B.C Bound

Going away for a few days to visit some old haunts in British Columbia. See you when I get back:)

Harper's Scary Media Viewpoint

The more I hear Harper speak about the media, the more his opinions concern me:

Mr. Harper said: "I don't think this story is really of much interest to ordinary people. I think what they are interested in is what is the government doing, and do they agree with it or do not agree with it."

The news media, he continued, "will always have their opinions about government policy," but the public will ultimately make up its own mind.

The greatest asset of a democracy is a free media, that has the ability to critically analyze. Harper seems to have little regard for this essential check on government propaganda. Harper is right to say people are interested in what the government is doing, but he doesn't acknowledge that we need an independent voice to filter through the politically charged rhetoric.

How can the public "make up its own minds" if they aren't provided as many facts, and varying opinions as possible? For all the over-exaggerated talk of a biased media, Canadians have no problem finding ideologically friendly news outlets. All political conversations find references from the media to either support or discredit a viewpoint. Harper endorses a simple view- government will tell you what we are doing and you should except that as fact and form your opinion from there. I don't want to be overly dramatic, but Harper sounds like a complete fascist on dissemination of information.

According to Harper, my income taxes were cut. If that is all the information afforded me, then obviously my opinion would tend to support his initiative. However, the media informs me that, in fact, my income taxes actually went up a half point, compared to the last government. The media broadens my perspective and allows for a more informed opinion. There is an inherent hypocrisy in Harper's view, on the one hand advocating a reduced role of government in people's lives, while at the same time wanting absolute power over what we are told, and in turn what to believe.

Harper's disdain for the media, is actually a disdain for the notion of true freedom. If Canadians can make up their own mind, they are also sophisticated enough to separate honest reporting from biased agendas. Harper's overreactions and fixation on message control should serve as a warning sign to what this government is actually all about. Transparency and accountability are fine slogans, but philosophically Harper offers a diametrically opposed viewpoint. Rather than empowering people, this is an elitist ideology that affords the peons little opportunity for independent thought. The media is our filter, and while not perfect, it is our eyes and ears that blunts politicism. I have heard a lot people dismiss this whole debate as a waste of time, but I see it as a window into Harper's ideology and what I see is truly scary.

Great post on the same subject.

Birth Of A Nation?

Whenever the subject of division of powers comes up, Ralph Klein is always the first one to draw a line in the sand and rail against "federal incursions" into supposed provincial jurisdications. Well as far as my reading of the constitution, stuff like this is out of bounds:

parked in the middle of the National Mall in Washington, D.C.

The exhibit will symbolize all that is Alberta, but may also hint at a new breed of federalism, one where individual provinces pursue their own interests.

In late June, 150 ordinary Albertans will showcase Canada's booming province in the two-week Smithsonian Folklife Festival. Held annually, it is expected to attract more than a million visitors.

Alberta's participation marks the first time Canada has been featured in the 40-year history of the event. When the federal government turned down an invitation, Alberta took its place.

That's not a surprise, considering the lengths Alberta officials are going to make their presence felt in the U.S. capital. Alberta already has its own office in the Canadian embassy -- the only province to have such an arrangement...

The office aims to "protect, promote and position Alberta interests at the highest level," Mr. Smith said...

Professor Bothwell said Alberta's situation could set a dangerous precedent for other provinces. Ontario and Quebec could demand to have an equivalent place at the U.S. table, for instance.

"At that point, Canada would have to be banned as an international nuisance," he said.

"A visit to the Canadian ambassador would be like watching Snow White arrive with the seven dwarfs ... We'd just be an absolute laughingstock."

I don't want a situation where "individual provinces pursue their own interests" (with the partial exception of Quebec), as far as I'm concerned it is the role of the federal government to promote Canada. Alberta's interests are Canadian interests, so there is no conflict in allowing the feds to do the "promoting". Every province can claim to have unique characteristics, but so too can areas within a province, or by extension towns within an area- where do the distinctions end. Alberta is well within its right to pressure the federal government to promote Alberta, but it should be done so internally, while the feds remain the contact point.

One of the more hypocritical, have your cake and eat it too, issues that I can remember was when Klein found it necessary to tell Bush that Alberta supported the Iraq war, in defiance of the federal government. Klein goes crazy whenever Alberta is "threatened", but has no qualms jumping all over the constitution when it serves his purposes. The federal government makes those decisions and the constitution is quite clear on this point. I don't agree with an Albertan office in Washington, I think it weakens our federal system and sets up a pseudo state that confuses. I don't agree with a Alberta exposium that signals an independence. I don't see any reason why our current set-up can't address a provinces needs, especially when that province is Canada. The world gets smaller by the day, while ironically the country that serves as the quintessential example of internationalism and multi-faceted convergences slowly fades away through a tribal mentality.

