Season's Greetings

Now that the gifts under the Christmas tree/Hanukkah bush have been unwrapped, and the boxes from the questionable quality, lead-tainted Chinese toys have been discarded, and the chocolates, cookies and marzipan coagulate on the bellies and thighs of our nations citizens, it still came as a shock, as I walked down my local block, to see just how many "recyclables" were piled on the sidewalks in the City.

And while I am not intending to put a damper on the festivities of readers out there (or compete with the Grinch), I guess that's why I continue to feel a sense of dread as the holiday season comes. Conversely, I cannot begin to explain the genuine sense of relief as the season moves on.

The consumerism around the holiday was never supposed to BE the holiday. The exchange of gifts was never intended to be a shop-till-you-drop affair, working credit limits and patience to the extreme. Instead, it was always supposed to be about family and friends. It was always about thoughtfulness -- perhaps a bespoke knitted scarf or handy tool, or something special acquired on travels to a far off land -- you know, like gold, frankincense and myrrh.

I had a great Christmas this year. In addition to spending time with my lovely wife, I wrote a message to James Howard Kunstler and got a response, and wrote him back, and heard from him again. Simple pleasures, I suppose.

Let me just take this opportunity to wish you all the very best of the season. A new year will soon be upon us and with it, new challenges and thoughts. I will have something to say about it, no doubt. I hope you will, too.

Brother, can you spare me a Swedish Fish?

I feel the need to apologize for the generous column-inches this blog devoted to the Copenhagen climate summit. As I suspected all along, there was never any REAL chance that the feeble-minded governments of the West could ever take the lead in moving its slothful populations -- raised on a steady diet of Swedish Fish, CNN sound bites, chrome-wheeled SUVs and the cheap abundance of Dollar Store shelves -- in the desperately-needed direction of quickly changing our behaviour and consumption patterns. Worse, my defeatist sentiment is hammered home with clear signals from our Conservative government that there was little or no interest in trying to use our middle-power status for positive change.

The most recent excrement to flow from Ottawa, that it won't rule out giving oil and gas companies an emissions break on the oil sands, is proof to me that the double-talk spin machine is lubricated and powered 100 per cent by fossil fuels, to the detriment of Canada's international reputation and respect. If I was ever more embarrassed to declare myself Canadian, I can't really remember.

Sure, there will be those out there who subscribe to the very basic understanding that it would be "bad" for our economic system. Like blackmail, this argument continues to hold sway because, well... I don't really know. Tell me what it is we produce in Canada that is so economically dependent on protecting massive carbon emissions (like the United States and China want to do)? There is mostly light manufacturing in Quebec and Ontario. There is mining in Northern Ontario and Quebec and various other locales, such as the Northwest Territories. There's logging and paper mills in British Columbia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Nova Scotia. Frankly, all of these need an eco-overhaul as it is... but otherwise, our economy is built on entrepreneurs and commercial and retail operations. And if the stats are true, that 90 per cent of Canada's population lives within 300 kilometres of the US border and that our massive landmass and low population means a population density of about 3 people per square kilometre, why can't we progressively, quickly and urgently transition to wind farms and other energy alternatives (geothermal?) on land most Canadians will never see? I don't get it.

But, cleverly, while all the bickering goes on about tar sands and tax breaks for corporations, the Cons are pulling the wool over the eyes of Canadians on equally pressing issues of national character, international reputation and national security. Take the torture of Afghan detainees, for instance. This is not something Canadians should take lightly -- no matter how many schools or hospitals we say we are building in Afghanistan. Having lived in that part of the world before, family and tribal pride are far greater influences than any bricks and mortar buildings. This is not a criticism of the young Canadians in military uniforms dying needlessly in roadside bombs, but a scathing indictment of the stupidity of those running our government and their lack of understanding, specifically Peter MacKay who has presided over this fiasco. We torture ourselves when we torture others.

