O'Connor: Drunken Sailor?

It's always sketchy to criticize the price tag when it comes to defending troops in the field, but this figure leaps out at me:

Canada's defence minister says it's costing taxpayers $189 million to send re-enforcements, including Leopard tanks, to Afghanistan to support Canadian troops.

Gordon O'Connor told a House of Commons committee Tuesday night that includes the cost of sending the tanks, a team of engineers and a counter-mortar unit. "That's transportation, plus what was necessary to get all the equipment up to standard for operations," said O'Connor in reply to questions from opposition MP's.

Five of the 42-tonne monsters are already in operation with another 12 to be deployed in the next month.

Some military experts and others have expressed concern the Leopards could further alienate Afghans already suspicious of foreign troops.

This means it costs 11 million for each tank to be sent to Afghanistan. Put another way, we are spending 22 times more for a tank than McKay found necessary to assist the entire Afghan police forces($500000). I'm not a military tactican, but I don't see how you defeat a guerilla force with tanks. Given the enormous cost for marginal effectiveness, it begs the question again, are we spending money wisely or do we currently have a military blank check, at the expense of other avenues?

Any reasonable person should see a 200 million price tag just to send and re-tool a small tank unit as excessive. What if we pumped 200 million into the Afghan army instead? What about 200 million to help the Afghan government fight corruption and regain credibility? How about 200 million to guard the border with Pakistan? What about 200 million for villagers beholden to the drug trade, which the Taliban uses to great effect? No cure all, but probably more effective than a few tanks chasing ghosts.

The only rational explanation for the tanks, we need the armanent for troop transfer. I have read a couple pieces in the last few days that highlight the massive damage inflicted on our heavily armoured vehicles. The military was unprepared for this level of attack and are in desperate need of replacements. Are the tanks a way to provide heavy armour, in light of the large attrition? If true, O'Connor should say so, because then it is easier to swallow the huge expenditure.

Note
The expenditure isn't solely for the Leopard tanks, although the bulk, so my math is slightly exaggerated- the point is not.

Ignatieff's Idea Gains Traction

Ignatieff took a great deal of heat over his carbon-tax idea, despite the support of environmental experts. It was assumed that the idea was a non-starter, particularly in places like Alberta, and all the other candidates distanced themselves from the idea. It would appear, that Canadians are supportive of Ignatieff's crazy idea:

But it's still remarkable that an Ipsos Reid poll this week found that a small majority of Canadians, 52 per cent, endorse the idea of a carbon tax.

Even more noteworthy is that petroleum-rich Alberta, where political wisdom has it that any carbon tax would be an anathema that would fan Western separation, showed the third-strongest provincial support for the idea. It was 54 per cent, behind only B.C. with 55 per cent and Atlantic Canada with 59.

The poll also concludes that Canadians don't really understand the nuances of a carbon tax, but the word TAX certainly doesn't demand a learning curve. Speaking of curves, Ignatieff may well be ahead on this one, as it would appear the public is more receptive than first thought.

Ralph Klein responds to the Alberta findings in a typical way:

Premier Ralph Klein says he doubts a majority of Albertans would be willing to pay extra taxes to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions.

Klein was responding Tuesday to a media-sponsored poll in which more than 50 per cent of Canadians and a slighter higher percentage of Albertans said they would support a carbon tax on gasoline and other fuels to promote conservation. The premier described the Ipsos-Reid poll as insufficient because it didn't show how much people would be willing to pay to reduce emissions.

"You know it's nice to say that we would support a carbon tax, until you have to dig into your pocket and come up with the money," Klein said.

"So the question is will they support a carbon tax if it costs them $10 more a month or what if it's $100 more a month? We don't know."

Man of the people, until the people don't share the unchecked ideal of greed and unfettered expansion. The Alberta numbers are incredibly refreshing, and strangely responsible, given the perceived tension between environment and economy.

People understand taxes, so I don't think anyone can dismiss these findings as theoretical. Obviously, the idea of a carbon tax needs to be fleshed out, but the tax neutral position of Ignatieff is an excellent carrot and stick approach. I must admit, I was somewhat disappointed at the other candidates who ran away from Ignatieff's idea, primarily because it looked like a political albatross. Hopefully, polls like this one eliminate the stigma of a carbon tax and kudos to Ignatieff for having the courage to propose something that puts principle before politics.

UPDATE
Prairie Wranglers has an excellent entry on the topic.

