Dear Donald …

For those of you following along at the Conrad Black fraud trial  in Chicago, here is some evidence put on the record yesterday by the prosecution. It’s an e-mail from Black to his friend Donald Trump:

From: Black, Conrad M
Sent: May 20,2003 7:26 AM
To: Millar, Rosemary
Subject: RE: Reminders

Dear Rosemary,
Could we send the following note to Donald Trump: ,

Dear Donald,
Could I ask a rather esoteric favor? Our annual meeting is at the Metropolitan Club in New York on Thursday, (May 22), at 11, a.m. Some of the institutions have been conducting an insurrection and I will forcefully rebut them on that occasion. They have undoubtedly tried to pack the room with complainants. Some of our people will be present also and adequately vocal, and I do not expect any problem putting our side of events across.
If you were able to put in a cameo appearance and say a supportive word, I'm sure it would have an impact on the group and be favorably noted in the press. I realize you're a busy man and have other things to do, but it could be a lively session. If you would consider it, let me know and I will see that there is a proxy for you. I trust you and Melania are well and prospering. Best wishes, CONRAD

 

My friend Paul Waldie, who has been covering the trial since day one for The Globe and Mail, reports on this e-mail.

UK government adopts climate change policy rules

The British government today announced some guidelines and recommendations it believes will help the UK government as it embarks on new regulatory regimes to address issues of climate change. The government was moved to do this in response to a report submitted to it by the Better Regulation Commission (BRC), a government commission.

Among other things, the BRC came up with seven “tests” it believes ought to be applied by policy makers when considering climate change regulation:

1. Ensure climate policy is consistent with a healthy UK economy

2. Government must develop and act consistently with a climate change strategy; avoiding piecemeal announcements

3. Test policy against a carbon price benchmark

4. Carbon policy choices must be efficient; don't do things twice

5. Keep administrative costs to a minimum

6. Do not use climate change as a justification for other policy
goals

7. If it isn't working, change it

The UK government agreed with these rules and added this comment:

The Government agrees with all of these tests and the response is positive on how, if it is not already happening, the government will take each test forward. However the government is only able to agree
in principle to test four ('Carbon Policy choices must be efficient; don't do things twice') because it may sometimes be necessary for several instruments to operate within one particular sector. However, they need to be proportionate, and inter-linkages should not over-burden any one sector. For example, there may be benefits in having energy efficiency policies in order to encourage a prompt response to carbon price signals, and so as to secure climate change and security of supply objectives together.

Minister expresses "deep dismay" about committee behaviour

Immigration Minister Diane Finley was mighty unhappy at the grilling bureaucrats in her department received recently at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. A letter from Finley to the committee members was sent at the end of last week, on May 16. Some opposition MPs say it represents interference by the Minister in the workings of the Committee. House of Commons Committees are, by tradition and parliamentary rules of order, pretty much masters of their own destiny. When Stephen Harper was in opposition he decried attempts by Liberal ministers to interfere in committee business.

Now, in her letter of May 16, Finley says she has advised her bureaucrats that “if the witnesses have any doubt about answering a question put to them by Committee memberes, the should not answer immediately, but provide a response, in writing, at a later date.” She says this is for their protection.

Here are some extracts from her letter:

I am writing to express my deep dismay with respect to the appearance, on May 2,2007, of various CIC officials before the Committee, and the manner in which that appearance unfolded. At times, the atmosphere and questioning were very hostile and I believe attempts were made to intimidate the witnesses. Innuendoes and accusations were made that, in effect, called into question the witnesses' integrity and truthfulness, without any basis whatsoever. What we members of Parliament sometimes see as the normal cut and thrust of Parliamentary debate 1s certainly not the kind of treatment that should be meted out to any witnesses appearing before this Committee, including members of the federal
public service, and with good reason . . .

The public servants who will appear before the Committee will present fie best information they can, within the limitations placed upon them in their role as public servants. On May 2nd and gth, the assertion is plainly made that certain Committee members felt that witnesses had lied and this is why they needed to be sworn in. Such an allegation is tembly inappropriate, and frankly could well be actionable if uttered outside the protection of the Committee. Whether or not public servants are placed under oath prior to testifying, they will provide the best information they can. In an abundance of caution, now, I will ask that my Deputy'Minister indicate that, if the witnesses have any doubt about answering a question put to them by Committee members, they should not answer immedately, but provide a response, in writing, at a later date, This may delay the Committee receiving full and complete answers to their legitimate questions, but as it is your intention to swear them in, this guidance is for their protection.