But Afghanistan aside, we have news of the sale of CANDU -- made-in-Canada nuclear energy technology developed by Canadians, for Canadians, with Canadian taxpayer money. Even if the 50-year-old technology is dated, it does not warrant a sale of what I call 'national innovation infrastructure'. Neglect of such infrastructure by our government is not an excuse for a fire sale to private interests. Regular readers of this blog know that I have a deep commitment to re-establishing centres of excellence across this country. Candu, the national space agency, our aerospace industry and our arts and sciences are examples of areas that need proper funding to put Canada back in a leadership position. Coincidentally, probably seeing the writing on the wall given what's happening in other critical Canadian industries, the aerospace industry is being proactive with a website and ad campaign -- "Our Aerospace Industry" -- to which I say, bravo! After all, success in Canada makes us all winners. In a very tangible way, it is "ours".

So what's the way forward? Good question. I found the recent article in The Walrus -- The Stranger Within -- provided an excellent overview of how the Liberal Party got to where it is today. And despite the modestly optimistic note the author, Ron Graham, closes the article with, it is by and large clear that Iggy and the Liberals are unlikely to pose any threat to our current status quo. We have no clear direction forward but are too fearful of the possibility of change; we know we don't like where we are, but aren't happy with the alternative. I guess you might say that makes all of us strangers within. Pass the Swedish Fish, please!

-----
Copenhagen cartoon copyright Graham MacKay.

Copenhagen Schmopenhagen

It's no surprise what's happening in Copenhagen right now... dubbed by some, ironically, as "Hopenhagen." The forces of obfuscation, moral corruption and economic globalization are working overtime with their leaky email systems, scandalous memos and supposed "draft documents." You see it here at the United Nations all the time - the alliances, the politics, the backroom deals. I have to say I saw it coming a mile back.

The question is: how can we take the United Nations or the United States (or any other Western nation) seriously anymore? The West has lost the high road. It's obvious that our petro-party is slowly coming to a close and yet we continue to deny its impending demise, choosing instead to tighten the blindfold and pour more champagne. There are some real gems in James Howard Kunstler's blog post from last week, a snippet of which I share with you here:

Reality doesn't care if we are on-board with its mandates or not. The human race has to get with whatever program reality is serving up at a particular time. Are we shocked to learn that scientists fight among themselves and cheat as much as congressmen? Does that really change the relationships we understand about parts-per-million of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere and the weather?

What the people of the world can do or will do about a change in climate is something else. My guess is that the undertow of entropy is now too great to provoke any meaningful unified change in behavior... In the meantime, it is unlikely that any of the major players will burn less coal and oil, or not cheat on each other even if they pledge to burn less.

Absolutely. So where is Canada on all this? Right where you would expect, given the Prime Minister and his party: with the climate change deniers, debunkers and discreditors. Want to know just how bad it has gotten? Check out this headline beauty from the Guardian:

Canada's image lies in tatters. It is now to climate what Japan is to whaling; The tar barons have held the nation to ransom. This thuggish petro-state is today the greatest obstacle to a deal in Copenhagen

Granted, I suspect the Guardian reporter, Georges Monbiot, is being purposely scandalous to bring attention to our recent, deplorable record on the environmental disaster that is the Alberta tar sands. Still, if ever there was a crisis of image, of reputation, of confidence in Canada, now would be it.

It's clear we have lost the plot but perhaps what is more disappointing is the apathy of a majority of Canadians. We must all demand better from our elected officials rather than accept what can only be described as a pathetic effort at proper government.

Let's see what comes of Copenhagen. I, for one, think not much, even if there is some fanfare about a deal at the close of the conference. Hey, at least we can always take pride in the spitting accuracy of our diplomats, can't we?

Failure of Imagination

Forgive me for missing my self-imposed posting deadline this week. I have just returned from travel with a pile of work and other email to catch up on -- a consequence of opting not to touch my computer over the last 7 days. Not that I haven't been thinking about blogging but, choosing instead, a much-needed disconnect. Apologies to my loyal readers out there. My fingers are itching to share thoughts with you stemming from what I saw last week ... more to follow.

*******

It's clear this government is in a complete shambles.

Just two days ago, the tap-dancing, double-talking, unaccountable Prime Minister emerged from his fortified lair after weeks of galavanting around the world to tell the media that he would indeed be going to the Copenhagen Climate summit after all.

