Steven Blaney calls a cat a cat

"The Holocaust," intoned Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney today, "did not begin in the gas chamber; it began with words."  

He's right, of course. It began with a government capitalizing on a disaster event to demonize a segment of the population and suppress civil rights - including freedom of expression, assembly, and the expectation of privacy in personal communications - while hurriedly implementing a legal basis for the secret imprisonment of anyone considered not friendly to the government's agenda of security over democracy.

So it began with a law something like Bill C-51.

Press Progress is already all over Blaney's peculiar mention of the Holocaust to justify certain measures of Anti-terrorism Act 2015 at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security studying Bill C-51 today, but I noticed it was a somewhat leading - dare I say, planted - question from Con MP Rick Norlock that preceded and provoked it.

Norlock awkwardly read a question off his prepared question sheet regarding the takedown of internet sites :

 Norlock at 49:35:

 "Can you explain the gap in the legislation you're trying to fill and I'm referring mainly to the promotion and and takedown threshold with regards to internet sites. We've heard some folks say that this portion of the legislation is an attack on our freedom of speech. I don't believe it is but I do believe, I do not believe, that promoting the commission of terrorism acts is acceptable. Can you explain the legislation and how it is different than the current hate speech laws that are focused on certain groups."

Certain groups? I hadn't realized we had "current hate speech laws that are focused on certain groups".

After JustMin Peter MacKay's response, Blaney signalled he wished to speak to the question also:

At the 53:45 mark, Blaney : 

"As you know our government has tabled a counter-terrorism strategy that has four pillars - to prevent, detect, deny, and response. And the fact that as a government , as a society, as we will be able to shut down those websites who are promoting hatred and violence is a tool helping us in the first pillar of prevention of radicalization because as we know, we've heard it, the Holocaust did not began in the gas chamber, it began with words. So we have to be careful and that's why this measure I feel is so important and I also am committed as Minister of Public Safety to work with my partners such as Minister Bernard Cazeneuve of France, our European partners, American - so that websites that could be hosted in other countries could also be shut down if they are promoting hatred, extremist ideology, and violence. So I believe this measure, C-51, is part, is helping the four pillar of our counter-terrorism strategy. Thank you."

Randall Garrison (NDP - Esquimalt- Juan de Fuca, BC) protested Blaney's rhetorical trivialization of the Holocaust and Blaney doubled down in the portion Press Progress posted :




Asked about possible abuses of C-51, Blaney explained he was not worried because he would be the one signing off on the warrants.

Gosh was it only six weeks ago that Blaney gave a speech to the UN General Assembly on the Holocaust and Canada's efforts to combat anti-Semitism in the form of the BDS movement? :

"One year ago our Prime Minister Harper stood in the Knesset in Jerusalem to declare that through fire and water Canada would stand with the people of Israel and all the Jewish communities in the face of anti-Semitism. ... That is why Canada plays a leading role in the fight against the Islamic State. Prime Minister Harper spoke at the Ottawa conference on combating anti-Semitism, clearly outlining the real threat of anti-Semitism and Canada's duty to respond. He said " We must speak clearly, remembering the Holocaust is not merely an act of historical recognition - it must also be an understanding and an undertaking - an understanding that the same threats exists today and an undertaking of a solemn undertaking to fight those threats."

.... Canada has a zero tolerance to anti-Semitism in all forms of discrimination, including in rhetoric towards Israel and attempts to delegitimize Israel such as the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement. This is because that those who threaten the existence of the Jewish people are a great threat to us all. More works needs to be done to combat the scourge of discrimination inherent to anti-Semitism and under Prime Minister Harper's leadership, Canada will continue to be a leader in those efforts."

And just a couple of weeks before that, John Baird was in Israel signing a new MOU:

• Deeply concerned by efforts to single out the State of Israel for criticism and isolate the State of Israel internationally including calls for a boycott of the State of Israel, for the divestment of investments, and for sanctions to be imposed on Israel
• Recognizing that the selective targeting of Israel reflects the new face of anti‑Semitism

while another MOU (there were five) promised Israel and Canada would develop "a coordinated, public diplomacy initiative" to combat such criticism.

Meanwhile the website of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada addressed the new MOUs and "the challenge posed by terrorism", including more "standing with Israel through fire and water" and concluding  :

"Whether the fight against violent extremism is conducted over the skies of Iraq or in the tunnels under Gaza, Canada and the State of Israel are fighting enemies whose hateful ideologies and goals threaten all peaceful, democratic societies. That’s why we are committed to enhancing our collaboration on security and defence, especially in the increasingly important area of cyber-security."

From Part One of Bill C-51 : Security of Canada Information Sharing Act :

"Whereas Canada is not to be used as a conduit for the carrying out of activities that undermine the security of another state"

and where the last of nine definitions of "activities" is : 

(i) an activity that takes place in Canada and undermines the security of another state

So I ask again : how much of Bill C-51 is about the Cons soppy infatuation with the current rightwing government of Israel?
.
Wednesday Update : The first use I can find of the phrase "The Holocaust did not begin in the gas chambers - it began with words" is from Liberal MP Irwin Cotler writing for the Jerusalem Post five years ago. It's the title of his article.
.

