Afghanistan Poll

Angus Reid poll on Afghanistan, with some interesting results. Taken immediately after the Harper photo-op in Afghanistan, the survey finds little support for the government:

Q. The Harper government has effectively explained the mission in Afghanistan:

Agree 23%
Disagree 55%
Don't know 22%

Of note, 52% of Albertans Disagree, as do 17% of Conservative supporters.

Canadians support the idea of early withdrawal:

Canada should withdraw its troops from Afghanistan before their mandate ends in February 2009:

Agree 50%
Disagree 32%
Not Sure 18%

By party:

NDP 64% agree, 18% disagree, 17% not sure
Lib 51% agree, 27% disagree, 22% not sure
Cons 25% agree, 61% disagree, 14% not sure

In what could be construed as a confusing finding, given the above, 43% of Canadians think Afghans are benefiting from our presence, 22% disagree and 36% unsure. Canadians also think we are shouldering too much of the NATO burden.

The fact this poll was taken in the aftermath of Harper's Afghanistan trip should be of particular concern. You would expect a slight uptick, with such a high profile, feel good visit. That there was no positive response, Canadians still don't show confidence in the government on this file, is relevant to the idea of view hardening.

I admit some surprise that so many Canadians would support the notion of early withdrawal. I would expect to see that opinion, if the question asked if we should stay beyond 2009, but it would appear Canadians are articulating Afghanistan fatigue.

The Conservative Crutch

Probably the most tiring excuse, used by Conservative apologists, is the biased "left-wing" media angle. The notion is used to justify any shortcoming, distract from genuine criticism, and create this martyr complex. A Blogging Tories linked to one of my posts, and I made a comment at that blog. I use this response to illustrate the common theme:

Christian Conservative said...

Amm, I forget where I saw it today, but we're headed back up, and are polling just slightly above our election day percentage at 37%... but of course, that poll won't hit the front pages, the media being liberal mouthpieces and all

Of course that is ridiculous, with no relationship to reality. However, and I don't mean to generalize, all of the Conservatives seem to buy into this perceived bias. You see it in almost every thread, bloggers continually point to any story to support the flawed thesis, the idea has taken on almost mythical proportions. The idea manifests itself right through the Conservative hierarchy, wherein the Prime Minister has adopted this seige mentality, as it relates to the media.

I suppose, findings such as this, feed Conservatives "suspicions":

According to a recent study by two Ryerson University journalism professors:

* Almost half of all Canadian television news directors, the individuals who have the most influence in determining what political news is covered on your favourite nightly newscast and how it is reported, vote Liberal.

* A TV news director working at the tax-funded CBC is almost three times more likely to vote for the NDP in federal elections, compared to his or her counterpart in the private sector.

It found that 45.8% of all Canadian television news directors surveyed in 2002 said they were Liberal voters. By contrast, only 14.6% said they were Progressive Conservative voters, 10.4% Canadian Alliance, 10.4% NDP. This put the news directors at the high end of overall public support for the Liberals during that period (40-46% according to the polls) and at the low end for the PCs (15-18%), Alliance (14-18%) and NDP (13-16%).

If you train you gaze solely on this Ryerson University study, then you can extrapolate, that yes, a media bias clearly exists. However, if Conservatives trumpet findings such as the above, they must also accept other studies which completely refute the thesis.

I would argue that the political leanings of news directors, or editors for that matter, is relevant, if that perceived bias manifests itself in the coverage. Where the Conservative argument falls apart completely, is when the discussion turns to actual coverage, not the ambiguous leanings of those behind the news.

Coverage is most critical at election time, I think everyone can agree on that score. With that in mind, a quick reminder of the McGill University study for the last two elections (h/t Crawl Across the Ocean):

2004:

During the campaign there were 2,113 articles written about the election in the 5 English newspapers studied (The Calgary Herald, The Globe and Mail, The National Post, the Toronto Star and the Vancouver Sun).

Of those 2113, 1,711 (81%) mentioned the Liberal party. Out of those 1,711, there were 34 (2%) with positive mentions of the Liberal party and 342 (20%) with negative mentions of the Liberals, giving a 10 to 1 ratio of negative mentions to positive.