Perhaps he was hoping that we Canadians didn't notice the timing of his announcement -- just a day after US president Obama announced he would be attending (which was also a flip-flop. He had said he would not attend). Maybe he was hoping that we'd forget that Canada has not articulated a Canadian position on climate change. It's likely he was thinking that, after his long hiatus from the picture tubes, websites and radio waves of the Canadian media, people around our country would be mesmerized by his salt-and-pepper hair and blue eyes and not see past that to his complete and outright ineptitude.

This Government is a government of failure. And on so many fronts: leadership; principle; fairness; intelligence; originality; strategy... (I can go on). Little, if anything, substantive has comes out of Ottawa. As a Canadian in the UN, working just two hours flight from several major Canadian cities and our capital, there is nothing that I can point to to say: "We're doing it a bit differently" or "We've got a different take on it in my country" or even "We're pioneering new ___________ (technology, policy, approaches) to __________ (fossil fuels, rising sea levels, poverty alleviation, illiteracy)." Nothing.

Instead, as we wind our way to the end of 2009, we continue to have gaping holes in income distribution across Canada and in levels of poverty and child poverty from coast to coast. We continue to lose fine, intelligent young men and women in a battle half-way across the world that our leaders know is doomed to fail -- not a comment I say with glibness or disrespect for the efforts of our soldiers, but a comment informed by history. And yet, no opposition seems to be able to raise a strong enough voice to bring attention to the incompetence of the Harper Government.

What other smouldering fires can we add to the list? How about $50 billion of debt (and growing)? How about Arctic sovereignty? How about a strong Canadian dollar; not in itself a bad thing, but when combined with the fact that our economy is almost inextricably linked to selling our commodities and wares to Americans, it's a problem. Either we diversify, or we start to die.

Canada has never faced a more crucial time in its history -- so many national infernos ready to break out with so imprudent and incompetent a party at its helm. And for the foreseeable future, it would appear that its position is secure, with the opposition essentially unorganized and ineffective, and Canadians caught in a paralysis of sticking with a known devil. Who can blame them.

**********

On a different note, I just saw a rather dark, BBC movie/comedy called "In the Loop". If you want to get a humourous and expletive-filled sense of the cutthroat nature of politics and international diplomacy, I recommend a watch (though not with the kids!). Here's the trailer... Enjoy.

Literacy from illiteracy

Back in September, I came across an interesting article that led me to the website of the Canadian Council on Learning.

The organization created a survey of 'prose literacy' in Canada, which is used to measure basic literacy -- the knowledge and skills needed to understand and use information from news stories, editorials, brochures and instruction manuals. It is, therefore, an instrumental building block for developing more sophisticated literacy skills and is critical to understanding a rapidly changing world.

Two things stuck out for me.

The Canadian Council on Learning created its survey using a geographic information system (GIS), which presents data linked to location, allowing for the information to then be analyzed, managed, compared and presented multiple ways so as to provide deep insight into what's happening, where it's happening, and with some analysis, why. Modern technology has given GIS new abilities to layer data as well as dramatically increase interactivity and linkages -- when designed with accurate information, modern GIS systems are the equivalent of striking data gold.

The interactive literacy map created by the Council looked at 52,000 cities, towns and communities across Canada, revealing that we Canadians are not as literate as we thought. Using data from Statistics Canada and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and combining these with 2006 federal census data, showed that some 48 per cent of adults in Canada have low literacy levels.

Adult literacy is often measured on a prose literacy scale of 1 to 5. Level 3 is widely considered to be the minimum threshold for coping with the demands of the global knowledge-based economy, while a Level 2 denotes someone who is able to deal with simple, straightforward material, but “their poor literacy makes it hard to conquer challenges such as learning new job skills.” With nearly half of adults in Canada having low prose literacy levels, there is major cause for concern; it explains why the current government has been able to pull the wool over the eyes of Canadians for so long.

The other important lesson that stuck out for me is the utility of GIS mapping. This should be the foundation for policy formulation in Canada -- providing insights on how best to ensure the most good for the most number of people, be it in education, health care or employment creation. With baseline data established, such as we now have with literacy, it becomes another layer in the GIS onion for when the next census takes place in 2011. It also becomes a way for Canadians to compare 2006 data with 2011 data, understand areas of progress or decline, and hold our politicians to account. In the case of literacy, knowing what we know now, there should be commensurate investment in bolstering primary and secondary education so as to improve literacy.

