Friday night music...

Coldplay were here last night, didn't see 'em but heard good things. New video which is kind of mesmerizing.

$10 million bill for Quebec hospitals from isotope shortage

"Crise des isotopes: facture possible de 10 millions." The $10 million in increased costs represents an increase of 25% in unanticipated expense to the budgets of nuclear medicine departments in Quebec. Premier McGuinty has been writing to the federal government about the increasing costs as well although there's been no dollar figure placed on Ontario's costs thus far. You'd have to think it's equal to or more than the figure reported here for Quebec which was arrived at after a conference call with a dozen CEO's of Quebec hospitals. These are tens of millions in additional costs for hospitals that were foreseeable should a Chalk River shutdown occur yet prompted no substantial back-up planning at the federal level for isotopes.

Where's the federal support for these increased costs? Where's the response?

For more on this topic, see: Blog Post Index: Medical Isotope crisis & Chalk River shutdown.

More seemingly random news items

One:

More than 27,000 Quebecers have faced delays in getting cancer and heart tests since the end of May because of the continuing shortage of medical isotopes.

“We are in a state of crisis,” François Lamoureux, president of the Association des médecins spécialistes en médecine nucléaire du Québec, told The Gazette Thursday.

“At least 40 per cent of isotope exams have been postponed.”

...

“It’s very difficult and it seems that the federal government doesn’t consider this to be a serious problem,” he added.

Hoping to raise awareness about the isotope shortage, the Coalition Priorité Cancer au Québec launched an email-writing campaign on Thursday aimed at Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

The coalition is accusing Harper of “negligence toward the population” by failing to address the isotope crisis. The emails are also directed to Governor General Michaëlle Jean.

“The more there are delays, the more the cancer will spread in some patients and the lower the chances of remission,” said Nathalie Rodrigue, a spokesperson for the coalition. (emphasis added)

Two:

MDS Nordion, a leading provider of medical
isotopes and radiopharmaceuticals, has submitted a Proposal to the Government
of Canada's Expert Review Panel on Medical Isotope and Technetium-99m (Tc-99m)
Generator Production. MDS Nordion believes that the best answer to the
shortage of medical radioisotopes is the completion and bringing into service
of the MAPLE project. The MDS Nordion Proposal outlines technical and
regulatory requirements needed for the provision of a secure supply of medical
isotopes for the health care system in Canada and around the world.

With no domestic or international sources of supply that can fully
mitigate the current global shortage of medical isotopes, MDS Nordion urges
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) to complete the MAPLE project to
address this shortage. With expertise and guidance from the South African
Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa), owner and operator of the SAFARI-1
reactor, and working with AECL, MDS Nordion believes a solution could be
achieved in an estimated 24 months.

As a reminder, it's been 20 months since the December 2007 shutdown of Chalk River. In the wake of that shutdown, the Harper government made its decision to mothball the Maples, contrary to those such as MDS above, who believe they can fix it, as they set out today.

(More on the MDS offer in a future post)

For more on this topic, see: Blog Post Index: Medical Isotope crisis & Chalk River shutdown.

Random news items

One:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says there is no need for another federal election in times of economic instability.

Harper insists the priority for Canadians is to have Parliament take care of the economy.

The prime minister says the current economic recovery is fragile and would be undermined by another election and more political instability.

And two:

Canada's opposition Liberals have regained a slight lead in public opinion over the ruling Conservatives, but neither party has enough support to be sure of winning an election if one were held now, a weekly poll showed on Thursday.

The Ekos survey for the Canadian Broadcasting Corp put the Liberals at 34.1 percent support, up from 32.5 percent last week. The Conservatives were at 32.5 percent, down from 32.8 percent.

...

"The (Conservatives) would probably narrowly lose an election if it were held right now," Ekos President Frank Graves said in a statement.

To be fair, this is not a major breakaway or anything like that and these things have been seesawing...but we do enjoy a little juxtaposition here and there...

Conservative political staff quietly making significant foreign policy changes

Embassy Magazine is reporting that the Conservatives are quietly making significant changes to longstanding Canadian foreign policies: "Leaked DFAIT Memo Documents Struggle Between Conservative Political Staff and Foreign Service." Here's an example of a major change that's been made that has significant implications for Canada's position on seeking legal punishment for the worst kind of violence against women overseas:

In the email, the departmental adviser outlines a number of significant changes made to policy language by political staffers recently. Among them are changes to the "standard docket response" of Canada's position on the violence in Democratic Republic of Congo.

"Suggested changes to this letter include removing the term "impunity" in every instance," he writes. "E.g. "Canada urges the Government of the DRC to take concerted measures to do whatever in necessary to put and end to impunity for sexual violence..." is changed to "Canada urges the government of the DRC to take concerted measures to prevent sexual violence.""

These type of linguistic alterations have become commonplace, the message says.

"Furthermore, the word 'humanitarian' is excised from every reference to 'international humanitarian law.' References to gender-based violence are removed. And in every phrase 'child soldiers' is replaced by 'children in armed conflict.'"

These changes, the adviser implies in the email, have major policy ramifications.

"For example, sentence cited above changes the focus from justice for victims of sexual violence to prevention."

He adds that he doubts whether the political staffers fully understand the significance of their language changes.

"It is often not entirely clear to us why [the minister's] advisers are making such changes and whether they have a full grasp of the potential impact on Canadian policy in asking for some changes to phrases and concepts that have been accepted internationally and used for some time."(emphasis added)

The formalization of the new death penalty policy by Conservatives after it had been struck down by the Federal Court (they created a handbook and a nifty website) suggests that they know what they're doing when making such changes. They want to put their own policy stamp on foreign affairs and apparently one of the things they wish to change is no longer seeking "justice for victims of sexual violence" in nations such as the DRC. That is an important and shocking lessening of the severity of Canada's policy on this issue. As suggested by the staffers at DFAIT, it likely takes us offside of international agreement on the issue.

In terms of what this change addresses, a quick search will turn up information such as this report in the Washington Post: "Prevalence of Rape in E. Congo Described as Worst in World."

The prevalence and intensity of sexual violence against women in eastern Congo are "almost unimaginable," the top U.N. humanitarian official said Saturday after visiting the country's most fragile region, where militia groups have preyed on the civilian population for years.

John Holmes, who coordinates U.N. emergency relief operations, said 4,500 cases of sexual violence have been reported in just one eastern province since January, though the actual number is surely much higher. Rape has become "almost a cultural phenomenon," he said.

"Violence and rape at the hands of these armed groups has become all too common," said Holmes, who spent four days in eastern Congo. "The intensity and frequency is worse than anywhere else in the world."

More, "Churches Support Victims of Rape in the Democratic Republic of Congo:"

"We saw the first case of a woman who had been raped and her organs mutilated in 1999. We had never seen anything like this before. Other cases started coming in soon after," explains Bishop Jean-Luc Kuye Ndondo, the South Kivu president of the Church of Christ in Congo (ECC).

Within 10 years, there have been over 500,000 such cases, according to Dr Denis Mukwege, the founder of Panzi Hospital in Bukavu, which specializes in treating women and girls who have become victims of sexual violence.

More here. Our own government website also recognizes such threats.

Why on earth would the Conservative government want to ease its stance on sexual violence against women in the DRC by dropping language in our policy that seeks legal redress? What a terrible signal to be sending to that government and others in the world that see Canada stepping back here. Perhaps Minister Cannon might wish to explain this one.

Gaming the Games

L. Ian MacDonald's latest election analysis column today, "Harper has good reasons not to want an election this fall," included reasons why Harper should do everything to put the election off until 2010. Among them, this harbinger of things to come:

"The Vancouver Games loom as a feel-good moment for the country, with an impressive harvest of medals in the offing. Harper and his ministers should spend a good part of those 17 days in Vancouver and Whistler, basking in the reflected glow of that good feeling. Harper could even do some on-site research for his forthcoming book on hockey, a work in progress that has been delayed by his current job."

Set aside the commentary that could very well be made about the hockey book that's much talked about yet never gets written for the moment...

This is a germinating piece of conventional wisdom, that the Games can be used by the Harper government for political advantage. But they have to be very careful with that. It's not clear at all that such "reflected glow" will accrue to the Conservatives. Mr. Harper's negatives are pretty entrenched at this point. After a fall parliamentary session, if they survive, who knows how much further that impression will have fallen. Will they be running more negative ads through the fall? Will there be more Nixonian remarks in the Commons? They've already floated their "wedge issue" strategy for the fall. The "in-and-out" hearings are scheduled for November. Turning on a dime from a fall session that is likely to be much the same as they all go for the Conservatives, i.e., partisan slug fests, toward a halcyon Games-Harper seems a bit of a stretch. Canadians fell for Sweater Vest I. Fool me twice...well, you know the rest.

If the games are overtly politicized by Harper and his crew, it will be noticed. They should be very careful in not making that event about them.

The Nortel fight breaks out

Tony Clement, grappling with the big issues, playing statesman on Nortel (and more below):

Since winning the bid, Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan has been demanding the federal government step in to prevent the sale. Duncan says it would cripple Canada's competitive advantage in the telecommunications business to lose Nortel's assets to a foreign company.

Yesterday federal Industry Minister Tony Clement fired back.

"I find it very curious, actually, Dwight Duncan's intervention on this," said Clement. "It could have something to do with the fact that (Ontario is) on the hook for the pension issue and they are trying to offload the pension issue to us."

But Duncan says Nortel has not made any request to Ontario's Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund for assistance and the issue of pensions for former Nortel employees is "completely unrelated" to what will happen to the patents and wireless technology up for sale in the bankruptcy auction.

"It's just a cheap shot," said Duncan. "I suspect (Clement) is just lashing out because he has nothing else to do to explain the fact that their government has failed to protect the Canadian interest here."

Bit of a head shaking moment there. Sounds like the advocacy from Duncan, Ignatieff and various opinion is starting to rile Clement. He may be realizing that he and his government may have to step in or risk looking asleep at the switch and that's not sitting well. But there is indeed a pension issue to be dealt with here and instead of pointing at Ontario as if the Ontario government exists in a different country, he might be a little more sensitive to the fact that having gone through the GM bailout, the provincial fund in Ontario is hurting. The us versus them approach to Ontario rears its head once again here in Clement's remarks.

The public debate is broadening now as those opposed to a government review are starting to get in on the public relations battle. As this CTV report from last night outlines, Nortel is characterizing the transaction as involving Nortel's LTE wireless technology being licensed to Ericsson, not sold. Which might sound like a legally significant difference but depending on the terms of a license, can practically accomplish the same thing as a sale. More on the Nortel position here, "Nortel drops the gloves to go after RIM." John Ivison throws in all the ideological stuff: "Intervention argument is as bankrupt as Nortel."

And then there are some bare politics of the dispute that Thomas Walkom injects:

Every fibre of Harper's free-enterprise being will recoil at the idea of government intervening in the Ericsson sale. But two other factors are at play.

First, while the ruling Conservatives won all three Kitchener-Waterloo ridings in the last federal election, it took two of them by the very slimmest of margins. Second, many voters in that region consider Jim Balsillie a god.

If these facts don't justify government intervention on the grounds of national security, what does?

Asked with a bit of irony given the overall tone of Walkom's bemused column but also with a hint of truth given this government. Amazing how this issue has developed so many political tentacles so quickly.

'Obama is too cool for jogging'

Audio found on BBC that may be of interest to the running politicos out there:

"Does French President Nicolas Sarkozy's collapse after 45 minutes of "intense physical activity" in hot weather in Versailles suggest that jogging is more dangerous than previously thought?

Reporter Jack Izzard visits Canary Wharf in London to discuss the benefits and risks of running on your lunch break and Andy Dixon, editor of Runner's World magazine, and comedian Arthur Smith, discuss whether jogging is a suitable activity for top ranking politicians."

A light post with politics, running and humour...what more could you want?

Teneycke departs

Update (5:30 p.m.) below. And (8:50 p.m.).

CTV reports, we analyze:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's director of communications, Kory Teneycke, has confirmed that he is planning to step down from his post, just as speculation ratchets up about a possible fall election.

It is not clear exactly when Teneycke will vacate his post, but it will be "very soon," according to CTV News Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife.

...

Fife said Teneycke has a young family and so would like to find a job that is less demanding on his time.

He's been the director of communications for just over a year, which would seem like not very long for a young tyke. This must surely have been the uber-job for someone who came from the wilds of ethanol industry-spokesdom. So do we buy the family explanation? Ummmm....let's think....no. Nor do others. Here's some recent goings on that it may have to do with...

Recall this headline: "Tories call AECL '$30 billion sinkhole,' no more cash for new reactor." Who was doing the "calling?" Teneycke, and loudly so:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's chief spokesman says Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., is a "dysfunctional," $30-billion "sinkhole" that will not get any more funding for a new research reactor.

...

"The government has put $30 billion into AECL over its history and it's been one of the largest sinkholes of government money probably in the history of the government of Canada," Teneycke told The Canadian Press.

"So I don't think describing it as an unmitigated success is accurate."

Teneycke added there's been "some pretty well-founded, sharp criticism of the history of AECL . . . . I don't think we're going out on a limb to say it has been a fairly dysfunctional place."

These statements from the PM's chief spokesperson came at the same time that the Harper government, as we know, is trying to sell AECL. So it was all very strange. The comments were likely motivated by the growing backlash in the scientific community about the government's announcement that it was getting out of the isotope business and the stories about the brain drain that this would likely cause for Canada, the decimation of the nuclear research industry and all that other nice stuff that we've been hearing. So Teneycke, in attempting to address those concerns, overshot and in the end, withdrew his remarks.

A few weeks after Teneycke's remarks on AECL, Premier McGuinty halted the Ontario government's reactor purchases from AECL. McGuinty's team did so due to uncertainty over the future of AECL.

So, make of all that what you will. Just the facts, as reported this summer.

Also interesting, this move comes on the heels of the "great summer chief of staff shake-up of 2009" going on all over Ottawa too. Apparently in the Harper government, a minister can't choose their own chief of staff. One of the most important working relationships you'd think that a minister would want some say in. But such human considerations apparently not operative in controlling PMO land. Can't let the ministers get too comfortable, I guess.

Oh well, no more spokesthingy to kick around anymore...next?

Update (5:30 p.m.): Family, family, family...and did he mention, family?

Update (8:50 p.m.): Dave at Galloping Beaver thinks Kory's seen the electoral writing on the wall...also quite plausible.

Further (8:55 p.m.): And in case it wasn't crystal clear in the post, once McGuinty halted the purchase from AECL, AECL's resale value went *poof.* Spokesthingy opened the door, Dalton walked right on thru.

For more on this topic, see: Blog Post Index: Medical Isotope crisis & Chalk River shutdown.

Government report undermines Kenney's Czech visa policy

Recall the recent visa requirements imposed on Czech citizens? News last night that undercuts the rationale they first offered for the visas: "Czech Roma being persecuted: Canadian government study." The move was said to be aimed at bogus refugee claims from Roma persons in the Czech republic that have attempted to move to Canada. The Conservatives relied upon a study at the time to justify the change:

A recent study by the Immigration Refugee Board found no evidence of state-sponsored persecution against the Roma and documented the steps the Czech government was taking to improve their living conditions.

The study was seen as a way to bolster Canada's decision to try and stem the flow of asylum seekers into the country.

But yesterday a second report was released which contradicted the first:

Incidents of members of the Roma minority in the Czech Republic being firebombed, turned away from restaurants and refused housing by landlords are contained in a fact-finding report released in Ottawa on Monday.

The report by the Immigration and Refugee Board also noted that in May, the Czech government was considering a ban on two extremist political parties after the broadcast of a National Party video on Czech television which called for "the final solution" to the Roma "question."

The report was released two weeks after the Canadian government re-imposed a visa requirement on Czech citizens to reduce the flow of Roma - once known as gypsies - claiming refugee status in Canada. It was the second of two reports from the March 23-31 fact-finding mission.

...

Immigration and Refugee Board members consult such fact-finding reports to help them determine the credibility and objective basis for individual refugee claims of a "well-founded fear of persecution" or a threat to their life in their home country.(emphasis added)

The second report contradicts the first one, yes, and it also contradicts Jason Kenney's recent statements such as this one:

In June, Mr. Kenney referred to a report on the Czech Republic, conducted by IRB researchers, as proof the Czech government was committed to improving the legal and economic opportunities for Roma, and suggested this was evidence that Czech Roma face no real risk.

"If someone comes in and says the police have been beating the crap out of them, the IRB panelists can then go to their report and say, 'Well, actually, there's been no evidence of police brutality,'" Mr. Kenney told the Toronto Star on June 24.

Well, now there is compelling evidence of persecution produced by his own department. Raising the question of why the visa changes were brought in before this second report could be considered. The Minister must have known it was in the pipeline, undermining the credibility of the visa policy change that was put in place. It reinforces the visa move as a hasty decision that was not based on all the relevant facts. This second departmental report could be grounds for changing the Czech visa policy.

And by the way, on the visa "incident" front with the EU, they are presently considering a reciprocal visa requirement for Canada, a decision to come in September.

AECL comes out in favour of...an AECL decision

There's an op-ed in the National Post today, "Don't count on MAPLE to deliver medical isotopes," that was to be expected given the number of experts who have in fact said the Maples reactors, the planned backups to the Chalk River NRU, can work. This op-ed comes from Jean-Pierre Labrie, "...the manager of reactor physics and systems behaviour, office of the chief engineer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL)." Labrie is a long-time employee of AECL, the body that decided to shut down the Maples, with the approval of the Harper government in spring of 2008.

As you can read, he's clearly knowledgeable and offers his take on the challenges with the reactors. It must also be pointed out that as an AECL employee, he has a vested interest in defending the AECL position of having shut down the Maples and perhaps his own role in that decision. AECL is also being sued at present by MDS Nordion for having stopped the Maples reactors, so his "no we can't open them" op-ed should be read with that consideration in mind as well. Not to say that his view should be ignored, but these reasons must be factored in and this view certainly should not eclipse the views of the many others who argue for the reactors to be pursued (for e.g., Linda Keen; MDS Nordion's expert; Dr. Harold J. Smith, ex Manager, MAPLE Nuclear Commissioning who said "The Maple reactor operated like a dream and was/is fully capable of meeting all objectives. All you have to do is finish the last test or put Hanaro-design fuel in it;" and, independent expert John Waddington who said: "The MAPLE reactors were safe throughout their operating history in terms of the commissioning tests. If they were not, they would not have been licensed and they would not have been allowed to operate.")

