative voters are concerned about it. And a majority wants the government to do something about it. The problem, of course, is that there's no obvious answer or clear consensus about what that "something" ought to be.

The risk is that if this issue grows it can create a malaise that clouds people's sunny economic views. And for Mr. Harper, who is already suspected by many of being too pro-American, it would be particularly unhelpful development.

Christine Diemert, globeandmail.com: I'm afraid we've run out of time for our discussion. We had a lot of comments and questions and obviously people have plenty to say about their Prime Minister and his government. We're sorry if not everyone's question was answered, but it will surely not be the last time we have such conversations. Thanks Mr. Donolo for joining us.

In this country, everyone gets to vote. Pity.

2007-08-13T07:44:00.000-05:00

In this country, everyone gets to vote. Pity.

By DAN LEGER | 6:15 AM

IS THERE such a thing as an ideal citizen? And if so, should those citizens have rights some others don’t enjoy, like voting?

That’s a decidedly undemocratic concept, but some scholars are daring to think about it, if only in theory. It’s not hard to see why.

Voter turnout is dropping just about everywhere elections are held, including in Canada. Many people proudly ignore political news in the newspapers and on TV. They can’t be bothered to find out who is leading them and they dismiss politicians with smug generalities about corruption and self-aggrandizement.

Citizens closer to the democratic ideal are committed to the political process and understand the principle of public service. They do care about who is governing them and how they’re doing it. They make the effort of citizenship.

But often those citizens are subject to the insults of the wilfully ignorant who, despite their civic laziness, enjoy precisely the same democratic rights and privileges as the well-informed.

It’s far too easy to blame Stephen Harper or Rodney MacDonald or Peter Kelly for our carelessness about politics. The problem is not only with the parties or their leaders, although their obsessive self-interest is part of it.

I think the deeper problem resides in us.

On the federal level, turnout hit a low of less than 61 per cent in 2004, but rebounded some in 2006 to just under 65 per cent. But as recently as the late 1980s, more than 75 per cent of those eligible voted.

And those are federal numbers. In federal elections, parties spend massively to advertise, promoting the election along with their own messages. It stands to reason that if people are aware that an election is going on, chances are better they will vote.

Turnout is plummeting in the provinces, even in places where traditional turnout is high. In the 2006 provincial election here in Nova Scotia, 61.6 per cent of eligible voters cast ballots, the lowest participation rate since Confederation.

But while fewer people want to think about politics, they still have opinions, and those opinions have an influence on government behaviour.

Economist Bryan Caplan argues in a new book, The Myth of the Rational Voter, that most people are not rational when it comes to politics, the economy or public policy.

For example, people mistrust markets, so they favour regulation. In Nova Scotia, people demand gasoline regulation even though it actually makes gas more expensive.

People don’t understand foreigners, so they demand trade barriers to protect home markets from competition. Call the Council of Canadians for more on that.

Caplan also points out that people think employment and prosperity are the same thing, so they defend jobs in obsolete industries. We’ve seen plenty of that in Nova Scotia over the years.

In fact, many people vastly overrate the ability of government to improve their lives. So politicians who promise simple solutions to the complex problems of modern society tend to get elected.

But since complicated problems aren’t solved simply, government often seems dysfunctional. Elected politicians do things that are not in the public interest, notoriously in the way George W. Bush invaded Iraq to "fight terrorism" and ended up encouraging it.

Politicians also make mistakes because they rely too much on public opinion polls that have operated almost unchanged since they were invented by George Gallup in the 1930s.

Gallup’s techniques capture snapshot information about what people are thinking on a given day, at a given time. They don’t tell the whole story.

Polling expert James Fishkin of Stanford University has developed an entirely new kind of poll, in which people spend time learning about political or economic subjects before they take a survey.

In Fishkin’s "deliberative polls," people think before they respond. They don’t just give instant reactions. Their views are informed, giving the poll value well beyond the snapshot.

Perhaps elections should adopt a similar model. Perhaps people should actually have to study the candidates, parties and issues before they are handed a ballot. They would then cast an informed vote, not make a wild guess.

The media would have to change the way they cover politics and public attitudes, but that’s not a bad thing. It would certainly change the tone and content of partisan political advertising.

It might even result in better governing or at the least, to less complaining from those among us whom the law defines as citizens but who do so little to earn the honour.

(dleger@herald.ca)

Dan Leger is director of news content for The Chronicle Herald. The opinions expressed here are his own.

Charest says Dumont wants to close Quebec

2007-08-13T07:32:00.000-05:00

Charest says Dumont wants to close Quebec
Province needs immigration to prosper, Liberal chief tells party's youth wing
MARIANNE WHITE, CanWest News Service
Published: 5 hours ago
Premier Jean Charest yesterday accused Quebec's opposition leader, Mario Dumont, of wanting to isolate Quebec by closing the door on immigration at a time when the province needs more workers and faces the problem of an aging population.
In a newspaper interview published yesterday, the Action démocratique du Québec leader said that Quebec has reached its limit on welcoming new immigrants.
"Your number of immigrants should not exceed your capacity to welcome them and integrate them, otherwise they create ghettos," Dumont told Montreal's daily La Presse.
Email to a friendPrinter friendly
Font:
When asked whether Quebec had reached that limit, he replied: "Quite so."
Charest accused his opponent of working to "isolate" Quebec from the rest of the world.
"Immigration is indispensable for Quebec's future," Charest said in a speech to his party's youth wing convention.
"I want an open and blooming Quebec, as opposed to going into our shell."
"His (Dumont's) declaration does not match our vision of Quebec," Charest said.
"We have to open Quebec's horizons."
During the weekend convention, high-ranking Liberals took every opportunity to lambaste Dumont, who revived the issue of ethnic nationalism in the March 26 Quebec election, and in so doing, gained the support of many francophone voters.
That pushed the ADQ ahead of the Parti Québécois in National Assembly seats.
On Saturday, Quebec minister of Canadian intergovernmental affairs Benoit Pelletier qualified Dumont's vision of Quebec's nationhood as being "too ethnic."
Liberal Party policy commission president Christian Ouellet said, for his part, that Mario Dumont had a "dictatorial" attitude when he was a leader of the young Liberals in 1992.
Dumont left the party that same year to helped found the ADQ.
"Free speech is not a common practice among ADQ representatives. Dumont keeps them under tight surveillance," Charest added.
The premier said his government will keep pushing for more immigration, and he will do so by negotiating agreements with other Canadian provinces as well as European states to allow mobility of residents.
Charest went to France in July to meet with government officials and has announced his intention of working with them to increase mobility between workforces.
He said yesterday that talks will start in September.
"It will be an agreement on the recognition of diplomas and competencies. So that a doctor in France is a doctor in Quebec and that an engineer in Quebec is an engineer in France," Charest said.
"We want to create a whole new space for Quebecers to live, work and study," he said.
The agreement will be negotiated separately from an eventual global free trade accord between Canada and the European Union and should be ready in time for next year's celebrations of Quebec City's 400th anniversary.
Charest also repeated his plan to cut a specific trade deal with neighbouring Ontario to eliminate barriers between the two provinces.
"Our central interest lies in free trade," Charest pledged.
"It's essential if we want to keep our level of prosperity."

Quebec touts plan to rein in federal power

2007-08-13T07:00:00.000-05:00

Quebec touts plan to rein in federal power
Email story
Print
Choose text size
Report typo or correction
License this article
Digg this story
Add to Facebook
Tag on Delicious

I'm proud of Ontario ... but I'm a Canadian first Premier Dalton McGuinty
McGuinty, PM at odds in new debate over curbing Ottawa's ability to spend in provincial jurisdictions
Aug 13, 2007 04:30 AM
Sean Gordon
Robert Benzie
Staff reporters

MONCTON, N.B.–While Canada's premiers and territorial leaders held forth on the environment and trade, senior Quebec officials were purposefully prowling the corridors of Moncton's Delta Beauséjour hotel, selling a plan to radically change the way the country is run.

Quebec Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Benoît Pelletier – a constitutional law professor at the University of Ottawa and fervent proponent of curbing Ottawa's ability to spend in provincial jurisdictions – took up the matter with several delegations at last week's premiers' meeting.

"We think this is a crucially important reform," Pelletier said last week.

Premier Jean Charest also advised his fellow leaders that he is pressing Ottawa for a deal on the matter – an arrangement that could precipitate a heated political debate this fall.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised to set binding checks on Ottawa's ability to spend on social programs in provincial areas like health and child care during the 2006 election campaign, a pledge of significance that's scarcely been debated publicly.

The file has progressed slowly in the 18 months since Harper was elected, and though some federal Tories are urging caution, others are happy to let Charest – an unpopular leader working to position himself as the champion of renewed federalism – carry the ball.

Federal government sources and Quebec-based Conservatives say Harper is keen to make a splash in Quebec in the next federal campaign, and that following through on one of Quebec's "traditional demands" would be exactly the kind of bold action he's looking to take.

This weekend, Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe jumped on board, which would give the Conservatives enough votes should they decide to legislate on the spending power – the Tories could even attempt to amend the Constitution through legislation.

But experts say a formal and explicit limit on federal spending authority could tilt the balance of power in Canada decisively in favour of the provinces.

"The federal spending power has enabled the federal government to exert leadership on all sorts of questions relating to the welfare state. ... To limit it would effectively formalize the possibility of opting out with full compensation of federal programs," said John Allan, associate director of the Institute for Intergovernmental Relations at Queen's University. "This is a vitally important issue."

Allan describes himself as an "endangered species" of centralist – described by an aide to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty as the final vanguard of "Trudeau federalism" – and suggested a constricting, formal deal would permanently hobble the federal government.

McGuinty blasted Harper for trying to overhaul federalism "under cover of darkness."

"I'm proud of Ontario, proud to lead this province, but I'm a Canadian first," he said in Moncton. "At the end of the day, we need a strong federal government that reminds us that we're all in this together."

Asked whether Harper is donning the mantle of the "anti-Trudeau," McGuinty replied that he feels Harper is taking a philosophically driven approach.

Canada finds itself in the curious position of having a provincial premier arguing in favour of stronger central government and a national prime minister advocating for a de facto expansion of provincial powers (even though Tories describe it as a return to the original intent of the Constitution).

And so McGuinty, who is mindful of positioning himself for the Oct. 10 provincial election, and Harper find themselves on opposite sides of a conflict between competing visions of the country that last publicly clashed in the debate over Meech Lake, an ultimately unsuccessful pact that would have spelled out Quebec specificity and devolved powers to the provinces.

After Pelletier intimated early last week that Quebec would eventually like to seek a constitutional amendment to limit federal spending – which even 20 years after the calamitous failure of the Meech Lake accord is a non-starter with many provinces – the province hastily backed away.

That Pelletier's comments were made days after the federal Tory caucus and on the eve of the annual premiers' confab is likely no coincidence.

It was telling that Pelletier kept a low profile for the remainder of the week, although at a weekend conference of the Quebec Liberals' youth wing, he reiterated his belief that Quebec mustn't simply swallow its aspirations.

Charest was clear in saying the time is not yet right to reopen the Constitution, although that won't stop Quebec from pursuing its objectives.

Quebec officials said they would be happy with a deal like previous "asymmetrical" accords on immigration and health, and will pattern their demands on the recently signed UNESCO accord, which in theory allows all provinces to seek a voice on cultural matters.

The fact that other provinces would be free to join what Quebec foresees as a bilateral deal with Ottawa also gives Harper some political cover – federal officials are adamant that there will be no "special status" for Quebec.

Quebec Liberals want to seduce voters with constitutional changes

2007-08-12T14:26:00.000-05:00

Quebec Liberals want to seduce voters with constitutional changes

Marianne White, CanWest News Service
Published: Sunday, August 12, 2007

LA POCATIERE, QUE. -- Quebec's Intergovernmental Affairs Minister, Benoit Pelletier, said on Saturday his province should continue to push for constitutional changes, such as a "charter of open federalism", even if Premier Jean Charest thinks the timing is not right.
Pelletier believes that's what his party must do to seduce francophone voters who put Liberals in third place in French Quebec in the March 26 provincial election.
"We have a serious challenge with francophone voters. I think that we have to bring the identity issue to the forefront and ask for more autonomy for Quebec," Pelletier said at his party's youth wing weekend convention.
"We have to keep fostering constitutional claims, but it doesn't mean that we want to open the constitution tomorrow."
Charest this week was not as enthusiastic about another round of constitutional negotiations and said that "the fruit is not ripe".
Moreover, Pelletier's proposition didn't draw a lot of attention during the premiers meeting this past week in Moncton, N.B.
But Pelletier said he intends to keep this debate alive.
"It's true that constitutional debates can be dividing and it is still taboo in Quebec's society and also in the Canadian society. But we must never stop (talking) about it ..."
The youth wing of the Quebec Liberal party, however, didn't go as far.
Rather they asked Quebec's government to adopt a declaration on federal-provincial relationships to be presented in 2008 when the province hosts a meeting of Canada's premiers and territorial leaders, the so-called Council of the federation.
The declaration would, among other things, state that francophones are the founding nation of Canada and limit federal spending .
"This will allow Quebec to take the leadership in Canada to improve federalism," said Stephanie Doyon, president of the provincial Liberals' youth commission.
The Quebec Liberal party's youth wing also discussed the identity issue, which focuses on how tolerant Quebec should be of non-Christian religious practices.
Liberal militants pledged for an open and inclusive Quebec.
"I fear that we might end up putting aside anglophones and other minorities," said Francois-Pierre Lapointe from Kamouraska.
"I am a Quebecer, I was born here. But people see me as a Haitian even if I have never been there", said Lovely Fleurme, from Montreal. "The party needs to stress that people like me are Quebecer, not only white people".
Marc Tanguay, president of the policy task force on identity, traveled to La Pocatiere to hear what the young Liberals had to say on the identity issue.
His group will hand out a preliminary report to a meeting of the party's general council in September and then start public hearings.
© CanWest News Service 2007

The torture of being Iggy

2007-08-09T18:12:00.000-05:00

The torture of being Iggy

By MARGARET WENTE

Thursday, August 9, 2007 – Page A17

I was for the invasion of Iraq, once upon a time. I thought it was a good idea, on humanitarian grounds, to knock out one of the worst bad guys in the world. Then I got mugged by reality.

Today, battered, bruised and wiser, I am keenly interested in what my fellow liberal interventionists have to say now. After all, it was they - not the ideologues in the White House - who made the most compelling case for war on wider moral grounds. So you can imagine how eagerly I devoured Michael Ignatieff's piece in Sunday's New York Times Magazine. It was called Getting Iraq Wrong.

Too bad it was all about him.

In it, Iggy reveals his great discovery, which I now share with you. There's a big difference between being a politician and a philosopher! Intellectuals, he says, don't have to worry about the real-world consequences of their ideas, while politicians do. This discovery has been a chastening, yet enlightening, experience. It has made him humbler, yet wiser, and even more qualified to be a leader. What a great prime minister he'd be!

Okay, so I added that last sentence myself. The piece is obviously crafted for at least two audiences. At home, it's designed to get the millstone of Iraq off his neck for good. He was wrong, he's sorry, now let's move on. Internationally, it's designed to remind people that Michael Ignatieff the public intellectual is still alive, even if he has unaccountably moved to some backwater to dabble in local politics.

Some people are criticizing Iggy for publishing his climbdown in The New York Times. Personally, I think it's smart PR, on account of the Lorne Greene effect. That is, you get 10 times more attention for anything you do in the U.S. than anything you do in Canada.

Iggy gives the impression that what he really aspires to be is a philosopher king - a big thinker who also knows his way around the dark alleys of Kosovo and Kurdish Iraq. He likes reminding us that the world's a tough place where good men must make hard choices. He likes to agonize over these choices out loud. He also wants to make certain that you don't confuse his Iraq mistake with George Bush's Iraq mistake. His mistake flowed from his emotions ("I saw what Saddam Hussein did to the Kurds"), while Mr. Bush's was the product of his God-struck ideology. "It is an obstacle to clear thinking to believe that America's foreign policy serves God's plan to expand human freedom," he writes.

In fact, the politician that Iggy most resembles is Tony Blair, the greatest liberal interventionist of them all. Mr. Blair's mistake, as Roy Jenkins pointed out, wasn't that he was amoral. It was that he was too moral. He thought it was wicked to stand by while Saddam's sadists drilled nail guns through people, and he believed that the suffering Iraqis, given half a chance, would embrace freedom and democracy and generally behave just like us. That was an obstacle to clear thinking, too. But Iggy doesn't mention Tony Blair. Nor does he discuss the wider foreign policy lessons to be drawn from this error, or how they might apply to the West's nation-building efforts in Afghanistan.

Iggy implies that he has sacrificed a lot to go into politics, because politics is not much fun. It's awfully mean and phony. You have to watch your every word. You have to pretend to have emotions you don't have. Charm, stamina and money usually count for more than good ideas. People stab you in the back. But it's a price that men of vision must be prepared to pay. He ends on this extraordinary note: "Daring leaders can be trusted as long as they give some inkling of knowing what it is to fail. They must be men of sorrow acquainted with grief, as the prophet Isaiah says ... who know they are in politics to make their country better."

Michael Ignatieff as Jesus Christ? Yikes. The guy is more ambitious than I thought.

Quebec wants to define 'nation' status

2007-08-07T13:01:00.000-05:00

Quebec wants to define 'nation' status
JOCELYNE RICHER
Canadian Press
August 7, 2007 at 4:23 AM EDT

QUEBEC — The provincial government plans to force the federal government's hand on how it views the division of powers with the provinces and spending, Quebec Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Benoît Pelletier says.

Premier Jean Charest's government also wants to finally see Quebec's distinctiveness recognized in the Constitution in a charter of open federalism.

Quebec wants the federal government to address the division of jurisdictions between Ottawa and the provinces and intends to press Ottawa on the matter, Mr. Pelletier said in an interview yesterday.

He also wants the federal government to spell out precisely how it sees the federation operating and wants Ottawa to limit spending in provincial jurisdictions.

The provincial government is wading into constitutional waters again to short-circuit any resurgence in sovereigntist support for the Parti Québécois under new Leader Pauline Marois and curtail any flirtation with the autonomist platform of Mario Dumont's Action Démocratique du Québec.

"We will be very insistent," Mr. Pelletier said.

However, a source in the federal government said Quebec will have to get the support of the opposition parties before embarking on any new constitutional adventures.

Mr. Pelletier said he wants the federal government to be specific in its recognition of Quebec on its national characteristics as well as the limits of federal spending powers.

The federal government has already recognized the Québécois as a nation within a united Canada but has never really been clear about what that means.

Mr. Pelletier said that instead of being a vague document, he wants the charter to be a blueprint for future dealings with the provinces.

He said a charter of open federalism could be a significant contribution to modern Canada and signal the advent of a "much healthier federalism."

"If Ottawa is not ready to define the contents of this charter, I am," Mr. Pelletier said.

Getting Iraq Wrong

2007-08-05T05:38:00.000-05:00

Getting Iraq Wrong
MICHAEL IGNATIEFF
Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate
August 5, 2007 at 12:01 AM EDT

The Globe and Mail has exclusive Canadian rights to the following article written by Michael Ignatieff for the Sunday New York Times magazine.

The unfolding catastrophe in Iraq has condemned the political judgment of a president. But it has also condemned the judgment of many others, myself included, who as commentators supported the invasion. Many of us believed, as an Iraqi exile friend told me the night the war started, that it was the only chance the members of his generation would have to live in freedom in their own country. How distant a dream that now seems.

Having left an academic post at Harvard in 2005 and returned home to Canada to enter political life, I keep revisiting the Iraq debacle, trying to understand exactly how the judgments I now have to make in the political arena need to improve on the ones I used to offer from the sidelines. I've learned that acquiring good judgment in politics starts with knowing when to admit your mistakes.

The philosopher Isaiah Berlin once said that the trouble with academics and commentators is that they care more about whether ideas are interesting than whether they are true. Politicians live by ideas just as much as professional thinkers do, but they can't afford the luxury of entertaining ideas that are merely interesting. They have to work with the small number of ideas that happen to be true and the even smaller number that happen to be applicable to real life. In academic life, false ideas are merely false and useless ones can be fun to play with. In political life, false ideas can ruin the lives of millions and useless ones can waste precious resources. An intellectual's responsibility for his ideas is to follow their consequences wherever they may lead. A politician's responsibility is to master those consequences and prevent them from doing harm.
Enlarge Image

Michael Ignatieff at his home in Toronto on Wednesday. (Ryan Carter / The Globe and Mail)
Related Articles
Recent
• The Globe interview: Ignatieff speaks out

I've learned that good judgment in politics looks different from good judgment in intellectual life. Among intellectuals, judgment is about generalizing and interpreting particular facts as instances of some big idea. In politics, everything is what it is and not another thing. Specifics matter more than generalities. Theory gets in the way.

The attribute that underpins good judgment in politicians is a sense of reality. "What is called wisdom in statesmen," Berlin wrote, referring to figures like Roosevelt and Churchill, "is understanding rather than knowledge — some kind of acquaintance with relevant facts of such a kind that it enables those who have it to tell what fits with what; what can be done in given circumstances and what cannot, what means will work in what situations and how far, without necessarily being able to explain how they know this or even what they know." Politicians cannot afford to cocoon themselves in the inner world of their own imaginings. They must not confuse the world as it is with the world as they wish it to be. They must see Iraq — or anywhere else — as it is.

As a former denizen of Harvard, I've had to learn that a sense of reality doesn't always flourish in elite institutions. It is the street virtue par excellence. Bus drivers can display a shrewder grasp of what's what than Nobel Prize winners. The only way any of us can improve our grasp of reality is to confront the world every day and learn, mostly from our mistakes, what works and what doesn't. Yet even lengthy experience can fail us in life and in politics. Experience can imprison decision-makers in worn-out solutions while blinding them to the untried remedy that does the trick.

Having taught political science myself, I have to say the discipline promises more than it can deliver. In practical politics, there is no science of decision-making. The vital judgments a politician makes every day are about people: whom to trust, whom to believe and whom to avoid. The question of loyalty arises daily: Who will betray and who will stay true? Having good judgment in these matters, having a sound sense of reality, requires trusting some very unscientific intuitions about people.

A sense of reality is not just a sense of the world as it is, but as it might be. Like great artists, great politicians see possibilities others cannot and then seek to turn them into realities. To bring the new into being, a politician needs a sense of timing, of when to leap and when to remain still. Bismarck famously remarked that political judgment was the ability to hear, before anyone else, the distant hoofbeats of the horse of history.

Few of us hear the horses coming. A British prime minister was once asked what made his job so difficult. "Events, dear boy," he replied ruefully. In the face of the unexpected event, a virtuoso in politics must be capable of improvisation and appear as imperturbable as possible. People do want leadership, and even when a leader is nonplussed by events, he must still remember to give the people the reassurance they deserve. Part of good judgment consists of knowing when to keep up appearances.

Improvisation may not stave off failure. The game usually ends in tears. Political careers often end badly because politicians live the human situation: making choices among competing goods with only ordinary instincts and fallible information to go by. Of course, better information and factual criteria for decision-making can reduce the margin of uncertainty. Benchmarks for progress in Iraq can help to decide how long America should stay there. But in the end, no one knows — because no one can know — what exactly America can still do to create stability in Iraq.

The decision facing the United States over Iraq is paradigmatic of political judgment at its most difficult. Staying and leaving each have huge costs. One thing is clear: The costs of staying will be borne by Americans, while the cost of leaving will be mostly borne by Iraqis. That in itself suggests how American leaders are likely to decide the question.

But they must decide, and soon. Procrastination is even costlier in politics than it is in private life. The sign on Truman's desk — "The buck stops here!" — reminds us that those who make good judgments in politics tend to be those who do not shrink from the responsibility of making them. In the case of Iraq, deciding what course of action to pursue next requires first admitting that all courses of action thus far have failed.

In politics, learning from failure matters as much as exploiting success. Samuel Beckett's "Fail again. Fail better" captures the inner obstinacy necessary to the political art. Churchill and De Gaulle kept faith with their own judgment when smart opinion believed them to be mistaken. Their willingness to wait for historical validation, even if far off, looks now like greatness. In the current president the same faith that history will judge him kindly seems like brute stubbornness.

Machiavelli argued that political judgment, to be effective, must follow principles more ruthless than those acceptable in ordinary life. He wrote that "it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity." Roosevelt and Churchill knew how to do wrong, yet they did not demand to be judged by different ethical standards than their fellow citizens did. They accepted that democratic leaders cannot make up their own moral rules, a stricture that applies both at home and abroad — in Guantanamo, at Abu Ghraib or anywhere else. They must live and be judged by the same rules as everyone else.

Yet in some areas political and personal judgments are very different. In private life, you take attacks personally and would be a cold fish if you didn't. In politics, if you take attacks personally, you display vulnerability. Politicians have to learn to appear invulnerable without appearing inhuman. Being human, they are bound to revenge insults. But they also have to learn that revenge, as it has been said, is a dish best served cold.

Nothing is personal in politics, because politics is theater. It is part of the job to pretend to have emotions that you do not actually feel. It is a common spectacle in legislatures for representatives to insult one another in the chamber and then retreat for a drink in the bar afterward. This saving hypocrisy of public life is not available in private life. There we play for keeps.

But among friends and family, we also cut one another some slack. We fill in one another's sentences. What we mean matters more than what we say. No such mercies occur in politics. In public life, language is a weapon of war and is deployed in conditions of radical distrust. All that matters is what you said, not what you meant. The political realm is a world of lunatic literalism. The slightest crack in your armor — between what you meant and what you said — can be pried open and the knife driven home.

In private life, we pay the price of our own mistakes. In public life, a politician's mistakes are first paid by others. Good judgment means understanding how to be responsible to those who pay the price of your decisions. Edmund Burke, when first elected to the House of Commons, told the voters of Bristol that he would never sacrifice his judgment to the pressure of their opinion. I'm not sure my constituents would be happy to hear this. Sometimes sacrificing my judgment to theirs is the essence of my job. Provided, of course, that I don't sacrifice my principles.

Fixed principle matters. There are some goods that cannot be traded, some lines that cannot be crossed, some people who must never be betrayed. But fixed ideas of a dogmatic kind are usually the enemy of good judgment. It is an obstacle to clear thinking to believe that America's foreign policy serves God's plan to expand human freedom. Ideological thinking of this sort bends what Kant called "the crooked timber of humanity" to fit an abstract illusion. Politicians with good judgment bend the policy to fit the human timber. Not all good things, after all, can be had together, whether in life or in politics.

In my political-science classes, I used to teach that exercising good judgment meant making good public policy. In the real world, bad public policy can often turn out to be very popular politics indeed. Resisting the popular isn't easy, because resisting the popular isn't always wise. Good judgment in politics is messy. It means balancing policy and politics in imperfect compromises that always leave someone unhappy — often yourself.

Knowing the difference between a good and a bad compromise is more important in politics than holding onto pure principle at any price. A good compromise restores the peace and enables both parties to go about their business with some element of their vital interest satisfied. A bad one surrenders the public interest to compulsion or force.

Measuring good judgment in politics is not easy. Campaigns and primaries test a candidate's charm, stamina, money-raising ability and rhetorical powers but not necessarily judgment in office and under fire.

We might test judgment by asking, on the issue of Iraq, who best anticipated how events turned out. But many of those who correctly anticipated catastrophe did so not by exercising judgment but by indulging in ideology. They opposed the invasion because they believed the president was only after the oil or because they believed America is always and in every situation wrong.

The people who truly showed good judgment on Iraq predicted the consequences that actually ensued but also rightly evaluated the motives that led to the action.

They did not necessarily possess more knowledge than the rest of us. They labored, as everyone did, with the same faulty intelligence and lack of knowledge of Iraq's fissured sectarian history.

What they didn't do was take wishes for reality. They didn't suppose, as President Bush did, that because they believed in the integrity of their own motives everyone else in the region would believe in it, too. They didn't suppose that a free state could arise on the foundations of 35 years of police terror. They didn't suppose that America had the power to shape political outcomes in a faraway country of which most Americans knew little. They didn't believe that because America defended human rights and freedom in Bosnia and Kosovo it had to be doing so in Iraq. They avoided all these mistakes.

I made some of these mistakes and then a few of my own.

The lesson I draw for the future is to be less influenced by the passions of people I admire — Iraqi exiles, for example — and to be less swayed by my emotions.

I went to northern Iraq in 1992. I saw what Saddam Hussein did to the Kurds. From that moment forward, I believed he had to go.

My convictions had all the authority of personal experience, but for that very reason, I let emotion carry me past the hard questions, like: Can Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites hold together in peace what Saddam Hussein held together by terror?

I should have known that emotions in politics, as in life, tend to be self-justifying and in matters of ultimate political judgment, nothing, not even your own feelings, should be held immune from the burden of justification through cross-examination and argument.

Good judgment in politics, it turns out, depends on being a critical judge of yourself. It was not merely that the president did not take the care to understand Iraq. He also did not take the care to understand himself. The sense of reality that might have saved him from catastrophe would have taken the form of some warning bell sounding inside, alerting him that he did not know what he was doing. But then, it is doubtful that warning bells had ever sounded in him before. He had led a charmed life, and in charmed lives warning bells do not sound.

People with good judgment listen to warning bells within. Prudent leaders force themselves to listen equally to advocates and opponents of the course of action they are thinking of pursuing. They do not suppose that their own good intentions will guarantee good results. They do not suppose they know all they need to know. If power corrupts, it corrupts this sixth sense of personal limitation on which prudence relies.

A prudent leader will save democracies from the worst, but prudent leaders will not inspire a democracy to give its best. Democratic peoples should always be looking for something more than prudence in a leader: daring, vision and — what goes with both — a willingness to risk failure.

Daring leaders can be trusted as long as they give some inkling of knowing what it is to fail. They must be men of sorrow acquainted with grief, as the Prophet Isaiah says, men and women who have not led charmed lives, who understand us as we really are, who have never given up hope and who know they are in politics to make their country better.

These are the leaders whose judgment, even if sometimes wrong, will still prove worthy of trust.

Michael Ignatieff, a former professor at Harvard and contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine, is a member of Canada's Parliament and deputy leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

(c) 2007 Michael Ignatieff
Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate.

Ignatieff speaks out

2007-08-03T05:36:00.000-05:00

Ignatieff speaks out
Liberal deputy leader awakens to grim reality of political betrayal
MICHAEL VALPY
From Friday's Globe and Mail
August 3, 2007 at 1:41 AM EDT

TORONTO — It's a quicksand world of shifting loyalties, betrayal, revenge and sometimes tawdry theatre that Michael Ignatieff has discovered in 18 months of political life – a world of vituperative attacks that is more often coloured by failure than by success.

“The vital judgments a politician makes every day are about people, whom to trust, whom to believe and whom to avoid,” the onetime Harvard political scientist and now deputy leader of the federal Liberal Party tells an American audience in this The New York Times Magazine this Sunday.

“The question of loyalty arises daily: Who will betray and who will stay true? Having good judgment in these matters, having a sound sense of reality, requires trusting some very unscientific intuitions about people. In practical politics, there is no science of decision-making.”

It's a rare exercise in self-scrutiny and an awakening awareness of living in the world of politics by a senior Canadian politician.
Enlarge Image

Michael Ignatieff, shown at his Toronto condo, says he was wrong to support the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. He writes that he failed to accurately calculate the costs to the Iraqi people. (Ryan Carter for The Globe and Mail)

In the article he declares flat out that he was wrong to support the 2003 invasion of Iraq by a U.S.-led military coalition, a position that brought widespread criticism from the U.S. academic community and travelled with him – like the black cloud over the head of Al Capp's legendary cartoon character Joe Btfsplk – when he left Harvard and returned to Canada to run for Parliament in Toronto's Etobicoke-Lakeshore riding for a party that opposed the invasion.

Asked in an interview this week if his comments about betrayal and loyalty were references to Bob Rae, who for years was his closest friend until they fell out over their respective campaigns for last year's Liberal Party leadership, Mr. Ignatieff jokingly replied: “I wrote it for no other purpose. The only thing.”

Then he said, seriously: “I really, genuinely, don't think that – looking you in the eye – I don't think that was the deal. You mustn't read those passages as if I'm suppressing some volcanic set of rages at named individuals.

“You have to see the piece [The New York Times article] in the right frame – what's different about the judgments you make in the safety of academic life from the judgments you make in politics.

“You have to remember I spent five years getting up every Tuesday and Thursday morning, teaching political science to bright people, and what's funny about it, looking back on it, is that I would teach it totally differently now. That's what I think the piece is saying.”

If there is ambiguity to his meaning about loyalty and betrayal, there is none in another passage of the article where he suggests that he has had to learn not to take political attacks personally because to do so would display vulnerability and because so many of the attacks are theatrical.

“The pretend aspects are very hard to grasp because some of those attacks appear so personal. But it's a game and you have to learn that,” he said in the interview.

He writes in his article: “This ... hypocrisy of public life is not available in private life. There we play for keeps. But among friends and family, we also cut one another some slack. We fill in one another's sentences. What we mean matters more than what we say.

“No such mercies occur in politics. In public life language is a weapon of war. … All that matters is what you said, not what you meant. The political realm is a world of lunatic literalism. The slightest crack in your armour – between what you meant and what you said – can be pried open and the knife driven home.”

Mr. Ignatieff felt the knife last summer, at the outset of the Liberal leadership campaign, as the news media, opposition politicians and some of Mr. Ignatieff's fellow Liberals jabbed repeatedly at his jugular over clumsily worded comments he made about the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict.

In the interview conducted in his downtown Toronto condo, Mr. Ignatieff said his article grew out of a lecture he was invited to give on political judgment this year at the University of Oxford.

He said he wanted to write about how his own political judgment had altered in his transformation from academic to politician – “because I'm a writer in politics, so when I do things, I not only do them, I think about why I'm doing them, how I'm doing them, and I write about them. I've done that all my life.”