Meanwhile, for the Conservative Party, the figures were 1592 (75%) total articles, including 82 (5%) positive mentions and 159 (10%) negative mentions, for a roughly 2:1 ratio of negative to positive.

The NDP garnered (4%) positive mentions and 7% negative mentions, while the Bloc had the most favourable(!) coverage of any party from the English language papers at 4% positive, 5% negative (although they were only mentioned in 15% of stories).

2006:

During the campaign there were 3,753 articles written about the election in the 7 newspapers studied (The Calgary Herald, The Globe and Mail, The National Post, the Toronto Star and the Vancouver Sun, La Presse and Le Devoir).

Of those 3753, 3035 mentioned the Liberal party. Out of those 3035, there were 40 with positive mentions of the Liberal party and 445 with negative mentions of the Liberals, giving a 11 to 1 ratio of negative mentions to positive (slightly higher than last election's 10-1 ratio).

Meanwhile, for the Conservative Party, the figures were 2730 total articles, including 144 positive mentions and 127 negative mentions, for a slightly positive overall slant (the positive mentions were similar to last election, but the negatives were cut in half).

The NDP garnered 2% positive mentions and 3% negative mentions, while the Bloc received 2% positive coverage, 4% negative.

Obviously, the political leanings of the media brain trust had no bearing on coverage, in fact if anyone should be complaining about rampant bias, it's the left wing. The 2004 numbers are powerful, the 2006 ones are just plain astounding. If you dig deeper, you find that individual papers further illustrate the anti-Liberal bias. The Toronto Star, vilified as the Liberal Star by Conservatives, actually comes out statistically balanced. On the other hand, a paper like The National Post demonstrates a tremendous, one-sided bias in favor of the Conservatives.

Everyone across the political spectrum complains about coverage, particularly when it doesn't seem sympathetic to your opinion. Sometimes that criticism is justified, and we all know the players where it applies. However, its is primarily the realm of Conservatives, that takes the bias argument to delusional heights. Any criticism of Harper is more evidence of a conspiracy to bring back the Liberals (see SDA). I find the entire pre-occupation a gigantic, intellectual bore, and the best part, the facts actually suggest otherwise, both on substance and ownership.

The crutch of convenience, that reaffirms an imported illusion, attaching the virtuous struggle against the amassed forces of opposition, bent on destruction. Fiction.

Grading Harper: G8 Edition

To be clear, I think the climate change statement was a watered down, ambiguous, pedestrian, disappointing collage of nothingness. I think Canada failed to provide leadership, and was instrumental in giving the Americans diplomatic cover, when they should have been exposed. Personal opinion aside, I will admit that Harper has managed to emerge from all of the ceremony in pretty good standing.

Commentary, such as this example, is objectively good news for Harper:

It was not clear heading into the summit precisely how Canada would align itself. Environmentalists accused the government of running interference for the U.S., but Harper had refused to explicitly endorse the U.S. stance.

It is now clear that, at least on some issues, Canada finds itself closer to the European Union than perhaps many observers expected.

Canada - along with Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Russia and Japan - supported the global target of cutting emissions by 50% by 2050. Only the U.S. opposed the target.

Harper even offered veiled criticism of countries such as the United States and China that have not set specific targets for cutting emissions.

Harper managed to create the impression, factual or not, that he is an ally of the European position on climate change. Harper also benefits from the bland communique, because Canada is singled out for its commitment. Again, I'm not speaking to the merits of our plan, more the sales pitch, and in this regard Harper has gained credibility for the government on the international stage. Canada looks engaged, interested and part of the process. This posture is meant to take some of the sting out of the Kyoto abandonment, and on that score, some progress.

The G8 summit is irrelevant, in terms of substance. Never has that fact been more striking than at this meeting. Listening to various leaders spin the final document, it was simply amazing to watch people attach such grandeur to a mostly meaningless announcement- global warming bad, we must do something, how earth shattering, this ancient news. The G8 is an exercise in propaganda, leaders positioning themselves so they can return home triumphant, real progress an afterthought.