Dion Had Better Be Second Choice

Two things about polls, you can't always trust them and the devil is in the details. The EKOS poll has been lauded as pure sunshine for the Dion campaign. While you can't dispute the fact that Dion is the clear second choice in the sample, this finding masks other serious problems for Dion:

Delegate Count:

Ignatieff 1309
Rae 881
Kennedy 751
Dion 694

Delegate Count Based on Probable Attendance(% of respondents likely to attend):

Ignatieff 1217
Rae 810
Kennedy 705
Dion 596

Delegate Count Based On Delegate Retention After First Ballot:

Ignatieff 1083
Rae 712
Kennedy 655
Dion 488

Dion scores lowest regarding his delegates actually showing up to the convention. Dion also scores lowest regarding his delegates remaining with him after the first ballot. Therefore, while Dion may be the preferred second choice, any delegates he could pickup may be countered by bad attendance and lost second ballot support. Interesting to remember, Dion is not likely to pickup considerable second choice support until the third ballot, by which time he may appear so far back that this strategy doesn't pan out.

Momentum will be a powerful force, and the above numbers may well hurt Dion's viability. People will not move en masse to a distant fourth, and in fact it may lead to further internal erosion. While this poll has some good news for Dion, I wouldn't recommend cartwheels, because a close inspection reveals glaring problems beyond the headlines.

Embarrassing Harper

The tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive:

The opposition has offered to sideline one of its own MPs so that Prime Minister Stephen Harper can attend a controversial meeting with European Union leaders this month in Finland without the threat of his minority government being defeated.

New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton made the offer in a speech Sunday to party officials and said there is nothing that now stands in the way of the prime minister living up to his international commitments.

Harper abruptly cancelled the planned meeting, and the first leg of a trip to Europe, last week amid suggestions that his EU counterparts would chastise Canada for abandoning its Kyoto Protocol targets to launch a plan that sets targets much further in the future.

The Prime Minister's Office said the decision to scrap the visit was based on Harper's feeling that he must look after the business of running the country, which means being present in the House of Commons..

You know the decision not to attend was abrupt, because the excuse offered was so patently lame. Layton calls out Harper, exposing the facade and leaving the government embarrassed. Harper loves to expose the virtue of leadership, but it would seem this only applies if the venue provides good soundbite and photo-op potential.

My sense of leadership also includes standing up in the face of adversity and offering a forceful counter. Harper makes Canada look petty, and more disturbing gives the impression that our government is run with a grade-school mentality. You might say bad things about me, so I'm taking my ball and going home.

I have heard Conservative apologists argue that is unfair for Harper to be subjected to criticism on Kyoto, when in fact the past Liberal government is too blame. I would remind the faithful, Rona Ambrose is on record saying that her Clean Air Act is a model for the world and something that the international community will look upon favorably. Therefore, Harper should relish the opportunity to present our vision, effectively blunting any criticism, as we offer a viable, "revolutionary" alternative. Any Kyoto talk is surely mute, if the Tory rhetoric is actually substantive. The fact no one in the government makes this point and Harper hides tells us all we need to know. You don't hide, unless you have something to hide, in this case our mirage of a plan.

The pattern is now solidified, this is a paranoid leadership that shys away from any forum which could turn negative. Obsessed with government run propaganda, there is no desire to allow freelancing and lose control of message. We saw it with the new media rules, we saw it with the memos dictating what can be said by Ministers, we saw it with the AIDS conference and now with the EU meeting. When you see someone so obsessed with message control and presenting a carefully crafted image, it makes you think they really do have something to hide. Harper operates as though he has a guilty conscious, wonder why?

Losing Afghanistan

Beyond the tough talk about standing firm and ultimate victory, the reality of Afghanistan is increasingly distancing itself from the rhetoric. Last week, we heard alarming talk of a Taliban winter offensive that would "push" into Kabul. Evidence that the war is widening:

NATO troops fought suspected Taliban insurgents northeast of Kabul today, Afghan and NATO officials said, in the first major encounter in the area since the strict Islamist group's government was ousted in 2001.

NATO officials said the clash in the Tagab valley, 70 km from the capital, erupted after an alliance convoy was attacked while hunting insurgents in the area, just east of the main U.S. base at Bagram airfield.

Speaking from a secret location, a Taliban spokesman said militants destroyed several NATO vehicles in the twisting valley, where rebel activity has picked up in recent weeks for the first time since a U.S.-led coalition overthrew the Taliban.