He said he chose to use Iraq as a leitmotif for his essay, “as a kind of example of how you can get things right and can get them wrong.”

And he said he chose to write for The New York Times Magazine because it had published “all of the serious stuff I wrote [earlier] about Iraq,” specifically three articles in 2003 and 2004 in which he set down his reasons for supporting the invasion, but also stated his serious reservations with the course the administration of President George W. Bush was following.

In the earlier articles, he wrote he had become convinced that the need to halt Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's “malignant intentions” in the region outweighed the grievous flaws in the Bush administration's invasion project.

His mistake, he writes and says now, was in failing to accurately calculate the costs to the Iraqi people of freeing them from Mr. Hussein's prison only to dump them into a nightmarish sectarian bloodbath – a calculation the Bush administration also failed to make.

What he would teach his political science students now, he said, is that whereas academics and other public intellectuals are responsible in the final analysis only to themselves for their ideas and their judgments, politicians have a deeper responsibility.

They have a responsibility for the consequences of their actions; a responsibility to see and understand the world as it is, not as they would wish it to be; a responsibility to be prudent, to listen to the voices of their opponents before they act, to recognize and learn from their mistakes, and to not let emotions be the primary determinant of their actions.

His New York Times article, he said, is “a culmination of a long period of rethinking [Iraq]. It's not epiphany time. It's just about taking responsibility … you have to take responsibility for consequences even if you can't foretell them.

“Even as an intellectual, if you think ‘Let's commit to the use of force,' you have to learn that this takes you into a set of circumstances that will not be fatal to you – that's the other point of this: I don't pay any consequences other than the political consequences you pay as an individual – but thousands and thousands and thousands of Iraqis are dead as a result of this set of choices that lots of us made.”

David Bercuson, director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, said he found it a courageous essay.

Michael Byers, Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia, said he's long admired Mr. Ignatieff for his willingness to struggle publicly with difficult ideas, but he faulted him for not taking the opportunity with this essay to examine the implications for future military interventions and the doctrine of responsibility to protect.

Tories 'united' Canada, Harper tells group

2007-08-02T07:27:00.000-05:00

Tories 'united' Canada, Harper tells group
Prime minister credits Quebec nation motion at summer caucus
Richard Foot, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Thursday, August 02, 2007
CHARLOTTETOWN - Prime Minister Stephen Harper says Canada is more united -- and Quebecers more loyal to the country -- than at any time in the past 40 years, and his government deserves all the credit.
In a speech to a large, partisan audience in Prince Edward Island last night, where the federal Conservatives are holding their annual summer caucus, Mr. Harper said his government's handling of the economy, tax reform, the war in Afghanistan, and particularly his controversial decision last year to pass a motion in the House of Commons declaring the Qubcois a nation within a "united Canada" have brought Canadians together.
"Despite the occasional squabbling between governments, the fact of the matter is this: Our country has not been this united since our centennial 40 years ago this year," Mr. Harper said to loud applause from about 1,000 Conservatives at a barbecue on the Charlottetown waterfront.
Email to a friendPrinter friendly
Font:
The Harper government put forward a motion last November recognizing the Qubcois as a nation within Canada because of what he called, in his speech, Bloc Qubcois "mischief-making."
The prime minister's speech came on the first night of a three-day visit to the East Coast, during which he is hoping to boost the flagging spirits of Atlantic Conservatives and improve the party's battered image in a region where it is in desperate need of help.
Mr. Harper meets with his parliamentary caucus today to plot strategy for the fall and winter. Tomorrow, he travels to Nova Scotia for a Tory barbecue in the riding of Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay --who continues to weather the storm of controversy generated in this region by his government's decision not to honour the Atlantic Accords on offshore oil and gas revenues.
Mr. Harper's last budget effectively gutted the accords, and his handling of the resulting fallout -- threatening to sue Atlantic premiers who challenged him -- only fed the fires of anti-Conservative sentiment in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, where offshore petroleum is considered a last chance at economic independence. Both provinces continue to fight a high-profile public relations campaign, portraying Mr. Harper as a promise-breaker who is threatening their residents' future.
A recent poll by Halifax-based Corporate Research Associates showed that Mr. Harper's satisfaction rating with Newfoundlanders fell from 47 to 17 per cent between February and May, and from 50 to 37 per cent in Nova Scotia over the same period.

Trudeau Canada's worst? Hardly

2007-08-02T07:26:00.000-05:00

Trudeau Canada's worst? Hardly
The media's appetite for anything that looks like a poll lifted this dud onto the front pages of the nation
DON MACPHERSON, The Gazette
Published: 5 hours ago
Mark Reid wanted to start a critical public discussion of Canadian history. What he got was national exposure for a previously unknown punk rocker and a junk-news story spread round the world, implying that Pierre Trudeau is considered the "worst Canadian" of all time by his countrymen.
Reid is the editor of the Beaver, the Winnipeg-based history magazine that this week published what it oversold in a press release as the results of an online "survey" of the "public" to "determine" the "worst Canadian" of all time.
The implication was that the survey was scientific and, like the polls on other subjects that are routinely reported in the media, representative of public opinion in general.
View Larger Image
After former prime minister Pierre Trudeau died in 2000, thousands of ordinary Canadians turned out on Parliament Hill to pay their last respects to a man whom many consider to be the country's best prime minister since 1968, the year he took office.

ALLEN MCINNIS, THE GAZETTE
Email to a friendPrinter friendly
Font:
The results contradicted previous surveys showing the enduring popularity of Trudeau, who left active politics in 1984 and died in 2000.
Barely a month ago, for example, Angus Reid Strategies reported that 42 per cent of Canadians chose Trudeau as the country's best prime minister since 1968, more than the other seven combined.
Last November, Decima Research reported for the Globe and Mail that Trudeau was among the celebrities, living or dead, whom Canadians would most like to invite to a dinner party.
And in Maclean's magazine's 2004 year-end national poll, Trudeau was first choice as the greatest Canadian ever.
These were all scientific surveys, representing Canadian opinion public at large.
The Beaver's survey, however, represented nothing more than the "just under 15,000" anonymous write-in votes the magazine collected on its website.
That's the equivalent of one-twentieth of one per cent of the Canadian population. And it's slightly more than one per cent of the 1.2 million votes in the CBC's 2004 Greatest Canadian popularity contest, in which Trudeau finished third. So as a reflection of Canadian public opinion, the Beaver's survey results are worthless.
The magazine itself seemed almost apologetic about reporting the results, in which the punk rocker finished second after campaigning for votes and Trudeau ranked above three notorious convicted murderers.
Such genuine historic villains as Sir Jeffrey Amherst, the 18th-century British officer who pioneered biological warfare by giving smallpox-infected blankets to Indians, failed to make the Top 10.
But I guess after heavily promoting the "survey," the magazine felt it had to release the results while offering a half-hearted explanation for them.
Reid told me yesterday "from memory" that Trudeau received "about 2,400 votes, plus or minus 200." So, assuming that nobody voted more than once, Trudeau is considered the worst Canadian by at most 2,600 surfers of the World Wide Web, compared to a Canadian population of 33 million. So what?
Of more real interest were the informed opinions of a panel of historians assembled by the Beaver.
For example, the country's founding prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, was chosen by Winona Wheeler of Athabasca University, an Alberta-based distance-education and online institution, for waging an "unofficial war" against native peoples in the West.

But that was buried in the news stories about the "survey" results, because we in the media are suckers for anything that even sort of looks like a poll.
Lobby groups know this, which is why they commission polls using questionnaires calculated to produce the results they want, then release them to us.
So this junk-news story was dutifully reported in most of the Canadian media, including The Gazette. And such is the mystique lingering about the Trudeau name that it was picked up by international news agencies and, a Google search yesterday indicated, published as far abroad as South Africa.
Email to a friendPrinter friendly
Font:
Whether this gets Canadians talking about history in the dog days of summer, as the magazine's editor hopes, is doubtful. But it can't hurt the magazine's circulation of about 50,000.
The results of the survey are published in the August-September edition of the Beaver, which as of yesterday was not yet on sale in Montreal.

© The Gazette (Montreal) 2007

It's time for Conservative minority brinksmanship

2007-08-02T05:12:00.000-05:00

It's time for Conservative minority brinksmanship

By TOM FLANAGAN
Professor of political science at University of Calgary; former Conservative campaign manager

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 – Page A15

With the passage of Bill C-16 this spring, the federal government joined British Columbia, Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador in adopting fixed election dates. The main purpose of the reform is to prevent governments from manipulating the date of a coming election for partisan advantage. Indeed, this has been a serious concern, as shown by Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, who held early elections in 1997, 2000, and 2004 to take advantage of newly chosen leaders of other parties. But, according to the Law of Unintended Consequences, which tells us that even the most well-intentioned and justified reforms can create unexpected problems, it is becoming apparent that fixed election dates have upset the balance of terror between government and opposition in a minority Parliament.

Traditionally, governors-general have granted prime ministers a general election whenever asked, assuming the government had survived an initial period, usually thought to be about six months. Three Canadian prime ministers presiding over minorities have used this power to engineer subsequent victories: Mackenzie King in 1926, John Diefenbaker in 1958 and Pierre Trudeau in 1968. Three times in a century is not a lot, but the very existence of the power made opposition parties more reasonable. They knew that if they obstructed the government too much, they might face an unwanted election.

For a while in early 2007, the opposition seemed to believe Prime Minister Stephen Harper would call an election, even though he had campaigned on fixed election dates, had introduced C-16 and would have looked ridiculous if he had asked for a dissolution. But once the legislation passed, the opposition parties, especially the Liberals, became noticeably more obstructionist, using committees to block government legislation and combining to pass private members' bills directly contrary to government policies already approved in the budget. Moreover, the Liberals ratcheted up their own special brand of obstruction by blocking measures in the Senate after appearing to support them in the Commons.

Before the passage of C-16, a prime minister could have responded by declaring gridlock and asking for an election. Even a behind-the-scenes threat to that effect would have probably sobered up the opposition parties because none actually want an election right now. But with C-16 in place, the government may have to resort to different tactics, declaring high-priority bills to be matters of confidence and daring the opposition to defeat them.

So far, this government has attached confidence only to budgetary bills, following the example of recent Liberal minority governments, such as Mr. Trudeau's in 1972-74 and Mr. Martin's in 2004-05. That is, indeed, the most sensible strategy when your main concern is survival.

However, the Conservatives have shown their staying power, and are well prepared for an election. In contrast, none of the three opposition parties seems to want an election. The Liberals have saddled themselves with an unimpressive leader, have not yet mastered modern fundraising techniques and are organizationally unprepared for the campaign trail. The New Democrats are fighting for space with the Greens. The Bloc Québécois was lucky to have lost just three seats in 2006 and must fear further losses whenever the next writ is dropped, now that the Conservatives have become competitive in francophone Quebec.

Surviving for 18 months has been an impressive achievement for the Conservatives, but mere survival will become increasingly less rewarding unless it is matched by legislative achievement. No government can survive politically if it acquires a reputation for weakness, and that is the risk the Conservatives face if they remain tied up in Parliament.

By using confidence measures more aggressively, the Conservatives can benefit politically. If the opposition parties retreat, the government gets its legislation. If the opposition unites on a matter of confidence, the Conservatives get an election for which they are the best prepared.

"Fortune is a woman," Machiavelli wrote in a now politically incorrect aphorism, "and it is necessary, if you wish to master her, to conquer her by force." It is time for the government to take advantage of its advantages.

Quebec-style ethnic nationalism rears its ugly head once again

2007-07-31T06:17:00.001-05:00

Quebec-style ethnic nationalism rears its ugly head once again
Parti Qu?b?cois leader challenges members to lose their fear of appearing intolerant
DON MACPHERSON, The Gazette
Published: 4 hours ago
Maybe the reason it didn't receive more attention is that it happened after St. Jean Baptiste Day, when most of Quebec's political class is already on summer vacation.
And maybe it also was because the Parti Qu?b?cois leader who said it was speaking only to members of what now is reduced to a third party, not to the whole world as a premier on a referendum night.
But the few words leaped out of the much longer sound bite in the television news reports that evening, and the much longer quote buried deep in most newspaper stories the next day.
Email to a friendPrinter friendly
Font:
Their effect on one listener, at least, was almost as chilling as that of Jacques Parizeau's spiteful pitting of "us" against "ethnic votes" in conceding the sovereignists' narrow defeat in the 1995 referendum.
For they point ominously in the direction Quebec politics is heading this fall.
They came in the middle of Pauline Marois's first speech as leader of the PQ, delivered in Quebec City on June 27.
"Let's stop being afraid," she said. "Afraid to be lucides. Afraid to be solidaires." This was a play on words, an allusion to the nicknames by which, respectively, the right and the left in the debate on Quebec's economic future are known.
She continued: "Afraid to seem intolerant.
"Afraid to do things another way. Afraid of wealth. Afraid of paths on which we have never set out. Afraid to be different.
"Afraid to speak of memory, of history, of people, of identity, of culture."
But what leaped out was the item buried in the middle of her list of fears to be overcome by members of her party: "To seem intolerant."
And once one has accepted to seem intolerant, how much is left to hold one back from actually being intolerant?
Parizeau, who has often complained of being a victim of "political correctness" after his 1995 concession speech, was in the audience to hear his latest successor complete his political rehabilitation 12 years later.
Marois also sounded some inclusive notes. "The anglophones and the first nations are part of our identity," she said, and Quebec culture is "enriched by those of newcomers."
But Marois is leader partly because her predecessor, Andr? Boisclair, resisted pandering to hysteria over the "reasonable accommodation" of non-Christian religious practices, and conceded such "identity" issues to Mario Dumont's Action d?mocratique du Qu?bec.
And Marois's remarks about not fearing to "seem intolerant" or to speak of "identity" show the PQ is trying to catch up with the revival of ethnic nationalism that has accompanied the ADQ's breakthrough in the March 26 election.
The Liberals also lost votes and seats to the ADQ in the election, and are also trying to reposition themselves on the "accommodation" issue as a result.
In a strongly worded passage in Premier Jean Charest's inaugural address at the opening of the new legislature in May, he said immigrants must accept Quebec values. And he said the charters of rights were never designed to allow "abuses" of the majority by minorities.
The week after Marois's speech, Charest announced that, as had been reported here, the Liberal Party was forming three policy task forces to begin drafting its platform for the next election. One of the task forces is on identity. The task forces are to report to a meeting of the party's general council in September.

That also will be one of the themes of the annual summer convention of the party's youth wing Aug. 10-12, the traditional kickoff of the fall political season in Quebec.
Also, the Bouchard-Taylor commission on accommodation, which Charest created before the election, is to begin the public phase of its work with the publication of a discussion paper.
The commission also is to hold public hearings across the province, which will keep attention focused on the accommodation issue through the fall.
Email to a friendPrinter friendly
Font:
And with three parties competing for position in an election expected as early as next spring, Marois's generally overlooked remark about not being "afraid to seem intolerant" is not an encouraging sign.
The PQ has posted the prepared text of Marois's speech in French on its web site at www3.ca/?q=node/4

Harper's rigid grip on government has started to cause problems

2007-07-23T11:58:00.000-05:00

Harper's rigid grip on government has started to cause problems
Deirdre McMurdy, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Monday, July 23, 2007
For someone who takes pride in keeping his political style consistent, simple and controlled, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has made a small deviation with potentially huge consequences.
Even as the PMO was spinning hard and blaming the media for overplaying the incident, perception had solidified into reality. On a visit to Latin America, Mr. Harper urged leaders there to consider Canada as a third option, a partner in trade and diplomacy that would allow them to side-step the U.S.
Expressions of "disappointment" from American representatives in Canada were fast and furious. And it's clear that after making considerable efforts to patch up the tattered relationship, Mr. Harper has now given the U.S. a reason to question his sincerity in future.
Email to a friendPrinter friendly
Font:
Given past experience with snippy Canadian politicians, the Americans might be forgiven for wondering whether they can trust the Tories after all.
On the domestic front, that sort of anti-American nuance still tends to play pretty well -- but largely among voters who wouldn't dream of voting Conservative anyway.
So what gives?
The prospect of seven upcoming byelections at a time when the Tories are faltering in polls may well be exerting acute pressure. And taking shots at the Americans is a classic Hail Mary manoeuvre from the Canadian political play book.
It's also a perfect example of Mr. Harper's flawed strategy of putting himself at the centre of every single political decision and announcement made by "Canada's New Government."
That sort of centralized authority and tight control over caucus was probably a sound idea early on, when he was marshalling a gang of rookie MPs and cabinet ministers. After all, it's one of the personal tips shared with Mr. Harper by former prime minister Brian Mulroney, who learned that lesson the hard way.
But over time, that rigid grip hasn't loosened. And it has become a tactic that's clearly starting to cause problems on several fronts.
First, it's left the prime minister personally exposed to every controversy. He has no layers of sub-authority to blame if he hits a rock because he's made clear that he's the one driving the boat, and everyone else is just there to provide a bit of ballast.
It's even hard to blame the media when you've made such a public show of shutting them out at every turn.
The other undesirable side effect of the prime minister's death lock on power, is that it ultimately creates self-fulfilling circumstances.
By sending the message that he doesn't trust the judgment of his senior ministers to speak or act for themselves, he ensures that they remain weak and never grow into the jobs they've ostensibly been given.
As well, the prime minister's near-obsession with Quebec, coupled with his insistence on being front-and-centre for all major announcements, has had an ironic and potentially harmful effect: Unless things change dramatically between now and the next election, the only Tory familiar to most Quebec voters other than the PM himself is Industry Minister Maxime Bernier. The Tories' other Quebec ministers and MPs, such as Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon and JosEe Verner, minister for international co-operation, La Francophonie and official languages, are almost invisible.
All of this would be considerably less dire if the Conservatives were actually doing better in the polls.
But despite the fact the Liberals are in obvious disarray and provide tepid opposition -- and even the Green party is suffering some public growing pains -- the Tories still aren't getting the sort of traction they might rightfully expect at this point in their mandate.
Even after a summer of whistle-stopping across Canada, Mr. Harper has not significantly moved the dial with affluent Canadians, Quebecers or women.
Email to a friendPrinter friendly
Font:
Whatever it may say about venal human nature, it seems that voters still want a leader who's likable. And however warm and humorous he may be on a personal level -- and by all accounts he can be -- it just isn't coming across.
Being an effective retail politician isn't everything, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have the common touch.
It's hard to recall a prime minister who had as cold an image as Mr. Harper. Even Pierre Trudeau's imperious demeanour was offset by a glamour and style that captivated Canadians.
Furthermore, instead of having the desired effect of reinforcing political "brand," stubbornly staying on message creates a robotic effect and leaves the Tories open to ridicule. The continued use of the tag line "Canada's New Government," for example, has become a joke 18 months later.
Political theorist Niccolo Machiavelli declared that for an effective leader, fear is always preferable to affection as a base for power. But we're not living in 13th-century Florence. And in a multi-platform, media-streaming world, the prime minister receives an unprecedented degree of scrutiny.
Certainly in Ottawa circles, affection is in limited supply these days. Mr. Harper has a reputation -- fair or otherwise -- for pettiness, vindictiveness and personalizing politics. That rap may not matter to the general electorate, but on the other hand, if you can't win over the inner circle, it's much harder to win over that outer circle.
And given that the outer circle includes some pretty miffed Americans these days, there's cold comfort in the fact that perceived personality is fate.
dmcmurdy@thecitizen.canwest.com

Tories launch bid to restore anti-terror powers

2007-07-19T17:24:00.001-05:00

Tories launch bid to restore anti-terror powers
COLIN FREEZE
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
July 19, 2007 at 1:37 AM EDT

The Conservative government is launching a bid to recover controversial anti-terrorism powers as early as this fall – and revive a wedge issue that could force the Liberals into another wrenching internal debate.

The Antiterrorism Act, passed in 2001, bestowed extraordinary powers upon government agents in an attempt to help them thwart terrorist plots.

Because these measures treaded on conventional civil liberties, a built-in “sunset clause” meant that Parliament periodically had to vote to renew them.

These powers – “preventive detentions,” or locking up possible terrorists for short periods, and “investigative hearings” at which witnesses are compelled to testify – were never used.

The House of Commons declined to renew the powers last winter even though the governing Tories wanted the laws on the books.

Shortly after Stéphane Dion took over as Liberal Leader, he urged his party to join with the rest of the opposition in voting against renewing the laws, which his Liberal predecessors had passed.

Conservatives criticized the reversal at the time, and plan to do so again.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson and Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day issued a joint statement Wednesday saying they plan to “reintroduce legislation to restore the anti-terrorism powers lost over recent months.”

They made the statement as the government released a report responding to parliamentary committee proposals to amend the 2001 Antiterrorism Act.

Mr. Day's spokeswoman, Mélisa Leclerc, said “the government looks forward to the co-operation of all members of Parliament in restoring these important measures when Parliament reconvenes in the fall.”

The report signals how the government will likely proceed on amendments to the act.

The report says that the government will fine-tune its definition of terrorism after legal challenges forced it to do so. It also says Ottawa will “carefully consider” a committee recommendation to enact a “glorification of terrorism” crime, similar to one on the books in Britain.

A proposal to create a national security committee of parliamentarians appears to be a non-starter – the report suggests such a committee could lead to overlap and duplication. Also, the report notes that the government has only six months to bring back its “security certificate” powers to jail and deport dangerous immigrants. (The Supreme Court gave Ottawa a year to replace the existing law, which it deemed unconstitutional last winter.) The report says that Ottawa will ensure that unreliable evidence is not used in such proceedings, including statements possibly coerced from suspects held overseas. As for the committee's suggestion that it provide “special advocates,” or lawyers who would argue for the defendants and defence lawyers barred from secret hearings, the report says “further study” is needed.

Parliamentary committees expressed concern that the Antiterrorism Act could infringe on the rights of lawyers and charities who may deal with people suspected of links to terrorism. Yet the report signals that the government plans to keep most of its existing powers.

A relatively widely used post-9/11 power has been shielding of information for national security reasons. The report indicates that this power is to remain unchanged.

Canadians' self-knowledge dismal, poll shows

2007-06-30T11:24:00.001-05:00

Canadians' self-knowledge dismal, poll shows
While the native-born are 'becoming a nation of civic slackers,' immigrants have, in the past ten years, improved their national awareness
MURRAY CAMPBELL
From Friday's Globe and Mail
E-mail Murray Campbell
| Read Bio
| Latest Columns

June 29, 2007 at 4:01 AM EDT

Ten years into his mission to get Canadians to know more about their country, Rudyard Griffiths is running into a wall.

A new poll by the Dominion Institute shows that Canadians are faring dramatically worse today than they did in 1997 in a test of their knowledge of history, politics, culture and geography.

About 60 per cent would fail today a test similar to the one that immigrants take to become Canadian citizens. A decade ago, when the institute began quizzing Canadians, just 45 per cent were unable to score a passing grade by answering 12 out of 21 questions correctly.

Just as striking is the finding that immigrants have improved their knowledge in the past 10 years and did better than the general population in the latest quiz. About 70 per cent of first-generation Canadians passed, while a decade ago scores in the two groups were similar, with the edge going to those born in this country.
Videos

Canadian, eh?
Author gives tips on how to pretend to be a Canadian
Related Articles
Recent
• Discussion: You call yourself a Canadian?

The results cast a shadow over the non-profit organization co-founded by Mr. Griffiths and two friends on a $150,000 grant and which this week celebrated its 10th anniversary with a glitzy party in Toronto.

Mr. Griffiths said he had braced himself for a slippage in the pass rate and was disheartened by the dramatic decline in awareness of Canada's past and the practice of its democratic institutions.

"It's not simply that we've not managed to move the dial forward a few degrees," he said.

"Instead the dial has been going in the wrong direction."

The current survey contains some of the same howlers as the earlier one, which was commissioned to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Citizenship Act, the first statute to define Canadian citizenship.

Among the findings:

The title of the national anthem was named by 96 per cent of the respondents, but only 58 per could name the first two lines of O Canada. This is five percentage points worse than in 1997.

Just 16 per cent of Canadians could name the four provinces - Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia - that formed Canada in 1867. This is a decline of six points.

In 1997, 87 per cent of those surveyed correctly answered "fur" or "beaver" to the question that asked about the trade controlled by Hudson Bay Co., but in the latest quiz just 66 per cent gave the right answer.

One in three Canadians a decade ago identified the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the part of the Constitution that protects the rights and freedoms of all Canadians. In 2007, the correct response rate had declined to 22 per cent. Six in 10 immigrants identified the Charter, however.

Just 8 per cent of Canadians identified the Queen as Canada's head of state, with half the respondents incorrectly citing the prime minister.

One-third of immigrants, however, named the Queen.

Mr. Griffiths, the Dominion Institute's executive director, said the results indicate that "the country's common memory is dwindling and may even be shrinking rapidly."

But he is less certain about why this is happening.

He believes the higher scores among immigrants result from the fact that they have had to study to pass the official citizenship exam and that they have a curiosity about their adopted country. For too many native-born Canadians, citizenship is a convenience rather than a conscious act, he added.

This indifference to civic literacy is reflected in Canada's education system, Mr. Griffiths said.

Just three provinces - Ontario, Manitoba and Quebec - require a history credit for high-school graduation. He suggested that the emphasis in school curriculums on science and math indicates a bias toward turning out graduates who are attractive to employers rather than fully informed citizens.

"We are becoming a nation of civic slackers, a country of consumers who are satisfied and validated through lives that are focused increasingly around consumption as opposed to the democratic process and the responsibilities of citizenship," he said.

The Dominion Institute and other lobbyists for historical knowledge have been unsuccessful in persuading the Council of Ministers of Education to make history study mandatory.

Mr. Griffiths is now calling on the premiers to organize a national citizenship exam that would be a requirement for high-school graduation.

There are some regional differences in the test results. For example, just 27 per cent of Quebeckers passed, while nearly six in 10 residents of Saskatchewan and Manitoba were successful.

Respondents with a university education and those who are middle-aged and lived in urban centres were more likely to post a passing score. In addition, more men (46 per cent) than women (35 per cent) passed.

Mr. Griffiths said the results indicate that critics - particularly on the left - who dismiss his annual quiz as irrelevant have got it wrong.

He said studies indicate that civic literacy is linked to political participation and that the institute's survey shows that low-income people with limited educations are ill prepared to engage in the debate about policies to deal with poverty.

*****

Hits and misses

Successes

The Memory Project, in which 2,200 war veterans volunteer to speak in schools across Canada.

The Retrial of Louis Riel, a CBC Newsworld program in 2002 in which two leading lawyers debated the controversial hanging of the 19th-century Métis leader.

More than 90,000 people signed an on-line petition to ask for a state funeral for Canada's last First World War veteran.

The institute has published 11 books and produced 18 hours of network television.

The Canada Day quiz about knowledge of the country has become an annual tradition.

Failures

The Council of Ministers of Education has not adopted national guidelines for teaching history.

Attempts foundered to bring about the merger of Historica, the Beaver and the Dominion Institute to create a single national history non-governmental organization.

The proposal under the Chrétien government for a National History Centre in Ottawa did not survive the transition to the Martin era.

The Toronto-based Dominion

Institute failed to get any reform going outside Ontario.

The institute has 2,000 volunteers, but the larger history sector has not built a mass membership to advocate for the promotion and preservation of Canada's past.

*****

The poll

The telephone poll of 1,005 randomly selected Canadians was conducted by Ipsos Reid June 5-7. With a sample this size, the results are considered accurate to within 3.1 percentage points 19 times out of 20.

In addition, an online survey of 1,005 randomly selected self-identified immigrants was conducted June 5-7.

The margin of error is identical to the telephone poll.

The 1997 poll involved 1,356 randomly selected Canadians interviewed by telephone and was accurate to within 2.7 percentage points 19 times out of 20.

Both the 1997 and 2007 tests were reflective of the Canadian government citizenship exam, which is not released to protect the integrity of the testing process. A copy of the applicant study guide was used, and a focus group of Canadians who had recently taken the exam was consulted.

*****

Quizzing Canadians

A new poll by the Dominion Institute shows that Canadians are faring dramatically worse today than they did in 1997 in a test of their knowledge of history, politics, culture and geography.

96% OF CANADIANS COULD NAME THE NATIONAL ANTHEM...

...BUT ONLY 58% KNEW THE FIRST TWO LINES:

Canada: 58%

B.C.: 61%

Alta.: 59%

Man./Sask.: 55%

Ont.: 55%

Que.: 63%

Atlantic: 54%

Immigrant: 77%

Correct answers: O Canada!

O Canada! Our home and native land. True patriot love in all thy sons command.

*****

82% OF CANADIANS COULD NAME THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA...

...BUT ONLY 8% COULD CORRECTLY NAME CANADA'S HEAD OF STATE:

Canada: 8%

B.C.: 13%

Alta.: 9%

Man./Sask.: 8%

Ont.: 9%

Que.: 3%

Atlantic: 12%

Immigrant: 35%

Correct answers: Stephen Harper.

Queen Elizabeth II

59% OF CANADIANS COULD NAME FOUR OF THE FIVE GREAT LAKES...

....BUT ONLY 32% KNEW HOW MANY PROVINCES AND TERRITORIES CANADA HAS.

Canada: 32%

B.C.: 42%

Alta.: 41%

Man./Sask.: 38%

Ont.: 35%

Que.: 15%

Atlantic: 39%

Immigrant: 56%

Correct answers: Erie/Huron/Ontario/Superior/Michigan.

10 provinces and 3 territories.

SOURCE: IPSOS REID, THE DOMINION INSTITUTE

mcampbell@globeandmail.com

Charest to play up Quebec's nation status

2007-06-29T14:31:00.001-05:00

Charest to play up Quebec's nation status
RHÉAL SÉGUIN
February 19, 2007

QUEBEC -- Vowing to place the Quebec nation in a leadership role in Canada, Premier Jean Charest is launching his election campaign this week with his own brand of nationalism, pledging to take Quebec one step further on the international scene.

"Yes, Quebec is a nation. Quebec is a force for change within Canada and a Liberal government represents this locomotive of change for Canadian federalism," Mr. Charest told more than 2,500 delegates at a party pre-election meeting on Saturday.

If re-elected, the Quebec Liberals say they will hold the first-ever summit of autonomous regions and federated states that would include Catalonia, Wales and Scotland in seeking a greater voice in international forums. The pledge was part of the election platform adopted by the delegates.

A Liberal government intends to take full advantage of Parliament's recognition of Quebec as a nation within Canada and the voice the province has obtained from Ottawa at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, known as UNESCO.
More National Stories
• B.C. band would retain golf course until 2033
• Trains halted ahead of blockades
• Police move in ahead of blockade
• Top court upholds tobacco advertising laws
• Andy Barrie battles Parkinson's
• Go to the National section

"It will be the first summit in the world ever . . . a summit of federated states and autonomous regions to be held by the government of Quebec here in Quebec," Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs Benoît Pelletier told the delegates. He later explained that the summit will set the terms for autonomous governments such as Quebec to have a greater voice in international forums.

"It may involve trade negotiations or a voice on the new UN body that will oversee cultural diversity," Mr. Pelletier said in an interview. "We don't know when the summit would be held but it would be held at some point in our second term."

Quebec also intends to become the voice of all francophones in Canada, he said. "We will continue to support francophones in Canada so that we can be united rather than divided, with Quebec acting as a leader and speaking on behalf of a single and unique francophonie in Canada."

The leadership role Quebec intends to play as a nation within Canada will serve to reinforce Canadian federalism and promote the values of social justice, economic prosperity and individual rights, Mr. Charest said.

"It is about our wanting to belong to a greater whole, the Canadian federation," the Premier said. "If we are able to say we are a nation, we are a nation of inclusion."

The Liberals are determined to prove their political rivals wrong when they accuse Mr. Charest of betraying Quebec's traditional demands for greater autonomy within Canada. Faced with the Parti Québécois, which is seeking sovereignty, and the Action Démocratique du Québec party, which is calling for more political autonomy, Mr. Charest has attempted to carve his own vision of federalism, based on the new-found recognition of Quebec as a nation within Canada.

"The Quebec Liberal Party team reflects Quebec's diversity; it reflects who we are as Quebeckers, a nation," he said to cheering delegates on Saturday.

Using slick, expensive videos and distributing thousands of T-shirts and scarves displaying the Liberal logo and colours, Saturday's party meeting was clearly staged to mark the unofficial launch of the election campaign.

A series of events have been scheduled for this week before the vote is called:

Tomorrow, the National Assembly reconvenes for a one-day "emergency session." Mr. Charest holds a caucus meeting in the morning before facing the opposition during a final Question Period.

At 4 p.m. tomorrow, Finance Minister Michel Audet will table a budget in which he will announce a series of election measures, including moderate income tax cuts and assistance to alleviate the crisis in the province's forestry and agricultural sectors.

On Wednesday morning, Mr. Charest will hold a final cabinet meeting before asking Lieutenant-Governor Lise Thibault to dissolve the National Assembly and call an election for March 26.

On Wednesday afternoon, Mr. Charest's campaign bus will head for his hometown of Sherbrooke to kick off the Liberal campaign. PQ Leader André Boisclair is expected to do the same in his Montreal riding of Pointe-aux-Trembles. ADQ Leader Mario Dumont will likely launch his campaign in the Quebec City region.

For Mr. Charest, it will be the first time in his political career that he heads into an election campaign controlling all the levers of power and leading in public opinion polls.

Distant daddy made Dubya do it

2007-06-16T15:18:00.000-05:00

Distant daddy made Dubya do it
Email story
Print
Choose text size
Report typo or correction
Tag and save

People often go into politics to overcome a feeling of loneliness and early deprivation of love
Jun 16, 2007 04:30 AM
Michael Clarkson
Special to the Star

One explanation for U.S. President George W. Bush's launching – and continuing – the war against Iraq is that he wants to complete the job that his father left unfinished after the first Gulf War.