We have Statistics Canada. But it's clear that Canada now needs to step up its game to connect the dots between the gathering and analysis of statistics, and allowing that information to have realtime impact. Right now, we have fairly high levels of illiteracy. But, if we learn the lesson correctly from the Canadian Council on Learning, there is in fact, literacy from illiteracy -- we just have to be willing to read between the lines.

Preparing for Copenhagen and encouraging transparency

The Minister of the Environment, Jim Prentice, hasn't yet articulated the Canadian position on climate change and emissions reduction, as was promised, before Canada sits at the table in Copenhagen for the December 2009 climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. And Prime Minister Stephen Harper was quite frank at the APEC meeting this weekend: nothing tangible will be coming out of Copenhagen. He may not even show up if other Heads of State don't show up.

In what is becoming a template approach to governing our country, and unfortunately an acceptable form of governance to Canadians, a docile Federal Government patiently waits in the wings for an American position. With the American position established, Ottawa can then decide on a Canadian position. Fellow Canadians, is this not sovereignty squandered? Is this not a waste of nationhood and a blatant underestimation of the power and ingenuity of Canadians and the Canadian economy?

While I agree that, since signing the North American Free Trade Agreement, the economies of Canada, the US and Mexico have become closely intertwined, I am also of the opinion -- whether climate change is purely an act of nature or heavily influenced by man -- that we have a moral imperative to choose newer cleaner technologies over old polluters. Consider it an insurance policy. Consider it a way to transition from an economy built on dying consumerism, to something fresh, with new job and technology opportunities. Whatever stance you take on climate change, it's hard to argue that the oil economy is in a fight for its life, and dare I say it, will be our energy 'Waterloo' if we do not have the courage to move boldly and quickly.

The demand for a major shift in our approach must be driven by mainstream Canadians. We are sleepwalking by allowing our current Government to align itself with the old world approach and not asking it to make difficult, informed decisions. Perhaps we are mesmerized by the double-speak coming out of Peter MacKay's mouth on the should-we-stay-or-should-we-go Afghanistan approach. Perhaps Canadians can't see past the idiocy of the Minister of Natural Resources and her sexy isotopes. But one thing is for certain, all this stupidity has compromised the integrity of Canada.

We are now the obstructionist, laggard sidekick to America. We support too-big-to-fail auto companies, just like the Americans. We have lost all credibility on the international stage, undermining the very international processes we worked so hard to create. We have changed the language used by our diplomats and bureaucrats to give it an unhealthy ideological bent, in line with our neighbours to the South. I have blogged about all of this before -- the world has taken note, and the world thinks a lot less of Canada.

I wouldn't have said this a year ago, but given the very rapid shift in context and perspective, I think the failed Liberal leader, Stephane Dion, may have been prescient with his Green Plan. (I suspect my friend MD would agree.) I also think that Canadians, and our environment, are poorer have having missed an opportunity for much-needed reform, which is clearly not going to come from this Government.

*****
Interested in following Canada in inter-governmental processes? Or other countries for that matter?

Last Friday, the United Nations Department of Public Information launched: United Nations Member States: On the Record. Here is the launch press release, reproduced from the United Nations intranet, which also includes a publicly accessible link. I thought readers might find this tool useful. Enjoy!

Their work in the principal organs determines the work of the Organization throughout the world, and yet finding out exactly who said what has until now required an in-depth understanding of the Organization.

A new project, United Nations Member States: On the Record, makes information easily accessible that was once complicated and difficult to find.

This website is an easy-to-use research tool that provides access to information from a variety of existing United Nations databases and websites. Just click a link to get to the most up-to-date, accurate, and historically comprehensive information on a Member State’s participation in the United Nations.

Based on the experience of the librarians at the reference desk of the Dag Hammarskjöld Library in New York, this tool responds to frequently asked questions about United Nations members.

On the site, each Member State has a page with links to dynamic searches in various United Nations databases. Over 4000 links provide current information -- without the user needing to know how to use each database.

Information available for each Member State includes: the key documents related to its membership in the United Nations, statements made before the principal organs, draft resolutions sponsored, periodic reports submitted on Human Rights conventions, and more.

