Good News! Gordon Lightfoot Lives!

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, I had a tribute post up here when I heard that a great Canadian, Gordon Lightfoot, had died. It was all over Twitter and was in some big news outlets, too. I ain't kiddin' when I say I had tears runnin' down my face when I posted that RIP tribute but now The news is that it wasn't true. Glad to hear it.

In case anybody thinks I published on the basis of rumour only, here's what I saw in the Calgary Herald.

Harper's Haiti Trip - Please, MSM, Don't Go. Don't Take Photos

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, Pryminister Harper is off to Haiti today. The official announcements say he's going there to assess the relief effort. Over at Steve V's Far and Wide, there's a lot of skepticism and at least one commenter who says Harper's visit will bolster troop morale.

Surprise visits to troops deployed in faraway locales is a trademark of tinpot heroes like Dick Cheney. I wonder where Harper got the idea he could bolster the troops -- and maybe his sagging poll numbers -- by paying a surprise visit?

Two years ago, Haitians were rioting for food and eating dirt patties to fill their empty bellies.

The food shortage was spurred by high commodities prices which the World Bank attributed mainly to biofuels. Canada was riding high on a crest of grain prices and federal and provincial "environmental" policies mandated 5% - 10% ethanol content for motor fuel. Harper and McGuinty denied the effect of their policies on world markets while thousands starved.

Today, the situation is compounded by the quake. Desperate reports from those on the ground are revealing a situation where food and water are stockpiled and people are starving.

They don't need Stephen Harper or Angelina Jolie or John Travolta scrambling for self-serving photo-ops. Harper can manage things just as well from Ottawa or Vancouver. If the troops need bolstering, he can do it via video link.

What are Harper's qualifications regarding the delivery of disaster relief? Do his medical qualifications go beyond his expertise in nuclear medicine? Where was he when they were eating dirt?

Haiti is headed for more grief. Their planting season begins in March and by all accounts, they need seeds, fertilizer, agricultural equipment and expertise to avert yet another round of starvation and desperation. Yet, little of this type of aid is reaching Haiti.

The first reports of Harper's trip said he would be sleeping inside the Canadian embassy and reporters should be prepared to sleep in tents outside the building. After a bit of negative reaction to the photo op started cropping up, the PMO quickly came out with new details. Harper will be flying in on an aid transport plane (read: white horse) and sleeping aboard a Canadian battleship anchored offshore.

Just how high does Haiti really rank in Harper's priorities? We have more troops serving as security detail for the Olympics than we have serving in Afghanistan. We have more than twice as many in Afghanistan as we have in Haiti.

If only our pandering news media would simply refuse to send anyone to cover this obvious play for approval. If only...

JimBobby

(Most of this post was originally written as a comment at Far and Wide.)

Bombshell! Forces Downplaying Canadian Afghan War Casualties

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, there's an old saying that the first casualty of war is the truth. Sadly, that adage is proving to be accurate with regard to the Canadian Forces' release of information on casualties in the Afghanistan conflict. The Hill Times is reporting this morning that the number of returning troops on disability is up to ten times higher than what has been reported by the Canadian Forces.

More than 6,000 Canadian Forces members and discharged veterans who are receiving physical or psychiatric disability benefits from Veterans Affairs Canada have either served in Afghanistan or have a disability that has been related to their service in Afghanistan, the department says.

The Forces have been telling us that the number wounded in Afghanistan is 529. 529 wounded Canadians would be bad enough but when the real number is more than 6000, the figure quoted by the Canadian Forces is an all-out assault on the truth.

A few weeks ago, I posted up an audio blog where I sang a song by Tom Paxton that decried the psychological toll we exact upon our young people when we send them off to war. Today, when I read the Hill Times article, the poignancy of that song came back to haunt me again.

It's bad enough when we are forced into a war and must fight for our way of life and our very survival. In Afghanistan, we are fighting to support a fraudulently elected Hamid Karzai and his gang of warlords, opium merchants, bribe-takers and torturers. We've sacrificed the lives of 139 Canadians to an unworthy cause with unworthy allies.

Now, we find out that the wounded number far more than we were led to believe.

When I was a boy in the 1950's my WWII veteran dad would sometimes point out one of what he referred to as the "walking wounded". We'd see them on the street, often wearing a ragged military uniform and holding out a cup, begging for a handout from those for whom they sacrificed their sanity. My grandfather was a WWI Vimy vet. His name for the walking wounded was "shell shocked."

Today, we have a new name for the same problem. We call it "post traumatic stress disorder" or PTSD. When a loved one is killed in action it is a tragedy with a certain amount of closure, honour and solemn dignity. When a loved one sacrifices his or her sanity and mental well-being it is an ongoing, festering sore that rips apart families and continues to take physical, mental and financial tolls on the individuals, their families and society, in general.

The very least we should be able to expect is a truthful accounting of the numbers of troops who are suffering as a result of this misguided mission. We all bear the costs... and the shame.

JimBobby

(h/t to zippyFX on Twitter)

It's All About Torture. Don't Let Anyone Forget.

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, Steve over at Far and Wide has a post about the polls and how bad ol' King Steve is doin' an' is the trend gonna continue. I left a bigass comment there an' I'm saving' energy by recycling that comment here.

We all saw the pundits come out wrong, wrong, wrong on the expected reaction to prorogation. Now, I've heard a few of 'em say that once the HOC resumes sitting, the prorogation issue will fall off the map. Maybe it'll be another swing and miss for the pundidiots. Maybe not.

If the prorogation outrage and backlash is to survive, we will need to show exactly how much work went down the tubes. How long will it take to get the legislative agenda back to where it was before the December break? How long before committees are reconstituted and back to where they were pre-prorogue?

If, as a small number believe, the budget triggers an election, how much work will be lost and, importantly, who will take the blame?

My own advice on this is that the public needs to be kept acutely aware that ducking the Afghan detainee issue was the primary reason Harper rolled the dice... and crapped out. So far, so good on that with the committee sitting.

The committee, however, is getting too bogged down in questions of privilege and protocol vis-a-vis the unreleased documents. The facts as reported by NGO spokespersons are that the current agreement is failing to do what it was intended to do. While they play cat and mouse with the document issue, detainees are not being monitored as required on paper and they ARE being tortured... now.

I think many voters see the power play over documents as politics -- parliamentary procedural wrangling done more for partisan gain than for truth-gathering. We know the truth. We've always known it. Detainees we hand over to the Afghans are abused. That fact can be clearly illustrated without the gamesmanship.

Despite some of the callous and uninformed comments I read in MSM comment threads, I truly believe most Canadians are repulsed by torture and are ashamed of any suggestion that our country was complicit in detainee abuse. If they are made to see that we are STILL complicit in ongoing abuse, we will achieve something. That "something" that we must be striving for is a cessation of torture by our allies -- Afghan or American.

Though we can show that abuse continues and we can demand it cease, the reality is that we have little power over such matters. Secret detention centres and denial of monitoring rights precludes our ability to wash our hands.

