I Have A Problem With These Estimates

While I'm not particularly opposed to the restructuring of Alberta's resource royalties, there's a problem with could have been estimates and declaring them as "losses".

n a 2006 report, the department estimated that since royalty rates were capped at certain price levels, Alberta had lost between $1.3 billion and $2.8 billion in "uncaptured economic rent" for natural gas alone in 2003 and 2004, or between $700 million and $1.4 billion a year.

It's a little like saying that if I didn't get a pay hike of some percentage last year, that I "lost" however many dollars that hike represented. The simple fact is that I didn't earn that money ... period.

In other words, the estimate describes the dollars that Alberta did not realize as a result of the royalty regime at the time. Using the term "loss" is quite incorrect.

If this latest debacle tells us anything, it is really more about the lack of transparency and accountability that Albertans have from the government in Edmonton. These numbers should have been public a long time ago, as this is a matter of public policy that requires information to be put into the public arena.

The information, inadvertently released by Alberta Energy, demonstrates the lengths to which the provincial government went to hide the fact that it has known for years Albertans weren't getting their fair share, provincial Liberal energy critic Hugh MacDonald said Friday.

As the public debate in recent months over the royalties discussion has shown, there are multiple aspects to this discussion, and all of the stories need to be put forward reasonably. When major chunks of information are withheld, it is extremely difficult for people to make reasoned assessments of the issue - and we should be very worried when we are told "you wouldn't understand" by both industry and political players.

Byers Column on Canadian Foreign Policy

A commenter back here tried to suggest that Michael Byers is being "even wingnuttier" than Jonas was on the human rights topic.

I've already explained why I think Jonas was dead wrong on the topic of human rights commissions, so I won't waste more bandwidth on the subject.

Byers' column is interesting in its own right. It opens with the following commentary:

"So, how does it feel to be the citizen of a rogue state?"

The British professor asking the question was serious.

We were in Cambridge, England, and yet the words "Kyoto," "Bali" and "Canada" were on many lips.

I'm not a fan of phrases like "rogue state" to start with - like other empty catch-phrases such as "family values", it tends to carry implications that are unstated and each listener will "read in" their own understanding of the phrase. However, I can certainly see where the British professor was coming from - there have certainly been those who have accused the United States of "going rogue" by invading Iraq, and other actions of the Bush administration.

Byers then proceeds to enumerate a list of topics that would lend the impression that Harper has acted as a puppet to the Bush Whitehouse.

1. For on the other side of the planet, Environment Minister John Baird was blocking an agreement that would have bound the world's wealthiest countries to specific targets for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions after 2012 – when the Kyoto Protocol expires.
   ...
   Instead, the Canadian delegation embraced the stubbornly unilateral, anti-environmental stance of U.S. President George W. Bush. They mimicked his demand – always intended as a deal breaker – that any specific binding targets include developing states.
   
   The move caught some foreign experts by surprise. Canada had previously shown the good sense not to join in Bush's most egregious mistakes, including the Iraq War.

   
   
   Generally speaking, I found the Harper government's stance at Bali reprehensible.
   


2. 
   

   Harper's Bush-like views extend beyond climate change. In July 2006, he described the far-reaching destruction of Lebanese infrastructure as a "measured" response to the abduction of an Israeli soldier, souring our relations with Arab states and precluding a diplomatic role for Canada in the Middle East.

   
   
   Yep, Israel's destruction in Lebanon was another case of aping typical American foreign policy to any conflict involving Israel.
   



3. He has also picked unnecessary quarrels with China over human rights, Russia over the Arctic and Iran over ambassadors, rather than seizing opportunities to constructively engage these increasingly important states.

   
   
   Again, Harper's thuggish approach to relations with China is something I've criticized as well.
   



4. In Afghanistan, Harper has stubbornly opposed negotiations with dissident groups, shown a casual disregard for the rights of detainees, and seems to view the mission mostly as a way of currying favour with the United States.
   
   Why else would his defence minister, Peter MacKay, invite the U.S. ambassador along for a Christmas visit to Canada's troops in Kandahar?

   
   
   Oh yes, the visit where Mackay made unfounded accusations of Iran, which are causing officials to have to tap dance around. Not to mention the "spontaneous" propaganda visits that seem to happen every time Harper wants a boost in the polls.
   



5. Thanks to Harper, Canada has become the pliant instrument of a failed U.S. presidency. We are now, for all intents and purposes, a vassal state.

   
   
   In recent months, I've found it necessary to characterize Harper's foreign policy as making Canada a vassal state.
   

From there Byers goes on to comment on what he thinks Canada should be doing on various fronts, and makes one very key comment:

On all foreign policy issues, let's not be afraid to conduct our own analyses, to have our own national debates. In the end, we'll likely decide to work with the United States about 95 per cent of the time.

On the remaining 5 per cent, let's not be surprised when the U.S. government expresses displeasure or even makes threats. That's what good negotiators do, as they prepare for the next bargaining round.