The crux of the argument offered here is that the Maples "fix" involves a "power coefficient of reactivity (PCR) issue" that Labrie suggests may be insurmountable, in contrast to the above views. He also says it would be a long-term fix and that there are hurdles such as regulatory approvals from U.S. & Canada for Maple-produced isotopes along with the issue of post-9/11 use of highly enriched uranium (but this seems to be capitalizing on the U.S. using this rationale in their own recent decision to pursue their own isotope solution now, an issue that did not crystallize until Chalk River shut down, combined with the Maples mothballing).

What would be eminently preferable would be a scientific decision made by unaffected experts who could assess all the competing opinions. But with Minister Raitt's long-term solutions panel an unknown factor and in light of this government's obvious preferences, to get out of this business in the long run, there's no reason to have any confidence at the moment that competing views will be reconciled in an impartial manner.

One other thing to keep in mind when you read about AECL coming out swinging on the non-feasibility of the Maples in such an op-ed, it should be pointed out that Cassie J. Doyle, Lisa Raitt's Deputy Minister of Natural Resources Canada sits on the board of directors of AECL. That's a conflict of interest undermining what should be independence between the AECL board and the Harper government in AECL's decision-making. At a time when AECL is sought to be privatized - the other big "high tech" privatization the Harper Conservatives are overseeing - there are all kinds of issues that will require non-conflicted decisions by that board (see this op-ed raising some of the questions that privatization presents). And at a time when the isotope issue's handling presents obvious political difficulties for the Harper government, the conflict of having a deputy minister sitting on AECL's board, the entity that manages the isotope production, is clear. Crown corporations operate at arm's length from the government, usually, and you don't see deputy ministers sitting on the boards of other major Canadian crown corporations. Why does the PM think such conflicts are acceptable for AECL?

For more on this topic, see: Blog Post Index: Medical Isotope crisis & Chalk River shutdown.

Seeds of a problem on H1N1

If it is the intention of the federal government to make a constitutional argument that health care is a provincial responsibility as a feature of their leadership on the H1N1/swine flu issue, on key issues such as access to vaccines, requests from municipalities for emergency preparedness, etc., it's not likely to impress many. Doesn't seem to be satisfying the Federation of Canadian Municipalities at the moment. I'm sure the public won't be very reassured by division of powers arguments from the Health Minister on swine flu either.

But it's early going, right? Maybe we'll try to stay optimistic on this one, at least for now.

Conservative "in-and-out" election spending scheme still kicking around

This hangover from the 2006 federal election campaign is still with us. A few weeks ago, the Conservatives sought to move up the November court dates to August or September: "Judge refuses Tories' request to expedite 'in-out' hearings." This is the Conservative civil lawsuit against Elections Canada, going on two plus years and that has likely cost the taxpayer at least $1.5 million now in legal fees, probably closer to the $2 million mark by now (they were at $1.4 million 8 months ago).

As a refresher here...the Conservatives are disputing Elections Canada's ruling against them which effectively held that the Conservatives had overspent beyond their national election spending limit of $18.3 million in the 2006 federal campaign by about $1.2 million. The Conservatives, however, allege that they were entitled to shift $1.2 million in national ad expenses to various local candidates who had budget room, i.e., that money went "in-and-out" of local campaign accounts usually within the same day to purchase national tv ads. The upshot of the Conservative position is an end-run around national spending limits. A cash rich federal party, once it reaches its federal spending limit, can just start transferring national ad expenses down to the local candidates. In this way, they can gain millions of dollars in advantage over other parties when we are supposed to have national (and local) election spending limits. (The local candidates also get to claim refunds from the taxpayer for that "in-and-out" money which they didn't properly raise, a suspect claim as well.)

So, the Conservatives were seeking to move up the November court dates to August or September. Arguing that if they won, they could implement their in-and-out scheme once again for a possible fall 2009 federal election:

Last week, the Conservatives' lawyer Michel Decary asked that the court move the four-day hearing to August or September so the party could use the same advertising strategy in a possible fall election, should it be deemed legal, that was used in 2006.

And if they lost, then they would at least have the hearings out of the way of that possible fall federal election:

While Decary said he had no special knowledge of election timing from his client, he told Lutfy that the Nov. 23 to 26 sitting would likely fall "right dead-centre" in the campaign.

Decary made the remarks during a conference call with Lutfy and Elections Canada's lawyer, Barbara McIsaac. In a previous letter to Lutfy, Decary noted the minority government could fall at any time and said Conservatives were concerned the case would be heard at a time when party officials were busy campaigning. (emphasis added)

That's the risk that has always been present in the Conservative pursuit of this litigation against Elections Canada. Yet the Conservatives apparently view the court system as one more item to seek to manipulate for maximum electoral advantage. Very glad the judge said no to this request, in contrast to the successful scheduling manipulation that was permitted last fall during the Cadman litigation/fall election concurrence.

While this news was a small procedural defeat for the Conservatives, it's a reminder that the Conservatives are still intent on pushing the limits of the election spending regime. And, of course, that there may be a resolution of this civil case one way or another in the next six months.

Influential call for government to review Nortel wireless sale

Update (4:00 p.m.): The Ontario government weighs in too:

Ontario is calling on the federal government to stop the transfer of the next generation of wireless technology developed by troubled Nortel in its sale to LM Ericsson.

...

Ontario's finance minister, Dwight Duncan, says Canadian taxpayers helped fund research that led to Nortel's creation of LTE, or long-term evolution, technology and it shouldn't go to a foreign company.

...

Mr. Duncan says he wants Ottawa to block the Nortel sale to Ericsson and to help broker a deal with Research In Motion Ltd.

Morning post: A former Progressive Conservative deputy prime minister, Don Mazankowski, comes out for a Nortel Investment Canada review: "Ottawa must use all the tools at its disposal to protect the national interest." Pretty significant political pressure embodied in this op-ed that will be difficult for current members of the Conservative family to ignore:

I have always felt that an open investment policy is essential for Canada. However, I have always also believed that there are certain circumstances where the government must look very carefully at the effect of proposed foreign acquisitions on the long-term national interest. How the assets of Nortel are disposed of is one of those circumstances. Nortel, supported by the Canadian taxpayer, played a critical role in putting Canada on the map as a leader in the knowledge-based economy and it has been a very important part of Canada's high-tech economy for many decades. It is the biggest investor in R&D and the source of many successful spin-off businesses. Even more important, the wireless industry is a critical industry and a country like Canada is best served economically, and even in terms of national security, if it is home to a global leader in that industry The government, therefore, has a responsibility to use all the tools at its disposal to satisfy itself not only that the acquisition of Nortel's assets does not prejudice Canada's economic and security interests, but also to do everything it can to bring about a meaningful positive Canadian solution.

When strategic assets like Nortel's are at stake, the government needs to take the time required to consider the impact carefully. Canada's national interest should not be held hostage to artificial deadlines established by private interests. In this case, the process was dictated by Nortel and its mostly non-Canadian creditors through Nortel's application to the U.S. bankruptcy court that conducted the auction. For whatever reasons, RIM, a relatively new player in the telecommunications sector that has become a household brand around the world, claims unambiguously that it has been prevented from even getting out of the starting block. Nortel is understandably looking to fulfill its obligations to creditors and others. However, the federal government has a much broader national responsibility.

While an auction for the assets of Nortel took place in New York on Friday, there is much more to be played out. RIM has stated publicly that it is ready to bid for key technology assets from Nortel in the course of its bankruptcy proceedings. If successful, it would mean RIM's position as a global leader in this critical industry would be significantly enhanced.

In the current circumstances, it is incumbent upon the government to exercise its leadership in seeking a resolution that is in the national interest, and that includes using all the tools at its disposal to ensure Nortel and RIM thoroughly explore all options. I am encouraged that both Industry Minister Tony Clement and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty have given strong signals that the government is prepared to use both its regulatory power, if necessary, and its persuasive powers to promote a “Canadian” solution.

Combine that persuasive piece with this view from the weekend, "Nortel a sweet deal for the Swedes." It suggests that the $1.13 billion offering by Ericsson was a steal and that the Nortel board may start to feel some pressure to reconsider as a result:

In the proposed deal, subject to regulatory and bankruptcy court approval in Canada, the U.S. and Europe, Nortel will be paid only $1.13 billion (U.S.) for its most valuable business. That's about half what Nortel was expecting the unit to fetch when it filed for bankruptcy protection in January and began a rapid dismantling of Canada's long-time R&D flagship in fire-sale deals with foreign buyers.

Ericsson may just have struck one of the best deals in the industry's recent history. It will almost double the Stockholm-based firm's sales in North America, which will become its biggest wireless market. Over the next two to five years, Ericsson's North American market share will soar by almost 30 per cent, and its global share by more than 5 per cent.

...

Ericsson by no means has a lock on the prize. Its deal with Nortel is not set to close until later this year, plenty of time for Nokia Siemens to trump Ericsson's offer. Or for Waterloo-based Research in Motion Ltd., the BlackBerry smartphone maker, to launch a formal bid. RIM last week expressed a willingness to pay roughly the same $1.1 billion (U.S.) with which Ericsson won yesterday's auction.

The near giveaway price Ericsson is offering for Nortel's prized CDMA and LTE technology and patents, which alone are expected to generate an effortless revenue stream of $2.9 billion (U.S.) over the next 15 years, is likely to bring pressure on Nortel's board from creditors anxious to see more generous proceeds from Nortel's fire sale of assets.

It all seems to be adding up to an unfinished story to any objective observer.

It's been pretty remarkable to watch this situation catch fire in the past week as the consequences of the government's inaction have come quickly to fruition. The hypothetical consequences of letting foreign companies raid the best of Nortel's assets have become that much closer to reality. Now the government finds itself in somewhat of a catch-up position, of having to deal with an auction process that's produced a foreign winning bid. Steps they take now may fuel those who would cry foul about interfering with an established legal process that to date the Conservatives had indicated no hesitation about. So if they do act now, they'll have to manage that predictable fallout.

It'll also be interesting in coming days to watch Clement et al. try to recover their footing. They've really left themselves open to the charge of being asleep at the switch and on an issue that has raised a lot of nationalistic passion. That's what's so ironic about how events have turned out. For all their efforts to act as the most pro-Canada party and wrap themselves in the flag and all our national symbols ("Canada's back," flags at military events, red t-shirt days, hockey, etc.), they really didn't get the national interest here at all.

Economic deconstructionism

Oh, looky at who's in the Globe today:

As important as rail was to the founding of Canada, telecommunications is to holding Canada together today (The Fight For Nortel - Report on Business, July 24). The federal government must intervene to ensure that Nortel’s assets continue to serve Canada’s strategic interest. A bailout does not make sense but ensuring the assets remain under Canadian oversight is in our interest.

Unfortunately, this government has willingly sacrificed the public interest before (the lumber industry, medical isotopes, wheat marketing). Stephen Harper’s economic deconstructionism is making John Diefenbaker’s sacrifice of our aerospace industry look trivial in comparison.

Eugene Parks, Victoria

Nice term that's been christened here, fitting. Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue for electoral sloganeering or anything, but it certainly captures a big story that needs to be told.

All aboard the RIM bandwagon...

Update (late Friday p.m.): Ericsson has won the Nortel auction. Now we'll see what, if anything, the Harper government decides to do:

Canadian officials have begun researching whether and what kind of foreign purchases of Nortel Networks assets might be subject to government restrictions, Industry Minister Tony Clement said on Thursday.

(Friday 5:00 p.m. post) Sounds like Deficit Jim's a bit nervous. A week of devastating publicity over your government's inaction will do that to a fella' I suppose. As the Nortel asset action gets underway in New York, Deficit Jim gets on the RIM bandwagon, chucking Clement over the side in the process:

On Friday, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty vouched for RIM co-CEO Jim Balsillie's quest to acquire Nortel assets.

“I think he's a great Canadian and I think he's entirely right to ask for the government to be concerned about the issue,” Mr. Flaherty said in Toronto, where he was attending a public event.

“What we want to see is a level playing field, we don't want to see anyone excluded from the process with respect to the sale of the assets of Nortel.”

However, Mr. Flaherty said it's up to Industry Minister Tony Clement to make any ultimate decisions.

Mr. Clement said this week that he wouldn't intervene in Nortel's auction, but that he hoped Nortel would meet with RIM executives to discuss a compromise.

Flying by the seat of their pants, ladies and gentlemen...

Letter of the day

These aren't your grandma's Progressive Conservatives:

The purchase of Nortel assets is yet another example of a firmly held belief being acted upon. Better Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland handle the sale of Western Wheat than the Canadian Wheat Board. Better the sales end of AECL be placed in private hands. Better self-regulation than government inspectors.

Nothing wrong in loaning a foreign company 45 per cent of the cost price of buying part of Nortel, formerly a Canadian "icon." There's to be no government interference in the market place, even though the price is above what was set in the budget omnibus bill as the point in which government would become interested in ensuring business dealings had some benefit for Canada.

It will be most interesting to follow what response will come from the Harper Conservatives to a Canadian firm like Research in Motion arguing it is wrong "that Nortel's world leading technology, funded in part by Canadian taxpayers, seems destined to leave Canada." Not only arguing but backing its words with offers to purchase Nortel technology and keep it Canadian, a matter of no concern to the Prime Minister.

Joe Hueglin, Former Progressive Conservative MP, Niagara Falls

(think that was actually from yesterday, but missed it, is equally relevant today and is well said)

See also...more great reporting in the Globe today on the RIM/Nortel saga, "RIM dangles prospects of joint bid for Nortel assets," and a Star editorial as well, "Ottawa MIA on Nortel."

Impact of Chalk River shutdown/isotope shortage in NY Times today

The New York Times has a report today on the medical isotope shortage, bringing Americans who haven't been paying attention (and the world) up to speed on the crisis situation that's unfolding due to the Chalk River shutdown. A lot of it is background that we in Canada know, but there are a few points worth a look. First, there's the speed at which the Americans are acting to replace our production of the isotopes. That's clear and there is significant bipartisan effort going into it:

On Tuesday, Representative Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who is one of the House’s fiercest critics of the nuclear industry, declared that the United States was facing “a crisis in nuclear medicine.”

Mr. Markey, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on energy, called for establishing new production facilities in the United States. He joined the ranking Republican on the subcommittee, Representative Fred Upton of Michigan, to introduce a bill to authorize $163 million over five years to assure new production.

The White House is coordinating an interagency effort to find new sources of supply, involving the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Food and Drug Administration and the Energy Department, but officials said the process would take months.

Second, the report omits, in its description of the Maples replacement reactors, any of the recent expert testimony to the effect that the reactors can work. It leaves the situation at this:

But when the new reactors were started up, both showed a problem: as the power level increased, the reactors had a tendency to run faster and faster, a condition called positive coefficient of reactivity. That is a highly undesirable characteristic in a reactor, one that contributed heavily to the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. So Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., which is owned by the Canadian government, said it would not open them.

Giving the impression that Canada has been forced to walk away from this replacement option out of necessity when it was a Harper government choice. And an ideologically motivated one at that which seeks to privatize and have government exit this long-standing role. There's a big difference and perhaps those reading the Times article might like to know that.

Third, there is a flip quote by a doctor there to the effect that the market is small, that it's more lucrative for a "big pharmaceutical" company to manufacture Viagra, since they can make more in two days than with these nuclear medicine isotopes in a year. This is offered as a partial explanation as to why no American source has sprung up over the years. But with Chalk River servicing the majority of the U.S. market, it likely wasn't viewed as a priority. Canada was a nice, stable supplier. Plus, as long as we, Canada, were building backups, the Americans were content to rely on us (as explained by the Economist). So why would anyone disrupt a long established supply? They wouldn't, and didn't, until Mr. Harper gave them a reason to act. And for Canada, which has been a leader in a $4 billion a year market for these products, and which has benefited from the research and development byproducts as well, it's been more important an undertaking than that unfortunate comparison the doctor offers. But I'm sure he'd get along well with the Harper Conservatives...

An end note, here's another U.S. doctor, on the medical state of affairs as a result of the shortage:

Without the tool, Dr. Graham said, the quality of medical care is “dropping back into the 1960s.”

You're welcome!

With love,

Stephen Harper's Canada

(h/t adamgoldenberg on twitter last night)

For more on this topic, see: Blog Post Index: Medical Isotope crisis & Chalk River shutdown.

Heckuva job, Ritzie

A follow-up to the release of the Weatherill listeriosis report the other day. Here's a view:

In her report, Ms. Weatherill pointed repeatedly to the “void in leadership” within the federal government. She was referring specifically to the lack of co-ordination among various governmental and quasi-governmental agencies including the CFIA, the PHAC, Health Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

But she could well have pointed up the political food chain. Let's not forget that Prime Minister Stephen Harper called this inquiry as the last order of business before an election, no doubt as a means of avoiding serious discussion of the issue. Then-Minister of Health Tony Clement and Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Gerry Ritz both heaped praise on their officials, yet this report makes clear that there were massive, patently obvious failings.

Is it too much to expect the public service to serve the public, for ministers to minister, for governments to govern?

No. These too are obligations.

The real lesson from listeriosis is not to be found strictly within the report of the independent investigator but rather in the larger principles that guided Ms. Weatherill's recommendations: You need to invest in public-health infrastructure, particularly in good people; you need to value prevention, not just pay lip service; voluntary measures need to be complemented with strong sanctions for failure; and when threats to public health occur, you need to act forcefully and communicate well.

Above all, you need to take responsibility – in business and government alike, and in everything from policy to everyday actions.

There is a leadership void, one that is a much bigger threat to the health of Canadians than a bacterium such as listeria.

How the government responds to this report will be a test of leadership, so the Prime Minister's Office needs to underline three words: “Actions, not words.”

And here's another that was expressed in the midst of the crisis (latter half):



More: "Listeriosis report slams leadership," "Listeriosis crisis a leadership crisis,"Company, government faulted in listeria deaths,""Public protection."

More on teh Parliamentary Budget Officer

A quick follow-up on a recent development with the PBO and the unfinished story of this office's "independence."

