BP calls settlement terms too high

By macleans.ca - Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 12:41 PM - 2 Comments

BP has complained that Kenneth R. Feinberg, the man appointed to oversee the fund to compensate victims of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, is overstating the cost of future damages and is being too generous with his estimates of final settlements to claimants. BP concluded that there is “no credible support for adopting an artificially high future loss factor based purely on the inherent degree of uncertainty in predicting the future and on the mere possibility that future harm might occur.” The rules laid out by Feinberg in determining final settlements paid out by the fund state that damages would be double the 2010 losses for most claims, minus any money previously paid out by the fund. BP, on the other hand, places the cost of likely damage at just 25-50 percent of 2010 losses, saying that all fishing grounds have been reopened and the tourist sector is recovering steadily. Thus far, the recovery fund has given out over $3.5-billion in emergency funds, with about 100,000 people filing for a final settlement. 90,000 claimants have opted for a quick-pay process that hands out $5,000 to individuals and $25,000 to small businesses. While Feinberg was appointed by BP to oversee the settlements process, this public disagreement has bolstered Feinberg’s credibility as an independent overseer.

New York Times

This week: Good news, bad news

By macleans.ca - Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 11:48 AM - 0 Comments

GOOD NEWS

Jose Gomez/Reuters

The good hunt

As East Coast fishermen prepare for another seal hunting season—and the annual clash with animal rights activists—the Harper government is bracing for its own fight. Ottawa announced it will file a formal complaint with the World Trade Organization, challenging the European Union’s ban on Canadian seal products. It is the right decision. Despite the spin of celebrities like Paul McCartney, the hunt is neither barbaric nor disgraceful. What happens on those ice floes is no more gruesome than a typical abattoir, and it injects millions into the East Coast economy. It is an industry worth defending.

Welcome back, Khadr?

Four months after pleading guilty to “murdering” an American soldier, Omar Khadr is asking the U.S. government for clemency—a tactic that could see him back in Canada sooner than expected. Let’s hope the Pentagon approves the application. Like it or not, Khadr’s return is a foregone conclusion, whether it happens in six months or six weeks. And the sooner he comes home, the sooner his fellow citizens can find out who he really is: a peaceful 24-year-old, as his lawyers insist, or a hardened radical bent on re, venge.

Common sense

The municipality of Clarington, Ont., has backed down on its attempt to suppress an annual countryside get-together for libertarian scholars and students. Marta and Lech Jaworski have held the Liberty Summer Seminar for 10 years on their eight-hectare estate, cooking for participants and collecting modest fees to cover their costs. But last year, the pair was accused of running a “commercial conference centre” and threatened with fines. A Charter challenge convinced the city to respect the Jaworskis’ rights to “peaceful assembly.”

On fire

Acclaimed Montreal indie-rock horde Arcade Fire pulled off a Grammy upset, winning Album of the Year for their third studio effort, The Suburbs. Other nominees included Eminem, Lady Gaga, and Katy Perry. Front man Win Butler’s first words upon hearing of the win were, “What the hell?”, and many U.S. compatriots felt the same: Twitter erupted with cries of “Who?” from not-yet-clued-in Americans.

BAD NEWS

Riccardo De Luca/AP

Land of the free (spenders)

Barack Obama talked about making tough choices this week to cut America’s spending. But the budget that landed in Congress didn’t walk the talk. It will reduce but not nearly eliminate annual deficits over the next decade (the projected 2011 deficit is US$1.6 trillion) and it fails to tackle the biggest source of red ink: bloated Social Security and Medicare programs that are under growing pressure from an aging population. America is fast digging itself into a hole from which it may never escape.

In the nick of time

Thank goodness those Chilean miners were rescued when they were; another few days and they would have swallowed each other. According to a new book, the 33 men trapped deep underground for 69 agonizing days were on the verge of cannibalism, agreeing to eat the first man who died of starvation. “They had a pot and a saw ready,” the author says. Sadly, life above ground has been equally hellish. Despite their historic rescue and new-found celebrity, most of the miners are coping with severe psychological problems—including Edison Peña, who famously sang on David Letterman’s show. He is now hospitalized, battling anxiety and depression.

A good idea—not

Bev Oda may “not” be in cabinet much longer. In a stunning about-face, the international co-operation minister admitted that she ordered the word “not” be penned into a document to change it from approving to rejecting $7 million for the church-based aid group Kairos. CIDA officials signed the document thinking they were renewing the group’s funding, only to find out that Oda ordered the insertion of “not” before the word “approve.” Although she originally testified that she didn’t know who added the mysterious “not,” Oda eventually confessed in the House of Commons that it was done at her direction.