-30-

Cultivating skills and minds

News came this week that the unemployment rate in Canada continues to rise. On the heels of this news, which I think is the harbinger of some very difficult times ahead, Canadians must begin transitioning away from the economic and social model we've grown comfortable with in the last 50 years.

The globalized economy has given us unprecedented access to everything from every corner of the world at any time of year. Fruits from Chile and South Africa, t-shirts and shoes from Honduras or Vietnam, and every other conceivable item -- from ceramic mugs to knock-off modern furniture -- from China. These are proudly displayed on the shelves and in the cabinets at Walmarts, Zellers and Dollar Stores across Canada as the cheap trophies of globalization.

Our commuter highways, box stores filled with cheap goods, and cookie-cutter homes in 'The Fields at Oak Park' are premised on cheap and easy access to energy. This energy is now more expensive, has an increasingly larger impact on our environment, and has hollowed our nation's skill set. In major cities across Canada, the industrial base that once drove employment is now either gutted or its vestiges being converted into lifestyle condominiums. Our skilled draftsmen or millwrights are now being put to use as customer service representatives at Home Depot. I'm certain there are a lot of botched tile and plumbing jobs across Canada -- the Home Depot slogan "You can do it, we can help" really needs to be "You can't do it, but we'll still sell you the stuff." We've devalued the very skills upon which our society is built: anyone can do anything, only not that well.

Education is directly related to the productivity of our society and economy -- whether that education takes the form of specific skills training (drafting, millwright, metallurgy, mechanics) or a liberal arts University education. We have ignored the former, and devalued the latter. Not everyone is cut out for University education. This has not been lost on the Germans, where their education system has long recognized that some people are better suited to working with their hands or in technical trades. These people are identified when they're young and streamed into a suitable educational program. In this regard, they're recognized as having an important role to play in the larger social and economic system.

On the other hand, a liberal arts University education is reserved for those who are technically challenged, but have a mind better suited to intellectual rigours. Universities become centres for strong theoretical development and knowledge creation, and move away from trying to cater to the lowest common denominator. I'm not suggesting that higher education become a bastion of elitism -- that would be a very narrow understanding. I am suggesting that if we are trying to build an inclusive and just society, everyone must play a productive role.

So where am I heading with all this?

The globalized economy is showing just how flawed and fragile it is. Our government must begin to think about alternatives -- regionalized and localized, entrepreneurial, balanced upon the technical innovation and creative intellectual thought. Right now, there is no balance. The skills of our tradesmen have been lost to fickle globalized capital, which takes its business wherever it can to get the best price. But Made in Canada means something -- well built, of high quality materials, made by family, friends and neighbours who care.

The same can be said of our intellectual stock -- currently seduced by capital to take their gained-in-Canada education to serve faithless multinational corporations focussed solely on their own interests. This is unsustainable for Canada. We need a complex approach to strongly link education to the Canadian economy -- centres of thought, centres of art, research and engineering -- so that we can begin reinvesting in aviation and aeronautics, in alternative transportation methods (shipping, rail), investing properly in our food and agriculture system, our farmers, and ultimately in quality and diversity on our tables and on store shelves. Ultimately, it's an investment in ourselves.

I often think about the deep and dangerous hole dug for us by stimulus funding from the government. It has created ballooning debt for Canadians and is providing money to building bridges and roads (providing you're in the right political riding), and saving Chrysler and General Motors. At the same time, tuition fees for higher education continue to rise due to lack of funding. Public health funding is woefully inadequate. Housing for low income families is almost non-existent. In short, the stimulus funding put money in all the wrong investments.

Do not believe the hype. Claims of a 'jobless' economic recovery -- all the rage in US media these days -- simply reaffirm the shortsighted and unsustainable approach of our government. After all, what's the point of a jobless recovery if a majority of people can't put food on the table?

Sealing the deal

Working in international development, certainly at headquarters in New York, isn't always what it seems. Despite the best intentions of most staff members, outcomes are often disconnected from logic and are heavily political.