Petey "Airshow" MacKay, um, scrambles

Find more videos like this on www.truveo.com.

Here's a little musical accompaniment to Dave, Boris, and Ed's posts today on DefMin Pete "Airshow" MacKay and the timely fashion in which he, um, scrambled Canadian jet fighters to save Obama from the Russkies in, um, international airspace, um, three days before Obama even arrived here.

MacKay : "I'm not going to stand here and accuse the Russians of having deliberately done this during the presidential visit, but it was a strong coincidence, which we met with a presence, as we always do, of F-18 fighter planes."

The Star :

It's not clear why Canada chose yesterday to draw attention to what is a fairly common occurrence.
A senior government official said highlighting the mid-air meeting was a good way to show the worth and relevance of NORAD while its commander, U.S. Gen. Victor Renuart, was visiting Ottawa.
It's also a good way to "get some ink" for Canada's contribution to continental security, the official said.

Awesome.

.

Fans of Guantanamo not clear on the message

CBC : Kory Teneycke, Wednesday :
"Our position is that the determination of his guilt or innocence on those charges needs to take place in a court of some fashion, and that we will wait for the outcome of a judicial process before looking at what the other options are."

His comments came after Defence Minister Peter MacKay suggested the government was reconsidering its position after U.S. President Barack Obama stated "very clearly" to military commission judges that the proceedings were to be suspended.

"Clearly, Canada and Mr. Khadr’s counsel and everyone involved in these cases will be reassessing their positions," MacKay told reporters in Ottawa.

Teneycke said MacKay was likely trying to say that the government was "watching very closely what is happening in the U.S., and [that] we'll react to changes when they occur."

He also refused to speculate on whether Khadr could face a judicial process in Canada, saying it was "exactly the hypothetical question that we're really not going to engage in at this time."

"The fact that the situation may change at some point in the future doesn't mean that it's changed today," Teneycke said.

The 15 year old Khadr was accused of:

• Murder in violation of the law of war.
• Attempted murder in violation of the law of war.
• Conspiracy.
• Providing material support for terrorism.
• Spying.

A U.S. soldier reported that he accidentally stepped on Omar Khadr following a firefight in Afghanistan because Khadr was covered in rubble, casting doubt on whether the 15-year-old Canadian could have thrown the grenade that fatally wounded Delta Force soldier Christopher Speer.

Harper takes Afghanistan off the election menu; MacKay puts it back on

G&M : "Mr. Harper pledged Wednesday to withdraw Canadian troops in 2011 from not just Kandahar, but all of Afghanistan, leaving no room for transfer to a safer region of the country."

CP : "You have to put an end date on these things," Harper said. "We intend to end it."

This new pull-out pledge should appeal both to women voters and to anti-war Quebec, where Harper must make inroads to get his majority.

But won't it also piss off the Con war supporters right before the election?

G&M : "Canada will continue to play a role in Afghanistan even after the military mission ends in 2011, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Thursday. "We're there in numerous roles."

MacKay went on to cite the Canadian International Development Agency, diplomats in Kabul, "a significant number of civilian police trainers and military trainers", and NGOs, all of whom "will continue to support the effort to rebuild Afghanistan."

Well ok then. As you were.

A lot can happen between this election and 2011.

Shorter Pete : Vote Con or the Taliban wins

Responding to an amazingly leading question as to "whether he thought the Taliban would target Canada's military in an attempt to influence the election outcome", Peter MacKay takes the bait :

"I sure hope not," he said. "All I can tell you is the challenge is there, it's real. We've seen the tactics of the Taliban. ... Their tactics know no bounds, know no rules of engagement."

He said the government is aware the Taliban is not just “living in caves and attacking soldiers” and is informed about what is happening in Canada and other parts of the world through the Internet, which also helps them wage their own propaganda war.

"We're mindful of that, we're not deterred by the intimidation and we're going to continue our important work there to the benefit of the Afghan people," he said."

Apparently it's vote Con or the Taliban wins./P.S. Fuck the troops.

Pete then went on to say he doesn't give a rat's ass what Canadians think when asked about "a recent poll that suggested 61 per cent of Canadians believe the cost in lives and money is too high."

Nor does he much care for the opinions of the Afghans apparently

.AP : "A strong sense of frustration echoed through dozens of interviews by The Associated Press with Afghan villagers, police, government officials, tribal elders and Taliban who left and rejoined the religious movement. The interviews ranged from the capital, Kabul, to the rural regions near the border with Pakistan.

The overwhelming result: Ordinary Afghans are deeply bitter about American and NATO forces because of errant bombs, heavy-handed searches and seizures and a sense that the foreigners do not understand their culture. They are equally fed up with what they see as seven years of corruption and incompetence in a U.S.-backed government that has largely failed to deliver on development. Even with more foreign troops, Afghanistan is now less secure.