Big waistline, small brain

A sugary, fatty diet isn’t just bad for your child’s waistline. It’s bad for the brain. A new study says a three-year-old who eats predominantly processed foods will have a noticeably lower IQ by the age of 8½, compared to kids who eat lots of fruits and veggies. The “good” news? The world’s chocolate supply will reportedly run out by 2014.

Over to you

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 11:35 AM - 23 Comments

The Foreign Affairs committee has reported back to the House of Commons with its findings on Ms. Oda.

In a report tabled Thursday morning, the committee, with a dissenting minority report from Conservative MPs, cites contradictory statements Ms. Oda (Durham, Ont.) has given MPs about the origin of a single word in the recommendation that altered it to say the opposite of what the bureaucrats who submitted the recommendation to Ms. Oda had intended … The Commons must now deal with the report as it would any other committee report by debating it and voting on it, with opposition MPs at some point likely moving motions to propose actions, which could include a formal censure of Ms. Oda.

The NDP’s Paul Dewar is ready to raise a point of privilege.

It's better with Coke

By Claire Ward - Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 11:17 AM - 0 Comments

In 1988, U.K.-born development worker Simon Berry, his wife, Jane, and their three children were stationed in northeast Zambia—a highly remote rural area where one in five children died before the age of five. “I was bouncing around in a Land Rover in this very remote place, yet wherever I went, it seemed I could get a Coca-Cola,” Berry explains. “I thought, if you can get Coca-Cola to these places, why can’t you do the same with basic medicines?” Today, the Berrys run their own organization, ColaLife, which aims to use Coca-Cola’s wide-reaching supply chain to distribute basic medical supplies to remote regions in Africa. The supplies, encased in wedge-shaped “AidPods,” fit snugly into the spaces between the bottles in the crates—five wedges per crate. Coke has recently sanctioned a pilot program in Zambia with local stakeholders; the Berrys are currently seeking funding and have their sights on the Bill & Melinda Gates and Clinton foundations.

While ColaLife has garnered support, some feel sending aid via Coke is like dealing with the devil. “There seems to be a potentially huge payoff [for Coca-Cola] in terms of PR and attitudes to Coke in rural areas,” warns Jonathan Crush, professor of development studies at Queen’s University. Berry’s view is more pragmatic. “In order for a partnership like this to work, there has to be something in it for all,” he says. “The 20 per cent child mortality has remained basically unchanged for decades. We need to try something a bit more innovative.” Berry stresses that Cola­Life wants to take its time to establish a sustainable process—not a one-off—and hopes to launch in June.

The End: Peter Denney | 1944 – 2011

By Julia Belluz - Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 10:56 AM - 1 Comment

Illustration by Taylor Shute

Peter Denney was born in Calgary on Oct. 16, 1944, and raised south of the city in a small town called High River. His father Jack owned a car dealership, and mother Eileen taught typing and bookkeeping at a local high school. While his parents were at work, and sometimes after dark, Peter would go on “adventures” in and around the river—fishing, or floating overnight on rubber inner tubes. “He fancied himself a Tom Sawyer character,” says brother Norman.

That Sawyer-esque lifestyle was instilled in him by a chance meeting with author W. O. Mitchell, known as Canada’s Mark Twain. The eccentric writer was a neighbour in High River (as was former prime minister Joe Clark). Peter was an eager audience for Mitchell’s stories about fishing or duck hunting trips, and adventures into the mountains. From him, “Peter learned at an early age to be a bit of an eccentric, a real adventurer, and he learned how to appreciate the outdoors,” says Norman.

Continue…

This week: Newsmakers

By Ken MacQueen, Colby Cosh and Maclean's staff - Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 10:23 AM - 0 Comments

Leave it to Bieber—or else

Surprise Best New Artist winner Esperanza Spalding discovered the downside to beating out a shoo-in at the Grammys. The jazz singer’s voluminous hair did little to endear her to vengeful Justin Bieber fans, who edited her Wikipedia page to paint a curious picture: her middle name is Justin—no, Quesadilla; she is (to paraphrase) mentally challenged, and she should die in a hole. The Bieb was more gracious, congratulating his rival warmly when he ran into her backstage. Still, Spalding may have more in common with a Canadian act that fared better that night: Arcade Fire. She sang at Barack Obama’s White House, while the Montreal indie darlings played shows for his presidential campaign.

Lucy Nicholson/Reuters

Hair today, who knows tomorrow

Donald Trump electrified the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, speculating in a surprise appearance about a Republican run for the presidency. “We need a competitive person,” Trump told a divided audience. “If I run and if I win, this country will be respected again.” The real estate mogul laid out an anti-gun-control, anti-Obamacare stance, adding a pro-life element that has only recently become a feature of his political bloviations. He also provoked supporters of conservatives’ perennial favourite, libertarian congressman Ron Paul, by remarking that “Paul cannot get elected. Sorry.” Trump says he will make his final decision on whether to run in June.