How fast can you get that MP3 here?

A survey presented to a U.S. Congressional committee says average Internet download speeds in Canada are pretty quick — 7 megabits per second — compared to the U.S. but still slow compared to many of Canada’s G7 partners. If you had a 7 Mbps downstream connection, it would take you about six seconds to download your average 5 megabyte MP3 file. At 1.5 Mbps, it would take about 21 seconds and in Japan, it would take a just over half-a-second.

US high-speed Internet is slow
Submitted by Canada IFP on Sun, 2007-05-20 16:14.Americas | Tech | United States | News
The average broadband download speed in the US is only 1.9 megabits per second, compared to 61 Mbps in Japan, 45 Mbps in South Korea, 18 Mbps in Sweden, 17 Mpbs in France, and 7 Mbps in Canada, according to the Communication Workers of America.

Read the full story: US high-speed Internet is slow  

Another report, however, puts a little different perspective on the issue of comparative download speeds. A group called The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation says in its report that average U.S. download speeds are actually about 4.8 Mbps and still has Canada up around 7 Mbps.

New study says Global net censorship 'growing'

Global net censorship 'growing'

The level of state-led censorship of the net is growing around the world, a study of so-called internet filtering by the Open Net Initiative suggests.
The study of thousands of websites across 120 Internet Service Providers found 25 of 41 countries surveyed showed evidence of content filtering.
Websites and services such as Skype and Google Maps were blocked, it said.
Such “state-mandated net filtering” was only being carried out in “a couple” of states in 2002, one researcher said.
“In five years we have gone from a couple of states doing state-mandated net filtering to 25,” said John Palfrey, at Harvard Law School.

BBC NEWS | Technology | Global net censorship 'growing'.

The Open Net Initiative behind this study, incidentally, has some significant commentary about Internet use in Canada:

Though neither the United States nor Canada practices widespread technical Internet filtering at the state level, the Internet is far from “unregulated” in either state.1 Internet content restrictions take the form of extensive legal regulation, as well as technical regulation of content in specific contexts, such as libraries and schools in the United States. The pressure to regulate specific content online has been expressed in concerns related to four problems: child-protection and morality, national security, intellectual property, and computer security.

NYMEX Considers Trading Greenhouse Emissions

NYMEX Considers Trading Greenhouse Emissions

NEW YORK – The New York Mercantile Exchange is considering trade in global warming emissions credits, a bourse senior executive said Wednesday.

“We have been looking at it, and will continue, and think it has promise,” Robert Levin, senior vice president of research at NYMEX, told reporters.
He said NYMEX had no set timetable to launch the emissions.
The global carbon market last year tripled to US$30 billion, with the lion's share taking place on the European Union's emissions market, according to the World Bank. The EU launched the market in 2005 to help countries meet their emissions obligations under the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.

Planet Ark : NYMEX Considers Trading Greenhouse Emissions.

Hill to Coderre: You're an idiot

The House of Commons is in recess until May 28 and MPs are back in their ridings. That’s probably a good thing. Last week in Parliament, Conservative MPs filibustered three Committee meetings; Conservative Royal Galipeau jumped Liberal David McGuinty in the House of Commons and, yesterday, Conservative whip Jay Hill (left) blew up at Liberal Denis Coderre:

Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, June 2 will be my 10th anniversary as a member of this House. I have always worked hard, passionately and with great determination. 

During question period, we ask honest questions. We are now spending $6.1 billion on a mission, and we support our troops, yet we have a minister who says that it costs a certain amount of money, then comes back the next day and says that it costs twice as much, so I think it makes sense to ask about that during question period. 

I invoke Standing Order 18. The government whip cast aspersions on my passion and my patriotism by calling me an idiot. He said: “Tell that to the troops we are supporting, you idiot”.

I would ask the government whip, who often gets carried away, to withdraw his comment.

Hon. Jay Hill (Secretary of State and Chief Government Whip, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I too have been here quite some time now, about 14 years or close to it.

I have, as my colleagues have, for the past number of weeks listened to the member for Bourassa denigrate and personally attack our Minister of National Defence. The member says he has been asking these questions properly. The Minister of National Defence is a man with an outstanding 35 year career serving our country in the Canadian armed forces. The member has called him an “arms dealer”. Today he called him a “spendthrift” for the minister's efforts to rebuild the Canadian Forces and to give it the equipment it needs, to give it the tanks it needs.