Harper Insults Local Media

Harper's anti-national media strategy will probably backfire for obvious reasons. However, I also think Harper's statements show little respect for local media. Harper states that he will talk over the national media, directly to local outlets to "get his message out". This belief pre-supposes a relatively benign local press, that simply jots down the propaganda and disseminates it to the masses. Translation, Harper prefers the less "sophisticated", or accomplished media to be his faciliator.

Harper's tactic may actually alienate some local media, and backfire in the sense that they will now see it as duty to be more critical, lest they look like government patsies. It is also impossible to isolate the media into distinct quadrants, because overriding locale are the general tenets of journalism. If Harper ignores part of the press, it is logical that other journalists will fill the void. Harper could find himself with a bored national press (the last thing you want is a press corp looking for stories), as well as an empowered local press.

Harper insults the local media, implying a pro-government bias. The national media is against me, but these guys will do what I ask. There is some merit to the belief that local media coverage is more favorable, simply as a function of the "event" when a high profile politician comes to visit. However, the media tends to react to any charges of negative slants by bending over backwards to look objective, which translates into overly favorable coverage(see last election). If there exists a belief that local media is government hand-maiden, these outlets may go out of there way to be critical to avoid a perception of bias. Coupled with the fact that you can't carve the media into neat sections, the medium bleeds back and forth, and Harper has a strategy that is destined for blowback.

Klein The Drama Queen

Count me as one Canadian that won't miss the always overdramatic, tone deaf Premier of Alberta. Subtle diplomacy and charm as always:

Alberta is threatening to drop out of the federal government's revenue-sharing deal with other provinces if energy income is included in the equalization formula.

Premier Ralph Klein says he's seeking a legal opinion to see if Alberta has the right to pull out, and says he'll fight "tooth and nail" against attempts by Quebec or other provinces to tap into Alberta's energy windfall.

"We will participate if the feds and the provinces conclude that there ought to be a 10-province standard," Klein said Wednesday. "But we won't participate if resource revenues are included."

The premier said the Constitution clearly states that Alberta has control and authority over its resources.

The Alberta premier is girding for what he calls a political showdown with Quebec and Ontario at a special leaders meeting following the western premiers conference in Gimli, Man., next week.

Klein goes ballistic, despite the fact the feds have made it clear that resources aren't part of the equation. I watched a roundtable on Duffy's show, wherein pundits were at a loss to explain this reaction. Klein defending Alberta "tooth and nail", ready to challenge the constitution, against a largely non-existent foe. Is Ralph trying to rile up the faithful by chasing ghosts? Does anyone imagine a possible scenario where Stephen Harper sells out Alberta?

Klein's reckless comments turn the up the volume without much cause. I'm sure this will play well to the choir, but really Klein looks the belligerent fool. Remember, this is the Prime Minister who advocated building a firewall around Alberta, I think you are okay Ralph. This outburst reveals why Klein is a net negative, he likes to fight and saber rattle, with no internal calculation of consequence. Proving once again, that yes, a monkey can really run Alberta at present. Take it easy Ralph, maybe wait until you have something concrete to go nuclear over.

Fairness

My intention with this post was to write a positive piece on the Harper government. Most of my entries are highly critical of the Tories, so I thought I should cite some initiatives I agree with for balance. Everyone has a bias which shapes their opinions, but I think we all strive for some objectivity in our thought process. So, as I go through the laundry list of the Conservatives policies, I do find certain measures which I support.

I do believe we pay too much in taxes. I do believe we should be in Afghanistan. I do believe we need to get tough on sex offenders. I do believe Quebec should have a place at the UNESCO table. I do believe the former government had an air of corruption. I do believe Kyoto has flaws. Etc.

However, despite all this apparent agreement I still find myself critical in terms of philosophy and motivations. I don’t believe the Conservatives and I find commonality for the same reasons. I believe Quebec should get a seat at UNESCO because I believe in the two solitudes. I think Stephen Harper advocates this policy because he sees political opportunity, rather than a genuine desire to recognize Quebec’s culture. On almost every issue I look at, I don’t trust the why part of the equation. I don’t see a government acting in my interest, but one consumed by self-interest.

I don’t agree with the overarching philosophy of conservatism, so when we do collide and find agreement it is more by accident than shared values. With this government, the more I see, the more it confirms my suspicions. Conservatives would argue, how can you be against issue A? I answer, I like A (example 5% renewable initiative), but I know A is meant to deflect B and I also now the close ties with C (big oil and gas). When you step back from individual issues, that is when you see the real divide and return to the cynicism.