Joshua Roberts/Reuters

You can’t go home

When former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf announced he was returning from a self-imposed exile to possibly run for office, he faced a Catch-22: he’d either suffer an assassination attempt by al-Qaeda or arrest for treason. Now there’s another obstacle: a warrant for his arrest in connection with the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. On Saturday, a Pakistani court said an investigation revealed Musharraf did not provide adequate protection for the former PM in 2007 as she campaigned against him for the presidency. Musharraf, who denies any involvement, allegedly knew of plans to kill her but failed to alert authorities. Bhutto, of course, was killed by al-Qaeda weeks after her own return following years in self-imposed exile.

Continue…

Transgendered after party on the Hill

By Mitchel Raphael - Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 10:21 AM - 58 Comments

After Bill C-389, which adds gender identity and gender expression to the Canada Human Rights Act, passed last week NDP MP Bill Siksay (below, left) hosted an after party.

Continue…

Liberalism made easy

By Andrew Potter - Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 10:06 AM - 138 Comments

Seems to me the Liberals will have a very easy time making money off this Oda affair.

1. They declare: Either Oda goes or we go to the polls. If Oda goes, then they get a scalp.

2. If Oda stays, they declare they will vote non-confidence in the government at every opportunity from now on.

This will lead to four possible scenarios:

3. Scenario one: NDP and Bloc support the government — then the government becomes, for the remainder of the term, a “coalition of socialists and separatists” — that’s the end of that Conservative talking point.

4. Scenario two: the NDP supports the government. Then the Libs have a great attack on the NDP in the next election (“they supported contempt for parliament and the defunding of Kairos”)

5. Scenario three: the Bloc supports the government. Then the Liberal attack becomes “this government survives only through the support of separatists”. So much for that Conservative talking point.

6. Scenario four: Election

I can’t see how any one of these scenarios is tactically any worse than where the Liberals are now. Also, it gives them the advantage of being on the right side of truth, accountability, parliament, and democracy. It’s very rare that these line up so nicely with partisan advantage. Be a shame to waste it; it certainly beats riding around in a bus shaking hands.

(Way) back to the books

By Erica Alini - Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 10:04 AM - 0 Comments

Photograph by Andrew Tolson

When David Prosser, 64, graduated from Ryerson University in June of last year, it was his third time there in a cap-and-gown ceremony. In 2005, after ending a lifelong career at Kodak Canada, he enrolled to train as a fundraising manager at Ryerson’s G. Raymond Chang School of Continuing Education, and now works as a development director for a Toronto-based mental health charity. “It was a big change to get from the corporate world to the non-profit,” he says—but his alma mater was there to help.

Prosser is one of an increasing number of students who are trotting back to campus decades after their first graduation, and changing the face of universities across Canada. Mid-career and mature professionals going back to the books are fuelling a boom in adult education that goes well beyond colleges. At the Chang school, enrolment rose by 49 per cent since 2001; at the University of Toronto’s School of Continuing Studies (SCS), it’s up 75 per cent since 2007; at the University of Ottawa, it nearly doubled between 2000 and 2009, growing 28 per cent this academic year alone; and at McGill University, it grew by around 6.5 per cent since 2009-2010. When Simon Fraser University (SFU) advertised a free workshop called “Later in Life Career Transitions” around Christmas last year, the 70-spot event was fully booked before New Year’s, and when the school decided to make another 100 seats available, they sold out in a week. “I think it says a lot about the hunger for learning and career options later in life,” says SFU’s dean of lifelong learning Helen Wussow, who added that enrolment at the school was up this year.

Continue…

Public relations

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 9:12 AM - 10 Comments

David Pugliese looks at the campaign to sell the F-35 purchase.

Figures obtained by the Liberals show public servants at National Defence headquarters charged taxpayers at least 600 hours of overtime to organize a news conference and seven events to promote the purchase of the F-35 aircraft to defence analysts, academics and some industry representatives … Defence Department sources have told the Ottawa Citizen some officers have been uncomfortable with the situation but the military is being pressured by the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister’s Office to spearhead the sales effort.

Tony at 50

By Mitchel Raphael - Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 9:05 AM - 7 Comments

Industry Minister Tony Clement celebrated his 50^th birthday with party held at the Metropolitain Brasserie and Restaurant.

.