As reported over the last week or so, the Library Committee of Parliament recently agreed upon funding of the PBO's office to its full budgetary level by virtue of a unanimous all-party decision of that committee. A political compromise was reached on that vote and the independence issue was put on hold until it will be reviewed in two years. As Tom Mulcair put it:

"It's a condition sine qua non: without the budget he couldn't have done his job, we know that, so we got the first and most important job done, which is the budget for him to allow to keep the good staff that he's got and to hire more good staff and we're going to continue to supervise it very closely to make sure that there is no interference and I think that half the battle has been won. The other half of the battle is going to be to supervise, with him, his ability to do his job independently as he's always done," said Mr. Mulcair. (emphasis added)

Political compromise reached. Paul Dewar, quoted in the same Hill Times report sounded as if the rug was pulled out from under him, having introduced a bill on independence of that office recently. (Could be some interesting dynamics at play there as between Mulcair and Dewar, but, for another occasion;))

While the Liberals on that committee were in favour of keeping the PBO under the Library of Parliament's jurisdiction,which would practically neuter the PBO's independence, it's worth pointing out that not all Liberals are of the same view. Here's a letter by Martha Hall Findlay from early May which strongly argues for the independence of that office. I suspect Paul Dewar will have an ally (and perhaps more) down the road across the benches. It suggests that for some Liberals, the independence issue is not over at all.

(h/t pogge)

Critics questioning Harper government's handling of Nortel sell-off

Updates (4:30 p.m.) below and (6:00 p.m.)...

Very interesting read on the RIM/Nortel issue today in the Globe, "Why Nortel failed to win a bailout." For those not following the situation, there's a frenzied auction bidding process for Nortel's valuable wireless technology assets set for Friday. RIM has made a late bid but outside of the formal rules and is essentially making a play for the Harper government to assist by reviewing the sale of the assets on "national security" grounds under the Investment Canada Act. The Globe piece has to do with a bit of the politics and the decision-making surrounding the Harper government's rejection of Nortel's pitch for a bailout in the period of October through January.

The timing of the discussions referenced is very interesting. During the election, Nortel met with "senior bureaucrats from the Industry and Finance Departments and the Privy Council Office, the central government department that reports to the Prime Minister." After the fall election, Clement and Flaherty met with Nortel executives in November. Follow-up meetings were held with officials and then in January another meeting occurred, attended by Clement, Day and Baird as well. Over the course of these many meetings, business plans were presented and "hundreds of millions" were requested. The Harper government decided to reject the funding request and Nortel proceeded on to bankruptcy.

You have to wonder about the obvious political backdrop on the timing, a government that held an election that wasn't needed in October, that almost self-destructed in November and was totally preoccupied with its political survival throughout November, December, January, coincident with these Nortel discussions. Distracted by politics to say the least, not to mention the auto industry situation. And clearly the key Harper players were involved, the decision to do nothing was a bona fide Harper government team effort.

Now that RIM is trying to prevent the loss of these valuable IP assets to foreign ownership, the Harper government's inaction to date is coming into focus. News last night that Ericsson, another foreign telecommunications giant, wants in on the "bidding war," joining Nokia and a N.Y. investment firm, in addition to RIM. The assets seem kind of important to them. And another individual weighs in as well:

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said the government is allowing important Canadian assets to fall into foreign hands, something European governments would never allow to happen to companies such as Nokia and Ericsson.

“At a time when they were rescuing GM and Chrysler, they didn't ask the simple question: Could we restructure Nortel to preserve the enormous intellectual property and research capacity in Canada,” Mr. Ignatieff said Wednesday. “It's a huge loss, and it means a leading Canadian player – RIM – is going to be faced with competition from intellectual property that was originated in Canada and is now being sold to foreign companies.”

No "vision thing" present among the Harper Conservatives to enable them to consider the scenario presently playing out for Canada's high tech industry.

And by the way, for your "fun headlines" file, from the Financial Post yesterday: "Tony Clement has people befuddled, and worried." That was in connection with the RIM/Nortel situation too. And you know, it all makes one think...maybe the Industry Minister should give the tourism file back to Ablonczy for a while. He seems to need a little more time to properly assess the big matters in front of him.

Update (4:30 p.m.): From op-ed in the Star (h/t BCer):

Soon, about five billion of us will be connected by wireless networks, the technology for which was largely funded by Canadian taxpayers who subsidized Nortel during most of its 127 years, and are now being made to subsidize its sale to foreigners. Stephen Harper, with not much by way of a track record as PM, will have to think hard on whether he wants to be remembered as the man who killed Nortel or another Canadian firm's prospects of becoming the global leader in a technology that will define the 21st century.

Update II (6:00 p.m.): Travers:

What the federal government needs to decide – and Canadians should stop barbecuing long enough to consider carefully – is whether or not it's in the national interest to let Nortel's bits, pieces or valuable patents slip offshore.

Industry experts and high-tech gurus are unusually consistent in their response. Whatever its past mistakes, and many were doozies, Nortel remains an asset too vital for the country to lose. It's a symbol of what Canadians can achieve out on the leading edge.

Bit of a problem for Deficit Jim

Remember this story from May, the rumours of job number leaks in advance of the official Statistics Canada reports? It appears that it's been an ongoing situation, not just a one-time thing in respect of the May 8th job numbers. The word seems to be that Canada leaks numbers like a sieve: "Data leaks suspected before Stats Can probe."

The Bank of Canada learned about suspected leaks of economic data weeks before unusual movements in currency markets triggered a security review by Statistics Canada, documents obtained by Bloomberg News show.

The 54 pages received through access-to-information laws show discussions from April 17 to May 28 among senior Bank of Canada staff, including Deputy Governors David Longworth and Pierre Duguay. The central bank received e-mail and phone messages suggesting that unemployment and inflation reports may have been leaked for months.

While Statistics Canada said it investigated its procedures twice during May without finding anything wrong, the documents show that investor concern existed before then and the bank was aware of it. The central bank received a tip on April 17 about possible leaks that may have distorted the $38.5-billion-a-day Canadian dollar market as far back as January.

Sounds like it's high time for the Finance Minister to request a much more rigorous investigation.

Should Chalk River’s medical program be treated as a private or public resource?

Interesting take on the Chalk River developments in this letter to the editor (also appearing here). Raising the question of what Canadian assets are properly private versus public when they have a significant impact on the Canadian health care system.

What does the shutdown of Chalk River’s medical isotope program have in common with the 17th-century battle between feudalism and democracy? Tragically, far too much.

Modern democratic economies work on the principle that raw resources, consumed by either companies or individuals, are public assets used by all (such as water, air, land, public infrastructure). Normally, you are required to pay the public back for what you consume; and then the profit you create by adding value is yours. Modern democracies assure there is a public benefit from the use of common resources. That’s our democratic-economic system.

In the 17th century, kings and feudal lords claimed ownership of both resources and government for their own control and benefit. Then, humanity debated whether private enterprise belonged under feudal-individual management or democratic-public administration.

In the case of Chalk River’s public medical program, the Harper government has cancelled it in order to make room for private control — distancing a Canadian medical program from democratic administration. At issue, should Chalk River’s medical program be treated as a strictly private resource under the control of its individual owners; or is it fundamentally a public resource run for common public benefit?

No matter the answer, Harper is clear that he believes the feudal approach of strictly private control justifies his decision to cancel the Chalk River program — the public interest be damned.

Eugene Parks
Victoria

The "Chalk River medical program" encompasses isotope production at the NRU reactor and it was contemplated to include the Maples reactors, as backups to accomplish the same production. I think this letter fairly characterizes these significant research assets as health care assets as well, all of which the Harper government has decided to divest Canadian control of, over the coming years.

Update: If it's not clear from the above, the present categorization of Chalk River and its assets is a public one. It's Mr. Harper's government that seeks to privatize AECL (Candu reactor division + management of Chalk River), perhaps flip the Maples reactors to private industry and ultimately walk away from isotope production out of the NRU. That's the path they've put us on, walking from public control to private. What's interesting about the above letter is framing this Chalk River debate as one about the privatization of a key element of the Canadian health care system. As we watch the Canada versus U.S. health care system debate play out in the American media, and great pride being displayed by Canadians in the public nature of our system, it's worth wondering why the privatization aspect of the Chalk River situation does not warrant similar attention.

RIM asks the Harper Conservatives to stand up for Canada

Interesting little drama playing out in our high tech industry given the auction of Nortel assets that's going on. RIM is making a bid for some of the more valuable Nortel intellectual property assets now and the bid is hampered by questions of whether they complied with the court run bidding process. So they are making a political play, essentially asking the government to invoke the Investment Canada Act provisions for their benefit, as the sole Canadian purchaser in the mix. Nortel's technology should not end up in the hands of foreign players, they argue. What's interesting about this is how it plays into a growing story line of the Harper government being asleep at the switch while valuable Canadian industrial assets are slip sliding away to foreign interests.

We've seen on the medical isotope file how this government has evidenced little concern about the loss of that high tech industry that Canada's been a world leader in for half a decade. They are prepared to privatize Atomic Energy Canada Ltd., signal that Chalk River will be shutting down within about five years and move Canada entirely out of the isotope business. The Americans have consequently decided to stop relying on us and build their own isotope capability, thereby destroying a large part of the Canadian isotope market. This is all to the detriment of Canadian patients who will be dependent on foreign suppliers, Canada's research and development capabilities, Canadian jobs in the nuclear medicine industry, etc.

Now we have RIM essentially goading the Harper government into keeping Canadian high tech assets here in Canada in the Nortel process, arguing that "economic and national security considerations justify further review" of the bidding process that they feel they are being kept out of. This move by RIM is finding some allies, see this Toronto Star editorial today which gives a good overview of the dynamics:

RIM issued a press release Monday evening saying that the loss of Canadian ownership of Nortel's wireless division may "significantly, adversely affect national interests" and calling on the government to "review the situation closely."

In Ottawa, everyone was running for cover yesterday in the wake of RIM's press release. Industry Minister Tony Clement wiped his hands of the matter in a press release: "The government of Canada does not have a say how the (bankruptcy) judge rules on any proposed sale of Nortel assets." Subsequently, Clement told reporters that he hopes Nortel will call a meeting to clear the air "perception-wise" on why RIM's bid wasn't considered.

...

The government should use every means at its disposal to ensure that RIM's bid is given due consideration so that at least a piece of Nortel might remain in Canadian hands.

Jeffrey Simpson is also sympathetic in his presentation of RIM's argument as it tries to keep this potentially valuable wireless technology IP in Canada:

Mr. Clement, active on the auto bailout file, had been missing in action on the Nortel front, perhaps because he and his fellow Conservatives figured nothing should be done to interrupt the flow of the market. Mr. Balsillie begs to differ.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out from now until Friday when the auction takes place.

"A lot of this research and development has been paid for by Canadian taxpayers," said Richard Powers, associate dean of the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management.

"This is something that the government will have to take a look at now because the issue has been raised."

Tony Clement's bad week just seems to have gotten so much worse...

Listeriosis report recommendations reveal mistakes made by Harper government

The Weatherill listeriosis report was leaked to CTV last night and it will be publicly released later today. Here are a few of the leaked recommendations that I think are notable (*starred, bolded) and why. The recommendations from Weatherill become a little more interesting when you have a bit more of the context in hand.

First: * Meat plants must report any public safety threats to the government, not just those stemming from positive bacteria tests.

Here is why that is important:

Four months before the Maple Leaf outbreak started claiming lives, Canada's food safety agency quietly dropped its rule requiring meat-processing companies to alert the agency about listeria-tainted meat, a Toronto Star/CBC investigation has found.

Twenty people died as a result of the outbreak this past summer, and federal meat inspectors and their union say this rule change likely made the country's listeria outbreak far worse than it had to be.

Before April 1, if a company preparing meat for sale to the public had a positive test showing listeria it "would have had to have been, not only brought to the (federal) inspector's attention, but the inspector would have been involved in overseeing the cleanup," says Bob Kingston, head of the union that represents Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) inspectors.

The CFIA, under Ritz's oversight, had dropped the reporting requirements. In the wake of the above report, the government moved to restore mandatory testing and government notification.

Second: * Canada's chief public health officer must take the lead in any future cases of food-borne illness, lessening any potential political diversions.

Here is why that recommendation has likely been made, public health was stripped of its independence by the Conservatives:

Following the 2003 SARS epidemic and subsequent recommendations of the National Advisory Committee on SARS and Public Health,7 the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) was created and given its own minister in government — a direct line to the prime minister. But in 2006, among Prime Minister Stephen Harper's first acts was to eliminate the PHAC minister and public health's seat at the Cabinet table. His government also left the chief medical officer of health within the ranks of the civil service, working under the minister of health. In so doing, it left our country without a national independent voice to speak out on public health issues, including providing visible leadership during this crisis.

Third: * Ottawa should review the training of federal inspectors, in addition to reviewing inspection resources.

This recommendation speaks to perhaps one of the most important regulatory changes that was made under the Conservatives, the shift from full-time meat inspection to industry self-inspection:

Last November the Canadian government instituted a strategic review of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). Among its outcomes was to transfer inspection duties for ready-to-eat meats from the government inspectors to the meat industry. Cabinet decided to "shift from full-time CFIA meat inspection presence to an oversight role, [thereby] allowing industry to implement food safety control programs and to manage key risks."1

In practice, the new policy meant that CFIA inspectors would rarely enter meat plants to test for bacteria and testing was left mostly to companies. Self-inspection came largely to substitute for, and not just to supplement, government inspection. Self-inspection mechanisms have worked effectively in other countries, but in Canada something went very wrong.

A second source on the point of those inspection regulatory changes made under Gerry Ritz and the Harper crew:

A confidential cabinet document, obtained last month by Canwest News Service, outlines a plan to have the inspection of meat and meat products "shift from full-time CFIA meat inspection presence to an oversight role, allowing industry to implement food safety control programs and to manage key risks."

If you just hear these recommendations without context, they're likely to fly right over the heads of most people. Generic, boring news of a government report in the middle of the summer. But if you dig down, the real story is there. While the report doesn't point any fingers, it's clear that regulatory changes made by the Harper government factor significantly into the story of the listeriosis outbreak.

The measure of a government: not trusted to disclose major report on health crisis

Updated (5:00 p.m.) due to government hijinks...already! See below. (And two more...)

How bad is it when a major government report is about to be released and major media in the country focus on the angle of whether or not the government can be trusted not to tamper with it prior to its release? That's the case today as Sheila Weatherill hands her listeriosis report over to Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz. Check out the Globe headline on the CP reporting, "Will keep hands off listeriosis report, PMO says."

The Harper government says it won't tinker with an independent investigator's report into last year's deadly listeriosis crisis before releasing it to the public.

Sheila Weatherill has handed in her report to Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz. She was expected to hold a news conference Tuesday in Ottawa to discuss her findings.

A spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the report won't be edited or altered in any way before it is released on Tuesday.

“We're looking at the report right now and she'll present it to the public tomorrow,” Kory Teneycke said Monday.

The circumstances of Weatherill's investigation into the listeriosis outbreak, characterized by "closed door meetings," "secrecy" and a lack of any public commentary by Weatherill during the process have not exactly inspired confidence in her investigation. Questions about the release of the report and its findings follow naturally along.

Beyond this specific report, this government's hallmark is non-disclosure, clamping down on access to information and media control. There is little reason on such occasions to provide them with the benefit of the doubt.

Updated (5:00 p.m.): Aaaaand....on cue...Kady O'Malley points out changes from the government's initial media advisory on the report to the second. The first included this paragraph:

I have been able to conduct my investigation independently and impartially. There has been no interference from any party whatsoever. Overall my experience was positive in that people wanted to help and be part of the solution. All those who were asked to participate agreed to be interviewed and were open with their information and advice.

The second omits that profession.

The government clearly does not want to give any credence to the notion that Weatherill's independence is an issue. Too late.

Update II (5:25 p.m.): And let's face it, the prior update does not help us in feelin' the non-tinkering promise from Teneycke. But maybe that's just me.

Update III (5:30 p.m.): A reminder of the Conservative minority's position (Food Safety sub-ctte) on the release of the listeriosis report, just for fun:

RECOMMENDATION 11

The Government of Canada should review all findings of the Independent Investigator’s report.

RECOMMENDATION 12

The Government of Canada should release the Independent Investigator’s report to the public.

The Ritz to get some mid-summer reading

Tomorrow, the Sheila Weatherill report on last summer's listeriosis outbreak that killed 22 Canadians is handed to Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz: "Investigator to present report on deadly listeriosis outbreak." It's going to be reviewed carefully by those with a stake in Canadian food safety (really, all of us!) and it will be interesting to see how far her recommendations and analysis go. Will Weatherill stick to a discreet analysis of the goings on at the Maple Leaf plant in Toronto, as the Conservatives surely hope, or will she broaden her recommendations in view of last summer's failings and their root causes. Specifically, will there be any uncomfortable measures for this Conservative government to swallow?

The "factions" on the Agriculture sub-committee on Food Safety have already staked out their positions. The Conservative minority on the committee filed their own dissenting report, here. They provide a series of 22 recommendations, in their totality arguing for systemic responsibility, many actors at play, don't ya know. Notably, regarding last summer's outbreak, the Conservatives emphasize that essentially no one foresaw the risk of "buildup of organic material deep inside the meat slicers." There is testimony to that effect noted in the majority report too although there is some disagreement over whether a better inspection and equipment audit regime would have enabled such risks to be detected. It does seem like a remarkable statement for risk in the food industry and it's not surprising to read the Conservative position highlighting it as being a determinative point. Here's their concluding paragraph that gives you a sense of the Conservative food safety philosophy:

Food safety is the responsibility of all Canadians. The listeria outbreak has shown that even with the most sophisticated risk-based approach to food safety, sometimes things can literally fall between the cracks and grow into large problems. The emphasis needs to be put onto all levels of government to ensure that the food they inspect is safe for consumption and that when a health incident does occur; cooperation takes precedence over turf wars. It is equally incumbent upon industry to ensure that the food they grow, process, transport, sell, and cook for Canadians is safe. Finally, it is up to the consumer to ensure that the food they eat is handled and prepared properly. It is when all of these groups work together, we can all be sure that our food is safe. (emphasis added)

It literally fell between the cracks, Canadians.

The recommendations of the majority on the committee are a little more pointed in some respects. Recommending for example, a public inquiry, right off the top (#1). A recommendation that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency work "cooperatively with the union" on inspector resources (#5), a reflection of the obvious friction that was in evidence throughout last summer's outbreak, with the union frequently "whistle blowing," for lack of a better term, about the changes to the inspection regime that Minister Ritz ushered in. Here's another (#13) that clearly speaks to a perception from last summer's outbreak as well:

The Subcommittee recommends that the government review the legislative basis for the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Chief Public Health Officer with a view to ensuring independence from government departments and ministerial influence, so as to protect and restore faith and confidence in Canada’s public health system.

