Liberals Look to 2006 Strategy After 2008 Disaster?

The Liberals, and their cheerleaders in the Toronto media, simply don’t get it! From a strictly strategic point of view, I’ve seen this time and time before in the business world — a former market leader, trounced by a new and innovative successor, tries something new for the sake of new and falls flat on its face before coming to the conclusion that the bland, old ways of doing things can work again if only the effort is really sincere.

Enter Lawrence Martin, whose political insights are so honed, that he’s joining Frank McKenna in giving the Tories the upcoming Red playbook months before the next election! Misjudging 2008’s election results as too ideologically fought, the Liberal Party of Canada has, following McKenna’s lead, abandoned the principle notion for the good ol’ strategy of fear-mongering. “Just bring out Harper’s old quotes!” they say, as if that is some magical panacea that will bring the Liberals back above 100 seats in the Commons.

Just as Yahoo!, Eaton’s, Sony and MySpace all found out though, times change! It’s one thing to, for example, refer to a 1997 quote from the Prime Minister about our need to get rid of the Canada Health Act, but another to follow the argument though on why this means the incumbent entering his fourth year in office needs to be turfed. Garble up the “second tier” quote as they will, the Liberals will also have a hard time explaining how their leader was more recently condoning the use of torture.  This isn’t 2000 anymore…for that matter, it isn’t even 2006 anymore where the Liberals could still rely on a certain level of incumbent comfort among the electorate.

In this new era, it is the Tories who can, and have been, making the arguments against the unknown and untested. Unlike the Liberals though, they haven’t been tied down with a scandal as big as the Chretien-era AdScam issue, and still have some degree of principle over the Liberal Party. The best that a Liberal scorched earth campaign could do is, perhaps, spook a few voters in Toronto, for all the good it will do. The rest of the country, nay world is concentrated right now on the bread and butter issues. Chretien survived the Somalia Inquiry without a scratch; Harper will get by these torture issues just fine. As for what will win the election — taxes, jobs, stability — what have the Liberals said, other than a leader’s musings last April in Cambridge (Ontario, not Mass.; just needed to make that clear!) about the need to raise taxes. That’ll be a winner…for a 2nd tier party competing with the NDP right now!

Demand more subsidies for the North!

The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy has just put out a report called “True North: Adapting Infrastructure to Climate Change in Northern Canada” jumps on the sexy environmental alarmism bandwagon to conceal what amounts to nothing more than a shill for more subsidies.

Eminent Domain, Property Rights and the Results of Government Theft

The other day, I wrote about the most recent development in what can best be described as the Kelo Affair – about how the government decided to take people’s homes not because of blight or because the buildings were fit to be condemned, but because politicians decided they knew it’d be better to transfer the land to someone else.

Consequently, where once stood a neighbourhood now stands a vacant lot.

Today, in New York, the courts have struck another blow against property rights and liberty.  The use of eminent domain to facilitate the Atlantic Yards development has been upheld by New York’s Court of Appeals.  This means that, thanks to the appropriation of private property, the New Jersey Nets will have a new arena.

After I wrote about Kelo, Richard Albert was kind enough to send along another viewpoint on the situation.  Thomas Merrill, a law professor at Yale, writes, in part:

Those who support urban redevelopment efforts will say that the very controversy generated by the Kelo decision and the artificially hyped political backlash are what killed off the New London project. The New London project was designed to capitalize on the Pfizer project, not to induce it. And it included a number of traditional public uses, like a marina, a walkway, a proposed Coast Guard Museum and public parking for the museum and the adjacent Fort Trumbull park.

Now, the entire project appears to have collapsed, leaving an eyesore. The economic downturn has much to do with this. But the expense and delay of litigation over the use of eminent domain and the negative publicity associated with the political backlash were surely significant contributing factors, as they surely were in Pfizer’s decision to pull out. So the legacy of the anti-eminent domain crusade, at least for New London, is a vacant Pfizer building and a desolate plot of ground next door.