Continue…

Bestsellers

By Brian Bethune - Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 8:00 AM - 1 Comment

Top-selling fiction and non-fiction titles (week of February 14th, 2011)
Fiction

Non-fiction

LAST WEEK (WEEKS ON LIST)

Hits to the head: Scientists explain Sidney Crosby's concussion

By Cathy Gulli and Charlie Gillis - Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 4:00 AM - 19 Comments

Neurotrauma impact lab: University of Ottawa scientists reconstruct hits to the head, including ones from pro hockey, to better understand concussions. Photographs By Blair Gable.

Inside a white cement-block science lab at the University of Ottawa, two young researchers cover a beige crash-test dummy head with a black nylon stocking. It’s supposed to mimic the tousled hair of Pittsburgh Penguins superstar Sidney Crosby, who’s been knocked out of the game since early January because of two massive, back-to-back blows to the head. Here, at the elite Neurotrauma Impact Science Laboratory, researchers led by Blaine Hoshizaki are reconstructing a hit similar to Crosby’s first one to establish the relationship between helmet performance and how concussions occur. That nylon stocking, however out of place it seems, makes sliding a helmet on and off the sticky urethane and aluminum head form easier.

Guided by a laser, they position the dummy inside a Plexiglas cage so that a thick metal rod with a hard, white plastic nib is aimed at its left side—precisely the spot where the cold shoulder of David Steckel of the Washington Capitals hit Crosby during a game on New Year’s Day. Everyone nearby in the hangar-like space puts on heavy-duty earphones and steps behind yellow and black danger tape on the floor. With one press of a red button, a calculated reconstruction of the hit similar to the now infamous Crosby-Steckel one is under way.

Beep! Beep! Beep! A shrill, pulsating tone precedes a bursting whoosh as an air compressor drives the rod into the head form at the exact same speed (27 km/h) and angle as when Steckel’s 217-lb. body collided with Crosby’s head. The crash hurls the head form along a monorail track while it flops back and forth on a dummy neck. However hard the hit looked on the ice, seeing it in the isolation of the lab is disturbing—much like the unsettling feeling one gets from watching footage of crash-test dummies flailing in car accident re-enactments. It’s the distinct surprise that anyone survives these events.

Continue…

Thoughts On Watson

By Jaime Weinman - Wednesday, February 16, 2011 at 11:26 PM - 6 Comments

Now that it’s over I should say a little something more about Watson, the computer who was sent by Skynet to take over the world beat the humans on Jeopardy! over the last few days.

Now, the things I don’t know about computers are so numerous that they would overload even the most advanced computer, so I can’t comment much on what Watson says about our mechanized future. Noel Murray’s review tries to go into that issue a bit more. Just as a game, though, the effect was lessened for me by the obvious problem that many people have pointed out: Watson’s real advantage was not that it knew the questions, but that it could process the answers instantly and buzz in with a speed that a human can’t match.

That made it a very frustrating show to watch at times. You could see the frustration on Ken and Brad’s faces too. The worst moment for a Jeopardy! contestant has always been the moment when he knows the correct response but someone else buzzes in a split second before him. Here they were dealing not with a human who has mastered exactly when and how to hit the button, but a machine that is hooked up to another machine. What it really says, maybe, is not that computers are smarter than humans but that machines can more easily be connected to other machines.

Well, the frustration aspect certainly made this an interesting run of shows, in a cringe-y sort of way. And Watson became, depending on how you chose to look at it, either a hilarious hero or a truly hateful villain. (With that glowing spinning thing, making him look like he’d ingested some kind of radioactive fluid that lit up his insides, he reminded me of the character “Blight” from Batman Beyond.) There were even some fun moments where it seemed like the humans had the advantage, like the Pinky and the Brain question that namechecked our own Maurice LaMarche. Computers have not yet learned about ’90s TV cartoons, nor about Canadian voice actors.

And speaking of cartoons, now comes the inevitable scandal where it turns out that — like the UNIVAC machine in the old Bugs Bunny cartoon — Watson has only “one working part” and it’s not necessarily IBM-approved.

Hacking for the Man

By Jesse Brown - Wednesday, February 16, 2011 at 10:32 PM - 52 Comments

In Russia, hacking is a government gig.

Kremlin-affiliated hackers launched a crippling cyberattack against Estonia. Hackers routinely flood the comment sections of news sites that criticize the government and spread lies to discredit the journalists who write them.  When opposition parties plan rallies, hackers spread misinformation, confusing supporters with false dates and meeting places. Similar shenanigans take place in China, where PRC-linked hackers tried to infiltrate Google in retaliation for the search engine’s criticism of government censorship.

These Russian and Chinese hackers are little more than digital thugs- bullying, threatening, silencing and discrediting anyone who is deemed an enemy of the State, or of State-affiliated businesses and institutions.  They are never directly on the government payroll and are kept at an arm’s length distance for the sake of plausible deniability. They are compensated by intermediaries of intermediaries through tangled systems of kickbacks and payoffs.