So, all eyes on the Weatherill report this week to see how far she goes.

Key recommendations from Health Experts Working Group report of May 2008 ignored

Some interesting reading in this May 2008 government report: "Lessons learned from the shutdown of the Chalk River reactor: A Report Submitted to the Minister of Health. " This is the report that was done by health and nuclear medicine experts, all respected professionals in the nuclear medicine field, on the December 2007 shutdown of the National Research Universal (NRU) nuclear reactor at Chalk River. As you will see below, a number of key recommendations have been ignored by the Harper government.

First, a reminder of how central the Chalk River facility's role is for the world supply:

Fewer than 10 reactors in the world are capable of making medical isotopes; approximately 50% of the world's supply of raw material comes from Chalk River. Many of these, like the NRU reactor, are old and aging. No one reactor, and probably not even all of them in combination, can replace the production of Chalk River. Clearly, seeking international sources and cooperation may mitigate supply disruptions but, overall, the global market is limited and cannot compensate for the loss of the NRU reactor. In addition, any new replacement options will require significant lead time and financing to implement.

It's clear to anyone reading that information that failing to ensure backup options to that reactor would be in place would be devastating, particularly in light of the hardship from the brief 2007 shutdown that is relayed in this report ("the ability to provide service was teetering on the brink of disaster"). And one would think, wrongly it turns out, given the reliance of the international community upon Canada's production that there would be some sense of duty to attempt to ensure continued production.

Seized of such implications and of the fallout in their industry, the health experts made recommendations to encourage action to prevent future interruptions of isotope production in the event of another NRU shutdown. Notably, a "made-in-Canada" solution was key, contrary to what the Harper government is presently pursuing, i.e., getting out of the business, seeking a long-term supply for Canada from international reactors and essentially walking away from the Canadian industry:

3.1 A made-in-Canada solution is the preferred option for addressing Canadian shortages. To this end, the federal government should

* undertake a review of the risks and benefits of sourcing raw materials from outside Canada
* plan for the timely replacement of the NRU reactor and consider expeditious commissioning of Maple I and II reactors (5) .

3.2 CNSC and other relevent agencies should

* plan for the timely replacement of the NRU reactor for Mo-99 production
* extend the license of the NRU reactor to operate until other supply sources are online
* ensure the collaboration of Health Canada and others to ensure that the health care needs of Canadians are addressed.

3.3 The federal government should explore opportunities to use other nuclear reactors in Canada. To this end

* a survey should be conducted to evaluate the feasibility of other Canadian reactor facilities producing Mo-99
* if other facilities are capable, evaluate the feasibility of providing the necessary enhancements to their infrastructure.

3.4 Canada should promote formal cooperation agreements within Canada among the current reactor facilities to

* supply key medical isotopes (including Mo-99, I-131 and I-125) in the event of an emergency
* secure a domestic supply against future shortages of medical isotopes
* actively engage in developing new production methods and medical applications for emerging isotopes as a means of strengthening the industry in Canada
* offer a program for training scientists, engineers and regulatory officers in isotope production and safety.

3.5 Canada should work with its international partners to review global capacity to produce medical isotopes, encourage the development of international protocols, remove current barriers or obstacles to international movement of radioisotopes during periods of shortages.

Despite such recommendations, we know that the Harper government, concurrent to the release of this May 2008 report, announced on May 16 2008 that they were mothballing the Maple reactors that were planned backups to the NRU facility. So it's quite the thing to read the above recommendation that the Maples reactors be expeditiously commissioned yet see the recommendation simultaneously footnoted with information that essentially obliterates it. It's almost as if the experts were taken totally off guard that the government would ditch the Maples, which Canada has invested more than $500 million (some say $600 million) in building and which many experts say can work. This group of health experts and nuclear medicine specialists certainly didn't find it out of the ordinary to be including the Maples as an option in their report.

Further, we know that the government did not take any other steps to "secure a domestic supply." They did not pursue the funding of other university reactors that might have capacity, such as the McMaster facility, until May 29, 2009, i.e., after the most recent shutdown. Even with that initial funding of McMaster, it's still not enough to ramp up that facility. They need $30 million more.

And now we sit with the Chalk River facility down, the Dutch reactor down as of Saturday with all the health care impacts that will have. There really needs to be accountability for the lack of action over the last 18 months in respect of domestic isotope production.

For more on this topic, see: Blog Post Index: Medical Isotope crisis & Chalk River shutdown.

The academics are revolting

A little summer activism from the academic crowd of note today. Got to love that commitment to the public interest.

First we see Arthur Haberman, historian, with a lament for the loss of the "Progressive Conservative" element in Canadian politics. His op-ed reviews what in his view the elements of "progressive conservatism" were but then bluntly turns to the party that has swallowed them whole:

The Conservative party self-consciously dropped the progressive part of the program and substituted a kind of American Republican doctrine. They don't like parliaments very much and their leaders – Stephen Harper, Mike Harris – behave like presidents rather than prime ministers and premiers.

Conservatives are driven hard by ideology rather than pragmatism and tradition. When the financial crisis occurred last fall, they put forward a budget that had no stimulus because they believe that government should get out of the way. Faced with a defeat in Parliament, they prorogued the House of Commons and returned with something resembling their opponents' position. But they are implementing it very slowly or not at all because they don't really believe in it, even though it is now the law of the land.

These new Conservatives like to be tough, or at least appear to be so. Canada now fights wars instead of keeping the peace. When the United States invaded Iraq, both Harper and Peter MacKay supported sending Canadian troops. In Ontario, Mike Harris decided that he would penalize those on welfare and in the education system – in his years in power, Ontario had the lowest per capita support of higher education of any province. They talk about law and order a lot and like to believe that the way to prevent crime is to fill up our prisons and have a higher rate of incarceration, possibly hoping to emulate the land with the highest rate of incarceration in the world, the United States.

We are "all the losers" due to this development, the new "rigidity of the right," he concludes. With that, some of us would absolutely agree.

Elsewhere, the economists are revolting. You know, the ones with the PhD's, unlike a certain someone who just plays one on TV. They're coming out in support of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page, who was tackily and plainly dissed by the PM last week. That display was followed up by Deficit Jim's put down of the PBO report as too "pessimistic." There's a website, "Support the OPBO," which demonstrates the support of 134 economists and counting. There are three specific requests, directed not only at Conservatives, to be fair. But then again, let's be real, the loudest critics of the PBO are in fact those just mentioned:

We call on Parliamentarians of every party to pursue the following actions in support of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer:
Ensure adequate funding to carry out its mandate
Independence by making the PBO a full Officer of Parliament
Public reporting of all analysis.

Additionally, there was another influential economist, Dale Orr, publicly supporting the Budget Officer this week and getting some significant media attention over the past day.

So what does all this mean? The academics-against-Harper crowd grows. And put simply, the "thinkers" are not too impressed by the present state of affairs and they're making themselves heard.

Video: Canadian Embassy besieged by Mexicans

The visa strategy...well planned, well executed...apparently not. Blog item here with account of reporter's interaction with those lining up in Mexico City. Most seem to give Canada the benefit of the doubt with the visa imposition and chalk it up to being out of character with Canada's reputation. Yes, it is and there's much too much of that going on these days.

Millions of tax dollars on partisan ads

How much in advertising dollars are the Conservatives hiding? Why isn't the Canadian public entitled to know how much our government is spending on the ad campaigns we see in our newspapers and on our television screens? How is this possible in a modern democracy? All good questions. Also brought to the public's attention today, the blatant manipulation of the government advertising process, which can actually be used to properly inform on important issues, but which has been corrupted by partisan self-promotion by the Conservatives.

The Harper government spent a whopping $86.9 million for the 2006-07 fiscal year – more than double the $41 million the previous Liberal government spent a year earlier. This is despite having a $74.4 million cap on advertising spending put in place by the Liberal government specifically to limit this kind of advertising abuse.

The Conservatives have yet to release actual expenditures for 2007-08 or 2008-09, despite repeated requests from the Liberal Opposition. Treasury Board disclosures show that spending has exceeded $70 million annually in those years. Since the 2009 budget was tabled, the Harper government has requested an additional $44 million through the supplemental estimates for government-wide advertising, with half of these funds geared to promoting the government’s budget.

It's amazing, in contrast, how open the Americans are. Saw a request for comment process in operation there this week. Within two days, comments are posted on a federal website. There's no reason why Canada can't ramp up the online accessibility of government spending.

The demolition of supposed Conservative economic competence continues...

False equivalence

"Egregious incivility." So opines the Globe on the incident of Barrie Conservative MP Patrick Brown's remarks this week upon learning that his riding association president and another board member have been charged for "allegedly participating in a gang sexual assault." Brown, exercising novel judgment, proceeded to use the opportunity of that news to slime the Liberals. Would everyone prefer that this road not have been travelled? Absolutely. How utterly inappropriate for this MP to have undertaken this nasty little campaign. I would hope that the people of Barrie are paying close attention to his act. So what did Brown do in spite of common decency and a sense of who he is, a Member of Parliament? He immediately proceeded to state that the accused were actually Liberals, among other things, said Brown. This tells you very much, very much about the character of such Conservative MPs and that such bottom-feeding partisan bomb throwing is countenanced in the Conservative party. You don't hear such attacks from Liberals. You just don't.

Now if you are a Liberal, what to do with bombs launched your way? Apparently, be very careful in how you the Liberal catch such mud balls. Must be very fine in wrestling with the pigs in the mud. It gets you editorials that suggest you're equally guilty of "eroding civility in federal politics." Which is nonsense. Leaving the Conservatives unredressed is a recipe for exactly that. We could go on. But let's not be afraid of putting responsibility for such incidents where they properly lie. But for MP Brown's asinine remarks, no instance of "egregious incivility" would be taking up valuable real estate on the pages of a national newspaper.

Wanted: one reality-based government

The isotope story progresses today in a somewhat predictable manner with a serious report on the crunch our hospitals are experiencing: "Isotope costs surge as supply dwindles." The little twist in the saga today, however, is that the Maples reactors, the planned but mothballed backups to Chalk River, are getting more attention now as a result of the effects of the shortage manifesting themselves in our hospitals. The Maples are the "elephant in the room" in this story. There are two pieces in the National Post on those reactors that may tap into and further a growing public sentiment. That sentiment being that the Harper government needs to get its head out of the sand and react to what's going on by seriously recalculating the moves it has made on this file.

First, from the Globe report, news that suppliers are doing exactly what suppliers do when their commodity is scarce:

Suppliers of medical isotopes are dramatically hiking their prices amid a worldwide shortage of a tool used to detect cancer and heart illnesses, resulting in higher costs for cash-strapped hospitals and longer waiting times for patients.

The costs are adding up, as hospital budgets are being stretched to pay the increased prices, wait times increase, delays in surgeries occur. Clinic hours are being extended to make use of decaying and time limited isotopes. Nuclear medicine professionals fear layoffs. Ontario continues to ask the federal government for financial assistance to cope. No doubt other provinces will do the same once they feel the crunch as well.

Meanwhile, there is a meeting happening in the land of the totally out of touch:

An expert committee set up by the Harper government to explore ways of securing a long-term supply of medical isotopes will meet for the first time Thursday.

High time for that first meeting. Mr. Harper's committee is very late to the party, that's a process that should have been well underway following the 2007 shutdown.

But as mentioned above, that committee will likely be taking note of a few other well-timed items in the news today. Terence Corcoran (yes) has a good overview of some of the major issues surrounding the Maples reactors which were shut down by a decision of AECL/the Harper government in May of 2008. Among them, he cites experts who say those reactors could work and could in fact be "a new industrial champion" and the solution to the isotope shortage. He also sets out the conflicting dollar figures that have been cited for the cost of refitting them to work. They range from "tens of millions" (a U. S. National Academy of Science Committee) to hundreds of millions. If it's not so costly an endeavour, we should pursue their re-start. Two thoughts from his piece stood out:

If the MAPLE reactors can produce isotopes for the Canadian market according to the panel's mandate, why would the panel not be able to recommend in favour of finishing the MAPLE reactors?

Good question, yet with this government, who knows if that committee will be free to so recommend. And one other point:

There is, clearly, more to the Canadian MAPLE isotope story than Canadians have heard so far.

That seems very clear given the number of experts stating that they can work. The Harper government has not been straight on that, including Mr. Harper himself who wrongly stated that they had not produced isotopes.

The other piece is by Jill Chitra, an expert who works at MDS Nordion. MDS is admittedly self-interested in the restoration of the Maples, yet Chitra's views, previously expressed to the Commons Natural Resources Committee, were backed up by an independent expert as legitimate scientific viewpoint. Here's the essence of what she writes today, in "How to solve the medical isotope crisis":

The MAPLE reactors faced challenges. But they did work. They created isotopes, they’re complete and they await final commissioning. These facts have been validated by independent observers. Indeed, numerous international experts have said that the MAPLE reactors could be brought into full service.

...

The solution for new medical-isotope production capacity is right here in Canada. Re-starting the MAPLE project is the right public policy position — for the well-being of patients, for progress in nuclear medicine, for innovation in health care and for Canada’s leadership in a vital area of science and technology.

Faced with this medical crisis, substantial expert opinion and growing restless public sentiment, the big question remains whether the Harper government will react like a reality-based government and make policy adjustments on the nuclear file that take such factors into account. Not holding our breath but it's what they really should do...

For more on this topic, see: Blog Post Index: Medical Isotope crisis & Chalk River shutdown.

CSIS review body raps CSIS & Harper government on Omar Khadr

Yesterday, a Security Intelligence Review Committee ("SIRC") report dated July 8, 2009 was publicly released. The report had to do with CSIS' role in connection with Omar Khadr's continued detention at Guantanamo Bay. SIRC is an independent review body empowered to examine CSIS' past operations and investigate complaints. So what are the key recommendations from SIRC that come out of this report and what might the timing of this report mean? As pointed out below, it means that yet another check in the federal structure is saying no to the Harper government. And they're doing it at a very interesting moment.

Here are the key findings and recommendations:

* In light of public allegations of mistreatment of detainees, SIRC believes that CSIS failed to give full consideration to Khadr’s possible mistreatment by US authorities before deciding to interact with them on this matter.

* SIRC believes that CSIS failed to take into account that while in US custody, Khadr had been denied certain basic rights which would have been afforded to him as a youth. As well, prior to his interview with the Service, Khadr had received no guidance or assistance from any adult who had his best interests in mind since he had been kept incommunicado and been denied access to legal counsel, consular representation or family members.

* SIRC believes that had CSIS followed policy on investigative activities abroad and prepared a detailed request for approval, it would have compelled a discussion and consideration of factors such as Khadr’s age, detention conditions and legal status before deciding to travel to Guantanamo Bay.

RECOMMENDATIONS

* SIRC recommends that CSIS develop a policy framework to guide its interactions with youth. As part of this process, the Service should ensure that these interactions are guided by the same kind of principles that are entrenched in Canadian and international law.

* It is incumbent upon CSIS to implement measures to embed the values stemming from recent political, judicial and legal developments in its day-to-day work in order to maintain its own credibility, and to meet growing and evolving expectations of how an intelligence agency should operate and perform in a contemporary democratic society. To that end, it would be helpful if CSIS received guidance and advice from the Minister on how to accomplish this task. In light of ongoing discussions to expand CSIS’s mandate to include foreign intelligence collection, it is also important for the Service to demonstrate that it has the professionalism, experience and know-how required to make the difficult decisions that arise when conducting operations abroad. (emphasis added)

These findings and recommendations are remarkable for a few reasons.

First, the recommendation that CSIS develop a policy for its interactions with youth and that it incorporate principles of Canadian and international law is essentially SIRC acknowledging the merits of the trial level decision in Khadr v. Canada (et al.). In ordering the Harper government to seek the repatriation of Khadr, the Federal Court judge heavily relied upon Khadr's status as a child, someone deserving of the protections under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The judge also relied on the factors cited by SIRC above, that he didn't have access to legal counsel, consular assistance, contact with family members, etc. Bullet point 2 above mimics paragraph 70 & ff of O'Reilly's judgment.

Is it lost on anybody that SIRC is essentially advocating the adoption of key findings of the Khadr trial level decision while the Harper government is in the midst of appealing that decision to the Federal Court of Appeal?

SIRC has therefore gone on record. They've staked out their view on what should happen from this point forward, irrespective of the appellate level decision by the Federal Court where the Harper government is hoping to get lucky. In this sense, SIRC's report is a major slap not only to CSIS but to the government.

Harper has famously refused to even acknowledge that Khadr was a child soldier and deserving of those protections, contrary to the UN Convention: ("My understanding of international law is, to be a child soldier, you have to be in an army," he said in the pre-taped interview.) So SIRC, in addition to the Federal Court in the Khadr case, in a sense is challenging Harper on that point too. They are advising that CSIS adopt these recommendations which essentially mirror Judge O'Reilly's tenets and irrespective of the Court of Appeal's outcome.

So we see yet another institutional break from the Harper government in the national security realm. While we don't have any faith whatsoever that Minister Peter Van Loan and the rest of the gang who can't shoot straight on foreign affairs will act on these recommendations, it's significant that SIRC's gone on record, publicly. Their recommendations will outlive this government. We should applaud the effort to tell the world that Canada is not completely retrograde. Institutions are lining up to brightly magnify the Harper government's foreign policy and legal failings.

More reading:

• April 24, 2009: Against the appeal of the Khadr judgment
• June 4, 2009: Four cheers for the Federal Court: attempting to correct Harper government international incompetence

(h/t to pogge and crew for the post yesterday & links found there)

The RINC infrastructure programme bears watching

A follow-up to last week's post tracking Conservative MP Helena Guergis' big cheque adventures in her riding of Simcoe-Grey and the bounty being showered upon it to the exclusion of those such as my own. Noted in that post, a big cheque going to the "Pretty River Academy" in Collingwood in the amount of @ $250,000 from the federal government.

The follow-up is the fact that the school is a private one and so the obvious question arises as to how such a facility warrants public infrastructure dollars being spent on it. This question is getting some attention now in the Simcoe-Grey media.

