Maudits hypocrites. Kate McMillan lays it out:

The First American Prime Minister

In the pocket of the American rich;

Last week, Michael Ignatieff and 142 other Members of Parliament voted in favour of a motion to ban oil tanker traffic on the north coast of British Columbia. This week, Liberal MP Joyce Murray from Vancouver Quadra introduced Bill C-606 to put that motion into law by amending the Canada Shipping Act to prohibit oil tanker traffic on the north and central coast of British Columbia.

[...]

If marine conservation were really the issue, the ban wouldn’t be only for the north coast of British Columbia and U.S. foundations would be funding a tanker ban in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, on the Eastern Seaboard and in the Gulf of Mexico. But no, U.S. foundations are funding a tanker ban campaign only for the central and the north coast of British Columbia — right smack where oil tankers, export-bound for Asia would need to travel…

Mark
Ottawa

Norman spectates acutely at the Globe and Mail online:

In the House of Commons on Thursday, Conservative MP Jim Abbott had some harsh words for Canadian news organizations:

A few days after returning [from Afghanistan], I was at a social event where MPs, senators and the national news media were mingling, and as I walked by some reporters, one of them asked me about my impressions from the trip. I told him, first, I was blown away with the complete enthusiastic dedication of the Canadian soldiers, aid workers and diplomats in Afghanistan … second, the coverage of Afghanistan by our national news media has been at best inadequate … the news coverage, or lack of it, on Afghanistan has actually distorted the impressions that most Canadians have, or many Canadians anyway. Canadian media coverage of Afghanistan for 10 years has been the equivalent of covering news in Canada and Canadian events by having three reporters driving around in a Vancouver police cruiser on Vancouver’s east side. What would that coverage tell Canadians about Canadians’ aspiration or the beauty of our land or our potential? This parallel is appropriate, because news organizations from Canada have had an average of three people in Kandahar, driving around in LAVs or confined to the air base.

Mr. Abbott, who is a strong supporter of Canadian involvement in Afghanistan, offered these observations during debate of a Bloc motion condemning the Government’s duplicity in extending the mission to 2014. Given the paucity of coverage of that debate today, you’d have to extend his remarks about the media from Kandahar to Ottawa, and include opponents of Canadian participation in Afghanistan as well.

While most of the points raised yesterday by Conservative and Bloc MPs were predictable (and sometimes disingenuous), two interventions stood out and are well worth reading. From the Liberal side, Bob Rae explained why Canada is in Afghanistan – and why we must remain there – with an eloquence and intelligence that we’ve seldom if ever heard from the Conservative Government. Virtually nothing of what he said is reported in today’s papers. On the NDP side, Jack Harris tore through the Conservative and Liberal positions with devastating facts and logic. I could find nothing of what he said in today’s papers…

So first we had that Conservative coalition with the Bloc and now one with the Liberals; the prime minister sure seems to be considering them coalitions a pretty Good Thing after all.

Earlier:

Media out! Of Afghanistan/People’s Daily Online Update

Update: An exception to Mr Spector’s strictures: John Ivison, in the National Post’s “Full Comment”, is also impressed by Bobbety in the Commons:

Why Canada is in Afghanistan, and has to stay

We in the Press Gallery rarely report on parliamentary debates – usually for the very good reason they are so dull that if you don’t knit, you’d be advised to bring a book.

But there are exceptions and Bob Rae’s speech in the House Thursday must rank as one of those. There are no Churchills in the current Canadian parliament — a politician who, according to his friend F.E. Smith “devoted the best years of his life to preparing his impromptu speeches”  — but Mr. Rae has no peers when it comes to eloquence on the floor of the House. During the debate on the future of the Afghan mission Thursday, he explains his own thinking and why he arrived at the conclusion Canada could not simply pull out…

Mark
Ottawa

Earlier:

Many in Canada howl that we should not be militarily involved in Afstan because the government is too corrupt…

Yet our government is working very hard, with general approval, to strengthen links with another country in the area (which the Liberals are also mad keen on courting) that has very serious corruption problems of its own:

Canada-India trade talks overshadowed by corruption scandals…

Now in The Economist:

Graft in India
Rotten to the crore?
Coping with the aftermath of a massive scam

My point is not to eschew trade ties but to point out Canadian hypocrisy in selectively and relentlessly bashing Afstan for things we just don’t even talk about when lots of money is hoped to be made. Our relations with China are now equally selective in taking supposed principles seriously (interesting photos at preceding link).