If he wants me to apologize, I will apologize. I should not have called the member an idiot because even an idiot would support the Minister of National Defence.

Toews to Jennings: Take a pill

If you ever get the chance to visit the House of Commons during Question Period, you will almost certainly hear the heckling of Marlene Jennings, the Liberal MP for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine (left). She is easily the loudest and most persistent heckler in the House, so much so, that if you watch the Liberal side closely you might see her whip Karen Redman trying to shush her several times in a session.

Now whether you approve of this kind of heckling or not, Jennings is very good at it in the sense that she really — I mean, really — gets under the skin of those on the Conservative benches. Yesterday, Treasury Board President Vic Toews had had enough:

Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, while I was asking questions of the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, the President of the Treasury Board made the comment,“Take your medication”. He was clearly referring to me. The member for Hull—Aylmer also heard the President of the Treasury Board.

That would obviously be an inference that any member of Parliament who takes their responsibilities seriously and who communicates the anguish, the anger, the frustration of their constituents, and in this case it is a whole list of organizations in my riding that are still awaiting responses from the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development on the summer jobs program as to whether or not their applications have been refused. The fact that I show emotion and outrage at the fact that these organizations are still awaiting a response and would require medication, I believe is unworthy of this House. It is disrespectful to every single member sitting in this House who is elected to represent the wishes, the desires, the wants and the needs of their constituents. I intend to do that to the best of my ability.

I do not appreciate having a minister of the Crown make an inference that because I attempt to properly represent my constituents that I would need some kind of medication, implying either mental illness or some other condition.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask through you that the President of the Treasury Board have the courage, the intellectual honesty, to admit to what he said and to apologize to me and to every other member in this House.

Hon. Vic Toews (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, I was sitting here listening to the minister give an answer and all I heard was absolute screaming and yelling from the member. The member has a practice and a habit of absolutely screaming and yelling. This is what she consistently does throughout question period. I am sure members sitting around her can attest to the fact that that member specifically screams and yells on all occasions. What I indicated to her is perhaps she might want to take some medication.

I do not know what the issue is over there, but I have never in my time in this House heard a member act in such an irrational way. Perhaps that member might seriously consider something.

If she feels that type of conduct is appropriate, I can only say that I think most other members would disagree. This is not an isolated issue. This is a consistent pattern of conduct by that member.

Galipeau threatens McGuinty

I was sitting in the press gallery in the House of Commons at Question Period, quietly minding my own business, when, lo and behold, I saw Conservative MP Royal Galipeau (left) charge up out of his seat, dash across the floor, climb up into the Liberal backbenches, grab MP David McGuinty (right) by the shoulder and vigorously wag his finger in front of McGuinty’s face. I couldn’t hear what was said and so, after Question Period, I asked McGuinty what had happened:

McGuinty: I just rose on a point of privilege in the House of Commons to ask the speaker to formally investigate the conduct of his deputy speaker. The Member of Parliament from Ottawa Orleans, Mr. Galipeau, physically crossed the floor immediately after I finished my second question to the government and grabbed me by the shoulder and was screaming out of control, out of control using unparliamentary language, threatening me, telling me that I was a coward, that I was giving him no chance to defend himself.

Akin: What was the issue with him?

McGuinty: The issue was the whole question of the court challenges program. I raised it, reminding people that when the member, Mr. Galipeau, was not a Member of Parliament, he ferociously fought for the keeping open of the Montfort Hospital but since becoming a member in this government he has done precious little, if anything, to fight for the program that was cut, les contestations judiciaires, as they say, the whole court challenges program. So he crossed the floor and was completely out of control, completely out of control.

Akin: I saw him wagging his finger in your face.

McGuinty: That's right. And he was screaming at me out of control and, again, it's interesting this is the second time this happens in this Parliament. It happened once before when the member from Nepean–Carleton, Mr. Poilievre crossed the floor and physically threatened Paul Szabo, the MP from Mississauga–South. He had to subsequently get up and apologize, withdraw his remarks. And this was something worse though. I've never seen this. So I've asked the speaker to formally investigate now. It was also caught on tape because as he was screaming at me the member right in front of me from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce–Lachine, Marlene Jennings, was getting up to ask a question and much of this was caught on tape.