If there is a parental link, it may go deeper than that.

According to Dr. Justin Frank, a prominent Washington psychoanalyst and author of Bush on the Couch, the younger Bush is a "paranoid megalomaniac," partly because his father was emotionally and physically absent during his childhood, which "triggered feelings of both adoration and revenge in George W."

Frank's analysis seems at least partly in line with research I did, showing that a majority of the 500 most influential people in history came from what society would term a dysfunctional home. More than 300 major historical figures were orphans or rejected by their parents, including Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Yasser Arafat, Mikhail Gorbachev, Gamal Nasser, Alexander the Great, Caesar, Napoleon, Queen Victoria, Golda Meier, North Korean leader Kim Jong-il and the "father" of the United States, George Washington.

Some 40 per cent of U.S. presidents lost a parent when they were young, four times the national average. "A serious loss in childhood is a real motivator," says professor Robert Albert of Pitzer College in Claremont, Calif., who studies high achievers.

"People go into politics, especially, to overcome loneliness and early deprivation of love."

In fact, some psychologists believe the so-called "daddy hole" is an integral part of American culture, where people often seek to fill emotional needs with achievement.

Among Canadians, Paul Martin grew up with an absent father, also a politician, while Jean Chrétien perhaps got his feistiness from being the 18th of 19 children, 10 of whom did not survive infancy, and trying to prove his worthiness to his dad.

Of course, human motivation is complex. When a person does something important, it's rarely for any one reason. And the influence of mothers has also been strong, especially in filling a person's emotional holes in a family with a missing dad.

Toronto Mayor David Miller lost his American father to cancer when he was an infant and he was raised by his single mother Joan, a teacher.

Psychologist and author Pierre Rentchnick says the agony and frustration of missing a parent, especially a father, can force a person's ego to reach for something of heroic proportions, often domination and power.

Indeed, the most powerful person in history may be the absent father.

Michael Clarkson is the author of five books on psychology and can be reached at feardoctor@rogers.com. His website is michaelclarkson.com.

Dion advised to set the stage for a fall election

2007-06-04T14:38:00.001-05:00

Dion advised to set the stage for a fall election
Email story
Print
Choose text size
Report typo or correction
Tag and save

Jun 04, 2007 04:30 AM
Scott Reid
Special to the star

If timing is everything in politics, then October 2007 is the right time for Stéphane Dion to do everything possible to force Stephen Harper into a general election.

If that sounds risky, consider the alternative. The Conservative Prime Minister clears his cabinet of chronic mistake machines like Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor and reboots his policy agenda with new legislation. He then spends a year blitzing the airwaves with yet more negative political ads and finally, next March, triggers an election on his own terms after a budget of his own design.

By way of contrast, an expected prorogation and second Conservative Speech from the Throne offers the leader of the Opposition an ideal opportunity to seize control of this Parliament, set the nation's political agenda and secure an election date that his opponent does not prefer.

Still, the current betting in Ottawa is that having dodged the campaign bullet this April, no one should expect an election until spring 2008. Wander past the patios of Sparks St. and, in addition to the hollow stares of civil servants terrorized by the unkindest regime since Robespierre, you'll encounter a rare political consensus. Conservative, Liberal, NDP and even Bloc heavyweights nearly spill their sangria in a rush to agree there should not be a fall election.

But why not? Harper's desire for more time is easy enough to understand. His government is listing like a ship built of cardboard. Increasingly, his policies fail to garner support. And his image as an over-controlling bully is hardening like cured concrete.

But Liberal objections to a fall campaign make less sense. A summer of smog alerts reminding voters of the government's failed environmental efforts combined with continued coverage of the Kandahar mission seem like natural advantages to carry into a campaign.

Perhaps even more importantly, a scheduled confidence vote provides Dion with the chance to define himself in unmistakable terms.

Imagine a challenge to the Prime Minister in October that makes Liberal support contingent on three under-advertised but already-articulated Liberal priorities: broad-based personal income tax cuts for the middle class, proclamation of MP Pablo Rodriguez's Kyoto bill and an unequivocal declaration that our troops will be rotated out of Kandahar in February 2009.

Harper will find it hard to support these policies. But he will find it even harder to convince Canadians they are policies unworthy of support. Similarly, the NDP and Bloc would find it difficult to explain their decision to back Harper rather than Dion on these issues.

In such a scenario, the Liberals will have set the stage for a principled, policy-based collapse of Parliament. And Dion will have taken as much control as an opposition politician can of the issues that drive voters to the ballot box.

Even if Jack Layton or Gilles Duceppe takes a dive and keeps the Conservative government in power, Dion will have seized ownership of an important patch of political real estate. Moreover, in taking the fight to Harper, he will decisively respond to any lingering questions about his character as a leader.

There are downsides of course. More time to prepare the team would be ideal and the prospect of a loss can cause grumbling among the troops. Most notable of all, the Liberals' Ontario campaign will draw on the same foot soldiers that will have just waged war for Dalton McGuinty. They could be fatigued. But Harper brings out the battle in the Liberal rank and file and it's entirely likely the Ontario government will spend some time stepping over the Conservative Prime Minister as they walk their way back to Queen's Park.

The truly odd thing regarding the current debate about a fall election is that there is no current debate about a fall election. That just doesn't seem sensible.

Yes, bringing down Parliament would be a ballsy move. Decisions of this kind come with great risk and the only guarantee in politics is that critics can be counted by the bushel.

Nevertheless, the safe choice is not necessarily the correct choice.

As Parliament prepares for the summer recess, the Conservatives and Liberals are locked in a stalemate for voter approval. How that tie gets broken will rely greatly on when and why the next election is triggered. Better the Liberals make that choice for themselves than leave the task to Stephen Harper. He will do them no favours.

Day seeks security powers

2007-05-16T13:17:00.000-05:00

Day seeks security powers

COURTESY OF PUBLIC SAFETY CANADA
Minister of Public Safety Stockwell Day addresses students at Ottawa's Canterbury High School on May 15, 2007, the same day he indicated he has drafted a bill to reinstate those anti-terror police powers.
Email story
Print
Choose text size
Report typo or correction
License this article
Tag and save

Anti-terror measures would restore `preventive arrests’ and help CSIS spies overseas
May 16, 2007 04:30 AM
Tonda MacCharles
Ottawa Bureau

OTTAWA–The federal government plans to try to revive the extraordinary anti-terror police powers of "investigative hearings" and "preventive arrest" as part of a series of major security initiatives.

The initiatives will also include legislation to replace the overly secretive "security certificate" regime used to deport terror suspects that was criticized in a recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling.

The government also says it will expand the ability of Canada's spy agency – the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) – to do covert foreign intelligence gathering abroad.

The two police powers slated for revival were killed by the opposition parties in a parliamentary vote in February.

In an appearance yesterday before the House of Commons public safety committee, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day indicated he has drafted a bill to reinstate those powers.

The Bloc Québécois and the NDP opposed any extension of the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act's sections that were automatically "sunsetted" in February, and both party critics said in interviews yesterday they continue to oppose the measures.

They say the Criminal Code has enough provisions to deal with terrorist conspiracies, without resorting to "investigative hearings" that compel testimony or "preventive arrests" that seek to detain or restrain terror suspects without charge.

Liberal MP Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North) said yesterday that to win Liberal support for those provisions, the Conservatives need to make improvements in other areas of the anti-terror laws.

The national security certificate program was used to jail non-Canadians deemed threats to national security pending their deportation. It suffered a blow in February when the Supreme Court of Canada condemned the practice of presenting evidence behind closed doors, with no lawyer for the accused present, and with only a sketchy summary of the allegations made public. It gave Parliament 12 months to abolish the use of secret hearings as they now exist.

The Liberals, Bloc and NDP have supported the idea of a special advocate who would see secret evidence that is currently withheld from a terror suspect and his lawyers.

Day also said yesterday the government will give Parliament stronger oversight powers for Canada's intelligence and security agencies.

"This is a monumental change, one that's necessary and one that we want to see," Day said. "Finishing touches are being put on it."

He indicated the government will create new reporting mechanisms for national security and intelligence agencies, including a duty to report to a parliamentary oversight committee.

The move to expand CSIS' role to include foreign intelligence gathering is a retreat from the Tories' campaign pledge to create a separate foreign intelligence agency, and a major step for CSIS, which is focused mainly on domestic intelligence.

Day told the Commons committee the government has chosen to expand the CSIS mandate instead of creating another agency to save costs, time and avoid future conflicts over information-sharing.

It is not clear when the government will move on these fronts.

Day said his hope would be to bring in the measures "very soon," possibly in the next four weeks before the Commons rises for its summer break.

Day's plan to expand CSIS' mandate – to give it the kind of powers now enjoyed by the CIA in the United States, or MI-6 in Britain – comes as a Senate committee is in the midst of studying the issue.

CSIS director Jim Judd testified two weeks ago that CSIS has about 50 intelligence officers stationed overseas, mostly as liaison officers to foreign agencies in some 30 countries. Most of its 2,600 employees are stationed permanently in Canada.

CSIS agents work covertly in Afghanistan to support Canadian armed forces there, and have occasionally deployed abroad "when the safety and security of Canadians has been affected," such as during the Israeli-Lebanese war last summer, and during a hostage-taking of humanitarian aid workers in Iraq 15 months ago, Judd said.

He said domestic intelligence operations are done under political oversight, court oversight, external review oversight, "whereas if you are engaged in foreign espionage outside of the country, chances are you are breaking someone's laws – not your own, but probably your host country."

Judd was blunt about CSIS' current efforts.

"To cut to the chase, in terms of conducting what is normally referred to as `human intelligence collection' overseas regarding the political, economic or other activities of foreign governments, we do not do that. Most of our allies do that and have been doing it for a long time."

The Canadian government does collect some foreign intelligence through the normal activities of its diplomats overseas, and through the foreign electronic signal interception done by the top-secret Communications Security Establishment.

Overall, more oversight by accountable politicians of the dozen various agencies and departments that have some role in national security and intelligence has long been called for by all parties and committees that have studied the issue.

"It's just not acceptable that it's taken this long," said the NDP's Joe Comartin (Windsor-Tecumseh). "The crying need for a parliamentary oversight committee is just so apparent and further delay is really unconscionable."

Clash over cuts shuts down official languages committee

2007-05-16T07:09:00.000-05:00

Clash over cuts shuts down official languages committee
Email story
Print
Choose text size
Report typo or correction
License this article
Tag and save

Other Conservative cuts

Other cuts announced last September by the Conservative government included:

$20 million earmarked for a new citizenship act.

$9.7 million for a program meant to encourage Canadians to volunteer.

$42.2 million from the funding for Technology Partnerships Canada, a Liberal government-created program under which Ottawa supported innovative research and product development by high-tech companies.

Status of Women Canada, a federal agency that funds women's advocacy groups, will not see any cuts this year to its $23.4 million budget.

But the Tory government plans $5 million in annual administrative cuts beginning next year.

Source: Canadian Press
Conservatives accused of neglecting bilingualism
May 16, 2007 04:30 AM
Bruce Campion-Smith
OTTAWA BUREAU

OTTAWA–A political fight over Conservative funding cuts has shut down the official languages committee and led to accusations that the government is turning its back on bilingualism.

Opposition MPs yesterday voted to unseat Conservative MP Guy Lauzon as chair of the Commons official languages committee after he abruptly cancelled hearings into the government's controversial axing of the court challenges program.

The Conservatives then refused to appoint another government MP to sit as chair, leaving the committee in limbo.

"What is clear is that the chair of the committee was being controlled by the Prime Minister's Office and the Prime Minister didn't want us to study the court challenges program," Liberal MP Raymonde Folco (Laval-Les Îles) said.

"The government doesn't care about official languages, doesn't care about the Official Languages Act, doesn't care about bilingualism across Canada," she told a news conference yesterday.

The move came on the same day that Official Languages Commissioner Graham Fraser rapped the government's knuckles and added his own warning about the state of bilingualism in Canada.

The elimination of the court program – used to fund Supreme Court challenges – "delivered a serious blow to Canadians' ability to defend their language rights," Fraser said as he unveiled his annual report.

The political spat was sparked last Tuesday when Lauzon (Stormont-Dundas-South Glengarry) upset opposition committee members when he refused to hear witnesses on the government's decision last September to axe the court program.

"These are people we paid for them to come from Winnipeg and elsewhere and two seconds before the meeting was due to start, the chair said it was too political an issue," NDP MP Yvon Godin (Acadie-Bathurst) said. "That's not acceptable."

In question period, Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion accused Prime Minister Stephen Harper of trying to push ahead with his own agenda, despite public opposition.

"The Prime Minister doesn't like the Charter (of Rights), he kills the program supporting it. He doesn't like official languages, he kills the program supporting it. He doesn't like to be questioned by members of this House, he kills committees," Dion said.

Harper, who once called bilingualism the "god that failed," had those words tossed back at him by Dion.

"Will the Prime Minister admit this is what he still believes?" Dion said.

Harper accused the opposition of playing games and touted his government's $30 million investment in bilingualism.

The Tories yesterday showed little sign of giving in, with Government whip Jay Hill saying the opposition can't dictate the choice of who chairs committees.

"They can't come to terms with the fact that they lost the election," Hill said of the Liberals.

But the opposition parties found an ally in Fraser, who said that the cancellation of the court challenges program was a "significant blow" at a time when outstanding cases are poised to tackle issues such as French health services in the north and the impact of reducing language requirements for RCMP officers.

An investigation by his office, sparked by more than 100 complaints, has found that the Tories' $1 billion in funding cuts last year violated the Official Languages Act.

He said there was "no evidence" the government weighed the needs and interests of French-speaking minority communities when it slashed spending.

"The government did not account for the impact these cuts would have on official language communities," he said yesterday.

Harper's extensive use of French won him praise from Fraser, who said the Prime Minister's role in promoting bilingualism has been "exemplary."

"Unfortunately, the actions this government has taken in the past year do not reflect this message," said Fraser, a former Toronto Star reporter who was appointed to the post last year.

In addition to his concerns around the funding cuts, Fraser bemoaned the lack of a strategic plan – and spending commitments – to boost bilingualism.

Privately, Liberals were scratching their heads that the Conservatives would invite controversy on a topic that could hurt their efforts to woo Quebec voters.

Harper hardball backfires

2007-05-16T06:57:00.001-05:00

Harper hardball backfires
Susan Riley, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Wednesday, May 16, 2007
You wonder when the tough guys in the Prime Minister's Office are going to realize that their intense partisanship, and juvenile tactics, could be hurting, rather than helping, their cause.
You can bet more than one of Stephen Harper's ministers, and some of his brighter backbenchers, are worried, and occasionally embarrassed, by the sour vibe constantly emanating from the PMO.
They dare not voice public dissent, of course; when Harper makes an enemy, it is for life. But moderate, mature voices in the Conservative party -- and they exist -- are clearly not being heard.
Email to a friendPrinter friendly
Font:
Instead, Harper's front bench follows the same script, answering every question with an often unrelated counter-attack. The only exception to the barrage of provocation is the Bloc Quebecois: Gilles Duceppe's recent leadership flip-flop, for instance, inspired only gentle jibes from Tories. Harper needs Quebecers to like him.
For Liberals, though, it is bare-knuckle abuse. So, for example, every time Liberal MP Garth Turner asks a question about income trusts -- a matter of intense interest to his constituents -- he is chided for leaping from the Conservatives to the Liberals without facing the electorate. Fair enough the first few times, but it gets tiresome after several months.
When Liberal MP Scott Brison asks a question about taxes, say, he is teased about his indiscreet e-mail on income trusts that came to light during the last election. When Liberal MP Irwin Cotler yesterday raised a question about Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hateful views, he was reminded that his wife left the Liberal party because of its allegedly lukewarm support of Israel.
But the worst example is the prime minister's continued inference -- most recently in a speech to military families in Petawawa -- that opposition parties are "tarnishing" the reputation of Canadian troops by asking questions about Afghanistan. This may be cementing his popularity with the military, but to many, it looks like a crude attempt to stifle debate.
A less serious, but typical, example of this overkill came last week when New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton accused two Tory ministers -- Jean-Pierre Blackburn and Lawrence Cannon -- of "trying to fly under the radar when it comes to revealing expenses on their travel." The travel in question -- apparently short hops by air around small town Quebec --hardly qualifies as joy rides, and the missing receipts are plausibly a result of administrative carelessness.
But this government has made an obsession of accountability; it deserves to be questioned closely about apparent abuses. Instead of an explanation, Layton got a non sequitur from Conservative House Leader Peter Van Loan. He accused Layton of taking a "chauffeur-driven limousine," instead of his bicycle, 194 times in one year when Layton was a Toronto city councillor -- "even though he lived downtown." Added Van Loan, to the roars of the Tory gallery, "and he had a free transit pass!"
Pathetic enough that Tory inquisitors had to dig back seven years to get any dirt on Layton, it wasn't even good dirt. Layton later explained he never took a limo to work (a 10-minute walk from his Toronto home) but used a car to get to the airport when he was head of the Canadian Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Nor was it a limo, but a city vehicle driven by disabled workers and shared by all 43 councillors as a cost-saving measure.
Of course, Layton never got a correction. In fact, Van Loan recycled an edited version of the mini-smear yesterday. Which raises a question that has nothing to do with Layton's ethics: don't Tory researchers have more serious work to do?
Behind the scenes, too, they are obsessed by tactics and trivial revenge. Yesterday, the official languages committee was left in limbo after Tory MPs -- "guided" by the PMO, as Liberal MP Raymonde Folco put it -- refused to choose a new chair. This conveniently prevents MPs from debating Harper's controversial move to kill a program offering money to minority language groups, and others, that want to pursue Charter cases.
Even the benign practice of marking the death of distinguished Canadians with a statement from the PMO is tainted by partisanship. Soldiers killed on duty, politicians, hockey greats like Boom Boom Geoffrion are appropriately honoured.
But there was not a word from Harper about journalist June Callwood's recent death or humanitarian work. She was no Conservative, but she was more than a political figure. It is typically small-minded of this PMO not to acknowledge that.
But it is in the business of sharpening divisions, not healing them.
Susan Riley's column runs Monday, Wednesday and Friday. E-mail:

Electoral reform? Chill the beer, pass the ketchup

2007-05-16T06:55:00.000-05:00

PRINT EDITION
Electoral reform? Chill the beer, pass the ketchup

By JEFFREY SIMPSON

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 – Page A21

Canada, being essentially a political creation, instinctively fusses over political arrangements.

Fortunately, we have stopped gnawing, at least for a while, on constitutional reform. Federal-provincial relations, however, are always good for a palaver, a task force, or an outburst from an irate premier.

A thousand shelves groan with the weight of unread tomes on Senate reform. Some day, we'll chew over the monarchy's future as a harmless diversion. A national contest could be held to answer the question: Which is the most boring subject, Senate reform, federal-provincial fiscal relations, or constitutional amending formulas?

Trouble is, no one may vote.

To these robust perennials of induced somnolence has been added electoral reform. New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, British Columbia and Ontario all launched studies into new ways of electing politicians.

In Ontario, not one citizen in a thousand - no, in ten thousand, maybe a hundred thousand, quite possibly, a million - had ever thought about electoral reform, outside university seminars for undergraduate students of political science.

Yet, for no publicly identified reason, Premier Dalton McGuinty promised to establish a process to review the province's voting system. Thus was born the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform - modelled on a similar institutional creature in British Columbia - that offered its final report yesterday.

When this assembly began, it was obvious the existing electoral system would take a beating. After all, gathering 104 people together, asking that they spend many months in each other's company, meant, almost by definition, that they would recommend change. How else could they justify, to themselves, if not to others, all that time and effort?

The status quo, therefore, didn't stand a chance. The only issue was which new system the assembly would recommend for Ontario.

Fortunately, they rejected the Single Transferable Vote (STV) procedure proposed by the assembly in British Columbia. Instead, they opted for something called Mixed Member Proportional (MMP), a system used in Germany and, more recently, New Zealand.

This new system will now be on the ballot for Ontarians to support or reject on provincial election day, Oct. 10. The threshold Mr. McGuinty established for change is 60 per cent, in at least 60 per cent of the constituencies. It is to be hoped Ontarians will say No.

Debates about electoral reform run in many directions, but a core question remains: Do you like majority governments? If you do, reject all forms of proportional representation (PR), such as STV or MMP. If you don't, vote for PR, because in a multiparty world, it will produce minorities or coalitions.

PR is the dream of little parties, which is why the NDP likes it so much, as do the Greens. PR gives them a chance to be part of a coalition with a larger party. The existing system usually punishes smaller parties; PR helps them. Nor surprisingly, PR usually leads to more parties.

(New Zealand had two parties, the number grew to five or six after introducing a form of MMP.)

PR is definitely more representative in matching votes to seats. People get exactly what they vote for - sometimes. Because in some countries with PR systems, elections are followed by weeks of closed-door deal-making among parties to form a government, exactly the reverse of the transparency PR is supposed to bring.

The proposed system for Ontario would produce two classes of politicians: those elected locally and those from a list. Any politician worth his or her salt would want to be near the top of the party list, so PR systems usually feature intense intraparty struggles for list positions. No grubby constituency work, after all, for those elected from the lists.

MMP works in Germany. It could certainly work in Ontario. It's not the best system for making really hard decisions; it's better for making relatively easy ones.

Voters in PEI turned down PR in a provincial vote. Recommendations for MMP in New Brunswick and Quebec have gone nowhere. The STV suggestion in B.C. got 57 per cent support, falling just short of the necessary 60 per cent.

Give yourself a test. Raise electoral reform around the barbecue this summer. If friends even know what it means, let alone start discussing it, MMP has a chance. If people ask for the ketchup or a beer, the status quo will win.

PM plans rare talk with premiers

2007-05-16T06:53:00.001-05:00

PM plans rare talk with premiers
JOAN BRYDEN
Canadian Press
May 16, 2007

OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper is planning a rare meeting with Canada's premiers and territorial leaders to discuss globalization, competitiveness and the country's economic union.

Provincial sources said yesterday that no date has yet been pinned down for what's expected to be an informal lunch meeting. But June 2 was thought to be likely, allowing Mr. Harper to consult with premiers one day before he heads off to a G8 summit in Germany.

Mr. Harper has in the past vowed to involve provinces more in international affairs, a promise with particular resonance in Quebec where the Prime Minister hopes to make big gains in the next election.

The suggested agenda for the first ministers is similar to that set out for the leaders of the eight major industrialized countries meeting in Germany, where creating the conditions for a stable global economy and stable global trade tops the agenda.
Print Edition - Section Front

Enlarge Image
More National Stories
• Dreams of Michelin to a 'hole-in-the-wall joint'
• Tories' feud closes bilingualism body
• Yard-sale find expected to yield $100,000
• Mounties had no dogs to search for explosives
• Ottawa to address land-claims backlog
• Go to the National section

The Prime Minister's Office did not respond to queries about the imminent meeting with the premiers.

Mr. Harper last met with his provincial and territorial counterparts in February of last year to discuss health care. That meeting, about a month after the Conservatives took power, was an amiable affair. Relations have soured between the Prime Minister and some premiers since then. Relations between Mr. Harper and Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams have become toxic, with both men waging their bitter feud in duelling newspaper ads and over the airwaves. The premiers of Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan have also been critical of the way the federal government calculates the value of their natural resources.

Any meeting over lunch will be held behind closed doors.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty would not speculate about such a meeting but he did say there's "some urgency" for the federal and provincial governments to deal with issues such as barriers to interprovincial trade and labour mobility.

"We're trying to arrive at new free-trade arrangements with other countries around the world. We have to make sure we accomplish free trade at home," Mr. Flaherty said.

"I think that there is some urgency to the issue because of the significant labour shortages that we have in Canada," he added.

He said labour shortages are particularly acute in Western Canada and are impeding economic growth.

"The good news is that rate of labour mobility is at a record high in Canada. The bad news is there are still some impediments to people being able to work wherever they want in our own country."

Tories aim to bring back anti-terror provisions

2007-05-16T06:48:00.000-05:00

Tories aim to bring back anti-terror provisions
Andrew Mayeda, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said yesterday the Harper government is moving "aggressively" to resurrect two provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act that sparked a furore in the House of Commons and exposed deep divisions within the ranks of the Liberal party.
The provisions of the law enabling "preventive arrests" and "investigative hearings" were allowed to expire this spring after the Liberals withdrew support for extending them.
The Liberals, who brought in the clauses while in power after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, argued the clauses were no longer necessary and could infringe on civil liberties.
Email to a friendPrinter friendly
Font:
But the move unleashed a torrent of condemnation from Prime Minister Stephen Harper, whose party labelled the Liberals "soft on terror." The switch also drew criticism from tough-on-crime members of the Liberal caucus.
Mr. Day told the Commons public safety committee yesterday that he and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson have been developing amendments to the country's security certificate regime to address shortcomings identified by a recent Supreme Court ruling.
Law enforcement agencies use the certificates to detain non-citizens suspected of posing a national security threat. But Canada's top court ruled in February that the practice of withholding evidence from detainees violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
"We want to get that done soon," Mr. Day said of the amendments. "It's subject to the House leader's agenda, but things are pretty close to ready to present."
He suggested the government could introduce those amendments as part of a package that reintroduces the Anti-terrorism Act provisions.
"We're moving as aggressively as we can ... on the security certificates and the (Anti-terrorism Act) provisions."
Mr. Day's office declined to provide further details. But at the end of a brisk walk with reporters to a Parliament Hill exit, he confirmed that the government hopes to revive the provisions.
If so, the move could also revive the debate that fed some of the most acrimonious rhetoric this Parliament has seen.
At the peak of the uproar, Mr. Harper attempted to link the Liberal "flip flop" to a Vancouver Sun report that the father-in-law of Liberal MP Navdeep Bains was on a list of people to be questioned about the Air India bombing through an investigative hearing.
The implication was that the Liberals had switched positions to get a relative of a caucus member off the hook. The Liberals flatly rejected the charge and accused the prime minister of launching a base personal attack.
Liberal MP Roy Cullen, who broke caucus ranks to support the extension of the clauses last time, said he still supports the clauses. A debate on the clauses among Liberals would likely be divisive again, he said.
"If I was a betting person, I would say that it would probably not be clear sailing again."
He said he hopes the Conservatives are bringing the clauses back because they feel they are necessary, not to "play political games."
The preventive-arrest clause enabled police to apprehend suspects without warrant and detain them for several days without charge if authorities had reason to believe a terrorist act would be committed. The investigative-hearings provision allowed judges to compel individuals to testify in terror cases.
Neither clause was ever used.
An investigative hearing was ordered in the Air India trial but wasn't held because the trial ended before the Supreme Court shot down a constitutional challenge to the clause.

Tories' feud closes bilingualism body

2007-05-16T06:41:00.000-05:00

Tories' feud closes bilingualism body
Dispute over chairman of federal committee comes as language commissioner gives stern rebuke to Harper
CAMPBELL CLARK
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
May 16, 2007 at 5:09 AM EDT

OTTAWA — The Conservatives shut down the Commons official languages committee Tuesday, on the same day that Canada's Official Language Commissioner criticized the Stephen Harper government for failing to live up to its own rhetoric.

The decision to close a parliamentary committee came after opposition MPs voted out Tory committee chairman Guy Lauzon. The Conservatives in turn refused to allow any of their MPs to accept the position, leaving the committee without a chair, and therefore unable to hold meetings.

That only increased attention to the criticisms levelled by the Official Languages Commissioner, Graham Fraser, who said the Conservatives have been saying the right things yet have taken steps that hurt minority-language rights.

"We are underlining the gulf that exists between the words and the actions," Mr. Fraser said at a news conference.

He said that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been "exemplary" in using both languages in news conferences and public events, and that the minister responsible for official languages, Josée Verner, has promised more action for minority languages.

But the government then cut several programs without examining their effect on minority-language communities, and has failed to signal what it will do when a five-year, $787-million "action plan" adopted by the previous Liberal government expires next year. Ms. Verner said the government is working on a new action plan to replace it, but offered no specifics.

Mr. Fraser said 40 court cases brought by individuals and groups arguing that their language rights have been violated were stopped for lack of funds when the Conservatives cancelled the Court Challenges Program, which funded minority-rights court cases.

The report is a blow for a Conservative government that has plotted strategy for more than a year to win a majority with increased support in Quebec.

In the 2004 election campaign, Mr. Harper was forced to fire one of his closest friends in caucus, Scott Reid, from his post as official languages critic because Mr. Reid said he favoured cuts to minority-language services.

Yesterday, Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion quoted from a speech in which Mr. Harper once called official bilingualism "the god that failed," and insisted that the Conservatives are now showing their true colours.

"The Prime Minister does not like the Charter; he kills the program supporting it. He does not like official languages; he kills the program supporting it. He does not like to be questioned by the members of this House; he kills committees," Mr. Dion said.

The battle over the Commons committee came after Mr. Lauzon suddenly cancelled two committee hearings last week that were to examine the government's move to end the Court Challenges Program. Mr. Lauzon later said he thought the hearings were going to be too partisan.

Mr. Dion asked Commons Speaker Peter Milliken to rule that the Conservatives are obstructing parliamentary business. Mr. Milliken said he will consider the matter and issue a ruling in coming days.

***

How official bilingualism works

WHAT THE ACT DOES

The Official Languages Act, first passed in 1969 and updated twice since, stipulates Canadians' right to receive federal government services in either English or French where numbers warrant, the right of public servants to work in either language in certain areas, the right of either English or French speakers to advance in the public service, and that the government must promote bilingualism.

THE COMMISSIONER'S ROLE

The Commissioner of Official Languages is an officer of Parliament who acts as a kind of ombudsman to ensure that the federal government is treating English and French as equals, and to promote the development of minority-language communities.

The commissioner's role is to protect the right of Canadians to receive federal government services in either official language, as well as the right of public servants to work in English or French in regions designated as bilingual.

To do that, the Office of the Commissioner audits government departments to see if they comply with the Official Languages Act and government language policy, monitors new regulations and policies to ensure they comply, and investigates complaints. It also makes contacts with government bodies and community groups, works to promote bilingualism, and intervenes in court cases when the commissioner deems it necessary.

The commissioner cannot order the government to do anything, but issues recommendations that carry the weight of his office. If the commissioner upholds a complaint, but the government does not act, the complainant can appeal to the Federal Court of Canada.

Campbell Clark

***

Canada's official languages

The information below is based on the 2001 census

***

ENGLISH

59% of the population are native English speakers but 85% of the population can speak English

***

FRENCH

23% of the population are native speakers of French but 31% of Canadians are able to speak French

***

BILINGUALISM

In 2001 almost 18% of the population were bilingual, up from 13% in 1971. Noticeable, in the 15-24 age group, almost 25% were bilingual in 2001.

***

BILINGUAL PEOPLE BY MAJOR CITIES*

Vancouver, 7.5% (147,775 of 1,967,480)

Winnipeg, 11.1% (73,690 of 661,725)

Edmonton, 7.7% (71,540 of 927,020)

Toronto, 8.5% (393,415 of 4,647,960)

Ottawa-Gatineau, 44.2% (464,485 of 1,050,755)

Quebec, 32.8% (220,585 of 673,100)

Montreal, 53% (1,792,750 of 3,380,640)

Moncton, 47% (54,410 of 115,820)

Halifax, 11.5% (41,105 of 355,945)

*Data represent Census Metropolitan Areas

RICHARD PALMER / THE GLOBE AND MAIL

SOURCE: STATISTICS CANADA, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

***

globeandmail.com

Post questions in advance and join senior political reporter Jane Taber today from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. EDT for our online discussion, The Hill Live.

Canada reverses a global trend

2007-05-15T06:28:00.000-05:00

Canada reverses a global trend

May 15, 2007 04:30 AM
Richard Gwyn

That Quebec isn't going to separate deserves not two cheers but a full-throated, uninhibited, and un-Canadian, three cheers.

To retreat instantly back into stereotypical Canadian cautiousness, saying that Quebec isn't going to separate doesn't mean that it may not separate eventually.

Thus, Scotland, which has been united with the rest of Britain for 300 years – on the whole pretty successfully – has just voted in the pro-independence Scottish Nationalist Party.

Nevertheless, for this generation of Canadians, Quebec separatism is almost certainly over as a major national issue.

The next leader of the pro-separatist Parti Québécois (all but certainly), Pauline Marois, just declared that the party should drop its pledge to hold a referendum from its platform.

Marois says this for the good and sound reason that the PQ is in political free fall; it's just run third in a provincial election, for the first time in its history.

An even better and sounder reason for the PQ to drop its referendum commitment is that Quebecers themselves are bored to death with the topic of separation.

This political transformation really does deserve three cheers. This isn't because Canada has been Saved. After all, even if true, that's only a negative accomplishment.

It's because Canada has done something rather remarkable – it has figured out how to contain within it another country.

That second "country" is Quebec which, as we've all known all along, possesses all the necessary ingredients – a distinct identity, a strong sense of self, a sizeable population, a major metropolitan centre – to be a viable nation-state on its own.

Yet, although Quebec most certainly could separate and survive, Quebecers themselves are choosing not to do this.

It's insufficiently appreciated just how unusual this is. The world over, separation has become almost a routine, international event.

For example, Montenegro, which has only 700,000 people, last year separated from Serbia. East Timor, only slightly larger, did the same from Indonesia.

The mess in Iraq may well end up with three new statelets, Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite, emerging as the only viable alternative to an endless, and an endlessly murderous, civil war. And any day Kosovo will become a new nation-state.

None of this used to happen. For decades after the end of World War II, almost no borders changed. A rare exception was Bangladesh's breakaway from Pakistan.

Globalization has made a decisive difference. It makes a nation's size largely irrelevant economically.

As important is the security – economic and financial but also political and cultural – that the European Union provides in the area it covers.