I'm not suggesting Harper is a big winner, there are plenty of criticism available. What I am saying, all things being equal, given the expectations, Harper can leave the G8 mostly unscathed, with a few new talking points for counter. If I limit myself to a verdict on ability to paint pictures and presentation, Harper gets a pass, maybe a small bounce, in the land of people who really aren't paying much attention. Thoughts?

Confused

If this is true:

Jim Flaherty June 6:

However, in terms of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, which have accord agreements, the plain fact is that those accord agreements are the status quo agreements which they can choose to continue with or they can go with the modified O'Brien formula. However, no province will be worse off in Canada as a result of the new equalization scheme.

Then why do we need this:

CP June 7:

The provinces are being offered "a cumulative/best of" agreement guaranteeing they won't be out of pocket if they give up their accords, federal and provincial sources said.

When the accords are due to be renewed in 2012, the Conservatives are pledging to "calculate the difference" between what the provinces received under the new equalization plan and what they potentially could take in under the offshore arrangement and to "provide a top up if necessary," said a federal source.

If I believe this:

Jim Flaherty June 6:

The Prime Minister and the government have done the job, restoring fiscal balance in Canada. It has not been easy, but if it had been easy, the Liberals would have done it.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member opposite from Nova Scotia is going to vote against an increase in funding for the province of Nova Scotia of $313 million in 2007-08, more money for equalization, more money for health, more money for education, more money for labour market training, more money for infrastructure, and more money for a clean environment, all of which the member proposes to vote against.

Then there is no reason for that:

The offer to make up the difference has been at the heart of back-and-forth verbal negotiations between the provinces for weeks and was put in writing late Tuesday just before Nova Scotia Tory MP Bill Casey broke ranks and voted against a key budget bill.

Nova Scotia has been prepared to buy in to the notion of Ottawa "mitigating any losses," said a provincial source,

The government has painted itself into a corner of contradiction. Over and over, the Conservatives argue that the budget's fiscal imbalance plan is of benefit to the disgruntled provinces. Concurrently, the government works behind the scenes to cut "side deals", which by definition means that the budget was bad for those provinces. Follow the logic- the budget was a win/win for these provinces, but we have deemed it crucial that they win some more.

I guess the Conservatives don't have a choice, they desperately need something to quell the controversy. However, the more they try to appease, the more they provide the evidence for the failings in the first place. Why is Flaherty negotiating something that is solved? Lose/lose for the Conservatives.

Please, Just Come Home

I can't take it anymore. Story after story on the G8 climate initiative- Canada is here, wait Canada is over there, oh look there's Canada in the middle. Somebody just pull the plug and get this glory hound, without an ounce of credibility, on a plane-please. Tonight's latest installment in the Globe and Mail sums up the dog and pony show nicely.

Canada is the honest broker, coming to the rescue:

“Canada is in the middle of the road and could find a compromise,” said Andrei Kondakov, who once worked as the deputy chief of mission at the Russian embassy in Ottawa. “Canada could get the major proponents together.”

Canada is allied with the Americans:

Yesterday, Mr. Connaughton, senior White House climate adviser, counted Canada as one of the countries that disagrees with Germany.

The Americans were mistaken:

A Canadian official appeared to push back yesterday, noting that Mr. Harper had supported cuts of 50 per cent earlier this week when he met with Ms. Merkel in Berlin.

How many mistresses does Harper court? Apparently, we are all things to everybody, to the point of being nowhere. Harper is so desperate to look relevant that he is effectively saying whatever he has too, depending on who is present, at that exact moment. Instead of providing leadership, Canada is reduced to this mish mash of competing points of view, positioned in such a way to be so ambigious that it really doesn't matter. All Harper cares about is the appearance of the "uniter", and that fact is painfully obvious, given the chameleon morphing from venue to venue. I'm just tired of watching it, the whole exercise is a useless pursuit of personal appearance, substance is the casualty.

Bad Kharma

Nothing says complete failure, like an expensive ad campaign, directed at your rival, that actually hurts your own standing. Such is the case with the latest round of attack ads. Can you say blowback:

After watching the ad, has your opinion of the following leader improved, stayed the same, or worsened because of this ad?

Stephen Harper (Con.)