In the end, I don’t trust Rona Ambrose, I don’t trust Stock Day and I don’t trust Harper to operate within my value sets. I believe these people have a different agenda, that has no relationship to mine and for this reason all the supposed agreement evaporates because of that transparency. The spirit of fairness is one thing, but when it necessitates ignoring what you know, it is more a delusion, than a search for objectivity. I don’t like these characters, I think they are bad for the country, and the sooner we get rid of them the better, for the good of the everyone.

Charest Snubs Harper

Good for Charest, maybe he can negotiate a seat for Quebec at the Kyoto table:

Quebec Premier Jean Charest says he's ready to act alone to respect the Kyoto accord if the federal government reneges on its commitments.

"The Quebec government is resolutely committed to Kyoto and we intend to soon announce our policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," Mr. Charest said Tuesday.

Renewed federalism, or end around federalism?

Liberals Shouldn't Worry

The latest poll, while striking, isn't necessarily unexpected and/or irreversible. The source is dubious, but the conclusions are reasonable given the circumstances. What should give Liberals some solace is the fact that this snapshot is fluid and conditions are bound to improve. Why do I believe people shouldn't take this poll too seriously:

1. Historically, all new governments are afforded a certain amount of latitude and time before people form a concrete opinion. People voted for change in droves and are willing to give the alternative a chance to thrive. The Tories are primarily the beneficiary of good will that is more a reflection of Canadians fairness, than it is some passionate endorsement of policy.

2. With all due respect to the NDP, we are currently in a situation where we are oppositionless. The Liberals are largely a non-factor as they re-tool, which is reflected in the largely negative press coverage. Almost every piece that mentions the Liberals finds its way to characterizing the party as a dysfunctional mess. This situation is temporary- no one should be surprised that the party is reaching the low-water mark, in fact many predicted it months ago as part of the process. Looking forward, the Liberals can expect a great deal of positive coverage as the leadership race heats up. A vision needs a face first and foremost, something which is obviously hindering the Liberals at present. I will bet anyone that the polls tighten in the post-leadership phase as the new honeymoon begins.

3. Much is made of Harper's gains in Quebec, and I have also expressed concern at this surprising development. However, even the latest poll acknowledges that the Liberals are now below their historic basement. This fact suggest the current situation is more a temporary anomaly than permanent position. The situation in Quebec is extremely fluid, with Harper benefiting from the political vacuum at present. It is hard to believe that Harper enjoys firm support, considering that six months ago he was a non-factor. I see the current surge as a flirtation, and we all know how fleeting that emotion can be. The Liberals are almost sure to elect a leader without the taint of prior scandal- if they craft a progressive agenda they can win back the pragmatists. Also, there will always exist a philosophical chasm between mainstream Quebecers and the Conservatives on policy. Harper's Kyoto stance, his hawkish nature and his social conservatism will forever provide opportunities for the Liberals.

4. We are still in a transition period, where this government can absolve itself of much responsibility by blaming the previous government. Eventually, bashing the Liberals as justification won't wash and Canadians will focus more on the future. The Conservatives still operate in the shadow of the former government, which they use at every turn to deflect and twist. This powerful tool will wane, without the standard whipping boy, the policies will finally see the objective light of day.

One of the more interesting findings I read in a recent poll showed, that while Canadians presently support this government, they also see that they operate with political consideration first, greater good second. This reality is important, because it suggests a certain suspicion of motive and in turn very soft support. I don't expect this sentiment to change, because afterall the government freely admits that they do operate in this manner. This philosophy is a vulnerability that can be exploited by the right set of counter-policies that are borne out of need, not self-interest. In fact, I see the Conservatives pre-occupation with attaining a majority as the key achilles heel, primarily because the ideal isn't rooted in anything substantive, just simple marketing and manipulation. Contrasted with a "real" agenda, with politics a distant second, and you have a great opportunity to expose a rather superficial agenda.

One of Martin's biggest failures was his tendency to pander and operate with questionable motives. An encouraging sign for Liberals, none of the top leadership contenders come across as seasoned political creatures. If the Liberals can present a genuine flavor, that isn't focus group tested, it will look quite attractive juxtaposed against Harper's hyper-politicism.

5. All honeymoon's end.

Tories Cooked The Books

This isn't really news, but it's nice to get some honest press:

The federal government's recent budget chopped personal taxes by about half as much as was advertised and actually lowered take-home pay for many Canadians, a new report by a leading economist says.

Dale Orr, chief economist at Global Insight (Canada) and the report's author, said the government's claims aren't accurate if you compare the budget's cuts against tax rates now in effect. Instead, the government compared the new post-budget tax levels to those from the most recent legislation, which don't include the cuts made by the Liberals late last year.

