Category: Main Page

Leslie Swartman, the director of communications for the Leader of the Official Opposition, just distributed the following to newsrooms in the nation’s capital:

Neither Mr. Dion nor any member of the Liberal Party will apologize.  If anyone owes an apology, it is the Prime Minister to the Canadian people.

What we are witnessing is yet another example of the Prime Minister silencing his critics and shutting down debate by threat and intimidation.  

This is what is known as a 'libel chill' – using the threat of a libel suit to remove an issue from where it should be rightfully debated:  before the Canadian public.  It is Mr. Dion's duty and responsibility to raise these issues before the Canadian public to get the answers they deserve.

Rather than using the courts to intimidate critics, the Prime Minister should simply provide credible answers to straightforward questions.

 

Dona Cadman, the widow of former MP Chuck Cadman, released a statement this afternoon:

March 3, 2008

Personal Statement by Dona Cadman

I’m a little bit surprised at the level of reaction to the disclosures in Tom Zytaruk’s book and I guess that’s probably because it was put to rest in my mind, when I discussed the matter with Stephen Harper, 2 ½ years ago. At that time, I recall specifically asking him if he was aware of a million dollar insurance policy offer, that upset Chuck so much.

He looked me straight in the eyes and told me he had no knowledge of an insurance policy offer. I knew he was telling me the truth; I could see it in his eyes. He said, yes he’d had some discussions with two individuals about asking Chuck to rejoin the party, but he’d told them they were wasting their time trying to convince Chuck.

From that point forward…. I didn’t regard it as a “Party” initiative, but rather; the overzealous  indiscretion of  a couple of individuals…. whose identity, Chuck never revealed to me.

It all comes back to my conversation with the Prime Minister…. 2 ½  years ago.  I want to be perfectly clear in that regard. Chuck liked, respected and trusted Stephen Harper. I like, respect and trust Stephen Harper. If I didn’t believe in my heart, that he was telling me the truth…. I wouldn’t be running as the Conservative Candidate for Surrey North.

Dona Cadman

 

Sometime around breakfast this morning at Stornaway, Stephane Dion became what is believe to be the first-ever Leader of the Official Opposition to be sued for saying something nasty about a Prime Minister. Lawyers for Stephen Harper served Dion with a Notice of Libel for “two devastatingly defamatory articles” that Harper’s lawyers say were published at the Liberal Web site.

Harper’s lawyers want the two offending articles immediately taken down from the Web site and  then,

We require that on the first available opportunity the Honourable Stkphane Dion read the following Apology in English and French during Member's Statements time in the House of Commons and that this Apology be posted in English and French on the Liberal Party website at www.liberal.ca:

“Member’s Statement” time in the House of Commons runs for the 15 or 20 minutes just prior to Question Period which, on Mondays, begins at 2:15 pm Ottawa time.

Read the Notice of Libel Harper gave to Dion today:

Every year, each federal government department and agency produces a “Departmental Performance Report” or DPR and — you won't be surprised to hear — the news is generally good. Departments are doing what they are supposed to be doing! Departments are doing things efficiently! Departments are wisely spending tax dollars!

Well, retiring Conservative MP John Williams (left), who's had a keen interest in his Parliamentary career in pink ties (really!), audit and oversight, isn't quite so believing.

And so, a couple of weeks ago, Williams asked the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to adopt this motion: “That in the interest of accountability, the Auditor General of Canada be requested to select two departmental performance reports at random each year and audit them …”

That motion found support among members of all parties and has now been submitted to the House of Commons where, presumably, it will pass as well, and give Auditor General Sheila Fraser and her staff one more annual task.

Here's Williams, telling the Public Accounts Committee why this is a good idea:

I have believed for a long time that accountability is the thing that drives good performance. I have been concerned over the last many years, in fact since we started with departmental performance reports in the mid-1990s, that they tell a good story but they sometimes ignore telling us the whole story. On that basis, I thought it would be appropriate that we put in some kind of motivator for [bureaucrats] to feel obligated to tell the whole story.