As goonish as the whole practice may seem, through a certain lens it must be appreciated as a clever new kind of censorship.  In Egypt or Iran, governments simply tried to shut off the Internet when faced with dissent. Such ham-fisted acts merely strengthened the resolve of revolutionaries while attracting international rebuke.  Much subtler then to have your agents use a cocktail of digital dirty-tricks to muddy the waters and murder reputations.

You may think such a thing could never happen in the U.S., and you may be right.  But it almost did.

If you haven’t yet heard of the HBGary scandal (and if you like spy novels), you should check out these fantastic reports by Nate Anderson of Ars Technica. This is a complicated story and it’s still unfolding as thousands of hacked emails are scrutinized, but the basics suggest that a private cybersecurity firm called HBGary Federal proposed to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and to Bank of America a dirty-tricks campaign, in order to thwart their enemies (labour unions, non-profits, and Wikileaks, who are expected to soon release incriminating information about the Bank of America). The proposed tactics include:

• Cyberattacks
• Misinformation campaigns
• Phishing emails
• Fake social network accounts
• “Disrupting” journalists who are sympathetic to Wikileaks
• Intimidating financial donors who support Wikileaks

Ironically, these hacking schemes were exposed by hackers.  HBGary’s website was attacked after its CEO picked a public fight with the Internet entity Anonymous.  Anonymous discovered major insecurities in the security firm’s website, and was able to steal and leak and thousands of HBGary emails, which expose the details recounted above. The U.S. Department of Justice is tangentially involved, as they recommended to the Chamber of Commerce the law firm that in turn hired HBGary.  It’s highly unlikely that the DoJ had any direct knowledge of HBGary’s plans.  It’s also important to note that there is no evidence that the Chamber of Commerce or Bank of America signed-off on HBGary’s proposals.

But then, I doubt that Vladimir Putin signed-off on the cyberattack against Estonia.   The point of pro-government hackers is that they get results for their masters without implicating them.

If HBGary’s foolish CEO hadn’t picked a fight with Anonymous, who knows how far he might have gone?

Hit to the head: a similar one to Sidney Crosby’s (reconstruction)

By Cathy Gulli - Wednesday, February 16, 2011 at 10:30 PM - 5 Comments

This video displays a reconstruction of a hit similar to the one Pittsburgh Penguin Sidney Crosby experienced during a game on Jan. 1 from David Steckel of the Washington Capitals, as conducted at the Neurotrauma Impact Science Laboratory, University of Ottawa.

Scientists led by Blaine Hoshizaki replicated the speed, angle and location of the impact to understand the relationship between head trauma, helmet performance and concussions.

Source for black/white footage: Neurotrauma Impact Science Laboratory, University of Ottawa.
Source for colour footage: Cathy Gulli, Maclean’s

Read about Sidney Crosby’s concussion in ‘Hits to the head: Scientists explain Sidney Crosby’s concussion’, in the February 28 issue of Maclean’s

RELATED:
Reporter Cathy Gulli explains the seriousness of concussions in sports (VIDEO)
The damage done by concussions

A test of our democracy

By Andrew Coyne - Wednesday, February 16, 2011 at 8:20 PM - 377 Comments

Doctored documents a ‘test of democracy’ says Ignatieff – Toronto Star.

That’s about the size of it. This is about much more than Bev Oda, Minister of International Cooperation. This is about whether this government can be held to basic norms of civilized democratic behaviour.

Or, for that matter, logic. There is, after all, nothing to be debated here. There isn’t any doubt that the minister initially claimed, or at least implied, that the decision to defund Kairos was made by CIDA officials. There isn’t any doubt that those same CIDA officials in fact recommended funding be continued. There isn’t any doubt that the document they signed recommending that she approve funding for Kairos was later altered, comically, by the handwritten addition of the word “not,” to suggest the opposite.

And there isn’t any doubt that Oda lied to Parliament about this addition: the only question is when. Did she lie in December when she told the Commons foreign affairs committee she had no idea who altered the document, or was she lying on Monday when she told the Commons that in fact it was done at her behest? (Or will she claim that, although she directed it be altered, she did not know, as of December, who did it? Is that the Clintonian reed to which she will cling?)

To sum up: She misrepresented what CIDA officials told her, to evade responsibility for what was plainly a political decision. She altered a document, or caused it to be altered, so as to support that lie, that is by falsifying the intent of the signatories (though to what end is unclear: how it could be imagined a handwritten addition to a typescript document would fool anybody?). And she dissembled about her role in that, too: a lie about a lie about a lie.