I just want us to shut the moralizing …. up and be honest. We do Realpolitik too.

Update: A version of this and the “Earlier” post is in the National Post’s “Full Comment”:

The Post piece is also in the Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs:

…
Canadian Commentary
Mark Collins — National Post
Canada’s selective corruption index. Afghanistan bad, India good…

Mark
Ottawa

Paul of Celestial Junk guest-blogging at SDA:

Coyne Toss

Heads?..

… or tails?..

Mark
Ottawa

Jack Granatstein, at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute’s 3Ds Blog, cuts through more mindless political spin, this from the Liberals:

The Peacekeeping Mythology Never Dies

It is a great and good thing that the Liberals are supporting the new training mission in Afghanistan. The terms of their support, however, are shamelessly disingenuous. Yesterday on CBC-TV’s “Power and Politics” the Grits’ Dominic LeBlanc talked about how the training role was in the traditional Canadian mode, redolent of our long proud peacekeeping tradition. And that’s why Michael Ignatieff could support it. Blah, blah, blah. This is straight-out pandering to the soft-headed Canadian belief that all we should ever do is keep the peace, preferably with a blue beret firmly fixed on our soldiers’ heads.

But is training equal to peacekeeping? No, it most certainly is not. In the first place, Afghanistan is a state at war, and there is no peace to keep. Then, Canadian soldiers will be training one side in that war, the ANA and ANP, how best to fight the other side, the Taliban…

Words are indeed without meaning for this country’s politicians.

Earlier:

Now also blogging at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute…/Scary thought Update

Lots more on other efforts to keep that peacekeeping flag flying here.

Mark
Ottawa

Many in Canada howl that we should not be militarily involved in Afstan because the government is too corrupt:

…Afghanistan is now the second most corrupt nation on earth, just after Somalia, according to Transparency International, a Berlin-based advocacy group. That represents a level of corruption difficult to imagine and this is why allies now see the Karzai government as a bigger threat to the stability of Afghanistan right now than even the Taliban insurgency.”

This is what the money of Canadians and the lives of our soldiers are supporting and it is a battle that we cannot win. We should leave now…

Yet our government is working very hard, with general approval, to strengthen links with another country in the area (which the Liberals are also mad keen on courting) that has very serious corruption problems of its own:

Canada-India trade talks overshadowed by corruption scandals

The difference? India is a country that lights up dollar signs in Canadian eyes. While corruption in Afstan is really just a convenient justification for those flatly opposed to our military presence there.

There are also major human rights problems in both countries but we only obsess about them in one. There’s a hell of a lot of willfully blinkered hypocrisy in Canada:

Kashmir and the Great Game–and double standards

In fact we are so desperate to gain Indian favour–and business–that we even abandon our supposed principles on human rights:

Tories apologize to India over visa feud

The Harper government has issued a groveling apology to India in a spat that began when Canadian visa officers barred several members of the country’s security agencies from coming here.

New Delhi had summoned Canada’s high commissioner to lodge a protest over the rejection of Indians who had worked for its army or intelligence services in the contested Kashmir region – which the Canadian visa officers termed notoriously violent.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney issued a statement Friday saying Canada works closely on security matters with India.

“The Government of Canada therefore deeply regrets the recent incident in which letters drafted by public service officials during routine visa refusals to Indian nationals cast false aspersions on the legitimacy of work carried out by Indian defence and security institutions, which operate under the framework of democratic processes and the rule of law,” Mr. Kenney said in the statement…

See the post above about Kashmir for more about that “rule of law”.  Mr Kenney might also do well to read this:

In India, Torture by Police Is Frequent and Often Deadly

Canadians are no pure boy scouts.  Like everyone else we see what we want to see to suit our purposes; and then we also have our own supremely smug self-satisfied regard.  Nonetheless we essentially follow our self-interest.

I would also point out that by staying seriously engaged in Afstan we have at least some chance of affecting its government’s behaviour on these matters.

Update: The post is also at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute’s 3Ds Blog.