Mr. Chairman, that's why I said “two…at random each year”. You never know whether your name is coming up, and therefore you're motivated to say, “I'd better do a good performance report, because I really would prefer to avoid having to come to explain my fluffy, self-serving report to the public accounts committee.”

Liberal MP Boris Wrzesnewskyj gives this idea the Parliamentary equivalent of a “hell-yeah!”:

Too often we're given a good story here, but not the whole story. It's quite unfortunate. What this motion speaks to is a lack of confidence in this committee among parliamentarians that even when reports are compelled because of concerns, those reports perhaps don't accurately reflect everything that's transpired. On a number of occasions, what has been tremendously worrisome is how the resources in departments are utilized when they're called to account before this committee. Too often, instead of people having been briefed so that they can provide us with the information, it's actually departmental communications people with whom they sit to discuss these issues, and strategies are laid out not on how to provide us with accurate information, but on how in fact they can spin us.

Mind you, Conservative MP Brian Fitzpatrick (who is also retiring) believes this still may not get rid of “fluffy, self-serving reports”:

I find it really unfortunate, if that's really the state of affairs with these performance reports, that we have to hire more auditors to check up on their reports. It's really a disappointing state of affairs that we have in the public service. I'm not sure that ultimately would be the cure. If that's a real problem we have here, I'm not sure

hauling in more auditors, with all due respect to Mr. Williams, is the cure for that problem. It's a leadership problem in those departments.

That's my frustration with having to reluctantly support this thing. I don't see it being the answer.

As for the NDP, David Christopherson is two thumbs up for the idea (and for Mr. Williams):

I remember the first time I read one of those reports. I was infuriated. I thought it was a public relations piece. I think it's also an opportunity for us to mention that the legacy Mr. Williams leaves, because he's not running again, is phenomenal.

His impact on this work is that the impression of it within Parliament has been changed forever for the positive. I think we'll be referring to Mr. Williams' legacy and the things we've all learned from him for many, many years. I hope that's the case beyond, for those of us who are here, because I think he's got us going on the right track. Accountability is everything.

The only other thing I would add is that I hope even now this motion, before the Auditor General even responds, is circulated to all the key people who generate these reports, to let them know what's coming. Start now, folks, because the world's changing, and these reports are not going to be what they have been before. We're going

to drag them into what they should be.

So I'm pleased to support this.

EADS, the European aeronautics consortium often referred to by its most popular brand name, Airbus, finally won a military contract — and it's a doozy. The United States Air Force decided that the A330 MRTT/ KC-30B from Northrop Grumman and EADS Airbus will be its next aerial tanker. It's a contract for nearly 180 planes that could be worth more than $100-billion when all is said and done.

Even EADS couldn't believe it:

Louis Gallois, EADS chief executive, said on Friday night the contract was a ”breakthrough for EADS” in the biggest defence market in the world. ”To win against Boeing is just great,” he told the [Financial Times].

As recently as Friday afternoon the EADS team had been convinced that Boeing would take the contract. Mr Gallois, about to leave Paris for a mountain holiday, said he had simply not believed his ears when informed at 10.25pm local time last night. ”I think it is the best contract I have won in my life.”

The EADS offering was up against Chicago-based Boeing. But despite being the hometown favourite, Boeing couldn't swing the deal and is now threatening that it may be forced out of the tanker business.

Almost predictably, U.S. politicians are freaking out over this deal. “It’s stunning to me that we would outsource the production of these airplanes to Europe instead of building them in America,” said Sam Brownback, the Republican senator for Kansas, where Boeing has a site. “I’ll be calling upon the secretary of defence for a full debriefing.”

But the Air Force fell in love with the Airbus offering. Said one air force general: “More passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload, more availability, more flexibility, more dependability…more patients in the aeromedical evacuation role.”