Improved 8%
Stayed the same 54%
Worsened 33%
Not sure 5%

Stéphane Dion (Lib.)

Improved 4%
Stayed the same 67%
Worsened 24%
Not sure 6%

Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Agree Disagree Don’t know
This ad is a fair and accurate

representation of Stéphane Dion 30% 47% 23%
Stéphane Dion is not a leader 52% 31% 17%

The purpose of the ad was to frame Dion, but all the Tories have accomplished is to solidify the notion that they are mean-spirited. Negative ads can work, but once again the Conservatives have shown they don’t have the political instincts to realize when to stop. Canadians don’t want endless negativity, they want a vision. These ads say more about the government, their nature and their own lack of accomplishment, than it does about Dion. As a matter of fact, this entire ad campaign has been a complete embarrassment, whether it be the topic or the tone.

"Mr. Speaker, the long, tiring, unproductive era of bickering between the provincial and federal governments is over."

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, doing his best George Bush "mission accomplished" imitation. I don't think you can under-estimate how devastating this vote is for the government:

The Conservative government is scrambling to avert an embarrassing political spectacle after one of its own opposed the federal budget implementation bill in a preliminary vote Tuesday night.

Nova Scotia MP Bill Casey says the bill - which sets the March 19 budget into action - breaks a promise by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to his home province on resource revenue.

Casey is vowing to vote No again later this week when the bill goes to third and final reading in the House of Commons unless there are changes allowing Nova Scotia to reap the full benefit of its offshore oil and gas wealth without losing any equalization payments.

Casey risks being kicked out of the Tory caucus but he says he must vote his conscience and hopes for a compromise before the final vote.

Assuming there is no compromise, this one vote has broader ramifications than first blush would suggest. If the Conservative MP's in the three provinces in question had held together, there was at least the appearance of a counter-argument. With Casey's decision, all the other Conservative MP's look weak, less-principled and their retorts lack credibility. Now, not only do these MP's have to defend a bad budget, they also have to answer why they didn't join their counterpart on principle. This fact may explain why MacKay has been part of the key meetings to keep Casey on side.

This is a good deal for Nova Scotia, and by extension Newfoundland and Saskatchewan, doesn't quite jive with the reality of the longest serving Conservative MP leaving the party over the issue. I can't wait for the feeble spin.

UPDATE

Good question:

Saskatchewan Premier Lorne Calvert, who has been feuding himself with his federal counterparts over equalization, praised Casey.

''The question many people in Saskatchewan are asking, including myself is: where are our members of Parliament?'' Calvert told The Canadian Press. ''Where is the courage to stand up for their province?''

UPDATE

The final moments prior to the vote, reveal desperation, that looks like amateur hour. Last second dealing (what about those principles?), verbal agreements, later written text. The flurry of activity tells us all we need to know about the ramifications:

As the clock wound down towards the vote, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay and Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn along with some senior staffers hauled the wayward MP into an anteroom. They claimed they had struck a deal with Casey's home province - one that would preserve Nova Scotia's treasured offshore royalty accord.

"I said: 'Where is it?' Do you have it on paper?" Casey told The Canadian Press in an interview late Tuesday.

"They said: 'We don't have it on paper yet.' They were

After Tuesday's vote Casey claimed to have been shown a written copy of an agreement that apparently satisfies his province's demands, one that includes millions of dollars in spending. But he couldn't recall the details.

Delusional Or Cagey?

I've come to the conclusion, that everything Harper is saying abroad is for domestic consumption. The speech in Germany, and the subsequent comments, simply can't be taken seriously, unless you subscribe to the theory that Harper is completely and utterly delusional.

How can Harper actually present the Canadian Green Plan as an example for the world, a "template" to be copied, when that initiative has no domestic, or international support? Harper and Baird have made all the claims, but not ONE credible, independent source has verified the rhetoric. And yet, Harper has the temerity to offer the theoretical as evidence of Canada as "broker".

Clearly, Canada headed to this meeting with a goal in mind. Foster the appearance of a leadership role, in the hopes that Canadians will react positively. Canada looks constructive, Canada the unifier, Canada the influential. Any differences with other countries are overblown, we are all working together, with Harper as mover and shaker. This strategy was evidenced at the G8 leader photo-op, wherein Harper found it necessary to basically run over to the German Chancellor (she turned, with a distinct look of surprise), completely out of turn and shake hands for the cameras- it was very transparent and intentional. What rift?