McGuinty formally asked Speaker Peter Milliken to investigate the matter. Galipeau is Milliken’s deputy, a fact which McGuinty says makes the issue all the more important:

McGuinty: It's just that having a Member of Parliament standing over you and gesticulating and pointing his finger and screaming at you and alleging that you're a coward and that you have no guts and so on and so forth, out of control, I think — I really do believe that the member lost — completely lost it. He completely lost it. Stormed across the floor of the House of Commons and was screaming at me in front of five other members of parliament. Mr. Galipeau.

Dominic Leblanc sits just in front of McGuinty and saw the exchange:

[Galipeau] was using some profane words. He was, he was clearly out of control. He had decided to come charging across the floor during question period. I mean people were in the middle of asking questions, he came charging across the floor and leant right into David McGuinty with his finger in his face and a whole series of profanities. It was, it was a rather bizarre spectacle.

Galipeau says he was provoked because he believed McGuinty, in a question that was answered by Environment Minister John Baird, attacked Galipeau’s work to protect francophone language rights. Apparently, Baird didn’t do enough in his answer to defend Galipeau’s honour:

Galipeau: I did cross the floor to talk to him and, yes, I was pretty upset. But i was only upset becasue I was surprised. I was surprised that an MP that I’ve always treated with respect should attack me because I’ve never, since my election, said a single partisan word in that House, not at the Chamber of Commerce, not at the Canadian Legion, not anywhere. So it just took me by surprise that a Member of the House would attack me and on what issue? That I don’t defend francophone rights? I’ve been defending francophone rights longer than he’s been alive! The other thing is, how can I be threatening to him? He’s bigger than I am. He’s stronger than I am. He’s younger than I am. I didn’t threaten him. He’s done something against the rules. I didn’t break a rule. He broke a rule. Frankly, if I had been wiser, I would have talked to him after the Question Period.

Duceppe's second thought: "Pauline à Québec et Gilles à Ottawa"

Less than 24 hours after telling Canadians he would quit the federal political scene and run for the leadership of the provincial Parti Quebecois, Gilles Duceppe says he’s staying in Ottawa and that he will throw his support behind Pauline Marois. Here’s the press statement that just came out:

Après analyse des événements de la fin de semaine, Gilles Duceppe annonce qu'il se rallie à Pauline Marois.

Voici trouverez ci-jointe la déclaration de Gilles Duceppe.

« Au moment où j'ai pris ma décision d'entrer dans la course à la direction du Parti Québécois, j'étais, et je suis encore, éminemment convaincu que j'aurais pu apporter une contribution importante comme chef du Parti Québécois.

D'ailleurs, j'affirmais dans une lettre publiée aujourd'hui qu'il faut que le mouvement souverainiste trouve les moyens de renouer le dialogue avec les Québécoises et les Québécois. Pour ce faire, j'avais, notamment, des propositions pour donner un coup de barre en faveur de la consolidation du français au Québec car notre projet est avant tout identitaire. Je souhaitais partager mes réflexions sur les façons de réconcilier la solidarité sociale qui est une valeur qui nous caractérise, avec la nécessité d'intensifier nos efforts en vue d'augmenter la richesse au Québec. Je voulais également faire du Québec un des pays les plus verts au monde en développant une stratégie de réduction de notre dépendance au pétrole. Toutes ces idées demeurent à mon sens porteuses.

Cependant, l'importante et rapide récolte d'appuis de Pauline Marois tant au sein du Parti Québécois, du Bloc Québécois que de la population en général fait en sorte qu'il est de mon devoir d'éviter au mouvement souverainiste un affrontement porteur de division et donc d'affaiblissement. Le message 'Pauline à Québec et Gilles à Ottawa' a aussi porté. Pour ces raisons, je me retire donc de la course et accorde mon appui inconditionnel à Pauline Marois. Il est temps qu'une femme et une de qualité parvienne à la tête du Parti Québécois puis du Québec.

Pour ma part, je souhaite continuer à oeuvrer pour l'avancement de notre cause, la souveraineté du Québec, à titre de chef du Bloc Québécois. J'ai d'ailleurs l'intention de demander dès lundi aux députées et aux députés du Bloc Québécois de me réitérer leur confiance. Un exercice similaire devra également être tenu auprès des militantes et des militants du Bloc Québécois lors du conseil général de notre parti qui se déroulera en octobre prochain. »