Mark
Ottawa

Further to this post,

Afstan: Some reactions to, and consequences of, Canada’s bugging out/Fighting Germans Update

Prime Minister Harper may be beginning to see the light; a trial balloon is clearly being floated–in the Liberal-friendly Toronto Star–to smoke out political, pundit and public reaction:

Troops may stay in Afghanistan as ‘trainers’

Canadian troops could remain “behind the wire” in Afghanistan involved in training local troops after their combat mission ends next summer, the Star has learned.

While the Conservative government is holding firm that the combat mission will end in 2011, one of three options emerging is that some soldiers could remain in the troubled nation, well away from combat zones, as trainers.

The other two potential roles on the table are aid and development, a senior government official told the Star.

There are roughly 3,000 soldiers involved in Canada’s Afghan mission [details here on Joint Task Force Afghanistan]. The size of the training contingent would be “much smaller” and would be away from Kandahar, a hotbed of the insurgency, the official said….

Despite diplomatic pressure from NATO allies to extend its military mission in Kandahar, Canada is making it clear that a continued combat role is one option that’s not up for negotiation.

Canada has been under pressure from NATO and key allies to remain in Kandahar…

Officials have already briefed the Liberals in their role as the official opposition about the options being considered, suggesting the Conservatives are hoping to avoid a bitter partisan fight over the future of Canada’s biggest foreign policy priority.

Conservatives have taken note of comments by both Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and Liberal MP Bob Rae, the party’s foreign affairs critic, suggesting their party would be open to a continued Afghan role for Canada.

Ignatieff used a major foreign policy speech in June to call for Canada to commit itself to a training mission to help the Afghan police and military [more here]…

Lets just hope the government and Liberals can both act like grown-ups and do the right thing. As for Kandahar, I have heard from someone well up on Canadian activities in Afstan that the government is currently planning to remove all or almost all Canadian civilians and civilian police from Kandahar as the CF withdraw, and have our civilians based in Kabul. So there goes Canadian participation in the PRT. The Americans will certainly notice the elimination of a Canadian presence on the ground in the tough places and draw their own conclusions. But CF trainers would certainly counterbalance and more any negative impression.

Update: MND MacKay adds some hot air (all it is for now) to keep the balloon in the air:

Canada is considering NATO and allied requests to keep troops in Afghanistan past 2011 to conduct non-combat training missions, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Sunday.

MacKay said the government would likely make a decision in the coming weeks in the run-up to the Nov. 18 NATO leaders’ summit in Portugal.

MacKay stressed that any such mission would take place out of Kandahar province, where fighting is fiercest and would be “behind the wire” – military parlance for non-combat mission…

Now perhaps an adult discussion may ensue since the government is starting to come clean. At least partly, one imagines, as a result of some very serious pressure indeed from some particularly close and important allies. Good on them.  The allies that is.

More background from Brian Stewart (a recent military reporting award winner) of the CBC:

It could soon be much harder for the Harper government to tiptoe away from the NATO combat mission in Afghanistan next year.

Later this month (Nov. 19-20), NATO leaders hold their long-anticipated Strategic Summit to thrash their way forward on a wide range of issues.

Afghanistan will be very much front and centre and, according to high-level talk in Ottawa this past week, our main allies have no intention of easing Canada’s way home.

Indeed, there’s increased speculation that the U.S., Britain and other Western powers will use the bilateral meetings that go along with the summit to try and change the prime minister’s mind about the Canadian withdrawal.

They are not asking for a complete about-face but they still want hundreds of Canadians left behind as military trainers and frankly believe that Canada still owes NATO that much…

No one, of course, underestimates the challenge of changing Stephen Harper’s mind on anything. He has said very publicly that he has no intention of leaving any military forces behind after next summer, apart from perhaps a few embassy guards…

Here’s hoping.

Mark
Ottawa

I’m not sure what’s more unusual. That Gordon Campbell can have an astonishingly low-achieving nine per cent approval rating; or that the conservative Fraser Institute think tank has labeled him the best premier in Canada.

He is enigmatic, unpredictable, elusive, and quixotic. He can create good public policies while engaging in the most baffling of blunders. I never know what this premier is going to do next.

It isn’t as though the HST is bad tax policy — far from it. In fact, the HST is most logical value-added tax system by removing a redundant portion of the collection bureaucracy.