But the new report on the government's budget claims is important for two reasons: The Harper government prides itself on putting more money into taxpayers' pockets, and the Tories have spoken frequently about the importance of running a more open, honest government. Accountability was one of the government's five top priorities.

Apparently, dishonest propaganda is the real top priority of this government.

Much To Do About Nothing

Tomorrow, the government is set to announce their renewable fuels strategy. Much will be made of this measure as proof of the Tories commitment to cleaning up the environment. The spinmeisters will use this initiative to blunt the recent criticism surrounding Kyoto. Look beyond the platitudes and you find tomorrow's announcement is much to do about nothing.

The standard of 5% renewables by 2010 is hardly ambitious, or anything new for that matter. The Tories "plan" is a simple recognition of what is already happening, or happened for that matter, not a new idea. If the government announced nothing, we would reach the target through provincial action and former Liberal government initiatives.

Don't forget:

Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are already moving forward on similar renewables content standards. In Ontario's case, all gasoline will be required to meet the 5% mark by next January.

And:

In September, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty pledged to require gasoline sold in that province to be at least 5 per cent ethanol by 2007, and 10 per cent by 2010.

You do the math, but even if other provinces did nothing, which they aren't (as my Alberta Tory friends always point out), the already committed provinces alone would have accomplished most of the federal goal.

The government will project this initiative as something new and progressive, a commitment to cleaner fuels. Nevermind the economic realities that have forced companies to look at biodiesel on their own, coupled with already in place government programs:

Ethanol production received a boost today(July 05) as the Government of Canada announced a further $46 million to build or expand five ethanol plants across Canada. The successful companies were announced by Agriculture and Agri-Food Minister Andy Mitchell on behalf of the Government of Canada.

And:

Awareness is growing quickly in Canada due to biodiesel’s proven success in other countries and the current and projected prices of petroleum diesel. The potential for biodiesel in Canada is considerable with its abundance of feedstock resources, and by the fact that the federal government has stated a commitment that Canada will produce 500 million litres/year by 2010. The federal fuel tax exemption for biodiesel in 2003 helps provide the industry with an incentive for biodiesel to be priced competitively with diesel fuel.

Tomorrow's announcement will be lauded and promoted, as evidence of some deep commitment by this government. The initiative will serve its purpose, Ambrose can point too it everytime people cry foul on emissions. I see it as nothing more than an acknowledgement of a reality that exists anyways. Much bluster, little real relevance, outside of political leverage.

What A Load

If you want to see a political dodge and weave of the highest order, take a gander at Rona Ambrose's appearance on CTV today. Basically, eight minutes of pure and utter bullshit that boggles the mind and insults our intelligence.

Ambrose's new line of attack is that Canada will not participate in Kyoto, unless all countries agree to sign-on. A non-starter if I every heard one, considering the American position, not to mention Australia's John Howard pimping his copout partnership just this week. I thought we were all about "made in Canada" now? If that is true, then Canada can commit to emissions reductions in the second phase of Kyoto because it is a domestic target. Obviously, emissions are a global challenge, but that fact doesn't mean Canada does nothing because others don't want to play. Ambrose repeatedly says will reduce emissions with the Conservatives policies, so what is the problem with accepting a binding agreement? Match a signature with the rhetoric if you are so committed.

When pressed on the issue, Ambrose falls back on completely unrelated topics. Ambrose mentions the clean water agreement with the Americans in answering a question on emissions. Apples and oranges, not to mention a dishonest attempt to change the channel. Ambrose also lauded her coming initiative to have 5% non-fossil fuels by 2010, forgetting that Canada was well on the way to reaching that target prior to this government taking over. Thank madcow, not Rona Ambrose, because that event led animal renderers to invest in biodiesel to offset loses from the cattle industry.

Ambrose also had the audacity to say, that unlike the Liberals who want to "cut and run", the Conservatives will stay at the Kyoto table and work towards a solution. Trouble is, what the Conservatives are saying has no resemblence to what other countries are proposing and she makes a mockery of the entire process. Ambrose also said that the Canadian delegation is very well respected at the Bonn talks, failing to mention the disparaging remarks coming from signature countries like Germany. Ambrose also mentions other countries failing to meet targets, particularly Brazil, which again deflects the argument away from Canada. Made in Canada, made in Canada, not contingent on Rio- geezus! What an embarrassing horror show of double-speak, a fact not lost on the questioneer. Check out this interview, but please wear a suitable bullshit deflector, because it comes in thick waves.