"It certainly is a mess. Security is the worst that it has been for years. Corruption is out of control. It impacts every single Afghan," says Doug Wankel, a burly 62-year-old American who coordinated Washington's anti-drug policy in Afghanistan from 2004 until 2007 and is now back as a security consultant. "What people have to understand is that what ordinary Afghans think really does matter."

Not to our Pete.

Halifax Chronicle Herald : "It does come at a huge sacrifice," Mr. MacKay said. "The human cost is enormous but the benefits that flow to our country, certainly to Afghanistan and to our allies, are huge."

Huge. I'll tell you what's huge, rat-face.

AP : "It is now so dangerous outside the capital that Afghans are afraid to travel hundreds of miles of newly-paved roads, and most international aid groups have forbidden their staff to do so altogether. Truck drivers who have no choice often say thieves and thieving police are a bigger worry than the Taliban.

An air strike in Herat province about two weeks ago killed dozens of people. A U.S. investigation concluded that most were Taliban, but the Afghan government and the United Nations say up to 90 civilians died, including children.
"There is a contradiction between wanting to minimize Afghan civilian casualties and minimizing U.S. military casualties," says Robert Oakley, a former U.S. ambassador and National Security Council staff member. "For the former, we should go on the ground. For the latter, go in from the air."

AFP : Major General Jeffrey Schloesser, who commands US and international forces in eastern Afghanistan, said Friday he needs more troops to counter growing insurgent violence in Afghanistan.

"The number of insurgent attacks has grown by 20 to 30 percent in the first eight months of this year in the eastern sector along the border with Pakistan, compared to the same period last year, he said. Roadside bombs are up 30 percent over last year, while attacks on such "symbols of governance" as district centers are 40 percent higher this year than last."

Peter MacKay made his remarks at a military trade show.

Big "Collaboration Conference" in Banff

The theme of the 8th Conference of Defence Ministers of the Americas being held in Banff, Alberta this week is "Confidence Building through Co-operation and Collaboration".

So how is all that "collaboration" coming along?

US Defense Secretary Robert M. Iran Contra Affair Gates addressed the conference yesterday :

"We have a collective dream: a free, prosperous and secure hemisphere,” he said. “By working together, we can transform that dream into reality and embrace the great promise and potential of the Americas."

Canadian Defence Minister, chief collaborator, and host of the conference Peter MacKay :

"Now more than ever, we are all connected and need to cooperate to achieve the security, democratic development, and prosperity we all desire."

Col. John Cope, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for National Strategic Studies, spoke at a conference pre-meet back in August sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies :

"The lack of operating procedures causes redundancies that could be avoided with greater coordination in the region to streamline efforts. If the Americas can achieve a successful system for disaster response, Cope argued, this will build confidence in regional cooperation and increase countries’ willingness to collaborate in other areas."

Naomi Klein would probably call that "pre-disaster capitalism".

(Speaking of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, also known as CSIS-no-not-that-CSIS-the-other-CSIS, and "collaborating in other areas", whatever happened to their North American Future 2025 Project, conducted in collaboration with the Conference Board of Canada, to draft a blueprint for economic integration of the continent : "the overriding future goal of North America is to achieve joint optimum utilization of the available water."?)

Ok, back to the conference:

US State Department : "Sub-themes for this year's gathering include generating military assistance for regionally or nationally hosted events like the 2010 Winter Olympics in Canada and peacekeeping support in places like Haiti. CDMA's final communiqué may address the need to create a multi-nation disaster task force."

A multi-nation disaster task force? Mutual military assistance for the 2010 Games? That's TOPOFF 5, isn't it? Say, how is TOPOFF 5 coming along anyway? Military contractors still doing both the writing of and bidding on government proposals for the U.S. of A.'s largest counterterrorism exercise next year? Now there's a collaboration for you.

CP : "MacKay says the size of the [hemisphere] makes it challenging to co-ordinate efforts.
He says the ministers will discuss how to co-operate on providing armed security during natural disasters such as hurricanes or major national events like the 2010 Olympic games in Vancouver."

Yeah, there we go. The 2010 Games as a natural disaster. Go, Petey!

America.gov : "[Conference delegate] Carlo Dade, executive director of the Canadian Foundation for the Americas in Ottawa, told America.gov that hemispheric military police relations are a subject of special interest to Canada."

Canadian Foundation for the Americas, better known to us as FOCAL, a quasi-government booster of free markets and private enterprise for Latin America, published this in June :

Alberta Oil Sands: Sustainable Energy Security for the Americas?

"The oil sands hold the promise that both North and South America can rely on Alberta and its energy resources for decades to come, as trade within the Americas grows and Canadians become more fully integrated into pan-American economic and cultural streams."

Collaboration boosters scorecard :

Water - check.

Oil - check.

Military integration - check.

And you all thought the SPP was dead. Oh, ye of little faith.

Behold a Pale hobbyhorse

Steve's mission statement for the Canada First Defence Strategy

Monday - $30 billion

Jay Paxton, Peter MacKay's press secretary : "As such, the speeches are the strategy."