What to do? Either we quit handing over detainees altogether or we quit Afghanistan altogether.

Ignatieff made some encouraging comments a few days ago regarding the legitimacy of our support for the fraudulently elected Karzai and his gang of warlords, opium merchants and torturers. This theme will resonate; especially, when coupled with the message that the current transfer agreement is failing to prevent torture.

Human decency will prevail.

JB

JimBobby Sings Again: "Do the Prorogation"

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, last night when Ma an' I was out walkin' the dogs, I made up some new lyrics to an old tune. Little Eva was the original, I think. The Beach Boys done it, too. I reckon they're better singers than ol' JB but their lyrics is kinda outta date. I made a little video an' posted it up on You Tube. Here it is:



Here's the words in case somebody wants to do it with a half-decent singer an' maybe a little back-up instrumentation.

Do the Prorogation

Stephen Harper's doin' a crazy dance now,
Come on Stevie, do the prorogation...
He thought no one was lookin' so he took a big chance now,
Come on Stevie, do the prorogation...

He's got a Governor General who's his partner in crime,
She let him get away with it a second time,
So come on, come on, do the prorogation with Steve...

Never mind the hypocrisy,
When you attack our democracy...
Well he's really got the knack,
Woah woah...

Lettin' Afghans torture Afghans now that was his intention,
Come on Stevie, do the prorogation...
He doesn't give a crap about Geneva Conventions,
Come on Stevie, do the prorogation...

He's lookin' warm and fuzzy in his sweater vest,
Lockin' out the opposition and liberal press,
So come on, come on, do the prorogation with Steve...

Oh yeah...
Do the prorogation...
Kill your legislation...
Yay, yay, yay, yeah...

He's got the people riled up across the nation,
Come on Stevie, do the prorogation...
By givin' his MP's an extended vacation,
Come on Stevie, do the prorogation...

He thought his little trick would be easy to do,
An apathetic public is so easy to screw,
So come on, come on, do the prorogation with Steve...

Never mind the hypocrisy,
When you attack our democracy...
Well he's really got the knack,
Woah woah...

Stephen Harper's doin a crazy dance now,
Come on Stevie, do the prorogation...
He thought no one was lookin' so he took a big chance now,
Come on Stevie, do the prorogation...

Shut down the committees. They can start up later,
Who needs the House of Commons when we've got a dictator,
So come on, come on, do the prorogation with Steve...
yeah...
Come on, come on, do the prorogation with Steve...

Three-Way Pissing Contest Keeps Harper on the Throne

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, I reckon my immodest proposal will attract some mud but here goes...

I just came from reading a blog post by a Dipper who used his first five paragraphs to trash Ignatieff before giving a nod to Layton for taking the high road and welcoming Ignatieff's support and expressing a willingness to work together on limiting the PM's prorogation powers. Ironic? Maybe. Counterproductive? Absolutely.

If we ever want to rid our country of the Harper dictatorship, the opposition parties will need to work together. If we want the public at large to accept a perfectly legal and constitutionally valid coalition, multi-partisan cooperation will need to extend from the top to the bottom and back up to the top again. Partisan sniping only demonstrates that the opposition would be unable to work together in a coalition.

Here's the radical proposal. There are a great many ridings where the three-way split between Greens, Liberals and New Democrats ushers in a minority victory by the Conservatives. Various strategic voting initiatives have emerged attempting to deal with the inherent unfairness of our first past the post (FPTP) electoral system. Since the Conservatives are still in power, it would be logical to assume that these strategic voting efforts have not been effective.

I propose a comprehensive top level agreement between the LPC, NDP and GPC. In ridings where vote splitting has allowed the CPC to elect an MP without a 50% majority, the parties should enter into non-compete agreements whereby the CPC candidate faces only one serious opponent.

How to choose which party will run a candidate in which riding? The simplest way would be to look at the last election results and have the 3rd and 4th place finishers step aside.

Why include the Greens, one might ask? Well, if we're aiming to eliminate vote-splitting among anti-Conservative parties, the Greens are a definite factor. Greens garnered more than 9% of the popular vote in 2008 and should at least run unopposed by LPC and NDP candidates in 9% of the available ridings.

It won't be enough for the 3rd and 4th place parties to simply bow out, though. They must endorse and work for the chosen banner carrier, regardless of which banner they carry. That will be difficult for hyper-partisans like a certain dead horse and plenty of Liberals and Greens. The benefits, in my opinion, would outweigh the obstacles.

Such a plan must be openly and honestly presented to the voter as a coalition. If the coalition is successful -- and I really believe it could be -- it must provide for a proportional cabinet that includes members of all three cooperating parties.

Of course, my back-of-a-napkin plan has some obvious drawbacks. Died-in-the-wool Dippers, Grits and Greenies may well refuse to vote at all if they cannot vote for their favoured party. Some may even vote Conservative rather than vote Liberal, Green or NDP. So be it.

Where does the Bloc fit in? Mostly, it doesn't. My proposal is about doing what's best for Canada. The Bloc is interested only in doing what's best for Quebec. If non-compete agreements in Quebec ridings would elect non-Bloc, non-Conservative MP's, good. Bringing the BQ into the non-compete agreements would be counterproductive in TROC and play into the CPC's hands by including the rotten separatists in the deal.

A coalition can be quite reflective of the voters' wants and needs. Solid cooperation from the top down by way of strategic non-compete agreements can serve to demonstrate to the voters that the ABC parties are capable of working together to get elected. If they can work together to get elected, they can work together to run the country.

Okay. There it is, hyper-partisans, naysayers and hacks. Unleash your vitriol and prove it can't be done.

JimBobby

Tools, Fools and Making Rules

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, I was just listenin' to The Current on CBC radio. Some dumbass apologist for Dictator Harper was spoutin' the same old crappola I been hearin' over an' over.

Prorogation has been done 104 times before so what's the problem now?

Prorogation is a tool in the parliamentary toolbox. I know a little bit about tools and toolboxes. Up until about 10 years ago, I spent 25 years as a self-employed tradesman. I pounded nails for a living most of my adult life.

Like prorogation, a hammer is a tool. It was the first tool I learned how to use and I've used a hammer a lot more than 104 times. I've never used a hammer to assault anyone, though. Harper has used the prorogation tool to assault accountability and crucify democracy.

Like any tool, prorogation can be used as it was intended or it can be abused. We don't need to outlaw hammers to stop people from hammering somebody's brains out. We have rules (laws) against assault and those laws apply to assaults with hammers, knives, staplers (!) and any other tool.

What we don't seem to have, though, is a law that prevents the abuse of prorogation. Jack Layton has proposed the implementation of some sort of rule that would prevent the misuse of prorogation. In his speech to the pro-democracy rally in Ottawa Saturday, Michael Ignatieff voiced support for parliamentary restrictions on the use of prorogation.

Let's get some rules to stop any PM from using prorogation to nail democracy to a cross.

JimBobby

Toronto Rally Videos

Here's a little clip I did. More blogging on the rally later.

Here's some more...

Takin' it to the street. "Listen to the nation! Stop the prorogation!"