I was recently reminded of this at a meeting of the Bureau of the Executive Board, where five grown men — each highly-paid senior diplomats in the service of their governments — sat around a table discussing the date for the UNDP/UNFPA Executive Board in January 2010. The date had already been set for mid-January, but this was now the second meeting to discuss changing the dates; Bureau members were unhappy that the Executive Board of UNICEF would be preceding the UNDP/UNFPA Executive Board. After an hour of deliberation, there was still no resolution.

Creating the documentation for this one-hour meeting took two-and-a-half days, with a lot of back and forth between colleagues in UNDP and UNFPA. The output was a four-page rationale as to why it would pose serious problems to move the date for the session before UNICEF (distributed at the meeting and therefore, not read). Perhaps the most poignant moment for me was when, during the course of the meeting, the President of the Bureau reminded me, and other members of the Executive Board secretariat, that the United Nations exists to serve Member States. Whatever the Member States want is what the United Nations needs to deliver. If Member States want the days of the Executive Board session moved to the first week of January, when most people aren't around and when the session would coincide with Christian Orthodox Christmas and when it would be unlikely that most documents could be delivered in all official languages, then that's what Members should get. And we were reminded that, regardless of the costs, those documents should be delivered in all languages.

It was a stark refresher: the lofty goals of the original United Nations, laid out while the ashes of war still smouldered around the globe in the late 1940s, has essentially devolved into petty politics of ego maniacs and blatant stupidity.

Another, more serious, reminder came later in the week. At an inter-agency meeting — that is a meeting with several organizations present at the table — one of my colleagues mentioned 'COP 15'. For the sake of simplicity, COP 15 refers to the upcoming (December 2009) climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, where a successor agreement to Kyoto is supposed to be agreed upon. A tremendous amount of resources — your tax dollars and my tax dollars — have been spent organizing the conference, creating documentation and informational resources, and promoting it (Seal the Deal!).

The Secretary-General and many of the heads of United Nations funds and programmes have strongly vested interests in a meaningful outcome from Copenhagen. They argue, quite rightly, that poverty alleviation is now closely tied to climate change mitigation and prevention because most of the impact from rising ocean levels, for example, will be borne by those least able to cope with it. And furthermore, the poor are least responsible for changing the environment. If we are to have any credibility in meeting the Millennium Development Goals by 2015, climate change must be addressed.

At any rate, back to my meeting.

My colleague mentioned, in passing, that it may be possible that several critical international players may not be at the table in Copenhagen to forge a deal. In fact, she followed that up by saying, without these participants the entire outcome possibility for the conference will be changed. Whereas before, at the conclusion of the conference, the intention was to announce a climate deal to which the world agreed, the Secretary-General in now likely going to settle on an announcement that the world agrees on the need for a climate deal. In other words, all that money has been spent to take us from the possibility of solid action to the continuation of political conjecture.

There is still a month left to go before Copenhagen, and if I learned one thing, it's that the real deals take place in the shadows and back rooms. I generally don't have access to this, so things may change. Still, I felt this nugget of interesting information might be valuable for a couple of reasons.

The hopes and possibilities for multilateralism are, despite the dire need for such a collective approach, slipping to forces of business, lobbyists and financiers. This is the main reason why players who need to be at the table won't be at the table -- the perception that limiting greenhouse gas emissions will have a detrimental impact on the economy. It would seem, therefore, the multilateral system is as much about creating problems as it is about solving problems, which is why there are very few real outcomes from 60 or so years of United Nations presence. If we are to correct the problems around multilateralism, we must make it as much about humanism as it is about capitalism — right now, the balance is most certainly in favour of the latter.

Canadians — most of whom are moderate, generous, and compassionate — must invest as much, if not more, in creating stronger bilateral exchanges with partners around the world. I don't believe a full extraction from the multilateral system would help Canada. But I do believe that we can help promote the ideas of justice, human rights and good governance through direct knowledge exchange and setting a proper example, rather than relying solely on the United Nations. If the United Nations is quickly becoming toothless and moribund under its own weight, it is certainly thanks to the calibre of direction it receives from its Member States. It's clear that, now more than ever, it has become servant to all, but unable to play master in any of its mandated areas.

By the way, it did not take me two days to write this.

We are what we eat

I was going to start this week's blog post with a great phrase I heard from a guest speaker on CBC's The Current: "We are all equal before the law, but not under the skull."