If the security situation around Kabul can't be guaranteed we move from quagmire to outright defeat. The Taliban are increasingly bold, not on the defensive as commanders suggest, but widening the conflict and taking the initiative. What is particularly frightening for Canada, the NATO response lags behind events on the ground and we are now trying to play catch-up.

There is no military solution in Afghanistan, and security will never be achieved by foreign troops. Admitting this reality is the first step in embracing a profound change in strategy. Someone needs to show courage and admit that our troops are accomplishing little on balance, and may in fact contribute to the Taliban resurgence. Afghans will never accept occupation, no matter the circumstance. The only hope for success lies in a massive infusion of capital to prop up domestic forces and re-construction. We can be stubborn and patriotic, but this "resolve" will be our ultimate undoing.

Harper Isolates Canada

Harper snubs European Union, and adopts the Bush theory of isolationism:

OTTAWA — Stephen Harper has surprised and annoyed European Union leaders by cancelling a planned Canada-EU summit, where he was going to be criticized for abandoning this country's commitment to the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.

Mr. Harper told Finnish Prime Minister Maati Vanhanen yesterday by telephone that he would not be able to attend the summit scheduled for Nov. 27.

The Prime Minister cited the need to remain in Canada as much as possible while the House of Commons is sitting, because the Conservatives enjoy only a minority government.

However, Mr. Harper still plans to travel to Hanoi later this month to attend a meeting of APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation) leaders. He will also be in Riga, Latvia, at the end of the month for meetings with the heads of NATO.

“The undertone is pretty bitter,” stated one European official who asked not to be identified.

There is widespread belief that Canada cancelled the meeting because EU officials announced that the question of Kyoto Protocol targets would be placed on the agenda.

European leaders are upset with the Conservative government's proposed Clean Air Act, which abandons Canada's pledge under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

A pretty transparent excuse for not attending, but what sort of a message does this send to our allies? It was just the other day that Rona Ambrose was bragging about the Clean Air Act showing the world how serious Canada was about emissions. Ambrose said the Act would do a great deal for Canada's reputation abroad. Apparently, the opposite is true and Canada now wishes to hide from scrutiny, as though embarrassed.

Harper's latest decision is similar to his no-show at the AIDS conference. Harper is more worried about appearances than participation, which isolates Canada. Harper's approach creates bad feelings, betrays our historic role and is scarily similar to the Bush administration tactics. There is nothing to be gained by alienating people, with the exception of short-term political expediency.

How ridiculous that we now have a government that effectively hides for the world, while simulateneously saying we are a key player on the world stage. Harper should endure any criticism and make the case for his plans, if they are so "ambitious" as Ambrose argues. Why the fear if the legislation is really how you present it? The fact we avoid our allies tells us all we need to know about the true nature of our position. Harper, the control freak, worries about his inability to mask the truth with his propaganda machine in the face of outside perception.

Rae's Astute Politics

If there is one thing Ignatieff needs it's to change the channel and get away from the constitutional debate. If there is one way to keep the heat on Ignatieff, it's best articulated by talking about the constitution where ever possible. Rae plays political advantage to a tee, with remarks that are clearly motivated to keep the focus on Ignatieff's liability:

OTTAWA (CP) - Leadership hopeful Bob Rae is warning Liberals that there is no appetite in the country for constitutional adventures or "abstract debates" over Quebec's identity.

While he wouldn't go so far as to say the Constitution should never be reopened, Rae made it clear Friday that it wouldn't happen under his watch.

There is no appetite in the country for this kind of an adventure. There simply is not that appetite there and the leadership of the country has to recognize that," he added.

"You should not raise expectations that cannot be met and we should not be engaging in an abstract debate in this country at this point in time. We should be focusing our attention on issues that really matter to people."

"I'm not somebody who is going to set this country on a constitutional adventure, whose consequences and whose outcome I'm not certain of," Rae said.

Keeping this issue at the center of the debate may not be the best thing for Liberals as a whole, but it certainly helps Rae's campaign. Rae portrays Ignatieff as an impractical dreamer, with loaded words like "adventure" and "abstract". Rae frames himself as the wise sage, that has seen it all and has the experience to realize the pitfalls. Contrasting his vision with Ignatieff is a powerful way for Rae to keep Ignatieff on the defensive, while he looks reasonable. You can argue about Rae's duplicity, but from a purely political perspective, the more he talks about the issue, the more it works in his favour.