This is important. Canada's real strength on the world stage is in its image as an "honest broker" with Washington. Namely that we have a certain independence of opinion and direction, but also understand where we share common cause with Washington. We need to be seen as willing and able to sidestep those places where an often intransigent government in Washington is radically out of step with the rest of the world. We do ourselves few favours if we simply follow Washington's whim blindly.

However, returning to my original topic, there's quite a difference between Jonas' column and Byers'. Where Jonas starts his argument from the incorrect assertion that:

Human rights laws and tribunals are based on the notion that being hired, promoted, serviced and esteemed is a human right. It isn’t

... and then proceeds to rant on repeating an utterly bogus conservative talking point about Human Rights Commissions that both Ezra Levant and Nigel Hannaford had spouted previously. (BTW, the human rights laws for Canada and most provinces (e.g. Alberta) are available online, and it would do many of the "pundits" some good to actually spend some time reading them before they go off making the kind of sweepingly stupid statements that Jonas, Levant and Hannaford have all done)

In comparison, Byers starts with a statement that someone else made, proceeds to substantiate it by giving examples that reinforce where that perception could come from, and then makes some concrete and tangible suggestions as to what Canada should do differently.

Does that make Byers a "wingnut" on the "left"? Not in this writer's opinion - he has actually substantiated his claims with evidence that can be discussed. You can argue that you disagree with his analysis of Harper's behaviour (if that is your stance), and proceed from that point, but he has provided the particulars upon which his position rests.

The National Post Is Becoming Wingnut Central

With the National Post now publishing Ezra Levant, it would seem that the degree of lunatic stupidity at the paper has increased dramatically.

This week's exhibit in the Not Getting It category is George Jonas.

Mr. Jonas is working himself into a lather over Human Rights Commissions, and like certain other journalists I have trashed before, such as Ezra Levant and Nigel Hannaford, however he achieves a new level of asinine stupidity with the following assertion:

Human rights laws and tribunals are based on the notion that being hired, promoted, serviced and esteemed is a human right. It isn’t. Being hired, promoted, serviced and esteemed is a human ambition. It’s a justifiable ambition, but still just an ambition.

Wrong. Just plain wrong. Statements like this come out of the world of shallow thinking and jingoism.

To illustrate: A Canadian Jew who won’t hire a Canadian German or Muslim is a fool. There’s only one fool worse: a “human rights” commissar who would force him.

Where individuals exercise lawful choices, human rights are protected. People’s motives are their own business. Most people aren’t morons. When left to their own devices in a free society, most will select whom to hire, promote, service, or esteem on the basis of enlightened self-interest, not prejudice.

There's a problem here, and Mr. Jonas is trying very hard not to mention it - it's called discrimination. Human Rights laws are built quite specifically to work against the kind of conscious, systemic discrimination that he's referencing indirectly.

I don't care if someone won't hire a given person. However, I do care if the reason that they won't is because of some pithy reason such as their ancestry or as Chris Kempling did, discriminate by denying service to someone BASED his moral objections to their sexual identity.

I do not necessarily think that all human rights complaints are necessarily valid, but I do believe that there is a concept of due process that is applicable. The Human Rights Commissions provide an entry point into that due process in much the same way that law enforcement agencies such as the police provide when a criminal matter needs to be addressed.

As for the National Post itself, they should be ashamed (along with the rest of the CanWest chain) for repeatedly publishing such amazingly stupid columns that keep repeating the same idiotic talking points. It merely serves to demonstrate that they are becoming a mouthpiece for wingnut propaganda machines, rather than acting as legitimate journalists should.

The Iowa Caucus Votes

I'm not sure what to make of last night's nomination caucuses in Iowa.

The outcome was surprising for both the Democrats and the Republicans.

Mike Huckabee appears to have come out of nowhere and managed to pick up the evangelical vote, pulling the rug out from underneath Mitt Romney. I suspect in this case that what has happened is Huckabee has managed to style himself as "the next evangelical candidate" late in a race where many Republicans were wondering if there was an "acceptably evangelical" candidate in the list.

Meanwhile, the democrats had their own drama, with Barack Obama coming out ahead in Iowa, and Hillary Clinton coming in third - behind John Edwards. Surprising to say the least.

I'm beginning to suspect that what is emerging here is a political division in the US that will fracture ultimately along religious/secular lines, with the Republicans slowly becoming the party dominated by evangelical Christians, and the Democrats picking up most of the rest, but possibly leaving room for a third party to emerge in the coming years. The last round of Presidential Primaries showed some similar divisions, and it seems that the evangelical vote that currently seems to have the power in the Republicans may well become the party power establishment in the years to come.

Sandblasting a Talking Point Into Oblivion

Back here, someone left the following comment:

Does the fact that no Canadian HRC complaint has EVER been denied give you pause for concern about the legitimacy of this institution?