There is a rising tide of protectionism among U.S. lawmakers right now — the threats by Senators Obama and Clinton to cut NAFTA ties are great examples of that — and, as a result, any company or country that is eating lunch normally made in America ought to be eyeing these developments carefully.

Late last week, Treasury Board President Vic Toews tabled the 2008–2009 Main Estimates. The Estimates are the vehicle through which spending for the current fiscal period is actually approved. The federal budget sets the broad paramaters for the government’s overall financial plan – it sketches out, for example, both spending and revenue — while the Estimates are the details on where the money’s actually going.

Now, just as Parliament must vote on the Budget, Parliament must approve Estimates. Both are confidence issues. If Parliament approves a budget, for example, but rejects Estimates, the Prime Minister can say he’s lost the confidence of the House.

Your federal government had planned to spend just over $220–billion between April 1, 2008 and March 31, 2009. That would be a 4.6 per cent increase for fiscal 2009 over spending in fiscal 2008, which ends in a few weeks. Most of that spending is what is known as statutory spending — spending programs, such as servicing the national debt or providing transfers to the provinces — which was already locked in by previous governments. But $79.1–billion of that spending is what is known as ‘voted’ spending. To use a metaphor from your household budget, this would be discretionary spending, money left over after all the real important bills are paid, like your mortgage.

So the discretionary spending, if you will, this year will be just over $79.1–billion. This being a Conservative government, Conservative supporters would have expected that spending to be less than it was last year or at least the same. Wrong. This discretionary spending is up 5.4 per cent compared to last year. The non-discretionary spending is up 4.2 per cent.

But — and it’s a big but — these spending estimates just tabled in Parliament were put together before the federal budget was tabled.

Given both production and secrecy constraints and the fact that the Budget was tabled two days before the Main Estimates, not all new spending plans can be reflected in the Main Estimates. Therefore, while these Main Estimates represent the major part of the Government's spending plans, additional changes to the amounts will be dealt with in Supplementary Estimates later during the fiscal year.

These Main Estimates represent the Government's expense plan as announced in its March 2007 Budget, as well as further updates as provided in its October 2007 Economic and Fiscal Update.  

There was, by my count, nearly $2–billion of new spending in the federal budget although not all of it will take place in the next fiscal year. So overall government spending will certainly grow by more than 4.6 per cent and discretionary spending is certain to grow by more than 5.4 per cent.

As a benchmark, Canada’s Gross Domestic Product — the sum total of all economic activity in the country –grew by 5.9 per cent between the end of September 2007 (the most recent quarter for which data is available) and the end of September 2006. So government is planning to increase spending at a rate that is less than GDP growth for the third quarter of 2007 but I know of no economist who expects GDP to be growing by 5 per cent next year. So watch out for government spending to eclipse the overall growth of the economy.

So where’s the money going? I’ll be going through departments I cover over the next few days, but here’s the big picture (and remember, these numbers do not account for anything in the last federal budget):

• Ottawa will transfer $45.3–billion to other governments in Canada, an increase of 12.4 per cent compared to the year-earlier period. Within that category, the biggest jump — 16.6 per cent — was a result of a big boost in equalization payments. Ottawa will dole out $13.6–billion in equalization payments this year.
• Federal transfers of money to individual Canadians, for things like the Universal Child Care Benefit and payments to the elderly, will likely come in around $51.2–billion in fiscal 2009, a jump of 3.2 per cent. The child care benefit is costing $2.47–billion next year, just slighly more than the $2.46–billion it cost thisyear.
• Transfers to international financial organizations, like the World Bank, will jump significantly by 28.5 per cent to $693–million.
• Other transfers and subsidies will cost $29.3–billion, an increase of 7.2 per cent.
• Crown corporations will receive $5.2–billion, up 3.8 per cent year-over-year.
• General operating and capital expenses will climb 4.6 per cent to $55.3–billion.
• Public debt charges drop 2.9 per cent to $33.7–billion.