In times past — not under the last government, but in any previous — a minister who lied to Parliament, even once, would be gone, immediately: if not out of any genuine sense of shame or remorse on the part of the government, then certainly out of a sense that it could not afford to be publicly associated with such deceitful behaviour. But this government, and this Prime Minister, seem instead to be bent on riding this out. They do not deny that she lied. But neither do they acknowledge that she did. They simply do not address the issue at all. Instead they make another point altogether: that the minister was within her rights to overrule her bureaucrats.

Yes, of course she was. She may even have been right to do so, though that is something that can be debated. What cannot be debated, what she had absolutely no right to do, was to misrepresent her bureaucrats’ views, alter documents, and lie to Parliament.

WHICH IS to say: it is the government’s defense of her, more even than the minister’s misconduct, that is now the issue. Ministers in any government will screw up from time to time. Some will even lie. That is fallible humanity. But when they are caught, when the jig is up, when there are no longer any lies to be told, it is to be expected — it has always been expected — that consequences should follow. At the least, one could expect the government to acknowledge that what she did was wrong — or at the very least, to acknowledge that she did it.

If it then tried to keep her on, arguing that the sin was not so great as to warrant a resignation, that would be objectionable enough, and a denial of all previous precedent. But it would at least be a tacit concession that ministers should not lie to Parliament. If it had tried to pretend there were some doubt about what she had done, that would be graver still, since it would be to deny facts that were not capable of dispute, and thus to cast into doubt the very possibility of fact and evidence as guides to public debate. But just to ignore the charge altogether, to carry on as if nothing had happened, takes us into the kingdom of dada.

Moreover, all of this assumes that in fact Oda was acting on her own here: that it was her decision to deny funding to Kairos, her decision to misrepresent her bureaucrats’ advice, her decision to alter the document, her decision to lie about it in committee, and her decision to confess now. But there is an alternate theory, that will strike many as much more plausible: that in fact she approved funding Kairos, that she accepted her bureaucrats’ advice, that she signed the document in its unadulterated form — and that it was someone higher up who ordered her, not only to alter her decision, but to pretend to have done so on CIDA’s advice, with whatever subsequent acts of deception were required — including taking the blame, undeservedly, for having altered the document, with the corollary necessity of admitting, falsely, to having lied to the committee. In other words, the only lie of which she is guilty may be the lie she is telling now.

It would certainly fit a pattern. The ingredients of the Oda affair — secrecy, deception, stonewalling, contempt for Parliament, bureaucrats as fall guys and ministers as pawns — are evident throughout this government. And all stem from the same source: a refusal to deal openly with the public, to explain the reasons for its actions and take responsibility for them — because to do so would require the government to concede that its actions have reasons, an underlying intent, a purpose, a philosophy, an ideology. And the Harper government’s whole philosophy is to have no philosophy, or none that it acknowledges.

If they had simply declared, we do not wish to fund Kairos any more, because we disagree with its aims and methods — because of its hostility to market economics and unbalanced criticism of Israel — that would have caused controversy, but nothing like the mess they now find themselves in. But that, it seems, is a lesson they never learn.  It was, after all, the same government that pretended, falsely, to have had the support of Statistics Canada officials in its decision to corrupt the long-form census.

So, too, in the matter of the Globalive wireless phone application, rather than state openly that it wishes to allow foreign competition in telecoms, and change the law — or attempt to — to allow it, as any normal government would, this government simply declares that Globalive is a Canadian company, in plain contradiction, as a Federal Court judge has lately found, to the facts. The result? Far from convincing the public that it has no ideology, it simply confirms them in the impression that it is both ideological and devious. And since its stratagems and deceptions are invariably found out, we should perhaps add to the list: ideological, devious, and incompetent.

BUT NOW we are beyond the minister, and beyond even this government. Because if this sort of conduct is allowed to stand — the minister’s first, and then the government’s in its backing of her — then it is not only this government that becomes a moral farce, but also Parliament, since it is Parliament’s job to police such things. And if the Parliament we elect can be so effortlessly mocked and defiled, then it is really us who have been as well.

So yes, Michael Ignatieff, this is a test of our democracy. I know what the minister should do. And I know what the government should do. The question is: what are you going to do?

The Commons: 'Where is the minister?'

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, February 16, 2011 at 6:51 PM - 41 Comments

The Scene. The moment apparently called for an accusatorily extended index finger. But first, a flashback—subjective as it may be—for the sake of those just tuning in to this tale of Bev Oda’s woe.

“Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House the Prime Minister basically said: ‘I don’t care whether my minister doctored documents. I don’t care whether she misled the House. I don’t care whether she told the truth. I just don’t care,’” Michael Ignatieff reviewed off the top.