I do not believe that this sad episode means we should overturn Kelo and ask federal judges to arbitrate questions about when eminent domain should be used. The solution is not to nationalize eminent domain, but to localize it. If a proposed project is one that will have primarily local benefits — like economic development — then local citizens should decide whether to pursue it, not some state redevelopment agency or the governor’s office.

Richard was wise to send this to me, as he knows that empowering local governments is a cause close to my heart, and, thus, I agree that eminent domain is generally best employed by local government.  However, Prof. Merrill’s argument doesn’t quite sway me.  Any backlash, however dismissively described, must be considered when invoking eminent domain.  Whatever the intentions of a government, we can’t assume that they will be realized.

If you are wondering why I am so fixated on issues involving eminent domain, it is because they hit very close to home, literally.  I currently live blocks away from Lebreton Flats – some fields in the heart of Ottawa that have been home to little more than a transitway, some gravel parking lots and snow piles for the last forty years.

Recently, development has been started.  A few years ago, Canada’s War Museum was relocated to a new building in Lebreton Flats.  More recently, a condo development has opened.  Plans are in place, and these should just be the first steps in creating a new community adjacent to downtown.  Until a few weeks ago, I had no idea that this would not be the first community at Lebreton Flats.

In the mid 19th Century, a community grew in Lebreton Flats.  It was a mixed residential area that supported Ottawa’s lumber industry.   It was destroyed in the Great Fire of 1900, but was rebuilt and would survive for another six decades.  It would survive until local and federal governments decided it should be razed.

It survived until governments decided they had a better use for it than the residents.

It survived until politicians decided they did not want a blue collar neighbourhood within site of Parliament Hill.

Development has finally started again, half a century after the previous residents were evicted, but the development is not without controversy.  The government has meddled in the sale of Lebreton Flats and has gamed the system to benefit a favoured corporation.  By the time the corruption was caught, no other entity was interested in developing the land.  Rather than allowing the public to shape their own city, politicians have forced a sub-optimal development plan on Ottawa.

Everyday, I walk by Lebreton Flats.  I walk along it while I go to work.  I walk through it on my way to church.  I see it every time I go downtown.  I see it every time I drive anywhere.  The life of Lebreton Flats is gone.  The few blocks that survived are now considered a heritage district.  This distinct and thriving neighbourhood, born before our nation, is a ghost.  This part of my beloved home town has been stolen from me, and everyday I am reminded of the theft.

In the wake of the most recent news of the Kelo Affair, Alex Tabbarok wrote, “Those who would sacrifice property rights to development end up with neither.”  I submit that Mr. Tabbarok is being optimistic if he thinks that is all that we would lose.

We Demand a Public Inquiry into Torture

ThePolitic’s favourite Ordinary Gentleman, Scott H. Payne, has decided he’s had enough of just writing about the Afghan torture/Richard Colvin affair.  He doesn’t like what’s going on, and he wants to see a public inquiry into the matter.  Accordingly, he has started an online petition:

Whereas, on November 18 former senior Canadian diplomat to Afghanistan Richard Colvin testified in front a House of Commons committee stating that most if not all Afghans handed over to Afghan authorities by Canadian forces in Afghanistan were subject to torture; and

Whereas, Colvin wrote as many as 17 memos via the appropriate channels attempting to alert the appropriate authorities reaching as far up as one of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s senior security advisers to the likelihood of Canada’s complicity in enabling the torture of Afghans via the appropriate channels of communications that have been heretofore ignored; and

Whereas, despite a long and distinguished career of service to his country, the Harper government has responded to Colvin’s testimony in a dismissive and cavalier fashion and has explicitly questioned Colvin’s credibility instead of addressing his concerns; and

Whereas, the government of Canada has not only failed to adequately address Colvin’s testimony, but has also acted in a questionable and potentially obstructionist manner towards a Military Complaints Commission whose purpose was to address those concerns; and

Whereas, the Canadian government has a history of failing to notify the Red Cross of any prisoner transfers in Afghanistan in a timely fashion; and

Whereas, the use of torture techniques by Afghan authorities in places like Kandahar is understood to be standard operating procedure; and

Whereas, the use of torture techniques on prisoners is morally abhorrent and anathema to the values of Canadian society and government;

Therefore, we the undersigned citizens of Canada demand that the government of Canada submit to and coordinate a full public inquiry into the serious allegations and concerns that have recently come to light around Canada’s involvement in delivering Afghan prisoners into conditions of torture by Afghan authorities.

