EKOS tells the tale: Am I still safe at Starbucks?

I'd like to begin this post with a hat-tip. I'd like to hat-tip Steve V of Far n Wide. I read his blog often, and always on days when a new poll comes out. Because I think Steve is pretty much bang-on with his summaries and analysis.

To quote, Steve blogged a while ago that when there is scandal, support for the government goes down. But when everything is normal on the Hill (defining normal as the shenanigans and partisanship that have become acceptable for parliament) popular opinion swings to to support the status quo (ie. the Conservatives).

As a progressive, this is outraging. Because I have a memory and principles. Both of which can be (admittedly) flexible at times, but never absent from my engagement with politics.

Today, EKOS tells Steve V's tale. Government support is up. Well, that's not entirely true. Harper has managed to pad his base. The Liberals have not. Their "horse race" support has either gone back to the NDP or have decided that things are not as bad as they seem and are content with the government. This poll isn't as frightening as the one Ipsos put out the other day, but it nonetheless keeps progressives frustrated.

The Globe and Mail is saying that the poll shows a post-Ford election, anti-elite "euphoria" in the GTA and other parts of the country that have recently conducted municipal elections. If this is true, my question is: am I still safe at Starbucks?

Jokes aside, we all saw the damage Rob Ford did to the Toronto civic election. He brought Tea Party politics to Canada and in a big way. The "left" was split and that's all it took folks. I imagine we'd see Christine O'Donnell in the House of Commons if she was Canadian. Why? Because we have a "united" band of right wingers who are ready to say, do, and promote anyone that will stand the chance of winning a seat. Imagine if you had O'Donnell facing off against two Democrats. One liberal and one liberaler. O'Donnell wins that state.

Who would O'Donnell be facing if she was in Canada? An incumbent Liberal who has probably been in the House for 15 years; a sensible New Democrat with an MA; and an environmental engineer running for the Green party. And maybe an independent who works out of their home selling knives. What's a voter to do when they think they're getting screwed? When they don't understand the workings of government? When the implications of our actions abroad are seemingly unimportant to their daily lives? They vote for the candidate who tells them what they want to hear: Stop the Gravy Train.

Lest the voter forgets (or remembers?) that said Tea Partier thinks masturbation is wrong. Or that homosexuality is an identity disorder. Or openly states that the Western world is at the edge of Armageddon with Islam. Or any of the other crap that comes from the pick-and-choose libertarian, anti-establishment, religiously fundamental republican playbook. I'll give credit where credit is due: this brand of politics has a way of articulating to people what they want to hear. They can narrate the lives of just enough voters to make a split-vote deadly.

Should Pantalone have left the race? Maybe. At first, I thought it was a good thing he was in it all the way. It stopped the Toronto mayoral race from looking like an American primary. It was a display of democracy. And I can't hate on that. Was it wise to stay? Probably not. It was principled, but not wise. And now here we are.

Think long and hard Layton. Think long and hard Ignatieff. If Harper is going to bark day and night about the Coalition - why not go for it? If the chances of forming a government live between "barely possible" and "no chance in hell" then maybe the two parties should sit down together and put together a list of 5 objectives that they are going to get done in this parliamentary session and DO THEM. They got the votes to keep the gun registry. They had the votes to pass C-300 and blew it. It can be done. So why not do it? You make up the majority in parliament! I'm not saying give up on winning an election, but while we're in this painful minority why not pass a few bills that would get progressives excited about voting for you? Now there's idea I could vote for.

The "problem" with bill C-300

It is like clockwork, ladies and gentlemen of the progressive blogosphere. As soon as I start to trust the Liberal Party; as soon as I speak good things about Ignatieff to my friends and colleagues; as soon as I start to think, "Hey, I could fit under this big red tent" - WHAM! - I am hit with some bologna like this: Will Michael Igantieff Bury his own MP's Mining Bill?

A Liberal private member’s bill is the buzz of Parliament Hill as the Tories tries to score political points on its back, Michael Ignatieff distances himself from it and Liberal Whip Marcel Proulx tells caucus members to stay away from the vote on Wednesday.

Great! Just when you almost had me, you pull a stunt like this! Attracting guys like me who would actually get involved in the party and work their tails off to see LPC candidates elected in an election, is like trying to get a little squirrel into your hands. Right when we're at your fingertips you do not make big sudden movements!