See You in Toronto on Saturday - CAPP

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, I'm gonna ride the train to Trawna on Satuday for the big Pro-Democracy Rally. It's always nice to meet up with fellow progressives but I figger there'll be a pretty big crowd an' I could be standin' right next to one o' my boogin' buddies or twitterin' tweeps without knowin' it.

I'll be wearin' a army green parka and I'll have this here name card pinned on:


If you spot me among the multitudes, tap me on the shoulder an' say hello.

JimBobby

Wanna win, Ignatieff? Here's how.

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, I'm a card carryin' Greenie but I'm gonna offer some free advice to the Grits an' Ignatieff. I'm so ancient that Harry Truman was president when I was born. Truman had a few famous quotes. His most famous was, "The buck stops here."

Truman also spoke about leadership: "Find a parade and get out in front of it."

There's a big parade marching up and down Main Street, Canada. It's the anti-prorogation parade. So far, Ignatieff hasn't capitalized on anti-prorogue sentiment effectively, if at all. Voters are rejecting prorogation by an increasingly wide margin. Time to lead, Mr. Leader.

My advice is for Iggy: make an unequivocal statement that, if elected, the Grits will put and end to prorogation, once and for all. Granted, Ignatieff has said he wouldn't abuse the mechanism as Harper has done but that does not go nearly far enough. He ought to solemnly promise to do away with the mechanism altogether.

Recent polls have shown the CPC losing ground in a big way. That loss is entirely due to Harper's misreading of public sentiment on prorogation and on the underlying reason for this prorogation: the Afghan detainee issue. The Liberals have not taken the opportunity to score points. They've merely stood by and watched the CPC throw away points. That is not leadership. It's not even getting out in front of the parade.

With a platform plank that promises no more prorogues, ever, by any future government, Ignatieff could ride the crest of this wave of discontent all the way to Sussex Drive.

JimBobby

Detainee abuse: Who Knew? Every MP. Since 2004.

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, everyone wants to know who knew what and when with regard to Afghan detainees being tortured after being turned over by Canadian Forces. The evidence is piling up and it's starting to look like everyone in Ottawa knew and they knew almost from the get-go.

As early as February 2004, the antiwar group Lawyers Against War sent a legal brief to PM Paul Martin and all MPs. Here's part of it:

"The transfer by Canadian soldiers effectively deprives transferred prisoners their rights and leaves the determination of their status, treatment, trial and punishment subject solely to the arbitrary standards President Bush and his advisors determine.Those potentially liable under this statute [Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act] include the person committing the offence(s), his/her military commander(s) and his/her superior(s). Superior is defined in this statute as a 'person in authority other than a military commander.’ Both offences carry penalties of up to life in prison.

Clearly the interests of Canadian soldiers and prisoners alike require that the legality of prisoner transfer be determined before further transfers occur. In view of the U.S. demonstrated refusal to afford prisoner of war status to the prisoners pending determination, Canada is obliged by Article 12 to request the return of prisoners transferred by Canadian soldiers. The legality of the transfers ought to be referred immediately to the Supreme Court of Canada."

Lawyers Against War (LAW) has written an open letter to the Parliamentary Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan. In the December 21, 2009 letter, LAW cites several official reports made to the UN regarding the abuse of transferred detainees. These notifications didn't start in May 2007 as Peter MacKay tried to tell us. As early as March 2005, the UN was informed of "reasonable grounds to believe that prisoners in Afghanistan were being subjected to torture."

LAW's latest letter to the Afghanistan Committee reiterates what yesterday's testimony to the committee asserts: The abuse is still happening.

On Twitter yesterday, David Akin asked "What's the rush?" regarding in the Afghanistan Committee wanting to hold meetings during the Christmas parliamentary recess. The Conservative MPs on the committee are boycotting, saying there's nothing urgent to discuss.

But the committee is hearing that detainees are being tortured now... today. That's the rush. That's the urgency.

Enjoy your eggnog.

JimBobby

******************************************

Here is the entire open letter as published here and here:

Monday, December 21, 2009

Open letter to the Parliamentary Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan

Dear Committee Members:

Chair: Rick Casson, Vice-chair: Bryon Wilfert, Members: Jim Abbott, Ujjal Dosanjh, Francine Lalonde, Claude Bachand, Laurie Hawn, Dave MacKenzie, Paul Dewar, Greg Kerr, Deepak Obhrai:

Lawyers against the War (LAW) urges the Parliamentary Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan to recommend:

The immediate cessation of transfers of people taken prisoner in Afghanistan (prisoners) by Canada, to third countries, including Afghanistan; and,

That Canada immediately undertake effective protective and remedial measures with respect to all prisoners already transferred by Canada to third countries; and,

The creation of a judicial inquiry mandated to inquire into allegations that the transfers violate Canadian and international law and to recommend the civil and criminal remedies required by law.

Concerned Canadians know that people taken captive in Afghanistan and transferred to either U.S. or Afghan custody are at risk of torture and other grave violations of their internationally protected rights. The facts establishing the illegality of the transfer of prisoners have been a matter public record since, at the latest, early 2004. Under Canadian and international law transfer to risk of such harm violates both Canadian and international law. Knowledge of the applicable law is presumed.

Evidence that Canada was and is, violating Canadian and international law by transferring people taken captive in Afghanistan to either U.S. or Afghan authorities has long been part of the public record. Since November 13 20011, the world has known that the U.S. intended to illegally detain non-Americans taken prisoner in Afghanistan and to deny them access to properly constituted courts and other due process in violation of international law.2 The world has known since February 7, 20023 that such prisoners transferred into U.S. custody would be denied the protection of the Geneva Conventions and subjected to whatever treatment, including torture and/or other prohibited treatment, the President or Secretary of Defense arbitrarily determined was ‘required by the exigencies of the war on terror’. By the end of September 2004, concerned people and those in positions of responsibility knew, from the report of the Independent Expert on the Situation of Human Rights in Afghanistan, that prisoners were routinely subjected to torture and other internationally prohibited treatment in both Afghan-run and U.S.-run prisons within Afghanistan.4

Statements by Canadian officials that there was no torture or that, if there was they didn’t know about it, ring hollow and remind us of similar statements by U.S. officials. Suggestions by Canadian officials that the law doesn’t apply to ‘those people’ also remind us of the statements of the Bush administration to justify treatment of people taken captive in Afghanistan. Such statements do not alter the known fact that these transfers violate the internationally protected rights of prisoners: nor do they alter the law. Canada has the legal duty to act effectively to ensure that past violations are remedied and future violations prevented. It is instructive to consider that some U.S. officials who used their status to facilitate the illegal detention and treatment of people taken prisoner in Afghanistan are now being prosecuted5 and sued for damages for torture.6

Some of the reports detailing evidence of the likelihood and/or certainty that prisoners transferred to either U.S. or Afghan authorities would be subjected to criminal violations of their internationally protected rights including, but not limited to torture, are cited below. The Prime Minister and other political authorities responsible for ensuring adherence to the law received notice of these reports. They had a duty to ensure that military leaders were properly advised and instructed as a result.