Liberals Mirror Canadians

Since the Afghanistan vote, there has been much discussion of the "divided" Liberals and the consequences for the party. Pundits and editorials debating how Harper has effectively exposed the fractures within the Liberal ranks. I must confess, I don't see the negatives, nor do I see the Harper advantage, in how the Liberals voted on the extension. In fact, unlike the other parties which voted in lockstep, it is the Liberal Party that most accurately reflects Canadians views on Afghanistan.

Recent polling shows that, while Canadians support the Afghanistan mission, they oppose Harper's two year blank check extension. Those opinions seem entirely consistent with the "internal struggle" that supposedly handicaps the Liberals as we move forward. The Conservatives are strong hawks, the NDP and Bloc the doves, while the Liberals are clearly in the middle, just like Canadians. The mission in Afghanistan is a complicated question and the free vote for the Liberals reflects the nuances.

I don't think Ignatieff is mortally wounded by his vote, because this isn't Iraq and his viewpoints have merit that people on all sides can appreciate. Much was made of Harper's post-vote handshake, as though it were the kiss of death, but I see it as inconsequential. For arguments sake, lets say Ignatieff wins the Liberal leadership. You could just as easily cobble together an argument that shows Ignatieff's vote as a positive, in that it effectively blunts any Harper criticism that the Liberals don't care about terrorism or national defence. If support for the war sours, the issue becomes a draw with two men who share similar views. Ignatieff's position may well cost him support for the Liberal leadership, but it might also solidify his core support as he contrasts with the majority that voted against.

As for the people that voted against, or expressed similar opinions, the nature of this vote allows for a forceful rebuttal. The blatant politicism of this issue, the lack of a formal debate and a timetable, gave the vote a lack of legitimacy. Liberals that voted against are provided hard facts to turn around any criticisms. There is a way to argue that voting against the Harper resolution doesn't equate to voting against our troops or the goals of the mission. Harper can claim hypocrisy, but the situation is so fluid that opinions demand a constant re-examination. This mission is already largely different than what the Liberals first envisioned, so a pragmatic viewpoint may look attractive, as opposed to Harper's rigid ideology. Again, Canadians opinions allow for lots of space on this issue, so I don't buy into the argument that Harper has scored a political coup with his Afghanistan vote. Yes, the Liberals are divided, but this condition merely mirrors the people who will ultimately cast votes- hardly a concern.

What A Farce

Canada is now, not only undermining Kyoto in Bonn, it is actively trying to kill it. Instead of working on phase two, Canada is working behind the scenes to kill the accord and effectively undermining the good faith efforts of other countries:

Canada will not support attempts by other countries to set deeper emission-reduction targets for the Kyoto Protocol's second phase, according to private instructions to Canadian negotiators in Bonn, Germany.

The instructions obtained by The Globe and Mail also show that Canada wants the climate-change accord phased out in favour of a separate, voluntary deal...

The instructions to Canadian negotiators reveal Ottawa is pushing for the Kyoto Protocol to disappear...

Steven Guilbeault of Greenpeace Canada, who is in Bonn and has attended every major climate-change meeting since 1992's summit in Rio de Janeiro, says the instructions show Canada is attempting to “sabotage” the Kyoto talks. He predicted their release will trigger a “small nuclear bomb” of controversy today in Bonn.

“This is a serious diplomatic incident,” he said.

The second phase of Kyoto is a rather simple proposition- further cuts in emissions. The phase doesn't even begin for another 6 years, which gives ample time to develop an effective strategy. How can Ambrose claim to have any credibility on the environment when she balks at such a simple premise? If Canada wants to focus on "clean technologies" and scientific advancement to tackle emissions as Ambrose has stated, I don't understand how that desire is in conflict with the idea of reduced emissions. Get there however you want, but the accord simply asks for results. Obviously, Canada has no desire to cut emissions, it really is that simple. If the Tory plan is real, then Canada should have no problem agreeing to a binding construct, that gives plenty of time. Ambrose takes us all for fools if we can't see the hypocrisy at play in Bonn.

Ambrose keeps talking about the United States and Canada's relatively low percentage of world emissions. I thought the Tories were proposing the "made in Canada" solution- what the hell does that have to do with George Bush? Copouts, shell games and the mirage of competing plans like the Asia-Pacific farce, all done to cloud a very simple issue. Up or down, clean or dirty, committed or not. My hope today, as news of Canada's duplicity makes the rounds in Bonn, is that Canada is asked to leave the talks entirely. A powerful symbol to embarrass this government and show the Canadian people how far we have fallen. We were there to lead, not undermine and crush morale- an absolute disgrace of the highest order.

UPDATE
Good on the Liberals:

OTTAWA (CP) - The federal Liberals are demanding Environment Minister Rona Ambrose recall Canada's delegation from Bonn after they said she deliberately tried to "undermine" the Kyoto Protocol by instructing her officials to block any consensus from moving forward on its next phase.