Travers has written a piece today, on Harper's "broker" act. I find this comment telling, as to real motivations:

After all, as an honest broker Canada is spending counterfeit currency. First Liberals and then Conservatives savaged this country's global credibility by boasting green while behaving brown.

Almost as limiting, the Prime Minister is breaking a summit rule. Those with real intent to be useful in private are silent in public.

"Once you declare yourself as a bridge," one seasoned summit diplomat says, "you're no longer a bridge."

And there it is, Harper's isn't really interested in bridging, he is interested in creating the impression that he is the broker. The world stage is simply an opportunity, much like the Afghan photo-ops, to paint a picture of a leader, doing what he must do. If you actually believe the alternative, that Harper is truly sincere, then you are confronted with a staggering metamorphosis. Do we really expect the world community to buy Harper the climate change leader, when his recent history reveals a sceptic? Harper moves from questioner to beacon, poof. If Harper honestly believes that is plausible, then he is delusional. The more likely scenario, Harper has concluded that this G8 summit is an exercise in controlled fiction, made for domestic consumption.

The "Leadership" Gap

The latest Conservative attack ads on Senate reform, gain more credibility with each day. Another province joins the "not a leader" movement:

Stephen Harper's vaunted Senate reform agenda is in jeopardy, with Newfoundland becoming the fourth province to insist that provincial consent must be obtained to change Canada's upper house.

In a letter to the prime minister, Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams joins Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick in contending that Parliament cannot unilaterally reform the Senate.

The number of provinces weighing in against Harper's proposed reforms and the vehemence of their objections could now give the Liberal-dominated Senate justification for killing S-4, which is currently stalled in a Senate committee.

Provincial governments, representing 2/3 of Canadians, not to mention Saskatchewan's concerns and British Columbia's less than enthusiastic endorsement, all combine to make the attack ads look factually laughable. Canada, nary a leader to be found, virtually anywhere. Dion apparently is in good company, while Harper looks increasingly out of step. The ads look ridiculous, and as an added bonus, Van Loan's favorite talking point, to distract from the Conservatives problems, has less and less resonance, or relation to reality. The Liberal Senate, protecting the will of the majority. Interesting concept.

Wake Up Call

What exactly is the Liberal strategy in Quebec? There is no way to sugarcoat this finding, in fact it is beyond alarming:

Liberal leader Stephane Dion continues to see his popularity plummet in Quebec. A new Leger marketing poll reveals he's the fourth most popular leader in this province. When asked who would make the best prime minister, only 12 per cent of Quebecers said Dion, whereas 16 per cent said NDP leader Jack Layton and Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe. Prime Minister Stephen Harper was way ahead with 36 per cent. Across the country however, Dion's in second place tied with Layton at 13 per cent support. Harper's still well in the lead nationally at 34 per cent. If an election were held today, the poll suggests 37 per cent of Canadians would vote Conservative, 30 per cent would vote Liberal and 14 per cent would vote NDP.

A francophone Liberal leader, fourth in his home province. I suppose you can spin the national numbers, using the knowledge that Dion is new and Canadians still don't have a firm impression of him. However, in Quebec, all the excuses evaporate and you are left with a staggering deficit.

I was actually thinking about Quebec and the Liberals in recent days. I get no sense of a coherent plan to re-capture Quebecers imagination. I don't see a sense of urgency in Dion's appearances. Where is the high-profile messaging, to demonstrate to Quebecers that the Liberal Party is moving forward. Is the party simply prepared to present Mr. Clarity Act, and win a few seats in Montreal?

Dion needs to re-invent himself. A concerted, focused, tenacious campaign to bring Quebecers back to the Liberal fold, to some degree. All I see at the moment is a passive, stale approach, that seems to rely on Harper's failings, more than Liberal inspiration.

Boomtown Smells A Rat

Sir Bob Geldolf, offers some unflattering words, directed towards the Harper government:

Canada is blocking an agreement between Group of Eight nations to make concrete commitments on aid to Africa which leaders will negotiate at this week's summit, anti-poverty campaigner Bob Geldof said on Monday.