That's where Montenegro and Kosovo aspire to go as soon as possible, following the path blazed by Slovakia and the Czech Republic after their "velvet divorce," and by the three small Baltic republics after they gained independence from the Soviet Union. Before all these breakaways took place, most knowledgeable international observers would have identified Quebec as the "sub-nation" most likely to go all the way to becoming a new nation-state.

In Quebec, separatism has been a major political force since as far back as the mid-1960s.

Polls regularly showed 40-plus per cent support for sovereignty association. In the referendum of 1995, Quebecers almost went past the tipping point.

And the Ottawa wing of the separatist movement, the Bloc Québécois, repeatedly won a majority of the federal seats in Quebec.

Yet now Quebecers are pulling right back. Never all the way, of course.

The new creed in Quebec politics will be "autonomy," or making the province as separate as possible within Canada.

Dealing with this new challenge, above all in a country already so decentralized, will be difficult and exceedingly tiresome.

The federal-provincial squabbling will be endless, with all the other provinces wanting whatever Quebec gets.

In the meantime, though, repeat those three cheers.

Canada has reversed an international trend. We are one of the very few nations, perhaps even the first, to have confronted a serious threat of a break-up and to have overcome it, at least at this time..

And there's one other good reason for being especially cheerful.

We did this – however it was that we did it – on the eve of the 140th anniversary of Confederation, now just a few weeks away on July 1.

Sovereignty on hold, Marois says

2007-05-14T07:32:00.000-05:00

Sovereignty on hold, Marois says
Parti Québécois must deliver good governance first, former finance minister warns on entering leadership race
TU THANH HA
From Monday's Globe and Mail
May 14, 2007 at 3:54 AM EDT

LONGUEUIL, QUE. — The Parti Québécois can no longer lock itself into a referendum deadline and should focus first on good governance, Pauline Marois said yesterday as she emerged from a drama-packed weekend as the person most likely to be the next leader of the separatist party.

With the sudden withdrawal Saturday of Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe from the PQ leadership race, Ms. Marois, a former cabinet minister and two-time leadership hopeful, made a triumphant return to politics by calling for a major shift in the party's direction.

"The Parti Québécois has to break out of the trap of a referendum timetable or obligation," she told supporters shoehorned into a hotel conference room.

If PQ members crown her as leader, they will have to heed her views on putting the referendum on the back burner, she warned.

Former Quebec cabinet minister Pauline Marois announces her candidacy for the Parti Québécois leadership in Montreal on Sunday. (Ian Barrett/CP)
Videos

The future of Quebec politics
A panel on CTV's Question Period discusses the future of Quebec politics
Related Articles
Recent
• Marois cuts short retirement to seek PQ leadership
• Loss of a kingmaker scuttled Duceppe bid
• Analysis: Leader's iron grip on Bloc bound to slip
• Duceppe decides against PQ leadership bid
• Lysiane Gagnon: Duceppe's flip-flop leaves Tories laughing

She bluntly said the party risks extinction if it doesn't draw lessons from the March 26 election, where the PQ slipped to third place, making Mario Dumont's conservative party, the Action Démocratique du Québec, the new voice for francophone nationalists.

"A political party that doesn't respond to obvious needs is one condemning itself to marginality, or even to disappearance," she said.

"What Quebeckers said was that they weren't against sovereignty, but what they said clearly is that they weren't ready now for a referendum."

She even welcomed any gains on behalf of Mr. Dumont's party toward making Quebec more autonomous within Canada.

And she said the PQ needs to modernize its conception of social democracy. "Making sure that the state is more efficient is not anti-social-democratic, it's not anti-progressive," she said.

In a dizzying week-long span, the PQ has gone from losing a leader - André Boisclair - and seeing Mr. Duceppe announce that he would seek the job, to having Ms. Marois call the Bloc Leader's bluff and enter the ring herself.

There was a feeling among Marois supporters yesterday that the party should make amends for choosing the less-experienced Mr. Boisclair over her in the leadership race 18 months ago.

Ms. Marois 58, would be the first female permanent leader of a major political party in Quebec.

And she brings a formidable résumé with her. Under successive PQ premiers, she has held the four most important portfolios in Quebec government: finance, treasury board, health and education.

While she and her supporters were careful to say they weren't assuming she would run unopposed, the likelihood that she would face another contender of significant stature is remote.

Former PQ cabinet minister Richard Legendre said yesterday that he would not enter the race.

Other potential future leaders such as Bernard Drainville and Pierre Curzi rallied behind Ms. Marois and were among several caucus members and Bloc MPs who shared the stage with her.

The small but vocal hardline wing of the PQ struck a polite, cautious tone in reacting to Ms. Marois's remarks.

Marc Laviolette, president of SPQ Libre, a left-wing political faction within the PQ, agreed that the party needs to promote independence more effectively before discussing a referendum timetable.

He noted that the program that commits the PQ to holding a referendum as soon as possible was adopted in 2005 when the party and sovereignty were riding high in the polls.

Ms. Marois is married to businessman Claude Blanchet, the former head of the Quebec venture capital fund Société générale de financement. They have four grown children.

Despite her perceived cool, patrician demeanour, Ms. Marois comes from modest origins, the eldest of five children of a mechanic and a housewife from a village near Quebec City.

After studying social work, she earned an MBA at the University of Montreal in 1976, where Jacques Parizeau was on faculty. He later brought her into politics by hiring her as a press attaché during the first PQ government mandate.

As education minister, she introduced the popular $5-a-day daycare program.

She also led a historic move to amend the Canadian Constitution to permit the creation of linguistic school boards

She ran for the PQ leadership in 1985 and 2005, and came second both times.

A new federalism for the people

2007-05-12T18:17:00.000-05:00

A new federalism for the people
Email story
Print
Choose text size
Report typo or correction
Email the author
License this article
Tag and save

May 11, 2007 04:30 AM
Carol Goar

If anyone can be called the father of co-operative federalism, it is Tom Kent.

He drew up the blueprint that Lester Pearson followed to create medicare, the Canada Pension Plan and the welfare system in the 1960s. He served as the former prime minister's policy secretary.

Today, Kent, 85, has come to the regretful conclusion that the federal-provincial cost-sharing system he designed is irreparably broken.

"Co-operation has been succeeded by combat, each side seeking to pin blame on the other," he says. "The relationship is too tarnished by broken promises and distrust to be restored. Another way to make federalism work must be found."

Blessed with a still-supple mind and an unshakable faith in Canada's future, Kent has developed a new model. He outlines it in a 38-page study entitled Federalism Renewed, published by the Caledon Institute of Social Policy.

The Liberal patriarch concedes that his ideas will be of little interest to Stephen Harper. (Surprisingly, though, he is less critical of the current Prime Minister than of his Liberal predecessors who twisted, hacked and starved federalism into incoherence.)

But Kent takes the long view. He also believes the Liberals do their best thinking when they're out of power. It was during John Diefenbaker's regime (1957-1963) that he and his colleagues hatched the plan that was to spawn a social revolution.

With hindsight, Kent says, it may have been too idealistic to last.

It rested on three optimistic assumptions: that the provinces would let Ottawa set policy in their jurisdiction; that Ottawa would let the provinces take credit for spending federal money; and that the intergovernmental bickering that had plagued the country since the Great Depression could be overcome.

But it did serve the country well for a generation. Canada blossomed economically, socially and intellectually.

Now Kent is proposing an updated version, which he calls "people's federalism."

Instead of providing subsidies to the provinces, Ottawa would use its spending power to help Canadians buy services they need.

It would offer all post-secondary students the opportunity to continue their education by providing an advance on the cost of their tuition and living expenses. The money would be repaid through a surtax, taking effect when the graduate's income reached the average earnings of a full-time Canadian worker.

It would ensure that every child has access to early learning by reimbursing parents, based on their income and family size, for their preschool expenses. This would allow rural, urban and stay-at-home parents to choose the program best suited to their needs.

It would enable low-income Canadians to afford decent housing by providing rent supplements.

And it would invest in preventative health care rather than continuing to pour resources into "a health industry machine built to suppress the consequences of poor health."

These changes would be disruptive and controversial, Kent acknowledges.

They would require an overhaul of the tax system. They would necessitate a rethinking of medicare. They would antagonize not only provincial governments, but hospitals, universities and legions of social activists who believe the role of government is to build public housing, underwrite public child care and initiate public programs.

But the status quo is no longer viable, he argues. Muddling along will produce heightened federal-provincial tension, deepening public cynicism and gradual paralysis.

The solution Harper is promoting – a massive devolution of money and decision-making power to the provinces – looks tidy on paper, Kent admits. But the Prime Minister will soon run into problems. The provinces will keep upping the ante and the public will grow disenchanted. Over time, Canada will end up as "a sovereignty-association of regions" without the means to marshal its strengths to compete in the global economy.

The only remaining choice, Kent says, is a radical reform.

This proposition will have limited appeal to Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion. He shares the Prime Minister's view that Ottawa should stay off provincial turf. Moreover, he considers the environment to be his generation's paramount challenge.

Nor is the plan likely to generate much excitement in the academic community. Most policy wonks are preoccupied with global warming, Canada-U.S. relations, urbanization, the role of the military and the aging of the workforce.

So Kent is hoping to plant a seed in the minds of thoughtful, but frustrated, Canadians.

He wants them to know that there is a way out of the politics of confrontation, expediency and drift.

But it requires national leadership and willingness to put people before institutions.

Kent was one of the visionary policy thinkers of his generation. He at least deserves a hearing now.

Lame Liberals need makeover

2007-05-12T18:15:00.000-05:00

Lame Liberals need makeover
Susan Riley, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Friday, May 11, 2007
It is one of the most curious couplings on Parliament Hill. Liberal leader Stephane Dion and his deputy, Michael Ignatieff, sit side-by-side every day in question period, sharing whispered confidences, following the daily circus attentively, displaying no outward signs of competition, jealousy or discord. On the contrary, these two recent rivals appear to get along amiably, in an arena where appearances count.
That is what is curious, especially in the hyper-competitive atmosphere of federal politics, where every novice MP is issued a dagger and every new leader has a target sewn onto his back. You hear the odd cryptic aside suggesting that Ignatieff is performing much better than his boss but, to be frank, neither is very good at holding the government to account.
They aren't natural performers in a forum that favours clowns. They are intellectuals, almost twins: brainy, bilingual PhDs, former professors, many days looking as out of place in competitive politics as vegetarian violin virtuosos in a country bar. They're cute, though: one dark, one light; both slender and well-tailored; both intent on improving; but, so far, no match for a polished prime minister with a poisonous tongue and his band of seasoned character assassins.
Email to a friendPrinter friendly
Font:
This week Dion has a new communications staff and, apparently, a new focus -- a tacit admission that the Liberals have to sharpen their game. They could start by showing up for work. Many days, the Commons is a lopsided affair: government benches full to bursting, and swaths of unoccupied green on the Liberal side. Some 16 party veterans aren't running again, but that shouldn't mean a paid sabbatical until the next vote. Apart from anything else, those empty seats don't look good -- not for the leader, or the party. (This means you, Belinda.)
The second challenge is tougher. Liberals have to lighten up, get a sense of humour, give more prominence to the few MPs who enjoy the rough and tumble. It will be a short list: Scott Brison, who attends faithfully but says little, would be on it. Ralph Goodale and John McCallum are both on top of their files, effective at times, although a tad shrill at others.
Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre was aptly dismissed as a "buffoon" by taciturn Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor this week. Coderre, whose only note is sustained outrage, replied lamely: takes one to know one. Earlier he called the defence minister "a seat cushion," an original, if bizarre, jibe entirely in keeping with his low-brow style.
The Liberals need a strong team, because their lead-off batters are so weak. Despite attempts to improve, Dion remains difficult to understand in his second language, especially in the rush of question period. Ignatieff's questions are crisp and comprehensible, but he often looks pained, disapproving, wagging a crooked finger at the Tory front bench as if he were admonishing errant undergrads.
By contrast, the Tories have a crew of happy warriors led by Environment Minister John Baird, who even tries to make climate change sound like fun. Harper's approach -- the best defence is a good offence -- is juvenile, but it often works.
Beyond style, however, the Liberals are missing key issues. Afghanistan was their theme this week, but they wasted time pushing Harper to disclose that Canada is in secret talks with NATO, aimed at ending our combat role in 2009. Isn't that what the Liberals want?
While they chased this "scandal," it was left to NDP's Dawn Black to ask the pertinent question. In the wake of increasing concern from Afghan allies about mounting civilian deaths (90 in two weeks), Black asked: "Will the government change course, as Afghan officials and the Canadian public are demanding?" No ritual call for O'Connor's head, no insults, just a fair, timely question.
Meanwhile, it fell to the Bloc Quebecois to raise reports that Canada may relax pesticide controls to appease U.S. producers. And where was Liberal outrage at the handcuffing of an Environment Canada employee? And here is a radical idea: find something positive to say. After days of opposition fire, the Tories finally came up with improved safeguards for Afghan detainees. Did the Liberals applaud? No, they complained the deal should have been better.
Whether it is a tin ear for the street, fear of controversy, or a guilty conscience, the Liberals are failing to let voters know where they stand. Their new environmental package is tough, but they lost that advantage by declining to force an election on the issue. That would take nerve -- like the deal with Elizabeth May did. They've got the brains, but they're missing guts and charm.
Susan Riley's column runs Monday, Wednesday and Friday. E-mail: sriley@thecitizen.canwest.com

Young Dion seduced by separatism

2007-05-12T18:13:00.000-05:00

Young Dion seduced by separatism
Political romance ends after rum-fuelled debate
Paul Gessell, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Saturday, May 12, 2007
Meet Stephane Dion, Quebec separatist.
The current leader of the federal Liberals has the reputation of being an arch-federalist, the most anti-separatist Quebecer on Parliament Hill since Pierre Trudeau.
But that was not always true.
Email to a friendPrinter friendly
Font:
Like Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Dion flirted with separatism during his student days. A newly published, often flattering, biography presents details of Mr. Dion's youthful embrace of separatism and his rather sudden switch, first to being totally apolitical and then to being totally federalist.
Mr. Dion joined the separatist cause while he was a CEGEP (junior college) student in the early 1970s, Toronto journalist Linda Diebel writes in Against the Current (Viking Canada).
Young Stephane was enthralled by the speeches delivered on campus by Parti Quebecois firebrand Claude Charron, later a provincial cabinet minister under Rene Levesque.
"He was very impressive and I never missed a speech. I was taking notes and I would try his arguments with my father," Ms. Diebel quotes Mr. Dion as saying.
The separatist romance did not last long. One evening while campaigning door-to-door for the PQ in the 1976 provincial campaign, Mr. Dion had a life-changing experience fuelled by "demon rum."
"Oh, you're a separatiste!," one man said to Mr. Dion on the doorstep. "I want to talk with you."
The shaggy-haired, bearded Mr. Dion entered the house. A tray of rum and Cokes appeared. Three hours later, Mr. Dion left, in his own words, "completely drunk."
He can also remember telling the man: "Well, maybe you're right."
Mr. Dion lurched home, was sick all night and "since then, I'm not a separatiste any more -- and I am not able to look at a rum and Coke."
Ms. Diebel thinks the conversion anecdote sounds a little too pat. But she believes the story nevertheless reflects the manner in which Mr. Dion abandoned all partisan political involvement three decades ago to become strictly an observer, a political scientist, to be exact, at the Universite de Montreal.
"At some point that night or gradually over subsequent years, Stephane realized he preferred the role of scientist," Ms. Diebel writes. "He wouldn't be a political player; he would be the cool observer."
Certainly, by the time of the 1980 Quebec referendum, Mr. Dion had no strong political feelings: "I was not pro-Canadian or pro-separatist."
In his early days teaching political theories, Mr. Dion was so apolitical, he forbade his students from discussing their own political opinions in class. But behind the scenes, Mr. Dion evolved into a Liberal-voting federalist.
Eventually, Mr. Dion came out of the political closet, vigorously defending the federalist point of view on television talk shows. That's how Aline Chretien spotted him. She urged her husband, the then-prime minister Jean Chretien, to bring Mr. Dion into politics. Mr. Chretien took his wife's advice.
On Nov. 25, 1995, Mr. Chretien telephoned Mr. Dion, who happened to be visiting Ottawa. Like the rum-drinking man during the 1976 election, Mr. Chretien invited Mr. Dion to his home for a discussion on separatism.

This was a mere month after the federalists narrowly won the Quebec referendum. Lunch was served. Ms. Diebel's book makes no mention of rum and Cokes.
Mr. Dion was unsure of whether to accept Mr. Chretien's offer to join his cabinet. His decision was made a month later, while in Europe.
"I met with friends of mine in Spain who believed it was good to be Catalan and Spaniard and European at the same time, and in Germany, I saw the same mentality of one people," Mr. Dion is quoted as saying.
Email to a friendPrinter friendly
Font:
"I changed my mind. I began to think that (unity) was not an issue only for Canadians but an issue for the world.... We have a duty to show that it's possible to build strong states, strong countries, with people of different languages."
Mr. Dion's wife, Janine Krieber, an expert on international terrorism, had initially urged her husband to accept Mr. Chretien's offer. Later, she cooled to the idea, fearing separatists would make their life hell.
"They are awful, they are mean," Ms. Krieber is quoted as saying. "If you run, they will be after us. Our life will be a nightmare."
Ms. Krieber's predictions came true. As the federal minister for intergovernmental affairs, Mr. Dion became a lightning rod. Quebec intellectuals, many of them separatist, felt betrayed that one of their own should become such a pain-in-the-butt federalist. Mr. Dion was pilloried in the press and booed at the funeral of Maurice "Rocket" Richard.
Mr. Dion was a star in Mr. Chretien's cabinet, largely because of his engineering of the Clarity Act. All that changed under Paul Martin. There was even a secret campaign to dump Mr. Dion as the MP for the Montreal riding of St. Laurent-Cartierville, Ms. Diebel writes.
But Mr. Dion kept his nomination, won re-election in 2004 and was invited into Mr. Martin's cabinet as environment minister. Last year, he replaced Mr. Martin as party leader.
A week after the convention, Mr. Dion invited all the leadership candidates to a meal in Montreal. He wanted to woo his rivals. Instead, there was considerable animosity, Ms. Diebel writes.
Bob Rae specifically is cited as being riled that Martha Hall Findlay and Gerard Kennedy threw their support to Mr. Dion at the convention. Mr. Rae felt they should have supported him.
The second-place finisher, Michael Ignatieff, declined Mr. Dion's offer to become policy chairman and insisted on becoming deputy leader.
At least some of Mr. Dion's inner circle expressed concern to Ms. Diebel about continuing problems among the leadership rivals.
"I am starting to wonder if he may not have been a little too good to his former competitors," longtime aide Jamie Carroll is quoted as saying this past March.
"What they do in public doesn't bother me," Mr. Carroll is quoted as saying. "It's the s--t they do behind the scenes -- which I may not know they're doing -- that keeps me up at night."

Dion moves to create a new image

2007-05-09T07:51:00.000-05:00

Dion moves to create a new image
The Liberal Leader's staff shuffles are seen as a tacit admission of a faltering start
CAMPBELL CLARK AND BRIAN LAGHI
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
May 9, 2007 at 4:59 AM EDT

OTTAWA — Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion is moving to change key players in his troubled Opposition Leader's Office, as he sets out to repair his battered image after narrowly escaping a spring election.

Mr. Dion will strike out on a heavy schedule of "outreach" events across the country when the House of Commons session ends in June, trying to redefine himself after being painted as weak by Conservative attack ads and bombarded with poor reviews of his performance.

Inside his office, the Liberal Leader is responding to a wobbly spring performance by changing the senior aides who handle communications and political tactics, now that the threat of an election the Liberals did not want appears to have passed.

The policy wonks who have surrounded the former university professor are now making room for political tacticians. Long-time Dion stalwart André Lamarre is being moved out of his role as director of communications to make way for the appointment next week of Nicolas Ruszkowksi, an Ottawa communications consultant who has worked in the Liberals' election war room and as a ministerial aide.
Related Articles
Recent
• Live, noon EDT: Lawrence Martin on federal politics
• Lawrence Martin: Harper leads the offenders in lack of civility
• Jeffrey Simpson: Can Duceppe succeed where Boisclair failed – with the hard-liners?

And Ottawa lobbyist Herb Metcalfe, one of Mr. Dion's senior leadership campaign strategists, moved into the leader's office in April, giving up his registered clients to handle political strategy as part of a troika that runs Mr. Dion's operations.

Mr. Metcalfe has also been mandated to act as a kind of consultant reviewing the office staff and medium-term strategy plans - and some aides to Mr. Dion expect more changes when the Commons session ends.

The revamping of the tactics and communications is a tacit admission that Mr. Dion had a troubled performance in early spring, senior insiders said.

The shuffling of Mr. Lamarre, one of Mr. Dion's closest and most trusted aides, is a signal that the Liberal Leader sees problems and is willing to show some steel in dealing with them, one said.

Although Mr. Lamarre was for a decade responsible for handling Mr. Dion's academic-style policy message when the latter was a cabinet minister, the Liberal Leader agreed to look outside for a replacement, choosing a communications consultant who did not work on his leadership campaign.

One Liberal source argued that indicates that Mr. Dion will employ "the means necessary to become PM."

"He has accepted now that he needs to change."

Mr. Dion has quietly worked on refining his communications approach, no longer reading his questions from a script when he rises to debate Stephen Harper during Question Period in the Commons, a Liberal source said. He also employs a diction coach to help improve his pronunciation in English - an area that many commentators have singled out as a major weakness.

The moves also precede a push on the summer circuit of barbecues and other events aimed at making Mr. Dion more accessible to rank-and-file Canadians. The party particularly wants the leader to stump the province of Quebec, where officials believe he can tap into the federalist vote.

"A lot of it is about establishing a human connection. He needs to get into local papers, into local festivals," one Liberal insider said.

Mr. Ruszkowski, who worked for former Liberal minister Jacques Saada and was a volunteer adviser for Ken Dryden's Liberal leadership campaign, will now be tasked with righting the ship.

Two other senior "strategic communications" aides, Robert Asselin and Brad Davis, are also expected to take on larger roles, sources said.

At the top, Mr. Metcalfe's mandate is to bring hard-nosed political tactics to an office populated by policy wonks.

FRANK RICH: Is Condi Hiding the Smoking Gun?

2007-05-06T08:27:00.000-05:00

FRANK RICH: Is Condi Hiding the Smoking Gun?

IF, as J.F.K. had it, victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan, the defeat in Iraq is the most pitiful orphan imaginable. Its parents have not only tossed it to the wolves but are also trying to pin its mutant DNA on any patsy they can find.

George Tenet is just the latest to join this blame game, which began more than three years ago when his fellow Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient Tommy Franks told Bob Woodward that Douglas Feith, the Pentagon’s intelligence bozo, was the “stupidest guy on the face of the earth” (that’s the expurgated version). Last fall, Kenneth Adelman, the neocon cheerleader who foresaw a “cakewalk” in Iraq, told Vanity Fair that Mr. Tenet, General Franks and Paul Bremer were “three of the most incompetent people who’ve ever served in such key spots.” Richard Perle chimed in that the “huge mistakes” were “not made by neoconservatives” and instead took a shot at President Bush. Ahmad Chalabi, the neocons’ former darling, told Dexter Filkins of The Times “the real culprit in all this is Wolfowitz.”

And of course nearly everyone blames Rumsfeld.

This would be a Three Stooges routine were there only three stooges. The good news is that Mr. Tenet’s book rollout may be the last gasp of this farcical round robin of recrimination. Republicans and Democrats have at last found some common ground by condemning his effort to position himself as the war’s innocent scapegoat. Some former C.I.A. colleagues are rougher still. Michael Scheuer, who ran the agency’s bin Laden unit, has accused Mr. Tenet of lacking “the moral courage to resign and speak out publicly to try to stop our country from striding into what he knew would be an abyss.” Even after Mr. Tenet did leave office, he maintained a Robert McNamara silence until he cashed in.

Satisfying though it is to watch a circular firing squad of the war’s enablers, unfinished business awaits. Unlike Vietnam, Iraq is not in the past: the war escalates even as all this finger-pointing continues. Very little has changed between the fourth anniversary of “Mission Accomplished” this year and the last. Back then, President Bush cheered an Iraqi “turning point” precipitated by “the emergence of a unity government.” Since then, what’s emerged is more Iraqi disunity and a major leap in the death toll. That’s why Americans voted in November to get out.

The only White House figure to take any responsibility for the fiasco is the former Bush-Cheney pollster Matthew Dowd, who in March expressed remorse for furthering a war he now deems a mistake. For his belated act of conscience, he was promptly patronized as an incipient basket case by an administration flack, who attributed Mr. Dowd’s defection to “personal turmoil.” If that is what this vicious gang would do to a pollster, imagine what would befall Colin Powell if he spoke out. Nonetheless, Mr. Powell should summon the guts to do so. Until there is accountability for the major architects and perpetrators of the Iraq war, the quagmire will deepen. A tragedy of this scale demands a full accounting, not to mention a catharsis.

That accounting might well begin with Mr. Powell’s successor, Condoleezza Rice. Of all the top-tier policy players who were beside the president and vice president at the war’s creation, she is the highest still in power and still on the taxpayers’ payroll. She is also the only one who can still get a free pass from the press. The current groupthink Beltway narrative has it that the secretary of state’s recidivist foreign-policy realism and latent shuttle diplomacy have happily banished the Cheney-Rumsfeld cowboy arrogance that rode America into a ditch.

Thus Ms. Rice was dispatched to three Sunday shows last weekend to bat away Mr. Tenet’s book before “60 Minutes” broadcast its interview with him that night. But in each appearance her statements raised more questions than they answered. She was persistently at odds with the record, not just the record as spun by Mr. Tenet but also the public record. She must be held to a higher standard — a k a the truth — before she too jumps ship.

It’s now been nearly five years since Ms. Rice did her part to sell the Iraq war on a Sept. 8, 2002, Sunday show with her rendition of “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” Yet there she was last Sunday on ABC, claiming that she never meant to imply then that Saddam was an imminent threat. “The question of imminence isn’t whether or not somebody is going to strike tomorrow” is how she put it. In other words, she is still covering up the war’s origins. On CBS’s “Face the Nation,” she claimed that intelligence errors before the war were “worldwide” even though the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Mohamed ElBaradei publicly stated there was “no evidence” of an Iraqi nuclear program and even though Germany’s intelligence service sent strenuous prewar warnings that the C.I.A.’s principal informant on Saddam’s supposed biological weapons was a fraud.

Of the Sunday interviewers, it was George Stephanopoulos who went for the jugular by returning to that nonexistent uranium from Africa. He forced Ms. Rice to watch a clip of her appearance on his show in June 2003, when she claimed she did not know of any serious questions about the uranium evidence before the war. Then he came as close as any Sunday host ever has to calling a guest a liar. “But that statement wasn’t true,” Mr. Stephanopoulos said. Ms. Rice pleaded memory loss, but the facts remain. She received a memo raising serious questions about the uranium in October 2002, three months before the president included the infamous 16 words on the subject in his State of the Union address. Her deputy, Stephen Hadley, received two memos as well as a phone call of warning from Mr. Tenet.

Apologists for Ms. Rice, particularly those in the press who are embarrassed by their own early cheerleading for the war, like to say that this is ancient history, just as they said of the C.I.A. leak case. We’re all supposed to move on and just worry about what happens next. Try telling that to families whose children went to Iraq to stop Saddam’s nukes. Besides, there’s a continuum between past deceptions and present ones, as the secretary of state seamlessly demonstrated last Sunday.

On ABC, she pushed the administration’s line portraying Iraq’s current violence as a Qaeda plot hatched by the Samarra bombing of February 2006. But that Qaeda isn’t the Qaeda of 9/11; it’s a largely Iraqi group fighting on one side of a civil war. And by February 2006, sectarian violence had already been gathering steam for 15 months — in part because Ms. Rice and company ignored the genuine imminence of that civil war just as they had ignored the alarms about bin Laden’s Qaeda in August 2001.

Ms. Rice’s latest canard wasn’t an improvisation; it was a scripted set-up for the president’s outrageous statement three days later. “The decision we face in Iraq,” Mr. Bush said Wednesday, “is not whether we ought to take sides in a civil war, it’s whether we stay in the fight against the same international terrorist network that attacked us on 9/11.” Such statements about the present in Iraq are no less deceptive — and no less damaging to our national interest — than the lies about uranium and Qaeda- 9/11 connections told in 2002-3. This country needs facts, not fiction, to make its decisions about the endgame of the war, just as it needed (but didn’t get) facts when we went to war in the first place. To settle for less is to make the same tragic error twice.

That Ms. Rice feels scant responsibility for any of this was evident in her repeated assertions on Sunday that all the questions about prewar intelligence had been answered by the Robb-Silberman and Senate committee inquiries, neither of which even addressed how the administration used the intelligence it received. Now she risks being held in contempt of Congress by ducking a subpoena authorized by the House’s Oversight Committee, whose chairman, Henry Waxman, has been trying to get direct answers from her about the uranium hoax since 2003.

Ms. Rice is stonewalling his investigation by rambling on about separation of powers and claiming she answered all relevant questions in writing, to Senator Carl Levin, during her confirmation to the cabinet in January 2005. If former or incumbent national security advisers like Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski could testify before Congress without defiling the Constitution, so can she. As for her answers to Senator Levin’s questions, five of eight were pure Alberto Gonzales: she either didn’t recall or didn’t know.

No wonder the most galling part of Ms. Rice’s Sunday spin was her aside to Wolf Blitzer that she would get around to reflecting on these issues “when I have a chance to write my book.” Another book! As long as American troops are dying in Iraq, the secretary of state has an obligation to answer questions about how they got there and why they stay. If accountability is ever to begin, it would be best if those questions are answered not on “60 Minutes” but under oath.

The scary lesson of Meech

2007-05-01T06:37:00.000-05:00

The scary lesson of Meech
Andrew Cohen, Citizen Special
Published: Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Twenty years ago, Canadians awoke to a historic surprise. While they were sleeping, their first ministers were meeting privately in the woods, remaking the country.
At the end of their long day's journey into the night, the premiers and the prime minister would emerge proud and confident. One by one, they would fix their feet triumphantly before the microphones and declare something strange and wondrous: a new constitution and a new Canada.
They called their covenant the Meech Lake Accord, after that footprint of water in the Gatineau Hills of Quebec where they had gathered. Once just another pretty lake known for its nude bathers, Meech Lake would become synonymous with secrecy, audacity, acrimony and treachery.
Email to a friendPrinter friendly
Font:
For the next three years, Canada passed through one of the greatest crises in its history. What began as a quiet, modest exercise in renewal ended with some predicting the end of Canada. The accord was about rights and powers, yes; more broadly, it was about the kind of country that we wanted to be.
Two decades later, these questions remain unresolved and unresolvable. Astonishingly, though, some are suggesting that we reopen the Constitution, which would be as much folly today as it was then.
Let us remind ourselves of what happened at Meech Lake on April 30, 1987.
Since the Quebec government of Robert Bourassa had floated its proposals for constitutional change in 1986, there had been months of low-level intergovernmental talks. Brian Mulroney worried that his native Quebec was the only province to refuse to sign the patriated Constitution of 1982, even though it was still bound by it.
So the prime minister set out to persuade the premiers to embrace Bourassa's demands. Quebec wanted a veto over constitutional amendments, increased powers over immigration, the right to opt out of federal spending programs with compensation, and, most important, recognition as "a distinct society."
When the invitation came to talk, though, no one thought the first ministers would reach a deal in a day, behind closed doors. "Come down to Meech Lake for a little chat, said the spider to the fly," recalled Roland Penner, the attorney general of Manitoba. And so they did.
The premiers chatted all day and night and wearily agreed to Quebec's demands. They added some of their own -- what Quebec got, they got -- including a say in the appointment of senators and high court judges.
At first, the country cheered. Quebec had finally agreed! The country was whole again! Brian Mulroney was John A. Macdonald, and the first ministers were nation-builders.
Over the next month, things began falling apart. Led by an outraged Pierre Trudeau, criticism mounted. It became a crescendo. The discussions were held in private. The accord was "a seamless web" that could not be amended. Quebec was getting special powers. The other provinces were getting more powers. No one spoke for Canada.
But Quebec ratified the accord on June 23, 1987, and the clock started running; if not endorsed by the provincial legislatures by 1990, the agreement would die. Which is what happened. In the tortuous psychodrama of the next three years, Canadians would meet Frank McKenna, Clyde Wells, Jean Charest, Lucien Bouchard and Elijah Harper, who effectively killed the accord in the legislature of Manitoba.
At its end, Meech Lake would re-awaken separatism in Quebec, give birth to the Bloc Quebecois and produce the ill-fated Charlottetown Accord of 1992. The failure of Meech Lake would devastate Mr. Mulroney, destroy the Progressive Conservatives in 1993 and discredit the political elite, which twice misread the national mood on constitutional change.
So when Mario Dumont of the ADQ cavalierly suggests another constitutional conversation to discuss Quebec's demands for signing the Constitution, forgive him his youthful mistake. He apparently does not know just how perilous any discussion of the Constitution is in Canada, how it stirs demons deep in our psyche.
Forget that Mr. Dumont's vision of a new Confederation -- which, fundamentally, flows from the Allaire Report that a despondent Mr. Bourassa commissioned after the collapse of Meech Lake -- would leave the federal government an empty shell. With federalists such as Mr. Dumont, who needs separatists?
Not only would the aboriginal peoples demand a place at the table, so would every other aggrieved minority. The constitutional Pandora's Box would have no bottom -- and no top, either.
Wise people know that comprehensive constitutional reform is now impossible in Canada, short of a cataclysm that would compel a redrawing of powers. They also know that we have survived since 1987 without addressing the constitution, despite the warnings of the doomsayers, the Cassandras, the bond traders and the currency speculators. There may come a time to revisit this, but not now.
This is the enduring lesson of Meech Lake, as clear today as it was 20 years ago.