And Opposition environment critic Scott Brison says Ambrose herself should resign her position as chair at Conference of the Parties because of what he calls "her covert attempts to sabotage the development of a binding international consensus on global warming."

Brison says Ambrose's actions are outrageous and dangerously duplicitous and could irreparably damage Canada's reputation at the United Nations.

Outrageous is right.

UPDATE 2
Green Party candidate Elizabeth May, sums it all up with a great performance on CTV

Harper's American Visit Delayed

Poor Harper, this must hurt:

WASHINGTON (CP) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper won't be heading to Washington next month to meet with U.S. President George W. Bush as he'd hoped but officials say it's no sign of trouble in Canada-U.S. relations.

Harper was aiming to visit Washington in mid-June but there were scheduling problems with the White House, U.S. and Canadian sources told The Canadian Press.

Our sources have gained access to the conversation between our Prime Minister and the President:

Harper:Hi George, it's Stephen Harper.

Bush: Who?

Harper: Stephen Harper, PM of Canada.

Bush: Yes, yes, hi Stephen. Thanks for agreeing to all our demands on softwood by the way. Our folks are ecstatic!

Harper: No problem. As I told you in Cancun, I want a better relationship and if I have to sell out Canada's interests to achieve it, so be it.

Anyways, are we still on at the ranch for June?

Bush: June, did I say June? Ummm, I might have to cancel.

Harper: George, come on. You told me if I mirrored all your policies, then we could hang out and you could pretend I'm important in front of those communists in our press corps. I used "cut and run". I've trashed Kyoto and anything vaguely related to the environment. I've introduced taxcuts with no consideration for future deficits. I'm getting tough on crime and we will be building those great superjails that you guys have. We've even started talking about abortion and god- although just a little until we get that majority. And, just yesterday Mr Howard addressed parliament, where I gave him a platform to read the Bush playbook. George, you promised!

Bush: You gonna back me when I nuke Iran and give me all the oil from them tar sands?

Harper: Sure, you can have all our water too. We've got tons, what with all this melting and stuff.

Bush: Okay, well June doesn't work. I usually take the whole month off. Last year alone I took more vacations that Clinton did in eight years. Moron. How about the fall, if Blair cancels?

Harper: Sure, sure, fall works. Crawford right? Little presser, with the ranch in the back, right?

Bush: Ya, okay. Oh ya, I heard you were going to join the Asia-Pacific thingamagiggy. That should keep those crazy tree huggers at bay for awhile. What a great scam.

Harper: We're in! Nothing says progress like voluntary, non-binding resolutions.

Bush: Okay, gotta go.

Harper: Looking forward to it Mr. President.

Bush: Ya, whatever. Just don't dress like a dork again.

Harper: Sure, sure.

Australian PM's Lecture

Yesterday, Australian Prime Minister John Howard found it necessary to lecture us on the merits of a strong United States:

Australian Prime Minister John Howard cautioned Canadians yesterday that they really don't want to see an isolationist United States because that would mean a far more dangerous world.

Mr. Howard, who arrived in Ottawa directly from a triumphal Washington visit, told a joint session of Parliament that he's an unapologetic friend and ally of the U.S., which he described as a "remarkable and powerful force for good in the world."

Moreover, Canada, Australia and other nations should deeply appreciate "the decency and hope that the power and purpose of the United States represents to the world."

He referred directly to the previous Liberal government's opposition to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, a military operation that included Australian troops, and he later appeared to address the skepticism still found among opposition Canadian MPs about U.S. President George W. Bush's Middle East policy.

It really is quite laughable that a leader from the other side of globe feels it necessary to "educate" Canadians on our neighboring elephant. In a general sense, Canadians would agree with Howard's assessment of the United States role in world affairs. However, failure to support a radical President, doesn't equate to anti-Americanism. Most Americans don't support their President, why does Howard expect Canadians to react differently?

Howard's reference to Iraq, and the inherent criticism of Canada's position, is out of bounds for a foreign leader on our soil. Canadians overwhelming opposed the Iraq war, not because they don't take terrorism seriously, but because it had nothing to do with terrorism. When Mr. Howard speaks to the seriousness of terrorism, he destroys his argument by introducing Iraq into the equation. In other words, how would Australians react if Jean Chretein addressed their government and admonished them for supporting the war? My guess, Mr. Howard would be the first to tell the guest to mind his own business.

Howard contradicts himself, by lauding Canada's effort in Afghanistan. This conflict finds it root in terrorism, so our involvement denies any lecture on the importance of fighting terrorism. Canada is involved, probably disportionately at this point, and that effort was made by the Liberal government Howard criticizes. Supporting America doesn't necessitate blind loyalty, despite a dangerous agenda. Canada certainly doesn't need any pointers from Mr. Howard on how to deal with the Americans, nor does it need a Bush apologist spreading the propaganda during a state visit.