On 11 March 2005, the Report of the Independent Expert on the Situation of Human Rights in Afghanistan, M. Cherif Bassiouni, to the UN Commission on Human Rights, indicated there were reasonable grounds to believe that prisoners in Afghanistan were being subjected to torture. Professor Bassiouni reported that while he had difficulty gaining access to detention facilities, he had interviewed prisoners who alleged that, “ …Coalition forces and special units of the Afghan security agencies and police act above and beyond the reach of the law by engaging in arbitrary arrests and detentions and committing abusive practices, including torture.” (paragraph 5) Professor Bassiouni also reported a grave situation with regard to, “The absence of due process in the arrest and detention of persons and the use of torture by various government intelligence entities, including those associated with the National Security Directorate, the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of the Interior;” (paragraph 8.c) http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G05/128/24/PDF/G0512824.pdf?OpenElement

On February 1, 2006, the Afghanistan Compact, created at the London Conference, January 31-February 1, 2006, acknowledged that torture of prisoners was a systemic problem that could only be successfully remedied over a long period of time and set the following goal, “By end-2010: The Government’s capacity to comply with and report on its human rights treaty obligations will be strengthened; Government security and law enforcement agencies will adopt corrective measures including codes of conduct and procedures aimed at preventing arbitrary arrest and detention, torture, extortion and illegal expropriation of property with a view to the elimination of these practices;” http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/Documents/AfghanistanCompact-English.pdf

On March 6, 2007 the U.S. State Department Report on Afghanistan reported that, “…human rights organizations reported that local authorities in Herat, Helmand, Badakhshan, and other locations continued to routinely torture and abuse detainees. Torture and abuse consisted of pulling out fingernails and toenails, burning with hot oil, beatings, sexual humiliation, and sodomy.” http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78868.htm

On March 6, 2007, Lawyers against the War, sent a letter to Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Rob Nicholson and Gordon O’Connor, advising that, “Evidence clearly indicates that people transferred to U.S. or Afghan custody are at risk of criminal rights violations including serious injury or death. By transferring people to risk of such harm, Canada is violating its legal duty to uphold Canadian and international law and Canadians responsible for the transfers are exposed to possible criminal liability. We urge you act to ensure immediate strict adherence to applicable laws: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Punishment, the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, Geneva Conventions Act, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Criminal Code, and Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act.” http://www.nightslantern.ca/LAW.Detainee.Transfer.Mar.8.07.pdf

On April 25, 2007, the Liu Institute on Global Issues of the University of British Columbia submitted a complaint, War Crime and the transfer of detainees from Canadian custody in Afghanistan, to the International Criminal Court (ICC) asking that General Hillier and others be investigated for possible war crimes in the transfer of prisoners in Afghanistan. Professors Michael Byers of the University of British Columbia and William Schabas, Director of the Irish Human Rights Centre, advised the ICC prosecutor that, “…we are concerned that Minister O’Connor and General Hillier might wilfully be placing detainees at risk of torture, cruel treatment and outrages upon personal dignity. If so, they would appear to be violating Articles 8 and 25 (and perhaps Article 7) of the Rome Statutes of the International Criminal Court.”

o On March 4, 2008, Alex Neve Secretary General of Amnesty International/Canada gave this evidence to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development regarding prisoners apprehended by Canadian troops, “Amnesty International first raised concerns about this issue in early 2002, when Canada first deployed in Afghanistan. At that point, our concerns were with respect to the policy of handing over detainees to U.S. forces and the likelihood of such prisoners ending up at Bagram Air Base or Guantánamo Bay. That approach came to an end in December 2005, with the first agreement between Canada and Afghanistan, under which prisoners were to be transferred into Afghan custody, with indications that the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission would play a role in monitoring.

We immediately stressed that it had not solved the problem, given the widespread, longstanding reality of torture throughout the Afghan prison system. We urged Canada to consider a different approach, one that would accord with our international obligations.”

On February 1, 2004 LAW sent a legal brief to the Prime Ministers and other Members of Parliament advising that the transfer of prisoners in Afghanistan violated the law,

“The transfer by Canadian soldiers effectively deprives transferred prisoners their rights and leaves the determination of their status, treatment, trial and punishment subject solely to the arbitrary standards President Bush and his advisors determine.

Those potentially liable under this statute [Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act] include the person committing the offence(s), his/her military commander(s) and his/her superior(s). Superior is defined in this statute as a ‘person in authority other than a military commander.’ Both offences carry penalties of up to life in prison.

Clearly the interests of Canadian soldiers and prisoners alike require that the legality of prisoner transfer be determined before further transfers occur. In view of the U.S. demonstrated refusal to afford prisoner of war status to the prisoners pending determination, Canada is obliged by Article 12 to request the return of prisoners transferred by Canadian soldiers. The legality of the transfers ought to be referred immediately to the Supreme Court of Canada.

In June 2008, Maj. General Antonio M. Taguba (USA-Ret.), author of the U.S. Army’s 2004 internal report on Abu Ghraib wrote, “…After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current [Bush] administration has committed war crimes."7

Those same words apply to Canada’s transfer of prisoners in Afghanistan: there is no longer any doubt that the transfers are illegal. Neither is there any doubt that the law requires that the transfers be stopped, the violations investigated, identified and remedied and further violations prevented. While the personal knowledge of the Canadian officials in command of the transfers may be germaine to future legal suits, this factor does not and cannot alter Canada’s legal duties now or then.

LAW urges the Committee to act responsibly to uphold the law: to stop the transfers, ensure the identification of and remedies for past violations and to prevent future violations.

Respectfully submitted.

Gail Davidson, Lawyers against the War.

Copied to:

The Clerk of the Committee is Carmen DePape

Members of Parliament

Senators

Notes

1. Military Order of November 13, 2001, Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism. http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/mo-111301.htm

2. Denial of fair trial rights is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and a crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act.

3. Humane Treatment of Taliban and Al Qaeda Detainees, February 7, 2002 memorandum from President Bush.

4. Report of the Independent Expert of the Commission on Human Rights on the Situation of Human Rights in Afghanistan. U.N. GAOR. 59th Sess. Agenda Item 105(c). U.N. Doc. A/59/370. September 21, 2004.

5. For example, in April 2009, the Spanish National Court accepted a criminal torture complaint against former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, William Haynes II, former general counsel for the Department of Defense; John Yoo, the former Justice Department lawyer who wrote secret legal opinions saying President George W. Bush had the authority to circumvent the Geneva Conventions; Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense for policy; Jay Bybee, Yoo's former boss at the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel; and David Addington, chief of staff and legal adviser to ex-Vice President Dick Cheney.