Enough With The Blame

We now live in a society where every tragedy or misfortune becomes an exercise in the blame game. All too often the government becomes the easy target, as crafty lawyers cobble together coherent arguments to hold people responsible. It's like we can't accept anything bad, as we search for some utopian world where no one is every harmed and life is perfect. This entire legal ordeal is nonsense in mind:

Family and victims of West Nile virus cannot sue the Ontario government for failing to prevent its spread, the province's highest court ruled Friday.

In its ruling, the Ontario Court of Appeal said the provincial government could not have been expected to prevent an individual from contracting the disease.

“It is plain and obvious on the facts that have been pleaded that Ontario does not owe a private law duty of care to individuals to prevent the spread of (West Nile virus),” the Appeal Court ruled.

“The statement of claim should be struck.”

The ruling scuttles plans for a class-action suit launched by more than 40 families and victims of West Nile against the province.

Pat Anweiler, a Toronto nurse who uses a wheelchair for mobility because of an infection, said she was “distressed” that victims may now never have their day in court.

Can't tragedy be just that, and nothing more. Contacting a lawyer has almost become an involuntary response in the aftermath of any misfortune. Insurance costs soar, as everyone tries to innoculate themselves from liability. We search for perfection from people, but we know that the real world possesses no such quality. Could the government have done a better job making people aware of West Nile? Probably, but let the person who is infallible be the first to criticize. When tragedies occur, all I demand is a certain level of competence and an openness to do things better the next time. I don't demand the government hover over me and protect me from everything that might harm me.

Fear of liability has become a liability. On a personal note, I know first-hand that Canada's ability to respond to a bird flu epidemic will be weakened because the people on the frontlines are paralyzed by fear- no one wants to be the lighting rod. Practically, this means certain measures are ignored because you effectively stick your neck out, with the full knowledge that the blame game will be the final result. We are creating a society where people waste precious energy calculating the risk factors and liability, when they should simple plot the best course.

If I walk into city hall on a snowy day and slip because the floor was slippery, the real culprit is mother nature, not necessarily some lazy staffer who didn't react with lightning speed to protect the population from the horror of a wet floor. Sometimes people are to blame (i.e Walkerton), but often time competent people are ruined because we need a villian to counter the "victim". The government of Ontario is not to blame for a mosquito spreading a deadly virus, especially in the early stages of understanding. Could we have done more? Ask yourself that question to yourself everyday single day, and let me know the answer. Why do we hold OTHER people to the unrealistic level of perfection, when we know full well that our lives are riddled with flaws. Oh ya, and quit clogging up our court system with all these suits, while pedophiles walk free because of delays. Life and tragedy are the same entity, and the constant search for scapegoat is getting old IMHO. I'm going to walk my dog now, and everyone better hope that there isn't a crack in the sidewalk, because if there is and I fall and crack my collarbone, someone is going down.

Pathetic

If anyone wants to see an Environment Minister squirm and generally look incompetent, I highly recommend a viewing of Rona Ambrose's appearance on the CBC(Thursday, starting at 32 minutes). Ambrose, in what is sad spin, verging on pathetic, actually said:

"Ya, we are really excited that the NDP has suggested this, it is something we were hoping would happen. The Clean Air Act is really a good piece of legislation, that has strong substance to it...

It is going to committee, where all the opposition will have a say and I think that's great to see because I have always believed that on the environment, this should be beyond politics, beyond partisanship, so we are really excited.

Exciting isn't it? Unfortunately Ambrose's facial experience and insincerity didn't quite match the rhetoric, she looked like someone stole her lunch. I guess you have to conclude that Ambrose really couldn't have said anything else, she must try to spin this as some victory. The Conservatives were hoping Layton would threaten to bring down the government, okay I buy that. We welcome a collaboration that allows the opposition control, sure. The alternative answer- our legislation has been a massive flop, soundly rejected by all sides and thus we are now in damage control, so we accommodated the communists to dampen the horrible optics. "Excited" sounds better.

Ambrose then went on to pontificate about Canada's reputation, and how the Conservative initiative was demonstrating to the world how serious we are on emissions. If you pick up a seashell, not only can you hear the ocean, you can faintly hear the other side of the ocean and the accompanying laughter. Ambrose almost appeared delusional in her perspective. The overriding theme of this interview, "not ready for primetime". Calling Elizabeth May.

