David Akin’s On The Hill

Last week, I noted that the U.S. Coast Guard was set to embark on live fire exercises on the Great Lakes with their new machine guns. Today, the Globe’s Margaret Philp goes deep on this whole subject, noting many objections by Canadians concerned about the optics, about safety, and about environmental pollution from the lead slugs fired by the training Coast Guard crews.

…

“It was a big surprise on both sides of the border. At first I thought it was an Internet hoax,” said Mike Bradley, the mayor of Sarnia, Ont., who has written a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper asking him to intervene.

“The longest undefended border in the world is gone. It's passé. And this is an example of it.”

Toronto Mayor David Miller chairs a coalition of U.S. and Canadian mayors working to restore and protect the lakes.

He said the target practice violates a treaty signed after the War of 1812 that outlaws military weapons on the Great Lakes, tampering with two centuries of peaceful history.

“This is very much the wrong direction, to militarize the border between these two countries,” he said in an interview. “It's symbolically important and practically important that the border remain open and doesn't become militarized.”

…

“We've spent years removing lead from the Great Lakes,” said Mary Muter, a long-time cottager and vice-president of the Georgian Bay Association, a coalition of cottage owners and boaters. “As a Canadian, these are binational waters and this is just offensive.”

Shortly after I saw the notice in the U.S. Federal Register, I asked Chris Sands about this issue. Sands is a senior associate at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. He heads up the centre’s Canada Project. Here’s an edited excerpt from some e-mail exchanges we had:

On threat perception, I think that there are a couple of things at work. First, [the U.S. Department of Homeland Security] conducted an inventory of vulnerable targets and created an expansive National Critical Infrastructure Plan in 2005. Things like the Ambassador Bridge made the list, as well as (for example) the Fermi II nuclear power plant in Michigan which is right on the shores of  Lake Erie.

The US Coast Guard has responsibility to protect this infrastructure (shared with other agencies at DHS). Second, some of the shipping on the lakes, particularly of chemicals and fertilizer, is explosive and the USCG must be prepared for a lake ship being used in an attack on Detroit, Milwaukee, Chicago, Cleveland, Buffalo, etc. This may seem far-fetched, but so did planes used to attack buildings once upon a time.

Third, the lakes are not hard to cross in a small boat, and Congress is insistent that we patrol the US borders. Can the USCG rule out an individual terrorist, or human smugglers with a small boat full of illegal aliens, crossing by water? And if not, it would be irresponsible to assume that such a boat could be stopped and boarded without resistance.

Fourth, the USCG has been changing in recent years, in a process that parallels the one that various branches of the US military have undergone, and in a manner quite similar to the changes in US Customs and Border Protection. Once, USCG recruited locally and a career with the Coast Guard was stable — that is, you tended to stay on the Lakes, or on the Atlantic seaboard, or in the Gulf of Mexico if you wanted to do so. Now, there is more rotation through various duty locations for individuals in the Coast Guard, and the USCG has tried to standardize the equipment across the various classes of ships that it has in the fleet. This factor would have placed pressure to upgrade the weapons on the Great Lakes fleet.

The Rush-Bagot Agreement of 1817  [More info here](subsequently ratified by the US Senate in 1818 to give it the status of a formal treaty) was negotiated between the United States and Great Britain to end a local naval arms race following the War of 1812. It covers naval armaments (not forts on the coast) and the provisions allow for armed vessels for policing and customs purposes. The US Coast Guard is not a naval force (it does not operate in the open seas) and its ships on the Great Lakes have always been eligible to be armed — during the Prohibition era, they chased rum runners, for example. In the Great Lakes, the USCG performs many of the functions that the Border Patrol handles on land borders and so it is logical for them to carry some armaments. Given the increased risk during war time, it makes sense for the USCG to train for all eventualities.

A correspondent who serves with the Canadian Forces — and who prefers to remain anonymous — sent along some information about the guns on the Coast Guard boats:

“the USCG is planning to mount 7.62 GPMGs, but may in the future add .50cal HMGs:“

One of the, erm, amusing directives to emanate from the Prime Minister’s Office has been an instruction that federal government bureaucrats, when reporting any new initiative in a press release or other document intended for public consumption, is to refer to the government as “Canada’s New Government” rather than the “the Government of Canada.” Several bureaucrats — and not a few Opposition  politicians — have chafed at this instruction, believing it to be so much partisan Conservative propaganda.

Presumably, Johanne Gelinas, the Environment Commissioner and an independent officer of Parliament, would have been covered by this directive. But, here in the media lock-up, as I make my way through her six-volume indictment of federal government environmental initiatives, I have yet to find the phrase “Canada’s New Government” and have only found that old-fashioned, out-of-style phrase “The Government of Canada.”