6. For example, in Padilla v. Yoo U.S. filed in the District Court for the Northern District of California, Padilla claims damages for deprivation of constitutional rights against John Yoo for, during his tenure in the Office of Legal Counsel for the U.S. Justice Department, authoring memos purporting to legally justify “enhanced interrogation techniques” used on Padilla. Yoo advised, inter alia, that interrogation methods were not torture unless they caused pain “equivalent to the intensity of the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.” Dismissing Yoo’s application to dismiss the suit, the U.S. District Court ruled that Yoo, had “set in motion events that resulted in the deprivation of the Padilla’s constitutional rights” and that, “government lawyers are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their conduct”

7. Preface to Broken Laws, Broken Lives: Medical Evidence of Torture by U.S. Personnel and its Impacts, A Report by Physicians for Human Rights, June 2008.

More Brown Stuff Hits the Fan - Canada Tortured Detainee

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, I been startin' my days lately by readin' the MSM's latest bombshells on the disgraceful Afghan detainee scandal. A day doesn't go by without more proverbial shit hittin' the proverbial fan.

I also indulge my masochistic bent by reading the hundreds of comments at the Globe, CBC and CTV. For the most part, I am somewhat encouraged by the "thumbs-up, thumbs-down" tallies. The voting on comments, while entirely unscientific, lend support to the basic belief that Canadians, by and large, do not want our country's reputation tainted by war crimes. Of course, there are plenty of notable exceptions.

There are several tactics/arguments the apologists for torture use in the MSM comment boards.

1. It's just Afghans torturing Afghans, nothing to do with Canada.
2. Nobody Cares
3. Even if people do care, Martin Started it
4. If you criticize a Conservative cabinet minister you are attacking “the troops”
5. Adscam, Adscam, Adscam
6. They are terrorist scumbags and deserve torture
7. The 23 former ambassadors who are criticizing were Liberal appointees
8. Even if they aren’t terrorists they live in the same neighbourhood as terrorists and how are CF personnel supposed to know the difference?
9. The first casualty of war is truth. SOP.
10. It didn’t happen.
11. If it happened, it only happened to a few of them.
12. Even if it happened to more than a few of them, it didn’t happen to ALL of them.
    (h/t to Balbulican at Stageleft)
    

Today's particular bombshell may be one of the most devastating. A Canadian Forces Sergeant, Carol Utton, reveals that it wasn't just Afghan on Afghan abuse. Here's the whole story from CP.

Source: Afghan detainee mistreated in Canadian custody

By ELIZABETH THOMPSON - Parliamentary Bureau

OTTAWA — A new report has surfaced that suggests an Afghan detainee might have been mistreated while in Canadian Forces custody.

Global National reported Thursday night that a military police sergeant says not only was an Afghan detainee mistreated and kept for days in a tiny cell that reached intolerable temperatures, but that superiors ignored warnings.

In an interview with the Military Police Complaints Commission, Sgt. Carol Utton said an order in the spring of 2007 halted detainee transfers. One prisoner was still in custody, in a walled compound on the base with eight cells designed to hold prisoners no more than 96 hours.

Utton said the temperature reached 60 C in the cells. The soldiers tried to help him with bottles of frozen water, but the prisoner screamed and yelled.

However, Ottawa headquarters initially wouldn’t allow the prisoner to be released and ignored warnings about conditions in the cells, Utton said.

“We felt (Ottawa HQ) didn’t care,” Utton told the commission. “Nobody in Canada gave a crap.”

Defence Minister Peter MacKay’s office said the Global National report was the first they had heard of the incident and they’ve asked the defence department for more information.

Shame!

Ottawa was informed that Canada was keeping a detainee in a 60° C cell but the troops on the ground "felt (Ottawa HQ) didn’t care,” Utton told the commission. “Nobody in Canada gave a crap.”

The other new story today comes from the Globe & Mail: The Buck Stopped Nowhere. I'm not sure if it's another attempt by the government to shirk responsibility and accountability. It lends credence to the contention that "We didn't know." But, it begs the questions, "Why didn't they know? Why did they adamantly deny abuse when, according to the latest dirt, they didn't know whether or not abuse was happening?"

Over the next couple weeks, many of us will be socializing and enjoying time with our families and loved ones. Rather than proroguing our consciences, we can use the festive season to keep the issue on the front burner. I've already been steering discussions away from hockey and home renovations.

Conversation starter: "Thanks for the eggnog. Boy, this Afghan detainee thing is really a mess, ain't it?"

Peace on Earth. Goodwill to men.

JimBobby

Current Detainee Transfer Agreement Failing

The Globe has a story on how the current transfer agreement is failing. Seems we really don't know what's happening to those we turn over. What's more, CF troops are reporting that they capture the same enemy fighters again and again.

Like almost every other aspect of this story, those of us who were paying attention knew about this long ago.

Indulge me a moment, please. Here's the bulk of a blog post I wrote in March 2008.

60%-70% of prisoners handed over to Afghan authorities are only held only briefly before they are able to bribe their way out of jail. See:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/107576/page/1

Q: Why do we fail to follow up on detainees to make sure they do not pay $20 and go back to the Taliban front lines?

A: We are so afraid of confirming that we are in violation of international law that we look the other way while two crimes are committed: bribery and torture.

Q: Why have we given in to Afghan demands that we resume detainee transfers?

A: Afghan soldiers and police only make $4 a day. They need the bribes to survive. Bribery has been an integral part of the Afghan economy for centuries. If we keep the detainees or follow up on their treatment, Afghan soldiers and police lose the opportunity for much needed extra cash.

Many so-called Taliban who are delivered for bounty to NATO forces are not Taliban at all. Tribal and family rivalries routinely see Afghans kidnapped for ransom or turned over to NATO, then by NATO to Afghans. From there, the age old system of bribery, pay-offs and torture goes into effect.

Detainees are released AFTER being tortured sufficiently enough to induce the detainees' relatives (or fellow Taliban) to cough up bribe money.

The failure of the detainee agreement is demonstrably putting out troops at unnecessary risk. Now. Not back in 2002-2006. Now.

Chew on that, Hillier-MacKay-O'Conner-Harper-Cannon-Baird.

Elizabeth May's Nomination: Challenges and Opportunities

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, the gal I adore, Earth Mother Lizzie May, got the nomination to run out on Vancouver Island in the Saanich Gulf Islands riding. Green Party blogger Camille Labchuk wrote up a blog on it and there's some comment action over there. Commenter Mark Francis brought up a couplafew points regardin' Ignatieff's less-than-stellar environmental stance vis-a-vis the tar sands, incumbent Gary Lunn's vulnerability and the need for getting "boots on the ground." Here's my response recycled:

Mark makes some good points. Every candidate will have some baggage. For the Libs, Ignatieff’s environmental intransigence will be serious baggage for small-g green voters. He’s on record supporting nukes, too. His militaristic support for Bush’s Iraq invasion/fiasco doesn’t really speak well for his international savvy, either, and won’t play well with the stereotypical west coast flower children. Hetherington will be saddled heavily with her un-green leader.

Lunn is vulnerable on Chalk River. As Minister of Natural Resources, he was the guy who fired Linda Keen so ignominiously in the middle of the night. He was responsible for restarting the limping reactor that is now giving Canada an international black eye in the medical isotope department. So hapless was Lunn that he was relieved of that portfolio and it was handed off to the even more hapless Lisa Raitt.