Typically fascinating reportage from James Fallows:

“…what the Olympic-era visitors will be discovering is not the absence of China’s electronic control but its new refinement—and a special Potemkin-style unfettered access that will be set up just for them, and just for the length of their stay. According to engineers I have spoken with at two tech organizations in China, the government bodies in charge of censoring the Internet have told them to get ready to unblock access from a list of specific Internet Protocol (IP) addresses—certain Internet cafés, access jacks in hotel rooms and conference centers where foreigners are expected to work or stay during the Olympic Games.

Depending on how you look at it, the Chinese government’s attempt to rein in the Internet is crude and slapdash or ingenious and well crafted. When American technologists write about the control system, they tend to emphasize its limits. When Chinese citizens discuss it—at least with me—they tend to emphasize its strength. All of them are right, which makes the government’s approach to the Internet a nice proxy for its larger attempt to control people’s daily lives….

[Read the full story]

Yonatan Mendel begins his essay in the London Review of Books this way:

A year ago I applied for the job of Occupied Territories correspondent at Ma’ariv, an Israeli newspaper. I speak Arabic and have taught in Palestinian schools and taken part in many joint Jewish-Palestinian projects. At my interview the boss asked how I could possibly be objective. I had spent too much time with Palestinians; I was bound to be biased in their favour. I didn’t get the job. My next interview was with Walla, Israel’s most popular website. This time I did get the job and I became Walla’s Middle East correspondent. I soon understood what Tamar Liebes, the director of the Smart Institute of Communication at the Hebrew University, meant when she said: ‘Journalists and publishers see themselves as actors within the Zionist movement, not as critical outsiders …

… and continues with many paragraphs that ought to challenge how those of us in the West cover any conflict …

In most of the articles on the conflict two sides battle it out: the Israel Defence Forces, on the one hand, and the Palestinians, on the other. When a violent incident is reported, the IDF confirms or the army says but the Palestinians claim: ‘The Palestinians claimed that a baby was severely injured in IDF shootings.’ Is this a fib? ‘The Palestinians claim that Israeli settlers threatened them’: but who are the Palestinians? Did the entire Palestinian people, citizens of Israel, inhabitants of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, people living in refugee camps in neighbouring Arab states and those living in the diaspora make the claim? Why is it that a serious article is reporting a claim made by the Palestinians? Why is there so rarely a name, a desk, an organisation or a source of this information? Could it be because that would make it seem more reliable? . . .

The IDF, again the envy of all other armies, kills only the most important people. ‘A high-ranking member of Hamas was killed’ is almost a chorus in the Israel media. Low-ranking members of Hamas have either never been found or never been killed. Shlomi Eldar, a TV correspondent in the Gaza Strip, bravely wrote about this phenomenon in his book Eyeless in Gaza (2005). When Riyad Abu Zaid was assassinated in 2003, the Israeli press echoed the IDF announcement that the man was the head of the military wing of Hamas in Gaza. Eldar, one of Israel’s few investigative journalists, discovered that the man was merely a secretary in the movement’s prisoner club. ‘It was one of many occasions in which Israel “upgraded” a Palestinian activist,’ Eldar wrote. ‘After every assassination any minor activist is “promoted” to a major one.’ . . .

Read all of Mandel's essay …

Manufacturers, and car companies in particular, down on the budget. The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters turned Flaherty’s theme of “Advantage Canada” right around on him:

The federal government may tout its budget as Advantage Canada, but for the nation’s largest business sector, it’s putting manufacturing at a competitive disadvantage.

“Disadvantage Canada, that’s what this budget represents for Canada’s manufacturing and exporting sectors,” said CME President Jay Myers. “We were very specific in what the nation’s most innovative industry needed and we received recycled ideas and pocket change at a critical time when we needed tangible solutions. It’s disappointing.”