Now, where was I? Yes. Bill C-300 apparently has some "problems" according to Ignatieff and Harper. (The only problem for Harper is that it will make him look like a giant hypocrite if he doesn't support it, oh wait, that's never a problem for the Prime Minister.) The bill is intended to, and I quote: is to ensure that corporations engaged in mining, oil or gas activities and receiving support from the Government of Canada act in a manner consistent with international environmental best practices and with Canada's commitments to international human rights standards.

The bill would give considerable power to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of International Trade, along with the Governor in Council, to make the call as to whether or not a complaint received about a Canadian company in a developing country has committed human rights abuses (explicitly or implicitly) and whether or not their activities follow international standards on environmental care. Their power goes so far as to reject any complaint (submitted in writing by anyone involved in the corporation's activities, be they an employee, concerned Canadian at home, or a citizen of the developing country) outright, needing, at the very least, to consult only their personal opinion and a couple of phone calls.

Would this burden the aforementioned Minister's so much that they would be inundated with false complaints - taking up their time day and night? I doubt it. Would the bill implicitly make the claim against all Canadian companies operating abroad that they are committing human rights and environmental violations? Not at all. Would it help distance the public's MONEY from being used to support a corporation that may commit human rights violations (by taking advantage of lax domestic policies of foreign states for profit)? Yes. And that's the point!

The bill does not prohibit Canadian companies who ignore international best practices and international human rights law from doing business overseas - it protects the Canadian taxpayers from being accessories to human rights violations.

Would Canadians be proud of any company - whether we are in a recession or not - that knowingly goes into a developing country, spills toxins into the water system, strip mines the land making it useless for any other purpose, clear cuts trees, and puts human lives in danger with abhorrent working conditions? Moreover, would Canadians want their taxes to be given to this company, as a subsidy or grant? I wouldn't.

There is only one snag I can see with the bill: it gives too much power to the Ministers in question. The Minister should have the power to make a recommendation on whether or not the human rights/environmental claim has merit or is false, but the decision should ultimately go to committee where it is debated and a ruling made by consensus. The criteria for decision making should be clear: what evidence supports the claim; does the claim have legal merit; and is the evidence sufficient given the size of the project and the scope of the violations?

People may balk at the "international environmental best practices" portion of the bill and think that is too open to debate. But you would be surprised at the amount of best practice and standardization literature there is out there (not to mention entire international organizations dedicated to the topic).

I'd like to know what Ignatieff's problems with the bill are? Harper doesn't like it because the "Coalition" likes it. Oh, and it would (apparently) put Canadians out of jobs. And it would make the recession even worse. According to Harper, our economy is run on giving government handouts to companies that commit human rights and environmental abuses in the developing world.

Ignatieff's stance, however, is more aloof. He probably doesn't like the attention it's drawing from the government. And since this is a private member's bill, all the parties will tell their MPs to vote with their conscious. Which in the case of CPC MPs means, "your conscious tells you it's bad;" and in the case of the LPC, "your conscious tells some of you to go pick up your dry-cleaning when the vote takes place."

It's a shame. It's a shame the Canadians will buy the "coalition" narrative if the NDP, LPC and Bloc actually support a private member's bill that asks nothing more of our government,than to not give our taxes to companies who exploit people in the developing world.

CGY & TO: A tale of two cities

It's time to calm down. Does Rob Ford's victory mean a sweep of CPC candidates in Toronto EDAs in the next federal election? That's about as likely as Naheed Nenshi's victory in Calgary setting up the tent polls for Ignatieff's LPC in Alberta.

Everyone outside of Calgary asked the question: how could Nenshi have won?!

"I thought the city was full of tabbaki chewin', honky-tonk listenin', dungaree-wearin' rednecks?"

That's all I heard from friends in Southern Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and BC. Lest they forget that Calgary has elected a Liberal mayor (the previous two were big L liberals at that...) since Al Duerr's reign beginning in 1989.