Elizabeth May’s biggest piece of baggage seems to be the parachute label. If she can wrap herself in SGI issues and make herself visible enough between now and whenever the Cons get too unpalatable for Layton, she may be able to shake that off. Her environmental credentials and those of the GPC are impeccable. For small-g green voters, she should be able to capitalize on the Liberal leader’s poor environmental stance.

The Herzog flair-up will be seen by most as a sour grapes thing; internal, riding-level party power politics: no worse, better or different than what happens with every party. Elections Canada will not find anything amiss with the riding funding plan and despite some valid concerns regarding top-down party management, Herzog’s complaints will not continue to play a significant part in an election campaign.

Have the NDP nominated anyone? BC voters have the advantage of having had a provincial NDP government by which to judge the NDP’s commitment to the environment. Sure, federal NDP does not equal provincial NDP… except when the NDP wants it to.

I’m a longtime GPC member and EDA exec. I wasn’t too keen on the SGI choice but now that it is a done deal, I’ll be putting my support behind Elizabeth. The decision to run her wherever she is most electable wasn’t a top down decision but was endorsed by the rank and file. My biggest concern centres around the availability of SGI foot soldiers. When Elizabeth ran in London, the foot soldiers flocked in from Toronto and elsewhere in densely populated southern Ontario to knock on doors. I fear that sort of feet-on-the-ground support will be much more difficult to muster in SGI where the doors are further apart and the population nearby is sparser.

JimBobby

Electoral Reform in My Lifetime? I Doubt It.

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, I was just over to POGGE's fine boog an' left me a bigass comment on the troublems with our dumbass electoral system. One o' the commenters by the name o' Greg said he figgered he only had 3 parties to choose from an' that got my Green Party hackles raised up so I lit in with a ramblin' diatribe. Here it is:

Greg said: Finally, I could withhold my vote...

There is another party that runs in all ridings and has remained steadfastly in favour of PR. While the Greens have not elected anyone, GPC support has been steadily growing and the unfairness of FPTP is driven home to more and more voters after each election.

NDP and GPC voters tend to have a better grasp on the problems with the current system simply because we are the ones most victimized by it. The two leading parties are the main beneficiaries of the unfair FPTP system and find it very easy -- and self-serving -- to deny that any problem exists.

I worked alongside my GPC candidate in the 2008 election. She was a big Fair Vote Canada campaigner and worked tirelessly in the Ontario referendum. Whenever she would bring up electoral reform, it would end up working against her. After a few such debacles, it was decided to keep the issue low key. It just didn't resonate or else it was deemed too complicated -- or a dead duck done deal due to the resounding defeat in the referendum.

Attempting to get votes, knowing full well that your party doesn't stand a chance in FPTP, can be frustrating. People will ask, "Why bother?" One of the best reasons has to be the mere fact that once a person sees his or her vote declared essentially meaningless due to FPTP, they will be more receptive and more vocal about the inherent unfairness of the current system.

When enough people start asking why a party that gets 8% or 9% of the popular votes gets 0% representation, we might stand a chance of changing the system. And, it's not just the disenfranchised GPC and NDP voters who can see the discrepancy.

Obviously, the main beneficiaries will be loathe to change a system in which they are the main beneficiaries. I'm not sure we can change that. A Liberal or Con MP who votes for a system that will deprive his party of seats will quickly be dropped from the party.

In the meantime, all we can do is vote our conscience and do our best to inform the public that we have a patently unfair system. I'm 60 YO and have lost all hope that the system will change within my lifetime. That won't stop me from pushing for change. Hey... I'm still pushing for world peace, too.

JimBobby

Depleted Uranium Weapons: Cancer and the Canadian Connection

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, I sure ain't been doin' too much boogin' lately. I been doin' some twitterin', though. This mornin', I tweeted:

Soldier's cancer death linked to depleted uranium (DU): UK court - http://bit.ly/26hiuQ - Canadian DU connection - http://bit.ly/4EHlHo

Them there links got clicked 20 times in the first few minutes so I reckon there's some point in the Twitter. I been skeptical about Twitter but I thought I'd give it a chance after havin' a live-in-person chat with Stageleft a coupla weeks ago when I was up in Ottywa.

I ain't so sure about carryin' on conversations 140 characters at a time, so I figgered I'd expand (expound?) here on my boog where I can blather on as long as I want.

Anyways, here's a little more about how depleted uranium killed a Brit soldier.

The death of Stuart Dyson, a 39-year-old former soldier, from a rare from of cancer was caused by his exposure to depleted uranium used in military munitions, an inquest jury ruled.

The jury heard that Mr Dyson, a lance corporal in the Royal Pioneer Corps, cleaned tanks after the first Gulf War during a five-month deployment to the war zone.

His widow Elaine told the hearing that her husband's health had deteriorated after he left the Army in 1992 and that he was diagnosed with colon cancer, which spread to his liver and spleen, in 2007.

...

Giving evidence at the inquest, Professor Christopher Busby, an expert on the effects of uranium on health, said Mr Dyson's cancer was "more likely than not" caused by ingestion and inhalation of the substance during his service in the Gulf.

...

Professor Busby said he had visited Iraq in 2000 and had personally found particles of depleted uranium with dangerously high radiation levels near the wrecks of tanks destroyed during the 1991 war.
(Source)

Keep in mind that DU ammo is also being used in Afghanistan and now that the US is stepping up its involvement, even more DU is likely to be used.

Also keep in mind that coalition soldiers are far more likely to get medical treatment and diagnoses than Iraqi or Afghan civilians living in the zones where this radioactive hazard is being dispersed. Destroyed vehicles and former battle grounds are routinely scavenged by children and others looking to pick up a few pennies from salvageable parts.

There's a Canadian connection to DU.

While the U.S. appears to be on the verge of attacking Iran just for having a nuclear reactor, Washington and its allies continue to be the biggest nuclear proliferators in the world. Chief among these nuclear allies is Canada, which provides up to 40% of the world’s uranium, the largest amount. Eighty percent of Canadian uranium is exported, with 76% going to the U.S.

Canada has long been the main source of uranium for the U.S. nuclear arsenal, globally the largest and deadliest at 10,000 warheads and bombs. Washington has a first-strike nuclear policy and is actively preparing for nuclear war. It is also the only country that has actually used nuclear weapons--not once, but twice, on Japan in 1945.
...

Q: How is Canada violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?

Harding: Canada signed this treaty in 1970 and claimed that it would not be using uranium for weapons production. We now know that uranium out of Saskatchewan has been diverted through the depleted uranium (DU) system and has been fuelling the weapons stream. The public, I think, is largely unaware that we are still complicit directly in the weapons stream. It’s a tricky thing to track, but it goes something like this: After refining the uranium at Port Hope, we send it to the enriching system in the U.S. This system integrates both the military and the industrial uses of nuclear power. The U.S. Department of Energy and the Pentagon both take uranium from this system.