“This kind of disrespect for democracy just has to stop,” he continued, now turning to today. “When will the Prime Minister start showing respect for this House, respect for the people who put us here and fire that minister?”

Here is where he wagged that finger, a dramatic gesture rarely employed by the Liberal leader. Alas, it would him get no further.

“Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of that question,” the Prime Minister pleaded. “The minister took a decision. The minister made clear that the decision was contrary to recommendations which she received from unelected officials, but in a democracy it is the elected officials who make decisions on how to spend taxpayers’ money.”

Apparently here the Prime Minister meant to present us with a choice. We could have a democracy in which elected officials make decisions. Or we could have a democracy in which elected officials were expected to tell the truth and refrain from doctoring documents. But we could not have it both ways. Continue…

Will and Kate to spend Canada Day on Parliament Hill

By macleans.ca - Wednesday, February 16, 2011 at 3:46 PM - 20 Comments

Prince William and his bride-to-be Kate Middleton have accepted Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s invitation to make a royal visit this summer. They plan to celebrate Canada Day on Parliament Hill. “Canada looks forward to welcoming the young couple this summer and providing them with all that our country has to offer—including, of course, the special hospitality and warmth reserved for members of the Royal Family,” Harper said in a statement. Their tour will span from June 30 to July 8 and will include stops in Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Ottawa, Alberta and the Northwest Territories. This will be Will and Kate’s first trip as a married couple.

CTV News

Roy Orbison caption challenge

By Scott Feschuk - Wednesday, February 16, 2011 at 3:39 PM - 73 Comments

WINNER DECLARED: For reasons I’m not sure I fully understand yet, gottabesaid made me laugh with “The gift shop was out of Colts Wine-Tipped.” And there were other fine entries from jchianello, Dot and especially madeyoulook, among others. But I’m awarding the prize to LaxAtlDfwYow because that entry made me imagine Harper and Oda singing a duet, and THAT is funny (as are the proposed lyrics).

Well done, all. LaxAtlDfwYow, flip me an email at sfeschuk@feschuk-reid.com and I’ll dispatch your prize via the astonishing power of the internets.

•••

Have we had a caption challenge lately? We have not. Have we had a photograph this awesome lately?

We have not.

Kudos to Sean Kilpatrick of Canadian Press for capturing it. And kudos to whomever triumphs in the challenge for best caption, and walks away with Continue…

Ottawa International Airport wins major award

By macleans.ca - Wednesday, February 16, 2011 at 3:28 PM - 7 Comments

The Ottawa International airport has come out on top as the best in customer satisfaction in airports that serve between two and five million passengers per year. The international distinction is, to Paul Benoit, president and CEO of the Ottawa International Airport Authority, the Stanley Cup of airport awards. “It’s great news for the National Capital region,” Benoit told CBC News. “We’ve had a tremendous year in 2010 with a record number of passengers.” The contest, which is run by the Airports Council International, also named Ottawa the second best airport in North America overall, regardless of size.

CBC News

Updated: Obama proposes travel fee for Canada

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Wednesday, February 16, 2011 at 3:26 PM - 93 Comments

The 2012 budget plan that President Barack Obama unveiled this week includes a proposal to impose a $5.50 fee on every traveller entering the US from Canada by commercial vehicle aircraft or vessel (airlines, cruises, buses, etc.) More precisely, it would end a waiver that visitors from Canada (not just citizens or residents, but all visitors) have enjoyed until now.

(* I had understood that commercial buses were also included, but the language is limited to aircraft and vessels.)

According to Birgit Matthiesen of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association, 16,347,580 air passengers from Canada in 2009 at $5.50 would bring in $89,911,690 or almost the $110 million the Department of Homeland Security said they were looking to generate in the 2012 budget proposal.

Matthiesen says the proposal contradicts the border vision that Harper and Obama set out:

“It’s just yet another demonstration that crossing the border from Canada to the US is going to be costing us more and that the border is a real border. This will stymie not only tourism across our borders but also the travel of our business people,” she said.

“The idea that revenues to offset US budget deficits will come at the expense of Canadian tourists and businesspeople is worrisome – especially coming on the heels of Prime Minister Harper’s visit to the US when they pledged to do more for North American businesses and the North American economy. They pledged to reduce regulatory burdens. This is a huge burden.”

Matthiesen said that NAFTA does not give protection from the fee.

Of course, Obama’s budget is merely a proposal. The US Congress has to legislate any changes.