Unravelling story threads reveal Tory communications chaos

2007-04-30T12:46:00.000-05:00

Unravelling story threads reveal Tory communications chaos
By BRUCE CHEADLE

OTTAWA (CP) - It's like one of those little stray threads that Prime Minister Stephen Harper pays his stylist-valet to manage. Yank it the wrong way, and everything unravels.

After more than a year of wrestling the communications beast with grim-willed determination, the minority Conservative government spent the past two weeks ducking and deking and deliberately misleading in perhaps their worst fortnight since the 2006 federal election.

In doing so, the previously disciplined Tories broke some cardinal rules in crisis management: be proactive, be forthcoming, get your story straight, and stick to it.

Barry McLoughlin, a veteran Ottawa image consultant, has literally written the handbook, his aptly titled "Overcoming Panic and Fear: Risk and Crisis Communications."

"In a crisis, issues mutate," McLoughlin said in an interview Friday, while stressing he was not discussing current political events.

"This was a little string that got pulled today, and that unravels another thing that pulls at tomorrow, which leads to another story the next day."

The current Conservative woes arguably began with one of those small revelations that generates water-cooler talk even outside political circles: hockey-dad Harper, incongruously, employs a personal primper who travels with him around the world.

For a minority prime minister consumed with air-tight image management, make-up artist Michelle Muntean's role should not have come as a great surprise.

But the Prime Minister's Office stonewalled, refusing first to say how Muntean was paid, then stating her expenses were being picked up by the party, before finally being forced to concede she's working on the taxpayers' dime. A one-day curiousity turned into a three-day story and - with the government still refusing to say how and how much she's paid - promises more headlines down the road.

McLouglin's crisis rule No. 7? Get all the bad news out at once.

It was a wobbly Tory test-run for much more serious business that followed.

When the Globe and Mail revealed this week that up to 30 Afghan prisoners were alleging torture by local officials after being collared by Canadian troops, the story hit an already sensitive nerve.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor had been forced to apologize in March after erroneously claiming for months that Red Cross officials were monitoring the welfare of Afghan detainees.

McLoughlin's crisis rule No. 6? If you know bad news is ahead, announce it yourself.

Confronted by the Globe story this week, the Conservatives cast doubt on the torture allegations and O'Connor stated that the Afghan Human Rights Commission was monitoring detainees.

O'Connor's claim was almost immediately proved false, while a government report surfaced that showed Canadian officials in Afghanistan had warned Ottawa about torture. The most damning warnings were inexplicably blacked out before the report was released under Access to Information law, but an complete version found its way to the Globe.

On Wednesday, O'Connor claimed a new deal to monitor detainees had just been completed, but the prime minister said Thursday the deal was under negotiation and Public Security Minister Stockwell Day claimed that Canadian justice officials were already visiting the prisoners. Those officials, in fact, had no access to the notorious Afghan security service's jail and were not tasked with checking on prisoner welfare.

McLoughlin's crisis rule No. 2: Designate a single spokesperson; "many brains, one mouth."

In the midst of this mess, the government mistakenly faxed its long-awaited environment announcement to the opposition two days before the planned media roll-out.

Despite alerting Hill security, officials in the Prime Minister's Office initially claimed the faxed speech contained no newsworthy numbers and was simply a pre-announcement preamble. At least one broadcaster went to air with this blatant falsehood.

McLoughlin's rule No. 1? "Don't duck and run, face up to it." The corollary is rule No. 8: "Don't break into jail."

Environment Minister John Baird subsequently apologized for the leak, but the government still went ahead with a meticulously choreographed media launch on Thursday in Toronto, involving multiple lockups that sealed environmental critics off from the reporters examining the new climate change measures.

Peter Donolo, a former Liberal communications director for Jean Chretien, said Friday the three incidents all share a similar theme.

"Everything's made more difficult by this control freakishness where the only person who knows what's going on is the prime minister," Donolo said from his office at the Strategic Council, a Toronto communications firm.

Even Tory sympathizers agree.

As one dryly put it Friday, there are lessons to be learned for the government in how information is dispersed among departments and ministerial offices.

-

Image consultant Barry McLoughlin, president and CEO of McLoughlin Media, offers 10 tips for crisis communications:

1. Be proactive, don't just react; be visible. "Don't duck and run, face up to it."

2. Designate a single spokesperson: "Many brains, one mouth."

3. Communicate early and often.

4. Bring media in the front door. "Otherwise, they go in the back door or the side window."

5. Get ahead the curve, anticipate all the bad news.

6. If you know bad news is ahead, announce it yourself.

7. Get all the bad news out at once. "Have a bad day."

8. "Don't break into jail," with unguarded comments, flippant remarks, falsehoods.

9. Quit while you're behind.

10. Mop up after the mess and take time to learn lessons from it.

No mystery to Harper's unpopularity

2007-04-30T12:43:00.000-05:00

No mystery to Harper's unpopularity
Email story
Print
Choose text size
Report typo or correction
Tag and save

PM is as likeable as a movie villain
Apr 28, 2007 04:30 AM
Scott Reid

At the risk of angering the acolytes of conventional wisdom, it's time someone pointed out the obvious: Maybe Stephen Harper isn't so damn smart after all.

Of course, in Ottawa these days, such an utterance passes for sacrilege. Those who dare question the Prime Minister's infallibility are called names like heretical, bedlamite or Garth Turner.

Remarkably, it's not just the Conservative caucus who seem captivated. Media and political observers describe Harper with a blend of terror and admiration previously reserved for cinematic bogeyman Keyser Soze. Even members of the opposition parties sermonize on Harper's shrewd, strategic brilliance.

To a degree, you can forgive the Liberals and the NDP. In politics, it is wise to never underestimate your opponent. At the same time, it is equally important to not overestimate his advantage.

In truth, there is plenty of evidence that Harper's political strategy is crude, over-calculated and fundamentally schizophrenic. One thing more: It's not working.

A spate of recent polls show support for Harper's Conservatives once again in retreat, leaving the political class in a twitter. How can this be? Isn't Harper's triumph inevitable?

The inability of the Prime Minister to march confidently into majority territory has left official Ottawa baffled. Like the whereabouts of Wajid Khan's Middle East report or John Baird's shame reflex, Smart Stephen's inability to pocket 40 per cent of voters is treated by media as one of the shocking mysteries of contemporary politics.

Except it's not so shocking. The reasons for Harper's difficulty are not impossible to spot.

First, he isn't remotely likeable. That, alone, isn't necessarily fatal. Pierre Trudeau, for example, was loathed by whole chunks of the electorate.

But Harper is different. He has a mean streak, a thin-skinned nastiness that he can't even be bothered to conceal. Never before has a prime minister sought to serve as his own hatchetman. Yet, Harper revels in the role.

He spitefully labels his political opponents Taliban sympathizers or child pornographers. Small wonder that Canadians haven't warmed to him. The guy's miserable. And with this week's debacle surrounding Afghan detainees, he can't even continue to claim the mantle of competence.

Second, he champions policies that most Canadians oppose. He's extended our stay in Kandahar, walked away from Kyoto and is going to kill the country's most effective gun-control tool.

He's torn up 10 provincial agreements to expand child-care spaces, ignored the issue of health care wait times and, after two budgets, has yet to cut personal income taxes. If you can't get a tax cut out of a Conservative, what's the point of even voting?

Finally, his political strategy is at war with itself.

In English Canada, the Prime Minister pursues what American political types call a "retail" effort, with a direct appeal to voters based on bread-and-butter issues.

In a retail campaign, the media are shunned as a hindrance, an unwelcome filter of the government's message. Often exploiting people's prejudices, this can be a particularly unsophisticated brand of politics. It preys on fear and appeals to the least, rather than the best, in human nature. It also assumes that voters are dumb – that simple, selfish gimmicks will attract support. Much of what you see from this government is built around these principles.

In Quebec, however, Harper's approach could not be more different. There, his agenda is designed exclusively for elite consumption. The fiscal imbalance. Recognizing Quebec as a nation. Rebalancing of constitutional powers. These are all music to the ears of a political class that has long offered unwise counsel to vote-seeking federal leaders.

Individual Quebecers – with their enthusiasm for affordable child care, combating climate change and withdrawing troops from Afghanistan – are treated as a distraction. Instead, Harper toils away with his salon supporters hoping to patch together an electoral breakthrough based on supportive editorials.

By pursuing this two-pronged approach, Harper is in risk of outfoxing himself. One political strategy is difficult enough to sustain. Running two conflicting strategies simultaneously is simply asking for trouble.

Not only is he dividing his political brand equity in two halves, he is constantly risking the relatively small base of support he enjoys among each. Every time he celebrates "three strikes and you're out" in Alberta, he risks support in Quebec. Each story in La Presse about plans to shrink the federal government's role to 1867 dimensions trims his Ontario seat count.

In short, the Prime Minister's stalled fortunes are not so hard to explain if you look at Stephen Harper as he truly is: His political strategy is stretched beyond common sense; his policies rankle; and his political demeanour is acidic.

Other than that, he is obviously very smart.

Dion agrees to look at electoral reforms

2007-04-23T06:32:00.001-05:00

Dion agrees to look at electoral reforms
By JOAN BRYDEN

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion. (CPimages/Fred Chartrand)

OTTAWA (CP) - Liberal Leader Stephane Dion has agreed to explore reforms to Canada's electoral system as part of his non-compete agreement with Green Leader Elizabeth May.

However, it's unlikely Liberals, who've long benefited from the first-past-the-post system, will endorse the kind of proportional representation championed by many Greens as a means of finally gaining a toehold in Parliament.

"Our party is open to discuss electoral reform. We're not sure where it will lead us, but we agree that the current system has some shortcomings," Dion said in an interview.

But he added: "It's very unlikely that we will conclude that pure PR makes sense, because pure PR is only applied in Israel, not necessarily with good results."

He said there is "a panoply" of other possibilities.

Dion and May inked a non-aggression pact earlier this month in which the Liberals agreed not to run a candidate against the Green leader in the next federal election and the Greens agreed to not to run a candidate against the Liberal leader.

May briefly mentioned electoral reform at the joint news conference with Dion. In an email and talking points subsequently sent to Green party members, she was more explicit in stating that the deal included Dion recognizing "the need for electoral reform, which the Green Party sees as the need for proportional representation."

In an interview, May said Dion's willingness to study electoral reform was not a condition for her participation in the leaders' non-compete pact. But she said it was important in helping to make the deal more palatable to Greens.

"I certainly recognize that a lot of Green Party members were encouraged by that signal," she said in an interview.

"The thing that Greens care about more fundamentally than anything - perhaps for some Greens it matters more than climate - is that we fix the voting system."

Under the current system, parties have been known to win a majority of seats in the House of Commons with as little as 37 per cent of the popular vote. The Greens have been consistently shut out even though they captured 4.5 per cent of the vote in 2006.

Proportional representation is often advanced by small or marginal parties as a way to achieve a beach head in the Commons, giving them seats in direct proportion to their share of the popular vote.

Critics contend PR would tend to result in splintered Parliaments, with minority governments forced into unstable coalitions with fringe parties whose clout ends up far outweighing their actual electoral heft.

Dion noted that five provinces have examined electoral reform and all have come up with alternatives to pure PR. Most have proposed adopting a mixed member proportional system, like New Zealand or Germany, in which some members would be chosen by the traditional first-past-the-post method and others would be chosen from party slates based on the percentage of popular vote won by each party.

Reform proposals were shot down in plebescites held in British Columbia and Prince Edward Island. Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick are planning to hold plebescites.

The federal Conservatives have initiated public consultations on electoral reform, but the process has been criticized by opposition MPs as bogus. The think tank chosen to write the report on the consultations has a long record of opposing electoral reform, prompting suspicions that the government has little interest in changing the status quo.

Dion's the leader, but who's in charge?

2007-04-23T06:29:00.000-05:00

Dion's the leader, but who's in charge?
MPs complain of a lack of consultation in wake of controversial deal with Elizabeth May
JANE TABER
From Monday's Globe and Mail
April 23, 2007 at 4:09 AM EST

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion held a conference call with his six Nova Scotia MPs the night before announcing his non-compete agreement with Green Party Leader Elizabeth May.

The MPs, thinking they were being consulted, weighed in with their views, none of them favourable.

But they didn't get the sense Mr. Dion was listening to them. When one MP said “I thought this was a consultation?” the leader simply replied that he was going ahead with it. In fact, the news conference had already been scheduled for the next morning, April 13.

The agreement between Mr. Dion and Ms. May appears to have been well received by voters looking for a fresh approach to politics, but it caused divisions within Liberal ranks that highlight continuing questions about Mr. Dion's leadership.

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion held. (Yvonne Berg for The Globe and Mail)
Related Articles
Recent
• Liberal attack ads would blast PM for income-trust decision
• Dion willing to study electoral reform as part of deal with May
• Dion pledges co-operation with Williams

The questions began almost the minute he won the leadership in December: Is his English good enough? What is his main message? The environment? Law and order? The economy?

In the nearly five months since the convention the complaints have grown to include a lack of consultation with MPs, not enough emphasis on party renewal and dissatisfaction with research and travel staff in the Opposition Leader's Office.

As Mr. Dion continues to struggle in the public opinion polls, there are also concerns that his closest advisers are all members of the Paul Martin team that reduced the Liberal Party to minority status in 2004 and then lost everything in 2006.

“The MPs have zero input,” said one MP, who did not support Mr. Dion for the leadership.

“They get called for their input and then their opinion gets not listened to. And that's really frustrating for MPs. But it's not a surprise because Dion had zero caucus support, very little caucus support.”

Mr. Dion arrived at the leadership convention in Montreal in December with the support of 11 MPs and seven senators. Michael Ignatieff, who finished second and is now the Deputy Leader, had the support of 39 MPs and 10 senators going into the convention.

Liberals are good at fighting with each other and this lack of caucus support has not helped Mr. Dion as he tries to heal the wounds of the leadership race and those that still linger from the Chrétien/Martin days.

The concerns start right at the top. Who is in charge in the Dion OLO? Is it Andrew Bevan, the chief of staff, or Marcel Masse, the former cabinet minister and Clerk of the Privy Council who is Mr. Dion's principal secretary?

“Bevan is the chief of staff so presumably he is in charge,” said one Liberal strategist. “They have [Mark] Marissen [the national campaign co-chair], Masse, Bevan and now Herb [Metcalfe] lurking about, so who really knows. I would say the principal problem is the lack of any strategic plan, everything looks improvised and communications are, to put it politely, a disaster.”

Mr. Metcalfe, a prominent Ottawa consultant who started on Parliament Hill as a Liberal assistant in the Trudeau years. He is a volunteer senior adviser to Mr. Dion.

“It's very, very circular,” said one Liberal MP. “No one knows what is going on. Andrew Bevan, everybody likes him. They say he's a nice man but he makes no decisions and then out of the blue Herb shows up from time to time. … The reality is Herb is called in to try to solve some personality conflicts.”

Mr. Bevan would not be interviewed for this article. A senior Dion strategist said that Mr. Bevan runs the day-to-day operation but Mr. Masse “has a different level of engagement.” He provides advice on the ins and outs of running government, making decisions and being a leader.

“What Stéphane is trying to do and what he is doing is to create a collegiality,” said one of his strategists. “There are going to be bumps along the road. He's got the right objective. In the long run it will work out. We've had 14 weeks [since Mr. Dion began his tenure].”

But one Liberal MP said the whole operation is a “circus.” MPs or their staff will ask the Liberal Research Bureau, the office that provides background research and information, for help and will instead be directed to the leader's office.

“You call the leader's office. The leader's office says, ‘Oh that's a government house leader issue.' You ask the government house leader's office and they say, ‘Oh no that's the research bureau,' ” the MP said.

Some MPs are not happy with some of the nearly 50 staffers in the OLO, finding them bossy and unhelpful.

For example, one of the regional deskers, who is in charge of organizing the leader's travel to one of the regions and liaising with the MPs from that region, “treats people very, very badly, … is very dismissive,” said a Liberal MP.

And there are concerns that many of Mr. Dion's most visible advisers all have connections to Paul Martin.

They include Mr. Marissen, who ran Mr. Martin's B.C. campaign and is now running Mr. Dion's national campaign; Tim Murphy, Mr. Martin's chief of staff, who is involved in debate preparation; Brian Guest, who ran the war room for the Martin team, and is now writing policy; and Elly Alboim, another key Martin strategist, who has been in on some Dion strategy meetings.

Mr. Dion's main supporters attribute the grumbles and complaints to growing pains.

They say the deal with the Greens is part of the winning strategy to beat Stephen Harper and his Conservatives.

“Environment is the only issue,” said one of the leader's key strategists, who asked not to be identified.

“It is exploding in the public's imagination. We need people to know Stéphane understands the issue … [now] the Green Party Leader says he should be prime minister. We are getting our shit together…part of it is Elizabeth May.”

Mr. Dion's supporters also deny that his office is simply Martin Redux.

They say that in addition to Mr. Guest and Mr. Murphy, some people who are considered Chrétien Liberals are also part of the team. They include a key player in Mr. Chrétien's three majority wins, Gordon Ashworth, who will help run the national campaign, and Chrétien pollster Michael Marzolini.

“The old leadership alliances might be alive and well with the grumbler or two,” said one of Dion's strategists. “But we are not tolerating these kinds of labels.”

He said they have tried to include people from all the former leadership camps in the OLO and in the campaign structure.

One of Michael Ignatieff's senior campaign officials, Brad Davis, a lawyer, is “senior adviser strategic communications and policy and special adviser to the deputy leader.”

Martha Hall Findlay's policy man, Elliot Hughes, runs the Ontario desk in the OLO, meaning he looks after Ontario caucus members and issues.

And Katie Telford, who was senior in the Gerard Kennedy campaign, is the “policy secretary, director of policy and stakeholder relations.”

Some Liberals say these people are merely moles for their leadership candidates in the OLO. But, said the Dion strategist: “In our view, part of ‘renewal' is ensuring that everyone feels welcome. And our door is wide open to all Liberals for their involvement. … We want everybody … and there will be no party purges.”

Top 10' high court rulings expanded Charter

2007-04-17T15:14:00.000-05:00

'Top 10' high court rulings expanded Charter
Experts' list of decisions that most impacted interpretation of law includes rulings on abortion, gay rights, equality and native rights
Janice Tibbetts, CanWest News Service
Published: Thursday, April 12, 2007
OTTAWA -- A 1986 Supreme Court of Canada ruling that set a benchmark for balancing rights against government interests has been named the top Charter of Rights decision of the last quarter century by a panel of legal experts.
The panel, which ranked the top 10 decisions of all time, concluded that the most powerful judgments were in earlier years of the Charter, with no decision since 1999 making the grade.
The list is to be presented today at a Toronto conference to mark the 25th anniversary of the Charter of Rights, which came into being on Apr. 17, 1982.
View Larger Image
The Supreme Court of Canada list is legalistic and most decisions would be unrecognizable to Canadians, a panelist says.

Wayne Cuddington, CanWest News Service
Email to a friendPrinter friendly
Font:
The list is a legalistic one and most decisions would be unrecognizable to the Canadian public, acknowledged panelist Jamie Cameron, a constitutional law professor at York University's Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto.
"I was looking for cases that to my mind had the greatest impact on the Charter's interpretation," said Cameron.
The list also includes decisions on abortion, gay rights, equality, aboriginal rights, the need for judge-sanctioned warrants, and the necessity of the Crown to disclose information to the defence.
The rulings on the top 10 list are all ones that broadened the scope of the Charter rather than narrowed it.
- A ruling known as the Oakes test was ranked No. 1 because it set out a blueprint defining "reasonable limits" when establishing rights, said the group of 10 experts, which included law professors, judges, and lawyers from across Canada.
"It is iconic and a symbol of the Charter's goal of maintaining balance between the rights of individuals and the demands of democratic society," said the panel.
- The No. 2 case was a 1985 ruling known as the B.C. Motor Vehicle Reference, which dramatically changed the country's criminal law landscape by striking down provincial legislation under which anyone caught driving with a suspended drivers licence was subject to a jail term.
The groundbreaking decision attracted wide attention because the court declared for the first time that the Charter's guarantee of fundamental justice, one of the documents most abstract principles, went beyond simply guaranteeing the procedural requirement for fairness, similar to due process.
Critics asserted that the decision set the tone for an interventionist court, with judges giving themselves the power to strike down laws they don't like.
The panel rated the ruling second in significance because it "approved an expansive approach to Charter rights" that paved the way for the court to strike down anti-abortion laws, allowed accused killers to use drunkenness as a defence, and most recently, was used to strike down Quebec legislation that prohibited private health care insurance.
- The third most significant ruling was also handed down in the Charter's early days, when Edmonton Journal publisher Patrick O'Callaghan secured one of the first victories against unreasonable search and seizure by successfully challenging in 1984 the right of combines investigators to ransack his office.
- The "blockbuster" 1988 decision in the case of Dr. Henry Morgentaler, easily the most publicly recognizable case on the list, came in fourth place because it was a "significant Supreme Court foray into a highly controversial moral, ethical, and political debate about women's reproductive rights," said the panel, adding that the ruling "became a symbol of the Charter's hopes and aspirations."

- The case of Mark David Andrews vs. the Law Society of British Columbia ranked fifth because it was the court's first pronouncement on the definition of the Charter right to equality that took another decade to iron out. The ruling struck down legislation that banned non-citizens from practising law.
- The 1991 Stinchcombe ruling, which established a pillar of criminal justice by requiring the Crown to disclose pre-trial information to the defence, ranked six on the list. It was followed by the 1990 Sparrow ruling, a landmark fishing case that created a broad standard for establishing aboriginal rights.
- A 1998 ruling that sparked a fierce public debate over the power of the judiciary and became a lightning rod for Charter opponents was judged the seventh most significant case.
Email to a friendPrinter friendly
Font:
- In the Delwin Vriend ruling, the court confirmed the Charter's equality protections included gays and lesbians even though they were not explicitly included in the document.
The court then rewrote Alberta's human rights code to add protection for gays and lesbians, prompting then-premier Ralph Klein to threaten to use the Constitution's notwithstanding clause to override the ruling.
- The constitutional override was also at issue in the ruling that placed ninth. The Ford decision of 1988 upheld Quebec's right to use the Constitution's "notwithstanding clause" to override a court ruling that provincial legislation banning English signs violated the Charter.
- In 10th place was the 1999 case of Nancy Law, a young widow who was denied early access to her late husband's federal pension. The ruling settled a legal dispute over the Charter's equality provision with a new, curtailed definition of discrimination that restricted claims.
THE TOP 10 SUPREME COURT CHARTER DECISIONS, AS RANKED BY A PANEL OF LEGAL EXPERTS
1. Oakes, 1986: Set a benchmark for balancing individual rights against government interests.
2. B.C. Motor Vehicle Reference, 1985: Revolutionized criminal law by giving broad interpretation to the abstract Charter principle of "fundamental justice" to include the substance of laws, not just the right to due process.
3. Southam, 1984: Edmonton Journal publisher Patrick O'Callaghan secured a victory against unreasonable search and seizure by challenging the right of combines investigators to ransack his office
4. Morgentaler, 1988: Struck down Criminal Code ban on therapeutic abortions.
5. Andrews, 1989: Court's first pronouncement on equality rights struck down B.C. law that made citizenship a requirement to practice law.
6. Stinchcombe, 1991: Established a pillar of criminal justice by requiring the Crown to disclose pre-trial information to the defence.

7. Sparrow, 1990: Fishing-rights case that created a broad standard for establishing aboriginal rights.
8. Vriend, 1998: Sparked complaints of judicial activism by adding protection for gays into Alberta's human rights act.
9. Ford, 1988: Upheld Quebec's right to use the Constitution's "notwithstanding clause" to override court rulings that provincial legislation banning English signs violated the Charter.
Email to a friendPrinter friendly
Font:
10. Law, 1999: Settled long-standing legal dispute over the Charter's equality provision with a new, curtailed definition that reined in claims.
CanWest News Service

Dion's comments are way out of line

2007-04-16T11:20:00.000-05:00

Dion's comments are way out of line
It isn't his timeline that's inappropriate; it's his timing and his choice of words
L. IAN MACDONALD, The Gazette
Published: Monday, April 16, 2007
Why is Canada in Afghanistan? Because we're not in Iraq.
That's the short answer. Canada played a minor role in the eviction of the Taliban and Al-Qa'ida in the fall of 2001, and deployed a few hundred soldiers in 2002.
It was only when Canada declined to join the U.S.-led coalition in the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 that the Chretien government suddenly announced Canada would be stepping up its commitment in Afghanistan to 2,000 troops, based in the capital of Kabul.
Email to a friendPrinter friendly
Font:
As Brian Stewart's CBC documentary made clear last week, this commitment by the civilian leadership was several times the troop strength recommended by the military command at the time. The mission was clearly politically motivated, so that the Chretien government could say to the Americans that Canada was doing its part in the war on terror, in a different theatre, one approved by NATO and the UN.
It was only in the spring and summer of 2005 that the Martin government took the decision to redeploy Canadian troops from the relative safety of Kabul to an offensive role in the disputed and dangerous Kandahar province in the south. It was well known in military circles at the time that the new chief of defence staff, Rick Hillier, a former field commander in Afghanistan, lobbied hard for the redeployment.
But in the summer of 2005, no one in the government, other than then Defence Minister Bill Graham, bothered to warn Canadians of the increased risk. While it was obvious that confronting an insurgency in the countryside was different from patrolling the streets of the capital, the then prime minister was nowhere to be seen or heard on the subject. Hillier was sent out as the government's public-relations surrogate, a political role he had no business playing but a political vacuum he filled quite capably.
But the Martin cabinet authorized the redeployment, and one of the ministers voting in favour of it was Stephane Dion.
In May 2006, the new Conservative government of Stephen Harper called a snap debate and vote in the House to extend the mission in Afghanistan by another two years, to 2009.
Most Liberal MPs who had voted for the redeployment, including Dion, voted against extending it. And Paul Martin, who as prime minister was directly responsible for putting Canadian soldiers in harm's way, did not even bother to show up for the vote that evening, even though he had been in Ottawa earlier in the day.
But from that moment on, Harper took political ownership of the mission in Afghanistan. Whatever happened would happen on his watch.
Last week, it happened. Six Canadian soldiers were killed by one roadside bomb, and two were killed in another. The first incident occurred on the eve of the 90th anniversary commemoration at Vimy Ridge, a First World War engagement in which 3,600 Canadians died. It was the worst week for Canada in terms of military fatalities since the Korean War.
Later in the week, Dion offered his condolences to the families and a sharp critique of the government, while vowing not to extend the mission if he becomes prime minister.

"We have to tell NATO that in February 2009, our mission in Kandahar is finished," Dion said. "We face the risk of getting bogged down with the current prime minister, of getting bogged down in an incompetent manner. Imagine what they would do if they had a majority. Happily, we will never find out."
So, to review the bidding, Dion voted for the redeployment while sitting at the cabinet table, voted against extending it a year later while sitting in opposition, and now says he will end it in 2009 if he's prime minister.
It isn't Dion's timeline that's inappropriate, so much as his timing and his choice of words. In a time of grieving, particularly at Camp Gagetown in New Brunswick, Dion chose to make the Afghan mission a wedge issue in domestic politics. "Getting bogged down"? That's pretty close to the quagmire.
Email to a friendPrinter friendly
Font:
There are plenty of reasons for Canada not to extend its stay in the south, including burden-sharing with other NATO allies who should do more of the heavy lifting. Which doesn't mean Canada shouldn't stay on in Afghanistan in less dangerous precincts, particularly in support of building a civil society in a failed state.
Just as it's inappropriate for Harper to suggest that critics of the mission aren't supporting Canadian troops, it's even more egregious for Dion to suggest that Canada is "getting bogged down" and "in an incompetent manner." That might be be aimed at Harper, but it reflects on the professional conduct of the mission in the field.
And this from a guy who voted for it, as John Kerry once said, before he voted against it.

ADQ Leader Dumont had wanted Harper to reopen Constitution

2007-04-16T09:03:00.000-05:00

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS
Dion spurns constitutional talks

ADQ Leader Dumont had wanted Harper to reopen Constitution
BRIAN LAGHI AND BERTRAND MAROTTE
With a report from Canadian Press

OTTAWA and MONTREAL -- Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion has rejected suggestions by Quebec Opposition Leader Mario Dumont to reopen the Constitution, blaming Prime Minister Stephen Harper for encouraging the notion with unclear promises for more provincial autonomy.

"The thing [Mr. Harper] needs to do to prevent a problem is to speak out and say very clearly which powers, which responsibilities, he wants to transfer from the federal government to the provincial government," said Mr. Dion in an interview yesterday. "If he continues to be vague and confused, I think it's not good at all for the country. He owes that to Canadians."

Mr. Dion, who was in British Columbia on a political tour, blamed Mr. Harper for encouraging talk about reopening the Constitution by pledging to restrict Ottawa's power to spend money in areas of provincial jurisdiction. On Saturday, Mr. Dumont said he would consider reopening the Constitution to get Quebec's signature on the document if Ottawa is serious.

"If Ottawa is ready to open the debate on spending power, [Quebec's] National Assembly should have an initiative to facilitate its inscription in the Canadian Constitution," Mr. Dumont told supporters Saturday.
Print Edition - Section Front

Enlarge Image
More Latest Stories
Algoma joins ranks of firms foreign owned
Quebec tae kwon do team knocked out for wearing hijab
O'Connor envisions conflict lasting 15 years

But Mr. Dion said yesterday that the Constitution should not be reopened because the country has many other challenges to worry about first.

"My view is that we have terrible challenges in Canada regarding competitiveness. The world is tough," he said.

"If we want to keep our standard of living and pass on to our children a better quality of life, we need to tackle this issue. Climate change and the environment is [also] a huge issue and none of these issues that are facing us, including social justice . . . request a constitutional change to deal with."

He said a potential "constitutional obsession" is Mr. Harper's fault.

Mr. Dumont has called himself an autonomist, leaving political observers to wonder how far he would go in pushing the Quebec nationalist agenda. His remarks may well expose a significant difference between Mr. Dion and Mr. Harper on the federal role.

Yesterday, Mr. Dion gave a stout defence of Ottawa's powers.

"Federal institutions are playing a good role in Quebec. They are not foreign to Quebeckers."

By contrast, sources have said that the Tory government is considering a law that would get Ottawa out of areas of provincial jurisdiction. It is not clear, however, how far such a law would go. For example, federal officials have said there is no way Ottawa would eliminate the Canada Health Act, which the federal government can invoke to dock federal transfers to provinces that violate medicare. Other programs, such as aid for postsecondary education, are also not likely to be touched, leaving opponents to wonder just where Mr. Harper would restrict federal spending.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Harper, Sandra Buckler, said the government wouldn't comment on Mr. Dumont's remarks at this time.

For Quebec Premier Jean Charest, who has a slim minority government, reopening the constitutional debate is out of the question just now.

"We've always said that there will eventually have to be constitutional discussions and the resolution of a certain number of issues," Hugo D'Amours, the Premier's spokesman, said.

But any such talks would have to be undertaken only "when the chances of success will be very good," he said.

"The political climate has to be favourable. As the Premier has said before, the fruit has to be ripe, people have to be ready," Mr. D'Amours said in an interview yesterday.

"If we were to launch another round of discussions and it turned out to be a failure, well, we know the consequences from past experience."

Mr. D'Amours also pointed to several initiatives on the part of the Harper government, including declaring Quebeckers a distinct people within the nation of Canada, that have helped address some of Quebec's concerns.

The issue of spending powers can be dealt with outside a formal constitutional framework, he said.

Alain Gagnon, a professor of political science at the University of Quebec in Montreal, said that Mr. Dumont appears to be fleshing out his ambiguous "autonomist" policy.

"It's a bilateral approach that is meant to involve only Quebec and Ottawa, not the other provinces, unlike Mr. Charest's," which is based on co-operation between the provinces, he said.

Tom Axworthy Liberal-Green Alliance

2007-04-13T08:44:00.000-05:00

from Time To Reflect On What Went Wrong

I have been impressed with the dedication of the Greens — why not a Liberal-Green alliance on the environment? Trying to be re-elected five times in a row is never easy even under the best conditions, and the sponsorship scandal was not a winning condition. Even with all that, it was a near thing. The Liberal party now has a time out from government; it must use this time to include, not exclude and to think deeply rather than pointing fingers.