The uranium that is to be used in electrical generating nuclear reactors is concentrated to about 5%. This is uranium-235. About nine-tenths of the mass of what’s left after enrichment is called depleted uranium. This is then available to the Pentagon to use for weapons. And it’s not really depleted. That’s a misnomer. It’s still uranium. It’s primarily uranium-238, which can be put into Pentagon reactors to create plutonium. All the Pentagon needs to do is bombard the depleted uranium with neutrons and it can create a plutonium stream for weapons. Also, the depleted uranium is the packing on the H-Bomb. What makes the H-Bomb the mega-bomb is the amount of packing of the depleted uranium around the plutonium trigger.

Then the various weapons-producing companies such as Aerojet and ATK take this uranium and make the conventional depleted uranium weapons that are now contaminating probably the last four war zones in the Middle East and Southern Europe. Uranium out of Canada that’s got into the depleted uranium stream has already been dropped on Iraq during the U.S. invasion. So the weapons connection got obscured when the Non-Proliferation Treaty came, because technically the uranium is shipped to the U.S. for their reactors, but in fact the depleted uranium that’s left is then in the control of those countries. So it fundamentally abrogates the intentions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but not technically.

Q: What are the implications of Canada’s continuing support for U.S. nuclear militarism?

Harding: It’s frightening stuff to think about. We’re really talking madness here in terms of the capacity. How few of these mega-bombs it would take to create a catastrophe that makes climate change look insignificant! The U.S. had 37,000 nuclear weapons during the 1980s, armed and ready to go. And we’re talking about using a very small number of those and having disastrous global implications.

When you dig below the surface, the complicity issue is always there. It was there in Vietnam, in terms of companies in Canada exporting armaments and even chemicals that were used in the napalm bombing. And in Canada we’re still doing that around depleted uranium. It just tends to be hidden behind the public statements of us being a non-nuclear power and having made the decision to focus on exporting medical isotopes and not nuclear weapons. This is an effective PR and propaganda system, but it just doesn’t happen to be true.

Q: What are the effects of depleted uranium on humans when it is used in conventional weapons, aside from immediate death and injury?

Harding: The number of cancers and death by cancer are significantly greater (than if the depleted uranium were not present), as are permanent sterility, birth deformations, and death from birth deformation. Depleted uranium affects the whole embryonic development, as well as increasing the risks of thyroid leukemia and other childhood cancers. They are seeing increases in a number of cancers in Basra and in other areas where they know there were high levels of depleted uranium weaponry used.
(Source)

There's plenty more in that interview.

I watched David Akin, Steve Paiken and a couple of nuclear proponents on TVO's The Agenda a couple nights ago. The topic was Canada's Nuclear Future. While they spent about two-thirds of the hour discussing Canada's role in the medical isotope business and the rest of the hour on nuclear energy issues, the topic of nuclear proliferation and Canada's role in supplying the raw material for nuclear weaponry was not mentioned, at all.

We cannot keep our heads buried in the sand. Canada is complicit in the proliferation of DU weaponry. Twenty or thirty years from now, some future Prime Minister will be issuing another meaningless apology and claiming we didn't know what was happening and sorry about all the cancer deaths. We do know.

JB

No Nukes in Nanticoke - Yippee!!

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, OL' JB ain't been doin' too much boogin' lately on accounta I been busy fightin' a bigass nuclear war down here in Nanticoke. Now, I ain't gonna say we won the war but I'm sayin' the other guys lost. Leastwise, they turned tail an' run away. Good riddance, sez I.

Bruce Power abandoned its proposal to build a new nuke plant in Nanticoke. -- Public opposition was mounting. -- The estimated price tag went from $7 billion last November to $10-$15 this May. -- Nuke investors have been walking away from proposals all over the place.

According to our MPP, 76% of folks down this way were opposed to the plant. The Ontario government said it wasn't going to buy any electricity from the dumbasses. Bruce was probbly hoping to sell the power to the Merkans. If that happened, the Merkans'd get the power; the fatcats'd get the profits; and Nanticoke'd get to store tonnes of deadly radioactive waste for a few hundred thousand years.

Over in Port Dover, they're dancin' in the streets an' gatherin' up some driftwood for a bigass bonfire on the beach.(My ol' Grannie was a Dover girl, born in 1894. I reckon she and/or some of her sisters might be in this here pitcher. I'll ask my Mum if she recognizes anyone.)

In Port Dover, they don't mince words:

Isotope Crisis: Right Hand Hanging Left Hand Out to Dry

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, seems like these here Conservative ministers is their own worst enemies. Instead of throwin' a lifeline to their flounderin' colleagues, they sit on their hands and watch 'em splash an' drown. Instead of pullin' out the rabbit they got in their hat, they play dumb... or, are they actually just as uninformed as they let on?

While Ministers Raitt and Aglukkaq continue to demonstrate their incompetence, real progress is being made in the field of isotope production. While Prime Minister Harper tells us Canada is throwing in the towel on future isotope manufacture and supply, Canadian research and technology is moving forward achieving just what Harper says is not feasible.

One wonders why Raitt, Aglukkaq and Harper seem unable to even attempt to fend off opposition questions with real answers that would put their government in a much better light. Although it seems improbable, it appears that none of the politicians are up to speed on what is happening under their very noses.

Back in November 2008, TRIUMF : Canada's National Laboratory for Particle and Nuclear Physics, the University of British Columbia and Advanced Applied Physics Solutions, Inc. (AAPS) released a report “proposing a uniquely Canadian method for producing select medical isotopes which avoids using weapons-grade uranium and nuclear reactors.”

More recently, MDS Nordion, the same company that purchases and distributes all of the Chalk River isotopes, entered into a commercial agreement with TRIUMF “to study the feasibility of producing a viable and reliable supply of photo-fission-produced molybdenum-99 (Mo-99) used globally for diagnostic medical imaging.”

While Harper and his crew of liquidators are intent on selling the farm at bargain basement prices and abandoning Canada’s formerly respected role in the field of nuclear medicine, Canadian researchers and business interests are working outside the AECL framework to deliver much-needed isotopes using a safer, cheaper technology. While Harper and his nuclear grease monkeys are applying duct tape and Bondo to Chalk River’s 52 year old clunker, forward thinking scientists are developing an alternative source of Molybdenum-99.

While Harper and his inexperienced cabinet ministers sputter about securing isotopes from international sources, UBC, TRIUMF and MDS Nordion are forging ahead on a highly promising plan that, incredibly, was the subject of an announcement by Ministers Raitt and Aglukkaq less than two weeks ago.

Federal Gov't Takes Forward Steps on Medical Isotopes

29 May 2009

Yesterday, Canada's Minister of Natural Resources Lisa Raitt and Minister of Health Leona Aglukkaq announced the Government's plan to establish an Expert Review Panel for Long-Term Isotope Supply Solutions. TRIUMF, Canada's national laboratory for particle and nuclear physics, supports these steps and looks forward to contributing to the process.

Why, one wonders, did neither Raitt nor Aglukkaq point to this development when they faced tough questioning in the House? Is it possible that the announcement, though seemingly made jointly by their own offices, was unknown to the ministers?