Harper's Amazing Statement

Yesterday, in response to Gilles Duceppe, our Prime Minister made the following statement:

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, polls indicate that the Kyoto protocol is popular. I notice today that the Bloc Québécois is indicating—just today—after four years, a change in position. It is opposed to our action in Afghanistan because polls indicate that our presence there is not popular.

Independent nations need leaders, not pollsters.

Staggering that Harper makes such a statement, while in the midst of a pure political powerplay on Afghanistan. Andrew Coyne praises Harper, but admits:

It wasn't pretty, and it didn't show a whole lot of respect for Parliament, but I have to admit Harper got the job done with his sudden decision to put the question of extending the Afghanistan mission to the House. It was brinksmanship of the highest -- and lowest -- order, and thank God.

Gerard Kennedy sums it up nicely:

"That debate has been stolen away by a fairly crass, political consideration by the prime minister...

"In putting his politics and his presidential sort of system of trying to manipulate Parliament ahead of the interests of Canadians, he has potentially undermined the mandate for those troops. It's highly regrettable, and I don't accept that the prime minister has a mandate to act in this fashion..."

"Mr. Harper running full-time for re-election"

Every single discussion involving this government and their policies, revolves around political considerations. Even Harper's own supporters acknowledge the political motivations for last night's vote. Surely, Harper must have appreciated the irony of his statement in the context of the proceedings.

I do agree with our P.M, we need leaders, not pollsters. So instead of manipulating our troops and their safety so you can blunt potential criticism, maybe the debate should be approached with careful considerations in mind. Issues aren't chess pieces that act as faciliators for a majority. Are you governing or trying to win? Unfortunately, we are in the midst of the longest election campaign in Canadian history- Parliament Hill is just a prolonged campaign stop.

Planes, Trains and Automobiles

The real reason why the Harper government wants to gut Kyoto:

The tar sands are the single largest contributor to the growth of greenhouse-gas emissions in Canada, because it takes so much of Canada's diminishing supply of natural gas to make tar sands oil. Greenhouse-gas intensity in the tar sands is almost triple that of conventional oil. As Jim Dinning, Alberta's former treasurer and front-runner to replace Ralph Klein as Alberta's premier, recently quipped, "Injecting natural gas into the oil sands to produce oil is like turning gold into lead."

Alberta now emits more greenhouse gases than Ontario, despite having only 26 per cent of that province's population. To draw attention away from the tar sands elephant, Ms. Ambrose said we would have to take every train, plane and automobile off the streets in Canada to comply with Canada's Kyoto accord targets. Did she point her finger at transportation that everyone uses, to undermine popular support for Kyoto?

Environment Canada, a unit in Ms. Ambrose's own ministry, tells a different story. It is oil production, not oil consumption, that is the fastest growing source of Canada's emissions. "Growth in oil and gas exports, almost all to the United States, contributed significantly to emission growth between 1990 and 2003."

With production set to triple in the next decade, it helps explain why Rona Ambrose wants to trash Kyoto. Absolutely staggering that a province like Ontario, with its large manufacturing base, congested highways, massive population and questionable energy sources contributes less crap than Alberta. Canada will fail on emissions so that we can feed the American beast.

This reality makes the Ambrose arguments of industry-driven initiatives and voluntary targets look laughable. Where does the "clean technologies" line fit in with the tar sands? Is there another way to extract oil that could possibly be "dirtier"? The only way to effectively tackle emissions is for there to be limitations on development, capped export numbers based on viability and massive environmental taxes to force rapid change in oil practices. Anything less is equal to nothing and guarantees a disasterous future for the country. The question is simple, people or profits?

Message For Conservatives

I know old habits are hard to break, but Conservatives need to change their mentality. Every time I read a blog entry that is critical of Conservative policy, it is generally accompanied by some retort about the former Liberal government. Commenters do the compare and contrast and the discussion of past records, which successfully distracts from the issue at hand. The former government is the convenient crutch to deflect criticism.

I don’t care if the Liberals failed, the Conservatives are now the government and their policies should be judged on their own merit. Was the gun registry mishandled? Probably, but the question now is whether or not you support the policy. Did the Liberals fail on meeting Kyoto targets? Yes, but this government still has six years left to do something, so the question is still do you support the targets or don’t you? Did the Liberals fail to get an agreement on softwood? Yes, but that doesn’t innoculate the Conservatives from criticism of their agreement. In other words, the Liberals are yesterday’s news and are no longer the easy target for Conservative venom.