Statistics Canada today released the latest poplulation numbers for this great Dominion. As for July 1, there are now 32,623,500 people in this world who call themselves Canadian. That represents an increase of 324,000 compared to the same date last year. Most of that increase in populuation is a result of welcoming people from other countries. Statscan reported that 254,400 people from other countries became Canadian citizens between July 1, 2005 and July 1, 2006 — the largest inflow of immigrants since 2001/02.

“International migration's role in Canada's population growth far exceeds its impact in the United States,” Statscan said.  “In 2004/2005, net international migration accounted for two-thirds of Canada's population growth, compared to 38% south of the border. For its population gains, the United States counts on a fertility which is higher than in Canada.”

But while Canada’s population overall is growing — and growing at a faster clip than the U.S., Statscan adds — it was a different story in each province. Alberta’s population is growing the fastest and there are now 3.38 million people living there. PEI, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, B.C., Yukon and Nunavut all saw population increases last year. But Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories are all smaller this year than they were last year.

This is a picture of Lata Pada and her family from the early 1980s. The others in this photo, her husband Vishnu and two daughters Brinda and Arti, died in the the Air India bombing of 1985. This photo was displayed on a large overhead screen at the Major Commission this afternoon while Ms. Pada gave her testimony. Here is an excerpt:

“For me, the inquiry is about accountability, a public acknowledgement of the past wrongs that have plagued the Air India bombing. Twenty years is a lifetime, an eternity for the families who have waited with trust and faith in the justice system. our pain was aggravated by the sheer apathy that we encountered in our attempts to meet with Government in the years following the tragedy. The Air India tragedy is Canada’s 9/11. It happened sixteen years before 9/11, yet no one woke up to that fact. Imagine how it hurts when people speak of 9/11 as the world’s most significant act of aviation terrorism, deleting the Air India bombing from our collective memories.

Canada’s most heinous act of terrorism had disappeared from the nation’s radar to the extent that the events of 9/11 registered as the first act of aviation terrorism. The Air India bombing had been relegated to a distant past, unrelated to Canada, because a majority of victims were of South Asian ancestry, the aircraft belonged to the Indian government, and the cause of the tragedy was located in some obscure sectarian issues in India. Bob Rae was the first national figure to call it a mass murder, a Canadian tragedy. The Air India bombing was a dastardly act of revenge conceived on Canadian soil by Canadians against Canadians. Let us not forget that ever! Let the inquiry serve to remind all Canadians that the potential for homegrown terrorism is very real! Today, Sikh terrorism may not be a threat, it has been replaced by the even more potent terrorist ideologies, that is the real threat that we face daily with unimaginable consequences . . .

Imagine an entire nation that cannot being to visualize the horror of the tragedy, their collective memory of this event dulled by years of public amnesia and crass sensationalism of more exciting news. Imagine a national that does not care or concern itself with a growing threat of terrorism in their own backyards …

Imagine having your life thrust into the glare of the media, the exaggerated brutalization of the trauma and horror of the event. Imagine having the phone ring every time a new news bit requires a family member to make a comment, only to be mentioned on the news along with the local news of the latest pit bull attack …

Imagine having to accept the seeming impotency of a justice system that cannot accommodate the obvious guilt and deliver a fair and just verdict, a deterrent to all future attempts of terrorist acts.”

I’ve been tasked with covering the Air India inquiry or, as it’s formally known, the Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182. It may also come to be referred to as the Major Commission, after John Major (left), the retired Supreme Court justice who will oversee the inquiry.

The inquiry will make its headquarters in Ottawa at what is known as Old City Hall (right) on Sussex.

The first three weeks of the inquiry will be given to the families of those who died in what is still the largest mass murder in Canadian history. For the families,  this is a particularly important occasion because it will be the first time many of them will actually get a chance to be “on the record” about this event and how it changed their lives.

NDP Leader Jack Layton (left), whose party has called for a withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan, spoke with journalists in the House of Commons foyer shortly after he had a brief meeting with Afghan President Hamid Kharzai. Here is some of what he had to say:

LAYTON: He’s a very thoughtful individual and certainly someone of great courage and I think some considerable wisdom.  I asked him about his remark in his speech which was that the root causes of the terrorism and the sources lie outside of his country.  I asked if he was speaking about the provinces in Pakistan adjacent to Afghanistan and that’s exactly what he meant and I said are you proposing a military approach to that problem and he said no, it’s got to be political. We need to have negotiations.  Well, of course this is one of the points that the NDP has been making. There has to be a comprehensive peace process that involves negotiations and other players including Pakistan.  I have frequently repeated this. 

 

For some reason, our government refuses to take that challenge up.  In fact, our defence minister was over there trying to encourage them to buy — the Pakistanis — to buy our nuclear power.  That’s rather far from suggesting to them that they start to do their share on their side of the border with regard to the Taliban who are coming across and attacking the Afghanis and of course the Canadian soldiers who are there. 