Here’s the Automotive Parts Manufacturer’s Association. They’re not so happy, either:

Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association(APMA) applauds the Government of Canada’s efforts to increase competitiveness for manufacturers stemming from its Fall 2007 statement reducing corporate taxes and yesterday’s Budget which provided a modest extension to the accelerated depreciation of capital equipment by one year. We further acknowledge that funds have been allocated to the auto sector to research “green auto” initiatives and are encouraged by the suggested scientific research and experimental development program improvements.

However, fundamentally, we are disappointed in yesterday’s budget as it did not address the more immediate issues facing the majority of our member companies, the small and medium sized enterprises.  Many of the measures are good for the long term, but do nothing for a company that is not profitable in the short term.

APMA’s President, Gerry Fedchun commented, “…tax reductions are only good if you are profitable!  Our smaller members are not profitable today so they do not benefit from this.  In fact, without immediate intervention for our sector, there will be more plant closings in the near future.” 

APMA is part of the Canadian Manufacturing Coalition and we are supportive of their initiatives.  We look forward to continuing our work with government to ensure that Canada will have a strong and vibrant automotive parts manufacturing sector in the future.

APMA is Canada's national association representing OEM producers of parts, equipment, tools, supplies and services for the worldwide automotive industry. APMA’s members account for approximately 90 per cent of Canada’s $32 Billion (2006) industry, employing 88,000 workers

Senators Obama and Clinton, appealing to Democratic voters in a Rust Belt state where manufacturing jobs are evaporating, are avowing that one of the first things they’ll do upon winning the White House is to take the United States out of the North American Free Trade Agreement. ‘Course, if the problem is lost manufacturing jobs, that ain’t going to bring any jobs back nor is it likely to prevent more from disappearing.

In any event, here in Ottawa, we’ve spent a lot of time today talking to people about what, if anything, it might mean if NAFTA unravels and/or re-ravels in the wake of a Democrat taking the White House.

Jayson Myers, an economist and president of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters says the NAFTA comments are symptomatic of increasing protectionist sentiment in the U.S. across a wide range of issues. “The deeper point here is not really about NAFTA. NAFTA is the lightning rod for some pretty tough grassroots protectionism,” Myers said.

And here’s International Trade Minister David Emerson, in a scrum with reporters outside the weekly Conservative caucus meeting, picking up on what Jay said:

“Well, I've been very concerned for a couple of years now.  This rhetoric of protectionism has been creeping — it's been getting more strident. It's permeating Congress.  Protectionist groups are flexing their muscle and it's not just the heat of the presidential campaign that is causing concern, it's the whole congressional system.

Reporter:  So you're not prepared to shrug this off as election politics in the U.S. and Democrats trying to appeal to blue collar workers.

Emerson: No, I don't think so.  I mean clearly there's a political element to it but I think it's reflective of a broader grassroots mood in the United States that I frankly think is based on a number of people that are very visible and high profile spreading an awful lot of disinformation.  And, you know, I think the United States when it comes right down to it have got to sharpen their pencils and their analysis and they're going to realize that maybe this isn't such a great idea.

Me:   Minister, are there some industrial sectors in Canada that might be at particular risk if NAFTA unravels?

Emerson: I wouldn't want to put my finger on any one.  I actually think the biggest risk is that there will be periodic outbursts of protectionist sentiment.  You know, it may be softwood lumber one day or it may be beef another day and I think that the real risk is that you lose the ability to resolve these disputes in a relatively neutral and objective way.

Me:   Does our increasing imports to America's energy supply give us a bit more of an ace-in-the-hole than we might have had 16 years ago?

Emerson: Well, I think knowledgeable observers would have to take note of the fact that we are the largest supplier of energy to the United States and, you know, NAFTA has been kind of a foundation of integrating the North American energy market.  So, again, when people get below the rhetoric and start picking away at the details, you're going to find that it's not such a slam dunk proposition to go from the rhetoric to a meaningful improvement.