More Excited Than Worried

It's too early to draw any conclusions, and I think it important to maintain some level of skepticism, but I don't share the "apprehension" about where Layton's environmental powerplay will lead. The Pembina Institute issued the following press release on Tuesday:

Canadians should look to the opposition parties for federal leadership on reducing the emissions that cause global warming, the Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation said today...

"This government has run out of excuses," says Dale Marshall, climate change policy analyst with the David Suzuki Foundation. "The old lament that we can't afford to do anything about climate change has been hit with the cold, hard economic fact that we have to take action now or suffer dire economic consequences in the near future. In light of the government's failure to act with urgency on climate change, the good work by Canada's opposition parties is crucial in protecting Canadians from dangerous climate change."

Environmentalist groups have articulated some confidence in the opposition parties. Are we not now in a situation where the opposition dictates the parameters of this legislation? A quick quote from Duceppe sets the tone and should further allay any fears:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper agreed to an NDP request yesterday that the Clean Air Act go straight to committee before second reading, a procedural option that means MPs are free to amend the bill in any way they wish.

"We want to respect Kyoto's targets," Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe said. "We'll clean the Clean Air Act. Be sure of that. Stephen Harper won't recognize what he's proposing."

Duceppe denotes an opposition ready to roll up its sleeves and radically alter this legislation. I'm not an expert on parliamentary procedures, but it would appear the opposition now has carte blanche to do what they wish, with the Tories unable to prevent a massive overhaul. Isn't this an opportunity? If environmentalists have "confidence" in the opposition on Tuesday, shouldn't we welcome the fact that they control the agenda on Thursday?

Layton Gets Cool Response

Some interesting commentary on what Layton's manoeuvers in parliament mean:

Environmentalists are nervous about NDP Leader Jack Layton's deal with Prime Minister Stephen Harper to have a Commons committee rewrite the Clean Air Act.

Many activists are reluctant to criticize Layton, who they see as an ally, but they fear his initiative could shatter what had been a unified opposition strategy to bury the bill.

They also fear Layton's move will distract attention from a rival bill put forward by Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez that would require the government to respect the emissions-cutting targets of the Kyoto Protocol.

"Some people are apprehensive," Dale Marshall of the David Suzuki Foundation said Wednesday.

"The opposition was united around Kyoto and the Rodriguez bill and the government was clear it was only interested in delay.

"It was very clear where things were going. Now there's a lot more balls in the air and it makes people antsy..."

But one veteran activist said Layton's move will allow the Conservatives to escape a humiliating defeat in the Commons, since all opposition parties had vowed to vote against the Clean Air Act, and create new opportunities for delay.

"We had beaten them (the Conservatives) into a corner and now Jack has let them out," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May said that bringing the Clean Air Act into committee would give the government bill undeserved legitimacy.

"Saying that there's any hope of breathing life into this really appallingly bad legislation is confusing, and does appear to have given Harper new legs to say this bill is acceptable."

May suggested the New Democrats don't like to be seen as having the same policies as the Liberals, and Layton's move is intended to steal some of the limelight from the Rodriguez bill.

I agree that the government was backed into a corner, but I don't agree that the pressure is now off. We need to see how this whole process fleshes itself out, but if the opposition comes up with effective amendments that largely gut and rebuild the legislation, then Harper is forced to respond. If the government rejects the new approaches, they look worse than they do now. If the government accepts substantial changes that really tackle the issues, then this process has clearly been a positive development.

There are two choices, defeat the legislation and have nothing until after the next election, or try and craft something with teeth immediately. There are many unknowns, but I don't agree that this is merely a "stunt", it has a real chance to be relevant. Much will depend on how much the opposition compromises, to which I hope they remain firm. The true test will come after the committee process, to see if Layton wants to play politics and accept half-measures, or remains true to the NDP environmental plan. If this process is a mirage, then the opposition can simply walk away and defeat the legislation. Important to remember, Layton must live up to his environmental platform through this process. If politics look to trump the substance, then any support comes with great risk for the NDP, and I doubt they are willing to cede ground to the upstart Greens. In other words, the political dynamics may keep everyone honest and prevent spin and bad framing to score points. Let's hope so.

American Press: Harper's "Star Fading"

Several American publications have a story, detailing the Harper slide:

Canadian Conservatives who hitched their wagons to the White House are finding their popularity fading with those of their allies in Washington.

The drop in Harper's popularity appears mainly due to a foreign policy that appears too aligned with Washington and the deaths of 34 Canadian soldiers this year in Afghanistan as part of the U.S.-led war on terrorism.