 

We also talked about the poppy situation and he indicated this was a grave problem and that it was equally important to the terrorist issue and of course he said that also in his public speech.  I asked him how that could be approached and, frankly, it was somewhat of a sigh and he realized — he pointed out how complex it is.  I didn’t get into a discussion with him — it was too brief — about that issue and I hope to pursue it further with him tomorrow because economic development for the people of Afghanistan is fundamental. He pointed out the farmers are living in poverty and they need income.  

 

And, you know, unlike the Conservatives who probably would assume that Mr. Karzai wouldn’t talk to someone with a different point of view, his point of view was that democratic discussion and assessing things from different points of view was fundamental in a democracy and he was most forthcoming in his discussion with me which, frankly, didn’t surprise me although it might surprise some of the Conservatives who holler and jeer while you’re trying to ask a reasonable question in the House.

 

Question: Did [Karzai] swaty you in any way in your call for troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan?

 

Layton: Well, of course what we have suggested is that a new strategy forward needs to be constructed, that we need to notify our partners that we would be withdrawing from the south of Afghanistan and then work strongly in a leadership role, hopefully, to construct a new and more balanced approach to Afghanistan and we’ve always said it should involve a comprehensive diplomatic process as well as the balance between defence and reconstruction and aid, that it had to be more complex than this rather single-minded focus that our government seems to have had on the military operations in the south, mirroring the George Bush approach.  And I come away from my brief conversation with President Karzai convinced that a much more complex approach is needed, that the issue of the poppy farms is as important, as he said, as terrorism, that addressing the situation involving Pakistan is absolutely critical to finding a solution here.  These are things our prime minister doesn’t speak about.  He prefers to slip into the rhetoric of suggesting that anybody who wants to have a more complex approach is simply being somehow unpatriotic or siding with the enemy.  That’s not the case.  None of us want to see the Taliban back in power and we believe that the current course in the south of Afghanistan is not going to take us to the results that Canadians are seeking.

 

Question: Did he express any concerns about the NDP position?

 

Layton:No, he didn’t.

 

Question:   Can I ask you briefly about how the conversations with Mr. Karzai came about considering you had no idea whether you were scheduled to actually speak with him?

 

Layton:  Well, fortunately, there was a brief reception for the party leaders that the Speaker had put on. So over a glass of juice and pleasantries we were actually able to get into a discussion about the issues.  The prime minister was present.  All the party leaders were present and it was very productive. I found Mr. Karzai is not nervous or doesn't get his back up when you talk about controversial issues.  Maybe there's a lesson that could be learned by some of the backbenchers here in our Parliament.

 

Question:   Can I ask you briefly about how the conversations with Mr. Karzai came about considering you had no idea whether you were scheduled to actually speak with him?

 

Layton:  Well, fortunately, there was a brief reception for the party leaders that the Speaker had put on. So over a glass of juice and pleasantries we were actually able to get into a discussion about the issues.  The prime minister was present.  All the party leaders
were present and it was very productive. I found Mr. Karzai is not nervous or doesn't get his back up when you talk about controversial issues.  Maybe there's a lesson that could be learned by some of the backbenchers here in our Parliament.

I was in the House of Commons this morning for the historic address to a joint session of the Commons and the Senate by the first-ever democratically elected leader of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai. [CTV has archived video of Karzai’s speech here — look for the video links on the right hand side of the page]

Among those present for Karzai’s speech were some of the family members of soldiers killed in Afghanistan. I spotted, for example, the parents of Capt. Nichola Goddard.

There were many notables in the Commons for his speech and some notable no-shows. Former Prime Minister Paul Martin, for example, was not in the House — even though both he and former Prime Minister Chretien were praised by Karzai for their commitment to Afghanistan. In fact, there were more than a dozen Liberal MPs — and perhaps as many two dozen — who were absent for the speech. This is all the more odd because it was the Liberals, of course, who first sent Canadian troops into Afghanistan. By comparison, I did not see an empty seat among the Conservative, BQ, or NDP benches.

Among the notables spotted in the Commons galleries and tucked into seats in all corners of the House:

• Mrs. Harper and Mrs. Karzai
• Liberal leadership hopeful and former NDP MP Bob Rae.
• Maj.-Gen. (ret’d) Lewis Mackenzie
• Auditor General Sheila Fraser
• Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart
• Senior officials, including the deputy minister, from the Department of Foreign Affairs. (That’s rare: Departmental bureaucrats rarely attend events in the Commons)
• Chief Electoral Officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley

One other notable no-show: RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli. With several Mounties serving now in Afghanistan, many would have expected Zaccardelli to attend but, of course, had he shown up, he would have been besieged by us jackals in the press about his future as Commissioner.