Is it surprising that Ford won? Yeah, I guess. Is it shocking that a Tea Partier found appeal in Toronto? A little. Where there are big cities, big politics is not far behind. And that's exactly what Ford did. He ran a campaign big on politics, small on substance. For a city that needs substance, Ford's victory may turn out to be a very embarrassing turn of events for Conservatives in Ontario should he royally screw things up. And I'm not talking about having difficulty with council - a difficult council could bode well for Ford and his Tea Party brethren at the provincial and federal levels. A council that won't cooperate only advances the narrative that more of the elitist bums need to be thrown out. That the "establishment" cannot see the forest for the trees and we need to continue the overhaul of every level of government.

While that is a difficult narrative for Harper to embrace, seeing as he currently represents the establishment, concentrated pockets of candidates in long-time Liberal ridings could be at risk. The long-serving CPC candidates in Western Canada - they're at no risk of losing their seat given their geography and vacuum of voter engagement. (Perhaps a couple of CPC incumbents BC and Winnipeg may be the exceptions.)

Will "Stop the Gravy Train" be the new slogan for the Ignatieff Liberals in Ontario? It could catch on. But it's a dangerous game to play. Energizing that kind of enraged, one-issue, voter is as likely to sweep you into power one election as it is to throw you out the next.

Could it get any worse?

If it was not already clear that there needs to be some coaching changes in Saskatchewan - it should be blatantly obvious after tonight's embarrassing loss to Edmonton.

Is a 9 and 9 season possible? Who knows. The worst part of ending our season in this fashion, is that I believe that Rider Nation is getting a preview of the 2011 season.

If Taman won't fire Berry then Hopson and the Board should fire Taman.

Haven't you done enough, Kory?

God love him! He never gives up. Well, almost.

UN to Canada: Were Art Thou?

Today's Globe and Mail describes a situation that is common to many UN peacekeeping missions in the global south: there's not enough equipment to get the job done.

This time, it's in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The hardware: helicopters.

With about 18,000 peacekeepers and an annual $1.3-billion budget, the UN mission in Congo is the biggest peacekeeping mission in the world. But the mission – known as MONUSCO – still lacks the resources to control the violence, especially in the war-torn eastern provinces, Mr. Meece said.

“In this vast area – larger than the size of Afghanistan – it is not possible for MONUSCO to ensure full protection for all civilians,” Mr. Meece told the UN Security Council last week. “To approach this goal would require vastly greater force levels and resources.”

If the Harper government was not hell-bent on the single engine F-35s, there could be a two-birds-one-stone rationale for putting that $16 billion towards drones and helicopters - stuff that can survey the Arctic and bolster our peacekeeping status in the international community. Hell, we might even earn a little bit of our respect back at the UN.

Those who think that Canada has no business being in the Congo have short memories. In 1963 Canadian Brigadier-General Jacques Dextraze (top left) was part of the UNs Operation in the Congo. He led missions to rescue group of NGO personnel, who were hostages of Katangan rebel forces. Nicknamed "Mad" Jimmy Dextraze for his daring and heroic rescues of women, children and clergy (nuns and priests), the Brigadier-General put Canada's peacekeepers on the map for being true humanitarians and defenders of freedom. He went on to serve Canada as Chief of Defense staff from 1972-1977.

If "freedom" and "democracy" are the key goals of Harper's foreign policy, then there is no doubt in my mind that we need another "Mad" Jimmy to do some of the heavy lifting in the world's conflict zones where women and children are oppressed; free speech absent; and senseless violence abundant.

The UN isn't asking for F-35s to level Kigali or Kinshasa or Mogadishu. We're not at the doorstep of war with Pakistan, or India, or Russia. The F-35s may be good politics for NATO - which we are already irritating with our 2011 Afghanistan withdrawal - but they ultimately are not going to serve the greatest need in the global south today: development and humanitarian assistance. If we are going to take a human security approach (which I would approach with extreme caution) then more practical military equipment is what the policy prescribes. And when you talk about advancing principles like "freedom," "democracy," human rights," "rule of law, "justice," etc., etc., you need to walk the walk.

But as we know, if there is one thing that this government is short on doing, it's walking the walk they talk.

Naheed Nenshi goes to City Hall

Harvard educated mayoral candidate, Naheed Nenshi, officially becomes Calgary's 36th mayor elect after last night's stunning come-from-behind victory over his opponents Rick McIver and Barb Higgins.