He singled out Canada, saying it wanted to block any figures going into the final agreement.

"Canada is the worst culprit in blocking a significant communiqué. All our information says they are refusing point blank to allow concrete figures," Mr. Geldof said. "They are very, very far behind what they said they would do at Gleneagles."

He said Canada needed to contribute $623-million (Canadian) this year to fulfill a promise of doubling aid by 2010 compared with its plans of $160-million.

"Canada is one of the richest countries on the planet," he said. "Why deny life to millions of Africans?"

"Canada is the worst", seems to be a developing theme in the international arena. Making us proud, tarnishing our reputation, lacking compassion.

------------

On a sidenote, Harper's lack of diplomatic tact on full display again today, this time as it relates to Russia>:

Harper also stressed Canada's economic strength and said its status as an "emerging energy superpower" is enhanced by the fact that, unlike many resource-rich countries, Canada is not "ruled by tyranny and instability."

That remark may be seen by some as a veiled dig at Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose role at the G8 is being called into question by his bitter disputes – some over energy issues – with his European G8 partners.

Harper reminds me of the kid who liked to poke a stick into the hornet's nest, not considering the consequence.

Navel Gazing, Move Along

I noticed quite a few hits on my site today from Radio-Canada Television. I went to the site and found my blog was mentioned on French television for one of my endless anti-Baird posts. That's pretty cool :)

Canada Backs The Bottom

The WWF is out with a climate change scorecard, that details who is doing what on the issue:

The United States' bottom ranking underscores a disconnect between President Bush's announcement last week and ongoing U.S. attempts to block progress at G8 negotiations aimed at stopping dangerous climate change, says WWF.

"By presenting climate promises without action, the Bush administration undermines German Chancellor Merkel's effort to secure a meaningful agreement at G8," says Hans Verolme, Director of WWF's Global Climate Change Program. "Canada must break ranks with the United States to restore its former reputation as a leader on climate change."

A sampling of a few of today's headlines:

PM likely to back U.S. view of new climate treaty Jun. 3 2007 10:11 PM ET

Baird echoes U.S. on climate deal Jun 03, 2007 08:58 PM

Canada to back U.S. view that any climate deal requires China, India

In Canada's defense, we are at the back of the pack too, so maybe our alliance is akin to highschool, wherein the kids with the A's tend to hang out, and we are skipping class with the slackers, smoking pot in the alleyway, talking about this weekend's bush party (man those were fun).

Acting Like "Liberals" Hurting Conservatives?

This is the second article I've read that offers the following thesis:

When Stephen Harper and his cabinet were acting like Conservatives they had a comfortable lead in the polls, but the moment they started governing like Liberals, their support cooled.

But when they began grasping for a majority by mimicking the former Liberal government in expenditure and tone, the Tories lost that edge. And they alienated large chunks of their base.

Question Period also had a segment on Harper "moving to the center", with the implication that he was alienating the base.

I'm not buying the connection between "Liberal policies" and the drop in the polls. While some base supporters may be feeling a tad irritable, I don't think that fact translates into poll erosion. Last time I checked, the Tories were still riding high in Alberta, surpassing their election percentages. In other words, Harper would have to do something extreme to move the base into the Liberal arms. If there is one thing that unites the right-wing, its Liberal hatred, I doubt seriously that wingers will embrace Stephane Dion, who is considered a center-left politician.

The argument seems to be politically motivated, trying to create the impression that Harper can get back to majority terrority if he becomes more "conservative". Given the fact the largest percentage of Canadians reside in the center, with a slight left lean, I don't quite understand the equation. In fact, it is obvious the Tory braintrust has concluded that Harper has to move to expand support within the Canadian circumstance.

Harper has fallen back in the polls because of Afghanistan, the environment, divisive policy on fiscal imbalance, complete incompetence on certain issues and a general wave of negative press. In reality, the flirtation with majority was only a fleeting moment, in the aftermath of the goodie filled budget and a awkward Dion. The complaints about aping the Liberals as a cause for erosion just doesn't jive with the polling. It was the big spending budget that saw the Tory high water mark, and actually saw a jump in Ontario and Alberta, with the per capita transfers.