Some observers believe that once the Liberal Party chooses its new national leader in early December, Harper's government could be ripe for toppling...

Nothing new here, but it is interesting to see the outside perception.

Layton's Gambit Pays Dividends

Hard to see the negative in this development:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has agreed to an NDP demand to put his Clean Air Act before a Commons committee, where the opposition will try to change it radically.

NDP Leader Jack Layton made the demand during a meeting with Harper late Tuesday, saying the minority Conservative bill was "dead in the water" because the opposition parties would vote it down.

Layton threatened to put a non-confidence motion before the Commons on Thursday if Harper refused his demand.

The bill will now go through the unusual step of being reviewed by an all-party committee before second reading, where it's expected to be overhauled by critics who say it doesn't do enough to slow global warming.

Cynicism aside, Layton’s gambit appears to be paying off. No matter what Harper’s motivations, this government has now committed himself to high-profile negotiations in committee. Any failure to reach agreement will undermine the Conservative position, as the opposition will rally around drastic change. If Harper is using this olive branch for simple appearances, then this process will expose the manipulation.

Good on Layton. Potentially good for the environment. I don’t see the negative in all party discussion to formulate an acceptable agenda. Compared to the alternative of nothing, a positive development indeed.

Bring Them Down

If Layton is forced to table a non-confidence motion on Thursday, I think the Liberals should support it. From a moral point of view, this issue cuts to the heart of whether or not this minority parliament should survive. From a strategic point of view, I can't envision a better scenario to take the case to the Canadian public.

I understand some trepidation in forcing an election while in the midst of a leadership struggle, but I see this condition as opportunity. The conventional wisdom seems to be that the Harper government will orchestrate its own demise after the spring budget. Given the favorable economic conditions, we can all expect this budget to offer a litany of goodies that the government will use to advantage. Do you allow Harper to dictate the terms, or do you force an election based on the achilles heel? Every poll I have seen shows the Tories score lowest on their environmental policy. I would think the opposition should relish the opportunity to make this issue the central theme in the next election.

Please cite one historical example, wherein a party doesn't receive a bounce in the polls in the aftermath of a leadership race. The spectre of a convention, within the confines of an election campaign is pure gold in terms of momentum. I don't see the leadership as a distraction that can be exploited by Harper, but a great opportunity to frame the Liberal Party in a positive light. So long as the fight keeps an eye on the big picture, Liberals are guaranteed positive coverage for the bulk of the election. Liberal after Liberal hammering the government, in front of a rapt audience, broadcast throughout Canada. I am hard pressed to find the negatives in such a scenario.

Back to the moral angle. Layton has forced the government hand, and how the government reacts should dictate the response. If Layton's proposal to allow ALL opposition parties the power to propose amendments to the current Green Plan is rejected, then Harper effectively rejects the minority concept and this parliament has no realistic hope of achieving anything. Presently, the situation is so ridiculous, we have the unprecedented circumstance where the government filibusters itself. The Liberals must forget about Layton's motivations and vote on the spirit of the motion. Do Liberals have any confidence in this government to deal with climate change? From all the rhetoric the answer is clearly no, so I don't see how the Liberals can ethically prop up the government to stop the NDP motion. If Harper doesn't offer an olive branch on this file, then the Liberals are obligated to vote for the non-confidence on principle. Bring them down, on our terms, with the knowledge that the perceived weakness of a leaderless party is really a hidden blessing.

Beware Ottawa Area Trick or Treaters

There's a new sheriff in town. Scarrrryyy.

Good On Layton

I don't care if Harper spins. I don't care if Layton sees political opportunity. What I do care about is achieving some environmental plan that actually has some teeth:

Layton charged that greenhouse gases and pollution won't go down for at least 15 to 20 years under the Conservative plan.

"That's why I made an offer yesterday to the prime minister to sit down together and come up with a plan to tackle climate change that could actually pass this house," Layton said Tuesday.

But it's not clear whether Harper is willing to negotiate a rewrite to his plan for dealing with smog and climate change.

Layton also announced Tuesday that he tabled a private member's bill, which targets climate change.

"Under this act, action to reduce dangerous gas emissions begins immediately, and the government will be forced to put in place targets within the six months of it being adopted," Layton said.

In the short-term, the government would be required to publish a plan for interim targets for every five years, as well as regulations published no later than one year from now.