McIver had parked his rear at City Hall as a councilor since 2001 earning himself the title of "Mr. No" before jumping into the mayoral race; a step up from his job as a meat salesmen in Woodstock, Ontario. Barb Higgins was all the star-power in this campaign as a former CTV television news anchor for over 20 years. Nenshi, a Mount Royal University professor (no, you're not dreaming - the mayor elect is a professor) won the election with 40% of the vote (read: more than Harper's government will ever get).

"Elites": 1 / Meat-selling, teleprompter reading conservatives: 0.

It's time to do this at the federal level Calgary!

The Albany Club hosts a Tea Party

And invites Maxime Bernier to speak. His speech was laced with words like "intrusion" and "fiscal" and "responsibility" and "federal control" with very little said of "equality."

In essentially calling equalization payments unconstitutional Bernier must not consider the Constitution Act of 1982 part of the constitution.

36. (2) Parliament and the Government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services and reasonably comparable levels of taxation.

Huh... isn't that constitution the damnedest thing?

But wait... that was written by those fruity Trudeau Liberals in 82 and isn't really what Sir John A. ever had intended! Or was it....

Constitution Act of 1867 section 114 and 118, footnotes 57 and 58:

(57) The obligations imposed by this section, sections 115 and 116, and similar obligations under the instruments creating or admitting other provinces, have been carried into legislation of the Parliament and are now to be found in the Provincial Subsidies Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-26.

(58) Repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1950, 14 Geo. VI, c. 6 (U.K.). As originally enacted the section read as follows:

The following Sums shall be paid yearly by Canada to the several Provinces for the Support of their Governments and Legislatures:

                    Dollars
Ontario..........Eighty Thousand.
Quebec...........Seventy Thousand.
Nova Scotia......Sixty Thousand.
New Brunswick....Fifty Thousand.
--------------------
                Two hundred and sixty thousand;

and an annual Grant in aid of each Province shall be made, equal to Eighty Cents per Head of the Population as ascertained by the Census of One thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and in the Case of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, by each subsequent Decennial Census until the Population of each of those two Provinces amounts to Four hundred thousand Souls, at which Rate such Grant shall thereafter remain. Such Grants shall be in full Settlement of all Future Demands on Canada, and shall be paid half-yearly in advance to each Province; but the Government of Canada shall deduct from such Grants, as against any Province, all Sums chargeable as Interest on the Public Debt of that Province in excess of the several Amounts stipulated in this Act.

DAMN!

As we can see, clearly the founding fathers of Conferderation had envisioned a role for the federal government in providing the provinces with capital for essential services from the national tax revenue. Since the 50's equalization payments have been granted as an articulation of Canadian and good ol' BNA conservative egalitarianism.

Dismantling equalization is not the way to "fix" provincial disparities, nor will it solve the "problems" of conflicting interests between the provinces and the feds on issues such as health care and education. It is a problem when someone from Lloydminster would rather go to Calgary or Edmonton for medical treatment than Saskatoon; or when a family from Manitoba moves to PEI and finds the quality of education below their experience in Winnipeg. Slashing equalization and setting the provinces "free" will not solve these issues - which transcend the provinces.

But, it's jump on the "Libertarian Bandwagon" now while confidence in Harper's leadership is low and the leadership positioning (otherwise known as knife sharpening) is tolerated, eh Maxime?

Blame HARPER!

For the first time in UN history, Canada has withdrawn it's bid to sit on the Security Council. We lost to Portugal. Portugal ranks 36th in the world according to nominal GDP - the lowest of Western European nations by far.

Harper and his RoboCons will try to blame the Liberals. But clearly, Ignatieff has his hand on the pulse of the international community better than Harper (no real surprise there). Ignatieff just called it like he sees it.

This government has done nothing to justify being elevated to the powerful Security Council. The first step would be to actually have a foreign policy. Paul Martin was the architect of the G20 - a move which broadened representation to the BRIC countries. Chretien's greatest contributions came in the form of signing the Kyoto Protocol and siding with the UN to keep Canada out of the US-invasion of Iraq. Brian Mulroney was active in ending apartheid in South Africa through sanctions and was one of the first to open it's diplomatic doors to Russia and former Soviet satellite states after the collapse of the USSR. Trudeau reached out to China. Pearson was instrumental in the Suez Canal crisis. Diefenbaker committed peacekeeping troops to Cyprus and was very active in the Commonwealth Conference, who orchestrated a communique that blocked the application of Apartheid South Africa to the group. The question prior to the vote was, "What has Harper done?" and the answer is striking, "Nothing."