If people want to buy into the logic that Harper needs to return to conservatism to get a majority, that is fine by me. That strategy will simply ensure the Conservatives electoral defeat.

Canada: "We Can Hide"

What will Canada do at the looming G8 meetings? Back the Americans, side with the Europeans, act as "bridge, detail our "special" status? I can't remember the last time Canadian policy seemed so confusing on the international stage. Reading this column in The Montreal Gazette, I think this synopsis succinctly sums up the Canadian posture:

"The challenge for Mr. Harper is to look prime ministerial, and like a leader among equals," says Fen Hampson, director of the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa. "The way you do that is by sticking to your script, and if there are divisions, playing the role of the helpful fixer."

"Canada in some ways doesn't have to really take a strong position, because the extremes have been staked out," Hampson notes. "We can hide in the confusion and rhetoric of others."

Hiding? Finally, some clarity that completely describes our strategy. Look relevant, talk about bringing together diverse opinion, all the while letting others wear the black and white hats. Canada the grey, Canada the mush, Canada the largely irrelevant. "Canada is back" alright Mr. Harper, so far back we're almost invisible.

Lighten Up

Proving once again that Conservatives have no sense of humor:

Stephen Harper's Tories aren't laughing at an advertising pamphlet that pokes fun at them. In fact, the flyer from high-end men's retail chain Harry Rosen has the prime minister's people downright miffed.

The postcard-style handout makes reference to how the government mistakenly faxed its environmental plan to the opposition before releasing it publicly. The flyer features a picture of the prime minister and Liberal Leader Stephane Dion.
Harper asks his opponent if he's heard about Harry's Private Sale - which offers regular customers up to 33 per cent off on suits, jackets and trousers through Sunday.

Dion replies: "Yes, you guys faxed us the memo by accident."

That joke earned a stern response from the Conservatives.

"It's pretty tasteless," a government official said of the ad. "Harry Rosen's is over priced and we would never shop there. . . It's completely overrated. . . Conservatives would probably never shop there anyway."

What is wrong with these people? Why would the PMO even bother responding to an obscure ad campaign? Touchy, paranoid, thin skinned- I thought Liberals where whiny?

Interesting First Nations Poll

Fascinating Angus Reid poll on Canadians attitudes towards First Nations. The findings show Canadians don't support illegal blockades as a legitimate tactic, although they do support speeding up land claims and dealing with the issue of native poverty.

Ontario has been the recent hotspot, but it is curious that Ontario residents seem the most tolerate, relative to other regions:

As you may know, Aboriginal protesters have blockaded railway lines in recent weeks, as part of ongoing land claims disputes. Do you think these actions are justified?

Overall- 35% Justified, 56% Unjustified

Ontario- 41% Justified, 52% Justified

Based on party affiliation, Conservative are far less supportive, while NDP supporters are virtually split:

Cons 18% Justified, 78% Unjustified
Liberals 43% Justified, 52% Unjustified
NDP 47% Justified, 45% Unjustified

On speeding up land claims, strong support, with Ontario highest, Alberta lowest:

Overall 68% Agree, 20% Disagree
Ontario 76% Agree, 15% Disagree
Alberta 57% Agree, 30% Disagree

On this question, Liberal voters are more likely to support speeding up land claims:

Liberals 81% Agree, 12% Disagree
NDP 69% Agree, 26% Disagree
Conservatives 58% Agree, 29% Disagree

On the question of penalizing native bands, if federal money is used for blockades, a strong percentage of Canadians show support 67% to 17%. Again, Conservatives have the most rigid view at 85%, Liberals 63%, NDP 67%.

When it comes to doing more to deal with native poverty, Canadians are supportive:

Overall 60% Agree, 28% Disagree
Ontario 67% Agree, 25% Disagree
Alberta 54% Agree, 40% Disagree

A huge gap, based on party affiliation, with the Conservative supporters showing no conception of reality, while the Liberals outpace the NDP slightly:

Liberals 77% Agree, 18% Disagree
NDP 72% Agree, 21% Disagree
Conservatives 43% Agree, 45% Disagree

Andrew Coyne has a relevant column today, which supports the notion that rule of law must be respected.