The federal Recreational Infrastructure Canada Program's (RINC) eligibility requirements are as follows:

Eligible applicants under the RInC Program in Ontario and Ontario REC include:

* A local or regional government established under provincial or territorial statute;
* A public sector body that is wholly owned by an eligible recipient listed above;
* A not-for-profit entity;
* A provincial or territorial entity that provides municipal-type services to communities, as defined by provincial or territorial statue; and a,
* A First Nation government, including a Band or Tribal council or its agent (including its wholly-owned corporation) on the condition that the First Nation has indicated support for the project and for the legally-designated representative to seek funding through a formal Band or Tribal Council resolution, or other documentation from self-governing First Nations.

The reports are that this private school is a not for profit entity and that's how it qualifies.

In addition, municipal financial support is required (same link):

b. Cost Sharing for Local Government or Not-For-Profit Sector Assets

Federal funding for local government and not-for-profit sector assets will be one-third (33.3%) of total eligible project costs. On an exceptional basis, the federal share of funding may be up to 50 percent (50%) of total eligible project costs. The federal share of the project, from all federal sources (for example, Gas Tax) cannot exceed 50 percent (50%) of the total eligible project costs.

Given that the town knew nothing about the project until it was announced, it's not clear how that local funding requirement will be satisfied. Apparently a town staffer wrote a letter stating he had no objection to the project but the town council did not approve it. Interesting that staffers have the authority to commit the town's funds like that.

There is an excellent blog post here, at the Blue Agave Forum which further discusses this incident and points out the suspect local approval in this case. That post also points out the public projects that did not get funding while this private school did:

Meanwhile, two major public funding requests from the town for public areas - Heritage Park rebuild and the roof over the outdoor ice rink - failed to get any funding. Naturally people wonder why a private school with perhaps 100 students could get money that a public facility that would serve thousands could not quality for.

That's something citizens beyond your riding are wondering about too.

Are local funding requirements being glossed over in Conservative ridings? How are these local decisions being made? Start watching your papers, Canadians.

(Thx as always to DH, eyes on the ground in Simcoe-Grey!)

Lindsey Graham vs. Sonia Sotomayor

A little peek into the Sotomayor hearings and some of the nonsense the Republicans are stirring up.

Here's Lindsey Graham putting to Sotomayor anonymous comments from lawyers about her judging, all of which are derogatory and which, you can imagine, may have their motivations:



Here's the transcript of the exchange, just to show how far the anonymous comments went and, to be fair, to note that they were premised with Graham's avowal that he may vote for her despite venturing down this road:

(UNKNOWN): OK. Now, let's talk about you. I like you, by the way, for whatever that matters. Since I may vote for you that ought to matter to you. One thing that stood out about your record is that when you look at the almanac of the federal judiciary, lawyers anonymously rate judges in terms of temperament. And here's what they said about you. She's a terror on the bench. She's temperamental, excitable, she seems angry. She's overall aggressive, not very judicial. She does not have a very good temperament. She abuses lawyers. She really lacks judicial temperament. She believes in an out -- she behaves in an out-of-control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts. She's nasty to lawyers. She will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like. She can be a bit of a bully. When you look at the evaluation of the judges on the Second Circuit, you stand out like a sore thumb in terms of your temperament. What is your answer to these criticisms?

SOTOMAYOR: I do ask tough questions at oral arguments.

(UNKNOWN): Are you the only one that asks tough questions in oral arguments?

SOTOMAYOR: No, sir. No, not at all. I can only explain what I'm doing which is when I ask lawyers tough questions, it's to give them an opportunity to explain their positions on both sides and to persuade me that they're right. I do know that, in the Second Circuit, because we only give litigants 10 minutes of oral argument each, that the processes in the second circuit are different than in most other circuits across the country. And that some lawyers do find that our court, which is not just me, but our court generally, is described as a hoc bench, it's term that lawyers use. It means that they're peppered with questions.

Lots of lawyers who are unfamiliar with the process in the second circuit find that tough bench difficult and challenging.

(UNKNOWN): If I may interject, judge, they find you difficult and challenging more than your colleagues. And the only reason I mention this is that it stands out. When you -- there are many positive things about you and these hearings are designed to talk about the good and the bad and I never liked appearing before a judge that I thought was a bully. It's hard enough being a lawyer, having your client there to begin with, without the judge just beating you up for no good reason. Do you think you have a temperament problem?

(UNKNOWN): No, sir. I can only talk about what I know about my relationship with the judges of my court and with the lawyers who appear regularly from our circuit. And I believe that my reputation is stuck as such that I ask the hard questions, but I do it evenly for both sides.

(UNKNOWN): And in fairness to you, there are plenty of statements in the record in support of you as a person, that do not go down this line.

But I will just suggest to you, for what it's worth, judge, as you go forward here, that these statements about you are striking. They're not about your colleagues. The ten-minute rule applies to everybody and that obviously you've accomplished a lot in your life, but maybe these hearings are time for self-reflection. This is pretty tough stuff that you don't see from -- about other judges on the second circuit. (emphasis added)

A few points. It's just so unremarkable that an appellate judge would ask tough questions. Graham's digging into the realm of anonymous comments where lawyers can take freebie pot shots at a tough judge, who may in fact have ruled against them, demonstrates the stretching going on among Republicans to formulate a substantive bit of consent and advice.

But his willingness to suggest that she has a temperament problem based on what appear to be over the top comments motivated by some intense dislike is inappropriate. Sure, he's playing his Republican role to the hilt. But the tenor of those comments suggest that perhaps it is the anonymous lawyers with the temperament problems who have chosen to comment on her with such language. She's a terror...excitable...out of control. And the fact that Sotomayor elicits such remarks at all - along with good ones, by the way, unstated by Graham - when her colleagues on her bench apparently do not...do we really need to think too hard about any of this? File under things you don't hear being said about male judges. But file under things you may well hear being said about women hispanic judges.

Sotomayor's demeanour and response to Graham's questions are fair enough indications of the "temperament" she would bring to the bench.

This follow-up video seems to put Graham's bit in better perspective:

Isotope crisis impacting the health care system

Two reports in the last day indicate that the Canadian health care system is now seriously grappling with the impact of the medical isotope shortage. We are now living that vulnerable situation nuclear medicine specialists have warned the government about, where Canadian patients are left at the mercy of foreign reactors for isotope materials that have a shelf life of hours. This is because Chalk River supplied 80% of the Canadian market's needs for isotope production in Canada. Without any backup planning in place for that domestic production, Canadians are left in the lurch. Well done, Harper Conservatives.

So, the Ontario government is now warning its hospitals:

Ontario's Ministry of Health is warning the province's hospitals to brace for further shortages of medical isotopes, following the month-long maintenance shutdown of a Dutch nuclear reactor scheduled for this weekend. Nuclear medicine specialists fear that Canada's most populous province will feel the brunt of the shortage, leaving them without enough isotopes to treat emergency-room patients.

Dr. Christopher O'Brien, head of the Ontario Association of Nuclear Medicine, speaks of having no information at all about what to expect as that Dutch reactor shuts down, the scheduling difficulties that are occurring, and compromised emergency tests.

In the backdrop to what's going on in the hospitals, a bit of illuminating political back and forth has occurred in letters exchanged between Dalton McGuinty and Stephen Harper (linked to in the Globe).

On June 10th, McGuinty wrote to Harper asking what the plan was to deal with the coming crisis. McGuinty set out the costs that Ontario is incurring as a result of this shutdown, monetary and human, including: higher prices that suppliers are now charging for an increasingly scarce resource; staff overtime costs increasing due to longer wait times and technicians working late hours round the clock to scramble when they do get the isotopes ("Whenever a hospital receives a technetium-99m generator, workers go into overdrive trying to schedule patients for the next day." There are clearly incredible stresses being added to the health care system that haven't been foreseen by the Harper "strategy" of having no backup to Chalk River in place and to rely on foreign suppliers.

Also of note in McGuinty's letter, his request to Harper to ask the Dutch to delay their reactor's imminent maintenance shutdown due to the emergency situation. Mr. Harper says nothing in his response about that particular request beyond a reference to a need for international cooperation, so we don't know what efforts were made.

One other point from the McGuinty letter, he raises an aspect of this crisis not widely discussed to date, the prospect of the lost jobs that might result. Here, McGuinty focuses on the 1175 jobs at MDS Nordion ("a $1.2 billion life sciences company"), based in Ontario, that are at risk from the present shutdown and likely beyond given Mr. Harper's expressed intent to get out of the isotope business in the long run. No doubt there will be many more than that.

Mr. Harper's response to McGuinty comes 20 days later. You can see that Mr. Harper clearly prefers to characterize the isotope problem as an international one, deflecting attention away from his own government's responsibility for failed oversight of the Chalk River facility, and for shutting down the new yet unfinished Maples replacement reactors. Mr. Harper writes:

"Secure medical isotope supply is not only an issue for Canada; it is an international issue that must be addressed cooperatively by all isotope producing countries."

Well, now that Chalk River is no longer producing 80% of the Canadian market's needs, yes of course we need help from the international community. And of course isotope supply has become an international issue given that Canada has stopped producing a third of the world's isotope needs. We're a principal cause of it. So to suggest that our isotope shortage is a result of international failings is totally disingenuous. To attempt to dilute his government's responsibility for failing to contingency plan by suggesting other nations are having the same issues, expected. This "international" spin from the Harper government should be knocked back and is something to watch for as the crisis worsens.

To sum up...political spin, hospitals scrambling, untold costs adding up, patients left at the mercy of foreign suppliers...welcome to our health care future under the Harper Conservatives.


For more on this topic, see: Blog Post Index: Medical Isotope crisis & Chalk River shutdown.

Blog Post Index: Medical Isotope crisis & Chalk River shutdown

This index contains blog posts relevant to the medical isotope crisis as a result of the ongoing Chalk River reactor shutdown (commencing May, 2009) and the actions of the Harper government and Minister Lisa Raitt in connection to the crisis. It is offered as a centralized, ongoing and hopefully useful research tool for anyone interested in the crisis and its impact on Canada's nuclear medicine (and energy) industry and our health care system. The index will be updated on a regular basis should you wish to bookmark it or link to it:
(Starred posts (*) reference those that readers might want to look to first)

• Oct 21, 2009: Taking their eye off the ball [Missed medical diagnoses the real price of Chalk River shutdown]
• Oct 14, 2009: Time to rethink AECL privatization? [Fed govts own public opinion research shows public vs privatization of AECL]
• Oct 8, 2009: A government that gets it on isotopes [Dutch building new reactor; Cda shutting nuclear isotope prod'n down post-2016]
• Sept 11, 2009: Lisa Raitt speaking today on action & leadership for Canada's nuclear industry [states nothing new, no indications of fed ldrship, reiterates AECL privatization]
• Sept 2, 2009: Letters to the editor on the isotope crisis
• Aug 31, 2009: Ignatieff backs McMaster offer to solve isotope shortage
• Aug 24, 2009: The view from Hamilton: federal failure on isotopes [Hamilton ppr editorial criticizes fed govt for not acting on McMaster's proposed solution]
• Aug 22, 2009: Playing a waiting game?[Conservatives appear to be waiting for U.S. to step in to market before they decide on Cdn approach]
• Aug 21, 2009: Special federal meeting on medical isotopes & Chalk River today
• Aug 19, 2009: Ottawa bungled isotope crisis: Canadian Medical Association head
• Aug 19, 2009: Canadian Medical Association to pressure government on isotopes
• Aug 18, 2009: Ignatieff on isotopes (video)
• Aug 18, 2009: McMaster University offers for the umpteenth time to help produce isotopes*
• Aug 17, 2009: Dutch versus Canadian reaction to isotope shortage
• Aug 16, 2009:Experts-for-the-reconsideration-of-the-Maples-reactors For Dummies™*
• Aug 14, 2009: Reaction begins to news of Chalk River extended shutdown
• Aug 12, 2009: Chalk River re-opening now pushed back to 2010
• Aug 10, 2009: Canada's nuclear-science brain trust hanging in the balance [Implications of non-nuclear options bng considered by Harper expert panel]
• Aug 7, 2009: Summer of silence from Harper government on the isotope shortage [Shortages in Quebec; Que presses for fed $; end of yr time frame for Harper govt panel of experts report criticized]
• Aug 4, 2009: Globe editorial nails the Conservatives on the isotope shortage*
• July 31, 2009: $10 million bill for Quebec hospitals from isotope shortage
• July 30, 2009: More seemingly random news items [27,000 tests delayed in Quebec, MDS Nordion offer on Maples submitted to fed govt]
• July 28, 2009: Teneycke departs [PM spokesperson leaves, high profile cmts abt AECL as $30 billion sinkhole, subsequent Ontario halt to nuclear reactor plans discussed]
• July 28, 2009: AECL comes out in favour of...an AECL decision [AECL engineer downplays Maples viability]
• July 24, 2009: Impact of Chalk River shutdown/isotope shortage in NY Times today
• July 19, 2009: Key recommendations from Health Experts Working Group report of May 2008 ignored [Harper govt inaction in pursuing Cdn backups as recd by W/Grp]
• July 16, 2009: Wanted: one reality-based government* [suppliers hiking prices; attention reverts to Maples reactors as solution]
• July 14, 2009: Isotope crisis impacting the health care system [effects in Ontario; ltrs betw McG & Harper]
• July 11, 2009: Canadians getting what Mr. Harper doesn't * [Ltrs to editor, Cdns spk out re: poss loss of isotope prodn to U.S.; yet Harper speaks of energy leadership]
• July 10, 2009: Today in isotope bungling, the U.S. goes its own way * [U.S. moves to produce its own isotopes, sig damage to Cda's future in nuclear medicine crystallizes]
• July 9, 2009: The buck stops...elsewhere [intl isotope shipment to Cda delayed; Raitt finger pointing at AECL re: longer shutdown anncmt]
• July 8, 2009: Still no leadership on the isotope file [AECL anncmt of longer shutdown; med community reaction; plea re: Maples again]
• July 06, 2009: Lisa Raitt & isotope shortages back in the news [Raitt credibility at issue again; report on July shutdown of Dutch reactor/anticipated impact in Quebec]
• June 23, 2009: Isotope Shortage tracker
• June 20, 2009: Back to the 50's [govt panel apptd re long term solns; more ev on Maples; report re: brain drain]
• June 19, 2009: Citizens concerned about the isotope issue [Ex Mgr at Maples says they cd work, S Korea precedent]
• June 18, 2009: The Economist on Conservative leadership failure on nuclear energy issues *
• June 18, 2009: Minister Raitt: Look here at home for the isotope solution
• June 18, 2009: Pressure on government to reverse Maples reactor decision * [U.S. moving away fr Cdn prodn; video fr CBC National; revisit Maples]
• June 17, 2009: Failing Health Care 101 [L Keen: Maples reactors cd work; Drs critical of lack of planning by fed govt]
• June 16, 2009: Truthiness on isotopes [Harper vs. scientists on avail of isotopes]
• June 14, 2009: Good question [Ltr to editor that goes to heart of this crisis: giving away our energy future]
• June 12, 2009: What if we had a solution to the isotope crisis...and our government ignored it * [Maples reactors cd work acc to expert testimony; expert outrage grows; Teneycke's AECL cmts blunder; implications for Cda of Harp govt policy]
• June 11, 2009: Trying to change the channel [Harper says we're getting out of isotope prod'n]
• June 10, 2009: Drip, drip, drip [L Raitt tape exposed]
• June 10, 2009: Capricious contempt [Raitt tearful "news" conference, no questions taken on isotopes]
• June 10, 2009: Experts skewer the Harper team on the isotope file *
• June 09, 2009: Pushing our limits * [attempt to suppress Raitt tape; public interest in med isotope issue cited by judge; highlights of Raitt tape episode summarized]
• June 08, 2009: Time for Ms. Raitt to resign [Raitt says isotope issue and cancer "sexy"]
• June 08, 2009: Awaiting the Raitt tape publication decision [justice prevails, public rights over private interest]
• June 08, 2009: "It's all bad" [awaiting Raitt tape content]
• June 04, 2009: The more they say serious, somehow I don't think they really are [video of Raitt in H of C, re: loss of her ministerial docs at CTV, aide's resignation]
• June 04, 2009: Things that need some of that "corrective action" [funding of Chalk River hidden in last fed budget]
• June 03, 2009: "Active commercial information" [transcript of report on Min Raitt lost docs containing sensitive comml information re AECL]
• June 03, 2009: The credibility deficit: Lisa Raitt kicks it up a notch [Min Raitt lost docs scandal explodes]
• June 02, 2009: Your credibility deficit is showing again, part II * [cancer patients vent; Maples reactors option]
• May 30, 2009: Your credibility deficit is showing again * [Key post: Dec 2007 few weeks shutdown = life & death; present 2009 shutdown unknown months long, no prob says govt; "lessons learned" panel fr 2007 incident rec'd diversification, action, yet govt did nothing]
• May 29, 2009 Friday notes [brief mention of longer term alternatives to Chalk River]
• May 28, 2009: They're doing their "best" and that's the problem [Harper govt announces sale of AECL]
• May 26, 2009 "The irony is complete" * [L Keen on irony of last shutdown's life & death characterization, present one being minimized; lack of action of Harp govt comes into focus]

Somebody protests too much

Tom Flanagan, Conservative strategist, gives us an homage to negative ads in today's Globe: "Have the Liberals gone soft? Why are they upset over attack ads?" Where to start on this one...how about with his recent book update in which he seemed to display some kind of conscience and concern about his former protege's negativity. So why he would now be penning op-eds in support of his former protege's negativity, rather inconsistent. A reminder of the big splashy update from Flanagan's recent book where he tsk tsked all over said protege:

"Before the fall fiasco he wasn't exactly loved by the public, but he was widely respected by political observers as a competent manager and a shrewd strategist," Mr. Flanagan concludes. "But after his misadventure with the political subsidy issue, many are saying that his strategic sense has been over rated. This is a dangerous development for if you are not to be loved, you must at least be respected."

...

"Taken together, along with other less publicized reversals, they have created a widespread impression that Harper stands for nothing in particular except winning and keeping power. This is a major loss for a political leader who was once seen as a man of conviction."

...

All is not lost, Mr. Flanagan sighs. If Mr. Harper gets back to his base with moderate conservative policies, ending the partisan trickery and reaching out to opponents, he could still rewrite the premature obituaries. (emphasis added)

Well, to be fair, that book release was a whole month ago. So I take it the advice that Harper should end "the partisan trickery" and reach out to opponents is no longer operative. Hard to keep up.