Dan Dugas, MacKay's senior spokesman : "The strategy is what they unveiled,"

Wednesday - upon further reconsideration - $50 billion

Peter MacKay's office : "There's a very detailed cabinet document that lays this down and more."

Defence Department senior military official who apparently cannot be named : "There is a very solid, detailed document in existence. It's not just stuff pulled out of the air."

Ok, so not just something Steve pulled out of his ass which he can stuff right back in again when it suits him (h/t Boris)

There is a plan - they just don't know what it is yet.

"One senior officer used an expletive to express his dissatisfaction with how, in his view, the most proactive spending plan the Forces have ever seen was being communicated to the public."

"Military planners said they took a comprehensive modern approach to predict what global security risks or "conflict drivers" such as terrorism, climate change or population migration would drive up demand for the services of the Forces.

"Food is one, oil is another one, water is one," said another military official."

Pale at A Creative Revolution asks:

Is this finally Steve's military plan to "battle" the climate crisis?

and provides this handy reference drawing for clarification :

Note : I made a very small addition to Pale's drawing which I hope she will not mind.

Steve's Mission Statement

DAVID PUGLIESE : "Canada's defence strategy for the next 20 years will be based on speeches by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Defence Minister Peter MacKay given Monday in Halifax.

In a highly unusual move, the Conservative government will base its entire future rebuilding of the Canadian military on Mr. Harper's 10-minute speech and Mr. MacKay's 700-word address. No actual strategy document has been produced, nor will be produced, according to government and defence officials."

Asked about when the actual Canada First Defence Strategy was going to be released, Jay Paxton, Mr. MacKay's press secretary replied: "It is a strategy that you heard enunciated by the Prime Minister and Minister MacKay."...snip..."As such, the speeches are the strategy."

Accidental Deliberations : "For those who held out hope that the Cons' brand of cult conservatism would stop at a mere Stephen Harper portrait gallery, matters have managed to get worse. From now on, Canada's national defence strategy consists of parsing the Glorious Leader's prophetic vision of Canada Firstness."

Operation Enduring Steve.

Great moments in journalism

Headline : MacKay won't rule out boycott of Beijing Olympics

Lead : "The Conservative government has not ruled out a boycott of the Olympic Games in Beijing, says Defence Minister Peter MacKay.
The issue has yet to be raised at the federal cabinet table, and until that happens, no decisions can be made, MacKay said Monday outside the House of Commons."

Way, way down the page : "MacKay's director of communications, Dan Dugas, later said the issue would not be discussed at cabinet."


Also file under Great moments in Con accountability

"Operation Enduring Freedom"

aka the occupation of Afghanistan, aka "The Mission", will be extended for another two years to 2011.
As expected it was the ConservaLiberals vs the NDP and the Bloc by a vote of 198 to 77. Only one lone Liberal, Newfoundland MP Bill Matthews, and Blair Wilson, the Sea-to-Sky Lib MP currently sitting as an Independent, showed up to vote against it.
20 Libs were absent.
An NDP amendment seeking a diplomatic solution for immediate withdrawal was defeated 244 to 30 just prior to the vote.

Well at least attendence was up this time round and more MPs came to the debate.

Flashback to the Great Parliamentary Afghanistan Debate of 2006. : In April 2006, out of a possible attendance of 308, there were 58 Conservative MPs dropping to 14 after O'Connor finished speaking; 21 Liberals dropping to 10; 2 Bloc Quebecois; and 8 NDP rising to 20.

Yesterday Defence Minister Peter MacKay said the vote "demonstrates that our democracy works", while Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier said Prime Minister Stephen Harper will have a stronger mandate to push allied countries at a NATO meeting in Bucharest, Romania, early next month.

Well done, CAE Inc., General Dynamics Canada, SNC-Lavalin, Bell Helicopter Textron, Bombardier, and of course, ConservaLiberals. See you for another warbiz renewal vote in 2010!

A wide variety of "No comments"

from the scandal we wish everyone would quit calling "Cadscam" :

On Wednesday Harper's office released a statement : "The then-leader of the Opposition [Harper] looked into the matter with party officials and could find no confirmation."

You will recall that former Con MP John Reynolds, who was also Harper's campaign manager, facilitated the meeting at which Finlay and Flanagan are alleged to have offered the $1M bribe to the late Chuck Cadman.

Asked about the incident, former Conservative MP John Reynolds told Canwest News Service he did not wish to comment.
"I'm not involved in politics anymore,"said Mr. Reynolds. "I have no comment at all."

Later Reynolds remarked to CBC : "the story seems fishy." and "Sounds to me like some kind of fiction story."

OK then, anyone else?

"Ryan Sparrow, a Conservative party spokesman, refused to comment on the allegations."

"Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said he's never heard anything about any buyout. "I've never even spoken with Chuck Cadman," he said."