We’ve had our own little debate about the matter, so I thought I’d let all our readers know in case they wanted to sign the petition.  Normally, I don’t bother with online petitions, but, considering that I decided to stir things up the other day, I thought I would, pace Scott, put my money where my mouth is.  So I signed his petition.

Apple Warranties Compromised By Tobacco?

(Full disclosure: I own an iPhone, which is both amazing and meh. If you own one you know what I mean.)

If you own any Apple products and subject them to tobacco smoke on a regular basis, you may be interested to learn that according to this site Steve Jobs himself considers this to be a bona fide breach of your warranty, despite no language indicating this potential to void in the warranty itself. You might want to try a little Fabreeze before taking your product in for service.

The Madness of Copenhagen

If you can, read this — probably the single most concise display of comprehensive environmental illness:

«Le Canada devrait s’engager à proposer: une diminution de 25% en cible absolue des émissions de gaz à effet de serre des pays industrialisés par rapport à 1990 d’ici 2020; la nécessité de limiter la hausse des températures de la planète en deçà de 2 °C par rapport aux niveaux de l’ère préindustrielle; un appui aux pays en développement dans leurs efforts de réduction de gaz à effet de serre et d’adaptation aux changements climatiques», dit la motion.

To demand that a government reduces the temperature of the planet alone is enough to warrant commital to an insane asylum for the sake of not only the health of the person demanding it but also for the safety of the rest of the citizens who will be forced to suffer at the consequences of whatever absurd policy will be used to target the impossible.

Anybody who has the power — CORRECTION: Anybody who is so deluded that he thinks he has the power to reduce the planet’s temperature and the moral prerogative to act with said power is dangerous to himself and other people. Only God has the power to reduce the Earth’s temperature. Sheesh.

If Quebeckers and Federal Socialists want to reduce their dependence on oil, they can cut their oil use themselves. There is no excuse for such climate change hysteria. Canadians should ignore the Copenhagen conference on climate change and tell the environmentally ill to fly a kite — in a lightening storm.

Fantastic News: U.S. War Deserter Allowed to Stay in Canada

It’s not a final decision, but a federal court has ordered the Refugee Board re-consider the case of Skyler James (previously known as Pte. Bethany Smith).  Ms. James is a U.S. war resister, who was to have been deployed to Afghanistan as a mechanic.

I won’t get into all the arguments for allowing Ms. James to remain in Canada (I previously wrote about her case here), but for those of you who have missed this story, Pte. Smith was serving at Fort Collins.  A lesbian, she enlisted via the offensive and illiberal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) policy, and was outed by her fellow soldiers.  Consequently, her life was threatened.

Under DADT, a soldier who is outed is to be granted a discharge.  The U.S. army, needing more bodies for their various wars, decided that could wait until after her tour… after she was shipped to Afghanistan to serve with people who wanted her dead.

Until the United States repeals this sexuality-based caste system, Canada should welcome any deserters who were forced to flee after being outed.  In the meantime, I’m happy Ms. James is safe in my hometown.  I’m proud that my country is protecting her.  It is now up to the Refugee Board to stand up against injustice.

By the way, Kyle at Vogue Republic presents a good argument against DADT here.

Stay out of Cuba

Despite the contraction in the title, I like this National Post editorial: Don’t go to Cuba. Finally, some Canadians have the courage to publicly ostracize this vacation destination.

I have never been to Cuba and I have never wanted to go precisely because of their evil communist government. Everybody who spends their money in Cuba is subsidiizing the evil human rights abuses that occur there. Shame on you all.