In the mid-term, the act legislates a target of 25 per cent reduction by 2020 while the long-term targets legislate an 80 per cent reduction of green house gas emissions by 2050.

"It's time for this minority parliament to get work done. We need a plan that addresses climate change today, and this act, which I will be discussing with the prime minister later today, will put Canada on the right track," Layton said.

Where is the harm in Layton attempting to give this legislation some substance? Why are Liberals approaching this from a partisan perspective? How can anyone who cares about the environment thumb their nose at Layton's overture? The bottomline, if Layton pulls this off, we all benefit, so I say GO FOR IT. I could care less who comes off smelling like a rose and who looks relevant and I'm pretty sure most Canadians would agree. If Layton can move Harper, then I say job well done.

Ban Canada From Kyoto Talks

Clearly, the time has come for Canada to withdraw from the Kyoto talks and let serious nations continue their work. Canada is now poised to undermine next week's discussions:

OTTAWA (CP) - Canada wants to go back to the drawing board on plans for dealing with global warming when countries that have signed the Kyoto Protocol open new talks in Africa next week.

The federal government will seek a "comprehensive review" of the 1997 treaty when negotiators from 165 countries meet in Nairobi, Kenya, federal officials told a background briefing Monday.

Canada wants to focus on "the longer term," said officials, who cannot be identified under the rules of the briefing.

But critics say federal strategists are actually looking for a way to escape existing promises and stall progress.

"They want to find a way out of their commitments," said John Bennett of the Climate Action Network. "They're looking at a way to redo the whole protocol."

The Conservatives are undercutting the genuine efforts of other committed countries to save political face. Ambrose wants to argue that Canada is working with other Kyoto nations, but our stance works to derail the entire process. How ironic, that on a day when Tony Blair sounds the environmental alarm bell, advocating immediate action, we head to the talks armed with stall tactics.

I hope other nations begin to demand Ambrose resign her influential position and publicly embarass this cynical politicism. This government hates Kyoto, but appears willing to use our presence to thwart domestic criticism. Think about how ridiculous it is to attend talks aimed at future targets and demand a review of a nine-year old resolution. What an absolute embarassment that demands someone finally call us out. Canada should be barred from these talks, because we are effectively the fox in the henhouse.


UPDATE

The audacity is almost funny.

Liberals And Baggage

Interesting interview with Kennedy in The Hill Times. I would like to focus on this comment, as it relates to his perceived weakness in French:

I'm simply getting more performance capability in French and I have accepted that as a challenge and I'm starting to demonstrate that clearly as something that I can do. Most people in the race are seen to have a drawback or two, that's my principal drawback. It's one that I can fix and people can judge for themselves where others may not be as fortunate."

This statement articulates exactly why I view Kennedy as the most electable, all things being equal. Kennedy's "baggage" isn't necessarily permanent, nor is it firmly entrenched. Kennedy's weakness is something he can "fix", a work in progress. No fair commentator can draw any long term conclusions about Kennedy and Quebec because the dialogue is still in its infancy. The point, Kennedy's "baggage" can easily be shed.

I watched an excellent interview with Bob Rae on the CBC last night. Rae was thoughtful, articulate and his usual charismatic self. The problem, half the interview was spent rehashing the past, in what has become a worrisome pattern. What have you learned Bob? If you could do it over again, what would you do here? Have the mistakes of the past made you wiser? For a party desperate to move forward, the last thing we need is too be sidetracked by conversations about the past, particularly the unpleasant experience of another party. I sincerely worry about the possibility of the next election turning into a referendum on Rae, rather than a discussion about the future of the country. It is important to take the perspective of the opposition, and if I were a Conservative strategist I would relish the opportunity to pour over the Rae record and embarrass him at every turn, making the fight purely defensive. Rae himself has admitted that the media seems obsessed with his past, the question then becomes, why would this reality change in a general, especially with the other side feeding the flames?

Dion's baggage is well-known. While it appeared that Dion was able to re-invent himself somewhat in the summer, the last while has given us painful examples of the old fights blemishing the need for renewal. Do we give the Conservatives a pass on the environment, their chief weakness, by presenting the man who will be forced to defend the abysmal Liberal record. I don't care what any defender says, the record was horrible, too little too late and Canadians largely agree. I envision a scenario where the Tories are allowed a forceful counter to any Dion arguments and the whole issue is lost in the flurry of charges and counter-changes. 13 years, 13 years. Listen to the debates in the Commons, the Tories make no secret of their tactics to neuter the Liberals- and they do it effectively, because the evidence isn't kind. To say, "there were items on my desk ready to sign" is a weak defence and I doubt it will resonate well with anybody. On Quebec, it would appear the whiskers are returning in the French media and the old hurdles will hurt Dion, particularly because he seems proud to mention the names of the vilified.