"Jay Hill, now the Conservative government whip and Opposition whip at the time of the vote in question, told NaPo he had never heard of the events," which he also characterized later as a case of "unfortunate miscommunication" and "a so-called make-believe fairy-tale scandal."

Con MP and Treasury Board chairman Vic Toews : "He [Cadman] cared about legislation not money. We've heard this story for years. It's bullshit."

Defence Minister Peter MacKay was deputy Con leader at the time of the alleged offer : "I don't know anything about how this has come about. Certainly it was something that I was not involved with,'' said MacKay, "I think it's sad, quite frankly, that this seems to have come up. It's very unfortunate.''

Ok, so it didn't happen but if it did, it isn't true. Got it.

Update : Chet reminds me in comments that the $1M meeting and the Flanagan/Finlay meeting are not one and the same meeting. Allegedly two days apart in fact. Quite right, my bad. I think I keep forgetting that little detail because it has that - oh no, it was two completely other guys who did that - whiff about it. Thanks, Chet.

Upperdate : Ok, now we're back to just one meeting again. Allegedly.

Operation Enduring Freedom is in the House

The Cons are pissed the other parties don't want to debate the Manley report on Afghanistan in committee :

Mike Wallace, Con : "Canadians deserve a frank and constructive dialogue on this extremely important issue. Shockingly, the Liberals and the other opposition members voted against openness, frankness and transparency."

Peter MacKay, Con, Min. of Defence : "It seems perfectly logical that members opposite who have been calling for a more open, transparent and substantive debate on the subject of Afghanistan would welcome the opportunity....it seems logical that they would want to have a realistic and substantive debate rather than suggest that the committee should just gloss over these issues.

MacKay then called on Dion to "unleash his members" and let them vote on having a debate, after which Foreign Affairs' Maxime Bernier contributed an openly, a transparently, and two honestlies to the discussion which began on Friday with a couple of shockings and Deepak Obhrai asking, "Why are they afraid of Mr. Manley?

Look, assholes, Canadians do want a debate on whether to continue with Operation Enduring Freedom and they want it held in the House where all members can speak to it.
What Canadians are not interested in is having Manley's little retread of a paper he first wrote three years ago (thank you , Scott Ross) go off to a committee that has already investigated and debated the OEF debacle far more frankly, constructively, openly, transparently, realistically, honestly, and substantively than anything you guys have come up with on your own so far.

Hansard Monday bonus. Harper gives us his verdict on the Canadian workers' report showing that the governor of Kandahar province is suspected of torture : "There is no credible evidence in this case."

Enduring freedom is hard work.

From Hansard :Not-Answering-the-Question Period

Question Period, Jan 31 : Not answering questions about detainees

Dion : "Mr. Speaker, today we heard reports that the government was allowing Afghan forces to take detainees directly during joint operations alongside Canadian mentors.
Because this is not technically a transfer, the detainee transfer agreement does not apply, but beyond technicalities are the immoralities of this practice.
Will the Prime Minister tell Canadians if this unacceptable practice is occurring, yes or no?"

Harper : " Mr. Speaker, as we train the Afghan forces to take more responsibility for the security of their own country, I think it can be assumed that they would also be taking more responsibility for all aspects of the mission."

Dion : "Mr. Speaker, we will get there. The Prime Minister understands the question very well. We are speaking of joint operations. During joint operations, who takes the prisoners? Do the Afghans or the Canadians keep them under their protection? It is a simple question. Prime Minister, what happens during joint operations?"

Harper : "I would assume that if Canadian Forces seize the prisoners they are in Canadian custody and if Afghan forces seize the prisoners I would presume they are in Afghan custody."

Dosanjh : "The government's attempt to circumvent the military's decision to stop detainee transfers is absolutely troubling.
Will the Prime Minister finally come clean with Canadians and admit that it was his government that issued this new policy to circumvent the detainee ban?"

Peter MacKay : blah blah blah "We stand behind the Canadian Forces."

Dosanjh : "We know Canadian Forces conduct joint operations with Afghan soldiers. There are prisoners detained by those Afghan soldiers. Do Correctional Service Canada officials have access to and the ability to inspect those detainees?"

Stockwell Day : "Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of members of Correctional Service Canada because when people volunteer, and these people are volunteers, to go to a country like Afghanistan they do so knowing the risks.
We are very pleased with how those individuals have been working with Afghan authorities, DND and others in the process of trying to demonstrate the types of things that we do here in this country which can guarantee or at least further the causes and interests of human rights everywhere. They are doing a great job."


They can keep this up forever. And they do.

"I misspoke," said Sandra Buckler,

by way of explaining how it was she came to tell the Globe&Mail that the Canadian military had failed to inform the Canadian government that it had halted the transfer of Afghan detainees two months ago.

Amusingly, Defence Minister Peter MacKay refused to clarify her remarks : "I'm not going to do anything that's going to endanger the lives of the Canadian Forces personnel or Afghans involved in this operation," he said.
"Or endanger my increasingly dimming chances of ever succeeding Harper," he did not add.