Now, let’s move along to part two of the ministers not knowing what’s happening under their noses. This time, we have former Health Minister and current Industry Minister Tony Clement remaining silent in the House while his hapless colleagues Raitt and Aglukkaq squirm under questioning about what they are doing to ease the shortage of isotopes.

Odd, since it was just about a week earlier, on June 1, that Clement announced $22 million in new funding to upgrade McMaster University’s research reactor, part of which was designated “to expand Canada's isotope research and production capacity.” Although $22 million is a piddly amount by nuclear standards, Clement could have come to the aid of his fellow cabinet members with at least one concrete example of what Canada is doing to increase domestic isotope production. Additionally, unlike Chalk River’s NRU, the Mac reactor is currently operational and presumably could be producing some of the needed isotopes while the repairs to the NRU are being carried out.

When PM Harper told us yesterday that Canada is getting out of the isotope business, did he not know that his industry minister, just 10 short days ago, had doled out $22 million to expand Canada's isotope production capacity.

Don't these ministers talk to one another? Don't they even read their own press releases?

JimBobby

Secret, Schmecret -- AECL's Incompetence Further Revealed

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, everybody's talkin' 'bout dumbass Lisa Raitt leaving secret papers behind at CTV. Par for the CPC course. Their talent pool's pretty shallow, after all. While the fact that another of Harper's Ministers can't keep tabs on secret stuff is damning, what is more interesting is the stuff itself.

Underlying all of this security breach stuff is the fact that AECL is as incompetent as the minister in charge. The AECL refurbishment up at Bruce is now known to be more than 400 days behind schedule and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. Par for the nuclear course, I realize, but how can Ontario even consider AECL's unproven ACR-1000 design for its ridiculous $26.6 billion commitment to unneeded new nuclear builds?

That $26 Bn will undoubtedly turn into 10's of billions more and we all know who pays for these cost overruns.

Of course, Ontario could choose France's Areva to build the new reactors. They're 42 months behind schedule on their only contract to build the same new generation EPR reactor that is being considered for Ontario. Areva's Finnish project is running 60% over budget. On top of that, Finland was depending on Areva to be on time so that Finland would not face multi-million dollar penalties under Kyoto. In addition to the cost and time overruns, the Areva build also has safety shortcomings.

Governments need to face up to the fact that nuclear is the most expensive and least reliable option for meeting energy needs. We dole out lavish corporate welfare to these nuclear giants and, in turn, they use that money to lobby governments and mount public relations campaigns aimed at convincing decision makers and the public that they are selling a viable product.

The secrecy surrounding nuclear costs is only the tip of the iceberg. What are we not being told about lapses in safety and nuclear security? We are creating stockpiles of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel without any permanent storage solution. These stockpiles are guarded by paramilitary swat teams who must constantly upgrade their capabilities to stay ahead of terrorists and rogue states. We are saddling countless future generations with these security costs all so we can continue to waste energy like there's no tomorrow.

As far as the isotope crisis goes, watch for Harpoleon to pull a rabbit from the hat. The research reactor at McMaster Universty is to be upgraded with a paltry $22 million and part of that sum is intended isotope production.

In a statement, McMaster University said, "As Canada's only nuclear reactor outside of Chalk River capable of producing medical isotopes, the funding will be used to upgrade McMaster's physical infrastructure to expand Canada's isotope research and production capacity, to enhance research activities and train personnel for the nuclear industry and health care sectors."
(Source)

There's just one little problem. The Mac reactor, like the Chalk River dinosaur, is 50 years old. Throwing good money after bad seems to be the singled-minded goal of both the federal Conservatives and the Ontario Liberals.

What is somewhat surprising, though, is that when Minister Raitt was being grilled in QP the other day, she seemed to know nothing about the plans to upgrade the Mac reactor. More incompetence? Tony Clement failing to step up and defend his collegue? One hand unaware of what the other hand is doling out?

JB

Seal Hunt Not Worth the Fight - Time to Move On

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, I'm gonna wade into the seal hunt issue. Over to StageLeft, there's a comments section gabfest goin' on an' I left me a bigass comment. I'm recycling that comment here.

How about we look at the economics of the hunt?

Back in 2007, the landed value of the seal hunt was only a paltry $12 million. 2008 was about half of that. In 2007, the federal government paid about $3.4 million to rescue sealers from the ice. I don’t know how much we spent in 2008. Taxpayers also pay for aircraft used to locate seals and commercial sealers are led to the seals by Coast Guard icebreakers. Canadian tax dollars support the hunt and the massive PR campaign that was mounted to counter EU opposition.

Despite all the money we spent, the EU still voted for a ban. Now, we’re going to throw good money after bad by mounting a legal challenge at the WTO. At least the lawyers are still making money.

When the banks need money, we bail them out with billions of public dollars. When the dumbass, gas-guzzlin’ auto industry needs money, we bail them out with billions more. When the dirty tar sands need money, we give them billions in tax cuts and bogus R&D grants to fantasyland carbon capture schemes. When tobacco farmers can’t make it, we cough up $288 million in buyout money.

We sell a lot of other stuff to EU customers and our protestation over the seal hunt could well cause a larger boycott of Canadian products of all types. When the US banned seal imports, we didn’t mount a legal challenge, even though the US was formerly the biggest customer. We understood the possible trade ramifications. We’d better wake up and understand what a blanket European boycott of Canadian products could mean.

The seal hunt may be unjustly portrayed as inherently cruel. However, we fought the PR battle on that score and, like it or not, we lost. Public opinion is against the hunt. Also, contrary to what Doug Newton said, the EU Parliament is an elected body.

Even without the EU ban, the market for pelts was down so much in recent years that many sealers didn’t bother going out and risking their necks this past year. I suggest that the EU ban is less a case of an authoritarian imposition than it is a case of the EU Parliament reflecting the wishes of EU citizens. They spoke with their pocketbooks already.

If we simply didn’t fight the ban and gave up the logistical and search & rescue support we lavish on this industry, we’d have millions to invest into alternatives or to simply dole out to the out of work sealers. Instead, we’re planning to spend good dollars fighting a fight we cannot possibly win.

I have no opposition on humanitarian grounds and I understand and appreciate the argument that seals compete with humans for fish. Nevertheless, the public relations war is over and we lost. Time to move on.

BTW, I killed 5 mice in the past 36 hours. There is no market for mouse pelts or mouse meat so I tossed them in the trash. If the seals are pests to the fishing industry, I have no problem with the fishing industry financing a cull. We’ve culled deer down here on Long Point when they became too populous.

Something that I wonder about, though… Back when Cabot sailed into the Grand Banks, the cod were so plentiful they scooped them up with buckets. There was no commercial seal hunt at that time. Who is to blame for cod stock depletion? Seals or human over-fishing?

I think we can develop a Canadian market for Inuit seal products. I think the commercial sealers are already accustomed to taking handouts and giving them each a couple thousand bucks would be much more cost-effective than flogging the dead horse at the WTO.

JB