Harper moving Tories to centre

2007-03-17T08:07:00.000-05:00

Harper moving Tories to centre
PM to tell party faithful at meeting to target apolitical middle class
Andrew Mayeda, CanWest News Service
Published: Friday, March 16, 2007
TORONTO — Less than four years after he helped unite the right, Prime Minister Stephen Harper will take dead aim at the political centre in a speech on Saturday night to more than 2,000 Conservative party faithful gathered here to prepare for the next election.
But in a twist that could surprise admirers and adversaries alike, the Prime Minister will not define the centre along purely ideological lines.
Instead, he will encourage the party to take a more pragmatic approach and target hard-working families and taxpayers who do not identify with the shrill "protest" politics of the New Democratic Party or the "vested" interests of the Liberal party, sources say.
Email to a friendPrinter friendly
Font:
In other words, he will define the political centre as a broad swath of middle-class voters who are not necessarily engaged in politics but expect politicians to deliver tangible improvements in their standard of living.
The speech, which comes as election speculation continues to build on Parliament Hill, could mark a turning point for Mr. Harper's Conservatives as they try to build the "big tent" of support needed to secure a majority.
On Friday, some party supporters were already aquiver with anticipation of Mr. Harper's appearance as they gathered for a political boot camp at the Toronto Congress Centre.
Officially billed as a "political training conference," the four-day event will drill candidates and campaign workers in everything from door-to-door canvassing to get-out-the-vote techniques.
Mr. Harper's call to arms suggests the next campaign could be a bruising but calculated battle for centre-leaning voters tired of frequent elections that produce tenuous minority governments.
This week, Liberal leader Stéphane Dion rolled out a new justice policy that many interpreted as an attempt to edge the Liberals back toward the political centre and to counter Conservative accusations they are "soft on crime."
Meanwhile, Mr. Harper has announced billions of dollars in funding over the past two months to combat climate change, an issue that had been widely perceived as the Achilles heel of the Conservatives.
Indeed, Mr. Harper has increasingly staked out the centre on a number of issues, not just the environment. He has aggressively wooed multicultural communities that traditionally vote Liberal, especially in the Greater Toronto Area.
Last month, he earmarked up to $200-million in reconstruction funding for the war in Afghanistan, thus answering charges the government has emphasized military force over development in the embattled country.
In this sense, Saturday's speech will cement Mr. Harper's efforts to promote his party as mainstream and allay any lingering fears among voters that he would veer to the far right if granted a majority.
Sources say Mr. Harper wants to target voters who don't have the time to attend protests or the money to hire a lobbyist — a dig at the traditional reliance of the Liberals on well-heeled corporate donors.
The Prime Minister will also look to position the party in the centre on the Quebec front, they added. He will tout the Conservatives as a moderate middle option between the centralizing tendency of the Liberals and the separatist threat of the Bloc Québécois.
Mr. Harper will warn his troops never to count out the Liberals, who ruled for 13 years before Mr. Harper took power last year and have governed this country longer than any other federal party.
He will also discuss Monday's federal budget, telling supporters he hopes it will pass, while noting the party will be ready for an election if the government falls.
A national survey by Ipsos Reid, conducted this week for CanWest News Service and Global News, showed 31% of voters said they might switch their support to the Conservatives depending on whether they like what they hear when Finance Minister Jim Flaherty delivers his financial plan.
"There is a lot riding on Monday's budget, and the payoff for the Conservatives could be huge. Canadians anticipate there will be an election this spring, and this budget could put the Harper government over the top," said Ipsos Reid president Darrell Bricker.
"Expectations on the budget appear to be pretty high for a positive outcome here. On everything from the environment through to the military, people believe there is good news coming Monday," Mr. Bricker said.
However, the survey showed the two top parties still in a tight race, with the Conservatives at 36% in national support and the Liberals at 34%, essentially a dead heat.

Alberta withdraws equalization objection

2007-03-12T06:53:00.000-05:00

Alberta withdraws equalization objection
STEVEN CHASE
From Monday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — Signalling a significant shift in tone, Alberta Finance Minister Lyle Oberg says he “won't object” to a controversial revamp the Harper government has planned for Canada's equalization formula — a development that could reduce political friction for next week's federal budget.

Mr. Oberg, a member of new Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach's cabinet, said his province will not oppose the new formula, which takes into account resource revenues, as long as Ottawa pledges to fix per-capita transfer payments so that his province gets its fair share — another move expected in the budget.

He says it doesn't make sense to oppose the new equalization formula when Alberta, as a wealthy province, neither gains nor loses from a payout system designed for poorer jurisdictions.

“It doesn't matter to us,” Mr. Oberg said, adding later: “We also recognize that there's certainly a high chance that this is going to come in whether we say anything or not.”

Alberta, along with Newfoundland and Saskatchewan, has objected to a 2006 report recommending a new formula for Canada's equalization program: one that gives poorer provinces an extra $900-million a year, two-thirds of that going to Quebec.

The trio's beef was that the new formula — expected to be adopted in the March 19 federal budget — includes 50 per cent of provincial oil and gas revenues in calculations, leading to the hike in federal payouts.

Former Alberta premier Ralph Klein, and the province's current Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Guy Boutilier have joined petroleum-flush Newfoundland and Saskatchewan during the last year in condemning the inclusion of non-renewable resource revenues in equalization.

The formula — proposed by the 2006 O'Brien report — is even more troublesome for the Harper government because enacting it will also mean breaking an election promise. In the last campaign, the Conservatives pledged to exclude these same resource revenues from equalization formula calculations.

Mr. Oberg's comments were applauded by Ken Boessenkool, a friend and former close adviser of Prime Minister Stephen Harper who defended the O'Brien formula for handling resource revenue in a recent C.D. Howe Institute paper.

“It's not just a new tone, it's frankly a more sensible tone,” Mr. Boessenkool said of the Alberta finance minister's position, contrasting it with that of Mr. Klein, who he said liked to “rattle the populist cage.”

Mr. Boessenkool, a Conservative who has written for years on equalization, said the program is not a transfer of money to provinces such as Quebec from Alberta because it's paid for from revenue that Ottawa collects from all Canadians.

Mr. Oberg said he expects the Harper government will embrace the O'Brien formula.

But he adds he also expects the Tory budget to pledge a return to full per-capita transfer payment funding for Alberta and Ontario.

No immediate action is expected on health transfers because the Tories won't reopen the 2004 health accord, but Mr. Oberg said he nevertheless anticipates action on social transfers.

Mr. Oberg said he expects the budget to ramp up the Canada Social Transfer for Alberta, starting at roughly $150-million a year and rising over time to $400-million.

Alberta's less antagonistic position may also help the Harper government ride a wave of anger from Newfoundland and Saskatchewan over breaking an election pledge to exclude resource revenues.

If the Tories fulfilled their campaign pledge, it would yield $800-million in revenue for Saskatchewan, which today receives no money under equalization.

Harry Van Mulligen, Saskatchewan's Government Relations Minister, told The Canadian Press that Ottawa is looking for alternative ways to satisfy his province, and warned of an electoral price to pay for reneging on the promise.

“I don't think [Mr. Harper] can afford to write off Saskatchewan,” he said, noting that the Tories' 12 seats in the province could make the difference between winning a minority or a majority.

Federal opposition parties suggested Alberta is hoping for something in return for helping ease political friction on equalization, such as less onerous burdens for petroleum companies under a pending climate-change plan.

Mr. Oberg rejected the notion, saying it just makes sense to lobby for Alberta's fair share of per-capita transfer payments rather than squabble about a formula that doesn't affect his province's fiscal situation.

Stephen Harper's beaux stratagems

2007-03-10T12:15:00.000-05:00

In Focus
Stephen Harper's beaux stratagems
BRIAN LAGHI
From Saturday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — About a month ago, Prime Minister Stephen Harper buttonholed Stéphane Dion in a backroom off the House of Commons.

According to sources, he wanted to discuss the progress of legislation to reform the Senate — which sounds innocent enough.

But four weeks later, Mr. Dion's allies are starting to wonder whether the Prime Minister had an ulterior motive: Would he somehow use the meeting against them in the future?

“I have no doubt,” a senior Liberal said. “They're going to play silly buggers with this kind of stuff.”

Related to this article
Prime Minister Stephen Harper stands the stairway to his office and talks to reporters after Question Period in the House of Commons in Ottawa, Feb. 26, 2007.

It may sound paranoid, but given Mr. Harper's caginess, the Liberals have good reason.

Since his election, and especially in recent months, he has managed to spring a series of political traps that have made Liberals look divided on everything from the war in Afghanistan to recognizing Quebec as a nation and, most recently, extending measures in the Anti-terrorism Act.

In one year, Mr. Harper has proved to be a politician with a cunning streak, who solidifies his own strength by highlighting the divisions of his opponents.

“He's an outstanding strategist,” said one of Mr. Harper's former university professors and ex-Conservative campaign chief, Tom Flanagan. “He loves to make bold, strategic moves — and he thinks about these things all the time.”

The PM's tactical inclinations have been particularly sharp since Mr. Dion became Liberal Leader.

Popular at first, Mr. Dion has endured a Tory hazing that included negative television ads, doubt cast on his dual French and Canadian citizenship and a divisive vote regarding same-sex marriage.

Most recently, Mr. Dion had to stickhandle the Prime Minister's aggressive effort to split the Liberals over two key measures in Canada's anti-terrorism legislation.

“I think it's paid lots of dividends,” Mr. Flanagan said.

He recalled a conversation in the early 1990s when Mr. Harper said he thought strategy 24 hours a day. “He's got a bigger canvas to paint on since he became Prime Minister. But for anybody who's known Stephen, it's not surprising.

“Any time I had a strategic discussion with him, he was always many moves ahead of me. . . . He's just got a remarkable gift and now it's on display.”

Since his election, Mr. Harper has displayed his quick-strike method of attack, his willingness to take bold chances and his ability to exploit division.

The latter two skills first confronted the Liberals one year ago, when he asked the minority Parliament to extend Canada's military presence in Afghanistan.

Mr. Harper sought out Bill Graham , then the Liberal leader, to discuss how the vote might go.

He said a failure in the Commons would look bad for Canada on the world stage, so he wanted to know how much Liberal support he could count on, given that the Bloc Québécois and the NDP would almost certainly oppose an extension.

Sources say Mr. Graham told the PM at the time that he couldn't count on carrying the Liberal caucus, trying to imply that the vote might fail and it might be better to wait for another time. But Mr. Harper went ahead, forcing a wrenching six-hour debate among Mr. Graham's caucus and shearing off just enough Liberal support (including then-Liberal-leadership front-runner Michael Ignatieff) to let the motion pass.

Other parties have not been spared by Mr. Harper's tactical arsenal. Last December, he faced a potentially difficult motion when the Bloc asked the Commons to recognize Quebec as a nation. The manoeuvre was meant, in part, to force the Conservatives' 10 Quebec MPs either to buck their party by supporting the motion or to weather criticism at home for voting against it.

Yet Mr. Harper nullified the scheme within a few days by unveiling a new motion that recognized Quebec as a nation but only within a united Canada. The speed of the counterattack took everybody by surprise, particularly the Bloc.

Steve Patten, a University of Alberta political scientist, said the key to Mr. Harper's approach is to reframe the terms of debate: “[He] understands that it's always better in politics to be dealing with issues on your own terms rather than on other people's terms.”

These moves can also sway influential supporters. Mr. Harper's choice to back Israel last summer in the conflict in Lebanon, for instance, not only split the Liberals but drew former party stalwarts, such as well-known entrepreneur Heather Reisman, to his side.

Finally, Mr. Harper doesn't mind ceding ground at the front end to win more down the line. When he brought up his opposition to same-sex marriage on the first day of last year's election campaign, commentators thought it a blunder. But by hitting the controversy early, he defused it for most of the campaign.

Mr. Harper's recent tactics have given him a series of issues to exploit in the next election campaign, which some observers expect as soon as April. Days after the vote on the anti-terrorism act, for example, the PM gave notice that the Liberal stand on the act will be highlighted in a Tory campaign.

Other Liberals believe that the PM will take advantage of party divisions on crime, and that he will attack the Liberals for not supporting his government's decision to distribute $100-a-month checks for daycare. The payout may not be popular throughout the country, but he would love to split the Liberals on it.

A former Grit campaigner, who admires Mr. Harper's wiliness if not his ideology, said it's no accident when he takes the less-popular side. His position on Afghanistan or the anti-terror act may not have majority support in Canada. But when the Liberals are forced to take a stand on such questions, they often end up either divided or in the same boat with the other left-of-centre parties — the Bloc, NDP and Greens — leaving the rest of the spectrum in Tory hands.

“I think what he does better than anyone else is partition issues and determine what his own ground is,” the senior Liberal said. “If our likely response is we're against him, then he's comfortable where he stands. But if we're split and he can press a division, then he's all over us, and with a speed that has surprised everyone.”

Allan Gregg, the head of polling firm the Strategic Counsel, agreed that Mr. Harper tries to force the Liberals to side with the other three parties.

“He doesn't mind getting 38 per cent of public-opinion support or 40 per cent of public-opinion support if he can get the other guys on the other side dividing up the 60 or 62 per cent,” Mr. Gregg said. “He's quite happy to have the big chunk of the smaller pie.”

There are some risks to the approach. A party that takes too hard a line could fall out of step with the general voting public.

Some blame the party's by-election loss in the riding of London North Centre on a strong focus on crime that failed to pay off.

Mr. Harper also could end up looking too strategic for his own good, ignoring policy issues that matter to Canadians in favour of an obsessive desire to destroy the Liberals. Most observers aren't yet prepared to grant Mr. Harper a lock on an electoral majority — perhaps because too many Canadians still suspect his smooth operating style masks a more ideological agenda.

So far, though, Mr. Gregg said, the Prime Minister has avoided developing a reputation as a Machiavellian manipulator. Indeed, more Canadians are coming to appreciate his apparent decisiveness.

“I think what the public is increasingly seeing in the man is ‘the prime minister,' “ Mr. Gregg said. “That is, he possesses the attributes necessary to hold the office — whether they like him or not.”

However, he does allow that Mr. Harper may be seen as akin to the late U.S. president Richard Nixon — a wily politician who appealed to the middle class, but who allowed paranoia and his contempt for dissent to get the better of him in the end.

Things get particularly shaky when Mr. Harper practises his art within his own party — as with his decision in January to replace his beleaguered environment minister, Rona Ambrose, with John Baird.

Ms. Ambrose, sources say, suffered great personal anguish when Mr. Harper allowed rumours to swirl for several weeks about her impending shuffle. The conventional wisdom is that he dangled her on the line for so long in order to let voters know whom to blame for his government's fumbling of the environmental ball.

And while that strategy may have protected him, the public humiliation of Ms. Ambrose angered a number of Conservatives who are fond of the personable MP from Edmonton and who give her credit for being the first minister to take on the Liberals' own record on the environment.

This apparent insensitivity probably did little to endear Mr. Harper to younger female voters, a key group the Tories need to reach if they are to achieve a majority. “It hurt us with some women,” a senior Tory said. “We heard that.”

For now, though, Mr. Harper appears to have escaped significant criticism for his tactics. And if the polls are right, he may be looking toward his next strategic test — how to engineer an election even though he has a bill in Parliament that doesn't call for one until 2009, and opponents bent on avoiding it.

“He wants a majority,” a prominent Liberal said. “And until someone in his entourage tells him he can get one, he's not going anywhere.”

Brian Laghi is the Ottawa bureau chief of The Globe and Mail.

Those polls don't matter

2007-03-10T11:52:00.000-05:00

Those polls don't matter

NATHAN DENETTE/CP
Opposition Leader Stephane Dion attends a Chinese New Year Celebration on Feb. 18 in Richmond Hill.

Mar 10, 2007 04:30 AM
Thomas Walkom
National Affairs Writer

Don't count out Stéphane Dion. The latest polls suggest the new federal Liberal leader is in deep trouble. The latest polls should be taken with a grain of salt.

True, Dion has been far from adroit. His decision to oppose extending the preventative detention and investigative hearing elements of Canada's anti-terror laws was certainly correct, both in real terms (they constituted overkill) and politically. Coming out in favour of civil liberties better positions the Liberals to make their classic, and usually successful, feint to the left during the next election campaign.

But his failure to do so in a way that satisfied important figures in his own party served only to emphasize some of the very fractures among Liberals that the new leader says he is trying to heal.

In the end, only one Liberal MP, Scarborough's Tom Wappel, voted against the party line. But by then, the damage had already been done – particularly by former Dion rival Bob Rae, who took every opportunity to publicly disavow his leader's position on the terror laws.

Still, Dion's handling of this issue doesn't necessarily qualify as a terminal mistake. Indeed, it would be difficult for an opposition leader to make a terminal mistake at this point in the political cycle. Most Canadians aren't paying much attention to federal politics. I would bet that a good many Canadians have no idea who Stéphane Dion is.

All of which points to the perennial problem of reading too much into the polls.

On the face of it, recent polls don't augur well for Dion. All show the Conservatives back in the lead. One pollster, Decima Research, calculates that 37 per cent of voters in the country's Ontario heartland now support the Conservatives, compared to the 32 per cent who favour the Liberals.

Another, Strategic Counsel, found that when asked about leadership, the Canadians they polled preferred Harper to Dion by a margin of two to one.

No wonder that the media are now predicting doom and gloom for the Liberals.

"Desperate Dion tours country to bolster fledgling leadership," announced the Hamilton Spectator. "How soon will PM move in for kill on Dion?" asked the Toronto Star. "Liberals see their popularity plummet since Dion won federal leadership," said The Record of Kitchener-Waterloo sadly. "Tory surge in polls prompts election talk," crowed the Edmonton Journal.

Forgotten in all of this was the fact was that pre-campaign polling is a notoriously bad indicator of who wins elections.

The examples are legion. In 1984, then-prime minister John Turner called an election when his governing Liberals were comfortably ahead in the polls. By the campaign's end, Turner had been demolished, allowing the Conservatives under a relatively unknown Quebecer named Brian Mulroney to win.

In 1990, then-Ontario Liberal leader David Peterson called an election that the polls suggested he couldn't lose. He did lose – in this case to a New Democratic Party upstart named Bob Rae.

Students of more recent history will recall that Paul Martin's Liberals were ahead in the polls at the beginning of the last federal election campaign. They will also recall that, in the end, Martin lost out to a man that many commentators, including this one, had prematurely dismissed.

In fact, after the statistical error margins are taken into account, all that the polls tell us about the country's voting intentions is that Canadians are roughly where they were a year ago, when Harper's Conservatives squeaked in with a narrow minority.

Which, if it means anything at all, is perhaps worse news for Harper than Dion.

Incumbency confers immense advantages to a political party. The government in power gets to write cheques and announce vote-winning subway line extensions. News stories involving the prime minister of the day appear regularly in the press and on television.

More important, thanks to the deferential nature of both public and press, that prime minister is treated with great seriousness. What might seem like awkwardness in an opposition politician is miraculously transformed into gravitas once that same politician gets the top job.

But incumbency, particularly in a minority parliament, also creates huge risks for the party in power. It is like an audition.

If voters like what they see, they reward that party with a whopping majority in the next election – as Canadians did with John Diefenbaker's Conservatives in 1958. If they don't, they audition someone else, as they did in 1963 when they turfed out that same Diefenbaker and handed the reins of minority government to Lester Pearson and his Liberals.

Or sometimes, if they are feeling particularly malevolent, the voters just keep on auditioning the same leader – as they did with the long-suffering Pearson in 1965, returning him with another minority.

"It not going to be Dion versus Harper in the next election," says Nelson Wiseman, a former political operative who now teaches at the University of Toronto. "It's going to be Harper versus Harper, just as in 2006 it was Martin versus Martin."

What he means by this is that the next election campaign is shaping up as a referendum on Stephen Harper.

On the one side will be Harper as his opponents paint him (stubborn, graceless, mean-spirited). On the other will be Harper as his supporters see him (decisive, plain-spoken, rigorous). In this kind of contest, an opposition leader like Dion has an easier task. He doesn't have to be loved; all he has to do is present himself as a plausible alternative.

There is a certain element of frenzy in the media coverage of Dion. First, we were told he couldn't win the Liberal leadership. Then, when he won, we were told that this was bad news for the Liberals because he is so despised in Quebec.

When public opinion polls suggested that he was rather liked by his fellow Quebecers, the story line changed abruptly again. We were told that Dion had successfully tapped into Canadians' concern about global warming and that, in fact, it was Harper who was in trouble.

Now, with the polls having shifted back, we are told that Dion is a Johnny-one-note whose focus on the environment threatens to bore the electorate. The pundits tell us he is too cerebral; his English, they say, is nearly incomprehensible.

The National Post reports that he has a secret plan to impose a new, confiscatory National Energy Program on Alberta. (He denies it.) Citing an anonymous source, another Post writer claims that under Dion's watch, a coalition of Sikh and Muslim extremists is poised to take over the Liberal party. (He denies that, too.)

Indeed, it's unlikely that Dion or those around him are interesting enough to undertake either of these alleged plots. But then, it's hard to tell. Outside of Ottawa, the new leader barely registers.

Right now, according to his office, he's in the midst of a two-week, cross-country tour designed to showcase his strengths to Canadians. If so, it is a peculiar one. It's hard to find out where he's going.

His office did give me a bare-bones list of the cities he is supposed to visit next week, but only on the condition that I not reveal this information in print. I am permitted to say that he was in Toronto Wednesday evening, but only for private meetings.

Except for the rare cases when he surfaces publicly, as he did on Thursday in Ottawa when he made a formal speech about the economy, there has been no media coverage of the Dion stealth tour. But then why would there be if no one can find out where he is?

In the end, none of this may matter. Eventually, there will be an election campaign. And as Wiseman points out, when that happens, the media will feel duty bound to cover the opposition leaders, no matter how difficult these leaders make the task.

That's when most Canadians will bother looking at Dion. Some will probably be surprised to discover that Martin isn't Liberal leader any more. Some will probably be surprised to discover that Pierre Trudeau isn't Liberal leader any more.

Nonetheless, that's when the magic of democracy will come into play. The voters, in their wisdom, will decide whether they like the style of Dion's glasses, whether they think his voice is too squeaky, whether they are alarmed by the cut of his suit jacket.

More important, they'll be forced to come to terms with what they think about Stephen Harper. That's when polls will start to count.

All of this is foreplay.

Man of mystery?

2007-03-10T11:51:00.000-05:00

Man of mystery?
Poll finds majority don't know how to size up Stephen Harper
Norma Greenaway, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Saturday, March 10, 2007

Stephen Harper, we hardly know you.
Indeed, a new Ipsos-Reid survey conducted for CanWest/Global Television says that after more than a year in power, 65 per cent of Canadians say they do not feel they know Mr. Harper better as a person than when he became prime minister.
"He is a mystery wrapped inside an enigma, wrapped inside a riddle," is how Darrell Bricker, president of the polling firm, portrayed Canadians' view of Mr. Harper.
Email to a friendPrinter friendly
Font:
Women in particular see him as a mystery man, according to the survey, which found that 72 per cent of women, compared to 59 per cent of men, reported feeling they did not know Mr. Harper any better now than when he won the election last year.
"It's clear Mr. Harper has difficulty with women," Mr. Bricker said, citing other polls that have pointed to Mr. Harper's gender gap. "When you ask people whether or not they have a positive or negative view of him, the most negative are women, and they are intensely negative."
The survey also found 61 per cent of Canadians say their trust in Mr. Harper has not changed since he was elected. Fourteen per cent said it had increased and 23 per cent said it had decreased.
Mr. Bricker traced doubts about Mr. Harper to his inability so far to erase questions about whether he is being upfront about his agenda for the country.
"With Harper, the not knowing him always leads people into the impression that he may have a hidden agenda," Mr. Bricker said. "He hasn't been able to fill in those blanks. And because he hasn't filled it in, the lingering impression is that he has some sort of hidden agenda."
The Liberals threw the "hidden agenda" charge at Mr. Harper in the last two elections. Mr. Bricker predicts it will be used again by his political opponents in the next election as the reason he should be kept from winning a majority.
Mr. Bricker said the qualms about Mr. Harper represent a hole in the prime minister's otherwise solid rating with the public.
"They acknowledge his accomplishments, they acknowledge the fact that he is better than his main rivals in most of the substantial areas of leadership," Mr. Bricker said. "It is in the character aspects where they just seem to have more difficulties."
Residents of Atlantic Canada were the most likely to say they did not feel they knew the prime minister better as a person than when he was elected. The figure was 70 per cent.
At 41 per cent, Quebecers were the most likely to say they know Mr. Harper better now than when he was elected prime minister.
By comparison, the figure was 35 per cent in Alberta, Mr. Harper's adopted province, 33 per cent in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and 31 per cent in British Columbia and Ontario.
Mr. Bricker said the survey shows Mr. Harper is a bit of an enigma to Westerners too. After all, Mr. Harper may have lived in Alberta, but he spent his growing up years in Ontario and now he is a product of Ottawa, he said.
The survey is based on the views of 1,000 adults who were randomly selected and interviewed via an online survey. The results are considered accurate within plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Mr. Bricker said Mr. Harper's "mystery man" status is a political handicap. "For all those who think this is going to be a cakewalk for Stephen Harper in the next election campaign, this should be a big yellow light."

Dion slams PM's economic policy

2007-03-09T09:42:00.000-05:00

Dion slams PM's economic policy

Liberal leader calls Harper's GST cut an election gimmick that has come at the expense of funding for research, education
Mar 09, 2007 04:30 AM
LES WHITTINGTON
Ottawa Bureau

OTTAWA–Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion has accused the Conservative government of undermining Canada's prosperity by cutting funding on research and education to pay for political gimmicks like the decrease in the GST.

That undermines economic strength in a modern, knowledge-based global economy, Dion told the Canadian Club of Ottawa yesterday.

"(Prime Minister Stephen Harper) has used this money to pay for an election-oriented, economically unproductive GST cut," Dion said, echoing the views of many economists who say income tax cuts, which foster investment, are better for economic growth than a goods and services tax cut, which encourages spending.

The federal government reduced the GST by one percentage point to 6 per cent in last year's budget. And it has promised to cut another point off.

But Dion said an income tax cut would be better for the economy. "I believe Canadian taxpayers would rather take more money home on their paycheque than save a penny when they buy a cup of coffee," he said.

And Dion said a Liberal government would restore the billions cut by Harper for research and development, universities and student financial aid.

Dion was making what was billed as a major speech on economic policy as he continues a cross-country tour aimed at burnishing his image with Canadians. He has been stressing economic and social justice issues in an attempt to broaden his appeal, which has been strongly associated with green issues because of his past job as environment minister.

Dion is also battling poll numbers that show a widening gap between his Liberals and Harper's leading Tories.

A Liberal government would not reverse the GST cut but would cancel the Tory plan to reduce the GST by another percentage point by 2011, Dion said.

Dion said Canada needs a forward-looking economic strategy designed to protect jobs and manufacturing industries.

Dion told reporters he is in no hurry to force the year-old Conservative government to face voters. "I'm not sure Canadians want an election every year."

But he said the Liberals have to be ready for an early election because the Tories are in election mode, spending heavily on campaign-style advertising, holding training sessions for candidates and pouring out nearly $12 billion in spending announcements in recent weeks.

Later, Dion told CTV the Liberals will vote against the March 19 budget, something that could lead to an election, if they think the economic package is not good for Canada. "If it's a good budget, it should pass. If it's a bad budget, we cannot support it even though we do not want an election."

Dion told reporters he won't get into the gutter to fight with Harper, saying that it's an insult to the intelligence of Canadians to wage politics that way.

Asked when he will respond to Tory attempts to discredit him, Dion said, "I believe in this country. I believe that (appealing to) the intelligence of the Canadian people is the best way to win their heart at the ballot box.

"If the Prime Minister wants to go low, if he wants to take the bully approach, it will be his choice. I will keep to the high road. I'm very convinced it's the best way to have majority support at the next election."

Dion said he isn't worried about Conservative attacks. Harper's party has spent extensively on television ads denigrating Dion's leadership abilities and the Prime Minister has tried to brand him as weak on fighting crime and terrorism.

"I think he (Harper) is in danger to brand himself in a very negative way by the way he is attacking personally so many people," said Dion. The Liberals engaged in bitter personal exchanges with Harper last month over the issue of extending special police and judicial powers in anti-terrorism legislation.

Dion did not support Kyoto efforts, former environment minister says

2007-03-08T07:37:00.000-05:00

Dion did not support Kyoto efforts, former environment minister says
BILL CURRY
From Thursday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — Christine Stewart, who was the Liberal environment minister when Canada signed the Kyoto agreement in 1997, said none of her cabinet colleagues -- including current party leader Stéphane Dion -- supported her efforts to put a real plan in place to meet its ambitious targets.

In an interview with The Globe and Mail yesterday, Ms. Stewart said she told her colleagues that Kyoto would require tough action from the provinces because they control the main sources of greenhouse gases, such as power plants and natural resources. But the provinces objected and their opposition was reflected in cabinet by Mr. Dion, who was then intergovernmental affairs minister, she said.

"Stéphane Dion was the minister of intergovernmental affairs and the whole issue [of Kyoto] was creating horrible consternation among the provinces," she recalled. "Frankly, the environment wasn't an intergovernmental topic that our government wanted to expend their opportunity on. They had to worry more about getting a health agreement with the provinces or financial issues and we couldn't get [the provinces] angry and all upset about the environment.

"That was [Mr. Dion's] role. 'Let's let this one lay low.' It was never said in so many words. I think what I am saying is he wasn't against [Kyoto], but he was not a champion. But then he wasn't unique. If you can find a champion [in that Liberal cabinet], let me know," she said.

Related to this article

Articles
Carbon tax a possibility, Dion confirms after Conservative attack

Follow this writer
Add BILL CURRY to my e-mail alerts

Latest Comments
This should suprise no one. When you look at the Liberal (and...
Just another LIEBERAL flip flop. Is Dion to be crowned Mr. Dithers...
I bet Dion kicks his dog too when gets home at night!
The Conservatives spend so much time talking about what the previous...
23 reader comments | Join the conversation

Ms. Stewart was environment minister from 1997 to 1999 and has kept a low profile since retiring from public life before the 2000 election.

Her comments are similar to those expressed recently by Eddie Goldenberg, who was the senior adviser to former prime minister Jean Chrétien. In a speech, Mr. Goldenberg said neither the public nor the government was ready for the tough measures Kyoto required.

Mr. Dion has made the Kyoto Protocol a central part of his political persona, naming his dog Kyoto and supporting a controversial private member's bill that would enforce the accord's targets on the Conservative government.

In an interview, Mr. Dion said he was not surprised by Ms. Stewart's comments because there is always a natural tension between environment ministers and their cabinet colleagues.

Mr. Dion said he was working hard to find a climate change plan that could be supported by the provinces and Ms. Stewart was likely frustrated by the time it took to find consensus. He said he ultimately got the provinces to agree to a joint climate fund to pay for climate-change projects. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is simply reannouncing the result of that work in the Liberal cabinet, Mr. Dion said.

"I was trying to find a way to keep [the provinces] in the tent and to work with them," he said. "I needed them to find a way to help Christine, and after, David [Anderson], to succeed in working with the provinces."

Environment Minister John Baird said there is a pattern of key Liberals saying there was a lack of commitment when the Liberals signed Kyoto.

"Dion has a huge credibility gap and he has created it himself," Mr. Baird said in a telephone interview. "If we had started back in 1997, do you know how easy it would have been to make Kyoto? The amount of megatonne reductions compared to what we're dealing with today? I mean, it's astounding."

Ms. Stewart is aware her comments will likely be used by Conservatives for political advantage, but she is no fan of the current government. Ms. Stewart said she is happy that her Liberal Party eventually made climate change a priority. She also fumes at comments from Conservatives, such as Mr. Baird, who say Canada's Kyoto targets are impossibly out of reach.

"It drives me crazy to hear that kind of language," she said. "The emphasis is always on what we can't do and the high cost and all the negatives, rather than, 'This is a serious issue. The costs and risks of not doing something about this issue are immense.' "

Dion's character is his greatest asset

2007-03-07T20:34:00.000-05:00

Dion's character is his greatest asset

The virtues that appealed to Liberal delegates – intelligence, courage and integrity – could shape electoral circumstances as they become evident to voters, says Thomas S. Axworthy
Mar 07, 2007 04:30 AM
Thomas S. Axworthy

"History," wrote Donald Creighton, one of Canada's greatest historians, "is where character and circumstances collide."

Today's political circumstances, certainly, have many Liberals worried. Recent surveys show that the party has declined from its post-convention bump to the 30 per cent support level it received in the 2006 election with the Conservatives now leading in Ontario.

The media, which hailed Stéphane Dion in December, are now writing him off in March. A wise editor of The Washington Post once told me that the media have only two basic stories – "oh, the wonder of it!" (Dion in December) and "oh, the horror of it!" (Dion today).

Yet, despite the nervousness of many Liberals, it is Creighton's emphasis on character that should reassure them. In selecting Dion as leader, the virtues that appealed to Liberal delegates – intelligence, courage and integrity – can be a force that will shape electoral circumstances as they become more evident to voters.

I have only met Dion once or twice in passing, but both his extensive writings and his actions since becoming a politician in 1996 allow one to make a considered judgment. Three examples will suffice.

Wisdom is a core characteristic of leadership, emphasized in all philosophic traditions: it is intelligence used for good. Dion's intelligence is well-known, but on the seminal issue of the Clarity Act, he attained wisdom.

In his book, Straight Talk, Dion writes that Canada must found "our citizenship on a principle of caring which [Quebec's] secession could not break without making us commit a grave moral error."

Believing that reason and clarity are allies in strengthening Quebecers' allegiance to Canada, Dion and Jean Chrétien first brought the Secession Reference to the Supreme Court and then enshrined the court's principles in the Clarity Act of 2000.

Fearing public opinion, many Cabinet colleagues opposed both actions, but Dion argued that in a democracy, voters need and want clear questions.

On this vital issue, Dion was right when most of Ottawa was wrong.

Cicero defines courage as "the deliberate facing of dangers and bearing of toils." Defending federalism, both as an academic and a politician, Dion broke with the prevailing conventional wisdom of the Quebec intelligentsia. He paid for this defiance by enduring violent denunciations by virtually every opinion leader in the province.

La Presse, the largest daily newspaper in Quebec, for example, routinely ran cartoons caricaturizing him as a haughty rat. Attacks by opponents are to be expected, but in 2004 the Quebec advisers to Paul Martin succeeded in dumping Dion from Martin's first Cabinet. They then spread rumours that they planned to take away his seat. Dion, however, faced down his Liberal opponents as serenely as he had dismissed the separatists, and he ultimately prevailed.

In returning Dion to his Cabinet, Martin did him a favour by making him minister of the environment. Here, Dion found a cause equal to his passion for federalism. Elizabeth May, leader of the Greens, has called him one of our best environmental ministers, and the worst that Jack Layton, leader of the NDP, could say of him was that Dion was "a man of principle and conviction, and therefore, almost certain not to be elected leader of the Liberal party."