The statement itself is patently false. The CHRC's own Annual Report shows it quite clearly:

There were 1,074 final decisions rendered by the Commission in 2006. Of these:

* 384 or 36% were decisions not to deal with a complaint pursuant to section 40/41 of the Act. ...

* In the remaining 690 cases, the Commission dealt with the complaints on their merits and ultimately made a decision either to dismiss the complaint, approve a settlement or refer the matter to Tribunal.

* The 297 dismissed cases represented 43% of all cases dealt with by the Commission in 2006. ...

* A total of 278 cases were settled. This represents 40% of all cases dealt with in 2006. ...

* A total of 115 cases were referred to the Tribunal in 2006, a number similar to the previous two years.

So, in short, right out of the gate, a little over 1/3 of all cases don't even get beyond the initial evaluation.

Of those that do, it's roughly an even split between those that are dismissed, and those that are settled, and a handful (around 10%) get referred to the Tribunal process.

Similar results can be found for the Alberta Human Rights Commission in their annual report (see p. 23 of 48)

Having established that the talking point our commenter posted is complete nonsense, I'd like to go a little further with it.

In some respects, I view a human rights complaint as little different to lodging a complaint with the police. I certainly do not expect that charges will be laid necessarily, but I do expect my concerns to be taken somewhat seriously.

One example that I can think of happened a few years ago when some slightly unhinged individual left a series of "door hangers" on doors in my neighborhood that contained threats against several police officers, along with a request for their home addresses.

To my knowledge, charges were never laid in that case, but my expectation was that the police take enough interest to determine if the threat was real or simply the ravings of a complete loon.

Similarly, if a human rights complaint is filed, there is a requirement for at least enough due diligence on the part of the commission receiving the complaint to determine if the complaint has any legitimacy at all. I do not demand that every issue raised go through a tribunal process, and in fact few actually go that far.

Somebody's Having A Tantrum At CFAC

It seems that someone left the children over at 'Canada Family Action Coalition' with the passwords to the computers, and they've been having quite the little hissy fit this month.

It seems that Mr. Rushfeldt and his companions over at CFAC don't much like a recent series of human rights rulings and complaints that have emerged in the last months of 2007.

Unsurprisingly, much of their tirade is a call for human rights commissions to be abolished in Canada. This is neither surprising nor atypical for extreme right-wingnut "Christianity" who seem to believe that their "god-given right" to spew supercedes all other rights.

Consider the following from one of their screeds:

Human Rights Commissions are akin the Court Challenges Program that was thankfully "killed" federally. Human Rights cases are cases where taxpayer dollars are being used to undermine the very tenant of our Charter. The Charter's Clause 2 - every Canadian has the right to freedom of speech -has become absolutely meaningless.

Really? It has? Or has Mr. Rushfeldt & Co. simply lost sight of the reality that rights exist in contention with each other.

The cheering over the dissolution of the "Charter Challenges" program speaks to the real agenda at play here. Under that program, it was possible for very small minorities to get the funding necessary to actually drive a case to the Supreme Court in this country. Without it, it is a prohibitively expensive process to challenge the government at all when it puts laws on the books that one believes are in violation of Canada's Constitution.

What CFAC is really angling for is the right to spew whatever dubious "truths" about people (especially GLBT people it would seem, although more recently they are picking up the fear of Islam from loons like Mark Steyn as well) without any fear of being held to account for the veracity of those "truths".

Here is a line out of the Alberta Act that should frighten all citizens: Procedural rules: (2) Evidence may be given before a human rights panel in any manner that the panel considers appropriate, and the panel is not bound by the rules of law respecting evidence in judicial proceedings.

If that is not enough to make you shudder hear this one: Protection from giving evidence:40(1) No member of the Commission, nor the director of the Commission or any other employee mentioned in section 18, shall be required by any court to give evidence relative to information obtained for the purposes of this Act. (2) No proceeding under this Act shall be deemed invalid by reason of any defect in form or any technical irregularity.

So errors, omissions, even false statements can not be grounds for a " mistrial". Do those clauses mean that the Commission is above the law then? Or is there any law that applies to the function of human rights appointees?

This is patently false at both the provincial and federal levels in Canada. A Rights Tribunal ruling can be appealed to the courts, a which time a more rigorous approach to evidence becomes significant. At the level of the tribunal, certain amounts of hearsay and inference are going to be necessary, as rights cases often are the result of actions far less blatant than Boissoin's letter.

For those who believe that discrimination and bigotry are truly the ugly underside of civil society, a body of law around human rights is vitally important, and the means for it to be arbitrated without drowning our courts in otherwise minor matters. The religious right wing, having lost their battle over SGM have now turned their eyes on Canada's human rights laws.

My Canada is multicultural, tolerant and willing to listen to reason. I'm not so sure that same vision is reflected in the ranting tirades of CFAC or for that matter Gwen Landolt of "Real Women", who has a lengthy diatribe on her organization's website bemoaning how human rights law steps all over religion.

Happy New Year!

It is now officially 2008. I hope that everybody is looking forward to what 2008 brings us.