The important point missing from today's Flanagan piece is that the constancy of the attack ads run by Harper now and repeatedly throughout his tenure is unprecedented. We haven't seen, in Canada before Harper, such an ongoing massive attack ad campaign against one's political opposition well outside of the election period. None of the instances of Liberal ads that Flanagan cites are comparable in the least to the millions and millions spent by the Harper Conservatives outside the writ period. Conservatives have additionally corrupted the ten percenter MP constituent flyers, essentially running their tv negative ads in print form. The taxpayer should not be paying for that. (They spelled "Canada" wrong on the one I received. Never seen it with two "d's.") There's no precedent for attack ads virtually year round and it's not good for the health of our politics.

The tone of Flanagan's piece is somewhat repulsive too, what with his unseemly taunting of Liberals as being "whiny schoolgirls" (the University of Calgary must be so proud) and "soft" for speaking out against the Conservative attack ads, as Ignatieff recently did about the current Conservative campaign suggesting that the Bloc MPs are sympathetic to pedophiles. The macho posturing is silly.

Perhaps the element of Flanagan's column that most undermines his entire piece is his lament that John McCain did not provide the "public service" to the American public of running ads linking Obama and Jeremiah Wright in the presidential election. Imagine what kind of inflammatory campaign that would have been and that Flanagan is totally on board with. He does backhandedly acknowledge that the Democrats read the electorate correctly in decrying Republican tactics, but it doesn't seem to stop his enthusiastic advocacy for the negativity.

Coming on the heels of Mr. Harper's ridiculous swipe at Michael Ignatieff at the G8 summit, seems like not the best timing for a Conservative paean to attack ads.

Things to not tell the PM

Ha!

Please do not inadvertently inform Stephen Harper that professional cyclist Mikhail Ignatiev is currently racing in the Tour de France for Russia's Team Katusha, not for the Liberal Party of Canada.

Should he become aware of this, the Prime Minister may well then publicly denounce the Leader of the Opposition for being absent from Canada yet again – and then have to rapidly backpedal while the cyclist will just continue to pedal on around France as rapidly as he can.

John Somerset, Chelmsford, Ont.

Parkdale-High Park goings on

Just a quick post to note a development that took place this week. Peggy Nash, former NDP MP for Parkdale-High Park, has decided to run for the presidency of the NDP and will be up for that position at their Halifax convention in August. As Linda Diebel wondered on Friday, might this move by Nash have some longer term implications?

Is this the first step of a plan to run for the national leadership at some point?

As noted in the press release:

As President, Nash would fulfill the role of party spokesperson and would be responsible for chairing all New Democratic Party national meetings. Working with Jack Layton and senior officials, Nash would also contribute to the overall party policy and direction and would represent the NDP at local and international meetings and conferences.

“I was a Member of Parliament and I’ve had a long career in the labour movement, but I’ve also worked extensively in the women’s movement, and been a long time peace and human rights advocate,” noted Nash. “My work has taken me across this country and to nearly every continent. It has given me the opportunity to see how economic and social policy impacts Canadians of all stripes. I can’t think of a better time to put that experience to use.”

Interesting speculation that would make sense. Nash is popular in her party, at least that's my impression from the outside, and is generally well-regarded.

What might this mean for politics in this riding? Nash has no doubt made a calculation about the prospect of challenging Gerard Kennedy again. It wasn't really as close a result as had been predicted in October (Kennedy 43%, Nash 35%). With the advantage of incumbency and Kennedy's popular appeal, a second fight would be much tougher. So, assuming Nash were to win the NDP presidency, Liberal Gerard Kennedy's next election looks to be less taxing than the last. It's not likely that there will be a candidate of Nash's stature up for the NDP next go round. And given the hopelessness of the Conservative cause in the riding, Kennedy's main opposition will remain the NDP. Situation...very good for Kennedy.

Whether this speaks to any wider trend among NDP candidates and their willingness to run at the moment, will leave that to others more seized in that party's present fortunes.

Update (8:55 p.m.): Thinking way down the road, if Nash were to win the presidency of the NDP then even further down the road, became leader of the NDP...then she'd need a seat again. Whether that would be Parkdale-High Park once again, guess we'd have to see. But that's a lot of contingency, isn't it? Oh well, it's Sunday and all...

2008 election riding result maps: poll by poll

Updated (4:00 p.m.) below.

Thanks to Pundits' Guide for promoting the fact that Elections Canada has just released datasets of "Digital Federal Electoral District Boundary Files" and notably "Digital Polling Division Boundary Files from Election 2008, here. Amateur map enthusiasts/political junkies are already making good use of the data released and they are producing colour-coded riding results from Election 2008 (thanks to the person known as "the 506"in particular). If you are clever and proficient (and insane?) enough, you could do this at home, all 308 ridings worth. Political parties, of course, should hopefully have this information and be putting the data to good use.

Pundits' Guide explains why these just released datasets are notable:

Until this point, Elections Canada had only made boundary files of the federal ridings public. But as any political junkie will tell you, they want the poll-by-poll data to really make sense of what happened in a certain riding. Elections Canada does publish the poll-by-poll numeric results, but until now, THERE WAS NO WAY TO ACTUALLY KNOW WHERE THOSE POLLS WERE (unless you were a senior party activist with access to the data, a university student or professor, or someone with extra piles of cash sitting around to buy the physical maps, and tons of time on hand to construct your own boundary files).

Here are a few of the city results that citizens have created thus far...

Vancouver (click all images to enlarge):



Downtown Toronto (7 ridings):


That would be Parkdale-High Park, my riding, on the far left. Only red & orange, no blue, so sad. The colours, of course, match the individual polls won by the particular party.

The two largely orange ridings would be Trinity-Spadina & Toronto-Danforth. Toronto-Centre, Bob Rae's riding is quite red. Overall, not much blue except for patches in Rosedale and Forest Hill and perhaps a few condo areas on the waterfront (which seems strange).

Ottawa:



Montreal:



They've also done Quebec City, Central Nova, Edmonton-Strathcona, Saskatoon-Biggar and there may be others by the time you check in with it.

Update (4:00 p.m.): Looks like Regina has been added today.

Canadians getting what Mr. Harper doesn't

Letters to the editor of the Globe today respond to the news that our nuclear medicine industry in Canada is in jeopardy due to the U.S. move to produce its own isotopes, a consequence of the Harper government's mismanagement of the file:

Meltdown over Chalk River

Stephen Harper can be content he’ll go down in history as a worthy successor to John Diefenbaker, now that he has his own version of the Avro Arrow (Canada’s Medical Isotope Industry In Peril As U.S. Moves To Make Its Own Supply - July 10).

His thoughtless suggestion that we get out of the isotope industry will soon bear fruit. The U.S. is responding and Canadian expertise and creativity will drain south, just as our aerospace talent did after the Arrow to fuel the success of NASA and the U.S. aeronautical industry.

James Wadsley, Hamilton, Ont.

............

The front page of yesterday’s Globe was classic Canadian government: An exceptional President Barack Obama at the top of the page (Obama Bends To Bring Emerging Nations On Side), and a Canadian government leadership screw-up at the bottom of the page (Canada’s Medical Isotope Industry In Peril As U.S. Moves To Make Its Own Supply).

Leaders make history, they don’t let history happen.

Mike Matulewicz, Mississauga, Ont.

............

Stephen Harper makes a big deal of attacking Michael Ignatieff’s credentials as a Canadian because of his time spent outside the country.

Meanwhile, he as much as hands our medical isotope industry to the Americans by walking away from it. If that’s his idea of being a Canadian, he needs to spend some time outside the country.

J.W. Villiers, Fredericton

They're not feelin' the "Stephen Harper: Leadership" mojo either. The consequences of the Harper government's actions are clearly sinking in.

Yet Mr. Harper, in a Friday interview with the Globe, comments on Canada's future in energy production as if he's in a bubble:

Harper: Well we've... we have a range of... We have a range of funding for technology. There is a... There is a green technology fund... There is a clean technology fund and a green fund. Both can fund technology. Neither are exclusive to carbon capture and storage, although carbon capture and storage is a big focus, and will be a big focus of Canada. But we're already putting, you know, all kinds of money into tidal power, not to mention money we're putting through AECL and the development of the next generation nuclear reactor. So we're... You know, Canada will continue to make significant investments into energy technology. As I've said, you know, our... we are an energy superpower, our goal is to be a clean energy superpower. And I believe that given Canada's... I believe two things. First of all, given Canada's natural resource endowment in energy, plus... combined with our, you know, with our history of allowing market forces to reign in the economic field, which has made our industry very robust generally, that I think we should aim to be a leading provider of energy no matter what form that energy is and no matter what technology develops it. I think it would be a real problem if we... for this country if we became a laggard in the energy business.

There is nothing about the Harper strategy on the isotope file that supports his response above. Nuclear researchers, doctors and technicians will be leaving us in droves as a result of us getting out of isotope production and the U.S. getting into it.

...if Chalk River goes dark that could extinguish the country's bright lights in nuclear research: The reactor makes Canada a nucleus of global innovation in the field that many fear could vanish alongside the country's isotope-producing capabilities.

Canadians, it seems, are getting a sense of this. But what on earth is Mr. Harper blathering on about?

For more on this topic, see: Blog Post Index: Medical Isotope crisis & Chalk River shutdown.

"Fudget budgets"

Yeah, about those Flaherty budget projections...

Re: Deficit to be much worse than projected: Report, July 6

The real federal budget numbers are double the Harper government's most recent claims – but in line with an unprecedented series of federal fudget budgets. This again proves that our country is being run by an unashamedly partisan government that is willingly stiffing us for the bill while attempting to hide the total.

Eugene Parks, Victoria B.C.

Well said.

“During that press conference, I attacked Mr. Ignatieff..."

Chalk up another episode of why Stephen Harper should not be Prime Minister. He shows us so frequently but today's example at the G8 exposed him quite well for the ruthless partisan he is. Can't exercise the proper statesmanlike judgment to know that an attack on a domestic political rival is not suited for the world stage. That judgment is entirely his responsibility. Not a penny ante aide's:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper was forced to apologize publicly for attacking his political rival Michael Ignatieff at the G8 over a quote that was wrongly attributed to the Opposition leader by a senior Harper aide.

At a closing news conference here today, in French and in English, Harper was defending the relevance of the G8, when he launched into a stinging rebuke of Ignatieff.

Unable to resist the temptation of an opportunity to hack his main rival after a delicious quote had been dangled in his ear, no thinking twice for our Prime Minister about the wisdom of that course of action. The red meat was there to attack Ignatieff's patriotism, again:

Harper told reporters Ignatieff had suggested in the last day or two that it is possible another international group of major countries could come to the fore that would exclude Canada.

"Mr. Ignatieff is supposed to be a Canadian," said Harper. "I don't think you go out and throw out ideas like this that are so obviously contrary to a country's interest and nobody else is advocating them."

He called on Ignatieff to withdraw the comment and said it would be "irresponsible coming from anybody, but they are particularly irresponsible coming from a senior Canadian parliamentarian."

Forget Soudas and the terrible day he's having, that's a sideshow. The buck stops with the PM to know better than to engage in such games at the G8.

Bob Rae puts it all in the proper perspective:

The Liberals' foreign affairs critic, Bob Rae, said he was incredulous when he saw Harper's remarks about Ignatieff and argued this is more than just a staff problem or a question of bad advice.

"There's a million ways in which what Mr. Harper did is wrong. It shows terrible judgment on his part. It shows that he never is capable of rising above a cheap partisan attack and in so doing, he cheapens his reputation and he cheapens the office that he holds," Rae said in an interview.

"The country expects a prime minister on the world stage to show judgment, leadership, character, integrity, generosity of spirit, all of those things. Instead of which, we get somebody who cannot help himself. He can't stop himself from stooping to launch a mean-spirited, and in the end, stupid attack on the leader of the Opposition.

"I'm sure people in L'Aquila are shaking their heads, well, why would you attack the leader of the opposition when you're on the world stage? You don't see Barack Obama going after John McCain. You don't see anybody else thinking about doing that. That's not what you do.... I just found it breathtaking in its mediocrity."

...

"This is not about staff. This is not about how he's got the wrong people around him or he got bad advice or he got an email that wasn't true," Rae said. "The streets of Ottawa are filled now with staffers who've got knives in their back or front because Mr. Harper won't take responsibility for his own judgment. And we're going to have to start to bell this cat."

Mr. Harper's apologized. Here's CTV's report that includes his apology to Mr. Ignatieff although there's no apology to Canadians for conduct.

What an ugly little episode that shows us yet again what the character of this Prime Minister is. Time to show this man the door.

P.S. Should I share with you once more my theory that Mr. Harper makes his biggest political gaffes while overseas? Here it is.

Update (8:45 p.m.): CP report giving good overview of today's incident plus comparable Harper gaffes.

Today in isotope bungling, the U.S. goes its own way

A predictable and damaging development for the future of the Canadian nuclear medicine industry crystallizes: "Canada’s isotope industry in peril as U.S. moves to make its own supply." See also the Star report today, "U.S. is poised to enter medical isotope market." The U.S. has taken the big flaming hint from Mr. Harper's recent pronouncement that Canada's getting out of the isotope business for good in the long run combined with our current latest shutdown. They've decided to "go their own way." Mr. Harper's shoulder shrugging nuclear policy may have cost us quite dearly. Under him, we're losing our position which has been described as follows: "Canada's world dominance in the estimated $4-billion global molecular imaging and radiotherapeutics market." Because who needs a high tech industry here in Canada like that one that we've historically been leaders in, right?

The news that the U.S. is going to abandon Canadian isotope production and make their own has been reported of late elsewhere. Canwest in mid-June had a good report providing context about American reliance on Canadian isotope production and American re-thinking that was beginning in light of Canada's recent problems:

Many in the U.S. medical community previously supported Canada's use of highly enriched, bomb-grade uranium (HEU) to produce much of the U.S. and world supply at the 52-year-old NRU reactor in Chalk River, Ont., about 180 kilometres northwest of Ottawa.

But that support collapsed significantly with the May 14 shutdown of the reactor, when it began leaking radioactive water. It's expected to be off-line until at least September -- and possibly longer.

Last week's announcement by Prime Minister Stephen Harper that Canada is "eventually" going to get out of medical-isotope production seems to have squelched lingering speculation that Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. might reverse its decision to mothball MAPLE 1 and MAPLE 2, two other technically troubled isotope-producing reactors at Chalk River.

U.S. nuclear-medicine and heath-care officials have now joined in an unprecedented coalition with the U.S. non-proliferation movement, using Monday's letter to urge the Senate and House appropriations committees to fund domestic production using LEU, "as quickly as possible." (emphasis added)

See how Harper galvanizes action elsewhere? The Economist also wrote about American impatience with Canadian production around the same time:

Health officials in the United States are seeking an American supplier of medical isotopes, having decided that Canada is no longer a reliable source of molybdenum-99, which when processed into technetium-99m is used in two-thirds of all diagnostic medical-isotope procedures south of the border. As long as AECL was working on two replacement reactors, American processing firms were content to wait. But Canada cancelled the replacement programme last year when the new reactors, already eight years behind schedule and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget, failed tests.

Way to go, Steve! Note how the closing of the Maples reactors has figured prominently in the American decision-making. That could be one of the worst decisions made by a Canadian government in recent memory.

So, as the both the Globe and the Star report today, the American government is accordingly acting in their own self-interest and have used Canada's halting performance as the catalyst to ramp up their own capabilities:

An official from the National Nuclear Security Administration said this week the outage at Canada's National Research Universal reactor – which usually fills about 60 per cent of the U.S. demand for medical isotopes – has prompted a "supply crisis" that has captured the attention of officials in the White House.

"The United States is at the nexus of two related priorities: Discouraging the use of proliferation attractive (highly enriched uranium) in civilian commerce, and a health crisis from the lack of sufficient supplies of (molybdenum-99)," said a presentation Wednesday by Parrish Staples, director of the U.S. Office of European and African Threat Reduction. "The volatility of the current supply stream of (molybdenum-99) and the issue of (highly enriched uranium) in the civilian sector have drawn attention to the need for new producers to enter the (molybdenum-99) supply chain."

Staples said it would cost about $120 million (U.S.) to set up a process for domestic production of molybdenum-99 using low-enriched uranium. (Star)

To reiterate, from the above reporting, the Americans weren't looking to abandon Canada's supply until the Harper government's actions basically forced them to do so. The shutdown and the signal from Harper about Canada abandoning the industry in the long term have confronted the Americans with the necessity to act on the health front. It has also provided them the opportunity to act on the national security aspects they're concerned about.

The implications for Canada of all this, some of which are suggested in the Globe report:

• What real incentive will there be for Canada to commit to a fully functional nuclear medicine industry in Canada if the U.S. is making its own isotopes? The U.S., a major customer will have disappeared.
  


• And so might the nuclear scientists, technicians and researchers in this Canadian industry disappear as well. The brains will drain, go where the research action is. We'll be losing out on being a leader in this area at a time when nuclear energy is becoming more important for the world, not less.
  


• Canadian patients will therefore become dependent on the U.S. for production and delivery of these materials. That will likely involve increased cost to our hospitals and therefore our medical system and ultimately we the taxpayers.
  

• The market value of AECL, which the Conservatives want to privatize, surely just took another big hit with this news as well.
  

• The Conservatives are, in essence, permitting the farming out of a capability in a high tech industry we've historically played a leading role in.

How is any of this a good strategy? What a result for Canada, with patients requiring these isotopes just hanging in the balance.

For more on this topic, see: Blog Post Index: Medical Isotope crisis & Chalk River shutdown.

It's all so aspirational

The Harper government inspires us again! In fact, it's all just so very aspirational: "Canada says G8 climate target 'aspirational,' no need to change policy." So the big hoopla announced yesterday that the Harper gang had agreed to the 2 degree target pushed by Obama and agreed by Britain et al. was in fact an instance of their modus operandi on international environment issues: agree publicly, do otherwise privately. This move to immediately marginalize what they've supposedly publicly just agreed to is consistent for the Harper era (listen to Prentice here):

Less than 24 hours after Prime Minister Stephen Harper praised the G8 for its latest climate-change targets, his environment minister said those targets are "aspirational" and that Canada may not meet them.

Jim Prentice, in an interview with CBC from L'Aquila, Italy, said reducing emissions by 80 per cent by the year 2050 is an "aspirational goal."

The best-case scenario for the Harper government's climate-change program - which does not yet have enforceable regulations in place - is a reduction in Canada's greenhouse-gas emissions of up to 70 per cent by 2050.