Dion's performance in chairing a major UN conference on the environment demonstrated the integrity that Layton admired. The conference occurred during the 2005-2006 election, but Dion threw all his energy into this international task, rather than politicking for his seat.

Dion's main opponent, Stephen Harper, also has formidable strengths, many the same as Dion's – intelligence, diligence and risk-taking. But on one classical virtue, that of temperance or moderation, Harper is shockingly deficient. There is an anger in the Prime Minister and a contempt for his adversaries that occasionally burst out for all to see.

Last week, for example, Harper charged that two Liberal MPs had appointed their husbands to the Immigration and Refugee Appeal Board. The men had been appointed all right: Lucienne Robillard's ex-husband was appointed in 1990 by Brian Mulroney and Marlene Jennings' husband joined the board in 1996, a year before his wife was elected to the House of Commons. Such a smear is unworthy of a Prime Minister and well outside the bounds of partisan debate. Many Canadians distrust Harper and every so often, he gives them just cause.

In most elections, voters usually opt for character and competence. Dion's character is his strongest suit.

As former Senator Allen Simpson once said to students at Harvard, "If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters."

Harper rocks the house

2007-03-07T20:29:00.000-05:00

Harper rocks the house

Adrian Wyld / the Canadian Press

PRIME SEATING. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper takes in the Brier yesterday in Hamilton. Seated in front and decked in gold is fan Robin MacPherson.

PM drops in on the Brier at Copps and says it's a Canadian game
By John Kernaghan
The Hamilton Spectator
(Mar 7, 2007)

There was no political spin when Prime Minister Stephen Harper dropped in on the world of rotating rocks yesterday.

The subject was curling and Harper's growing affection for a game he called a classic Canadian tradition.

"You don't have too many times when you get ordinary people, and I'm not talking about business leaders or labour leaders, but ordinary people from across the country in one place."

He said he first was smitten with the Canadian championship 10 years ago while on a trip to Winnipeg and started to schedule business trips around the event.

"I've never curled but my father did when I was very young," he said. "I've followed the Brier for years. About the last decade or so I've made an effort to get to the Brier when I could. It is such a great Canadian tradition."

Asked who he favoured, Harper admitted he had a soft spot for Kevin Martin and the Alberta rink.

"The great thing about the Brier is whoever wins or gets in, they're ordinary guys, great community guys. It's always easy to identify with whoever goes forward."

Martin won 9-8 over Nova Scotia in the afternoon draw Harper watched.

"It was unexpected and a privilege," Martin said. "He has a lot of knowledge about the game and definitely has been following it."

Fans sat in front of Harper while a security detail sat behind him and if fans took notice, they didn't show it. Only the event mascot, Brier Bear, stopped to shake hands -- and kneel for effect.

Harper sat in the end seats two rows back of a character who bills herself as King Midas -- aka Robin MacPherson of Hamilton -- who wore the Midas crown and was draped in gold head to toe.

"Just trying to bring a golden touch to the event," she said.

Harper was asked if he could use her as finance minister.

"We don't want everything turned to gold but we could use a little."

`Great Dismantler' puts ideology into action

2007-03-07T20:28:00.000-05:00

`Great Dismantler' puts ideology into action

Jan 01, 2007 04:30 AM
Dimitry Anastakis

Although he leads the weakest minority government in Canadian history, this has not stopped Prime Minister Stephen Harper from pursuing his real aim in government. Ultimately, all of Harper's policies are designed to dismantle the capacity of the federal government as a force in Canadian economic and social policy.

While he is doing this under the radar, slowly and bit-by-bit, anyone who has listened to or read Harper's writings over the last 20 years knows this has always been his sole and abiding goal.

From his days as the Reform party's "wonder boy," to his time in the anti-government National Citizens Coalition, to his writing of the infamous anti-federal "firewall" letter following the 2000 Liberal election victory, Harper has espoused a patently anti-federal government ideology, akin to Republican dogma in the United States.

Now, after a year in government, we can see his ideology in action.

First, Harper and his compatriots from the Mike Harris government such as Jim Flaherty, Tony Clement, and John Baird, are attacking the fiscal capacity of government.

Instead of using deficits as a reason to slash taxes, as Harris did, Harper and the Conservatives act just as George W. Bush did, using hard-earned federal surpluses as an excuse to cut taxes, which are, in essence, service cuts. In Harper's logic, having deficits or surpluses are a reason to cut taxes – it doesn't matter since the only goal is to cut taxes.

So, for example, we see the much-heralded, yet little noticed, GST cut. While it may cut $5 billion annually from the federal treasury, it has had virtually no impact upon average Canadians. Unless, of course, the "average" Canadian buys lots of big ticket items, such as boats or luxury cars.

But, more importantly for Conservatives, the phantom GST cut means that the federal government no longer can use that $5 billion for any other programs – such as literacy, or the Status of Women.

Then, they dismantle social programs, even though there is a surplus. For example, they ended Ken Dryden's hard-fought national early learning and development plan, and replaced it with their own Conservative so-called child-care plan.

This "program" both cuts federal revenues and destroys a social program at the same time. By amounting to nothing more than a $1,200 tax cut every year, the Conservatives have yet again cut billions out of the federal treasury and ended support for thousands of much-needed day-care spaces built up across the country.

Remember, Harper is not in the business of building, he is in the business of dismantling.

This can be seen in the fight over the Canadian Wheat Board.

Harper's ideological desire to dismantle ignores the realities faced by Western Canadian grain farmers, and even ignores the election results within the wheat board – which is against ending the "single desk," one that was established by the federal government and the agricultural community, and has served Canadian farmers well for decades.

Harper's latest effort to eviscerate the capacity of the federal government is his Senate slight of hand.

By proposing elected senators, Harper hopes to de-legitimize the current Senate, and thus the federal Parliament. More disturbingly, an elected Senate would provide a formula for total gridlock in Parliament. But Harper's plan would not provide any constitutional mechanism for avoiding impasses between the two chambers.

True to form, Harper will have succeeded in paralyzing the federal government while claiming to make it more "democratic."

Finally, there is Harper's ultimate goal: Ending federal spending power.

Long a demand by premiers and anti-federal conservatives, Harper is doing the provinces' bidding by proposing a constitutional amendment that no new federal program can be established without the provinces' consent.

Such a measure would mean a final total victory of the provinces over the federal government in the age-old tension between the two levels of government, a tension that has helped to give Canada one of the best standards of living on the planet.

On their own, each of these Harper measures do not seem that significant. But added up, they translate to nothing less than an utter dismantling of the federal state as a positive force in Canadian lives.

The question for Canadians is whether or not Harper has a mandate to dismantle the federal government's capacity forever, or whether they are willing to grant him such a mandate in the next election.

Campaign rush sparks debate

2007-03-07T08:41:00.000-05:00

Campaign rush sparks debate

Moncton party workers miffed at push to speed up riding process for nominations
GLORIA GALLOWAY
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — The federal Conservative campaign chairman has ruffled feathers in New Brunswick by demanding that the candidate-nomination process be expedited and by reportedly telling party members that policy is about winning over specific groups.

The rush by Doug Finley to put Conservative candidates in place in ridings across the country has fuelled already heated election speculation -- and caused consternation in places such as Moncton where local party workers would rather move at their own speed.

Several Conservatives who were at a recent meeting in the Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe riding attended by Mr. Finley -- and who refused to have their names published -- say he told them they must select a candidate for the next election by March 23, or he would appoint one himself.

Some say Mr. Finley indicated that party policy was being developed to appeal to the "Canadian Tire crowd" and earn the support of targeted groups needed to win a majority government.

The comments came to light after an anonymous letter, purportedly written by someone who attended the meeting, was sent to The Globe and Mail and Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson. The letter writer accused Mr. Finley of being disrespectful to politicians and party workers.

Others who were at the meeting say that is overstating the case: that the campaign chairman's tone was gruff, and lacked the pleasantries that many Easterners expect when they chat with one another, but was not insulting.

Phil Seeley, president of the Conservative riding association in Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe, said not everyone who was at the meeting came away miffed at Mr. Finley and not everyone would have interpreted his message as disrespectful.

"Could someone have taken that away from what Mr. Finley said? Yes. But is that what he said or what I got out of it? No," Mr. Seeley said. "There are some people who have been feeling that a nomination process was rushed or whatever. But that was part of Mr. Finley's point in stopping by."

Mr. Finley's office refused to comment about what transpired at the Moncton meeting.

Mr. Thompson had visited the constituency in the months before Mr. Finley's arrival and had indicated that the Conservative Party was willing to be flexible in allowing the riding to set the timing of its nomination meeting.

He told local members that their primary objective should be to find the best candidate. The Moncton constituency has been a Liberal stronghold and some riding-association members argue that it is difficult to retain a good candidate for a long period of time if no election is imminent. They want to wait until an election is called.

Most of the people who spoke to The Globe after the meeting with Mr. Finley say he was not sympathetic to that request. But Mr. Seeley said there is no undue pressure to find a candidate.

Mr. Finley spoke in general terms about the possibility of the government being defeated over the March 19 federal budget, Mr. Seeley said.

"He kind of made the case of 'Look, I have responsibility for 308 ridings and we're not just dealing with one, you're not a unique issue here and that sort of thing.' "

Some of the people who attended the meeting say Mr. Finley suggested politicians like Mr. Thompson should stick to cutting ribbons and passing out cheques rather than messing in the business that is usually conducted in the backrooms. One man who heard those remarks said he believes they were made in jest.

Some local party members also say Mr. Finley said that the election date would be determined by himself and Mr. Harper -- and perhaps chief of staff Ian Brodie. Others say he indicated that he would work collaboratively with the party's national council.

It's not the first time that the Moncton Conservatives have run afoul of party headquarters. The riding association cancelled a delegate-selection meeting in 2005 because the executive did not recognize many of the people who turned out to vote.

The meeting was reconvened later in the evening and selected delegates after the executive had left -- with the approval of head office.

There are people in the riding who have different ideas about how the process should go, Mr. Seeley said.

"Some people, unfortunately, tend to cry over spilled milk and say 'I'm not getting my way,' and that sort of thing."

*****

Suburban politics

The federal Conservatives have repeatedly targeted their policies at middle-class Canadian families. Last year, Stephen Harper said he was appealing to people who worked hard, paid their taxes and played by the rules. Occasionally, those targeted groups have been identified in more colourful ways.

Soccer moms

During the 2004 election campaign, the Conservatives tried to establish themselves as the foes of child

pornography, and one party official said "if it's extreme to be against child pornography, then every soccer mom in Mississauga is extreme." Soccer moms were seen as being representative of the suburban middle class. They are also perceived to be in the centre of the social spectrum.

The Tim Hortons crowd

Conservative strategist Goldy Hyder told a reporter in April of last year that Mr. Harper wanted to appeal to the Tim Hortons crowd, not the Starbucks crowd. Tim Hortons shops are more common than Starbucks -- and less pricey -- and they serve as the national watering hole. They're where the middle class, including soccer moms and hockey dads, can chat about politics before returning to the demands of family life.

The Canadian Tire crowd

Conservative campaign chairman Doug Finley is said to have told a recent riding association meeting in Moncton that the party wants to appeal to the Canadian Tire crowd. This, presumably, is not much different than the Tim Hortons crowd: hard-working men and women with the money to keep their homes and cars in good repair, but not so much money that they would pay to have someone else do the repairs for them.

Jennifer Ditchburn, Canadian Press

2007-03-07T08:36:00.000-05:00

Jennifer Ditchburn, Canadian Press
Published: Wednesday, March 07, 2007

OTTAWA (CP) - Guns, gangs, drugs. Oh my!
The Conservative party is warning that life will be grim indeed on your street if you don't cast a ballot for a Tory in the next election. The Liberals don't like the police, and they're just plain soft - soft on crime and soft on terror, says Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
On the other hand, if you do vote Conservative, your government will be looking out for you.
"The first and foremost priority we have is to be protective of Canadians," cabinet minister Jim Prentice said Sunday.
"To be protective of the economy, to protect the environment, to protect them from terrorism."
Get used to that type of rhetoric, because there'll be a whole lot more of it during the federal campaign, whenever it comes.
Law and order is shaping up to be a key element of the Tory strategy as the party looks for ways to shake loose more voters - especially in Ontario - and push into majority government territory.
Harper provided a taste of what was to come in a major policy speech last month where his party's ideas on crime and punishment were emphasized.
Canadians, he said, have "a clear choice between a country that values safe streets and safe communities, versus a country where the streets are ruled by guns, gangs and drugs."
That dire message was beaten home during the raucous Commons debate in February over whether to keep two expiring anti-terrorism measures on the books.
Liberal Leader Stephane Dion declared that preventative arrests and secret judicial hearings were unnecessary infringements on civil liberties and his party voted against them.
Harper quickly labelled his opponent: Dion "is not just soft on crime," charged the prime minister. "For the first time in history we have a leader of the Opposition who is soft on terrorism."
It's all pure politics, explains political historian Michael Behiels, focused on winning over just the right number of people in wavering Ontario ridings.
"(Harper) wants to make sure he can use this to get members of ethno-cultural communities in the Toronto region that have consistently voted Liberal to get them to shift their loyalty," said the University of Ottawa academic. "The one issue on which he can do that is this law-and-order matter."
Why those communities in particular?
"Most of them come from societies that are very tough on law and order, from societies where you have a lot of deference to authority and they put a premium on personal security and family security . . . so they're more prone to being conservative on that issue," said Behiels.
The political stakes were laid bare by Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant in a position paper he wrote for the federal Liberal party, leaked to a national newspaper this week. Bryant scolded his party for not coming out tougher on crime, a politically palatable position in Toronto where there has been high-profile gun violence.

The point is to have some credibility on the issue, enough to assure voters during a crime crisis that Liberals actually have some answers to improve public safety, thereby removing crime as a wedge issue with Conservatives and allowing a focus on more traditional Liberal social justice issues," Bryant wrote.
University of Toronto criminologist Anthony Doob says the Liberals, and even the NDP, have ceded the law-and-order stage to the Conservatives: "It's almost as if they're embarrassed to be smart about crime."
Doob contends there is little evidence to support Conservative claims that proposals such as mandatory prison sentences for gun crimes or getting rid of house arrest for serious offenders has any positive effect on the crime rate - which is actually on a long-term downward trend.
Harper said during his Canadian Club speech that when he was a boy growing up in Toronto, "safe streets and safe neighbourhoods" were a given. In fact, when Harper was still in high school in Toronto in 1975, Canada's homicide rate reached a peak of 3.03 per 100,000 people. The lowest rate since then was in 2003, with 1.73 homicides per 100,000, part of a decline over the past 30 years.
But whatever the rate, Doob says the problem is that it is far easier to explain to the public that you're going to come up with a series of tougher laws, than to describe a long-term, workable strategy for actually reducing crime.
"I look at this and I see one party that's absolutely clear on its position on crime - and they're almost always wrong - and the other two national parties are afraid to come out with strong, coherent policies."
© The Canadian Press 2007

Defining characteristics

2007-03-06T12:03:00.000-05:00

Defining characteristics

Jean Charest is trumpeting Quebec's recognition as a nation within Canada. But does it mean what he thinks it means?

ELIZABETH THOMPSON, The Gazette
Published: Tuesday, March 06, 2007
He campaigns from town to town, vaunting that Quebec has now been recognized as a nation, citing it as an example of things he has obtained for Quebec from the federal government.
But Premier Jean Charest may not have got exactly what he thinks he did when members of Parliament endorsed a motion by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in November, recognizing the Quebecois form a nation within a united Canada.
Harper himself has been vague as to what exactly his motion means - refusing repeatedly to give a clear definition for the word "Quebecois" or to explain why he used the term Quebecois in the English version of the resolution, rather than the usual Quebecer. He has scrupulously referred to "Quebecois" rather than "Quebecer" in English in his speeches as well.
In 1995, in the aftermath of a razor-thin federalist win in Quebec's sovereignty referendum, Harper made it very clear that in his mind only those of French Canadian ancestry qualify as Quebecois and that recognizing the Quebecois as a people - a key element of recognition as a nation - could set the stage for the partition of Quebec in the event of a vote in favour of sovereignty.
"Obviously, given the ethnic and sociocultural make-up of modern Quebec society, only the pure laine Quebecois could arguably be considered a people," Harper, who was then the Reform Party MP for Calgary West, told the House of Commons on Dec. 11, 1995, during a debate on Quebec's right to self-determination.
"While they constitute a majority of the Quebec population, they do not constitute a majority in each region of Quebec. This produces a curious result, that if the Quebecois pure laine are a people and if they have a right to secede, they could not claim the right to territorial integrity."
Harper also questioned whether Quebecers could be considered a people under international law, and argued they had no right to self-determination.
Harper's office did not respond to a question as to whether the prime minister stands by his 1995 statement. But nothing he has said publicly since introducing the motion contradicts that 1995 statement.
Calling into question the territorial integrity of Quebec is another term for partition - a concept that could see Quebec carved up in the event of a Yes vote, with some areas becoming part of the new country of Quebec and others remaining part of Canada. It is a concept that is often condemned by Quebec politicians.
However, it is also a concept The Gazette has learned the federal government researched carefully in the months following the 1995 referendum. Harper's quote, along with those of many other prominent Canadians and Quebecers, is included in a collection of quotes on the subject contained in Privy Council documents on the referendum which were recently released under the Access to Information Act. At the time the quotes were gathered by Privy Council officials, Liberal leader Stephane Dion was President of the Privy Council and Intergovernmental Affairs minister.
Harper's statement in the Commons came when Charest was still a federal politician, leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and MP for the Eastern Townships riding of Sherbrooke. There is no indication in Hansard whether Charest was in the House when Harper made the remarks.

The Privy Council documents also contain quotes from Charest in which he suggests partition would be on the table should Quebec ever vote for sovereignty.
"If separatists have a right to dissent, they can't deny the right to dissent to others," according to the documents, citing a Gazette article dated Jan. 29, 1996. "It's part of a black hole they would be walking into if ever there were a Yes vote."
If anyone has a right to separate, it is some of Quebec's first nations, Charest added.
In his speech in the Commons a month earlier, Harper voiced a similar opinion.
"If the strict definition of the word people is applied, only the aboriginal people in the North would likely qualify. This is clearly not in the interest of sovereignists and quite probably the reason why the Belanger-Campeau commission did not explore the point further."
Speaking to reporters Sunday in Roberval, Charest said his interpretation of Harper's motion adopted by Parliament in November is an inclusive one that advances Quebec.
"It is certainly a very important step in the recognition of our identity and it's a very important step in recognizing what Quebec and Canada is about as a country."
Charest cited Sir John A. Macdonald, who explained his decision to compromise with Quebecers in the lead up to Canada's founding.
"(He said) treat them as a nation and they will act generously. For me, it was justice to that view of what we are here in Quebec and what we are as a country. I'm very proud of that."
In the absence of a clear definition from their leader, Harper's own troops have been confused about how the Quebec nation is defined. While some have said "Quebecois" means everyone in Quebec, many other MPs are convinced they voted for a resolution that only recognizes those of French Canadian origin as being a nation. Former Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Michael Chong resigned from cabinet the day of the vote over the resolution - convinced after talking with Harper that the resolution promoted ethnic nationalism
Charest, however, said his understanding of the concept of Quebecois in the motion is a territorial, not an ethnic, one.
"I can't speak for others," he said, when it was pointed out many Tory MPs believe the motion only refers to Quebecers of French Canadian origins. "In my view it represents every Quebecer. Quebec is a society of inclusion and that is what makes us, in fact, a great society in my view. Being a nation does not contradict the fact that we're part of Canada. In my view it never has. We're very much a society of inclusion and that is a great source of strength for us."

Dion losing law-and-order votes, leading Liberal says

2007-03-06T11:24:00.000-05:00

Dion losing law-and-order votes, leading Liberal says
JOHN IBBITSON

OTTAWA -- Ontario's Attorney-General has warned Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion that his party's justice policies have "very little substance," are a generation out of date and could be potentially fatal for the party in the next federal election.

Michael Bryant, a fellow Liberal, conveyed the warning in a position paper to the federal leadership that has been obtained by The Globe and Mail.

Stephen Harper's Conservative government has effectively established a reputation for confronting and combatting gun and gang violence, the paper asserts.

In contrast, "Liberals trumpeted a trickle-down social-safety net approach, arguing that a strong anti-poverty social-safety net will address the root causes of crime."

However, a "focus on prevention alone does nothing for those families in crime-ridden high rises where illegal guns police the hallways," the paper maintains.

Worse, Mr. Bryant states, the Liberals have "very little substance to offer by way of alternative, and certainly nothing new or effective. The typical federal Liberal approach to crime, in a word, is a boomer approach that is stuck in the summer of love."

As a result, Mr. Bryant argues, "Crime is for Liberals what the environment is for Conservatives."

For Mr. Bryant, "The same fate awaits Liberals on the issue of crime." A high-profile incident involving gangs or guns that pushed public safety to the top of the agenda could leave the Liberals dangerously vulnerable to accusations that the party is soft on crime, Mr. Bryant warns.

A call to Mr. Dion's office asking for comment on Mr. Bryant's paper was not returned.

While the Liberals argue that they are "smart on crime" by pursuing the root causes of antisocial behaviour, Mr. Bryant's paper argues that such a position has little traction with voters.

"Being smart on crime is dumb politically if there are no wedges and little substance," the paper maintains.

For that reason, Mr. Bryant goes on, "we need to reconsider some of our traditional Liberal policies on crime. We need to take a close look at strong statutory measures, including reverse-onus clauses and mandatory minimums. We need to consider investigative techniques that Liberals have traditionally dismissed, especially the use of closed-circuit cameras and civil seizures."

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and Toronto Mayor David Miller publicly supported federal Conservative legislation that would introduce mandatory minimum sentences for crimes involving guns. The Liberals, however, have worked with other opposition parties to obstruct the legislation in the House of Commons. The Conservatives have also introduced legislation that would reverse the onus of proof from the Crown to the defendant in some bail hearings.

The Liberals argue that studies show tougher sentences do not deter crime. Mr. Bryant contends such reasoning fails to "embrace the irrefutable logic of incapacitation," the policy of getting criminals off the street and in jail, which the paper describes as "a powerful tool to rebuild communities under siege." Such policies employed at the provincial and municipal level, the Ontario Attorney-General claims, led to a 25-per-cent reduction in shootings and a 40-per-cent reduction in gun homicides in Toronto last year.

It is time, the position paper argues, for the federal Liberal Party to take a tougher approach to crime and abandon policies that have become, in effect, anachronistic.

"The point is to have some credibility on the issue," the paper concludes, "enough to assure voters during a crime crisis that Liberals actually have some answers to improve public safety, thereby removing crime as a wedge issue with Conservatives and allowing a focus on more traditional Liberal social justice issues."

Harper's strategy to force Liberals' hand

2007-03-05T18:34:00.001-05:00

Harper's strategy to force Liberals' hand

By TED BYFIELD

It seems clear, from what little I know of constitutional law, that Prime Minister Stephen Harper could have called an election last week or, conversely, that Liberal Leader Stephane Dion had clear grounds for demanding one.

When a government bill is defeated, as the bill to extend Canada's Anti-Terrorism Act was defeated last week by a vote of 159 to 124, the government can resign, or the opposition can demand its resignation, leaving the fate of the Parliament to the decision of the Governor-General.

So improbable were both these possibilities, however, media reports didn't even bother to mention them.

The fact neither Harper nor Dion took up the option means there's no appetite on either side of the House for an election at this time, but it tells us more about Harper's strategy than Dion's.

Piece by piece, he can present his program to the Commons, always with sufficient Conservative content to force the Liberals and their undependable allies to oppose it.

Their obstructionism-on-principle will gradually become evident to the public.

But wherever possible, he will inject into this doomed legislation elements some members of the Liberal caucus will not want to be on record as opposing.

The Anti-Terrorism Act is a good example.

Dion had a hard time whipping his Liberals into line; in the end, one man voted with the Tories, a former justice minister abstained, and a number of other caucus members were absent. This strategy will provide Harper with a double advantage.

First, it makes it glaringly clear he cannot carry on indefinitely in this way.

Second, it further weakens Dion's hold on his caucus, and deepens the general perception that the Liberals have chosen a dubious leader who could not govern the country.

Finally, Harper will bring in a budget with favours for all, especially Quebec.

When it is defeated, he will call the election. In Quebec, Charest's Liberals will support him against their federal confreres, since their own fate will depend on Harper's survival.

The Bloc Quebecois will be weakened because of Harper's recognition of Quebec as a "nation within a nation."

Will this generosity to Quebec damage Harper in the West, especially in his home province of Alberta?

Of course it will -- just as his abolition of the income trusts did.

But what choice have the disgruntled? Will they vote for the Liberals or the NDP, both sworn to visit the crackpot Kyoto treaty full force upon their economy?

So, if Harper holds the West, and makes a few Quebec gains, it all comes down to Ontario -- as usual.

Here Dion, no doubt, hopes to cash in on his environment crusade, but he suffers a triple disability.

First, he was once in an excellent position to save the environment -- none better, as Liberal environment minister -- and did nothing.

He knew enforcing Kyoto would damage the national economy almost as much as it would Alberta's.

If he did nothing then, is he likely to do anything now?

Second, environmental legislation will unquestionably cost thousands of Ontario jobs, where industry is already hard hit by Third World competition, and this is widely realized. The old, wealthy Ontario that could make financial and economic sacrifices on principle, and survive them, is no more, whatever David Suzuki may think.

Finally, if the Liberals were hoping Stephane Dion would at least to some degree reincarnate their great champion, Pierre Trudeau, they must now be realizing their error.

Dion is no P.E. Trudeau.

He is Quebec, sounds like Quebec and thinks like Quebec in a manner Trudeau never really did.

Besides, Canada has had Quebec prime ministers for nearly 37 of the last 39 years.

We're not supposed to mention this aloud, of course, but many of us are acutely conscious of it -- and tired of it.

Harper is not of Quebec.

Maybe we should give him a real chance, and not with just a minority government.

One way or another, this is a thought that might yet resonate in Ontario.

These three factors will surely tell in Ontario and if they do, Harper's Tories will win their majority.

But it's a hazardous game he's playing. Any mistake along the way could swiftly change the outcome.

Gloves coming off on left

2007-03-05T18:32:00.000-05:00

Gloves coming off on left

Green party leader Elizabeth May is under new attack from the New Democrats, Susan Riley writes. Surging in the polls, May is an unexpected threat to the traditional party of the Canadian left.
Photograph by : Dave Chidley, The Canadian Press

Susan Riley, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Monday, March 05, 2007
It is easy to miss in the daily exchange of big-arms fire across the aisle in the Commons, but there is a sniping war going on, too -- between the New Democratic Party and the surging Greens.
For the most part, the bullets are flying one way: New Democrats attacking Green party leader Elizabeth May's resume, her views on abortion, her commitment to progressive politics. It doesn't require a background in forensic accounting to uncover the roots of the skirmish. That would be polls suggesting the Greens, under their new leader, are poaching NDP votes. One recent sounding had the two parties tied at 13 per cent.
Former NDP strategist Jamey Heath, formidably articulate and experienced in the ways of Ottawa, has been the most blunt. May, he says, has behaved like a "sycophantic Liberal," and spent decades as an environmental activist, "snuggling up with Liberal and Tory governments alike."
In his new book, Dead Centre, Heath criticizes May for working for the Mulroney government during the free-trade era (she was an assistant to then-environment minister Tom McMillan.) That deal, Heath argues, means that Canadian energy policy is now being written in Houston. "Everyone has tactics and (May's) involved close ties with two of our most conservative leaders: (Brian) Mulroney and(Paul) Martin," he writes.
Yet both, arguably, are raving socialists compared to Jack Layton's new political ally, Stephen Harper -- easily our most conservative prime minister ever. That, at least, is May's analysis. Harper, she has said, represents "the advent of the U.S. Republican Party in Canada and is not part of any Canadian political tradition."
So if she has been, as Heath argues, in league with the right, the affair appears to be over. (What he fails to say is that May quit her job with McMillan after two years, in protest, when the Mulroney government approved an environmentally-damaging project.) Indeed, May has been accused of anti-Americanism by conservatives because of her passionate denunciation of George W. Bush's policies on the environment and Iraq. (The fact that she was born in the United States and emigrated to Nova Scotia with her pro-Kennedy parents at the age of 13, is not relevant, apparently.)
May has also been upbraided by the feminist left for her nuanced position on abortion. She would never have an abortion "in a million years", she has said and describes herself as "pro-life" in the largest sense -- fighting as she has, for much of her adult life, for the survival of the planet.
At the same time, she supports a woman's right to choose and access to legal abortions. She argues that abortion is too complex an issue to be reduced to slogans, and wishes protagonists in the often-hateful debate would respect one another's sincerity rather than hurling insults.
This approach earned her a rebuke from another former American, respected feminist Judy Rebick, who declared that she was ripping up her Green party card. "I hope you understand who you are crawling in bed with here," Rebick warned May. The refrain has been picked up by NDP MPs, including Peggy Nash, who recently urged voters to look closely at May's stand on reproductive rights.
Thing is, they might like what they see. May is adept at disagreeing fundamentally with someone without resorting to personal insult -- which, alone, makes her a novelty in federal politics. It also makes her well-liked, even by adversaries. She was recently asked by a climate-change denier: "What if you are wrong?" May's deft reply: "If I am wrong, which would be lovely news ... we'd have a society that is more competitive, had less air pollution and would be embracing the low-carbon technologies of the future." Just based on the price of oil and our over-dependence on carbon, "we'd be better off, no matter what."
For all that, May was deservedly rebuked by green allies for cutting Mr. Dithers so much slack. So far, she has resisted criticizing Stephane Dion, too, although he has been slow to produce meaningful green reforms. Indeed, it isn't clear that Liberals will oppose the ineffective "intensity-based" targets the Harper government will soon impose on big polluters.
The "intensity" approach is considered dishonest by most environmentalists, including May, which suggests a showdown with Dion.
As for the NDP, May dismisses all her rivals as "same old, same old." What makes her different is the way she frames issues -- like thoughtful people do, weighing all sides, thinking things through, trying to avoid cant and casual abuse. Apart from anything else, it makes her interesting.

PM walks softly but hopes to carry big stick in election

2007-03-01T08:51:00.000-05:00

PM walks softly but hopes to carry big stick in election
JANE TABER AND CAMPBELL CLARK
From Thursday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper walked home from Parliament Hill to his 24 Sussex Dr. residence after losing the vote on extending two key provisions in the Anti-Terrorism Act.

He likes to walk to clear his head, a senior Tory official said, and it was certainly a night for reflection as he left his office believing that while the Liberals had lost him the vote, they had just handed him a key election plank.

Yesterday, the Harper aide laid out some of the components of the Tory election campaign strategy, including highlighting the decision by Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion to vote down the two controversial anti-terrorism provisions that his own Liberal government had put in place.

And in Question Period, Mr. Harper tried it out:

"This is the party yesterday that voted against the families of the victims of the Air-India disaster," he said in response to a question by Mr. Dion. ". . . Shame on the Liberal Party."

Although MPs on all sides of the House are saying they don't want an election now, everyone on Parliament Hill is gearing up for the possibility of one as early as May.

The official said, too, that the Tories will campaign on their record, emphasizing that they've kept their promises and made gains over the past year.

But they will also look at the Liberal record, pointing out that they believe the Dion Liberals are soft on crime as they have opposed and tried to change the Conservative's crime bills.

The Prime Minister also said yesterday that new security legislation would be presented "reasonably soon."

His aides said that a new bill would include some measures aimed at addressing what they believe is a gap created by the expiry of the two measures, but that the details are not yet hammered out.

And while Mr. Harper's Tories were talking tough, the Liberals moved yesterday to try to soften the divisions in their caucus over the anti-terrorism bill.

Mr. Dion had whipped his caucus, telling Liberal MPs that they must vote against extending the provisions in the bill -- preventive-detention power and the investigative hearing procedure -- or face punishment.

But he would not spell out what that punishment would be.

One Liberal, Tom Wappel, voted with the government and against his caucus. Former justice minister and human-rights expert Irwin Cotler abstained. And at least four MPs did not show up for the vote.

Yesterday, Mr. Dion was unwilling to say what may happen to Mr. Wappel, calling it an internal caucus matter. Mr. Cotler said that he did not expect any punishment for abstaining from the vote.

Inside the closed-door caucus meeting yesterday morning, Liberal Whip Karen Redman, whose job it is to keep track of all MPs and mete out punishment, told MPs that she "praises publicly but punishes in private," according to an insider.

Meanwhile, Mr. Dion told his caucus members that the Liberals are the party of "the centre, we're a party of human rights and a party of child care."

He said, according to another insider, that "Harper can be a bully if he wants but I'm not going to change who I am.

"He basically said that he thinks that he represents where Canadians are, which is . . . centrist . . ."

The Liberals have accused the Prime Minister of bully and smear tactics around the anti-terrorism legislation.

As well as the pep talk, the caucus heard national campaign co-chair Mark Marissen and election readiness chairman Gerard Kennedy talking about the coming campaign.

The freeze on nominations was lifted this week and MPs were told that nomination meetings and or nominated candidates will be in place by March 20.

And Michael Marzolini, head of national polling firm Pollara, has been brought back as the Liberal Party's pollster. Mr. Marzolini polled for the party during the three Chrétien majority governments but was dropped by Paul Martin's team.