Canada was Complicit in Torture, Diplomat Says

Well, the news is here.  After the Conservatives failed to keep Richard Colvin silent or ignored, we learn that Canada may have sent Afghan prisoners to be tortured.  Mr. Colvin, a diploma with Foreign Affairs, described a pattern of misbehaviour among Canadian officials in Afghanistan that facilitated torture.

Colvin said he was specifically told by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former foreign affairs adviser, David Mulroney, to use the phone instead of putting anything in writing about prisoner abuse, which Colvin said contradicted Canadian policy and international law against surrendering to the risk of torture.

“There was indeed a policy, but behind the military’s wall of secrecy, that’s exactly what we were doing,” said Colvin, who is now the deputy head of intelligence at the Canadian Embassy in Washington.

Unsurprisingly, the Conservatives and military brass have a bit of a different take on the subject.

The Conservative government and senior military brass were in full damage control Thursday as they sought to discredit accusations from a top diplomat that Canada turned a blind eye to reports that Afghan prisoners were tortured after Canadian soldiers surrendered them to local control.Defence Minister Peter MacKay dismissed Richard Colvin’s allegations that virtually all Afghan prisoners were tortured as “nothing short of hearsay, second- or third-hand information, or that which came directly from the Taliban.”

As MacKay went on the offensive in the House of Commons, the recently retired head of Canadian forces overseas, Lt.-Gen. Michel Gauthier, said there was no way that Canada would have knowingly participated in a “war crime” of handed over detainees to torture.

So, who do we believe?  The Liberal’s Foreign Affairs critic, Bob Rae, suggests we should trust Richard Colvin’s account:

Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae said that [Defence Minster Peter] MacKay’s attacks on Colvin — a man who is now Canada’s head of intelligence at the Canadian embassy is Washington and presumably considered credible enough to hold the senior post — are “reprehensible.”

Rae also pointed out that MacKay contradicted himself in the Commons by insisting that Colvin’s story was “full of holes,” but then later saying that the diplomat’s concerns played a part in Canada’s decision to strengthen its transfer-of-prisoners arrangement in 2007 to allow for followup visits to ensure detainees weren’t tortured.

My guess is that Colvin’s story is a little embellished.  Without any corroboration, I’m hesitant to believe that the Canadian establishment in Afghanistan was so completely infested with corruption and criminal activity.  Nonetheless, on the whole, I’m ready to side with Mr. Colvin.  The government’s argument is weak and implausible.  It seems unrealistic that no prisoners whom Canada turned over to Afghan authorities were tortured.  Mistakes are going to happen, sadly, but the Conservatives’ offensive is just a little bit too much.

Even if the government was not complicit in any wrongdoing by senior officials in Afghanistan, its refusal to properly confront this issue after the fact makes them accomplices.  If they want to return to side of the righteous, they must make sure that this never happens again; they must take the NDP’s advice and create some sort of public investigation.

It is imperative that any investigation be public.  Stephen Harper’s government has already made too much of an effort to hide inconvenient testimony to be fully trusted to take care of this matter on their own.

Moreover, considering that Canadian investigators in Afghanistan are willing to turn a blind eye to the rape of children – even when our soldiers alert them to the tragedy – how can the public trust them to ever hold the guilty accountable?

Is Ottawa Waging War on Children? (Updated)

The city of Ottawa is debating whether or not children are of lesser value than other residents, at least that is the crux of the proposal from the city’s transit committee.  The committee is suggesting new regulations be adopted that will severely restrict access to the city’s publicly subsidized bus system, OC Transpo, for parents with strollers.

This may seem like a trivial issue (and, generally speaking, I don’t discuss local concerns on ThePolitic), but there are lessons to be learned from this scenario that are applicable to politics in general.