Harper has no one to blame but himself for this. If there was any doubt that this government has an air of entitlement to it, one has to look no further than their recent UN Security Council bid. Harper expected no less of the world than to select Canada for one of the non-permanent seats because we're Canada. This is arrogance, simply put.

Never mind the fact that this government has done everything it can to derail international climate change agreements since 2006. Never mind that Harper is justifying a $16 billion in F-35 purchase because the Russians are "at our doorstep." Never mind that this government has gutted our foreign aid department, CIDA. Never mind that diplomatic ties with the Mid-East and Two-State solution supporters has evaporated thanks to Harper's hawkish pro-Israeli foreign policy in the region. Never mind that Harper uses the UN, the World Economic Forum and other international talk-shops as soapboxes to smear his domestic opponents.


The international community doesn't trust us with a vote on the Security Council. Think about that. The world does not trust a Harper led Canada to be a voice for the international community. Ultimately, the UN doesn't want Canada on the UN Security Council because they know what they will get - and they don't want any of it.

No one is more to blame for this embarrassing slap than our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper.

Toews: There's only 1 way to skin a cat

Here we are, Canada. Staring down the barrel of a $155 million price tag for more jail cells. 60% of that money will go to building new cells in existing prisons. The other 40% will be spent on new beds for our overcrowded minimum security correctional facilities.

And while the crime rate has been steadily falling, Vic Toews believes that the current crime rate is unacceptably high Canadians. The solution? More jails! The rationale being, people aren't safe in their homes. The proverbial mongol hordes are at the edges of society and the solution is to lock 'em up and throw away the key. Then, and only then, can we enjoy our lives in peace.

But if public safety is at the heart of this issue, wouldn't putting more people in jail only sweep the issue under the rug while ignoring the root causes of crime?

A survey conducted by Kovandzic and Vieraitis (2006), is based on county-level data from Florida for the years 1980 through 2000. They argue that while state-level studies of the relationship between changing prison populations and crime are a vast improvement over national-level studies, an even closer analysis at the local level is needed to really understand the impact of incarceration rates on crime. Removing selected offenders from a community should maximize the influence on that community's crime rate, an effect that may be greatly diminished (or even lost) using a larger geographic perspective. Additionally, at the local level, research can better control changes in other factors that influence crime rates, such as trends in community demographics, unemployment, income, poverty and the proportion of female-headed households.

On the basis of that logic, Kovandzic and Vieraitis used data from Florida to determine how changes in the number of county residents sentenced to prison affected the county's violent and property crime rates. They came to the somewhat startling conclusion that their study found "no support for the 'more prisoners, less crime' thesis." That is not to say that prison growth never reduces crime. They conceded that there may be some effect of prison population growth on crime, but "counties that relied most heavily on imprisonment as a tool of crime control did not as a result experience greater reductions in crime." In essence, there appears to be a point of diminishing returns on prison investments. The crime-control benefits of prison growth declined as a community relied more and more heavily on incarceration.

And if there was the need to put an exclamation point on this information Liedka et al. will suffice;

Liedka et al. (2006) found that, surprisingly, the effect of prison growth on crime diminishes as the scale of imprisonment increases. In fact, they determined that when the incarceration rate reaches a certain point (the inflection point), a further increase in prison population actually produces an increase in crime.

I cannot say that I am surprised. Nor am I particularly moved by Toews' insistence that there is only 1 way to skin a cat.

Harper's War on Information is becoming quite transparent. Yesterday Bernier confirmed it, today Vic Toews mans the cannon.

Now and Then with Jim Flaherty

Wait a minute... I've seen this movie before. And as I recall, it doesn't end well for Canada.

Now: "Budget forecasts still on track," - Flaherty, October 2010

Then: "No global recession," - Flaherty, April 2008

Meanwhile, the myth of fiscal conservatism persists in the Canadian political economy...