Perhaps she actually said, "I miss Gunsmoke" or possibly even "I'm Miss Poison Oak" instead.
Whatever.
At times like this I find it's best to stick with the professionals...
From Word Pirates :

Misspoke - "Used by politicians to imply they expressed themselves "imperfectly or incorrectly" (Websters) when in reality, they were lying through their teeth"

Mulroney's innocence so far...

Prime Minister Mulroney sends a car to fetch arms lobbyist Schreiber to an official residence.

Schreiber promises Mulroney an unspecified amount of cash for unspecified work.

Mulroney has secret meetings with Screiber to pick up envelopes of cash in 1993 and 1994 while still an MP.
(At least Mulroney, if not Schreiber, knows the unspecified work is not for Schreiber's Bear Head project because Mulroney already cancelled that in 1990.)

Mulroney fails to declare the money on his income tax return at the time.

Mulroney's former solicitor-general drafts an apology letter for Schreiber to be sent in Schreiber's name to Mulroney. Letter states "Mulroney is the best advocate I could have retained" .

Mulroney and his spokesman Luc Lavoie make frequent use of letter as proof of Mulroney's innocence.

Schreiber alleges he sent the letter because he was told that if he provided the apology, Mulroney would get Harper to halt his extradition to Germany.

Schreiber claims Mulroney subsequently asked him to cover up their business arrangement

Schreiber is suing Mulroney for failing to provide promised business services, but testifies that Mulroney had nothing to do with Airbus contracts.

Luc Lavoie has resigned as Mulroney's spokesperson.

Well alrighty then.

CBC's strange bedfellows

Dear CBC :
About that Environics poll that you state was "conducted in partnership with the CBC", the one all over CBC TV News tonight, the CBC website, CTV, the G&M, etc :

CBC : 51% of Afghans feeling good about country's direction
60 % of Afghans surveyed believe the presence of foreign troops has been good for their country.
43% say that foreign troops should stay as long as it takes to get the job done.
60 % in Kandahar have a somewhat or very positive attitude toward Canada's soldiers.
70% of Afghans surveyed said they think Karzai is doing a good job.
77% of Afghans in Kandahar said Karzai is doing a good job.

In fact the poll was conducted by ACSOR–Surveys, the Afghan Center for Social and Opinion Research, founded by D3 Systems Int., whose client base include US State Department, the US Embassy in Kabul, the Afghan Reconstruction Group, Voice of America, (PIPA) the Program on International Policy Attitudes.....

A previous PIPA poll conducted by the Afghan Center for Social and Opinion Research in November 2005 found :
80% of Afghans believe their country is going "in the right direction"
83 % of Afghan respondents said they had a favorable opinion of U.S. troops in Afghanistan
81 % expressed a favorable opinion of the United States
83% said they had a favorable (39 percent "very favorable") view of "the U.S. military forces in our country."
75% approved of eradication of opium poppy fields
90% had an unfavorable opinion of the Taliban
and so on....

This ACSOR poll was extensively used in the US media to bolster support for the war.
Just like their new one will be used here.
Peter Mackay outside the HoC today: "Afghans are now able to take part in democratic processes like polling, and I think that's another brick in the wall as far as building the [needed] security."


Another brick in the wall, indeed. Unusual use of that Pink Floyd metaphor, Pete.


Now even if you do not subscribe, as I do, to the notion that this "CBC/Enviromics partnership" poll is just another piece of bullshit brick-in-the-wall warmongering being spun by yet another US research company, this time with our CBC as a willing patsy, you have to admit that comparing the most recent ACSOR survey with their 2005 one shows Afghan opinion and support for foreign troops is actually plummetting :

2007 : 51% believe the country is going in the right direction
2006 : 80% believe the country is going in the right direction

2007 : 60% support foreign troops and Canadian soldiers
2006 : 80% support American troops

So, CBC, what have you got to say for yourself?

Research jointly conducted in the threads of Bread and Roses

Update : The CBC/G&M/La Presse Survey at Environics

MacKay, flypaper, and...The Battle of the Bulge?

Peter MacKay was in Washington yesterday to observe the annual Canadian Defence Minister's homage to Bush's flypaper strategy :
"If the job is not done in Afghanistan, if countries like Canada leave, the Taliban can follow them,'' MacKay told Canadian reporters here.

The tradition began in October 2004 when President Bush, aka Crusader Bunnypants, addressed reporters in Greeley, Colorado:
"We have defeated the Taleban..."
Wait, that's not it...just a sec...scrolling down...ah, here we go :

"We are fighting these terrorists with our military in Afghanistan and Iraq and beyond so we do not have to face them in the streets of our own cities." (Applause.)

Canada failed to observe the flypaper strategy ceremony in 2005 for some reason, but here's Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor in April 2006 :

"Fighting terrorists in Afghanistan is better than waiting until they show up in Vancouver, Montreal or Ottawa, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor told the Commons on Monday."