The argument in favour of the new restrictions stems from the nuisance that large strollers can cause on crowded buses.  A fair concern, but incomplete and maliciously manipulated.  The city and OC Transpo already have rules in place to deal with the issue of strollers (and any other devices that can block aisles), however, these regulations are completely ignored by passengers and bus drivers, alike.  Further, the regulations are so ridiculously convoluted that they are, essentially, void.

If this was merely an issue of poor management, there might be an easy solution.  However, the city is being deceitful.  They are not addressing the general concern of blocked aisles; they are putting up obstacles for children and parents using strollers.  They are pitting parents against seniors and the disabled (the other people who enjoy priority seating privileges).  They are calculating that, rather than address the poor performance of the bus system and its drivers, they can just target a nuisance group and claim to be improving matters.

This entire situation is a mess.   The city has allowed the service level of OC Transpo to become alarmingly deteriorated.  Drivers, in general, demonstrate little concern for their responsibilities, their passengers and the rules of the road.  Nonetheless, when issues with OC Transpo arise, the drivers tend to get a free pass (thankfully, this was not the case last winter during a crippling strike in which the drivers were attempting to extort the city).  The city, in its infinite cowardice, does not attempt to fix the root causes of the deficiencies in OC Tranpso’s service; they just try to find scapegoats.

Perhaps the most egregious aspect of the situation is that we, the city taxpayers, are forced to pay for all this.  For some reason, it is heresy amongst some city politicians and activists to suggest that bus riders should pay the full monetary price of their bus service (they would still have the privilege of special lanes, special lights and, likely, friendly traffic cops).  So, parents of small children are forced, coerced, to give their money to the city to fund a service for which they will be arbitrarily excluded from using.  Their children are deemed less worthy, less meaningful, than other people.  Sure, it’s no caste system, but it’s not exactly the liberal ideal of equality, either.

It kinda makes you think that we shouldn’t have a mass subsidized transit company.

Sadly, there is probably little that can be done.  The mismanagement of this city is in full stride.  We haven’t had a competent mayor (or mayoral candidate) since Jim Watson, and this council doesn’t have the best record of acting responsibly.  I’m guessing they’ll keep confiscating our money and kicking us off the bus.

For those in Ottawa who are free tomorrow morning, there will be a rally at City Hall.

By the way, before anyone decides to make this personal, though I own a stroller, I have never used it, even when riding a city bus.  I have a mild hatred for large strollers and would love for most people to abandon them.  However, that’s not the point.  The point is, citizens should not have their money taken to support a government service, then be arbitrarily discriminated against by the government in delivery of that service.

UPDATE: The city transit committee has decided against adopting the new policy.  From The Ottawa Citizen:

After hearing from parents who said that folding the strollers would be cumbersome and difficult, especially in winter, the committee instead passed a motion Wednesday that states open strollers are allowed in the aisle “unless they interfere with other passengers or with the safe movement of passengers within the transit vehicle.”

The decision to allow an open stroller in the aisle will be left to the driver, as is the case now. Wheelchairs will receive priority in wheelchair spaces.

…

Councillor Georges Bédard, who put forward the motion to continue allowing strollers in the aisle, said he thought it was unreasonable for parents to have to fold their strollers if there is room on a bus and an area where they can access the aisle without impeding passengers or affecting safety.

“It’s always difficult when you’re trying to operate a system that sometimes becomes overburdened with too many people. We have to somehow make provisions to allow for as much accessibility as possible, but also ensure that everything works safely.”

Committee chairman Alex Cullen, one of two councillors to vote against Bédard’s motion, said the committee was faced with a dilemma.

“Obviously, the complaints will continue, but we’ll just have to learn to get along,” he said.

This seems quite sensible to me, and it’s nice that Mr. Cullen has realized – albeit after the fact – that co-operation is probably the best course of action.  Hopefully, the publicity that the issue has generated will make people more aware of the regulations currently in place and make them more sensitive to the needs of other riders, whether they have strollers or not.

Oh, and, naturally, if this leads to a renaissance in superlative bus service in Ottawa, I will be willing to share the credit with Georges Bédard.

« Previous Page — Next Page »