Overall, Canadians show some sympathy, but draw the line at what is perceived to be "illegal" activity. I find the party affiliation breakdowns particularly fascinating, and IMHO the numbers make the Conservatives look intolerant, lacking any compassion, especially on the poverty question. The numbers support my thesis that the fringes of the Conservative Party are racist and lack basic human empathy. Deal with it.

The provincial breakdowns are surprising in one respect. Ontario has seen most of high-profile problems, yet on almost every question, the people are relatively supportive. I suppose that bodes well moving forward, so long as things remain somewhat calm and constructive.

Oops

The Conservatives decision to use Senate reform to attack Dion seemed like a bad idea from the start. The strategy looks decidedly more foolish now, as the provinces weigh in, rejecting Harper's Senate bill and by extension adding weight to the Liberal position:

Canada's two largest provinces have waded forcefully into the Senate reform debate, arguing that Prime Minister Stephen Harper must obtain provincial consent to change the upper chamber.

Ontario and Quebec have joined New Brunswick in contending that the Harper government cannot unilaterally tinker with the make-up of the so-called chamber of sober second thought.

And Quebec is going further: Premier Jean Charest wants the federal government to withdraw Bill C-43, aimed at creating a process for electing senators. He also wants the government to suspend work on bill S-4, which would impose an eight-year limit on senatorial terms, until it gets provincial consent.

How about the "west"?:

In a letter to the Senate committee, Saskatchewan Government Relations Minister Harry Van Mulligen says his province "does not support an incremental approach to reforming the Senate and does not support Bill S-4."

B.C.'s intergovernmental relations minister, John van Dongen, says Senate reform is not a high priority for his province, which would rather abolish the Senate than reform it. He says B.C. "does not have strong views on either the substance of the bill or its constitutional implications."

Given the outright rejection of Canada's two most populus provinces, lukewarm response, at best in the "west", who exactly is Harper hoping to sway with this latest round of attack ads? Who does Stephane Dion think he is exactly, standing in the way of a possible unconstitutional reform package, with no support from the provinces? Let the ads run, this dog won't hunt.

Correction

Many communist bloggers have pointed out that Stephen Harper hasn't served in the Canadian military. As a point of clarification, Harper is in fact enlisted in an elite paratrooper unit. The Fighting Photo-Ops regularly drop into the battlefield for a few hours, whenever public opinion polls dictate.

Canada Is "Special"

Stephen Harper is preparing to deliver a message to his G8 counterparts. Canada is "special", which is code for "shirking our responsibilities":

Stephen Harper will have a special climate-change message for his fellow leaders at next week's G8 summit: Canada has unique problems hampering its effort to reduce greenhouse gases.
With the leaders attempting to reach a deal on climate change, the prime minister will seek recognition of several challenges Canada faces in tackling the problem.

Senior Canadian officials told journalists at a pre-summit briefing that any acceptable deal would need to account for this country's growing economy, population, and oil industry. But they refused to clarify exactly what that means.

"We're special, we're unique in the G8," said one official.

"We're not like Europe, we're not like the United States in all respects. . . We'll be looking for a result that both advances things on an international level but also is true to Canadian requirements."

Last time I checked, Norway is also part of Europe, as well as a major oil producer in the world, comparable to Canada. Norway's "special", yet:

Norway wants to cut its net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050 in the world's toughest national plan for fighting global warming, said Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg. He said that Norway, the world's number five oil exporter, wanted other rich nations to set similar "carbon neutral" aims.

"The greenhouse effect...is our most dangerous environmental problem," Stoltenberg said in his speech, listing risks such as thawing of Siberian permafrost, death of the Amazon rainforest or a spread of the Sahara. Under the 2050 plan, domestic emissions would be offset by cuts abroad or by buying emissions quotas on international markets. Norway could, for instance, help China or India to shift to solar or wind power from burning coal or oil.

The Americans produce almost three times the amount of oil Canada does, so I guess it is correct to say Canada is "not like the United States".

The Canadian posture looks for excuses, rather than action.