MacKay slipped in a small coda of his own yesterday when he added a reference to the US Battle of the Bulge, saying he wanted to "look into the whites of the eyes'' of other NATO countries to determine whether those nations truly appreciate the need to step up in Afghanistan and the impact on their countries if they don't :

"North America is not immune. Continental Europe is not immune. Nobody is immune.''

Canadian reporters were puzzled but they wrote it all down anyway.

And did I call this one back in July? Why yes, yes I did.

SPP : Water is "On the Table"

We need a national policy on water NOW.

"Both the 1989 Canada-U.S. Free-Trade Agreement and the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA, which includes Mexico) were supposed to settle the water question. It didn't happen. As an afterthought, the Canadian, Mexican and U.S. governments issued a joint statement in 1993 saying NAFTA creates "no rights to the natural water resources" of any trading partner. To this day, the statement remains unsigned."

The above is from "On the Table", a research report released yesterday at a one-day panel on water sovereignty at the University of Toronto's Munk Centre for International Studies.
One of the authors, Ralph Pentland, is a former director of water planning and management with the Canadian federal government, and he says Canada doesn't have a national water policy, leaving it up to the individual provinces to decide whether or not to begin the bulk water shipments to the US which would become impossible to stop, once started, due to NAFTA.
To date, Quebec, Ontario, and Newfoundland have made noises in that direction.

The good news is that the report is getting into the print media.

Edmonton Journal : Water exports to U.S. remain on table until we take them off
Ottawa must take clear stand against growing pressure
"Are Canadians ready for the next big trade issue -- a concerted effort by the United States to acquire Canada's fresh water, and a willingness by some influential Canadians to sell it?"

Ottawa Citizen : Down the river
"Despite claims to the contrary, water is on the table in trade negotiations -- we need to be clear with our neighbours that we intend to keep this precious resource"

Toronto Star : Canada's watershed moment: Let's take exports off the table
"National water policy should be based on stewardship, not commoditization"

This last was written by Tom Axworthy, notable for having been part of the Task Force on the Future of North America back in 2005 along with Michael Wilson, John Manley, and Wendy Dobson. They wrote that now infamous study sponsored by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the US Council on Foreign Relations - you know, the one which recommended one currency; one passport; one foreign policy; one set of environmental, health, and safety standards; one immigration policy; one security perimeter; and a North American brand name to be introduced in schools.

Odd how far along we are on all those now thanks to the SPP, huh?

To his credit, Axworthy appended a dissenting opinion on the security perimeter and the inclusion of water resources before he quit that committee. Interesting to read an insider's alarm on this issue.

Unlike say - John Baird, Peter MacKay, Jim Abbott and Int Trade Committee Chair Julian Benoit.
Prodded in June by NDP MP Peter Julian who rightly connects water rights with the SPP, all three opposition parties requested a note be sent to Mexico and the US asking for a clarification of their positions on the unsigned NAFTA afterthought statement. Baird, MacKay, Abbott and Benoit reacted as if an ugly family secret was being aired in public.

Baird said water was not a trade issue and thus didn't bear discussion and it was silly to even bring it up, while Abbott said it would be folly, even dangerous, to open the NAFTA can of worms and then try to close it up again.
OK, so the Con position is that it's both too insignificant and too explosive an issue.

And MacKay.....MacKay's response was interesting :

"On the issue of bulk water export, the government has no intention of entering into any negotiations behind closed doors, or otherwise, regarding the matter of bulk water exports."

Sounds pretty definitive, Pete.
How about provincial govs? We already have a Chapter 11 compensation court case going on since 1997 here in BC over the BC gov reneging on a water contract with Sunbelt in California. Does that count?
A US water bottling company has just bought the rights to a lake and its tributaries in Quebec. And what about US corpses with contracts to use massive amounts of water in Alberta tarsands operations? Does that count as opening the door to foreign ownership? Will we ultimately have to compete with US corpses on Canadian soil for our own water?

When the roguing of parliament is finally over, we have got to hold the GnuGovs hoofs to the fire on implementing a national water policy. And they are welcome to go on about '13 years of Lib misrule' as much as they like on this one as far as I'm concerned. We've already lost sovereignty over our oil and gas. Let's try and at least keep stewardship of our water.

Endnote : Like a family member you take entirely for granted, the Council of Canadians somehow never winds up being quoted or credited on this blog for their stellar work on bringing the vulnerability of our water into the public eye. Consider it done here - The Council of Canadians Water Page.
.

MacKay announces surge in GnuGov bullshit

Sunday New York Times Front Page :
Afghan Police Suffer Setbacks as Taliban Adapt
"A year after Canadian and American forces drove hundreds of Taliban fighters from the area, the Panjwai and Zhare districts southwest of Kandahar, the rebels are back and have adopted new tactics. Carrying out guerrilla attacks after NATO troops partly withdrew in July, they overran isolated police posts and are now operating in areas where they can mount attacks on Kandahar, the south’s largest city.
The setback is part of a bloody stalemate that has occurred between NATO troops and Taliban fighters across southern Afghanistan this summer. NATO and Afghan Army soldiers can push the Taliban out of rural areas, but the Afghan police are too weak to hold the territory after they withdraw."