Here is the current COBRA language:

Fees for arrival of passengers aboard commercial vessels and commercial aircraft(1) Fees. (i) Subject to paragraphs (g)(1)(ii) and (g)(3) of this section, a fee of $5 must be collected and remitted to CBP for services provided in connection with the arrival of each passenger aboard a commercial vessel or commercial aircraft from a place outside the United States,other than Canada, Mexico, one of the territories and possessions of the United States, or one of the adjacent islands, in either of the following circumstances: (A) When the journey of the arriving passenger originates in a place outside the United States other than Canada, Mexico, one of the territories or possessions of the United States, or one of the adjacent islands; or (B) When the journey of the arriving passenger originates in the United States and is not limited to Canada, Mexico, territories and possessions of the United States, and adjacent islands.

Background on COBRA is here.

The DHS budget justification document mentions ending the exemption:

“The President’s FY 2012 Budget includes a legislative proposal to lift the country exemptions for Mexico, Canada, and the Caribbean, which will increase collections by $110 million. The Budget assumes implementation of this exemption by Q3 FY 2012 and therefore requests $55 million in discretionary funding to cover half of the costs.”

***

You can follow me on Twitter at luizachsavage

MUSIC: Met Modernizes Mildly

By Jaime Weinman - Wednesday, February 16, 2011 at 3:22 PM - 0 Comments

The Metropolitan Opera in New York announced its 2011-12 season today. Still no new operas, though there’s some talk of one in the future; the closest thing to a new work is in fact a mish-mash of old operas, called “The Enchanted Island,” a pasticcio built out of baroque arias by Handel, Rameau, Vivaldi and other baroque masters. It will be an adaptation of The Tempest and feature a lot of house superstars like David Daniels and Plácido Domingo.

As for the new productions of old works, these are dominated by the second two parts of Robert Lepage’s Ring cycle. The first two parts didn’t really make much of a splash as far as I could see — in fact, I think the house got much more publicity and controversy for their previous production, by Otto Schenck, because of the controversy surrounding Schenk’s literal interpretations of the stage directions (at a time when operatic productions were already becoming more abstract and symbolic). The final two instalments will be jazzed up with some 3D effects, though I always thought live theatre was as 3D as you can possibly get. And Canadian tenor Ben Heppner’s decision to withdraw as Siegfried is probably a blessing in disguise for the production; his voice is not what it was, and it was never completely right for this incredibly difficult part even in his prime.

The other productions are not exactly the riskiest choices of repertoire or directors on earth. The Met is “modernizing,” throwing out the naturalistic and pictorial Franco Zeffirelli productions in favour of productions that appeal to a younger audience, but it’s doing it very slowly and carefully. And rightly so, because this is a house that depends mostly on private funding and ticket sales in the middle of an economic slump. So they’re depending on stars, particularly Anna Netrebko, who will be in two of the new productions: Donizetti’s Anna Bolena and Massenet’s Manon.  Donizetti wrote three operas about English queens, all of which the Met will present over the next three years. Maria Stuarda, which the Canadian Opera Company just did, is probably the best known, but Anna Bolena is by far the best, thanks to a really strong libretto by the great Felice Romani. (There is no such thing as a great opera without a strong libretto. It’s like a good movie without a good script. Even the librettos mocked for complex plots or flowery language usually turn out to be very good on closer examination, because if they weren’t good the opera would never be.)

The choices of directors tend toward the middle ground, too. It’s about half European directors who aren’t too far-out for North American audiences (no Calixto Bieito, for which I for one am thankful): David McVicar, whose main schtick is just updating an opera to a Continue…

Bieber Hates Abortion, Loves Canadian Health Care

By Jaime Weinman - Wednesday, February 16, 2011 at 2:30 PM - 4 Comments

It’s so confusing figuring out the contradictory pronouncements from the latest Bieber Encyclical. As my colleague Scott Feschuk has noted, he’s against abortion in all cases including rape. That makes him a  hero of the people, fighting the liberal elites. But wait! In the same interview, Bieber comes down squarely on the side of Canada’s CastroCare system:

The Canadian-born Bieber never plans on becoming an American citizen. “You guys are evil,” he says with a laugh. “Canada’s the best country in the world. We go to the doctor and we don’t need to worry about paying him, but here, your whole life, you’re broke because of medical bills. My bodyguard’s baby was premature, and now he has to pay for it. In Canada, if your baby’s premature, he stays in the hospital as long as he needs to, and then you go home.”

I don’t understand. It is impossible that a Canadian teenager can hold views that don’t line up neatly along a political spectrum as defined by Washington Post columnists and The Charlie Rose Show. I am not programmed to respond in that area.

The above clip, incidentally, is also a preview of what’s going to happen on an episode of Jeopardy! when they finally bring William Shatner on to talk Watson to death. It may not need manual dexterity to buzz in, but it does not understand human illogic… or the power of love.