Consumption taxes are also a good place to make any increased changes to government revenues, since it commodifies the outputs of the economy and not the inputs. Taxing the source of production, by nibbling away at the worker’s pay cheque, is the least effective incentivizing agent for increased worker production. Why work overtime if the government is going to punish you for your industriousness?

But we all know that the economic soundness of the HST was never at issue. It was the incompetent manner in which the premier and his finance minister implemented it — after an election, and without any discussion or debate whatsoever. The ensuing arrogance over the HST made the Liberals an enemy of the province that is unlikely to forget by the year 2013 when the people are asked to cast their ballots again.

Some Liberals may not even survive that long, since the Fight HST group spearheaded by Bill Vander Zalm is expected to begin recall campaigns against sitting Liberal MLAs beginning in January.

The Liberals made similar mistakes in the prelude to the Olympics. Nobody expected the government to allow the preparations for the games to fall short, meaning that supplementing VANOC with staff from Victoria and bankrolling other Olympic-related projects were an inevitable aspect of being the hosts of the 2010 winter games.

But when the Liberals made cuts to health care and allowed other areas to suffer while openly spending millions on a large sporting event, it rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. It certainly didn’t help when it was learned that the government was buying up Olympic tickets before the general public were allowed to buy any, so they could schmooze business and foreign leaders.

The Liberal government has also been mired in a series of scandals since inception date. There was the 2000 provincial election in which one of the platform planks was saving BC Rail, which managed to fail spectacularly when not only was the rail sold off, but it generated the largest corruption scandal in B.C. history.

The Liberals have also gained a reputation for making mistakes and then attempting to cushion the fallout by bribing people with their own money.

Following the disastrous, and ultimately pointless, implementation of the carbon tax during the height of the oil crisis in July 2008, the Liberals issued a “climate action dividend” of $100 to offset the initial brunt to the wallet. Since this unpopular tax grab, however, the carbon tax has risen twice in a scheduled increase that will max out in 2012, even as the province distinguished itself this year by being the only jurisdiction in Canada to have greenhouse gas emissions rise in 2008.

As the province hands out more and more drilling rights in northeast B.C., including the new $800 million EnCana Gas Cabin, one can only assume these emissions will continue to rise. Frustrated taxpayers continue to fork over carbon taxes on the very natural gas they’re subsidizing big companies to come and drill.

Even the latest fiasco would flummox the most faithful Campbell supporter. In order to announce a new 15% tax cut to British Columbians making up to $72,000 a year, the Premier couldn’t help but spend a quarter million dollars on the production and advertising to tell us all about it.

Campbell tried to justify the waste by saying that it only amounts to five cents for every person in the province. Thanks for the math lesson, but that’s hardly the point.

The problem with Campbell is that nothing is ever done without calculation of how it will affect his image. A good deed, or in this case public policy, is its own reward. Campbells relentlessly narcissistic need to praise his own deeds is the reason his career is on a short track to a dead end.

Auditor General Sheila Fraser’s fire is not directed at either the Liberal or Conservative governments–though the politicians certainly weren’t exactly on the ball (and it’s a pity none of them no almost anything about things military).  The CF in particular have a lot to answer for.  A post at Milnet.ca:

AG’s very damning report is here.  Cyclone was sold by DND as off-the-shelf when in fact it was a completely new aircraft.  Won’t have operational version until 2012.  Chinooks also supposedly off-the-shelf but turned, because of “Canadianization”, into effectively a completely new version, won’t be delivered until 2013.  Acquisition risks and capital costs of both greatly underestimated, and in-service support costs way off.

AG’s summary:

…
The total project cost of 28 Cyclone helicopters, together with initial set-up, training, provision of spare parts and long-term maintenance, is now estimated at $5.7 billion. Delivery of the first fully capable Cyclone, initially expected in 2005, was delayed to 2008 and is now expected to occur in 2012. The total project cost of 15 Chinook helicopters, together with initial set-up, training, and long-term maintenance, is now estimated at more than $4.9 billion. The first fully capable helicopter is scheduled for delivery in 2013, five years later than planned…

* National Defence underestimated and understated the complexity and developmental nature of the helicopters that it intended to buy. Both helicopters were described to internal decision makers and the Treasury Board as non-developmental, using “off the shelf” technologies. On that basis, overall project risks were assessed as low to medium. In each case, however, significant modifications were made to the basic models. For the maritime helicopter, this will result in an aircraft that never existed before. For the medium- to heavy-lift helicopter, this will result in a new variant of the Chinook. Ultimately, these modifications led to schedule delays and cost increases beyond original plans.