Sunday CanWest News :
"At least 30 Canadian soldiers were killed, and dozens more wounded, during operations last year to kill and root out insurgents from the districts around Kandahar. Canada and its allies therefore rely on Afghan police to hold strategic areas. But the Afghan police are notoriously unreliable, underpaid and poorly trained and equipped."

Sunday CTV Interview with Peter MacKay :
"Canadian sacrifices in Kandahar “have paved the way for incredible progress,” he said. “We’re seeing an Afghan army and Afghan police force able to participate in a more fulsome way in the defence and security of their own country.”
MacKay’s comments signalled the start of a new public relations campaign by the Conservative government on the home front this weekend, designed to highlight the successes of the mission and sell the war to Canadians.
“I think you’re going to see a more concerted effort to make those statements and demonstrate the progress that has come about because of the work of our military,” MacKay said on Sunday."

h/t Rambling Socialist

SPP? Don't worry; be happy .

Shorter John Ibbitson : If Maude Barlow of Council of Canadians and some right wing nutters in the US are both sending out alarms about North American integration, well then I guess we can call it a draw and forget the whole damn thing.

What a "fair and balanced" load of foxcrap.

"Political realities are no obstacle to conspiracy theorists", writes Ibbitson, juxtaposing these two examples:

"The North American Union will bury our America under more than 100 million, mostly poor Mexicans, and tens of millions of Canadians, used to their lavish social welfare benefits and socialized medicine unless we stop it," the News Journal of Mansfield, Ohio, gravely warned in a recent editorial.

While on the Canadian side, Ms. Barlow maintains that "deep integration," as she likes to call it, is "quite literally about eliminating Canada's ability to determine independent regulatory standards, environmental protections, energy security, foreign, military, immigration and other policies."

Right. See a single item on Barlow's list that isn't currently being violated? Need me to provide links to the downgrading of pesticide regs to match US ones, no water security under NAFTA, the NoFly list, CIA operations in Canada, Maher Arar? No? Tired of hearing about them?
Well then if these deeds are actually going on, it isn't much of a conspiracy theory, is it?
As opposed to the first example of being buried under spoiled brown welfare bums.

Ibbitson decides to provide us with a single concrete example of "lunatic not-so-fringe" thinking :

"The vast conspiracy to sell out the sovereignty of Canada, the United States and Mexico to a new North American Union would manage the flow of Canadian oil and water south to the thirsty United States and oversee the construction of the so-called NAFTA superhighway - a massive, 12-lane road, rail and oil-and-gas corridor that would snake from western Mexico, through the United States and into Canada, making it far easier and cheaper to import Chinese goods, thus completing the final destruction of the American and Canadian manufacturing sectors.
Of course there is no NAFTA superhighway, and no plans to build one, any more than there is any serious talk of a North American Union. "

Holy crap! This is going to come as a considerable shock to the U.S. Department of Transport, Federal Highway Administration, who have maps, and artist's renditions, and articles. From their website :

"The proposed system will be a network of transportation corridors (routes) incorporating separate lanes for passenger vehicles and trucks, rail lines for high-speed passenger and freight rail, and a dedicated utility zone. Components in the system may incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way where practical. Up to 366 meters (1,200 feet) wide in some places, the corridor is designed to move people and freight faster...

"... a 2,570-kilometer (1,600-mile) national highway that, once completed, will connect Mexico, the United States, and Canada. Other States involved in the I-69 project include Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, and Tennessee. The planned location for I-69, designated by the U.S. Congress in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), was chosen because of the economic opportunities that could be created along the north-south corridor, specifically those related to increased trade resulting from NAFTA. "

Now who knows if this super-highway will get past the outraged ranchers unable to get assurances their land will not be expropriated, the environmentalists alarmed that the project is proceeding prior to their final reports, Governor Perry's three political opponents crying foul, and the public fury that the public-private partnership bid is going to a South American company which is going keep the toll profits for decades.

It sure sounds pretty lively for "no NAFTA superhighway and no plans to build one".

Mr Ibbitson rests his case on Peter MacKay :

Mr. MacKay dismissed the whole shebang when he spoke to reporters after the meeting Friday. "I don't think the SPP should be viewed in a conspiratorial way," he said. "It should be viewed for what it is. It's a way to enhance our collective interests in North America."

Enhance our collective interests in North America.?
Nice dodge, MacKay. You call that a rebuttal, Mr Ibbitson?

So. Mr Ibbitson. Here's what's got me pissed :
We already know that the rightwing from Lou Dobbs all the way to the John Birch Society view what they call the NAU as a super-secret probably Jewish cabal of international bankers and intellectuals intent on ruining America with brown people and Canadian commies.

Please do try to keep them separate in your head from Canadians who can see the incremental corporate-driven piece-meal harmonization of continental defence and agreements compelling countries to deregulate for the sole benefit of global investors.

That way you won't get caught up in some silly conspiracy to deny it.