Green, Grit leaders getting chummy

2007-02-28T07:47:00.000-05:00

Green, Grit leaders getting chummy
John Ivison, National Post
Published: Tuesday, February 20, 2007
At this rate, Elizabeth May, the new leader of the Green Party, will never become an MP. To make it to the House of Commons, would-be politicians have to become so well-versed in the art of denial, they won't confirm their own name.
Yet when it is put to Ms. May that she's holding unofficial discussions with the Liberals and the NDP about helping her defeat Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay in his Central Nova riding, she cheerfully blabs that it's all true. "I?m not going to do any backroom deals but I am looking for some help -- and it's reasonable," she said.
Ms. May -- who lost a byelection in London, Ont., before Christmas -- said she is still in the "exploratory phase" of searching for a seat. She said she has been encouraged to take a close look at a number of constituencies, including John Baird's riding in Ottawa-West Nepean, and Liberal strongholds in Cape Breton-Canso and Sydney- Victoria. But Central Nova is a favourite and that means a little help from her friends.
View Larger Image
Elizabeth May, leader of the Green party, says she is holding talks with the Liberals and NDP about contesting Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay's seat in Nova Scotia.

Rod MacIvor, CanWest News Service
Email to a friendPrinter friendly
Font:
"I know from looking at voting patterns that Peter Mac- Kay inherited the riding from his father, Elmer. For me to run there and have a chance of winning, I'd need lots of help from other parties."
Discussions have been limited so far but Ms. May said she would be delighted if they were broadened. "I think it would be great to have a progressive alliance where the NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc, basically all the pro-Kyoto parties, say, 'What do we have to do to make sure that what occurred in 2006 [a Conservative election victory] doesn't happen again,' " she said. "Frankly, I'd welcome any kind of co-operation but I don't think the other parties have the ability or the maturity."
She might be right about the NDP, which reacted with laughter to the suggestion that they are prepared to do a deal with the woman who threatens to siphon off some of their support -- particularly when their star candidate, 28-year-old AIDS activist Alexis MacDonald, came within 3,000 or so votes of knocking off Mr. MacKay last time. "Who concedes an election to who, ever?" said spokesman Ian Capstick.
Er ... the Liberal party, it appears.
Ms. May and Liberal leader Stephane Dion have long had something of a mutual admiration society going. She described his performance as Liberal environment minister as "magnificent," while he has backed her bid to win a spot in the televised leaders' debates during the next election, lauding her "long experience" on environmental issues.
When asked whether the Liberals are prepared to co-operate with the Greens, a spokesman did not deny talks were taking place. "The Liberal party plans to run a candidate in each of the 308 ridings," was all he would add. The party currently has a nomination freeze in 207 ridings -- which on its own suggests the Grits are not ready to force an election any time soon -- but which would allow the selection of a cannon-fodder candidate if a deal were struck.
News that the Liberals are talking to the Greens is likely to be interpreted as a strategic error by some in the party establishment, who are already on the brink of mutiny over the reversal on two controversial provisions in the Anti-Terrorism Act introduced when they were in government. A deal, no matter how limited, could push some of those already grumbling about Mr. Dion's leadership out into the open.

In the broader scheme of things, the mere existence of talks is another sign that a fundamental realignment in Canadian politics is taking shape along the fault line of the environment. Ms. May's fervour for fighting climate change has already spread to the other mainstream parties. It can only be hoped that her readiness to give a straight question a straight answer is adopted with similar enthusiasm.

Canadians buck global trend, warm to U.S. role in world

2007-02-28T07:44:00.000-05:00

Canadians buck global trend, warm to U.S. role in world
poll

Don Butler, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Canadians' view of the role the United States is playing in the world improved in the last year, bucking international opinion, says a new poll. And the Harper government's effort to make nice with the U.S. is being credited for the change.
The GlobeScan survey found that 55 per cent of Canadians think the U.S. is having a mainly negative influence in the world. A year ago, 60 per cent held that view.
Thirty-four per cent judge U.S. influence to be mainly positive, compared to just 30 per cent a year ago.
Canadians are almost alone in thinking better of the U.S. A 25-country survey released last week by GlobeScan found the global view of the American role in world affairs has deteriorated significantly in the past year.
In the 18 countries where the question was asked in 2006, the average number who said the U.S. is having a mainly positive influence dropped by seven percentage points.
The only other country where the view of American influence has improved was China. Negative perceptions there fell to 52 per cent from 62 per cent, while positive views rose to 28 per cent from 22 per cent.
GlobeScan spokesman Oliver Martin said Canadians' opinions of the U.S. may have improved because of the warmer relationship the Harper government has fostered.
"There have been fewer spats," he said, pointing to things like last year's agreement ending the long-running softwood lumber dispute.
"Fewer Canadians are saying, 'It's an antagonistic relationship, blame it on the U.S.' They're seeing more of a positive relationship and saying, 'Well maybe the U.S. is not all that negative.' "
Despite the improved perception of the U.S.'s world influence, Canadians generally mirror international disapproval of specific U.S. foreign policies.
More than three-quarters of Canadians give a thumbs-down to U.S. policy in Iraq, while 68 per cent think the U.S. military presence in the Mideast is provoking more conflict than it prevents.
Two-thirds disapprove of U.S. handling of last year's war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, and six in 10 think U.S. policy toward Iran's nuclear program is wrongheaded.
On two questions, Canadians are even more critical than the global average. Three-quarters disapprove of U.S. treatment of detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere, versus the global average of two-thirds.
And 68 per cent dislike U.S. policy on global warming and climate change, compared to 56 per cent globally.
The survey of 1,000 adults was conducted by GlobeScan during the last week of December and the first week of January. The margin of error in the survey is plus or minus 2.5 percentage points, 19 times in 20.

A world of Maher Arars

2007-02-24T11:43:00.000-05:00

A world of Maher Arars

Why won't the U.S. admit Maher Arar's innocence? It may be fear of precedent. Tales of other suspects seized and sent abroad to face torture are beginning to come to light in Europe. This week, those stories helped bring down the Italian government. And as Doug Saunders reports, this could be just the beginning.
DOUG SAUNDERS
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
E-mail Doug Saunders
| Read Bio
| Latest Columns

On an October evening five years ago, a Gulfstream III executive jet appeared in the sky above Rome and requested a landing at Ciampino Airport, a small military and tourist-flight destination on the ancient Via Appia. On board the 14-seat plane were two pilots, a steward, five CIA agents and a tall, elegant Canadian wearing a green sweater, a pair of jeans and metal shackles.

The Gulfstream, registered to a CIA-connected firm known as Presidential Aviation, was on European soil for exactly 37 minutes. When it had finished refuelling, it left Ciampino at 8:59 p.m. and headed to Amman, Jordan. There, Maher Arar was carried off the plane, beaten, and loaded into a van headed to Damascus, where he would face 10 months and 10 days of horrendous torture.

Those 37 minutes are now coming back to haunt Europe.

Mr. Arar's ordeal, and the wealth of investigations and recriminations that have followed in Canada, has provoked a deep sense of alarm in European politics this week. This Syrian-Canadian's case, the abject apology he received from Prime Minister Stephen Harper last month and the bewildering lack of acknowledgment from Washington, has made a half-dozen governments realize that they may soon face similar public self-examinations.

Related to this article
Maher Arar at a press conference in Ottawa (CP/File)

Articles
Arar's personal history keeps him on watch list: senior U.S. official
Harper apologizes to Arar for torture in Syria
Court puts security certificates in limbo
Man allegedly abducted by CIA says he was tortured in Egypt
Italian PM resigns after losing vote on Afghan mission

Follow this writer
Add DOUG SAUNDERS to my e-mail alerts

Latest Comments
To The Emperor's Paparazzi: how much compensation did those...
I don't understand why people accept that Mr. Arar was "tortured...
And in other news . . . the Charkaoui decision comes out. Here...
It seems a lot of people are upset that Mr. Arar got $10 million...
38 reader comments | Join the conversation

The possibility, revealed in a European Union report last week, that as many as 20 more Arar-like cases may be emerging within Europe, is souring relations between Europe and the U.S. in anti-terrorism operations, and between European governments and their own people in electoral politics.

Major court cases are under way in Germany and Italy against domestic and U.S. agents for kidnapping citizens and sending them to Muslim countries to be tortured — cases that could implicate senior government officials and tarnish national leaders, as they have in Canada.

It is fair to say that Mr. Arar's spectre claimed its first major victim on Wednesday in Rome, when a parliamentary conflict over co-operation with the U.S. "war on terrorism," tainted by the use of Italian airports to transport Mr. Arar and others to sites of torture, led to the collapse of Italy's government.

Those 37 minutes that Mr. Arar spent on the tarmac in Rome, apparently with the consent of Italian authorities under anti-terrorism agreements with the U.S., have now become part of the controversy. An Italian magistrate, Salvatore Vitello, will travel to Canada later this winter as part of his investigation to determine whether Italians and Americans were guilty of kidnapping.

Across Europe, prosecutors such as Mr. Vitello have shifted their energies from charging potential al-Qaeda terrorists to investigating officials who may have overstepped the bounds of law in their pursuit of antiterrorism.

"We are investigating Mr. Arar's transit through Rome, which is itself a crime if behind it there was an actual crime — that is, if in the U.S. he was illegally kidnapped. If that is the case, if he was kidnapped, then Rome was part of it," Mr. Vitello told The Globe and Mail. "The fact that he was in Rome for those 37 minutes — somebody must have given permission for that."

A year ago, his investigation would have been another colourful sideshow in the flamboyant world of European jurisprudence. But Mr. Arar's precedent has changed that.

In Canada, the Arar case has led to the resignation of RCMP chief Giuliano Zaccardelli, to an apology from Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the payment of $11.5-million in damages to Mr. Arar, and to tensions between a Conservative government and a U.S. Republican administration. Foreign minister Stockwell Day has engaged in a heated showdown with his U.S. counterparts over his demand that Mr. Arar be removed from an American no-fly list. And the Liberal Party, in a forthcoming election, will be confronted with its indifference and possible collusion in the Arar case.

The issue of "extraordinary rendition" — the U.S. practice of seizing suspected terrorists, placing them on unmarked airplanes, and sending them without charge or trial to countries that practice torture — has festered for years in the background of European politics. But it has been an issue that has mainly concerned political parties and activists on the far left, groups that are predictably anti-American. In mainstream politics, it has simply been part of the War on Terrorism's background noise.

There has now been a palpable change. The carte blanche given after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to U.S. authorities to conduct anti-terror operations on European soil has become a menacing liability, and the subject of potentially destructive investigations, in several European countries. Governments are also reducing military co-operation with the U.S: This week saw Britain and Denmark announcing plans to withdraw troops from Iraq, with others expected to follow.

And when the European Parliament last week released a report condemning the 1,245 CIA flights made in Europe and the 20 European citizens subjected to "rendition," the responses no longer fell along predictable left-right lines.

European leaders are now looking nervously to Canada. Mr. Arar's "rendition" in 2002 was probably the first major use of the practice to come to light, and Canada is the first country to have been scorched politically by the explosive discovery that innocent people were tortured as a result of the practice.

Senior Canadian government officials and European Union diplomats have told The Globe and Mail that they believe the U.S. is avoiding any apology or acknowledgment of wrongdoing in the Arar case because it could open a Pandora's box of recriminations from Europe, where two cases almost identical to Mr. Arar's are being tried in Germany and Italy and at least 18 more could be pending.

American intelligence officials are facing criminal charges in European courts, and an admission that mistakes have been made could transform transatlantic relations into an enormous forensic investigation, they say.

Europe is now feeling the pain that Canada has undergone, in part as a result of information unearthed in the half-dozen inquiries into Mr. Arar's treatment. In Italy, the fallout has centred on the case of Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, a Milan cleric also known as Abu Omar, who was seized by CIA agents in 2003 and flown to Cairo, where he was tortured and sexually abused in prison. He was released this week.

Last Friday, Italy had its Arar moment. Milan magistrate Armando Spataro indicted 26 U.S. citizens, including Italian CIA station chief Robert Seldon Lady, and five Italians in the rendition of Abu Omar. All of them face charges of kidnapping. The Italian officials include the head of intelligence, Nicolo Pollari, who like the RCMP chief was forced to resign over the case, which is known in Italy as the Imam Rapito ("kidnapped imam") affair.

The U.S. has refused to acknowledge the Italian prosecution or to admit that the rendition occurred. It has also refused the magistrate's request to extradite the defendants (the Italian government has also decided not to press the extradition request at the highest levels). But Italian law allows people to be tried, convicted and sentenced in absentia, so the case will continue, likely revealing embarrassing information about high-level support for the renditions in Italian governments.

In Germany, a case strikingly similar to Mr. Arar's has led to arrest warrants against 13 CIA officers and damning revelations about German complicity in kidnapping. That case involves Khaled el-Masri, who was seized while on vacation in 2003 and sent to Afghanistan for five months (similarly, Mr. Arar, a computer programmer, had been returning from a family vacation). As with Mr. Arar, it appears that Mr. el-Masri has no relationship with terrorism and that his rendition was founded on completely false evidence.

Both Sweden and Portugal are also facing major investigations which accuse their governments of allowing citizens to be seized and sent to Egypt and other countries for torture, without any criminal charges.

Significantly, the case against the U.S. is now being made by judges and officials who have traditionally held pro-American, terror-fighting positions.

Mr. Spataro, the Milan magistrate, is as far from an anti-American firebrand as you can get in Italy: He has spent much of the past 30 years prosecuting terrorist and Mafia groups in Italy, and is not known for a hostility to U.S. interests.

"The job is the same — I have led many investigations against internal terrorism since the early 1970s. Many of my colleagues were killed by terrorist organizations," Mr. Spataro said this week from a Milan office filled with Americana — the wall behind his desk is dominated by a Norman Rockwell print chronicling the integration of southern U.S. schools.

"But we were absolutely sure that it is impossible to fight terrorism without respect for the laws. And with this investigation I hope that we can confirm that it is impossible to win over Islamic terrorism without the respect for law."

The Arar and Abu Omar cases were different in this respect: Along with his indictments of intelligence officials last week, Mr. Spataro laid criminal charges against Abu Omar himself, charging him with membership in a criminal organization (a crime in Italy). Mr. Spataro said that he strongly believes that Abu Omar could have been prosecuted for terrorism far more efficiently if the U.S. practice of rendition had not been followed. But now, he says, the terror-fighters are just as guilty as the alleged terrorist.

"I want to make clear that according to Italian law there is no difference between prosecuting terrorism and prosecuting those who fight terrorism," he said.

That seems to be the bridge that was crossed in Europe this week: It is now the people who were the most stalwart anti-terrorist fighters, the most loyal supporters of George W. Bush's approach to al-Qaeda, who are speaking out against the abuses of that system. With an eye on Canada, the moderates and centre-rightists of Europe are realizing that the U.S. is not prepared to offer a reasonable explanation for those abuses.

That was the case this week with Gijs de Vries, the EU's head of anti-terrrorism, who announced that he will step down in March because he has lost faith in his U.S. partners. He previously had embraced the American approach to counterterrorism, and harshly criticized the European parliament for its rendition-system investigation, with which he refused to co-operate. But on Wednesday, he said that the lack of U.S. explanation for its actions had made it impossible for him to do his job properly.

"The CIA renditions, together with Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and the military commissions act, unfortunately have tarnished the image of the United States in the fight against terrorism, among Muslims and non-Muslims," he told reporters. "I hope the United States, now that there is a new political dynamic in the U.S. Congress, can return to a mainstream interpretation of international human rights."

It was this sort of realization, on a larger scale, that led to the collapse of the Italian government on Wednesday. The expansion of a U.S. military base and the presence of Italian troops in Afghanistan were bound to be divisive in Italy, where Communists and other parties of the extreme left always have built a strong base on anti-Americanism. Those parties make up part of the left-wing coalition government of Romano Prodi, which took power from Silvio Berlusconi in last spring's elections.

But the U.S. base became a rallying point for more than just the far left. A public sense that Italian airports and bases have been used for immoral or questionable activities has led the wider Italian public to take part in protests against the expansion, drawing tens of thousands of people.

It created an environment where even the parties of Mr. Berlusconi's right could vote against the pro-American measures without upsetting their constituencies. On Wednesday, it was mainly right-wing politicians who voted against the military-base expansion and the Afghanistan measure, bringing down the government.

Sergio Romano, a former Italian senior diplomat and leading voice of the country's centre-right, told The Globe and Mail that he now believes that the U.S. should not have bases on Italian soil, because it has abused its friendly relationship with its European allies to the point that it can no longer be trusted.

"I believe that the very same people who have been most aware that terrorism is a threat are now the people who are critical in this case of kidnapping," he said from his Milan office. "I think that calling it a 'war on terrorism' has caused a number of mistakes on our part."

It is bizarre to find the likes of Mr. Romano, an ardently pro-American voice, calling for restrictions on U.S. rights in Europe. But with an eye to Mr. Harper's government, European leaders are realizing that it is perilous to support the Bush administration at this awkward political moment.

"I think there is a body of opinion which feels that this kind of thing should be looked at with new eyes," Mr. Romano said "We know very well that the Americans used their bases in Djibouti to attack al-Qaeda in Ethiopia this year . . . If they decide to attack Hezbollah, God forbid, they'll be using Italian bases to do it.

"And we won't be told beforehand. We'll learn the next day. And you become complicit in such things. We do not want that any more."

Doug Saunders is a London-based member of The Globe and Mail's European bureau. His Focus column, Reckoning, will return next week.

Editorial: Security certificates are here to stay

2007-02-24T08:43:00.000-05:00

Editorial: Security certificates are here to stay
National Post
Published: Friday, February 23, 2007
We were slightly baffled this morning, when the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Charkaoui v. Canada.
Headlines immediately flooded onto the Web declaring that the court had "struck down" or "reversed" the system whereby foreigners on Canadian soil can be detained on the issuance of security certificates by the federal cabinet. It would be much more accurate to say that the Court had reviewed every aspect of the system, found that most of it was justified by national security, and asked only for minimal changes designed to protect the rights of the arrestees. Whether one believes the certificate system to be a necessary part of the post-9/11 landscape or an outrageous infringement upon universal liberties, the hype behind the ruling cannot be justified. Barring stronger legal arguments against them, the certificates -- along with the safeguards already built into the system by its legislative creators -- are here to stay.
The defining feature of the certificate scheme is that it allows for non-citizens suspected of being a threat to national security to be deported, and to be detained in the meantime, on the basis of information that remains secret. The court upheld these central features of the system, reasserting strongly that "non-citizens do not have an unqualified right to enter or remain in Canada" and that they can be deported without special consideration for their Charter rights to life, liberty, and security of the person.
Email to a friendPrinter friendly
Font:
Absent a security certificate, Canada's essential obligation to a non-citizen is to give him a fair hearing in front of a judge before he is detained indefinitely awaiting deportation. The core question faced by the court was thus how to reconcile this baseline due-process requirement with the state's need to keep certain national security information secret.
The system at issue before the Court permits a minister to ask a Federal Court judge to rule on the "reasonability" of a security certificate in private, without any notice to or participation by the person named in the certificate. Such a procedure runs somewhat contrary to our legal traditions, which generally ensure that individuals are properly notified of the case against them, and have an opportunity to be heard by an adjudicator. The presence of advocates for both sides serves to ensure that the adjudicator has the facts and the most relevant law before him, and is not simply relying on cherry-picked facts and specious arguments.
Up until 2002, our immigration system allowed for adversarial hearings on security certificates. Where sensitive information was involved, the arrestee and his personal counsel could be excused from the hearing room, to be temporarily replaced by an independent lawyer approved by the federal Security and Intelligence Committee and sworn to secrecy. That lawyer would act within the process as a sort of substitute defender for as long as necessary.
This "special advocate" procedure was doubtless just as clumsy and imperfect as it sounds, but a similar system was used to keep some information secret from defendants and the public during the Air India trial, and is in use in the United Kingdom. At the very least, it accomplishes the goal of providing the arrestee with some degree of legal representation while ensuring that sensitive material -- such as top-secret intelligence information supplied by CSIS, an undercover informant, or an allied intelligence agency -- does not get disclosed to someone without the approproate security clearance.
In the ruling on security certificates issued yesterday, the Supreme Court thus ended up recommending that Parliament look at creating just this sort of scheme for special advocates, giving it a year to study the issue. Law-and-order types may complain that the Supreme Court is watering down a key provision that allows our government to fight terrorism. But properly managed, a special-advocate system wouldn't compromise the secure handling of arrestees. And a year is more than enough time to create a corps of lawyers with the necessary approval from the Security and Intelligence Committee. Moreover, there was little else the judges could logically do, since the counsel for the government never really bothered to explain why the special-advocate system had been done away with.
The court also ruled that foreign nationals who do not live in Canada should be treated on par with permanent residents and given the chance to file applications for judicial review of a security certificate immediately after being detained, instead of having to wait 120 days to make any filing, as they do under the post-9/11 rules. Again, the government's representatives in court did not bother to offer much of a defence for the 120-day rule, stating that "when the provisions were drafted, it was thought that the [deportation] process would be so fast that there would be no need for review." In striking down the rule, the court seems to be, more than anything, cleaning up the loose ends in a hastily-planned law that was the product of post-9/11 urgency.
Neither of the court's reversals of immigration law represents the glorious dismantling of some sinister "Guantanamo North," as some breathless advocates are claiming. Nor does either constitute a particularly strong rebuke of the ways in which our legislators have tried to steer a course between national security and individual rights. The Court has been careful to show that it is conscious of the same dilemmas and difficulties that our lawmakers face in protecting us from terrorism. The principle that we owe fair treatment to foreign visitors, but are ultimately the guardians only of our own liberties and lives, stands unchallenged and unshaken.

Court strikes down security certificates

2007-02-24T08:37:00.000-05:00

Court strikes down security certificates
KIRK MAKIN AND TENILLE BONOGUORE
Globe and Mail Update and Canadian Press

The Supreme Court of Canada has voted unanimously to strike down a controversial federal procedure used to deport suspected terrorists as being a violation of life, liberty and security of the person.

The security certificate process is hopelessly flawed and must be redrafted by Parliament to eliminate the extreme secrecy in which hearings to determine the reasonableness of certificates take place, the court said on Friday.

While carefully paying heed to fears of terrorism and the special difficulties of protecting national security, the court said that certain elements of fairness cannot be dispensed with -- including the right of a detainee to know the case against them and to make full answer and defence.

"While there is a risk of catastrophic acts of violence, it would be foolhardy to require a lengthy review process before a certificate should be issued," the court said.

However it said the various forms of review in which a designated lawyer is empowered to act on behalf of detainees could pass constitutional muster.

Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin suspended the effects of the ruling for one year to give the Federal Government time to craft a new security certificate process.

However, foreign nationals will benefit immediately from one aspect of the ruling which grants them a bail review within 48 hours of their first being detained -- a far shorter period than they must currently wait.

In the House of Commons, Conservative House leader Peter van Loan offered formal thanks to the court for its decision and signalled that the Tories would get to work trying to bring the legislation into accord with the Charter.

"We will be reviewing that decision and seeing if there is a way to — and we are confident we can — reconcile the need to protect the security of Canadians with the directions to Parliament from the court," Mr. van Loan said.

The ramifications of the decision will extend far beyond Canada's border, says Alex Neve, secretary general of Amnesty International Canada.

Speaking at a news conference following the judgment's release, Mr. Neve said the ruling debunked government claims that the security certificate system was fine.

"It's a ringing, profoundly important endorsement of one simple bedrock truth: Security is all about human rights," Mr. Neve said.

The ruling strengthens the Arar Commission's position in "conveying an unequivocal message" that fundamental rights will not be countenanced by the nation's senior judges, he said.

"That will be heard outside Canada as well in courtrooms, legislatures around the world, and it helps to reverse the global rollback in human rights that has been such a worrying trends worldwide since September 11th," he said.

The court said that while federal court judges who conduct security certificate reviews do play an unusually active role in testing secret evidence, they are not unacceptably "co-opted" by the process.

It said that there may always be some evidence that cannot be disclosed and must be heard in a secret hearing, yet that must be as minimal as possible.

"It may simply be so critical that it cannot be disclosed without risking national security," Chief Justice McLachlin wrote.

"This is a reality of our modern world. If Section 7 is to be satisfied, either the person must be given the necessary information or a substantial substitute for the information must be found. Neither is the case here."

It said that the onus on governments to move quickly in a proceeding becomes greater with passing time.

"Stringent release conditions . . . seriously limit individual liberty," the court added. "However they are less severe than incarceration."

The court said that the security certificate provisions do not violate the Charter right to equality or constitute cruel or unusual punishment.

The security certificate process -- enshrined within the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act -- has been a target of constant, harsh condemnation from civil libertarians.

The provisions pre-date the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and allow for a non-resident to be designated as a risk to national security, detained indefinitely, and ultimately deported.

The detainees and their counsel are provided with only a vague summary of the allegations against them. Evidence to back up the allegations is given in secret to a judge, and neither the accused nor their lawyer can attend.

The three men behind the Supreme Court challenge – Adil Charkaoui, Mohamed Harkat and Hassan Almrei – had all spent several years behind bars before being released recently under tight conditions of house arrest and their agreement not to communicate with a wide range of individuals.

The conditions of their detention – in a special holding unit nicknamed Guantanamo North – led some of the detainees to resort to desperate tactics such as hunger strikes.

Mr. Almrei's lawyer Barbara Jackman said, without Friday's judgment, her unmarried client would have "had a very hard time" obtaining release from prison.

"This decision makes it at least possible that a court may release him without requiring that he have a wife to supervise him," Ms. Jackman said.

Her co-counsel John Norris said the court had risen above the "rhetoric of national security."

"They have recognized the fundamental importance of preserving the security of all of us, but, at the same time, have stated in the clearest possible terms that that must never be done at the expense of fundamental fairness," Mr. Norris said.

PM's attack on Liberal 'devious and deceitful'

2007-02-24T08:35:00.000-05:00

PM's attack on Liberal 'devious and deceitful'

Harper shouted down after suggesting anti-terror reluctance is meant to shield MP
BRIAN LAGHI and CAMPBELL CLARK AND BILL CURRY
With reports from Jane Taber in Ottawa and Oliver Moore in Toronto

OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper set off an unprecedented political storm in the House of Commons yesterday after he suggested the Liberals are refusing to extend anti-terrorism measures in order to protect one of their MPs.

Responding to unrelated criticism about the way his government chooses judges, Mr. Harper attempted to read from a newspaper report saying the father-in-law of Ontario MP Navdeep Bains would not have to testify at the criminal investigation into the Air-India bombing if the measures are allowed to die.

"Obviously, the Liberal Party opposes the change we have made . . ." he said of the judicial-selection process. "I am not surprised, given what I am reading in The Vancouver Sun today, when I realize this is how the Liberal Party makes decisions."

He then began reading: "The Vancouver Sun has learned that the father-in-law of the member of Parliament for Mississauga-Brampton . . ."

The Prime Minister was howled down by the Liberals, who cried "Shame! Shame!" and said he was tarnishing the reputation of Mr. Bains and members of his family.

According to the report, Mr. Bains's father-in-law, Darshan Singh Saini, is on the RCMP's potential list of witnesses who could be compelled to testify under the legislation.

The Conservatives have been trying to exploit a split in the Liberal Party over whether to extend the anti-terrorism provisions, which were introduced by a Liberal government after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

After the outrage in the Commons, Mr. Harper's press secretary, Dimitri Soudas, told reporters the Prime Minister was not suggesting the Liberals' decision to oppose the measures was linked to Mr. Bains's father-in-law.

The Liberals weren't buying it.

"The Prime Minister has just confirmed that to him partisan advantage is everything. The truth does not matter; it is the allegation that counts," House Leader Ralph Goodale said. "He just proved his devious and deceitful behaviour."

Mr. Harper shot back that while the Liberal Party can ignore the article, "what they should not ignore is the fact that even the Air-India families say that the position that they are now taking will jeopardize the police investigation in the Air-India terrorism act."

Outside the Commons, Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said the leak of Mr. Saini's name was proof that the anti-terrorism measures should be deleted.

"This is supposed to stay private. And now we have a reputation that is tarnished at the face of the nation like that. This is very unfortunate."

Mr. Bains asked for an apology in the Commons, and when he didn't get one, accused Mr. Harper of tarnishing his reputation for political gain.

"He's playing politics with families. And, I mean, when this tragic event took place I was nine years old," Mr. Bains told reporters. Mr. Bains said he didn't know Mr. Saini was on a list of potential witnesses.

Mr. Saini has been a member of a Sikh fundamentalist group called Babbar Khalsa (Panthak). In 1988, Mr. Saini helped Harkirat Singh Bagga enter Canada as a refugee.

Mr. Bagga was later sentenced to 14 years in prison for the attempted murder of Tara Singh Hayer, the publisher of a Canada-based Sikh-language newspaper called the Indo-Canadian Times.

A representative of the Canadian Arab Federation called the matter crass politics.

"Do you think all of the Liberal Party decided suddenly to vote against [the provisions] because a relative of an MP might be suspected?" asked Mohamed Boudjenane, the organization's executive director. "It's a low level for a Prime Minister and it's not very dignifying. . . . We're seeing the real face of Stephen Harper."

A member of one of the families affected by the tragedy said he is crestfallen by the developments.

"I'm so frustrated that something that could be used in the investigation of the Air-India Flight 182 bombing may disappear," said Bal Gupta, who lost his wife of over 20 years, Ramwati.

Vancouver RCMP Sergeant John Ward said the police do not release the names of people who may be subject to an investigation and would not confirm whether Mr. Saini is of interest to police for questioning.

Sgt. Ward confirmed the police were planning to use investigative hearings as a way of questioning people as part of the Air-India investigation. "They were a very valuable tool that we were planning on using," he said.

The two provisions are set to expire on March 1. Police sought permission for an investigative hearing related to Air-India in 2004, but an unidentified individual challenged the process in court, saying it violated Charter rights to remain silent and to protect against self-incrimination. The case went to the Supreme Court, which upheld the provisions as constitutional.

The Liberals, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP all oppose extending the provisions, which would allow preventive arrests and special investigative hearings.

The Liberals have been on the defensive this week due to slipping poll numbers and open criticism by caucus members of Mr. Dion's position on the anti-terrorism provisions. Some MPs made a last-minute appeal to Mr. Dion yesterday that he change his position and others said they weren't properly consulted. However, several MPs said the majority of caucus supports the party line.

Mr. Bains, highly regarded inside the Liberal Party, was an important organizer for Gerard Kennedy's fourth-place bid for the party's leadership last December. He followed Mr. Kennedy's king-making move to support Mr. Dion.

Former Liberal leadership contender Bob Rae, who headed a review of the Air-India investigations and supports the extension of the anti-terrorism provisions, said that Mr. Harper cannot back up the link he is trying to draw.

Although the RCMP has said it wants to conduct investigative hearings, the names of potential witnesses have not been made known, and even Mr. Rae does not know who they are.

"There's no reason for any of those lists to ever become public."

Filled with Liberals, Senate supports terror law

2007-02-23T07:59:00.000-05:00

Filled with Liberals, Senate supports terror law
Committee makes recommendations that aim to balance security, rights

Published: Friday, February 23, 2007
A Liberal-dominated Senate committee yesterday recommended a three-year extension for two anti-terrorist measures the Conservative government is struggling to save from defeat in the House of Commons early next week.
The two measures, investigative hearings and preventive arrests, lie at the heart of political turmoil in the Commons, where the Liberals are divided over an extension the government says is necessary to keep the RCMP's Air India investigation going.
"We are satisfied that we have reviewed and debated the issues thoroughly," said Liberal Senator David Smith, the committee chairman. "Our recommendations are a package carefully designed to protect both national security and the rights of individuals."
Among other things, the committee recommends: removal of "political, religious or ideological motives" from the definition of a terrorist crime; appointment of special advocates to represent parties deprived of full evidence in national security cases, and; the narrowing of the scope of information that may constitute a crime if leaked outside authorized circles.
Despite the Senate report, fresh appeals from families of the 1985 Air India bombing victims, and pressure from within his own party, Liberal leader Stephane Dion yesterday stood by his opposition to the two measures, partly on grounds they may be used to stigmatize an innocent witness as a terrorist suspect.
In the Commons, deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff accused Prime Minister Stephen Harper of doing just that the day before by citing a Vancouver Sun report that the father-in-law of Ontario Liberal MP Navdeep Bains is on a list of people the RCMP wants subject to one of 15 investigative hearings planned in the Air India case.
Mr. Harper arrived at the Commons flanked by widower Bal Gupta and other members of Air India victim families.
Mr. Harper's office had given notice to the press gallery of a photo opportunity.
"The terrorists are still running among us and God knows who their next victims will be," Mr. Gupta said at a news conference after lobbying MPs and meeting the prime minister. "I believe the government is doing the right thing for Canadians by trying to extend this act."
Mr. Harper repeatedly refused requests from Mr. Bains and a string of front-bench Liberals to apologize for insinuations that had enraged the Liberals the day before. He calmly deflected harsh criticism by Mr. Ignatieff, who accused him of having "disgraced this institution" and by Liberal House leader Ralph Goodale, who called Mr. Harper a "mean and petty "man who lacked common decency and "abuses power for his own partisan advantages."
Under investigative hearings a judge, at the request of police and authorized by the attorney general, can compel a witness to testify in camera about past or planned terrorist activities. Preventive arrests allow arrests and short detention without warrant of terrorist suspects.
The measures are set to expire next Thursday unless they are extended for three years in a vote on a government motion scheduled in the Commons for 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday afternoon. They must also be approved in the Senate. If one house votes them down, they expire Thursday under a sunset clause contained in the Anti-Terrorism Act introduced by the then Liberal government shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the U.S.

"After much deliberation, the members decided to include recommendations regarding those provisions," said Tory Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, deputy chair of the committee. "Our analysis of the act led us to the conclusion that the provisions are an appropriate tool in the legislation to protect Canadians against terrorism."
Since the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebecois are opposed to the extension, the government can only win the vote if about a third of the Liberal caucus breaks ranks, an unlikely scenario since Dion ordered all MPs to show up and to vote after a week of threats by some to break ranks and vote with the government.
The Senate committee heard 146 witnesses during 47 meetings in 2005 and 2006.
© The Ottawa Citizen 2007