* The medium- to heavy-lift helicopter acquisition was a directed procurement using an advance contract award notice (ACAN). National Defence had initially planned to proceed rapidly to contract award by spring 2007; however, its needs and priorities were not precisely defined at the outset, evolved over the course of the acquisition, and were not finalized until 2009. The manner in which Public Works and Government Services Canada used the ACAN did not comply with the letter or intent of the applicable regulations and policies and, consequently, the contract award process was not fair, open, and transparent.

* National Defence did not develop full life-cycle plans and costs for these helicopters in a complete or timely way. In addition, total estimated costs were not disclosed to decision makers at key decision points. Some costs have yet to be completely estimated and some elements needed for the capability are not in place. Without adequate cost information, National Defence cannot plan to have sufficient funds available for long-term operation and support of the helicopters. Moreover, without sufficient funds, National Defence may have to curtail planned training and operations.

* National Defence did not fully comply with the oversight and approval framework established in its Project Approval Guide. For the maritime helicopter project, boards provided appropriate oversight at the preliminary project and effective project approval stages. However, neither the Senior Review Board nor the Program Management Board met to challenge and approve the information in the 2008 revised effective project approval that was related to the contract amendment approval of $262 million. For the medium- to heavy-lift helicopter, there was an absence of timely meetings, challenge, and approvals by senior boards at all key decision points in the acquisition process and before seeking Treasury Board approvals.

The entities have responded. The entities agree with all of our recommendations. Their detailed responses follow the recommendations throughout the chapter.

The ACAN sole-sourcing of the Chinook Foxtrot is criticized, though not that sternly.  Mainly for technical abuse of details in the ACAN process itself.

As for the F-35, a piece by the National Post’s John Ivison:

Helicopter shenanigans increase doubts on F-35 purchase
…
This kind of Sir Humphrey Appleton-like manipulation of the politicians by public servants still has the power to shock. Ms. Fraser called the deliberate understatement of risk as “totally inappropriate”. But amid the mendacity, there was evidence of old-fashioned incompetence…

None of this inspires confidence in procurement at a department that is currently making the biggest military purchase in Canadian history. The Opposition is entitled to demand that the entire process for the new jets be laid bare before Parliament, not only to ensure that the Conservatives have been open and transparent but also to check the Department of National Defence has been giving the government the real goods this time. As Ms. Fraser said in her press conference: “Let’s hope nobody is assessing them [the F-35s] as low risk [emphasis added]…”

More on the F-35:

On CBC News Network’s “Power and Politics” National Defence Parliamentary Secretary Laurie Hawn just said [Oct. 26] that $5 to $5.5 billion of the F-35′s $9 billion acquisition cost will be for the aircraft themselves ($70-$75 million per plane), with the other costs being for associated equipment, munitions, facilities, training etc. (I’m expanding somewhat on his explanation of these costs).

Nice price if we can get it when a contract is actually signed.

Remember the F-35–all three versions–is still in flight testing and no-one knows what the actual production price will be.

Mark
Ottawa

From Norman’s [weekly] Spectator:

…
–Some news re the socialist-separatist coalition you may have missed

If war deserters outlast Harper government, they can likely stay in Canada: Chow

American war deserters may get to stay in Canada if they outlast the federal Conservative government, New Democrat MP Olivia Chow said on Saturday.

Chow’s comments came as the Americans met with their supporters to try to decide what to do next after a bill that would’ve allowed the deserters to stay in Canada was defeated in Parliament earlier this month.

Chow says her party and the Bloc Québécois are in favour of letting the Americans stay.

“There would be a chance if the Conservatives lose power in this election, (deserters) might still be in Canada I hope,” Chow said in an interview from Ottawa. “I suspect we might have a spring election so their fate is in the hands of some of the Liberals and Conservative MPs.”
…

Earlier:

“No” to US (and other) deserters/Mickey I. Update

Mark
Ottawa