Prentice said Canada does not need to change its policy.

"Well, this is an aspirational goal of developed countries collectively to try to reduce emissions by 80 per cent by 2050," he told CBC NewsWorld in a telephone interview.

"But it is an aspirational goal and a collective goal. Really, when you're speaking of 2050, by that time some of the significant technological changes that are necessary will have been made."

Prentice's language stood in contrast to that of U.S. President Barack Obama, who said the G8 had reached "a historic consensus on concrete goals for reducing carbon emissions.

"We all agreed that, by 2050, developed nations will reduce their emissions by 80 per cent, and that we'll work with all nations to cut global emissions in half."

Thanks for coming, Canada! When we sign a contract, that's when our departure from it begins. Why act when you can put your faith in future technological advances to save the day? Prentice's emphasis in tone was clearly on the aspirational nature of the agreement, that Canada didn't need to do anything to change its policies and that technology may one day save our bacon.

Russia, like Canada described recently as one of the G8's "bad boys" on climate change by an environmental group, also said it wouldn't abide by the G8 pledge.

Perhaps sensing a backlash after he let the "aspirational" talking point out of the bag, Prentice tried to improve his media effort, as reported by the Star:

In contrast to Obama, Canadian Environment Minister Jim Prentice described the G8 targets in a CBC interview as "aspirational" but later said if the poor countries sign on, and everyone does their part, they could be "transformational."

The firmness of our government's commitment remains unclear, it seems to be improvised as they go.

By the way, Tony Clement, Minister of Tourism, is in Italy too, displaying insensitivity to the world (from the CP link):

Industry Minister Tony Clement, also in L'Aquila for the summit, said Canada is simply looking out for its economic interests.

"We want to do this, we want to do it right," Clement said of reducing emissions.

"We want to do it for our kids and our grandkids in Canada and around the world. But we have to do it in a way that ensures that we don't beggar ourselves."

That kind of talk does not find a receptive audience among developing nations, whose standard of living and quality of life remains many generations behind the Canadian standard. (emphasis added)

Making us proud at the G8, making us proud...

Update: The Harper government's seeming agreement to these public targets yet simultaneous reticence must be tying Canadian industry in knots, one would think. Where's the certainty?

The buck stops...elsewhere

It's fair to say that this kind of headline will become a much more frequent occurrence in coming days and months: "Hospitals in isotope crisis as shipment delayed in Europe." With Chalk River's production of isotopes now delayed until late this year or perhaps next (or never) and no operational domestic backups capable of filling the void left by Chalk River, Canada must rely on other nations' facilities. This is an essential weakness of the nuclear medicine "strategy" that the Harper government has decided to adopt: seeking to privatize AECL, getting out of the isotope business eventually and mothballing the brand new MAPLE reactors that we do have and that experts say can work.

In addition to the MAPLES option, another quick little reminder here to underscore the fix the Harper government's gotten us into through their inaction. The McMaster reactor, for e.g., could ramp up isotope production but it would take 18 months to be ready. When ready, it could produce 50% of what Chalk River did. The last Chalk River shutdown occurred in December 2007. Meaning that if this government had its act together and had the slightest concept of risk management, i.e., having a plan B in place (to simplify a broad concept for this situation), we might be faring a little better with that McMaster reactor helping out by now. Instead, here's what we've got. Dependence on overseas sources for medical isotopes that have a 66 hour "half-life." And Harper Ministers pointing the finger of blame at others.

An airplane carrying a shipment of medical isotopes was delayed at a Paris airport on Wednesday, forcing the cancellation of scores of crucial medical tests in Canada and highlighting the fragility of this country's system for detecting heart ailments and cancer.

Federal ministers of Health and Natural Resources warned of further shortages as they pointed the finger at Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., the Crown corporation that owns the nuclear reactor that until a few weeks ago produced a third of the world's medical isotopes.

...

The situation that stalled the European shipment at the Paris airport was resolved, but hospitals will receive their isotopes 24 hours late, forcing them to reschedule tests for cancer, bone fractures and infections around artificial hips and knees that had been set for Friday.

“This has been the most severe shortage,” Christopher O'Brien, president of the Ontario Association of Nuclear Medicine, said in an interview. “This just demonstrates the fragility of relying on stuff coming from halfway around the world.”

The delay means many hospitals across Canada will have few or no isotopes available for tests Thursday and Friday, Dr. O'Brien said. Brantford General Hospital in Ontario, where he practices, can diagnose only one patient on Friday, he said. The other 13 patients who were to be tested have been moved to the weekend.

Additional interview with O'Brien from yesterday, here.

Back to the lack of risk management that would get any team of executives fired if they were so poorly overseeing their operations:

Nuclear medicine officials said the shutdown of Chalk River, which has been plagued with problems in recent years, reveals a lack of planning and backup solutions by Ottawa.

“It's a national disaster,” Jean-Luc Urbain, president of the Canadian Society of Nuclear Medicine, said in an interview. “The government has not been pro-active.”

And here's the finger pointing by the Harper crew, who are passively "disappointed" in AECL, even though they have ministerial responsibility for the Crown corporation:

Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq and Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt issued a joint statement saying they are disappointed the repairs will be delayed. They said the shutdown will result in a significant shortage of medical isotopes in Canada and around the world this summer.

“I have directed AECL to give paramount priority to bringing the Chalk River reactor back to service as quickly and safely as possible and will hold AECL accountable to that end,” Ms. Raitt said in the statement. (emphasis added)

Strong words, though obviously not felt strongly enough to warrant her actually being present at the announcement yesterday of a major problem in the nuclear energy file for which Ms. Raitt is responsible. Too much to ask of the Harper crew that they be present, they'd rather issue written statements from the bunker and remain invisible when the going gets tough.

And the tough talk from Ms. Raitt is, again, about 19 months too late. In December of 2007 when Conservatives were railing about the risks to the health of Canadians that the shutdown then posed, that would have been the time to be gettin' all angry and in-charge on the file. That would have been the decisive leadership moment to demonstrate that the government actually cared about governing with the health interests of Canadians in mind. Anything they're doing now is just playing catch up and covering over their incompetence. Getting ahead of the curve, that's what a government would want to be doing, one would think, with crucial nuclear medicine of importance to Canadians.

For more on this topic, see: Blog Post Index: Medical Isotope crisis & Chalk River shutdown.

Metaphor

(Reuters)

Another metaphorical moment from those crafty professional photographer crews...Harper in Italy, in front of a "Palazzo Del Governo" crumbling in the background. How tragic yes, for the people of L'Aquila, but how otherwise appropriate for our PM.

Helena Guergis' big cheques

Thankfully, we have ears and eyes on the ground in the good boroughs of Simcoe-Grey to provide you with all the giant cheque action going on (below) in Conservative Guergis' riding (thx DH).

What I would like to know, however...why haven't I seen any of these giant cheques being handed out in Parkdale-High Park? Could it be that my riding suffers from a certain Liberal persuasion? Much like those non-Conservative ridings in Halifax that seem to be suffering the snub too? Hmmm?

So what excellent big cheque adventures do we have...

First cheque above is for $250,000 plus to the "Pretty River Academy" private school. Second cheque is for $180,000 from the "RINC" programme for a pool. Like the "Canada" "creating jobs" slogan?

Just a few more:



That's $3.8 million for the Blue Mountains, fyi:

Guergis said her riding, Simcoe-Grey, and The Blue Mountains did "exceptionally well" when it came to allocating the $3.9 billion reserved for Ontario municipalities.

She said she wasn't going to stop with this announcement and would continue to ask municipalities what they needed, and what they would like to see the federal government doing for municipalities and for the local economies.

Will be keeping my eyes peeled for the big cheques down here, but so far, looks like only one tiny blue shovel from actionplan.ca in a big chunk of Toronto that includes Parkdale-High Park:


Conservative Simcoe-Grey? Swimming in it.

Ignatieff speech in London, Harper's divisive politics "playing with fire"

Michael Ignatieff has given a speech in London this evening entitled, “Liberal Values in Tough Times” that's worth a read for any Canadian wondering about his prime ministerial stuff. Full text online (via Macleans). One aspect that I'll focus on here, the national unity theme is again present in Ignatieff's remarks, with a strong statement of what Harper's negative wedge politics are doing to the country and, drawing from our history, reminding us why this divisiveness is so problematic.

The history:

The enduring character of our linguistic, cultural and national differences has also shaped our philosophy of government. One hundred and forty two years ago, four independent British colonies agreed to form a federation. Three were majority English speaking, Protestant and ordered by English common law. One of them was Catholic, French and ordered by the French civil code. And then there were the aboriginals, recognized by treaty, as constituent peoples. From the beginning, we had to make a complex unity out of these differences. We had to anchor collective rights to language and education in our constitution. We had to respect claims to land and territory that pre-existed our political foundation. We had to learn to compromise, to reach out across divides that have broken other countries apart. As we have expanded to ten provinces and three territories, encompassing five distinct economic regions, and providing a welcome to immigrants from every land, we have sustained the whole edifice of our federation on the constant practice of conciliating difference across languages, identities and cultures.

Government is central to Canadian survival, but at the same time, our federation distributes its powers so that no single order of government can dominate. The decentralization of our federation allows government to be close to the people and keeps its powers in check, while safeguarding the necessary rights of self-government of our regions and founding peoples.

The present dynamic:

The sheer difficulty of keeping this complex unity together has bred compromise and conciliation into the Canadian soul. Because our unity cannot be taken for granted, we understand that pragmatic political leadership and moderate government are conditions of our survival.

This is the deeper reason why conservative ideologies run into difficulty with us. Getting government off the back of the people is not a persuasive slogan for a country like ours. Canadians know that wise government is essential to keep regions from falling behind, to keep Canadians equal and to keep us together. They also know that liberal habits of mind —compromise, generosity and pragmatism—are as important as government itself.

The now officially disbanded Progressive Conservative Party of Canada basically accepted liberal Canada and its vision of enabling government. The Conservative Party currently in power is a different animal entirely. Its leadership harbors an incurable distrust of liberal Canada. It cannot conceal its instinct that less government is invariably better government. For liberals, limited government is the condition of Canadian existence.

The battle between liberal and conservatives in our country is therefore a battle over the role of government in maintaining the unity of the country. In other countries, the unity of the state is a settled question, and so a politics of division can have no fatal consequences. In the United States, intense partisanship, attack ads and ideological vituperation do not endanger a country that settled the question of its unity in the American Civil War. In our country, a politics that arouses ethnic and regional resentment, creating wedges in order to mobilize a conservative base vote, is playing with fire. Last December, the current Prime Minister sought to survive a constitutional crisis of his own making by playing region against region and language group against language group. In our country, this is a dangerous game.

Canada is sturdy and enduring, but it is also fragile. All politics, in our country, is the politics of national unity. Leadership that fails to understand that is bound to fail. Furthermore, in a time of crisis, leadership is about preparing a country for the future. (emphasis added)

That's a somewhat political part of the speech, the majority of it deals with liberalism in Canada and the role of government in the economy in present times.

Well worth taking the time to read in its entirety, beyond the news coverage.

Citizens writing emails

Some citizens are emailing the Conservatives about the pride week funding fallout. Here's one I was copied on:

Dear Ms. Ablonczy,

We gave up permanent residence in the US because their rigid ideology caused brutal social, financial and political consequences and returned home in 2007.

We expected aggressive political debates based on reason and focused on the future of Canada. We got Supreme Leader Trost’s keen intellect focused on tired, ugly history.

Please judge my unskilled editing to see if it improves his stirring proclamation:

"Canadian taxpayers, even non-social-conservative ones, don't want their tax dollars to go to events that are polarizing or events that are more political than touristic in nature,"

Does his simplistic fervour really represent Conservative policy? Your comments, and those of your colleagues, are welcome.

Regards,

MM (address withheld)

Hope he gets a fulsome response.

Keep writing those emails, Canadians!

Politics behind PM's sudden backing of 2-degree goal at G8 summit?

Speculation going into the G8 summit was that the Harper government would again be acting the laggard in the group on climate change issues. Indeed, on Monday in a pre-summit briefing, when pressed on whether Canada would support the "2 degree goal" that has become a new target, government officials were clueless, doing some kind of "who's on first" act:

Obama arrives in Italy with a new U.S. pledge to agree to a target of global temperatures increasing no more than 2 C, a goal the previous American administration strongly opposed.

But three senior Canadian officials, including Soudas, could not articulate a government position on the 2 C target at Monday's briefing: "We should wait and see how the discussion goes," said one official.(emphasis added)

Well wait and see no more! No G8 discussion even required. Suddenly, a Canadian position is borne: "PM to back 2-degree goal at G8 summit." Here's some of what Soudas is now saying:

Signalling a different approach to climate change, a spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper suggested Canada will not oppose a declaration at the G8 summit that would limit global temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial averages.

It's a limit that the European Union and some developing countries have argued is critical to curbing widespread environmental damage.

"We're relatively open and supportive of that," said press secretary Dimitri Soudas, hours before landing in Rome.

...

Agreement on a limit to global temperature increases is believed to require tougher short- and mid-term actions by countries such as Canada to cut back on their greenhouse gases.

The Conservative government, though it endorses the fight against global warming, has postponed tough regulations on large industrial "greenhouse gas" emitters.

Soudas shrugged off questions about whether such a commitment would require even stricter industrial regulations: "We're for tougher regs; we think everyone should have tougher regs."

Of course you do! It only took what, 48 hours for the brand spanking new position to be formulated. Must have been some flight, working it all out on the back of the napkins and all. Flying by the seat of their pants takes on a whole new meaning. And it's what, only Canada's position on a serious issue that's suddenly sprung forth within that time frame.

Why the sudden commitment? Well, it's likely been given because the real climate change discussions don't happen until the Copenhagen conference in December of this year. Until that conference happens, why not put on a happy face and say, get some electoral brownie points in Canada? We very well could have an election between now and the Copenhagen conference. They probably view this as a bit of a freebie then, a no-brainer for election purposes.

Speaking of Copenhagen, have you looked at the front page of the Copenhagen web site lately? The Harper government's lagging is getting a good amount of attention. We lead the site with news of domestic opposition to the Harper government's recent pathetic environmental performance: "Political battle over Canadian climate." (They have flattering pictures of the PM over there at the Copenhagen site too...:)) Again, this is more motivation for the Harper crew to roll over at the G8.

Besides, we know what the Harper gang will likely be up to in the interim, don't we? The brown envelopes tell all: they agree publicly to something, yet attempt to undermine it privately.

Then again, maybe this is all perfectly legit...nah, sorry, don't believe a word of it. Their credibility deficit is just too deep for some of us, with good reason.

Still no leadership on isotope file

Some things to keep in mind today as you hear the news coverage of the announcement by Atomic Energy Canada Limited that the Chalk River shutdown will be longer than initially estimated:

The Canadian nuclear reactor that until a few weeks ago produced a third of the world's medical isotopes will be down until late this year, sources say, leaving patients facing further shortages of a premier tool for many heart and cancer tests.

There are even doubts that it will ever run again:

Sources in the engineering community at the Chalk River facility and in Ottawa have told Canwest News Service that the reactor could be out of service for at least eight months and perhaps even permanently.

The medical community's confidence in the government's management of this shutdown is shot:

“We're going to go back into the dark ages in terms of health care,” Jean-Luc Urbain, president of the Canadian Society of Nuclear Medicine, said in an interview Tuesday. “We'll be practising 21st-century medicine with 20th-century technology.”

Dr. Urbain said he does not have confidence in the government or AECL to manage the crisis.

...

Dr. Jean-Luc Urbain, president of the Canadian Association of Nuclear Medicine, called AECL's communications strategy "deceitful" and said he was unsure if Canadian hospitals would be able to cope if the NRU is, in fact, off-line until the end of the year.

Then there are the broken record appeals that are being made to deaf government ears:

Christopher O'Brien, president of the Ontario Association of Nuclear Medicine, said uncertainty about the Chalk River reactor should prompt the government to take another look at the mothballed Maple reactors. The Maple reactors were to replace Chalk River, but did not perform as expected after many years of experimentation and more than half a billion dollars, and the government has demonstrated no appetite for revisiting them.

“If NRU is down for a very long time, we do need an immediate alternative resource,” Dr. O'Brien said.

And then there's the timing of AECL's announcement. A neat yet cynical week and a half after the parliamentary session has ended. Juuuust long enough so people won't say the announcement was purposely held back, to avoid the concentrated glare of media and parliamentarians on Parliament Hill.

This is a big announcement with serious health implications for Canadians. Wonder if any of the responsible Conservative ministers will have anything of consequence to say about this today.

For more on this topic, see: Blog Post Index: Medical Isotope crisis & Chalk River shutdown.

Governing ugly

Updated (11:15 p.m.): below.

"Pride parade cash got file pulled from Ablonczy: Tory MP." Another head shaking day. Yesterday - and everyday - we see the record financial incompetence on full display from the Harper government. We also saw an instance of pure Conservative propaganda caught out. Today, their social conservative roots are showing, in a very ugly way with the news that Minister Ablonczy is losing a core aspect of her ministry to Tony Clement in apparent punishment for her ministry's $400,000 funding grant to Toronto's recent pride parade. Lots of blogging on this already and kudos to Big City Lib for exposing Conservative MP Brad Trost's message of same to LifeSite news.

This is a very saddening yet maddening development. Don't know how else to put it, it's disappointing and outrageous all mixed into this deceptively administrative shift of a portfolio from Minister Ablonczy, Minister of State for Tourism to Industry Minister Clement. An incredible rationale is offered, apparently Industry Minister Tony Clement has got time to be handing out cash for tourism events (from CBC link above):

In an email, Rob Taylor, Ablonczy's chief of staff, said that budget was returned to Industry Canada so that the MP from Calgary-Nose Hill and her staff could concentrate on the federal tourism strategy.

He added that the minister handling Industry Canada is also freer to handle the file now.

"The MTEP program is back with Minister Clement now that the auto file and many of the other economic stimulus programs have calmed down. He is the responsible minister and is reviewing all economic-stimulus spending."

Uh, did Tony read the PBO report yesterday with its prediction of massive job losses over the next few years?

Canada could shed a total of 1.2 million jobs this year and next, the parliamentary budget watchdog predicts.

How on earth would they think this little bit of spin would be in any way credible. The Industry Minister should be moving heaven and earth on the industry file. He should have no time to be dabbling in tourism funding.