Interesting to remember that the Conservatives election platform, outlined in the bluebook, criticized the Liberals before it offered any policies. The Conservatives have received a lot of mileage in trashing the Liberals, but this mindset doesn’t wash anymore. What are you doing? How do your policies affect Canadians in their own right? The Liberal scapegoat is gone, standup and be accountability. If you are backing out of Kyoto it is because the Conservatives don’t support Kyoto, not because Paul Martin didn’t do enough. If you want a closer relationship with the Americans, it is because you agree with their government, not because the former government didn’t see eye to eye. Present your ideas, and let people judge them, without falling back on the old government for cover.

Ambrose Uses the "V" Word

Nothing says environmental concern like "voluntary" targets. Rona Ambrose in Bonn:

The two weeks of meetings in Bonn are the opening round of discussions on what the Kyoto Protocol should look like in its second, post-2012 phase. It is widely expected that the second phase will include stiffer penalties for countries that do not meet their targets. In a report submitted last week, Canada called for the second phase to be more lenient, with voluntary targets, longer deadlines and exceptions for Canada's natural-resource-based economy.

"It is time to take stock of our experience to date and to explore new options with an open mind," Ms. Ambrose said yesterday.

The main criticism of Kyoto is that it doesn't go far enough in curbing emissions. Quite telling that Ambrose is arguing that Kyoto is too rigid and we should look at further weakening for the future. I think we should get used to the word "voluntary", because it will be the cornerstone of the Conservatives environmental policy. Nothing says action, regulating industry and stiff penalties like a system with no enforceable targets. Profit-driven, amoral corporations will have the responsibility to do the right thing, while government offers superficial incentives that lack teeth. A recipe for complete failure if there ever was one.

How is Ambrose playing in Bonn:

The ECO newsletter, which is distributed at international environmental meetings and speaks on behalf of about 300 non-governmental organizations, joined Canadian environmentalists in calling on Ms. Ambrose to resign as chair of the climate-change talks.

"Avoiding dangerous climate change clearly requires leadership from industrialized countries such as Canada in reducing emissions now and an agreement on deeper reductions for the second commitment period," the newsletter said. "If you feel, as Chair of these proceedings, that you and your government are not committed to fulfill your obligations under the Kyoto Protocol and that you cannot provide this needed leadership for the future, please, do the honourable thing. Step down."

Steven Guilbeault of Greenpeace Canada is in Bonn, and said foreign diplomats and negotiators are quite surprised at Canada's new position toward the protocol.

"People in the corridors are talking about living a nightmare. After the leadership Canada showed in [December] in Montreal, to see such regression on the part of Canada is a bit of a shock to a number of delegations here," he said.

We should replace Ambrose with the CEO's of the various big oil and gas companies. In this way, we would avoid any confusion on who now controls the climate control debate in Canada. Ambrose is showing herself to be the industry stooge we all predicted.

Ambrose Looks Foolish

The climate change talks are underway in Bonn. As predicted, Rona Ambrose looks foolish at the helm:

Canada defended its leadership of U.N. talks on fighting global warming on Monday despite admitting that Ottawa will not meet its own goals under the Kyoto Protocol.

Environment Minister Rona Ambrose, who is chairing the May 15-26 meetings in Bonn, has suggested that Kyoto should be softened for Canada in a second period from 2012 saying Ottawa had no chance of reaching its goals.

"The challenge we face in achieving the targets domestically has no relevance to our commitment to ... ensure that we are contributing to the international effort to address climate change," Ambrose said of Canada's 2006 U.N. climate presidency.

Ambrose "must live up (to Canada's Kyoto goals) or stand down," said Jennifer Morgan, climate policy director of the WWF environmental group. "Vague statements about 'commitments to international efforts' are not serious."

German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said it was too early for Canada to give up on Kyoto targets for 2012.
"I'm not sure it's true (that Canada will overshoot its goals)," he said. "We are in 2006, there's 6 years left".

More international criticism here, some domestic questions here.

Rona Ambrose as chair of the Kyoto discussions is akin to Charlton Heston heading up PETA. There is only one outcome to this sham, if Ambrose insists on carrying on in her role- Canada's international reputation will be tarnished. Better to fade to the sidelines and do nothing, than stand front and center and allow other nations easy potshots. This position is high-profile, Ambrose is a figurehead and will be constantly questioned. Give her the hook and spare Canada the embarrassment.

Update

The government was grilled today over Ambrose's appearance in Bonn. Line of the day goes to Gilles Duceppe:

Bloc Leader Duceppe called Ambrose's position "completely stupid.''

"She looks like she's participating in a kind of festival of Just For Laughs,'' he told reporters, referring to the annual Montreal comedy festival.