Ignatieff seems to acquire baggage at an alarming pace. I'm not going to re-hash all the missteps and the fallout, but for a man so new to the political arena the mounting negatives are objectively eye opening. I really like Ignatieff, I don't share the venom others have for him, but this race is a trial run and so far the results should give us all pause.

All this leads me back to Kennedy's comment. Everyone has challenges, but the question, which ones can be overcome and which are destined to haunt? If we want a new image, with a new agenda, that can speak to the future through a clear lens, then Kennedy is a slam dunk juxtaposed against these other men. Kennedy's biggest baggage revolves around an open question, which seems a far cry better than re-hashing old answers.

McKay Offers Peanut To Starving Elephant

On the surface, investing in the Afghan security forces is something I applaud. However, when the allocation insults your intelligence, it makes you wonder if our government gets it:

Faced with mounting criticism that Canada's role in Afghanistan is all war and no aid, the Foreign Affairs Department has taken the unusual step of purchasing basic equipment for roughly 2,000 Afghan National Police officers.

A tender was issued last week asking for Canadian companies to bid on providing everything from light protective vests and belts to boots and flashlights.

Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay, in an interview with The Canadian Press, acknowledged it's the first time his department has been directly involved in the delivery of this kind of support in the Afghan mission.

But he denied that opposition party pressure and mushrooming anti-war protests had anything to do with the $500,000 purchase.

The absence of a stable, competent and reasonably equipped police force is one factor contributing to the growing insurgency, said MacKay.

"Let's not be naive, we've been in some cases competing directly with recruitment efforts by the Taliban and by those (engaged in) the heroin trade," he said.

"If Afghan citizens are to enlist in policing and armed forces, we have to give them the necessary equipment and better working conditions."

McKay acknowledges the importance of a dependable domestic police force, but unfortunately contradicts the premise by offering a pitance. Does anyone believe a half million dollars matters in the grand scheme? Does McKay expect us to see this initiative as substantive? Add two or three zeros and it might make a difference.

If our mission is too succeed, then pouring massive sums of money into the Afghan security appartus is essential. I think Canadians would fully support a huge infusion of money into equipping and training the Afghan police and army. McKay offers some timid tender and frames it as though it addresses the problem. If this initiative is representative of how our government prioritizes, we are in a world of trouble. The amount of money allocated suggests more damage control than genuine urgency.

Dangerous Signs

Historical precedent would suggest a relative pause in insurgent activity over the coming Afghan winter. The fact we now hear talk of "winter offensives" should give everyone pause as to the situation:

The Observer newspaper says the Taliban show no signs of winding down for winter.

"The Taliban are planning a major winter offensive combining their diverse factions in a push on the Afghan capital, Kabul, intelligence analysts and sources among the militia have revealed," the British newspaper reported Sunday morning.

The insurgent Taliban forces have a stronghold around Kandahar, the country's second largest city, and are reported to be winning both the military conflict and the battle for hearts and minds of Afghans.

Typically, warring groups in Afghanistan take most of the winter off and concentrate on warmth and shelter.

But new tactics adopted from foreign fighting groups -- such as suicide bombings, roadside bombs and targeted assassinations -- make it easier for insurgents to continue their campaign during the most difficult weather conditions.

A "push" on Kabul? On of the major criticism of the Afghan government, Karzai is more the mayor of Kabul than the leader of the country. If the Taliban feels so emboldened to target Kabul, it serves as further proof of how grave the situation has become. If NATO forces were actually winning, then the Taliban would be focused on re-grouping and simply maintaining their sphere of influence. However, the Taliban thinking belies expansionist tactics and the confidence to carry on in the winter.

If the security situation in Kabul becomes unstable, precious coalition resources will have to be diverted to the capital, much the same as we currently see in Iraq. What a complete mess if NATO forces were forced to defend the capital in a more vigorous way. Hard to be on the offensive, eradicating Taliban, when forced to defend already held areas. The rhetoric from the Taliban is bold, aggressive and unparalleled. The danger for Canada, we have a government that sees stubbornness as a virtue, while a fluid situation evolves.