How'd you like to be Diane Ablonczy today? Imagine a colleague blindsiding you publicly as Trost has done. What a respectful, collegial bunch these Conservatives are. How they treat each other is symptomatic of what they're dishing out today.

Out from under their rocks, maybe it's best that they are, all the better to show Canada what kind of petty, mean-spirited, anti-equality government we've got on our hands.

David Akin's update has a sampling of Conservative reaction, they're in a bit of a well-deserved mess.

Update (11:15 p.m.): Should have highlighted this aspect in the earlier report:

Two MPs, who requested anonymity for fear of being disciplined by the PMO, said the issue was discussed at a closed-door caucus meeting in June and that Ms. Ablonczy was criticized by several MPs about the grant.

Today in "Deficit Jim can't count"

"Federal deficits to total $156 billion, job losses to mount: budget officer." Really? Now that sounds like something my government hasn't told me! So let's see what we have here from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, whose budget has thankfully (but not perfectly) been saved by the parliamentary library committee in an ongoing saga...seems the Conservative number crunching is...what's this? A tad off:

The recession will sink the federal government into a $155.9-billion hole over the next five years and cost hundreds of thousands of Canadians their jobs, the parliamentary budget officer predicts.

In a report to be released Wednesday, budget officer Kevin Page calculates that even in the year 2013-14, when Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says Canada will return to surplus, Ottawa will still have a $16.7-billion deficit.

The projections are close to double the accumulated $84.9-billion deficit over five years estimated by the January budget.

Double. Enough said.

Major discrepancies in the job numbers that are projected by the government too.

According to sources, the budget officer predicts between 190,000 and 270,000 fewer Canadian jobs this year than estimated in the budget.

For next year, the discrepancy rises to between 200,000 and 500,000 fewer jobs, and even in the years 2011-2014 - when the recession is expected to be a painful memory - there are expected to be between 100,000 and 380,000 fewer Canadian jobs each year than the government assumes.

TD Bank has made similar projections to the budget officer on the deficit, as the report notes.

What's the plan Deficit Jim? All he's indicated is "...that the government is "committed to return to surplus in future years." Or should we even bother asking given the track record?

Lisa Raitt & isotope shortages back in the news

Following up on Calgary Grit's post earlier of some of the transcripts from the Raitt Gate courtroom proceedings, a few points.

First, the clear upshot from that transcript is the argument advanced there by Jasmine MacDonnell's lawyer, that it was the Minister who left her own binder behind at that CTV station. The clear suggestion made by Ms. MacDonnell's lawyer is that Ms. MacDonnell left the CTV station with all the materials she was supposed to, it was the Minister who did not.

AWAD: “You don’t know whether Ms. MacDonnell had her own binder that she in fact left with that day?”

MAHER: “No, I don’t know”

...

AWAD: “My friend also mentioned that, I guess Mr. Maher, in his draft article, has characterized Ms. MacDonnell as careless, the Minister’s judgment may be questionable in that she promoted Ms. MacDonnell. That’s how they want to spin this story my lord. It’s not about medical isotopes. The Chalk River shutdown was in May – the conversation that was recorded inadvertently was in January. This isn’t about last week or the last two weeks medical isotope issue, this is about a private conversation. Not a confidentiality question, a privacy question, and the rights exist, in my submission, in this country. Mr. Grant suggested that the binder that was left at CTV was Ms. MacDonnell’s; there’s no evidence of that before your lordship, that’s never been demonstrated. Similarily that she “lost” her job, my lord the evidence is absolutely that she resigned.”

As the BCer points out this afternoon, the Conservatives were intent on framing this resignation-worthy incident as one that was the staffer's responsibility. Now we have evidence to suggest otherwise.

Second point, following from the first. The Minister of lost binders remains in charge on the isotope file. In La Presse yesterday we were given a reminder of the severity of that crisis that remains. On July 18th, the Dutch reactor that Canada has been relying upon for ramped up production of isotopes goes down for maintenance. The prediction from medical experts about the impact as a result of that shutdown is dire. In Quebec, the reports are that at least 12,000 diagnostic tests reliant upon medical isotopes have been put off, likely more since that report's date. Now they're predicting more.

Hospitals have been warned they will lose three quarters of their usual supply of isotopes.

...

This means that approximately 3000 patients per week will have their appointments postponed.

...

The closure of the plant in Petten for a month could be the prelude to a much more serious. The reactor will be out of service for repairs in depth at the beginning of next year. Then it will cease to produce medical isotopes for six months.

The Conservatives have little credibility on this file to begin with. Following the Chalk River shutdown in December 2007 which Harper decried at the time would "jeopardize the health and safety and lives of tens of thousands of Canadians", they've done little to nothing to ensure a backup plan in the case of future shutdowns. They've additionally moved to cancel the new MAPLEs reactors that experts have testified may indeed be a workable long term solution to the aging Chalk River facility. They could be acting on that expert testimony, investigating it as a viable solution at a time of dire need, yet they're essentially putting that decision on hold too as a ministerial panel meanders along.

What's more, they've decided to privatize AECL, yet a PMO spokesthingy has publicly trashed AECL and the Ontario government has consequently and not surprisingly backed down from buying new reactors from AECL. A series of questionable decisions from the Conservatives for which they bear responsibility.

Not a good moment for the credibility and competence of the minister to be coming into question yet again.

For more on this topic, see: Blog Post Index: Medical Isotope crisis & Chalk River shutdown.

Jazz from Quebec

Political jazz first...a report from Le Devoir, describing Liberal nomination efforts in Quebec, part of the party's being in "electoral mode" in Quebec. Forty candidates will be in place by Labour Day, ten already nominated, thirty more to come in that time frame. Sounds like serious bidness.

Denis Coderre is quoted in the report, sounding remarkably on the same message as Michael Ignatieff at the Stampede, in respect of the Conservative "pedophile" ads against the Bloc being a desperate measure, an attack at a level to which no one should descend. They're playing that one pretty well. It's become an opportunity for the Liberals to step in and make a positive appeal for higher standards in political debate. The Liberals appear to Quebec voters like they're doing a decent thing, sticking up for a fellow political party that's being outlandishly denigrated, yet they simultaneously maintain that they're against the Bloc. Not bad. Appeals to federalists and soft-nationalist Bloc voters.

Even if we assume these ads have some effect, where would Bloc voters go? Likely not to the Conservatives. At least not the way things look now. There's a Globe report today on the continuing saga of sinking Conservative fortunes in Quebec, with word now that the floundering ADQ and Harper's dalliance with them is falling apart, that some of the party is looking to the Liberals given Conservative unpopularity. Fluid, they say. Imagine a Quebec bombarded with the worst kinds of attacks, against both the Bloc and the Liberals in whatever ad campaign the Conservatives have planned for Quebec, next. What would be the outcome of that poison brew?

And then... there's the real jazz, as in this guy, Patrick Watson, who apparently gave quite a show at the Montreal Jazz festival Sunday night. Here's some of it from the Gazette:



And a brief clip from the Youtubes:


If you can't be there, the next best thing. Short clips but he seems remarkably talented and was very well-reviewed. What a great night that must have been, feels like summer when the Jazz festival gets in full gear. And a nice break from all that stuff above...:)

Interview with Senator Al Franken

A post-victory (finally) interview with Senator Al Franken, given to a smaller Minnesota organization, The UpTake, who apparently were quite active in covering his recount & legal battles for the past many months. Funny in parts and you get a sense of how great it's going to be to see Franken in the U.S. Senate. A breath of fresh air. He says he'll be sworn in on Tuesday by VP Biden.

Ignatieff stampeding today

Yes to this:

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has blasted the Conservative government for using attack ads that suggest the Bloc Quebecois is soft on pedophiles, saying such tactics are "unworthy" of Canadian politics.

The Liberal leader criticized the ads while speaking to party supporters at an event in Calgary on Saturday.

...

Ignatieff sided with the Bloc on Saturday during a speech to Liberal party supporters at a Calgary Stampede breakfast.

"They're basically accusing the Bloc Quebecois of being soft on pedophiles," he said.

"I'm in politics to defeat the Bloc Quebecois with real arguments, rather than slurs and vicious . . . personal attacks. This is unworthy."

He also repeated a similar message in French.

"I will never descend to that level of attack because when we do this, we fragment our country, we divide our country. We create suspicion and fear and hurt, where there has to be healing."

Ignatieff addresses the other recent round of attack ads against him personally as well but that redress of the ten percenters being disseminated by the Conservatives in Quebec was well done. Highlighting Harper's negativity, appealing to a positive way of doing politics. There's a subtle national element to Ignatieff's remarks too, appealing for a heightened level of civil national discourse in our politics. Like it, think there's a very ripe opening here.

CP has more on the Ignatieff breakfast. The report notes that Harper's barbecue event at the stampede is this evening. People attending might want to follow this timely advice on proper etiquette...:)

The welcome wagon

New Ontario PC leader Tim Hudak gets a warm welcome from the voters, as you will see in this round of letters to the editor of the Star today. Not much love for Mr. Hudak's "get a grip" blunt force remark directed at the Toronto city workers on strike at the moment.

But wait, there's more of the warm and fuzzy Hudak today. Yes, could be a whole new segment of the population ready to get ticked off. This time at Hudak's seeming indifference to his lack of French speaking ability:

"My French is very poor," Hudak acknowledged after winning his party's leadership last weekend, suggesting that learning Canada's other official language is not a top priority.

"I've got a lot ahead of me. Certainly, that's on the list of projects, but we'll see what time allows in my new role," added Hudak, who must unite a divided party, come up with a policy platform and become better known to voters if he hopes to beat McGuinty at the polls in the 2011 election.

Not feelin' the respect there! In fact, not hearing any expression of good will toward the French speaking citizens of Ontario. At least the new NDP leader is demonstrating that courtesy and is committing to learn the language. Sounds like she cares. Hudak, not so much.

Maybe Mr. Hudak has missed his Politics 101 course, because he seems to have things backwards. He might like to try getting people to vote for him, as opposed to creating blocks of voters to line up against him.

Think he's going to be a fun new one to follow...

Friday night music

Caught this on my twitterfeed this week (upsides of Twitter). Had been totally unaware that OLP had a new album coming (see this site). Am a fan, always find myself listening to them when travelling especially...enjoy.

When a salute is not just a salute

Global video link from previous post expired...why do they do that? Oh well. We have Buckets on the job who has kindly provided the above YouTube version of the PM's insertion of himself into the military salute properly reserved for the commander in chief, the Governor General.

Fascinating to see how this little incident has galvanized attention. The PM may have stepped into something big here. What the PMO may have thought was a minor shift, a little pushing of the limits here that they could get away with that few would notice might become a tipping point in people's tolerance for such Conservative innovations. Not every occasion is suitable for partisan manipulation yet nothing seems to be off limits for the partisan PMO. This subtle move to encroach upon a prerogative of the Governor General is symbolic of the power grab that's all too typical of this Prime Minister. (It's also symbolic of the Conservative effort that we've seen to align themselves with all things military, courtesy of the influence of their Republican friends, by engaging in numerous military photo-ops for Harper.)

The little salute also illustrated a problem in Mr. Harper's government courtesy of James Moore's comments. Here's a Minister of the Crown in the Canadian government, in fact, the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Exposed as totally useless in his role as a guardian of that heritage. A prime example of the Harper cabinet pool of inexperienced yes men and women, unable or unwilling to say no to him. Moore is defeatist in his comments, totally deferential to whatever the PM wants to do.

You can't help but think that maybe the actors here, the Moores, the Governor General's protocol staff, perhaps untold government bureaucrats have just given up in the face of a tremendous push from the PMO to do such alien things. Maybe there's the sense on any given request, such as this one with the Governor General, that it's not worth engaging in a battle with the PMO over Canada Day festivities. It's not really about that though, it's about the toll that the creeping political vandalism committed by this government takes. This salute incident may have seemed like a small thing, but it really wasn't. It's part of a bigger story. Ultimately, the Canadian people are going to have to put a stop to it at the ballot box.

Update (7:45 p.m.): Analysis at The Torch.

Protocol breach

By the PM who stepped in and received the salute that is by protocol given to the commander in chief of the Canadian Forces, the Governor General. Video here of the Canada Day incident. (Update Friday p.m.: Go here for YouTube version of the video, previous link no longer operative.)

He's not an American President. Why won't anyone say no to this person?

Update (Friday a.m.): Letter to the editor of the National Post today with another perspective:

In watching the events from Ottawa on Canada Day, I was astounded to note that our Prime Minister took the salute from the military. This breach of protocol on our national day of celebration is an insult to our head of state, the Queen. In Canada, only the head of state or her representative, the governor-general, are entitled this honour. Michaelle Jean did receive a secondary salute; that should have indeed been the only one.

I've witnessed the erosion of royal prerogatives and protocol in the past three decades, but this latest infringement bears comment. We are a constitutional monarchy. If Stephen Harper wishes to emulate the protocol of our neighbour to the south and aspire to a quasi-presidential style of honours, I would suggest that he move to that republic. The term, "prime minister," in effect, states that the holder of that office is the first minister of the Crown and as such, he serves the Crown/the people.

My Canada includes the monarchy.

Regina Silva Robinson, Toronto.

One woman, one blog = Dean Del Mastro, skewered

Ann Douglas takes Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro to school. Please take the time to read this excellent post.

The referendum ballot that Del Mastro just conducted in his Peterborough riding, where he invested taxpayer funds to send ballots to 98,000 people in order to determine support for a private development project on Parks Canada lands is a stunning example of a sense of misguided priorities from this MP.

The referendum exercise meant barging in on a municipal process that was in place and functioning on its own, involving muncipal land.

It was conducted in utter ignorance of how a legally proper referendum should be run, i.e., independently of an interested party, to name just one aspect of the process that was problematic.

And it perhaps involved an attempt by the Conservative party to gather voter information for their database by requiring voters to include their names, addresses and telephone numbers on these ballots. What use has been made of these ballots?

Our MP either fails to recognize the implications of his actions - or he doesn't care. Either possibility is mind-boggling - and should serve as a wake-up call for citizens of this riding.

Hope that wake-up call has been loud and galvanizing in Peterborough.

Some Senators behaving more badly than others

From a CBC report this afternoon, big news, there's discord in the Senate! The gang can't agree on travel dates to visit various sites in Canada and two Conservative senators in particular can't seem to stop talking and disrupting the committee's operation. That's what you'll see on these videos of the committee's "work" that have now appeared on YouTube. Perhaps this is a new tactic of the ongoing Conservative campaign to undercut the Senate's reputation, the YouTube flank. If you watch the videos, however, you may come away with the feeling that the CBC report is a tad overdone. This is a vigorous meeting and it definitely has trouble functioning but that's clearly due to the Conservative disruption. Watch Senator Tkachuk in action in particular. Somehow he manages to put the "i" in committee.

On fresh starts

Preston Manning argues in an op-ed in the Globe today that "It's time for a fresh start in Parliament." I'd agree, although (predictably) not with some of the prescriptions Mr. Manning offers! It's just so difficult to accept criticism of partisan zeal from Conservative quarters. This is a government that knows few bounds in that regard. After the last few months of Conservative negative personal attack ads, we're now on to slimy 10 per centers being disseminated across the country. Remember that parliamentary manual on how to obstruct parliamentary committees, Mr. Manning? We could go on.

Some of Manning's appeal for a fresh start has to do with media coverage, he argues that legislative achievements are not getting their due in the press. I'm sure the appeal for the media to hold some kind of psycho-analytic retreat on how they can be more positive will go over swimmingly. If the media are negative, they're a symptom, not a cause. And media coverage seems to be a secondary consideration to many other more pressing issues in any event.

At first glance, his pitch on confidence votes might seem interesting to some. He suggests narrowing their usage as follows:

...some agreement to alter the “confidence convention,” so the only condition on which a government could be defeated in the House would be on an explicit motion of no-confidence moved for that purpose.

It's interesting, once again, to see narrowing of defeat options being advocated from Conservatives, just as Mr. Harper did last week. That would be in their electoral interest, certainly. And this could be interpreted as a dig by Mr. Manning at Mr. Harper inasmuch as such a move would cramp Mr. Harper's style, the confidence vote having been used by Harper for partisan purposes, not for the good of the legislative body and its work. So in that respect, perhaps one might be tempted to consider such a move. But with so much of what Manning suggests, what's really needed on this issue is not a changing of the confidence rules, but a change in who is able to deem what is a confidence vote and what is not. For many years we've survived in this country with the confidence vote measure being typically restricted to budgetary matters and extended to some important measures that go to the heart of a government's mandate. We trust our leaders to handle these constitutional conventions according to the respected traditions. There's flexibility there that we shouldn't lightly discard. It's Mr. Harper's responsibility that he's made it into a partisan plaything.

What's also missing in Manning's piece are issues like those raised in the Star's Sham-ocracy series. What about restoring confidence in the access to information system such that the government can't stifle access to the extent they're presently doing? What about opening up MP's expenses to the public (not to conduct witch hunts, they assure us it's all well-run in any event) and getting it online? There are a whole host of democratic reform initiatives that could be looked at as part of a practical slate of changes.

And the larger point, we need leaders who will respect the institutions of government and not treat the opposition like they're enemy territory, that will not treat the media like it's an irritant and that will not treat the courts like they're to be ignored. That will be positive, that will inspire us, give us a national vision. That would represent a fresh start.

"One of the world's most stable democracies"

Celebrate but with a sense of vigilance:

On this Canada Day, we celebrate, as the anthem puts it so well, this "glorious" nation — its history, its future, and its very nature as one of the world’s most stable democracies.

What we take for granted, the right to vote and have it fairly counted, to live in a land protected by rule of law, is but a dream for far too many people in other nations.

It’s a sobering reminder, as we look around the world today — to the repressive dictatorship of North Korea, the vote-stealing theocracy of Iran or the takeover by military coup in Honduras — that Canada’s system of government, despite its many faults, remains the envy of many people on this planet. (emphasis added)

Yes, we're envied but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't take time today to reflect on how our limits as a democracy have been pushed this past year, to an extent that was shocking. We don't need to rehash the historic events today, but I'm sure they'll cross quite a few minds.

As for the rule of law, we're seeing it tested and resisted on a too frequent basis in this country these days under this government. We need a government that won't have to be forced, kicking and screaming, to stand up for its citizens abroad. One that won't have to be forced into court repeatedly to live up to its obligations. Soon, I hope and maybe by the time the next Canada Day rolls around, that will be the case.

Have a good one!