It was, I thought, a rather fitting way to voice another complaint about the rapid, downward spiral of intelligent options in Canadian politics. In particular, the news that Olympic snowboard gold medalist, Ross Rebagliati, would be seeking the Liberal nomination in the B.C. riding of Okanagan-Coquihalla. Maybe the Liberals are thinking that, if Stockwell Day can get elected, Rebagliati has a fighting chance? Maybe party officials are keen on having Rebagliati snowboard up to a lectern to give a press briefing in a tight, multi-coloured body suit to make a mockery of a similar stunt pulled by Stockwell Day in a jet ski some years back? I must be over-thinking it. I'm sure the Liberals are focussed on the match-up of some of the greatest debating wits ever -- nothing like refuting an opponent's point starting with: "Dude, I disagree."

At any rate, this was just a taste of my thinking until I saw Food Inc. this weekend. And Food Inc. came on the heels of a radio documentary I heard earlier in the week, again on CBC's The Current, called The Philosophy of Pig. If the old adage is true, that we are what we eat, we are in very big trouble, folks.

The way in which food is produced has changed more in the last 50 years, than it has in the last 10,000. Food Inc. takes viewers on a candid tour of industrialized food production, starting with the coop of a Perdue chicken supplier, explaining how a chicken is now fully mature 45 days from hatching, as opposed to 60 or 75 days, and is engineered to yield larger-than-normal breasts (white meat) thanks to genetic engineering, growth hormones and antibiotics. The bodies of the chicken develop so quickly, their internal organs can't keep up -- the chickens take a few steps, and have to sit down again.

A quick walk around a stock yard, which has cows standing ankle deep in their own feces, serves as the spring board for a discussion about how the rash of deadly e-coli outbreaks in the North American food supply over the last 15 years, has come about.

It's pretty scary stuff, particularly when you consider the relentless pace of modern life -- people don't have the time to think about food safety. Naturally, it's presumed that enforcement of governmental standards protects us. But the food lobby and the power of massive multinational corporations has politicians eating out of their hands -- pun fully intended -- which essentially means the connection between regulation by government and food safety standards are tenuous at best.

Food, Inc. is a US-based documentary. But it would be dangerous to assume that its concepts are not applicable in Canada. In the context of free trade and a globalized world, and our growing addiction to cheap, fast, sugar-and-salt-laden food, Canadians are just as removed from understanding their food supply and implications of their changing diet.

The explosion of obesity and type-II diabetes in the United States is a public health epidemic. All across America, the poor are locked into a spiral of death -- without health insurance, cheap food saves them the money they need to buy the drugs they need to stay alive. But the food is killing them, and without the drugs, certain death is guaranteed -- pure genius if you subscribe to a system that sees individuals as profit centres.

From a Canadian perspective, it is imperative that we learn from this, as food is intimately and critically tied to our public health, too. But there are also more serious implications. Because of our nationalized health care system, the same explosion of obesity and diabetes costs ALL of us money and strains the ability of our system to cope. So just as we are obliged to help people treat their disease, Canadians are mutually accountable for making wise dietary choices. Without such a responsibility, it might just be easier to stop funding health care and send money to fast food corporations, because that's essentially what's happening.

A last point. Industrialized food has fundamentally shrunk the diversity in our food chain. One breed of chicken, engineered to grow fast, is being used to produce all fast food chicken. One breed of cattle is used to ensure consistent hamburger taste from Victoria to Charlottetown. One type of hog is used in breakfast sausages, again to give consistent texture and taste. The Food and Agriculture organization estimates that 45 per cent of farm breeds are extinct, or on the verge of extinction. Some of these animals have been with us -- humans -- for 1000 or more years.

There is a cornucopia of taste and choice in our food chain we no longer have, and the radio documentary, The Philosophy of Pig, gives listeners a decidedly Canadian perspective on the fight by one Ottawa, Ontario woman to preserve diversity. She lost her job as an environmental policy advisor, started a farm, and re-invented herself as a pig farmer dedicated to saving a dying breed.

There are others all over Canada working to keep local, healthy food on our tables. Let's support them, our economy, and our health, all the while enjoying the delicious tastes of diversity. It is the intelligent choice.

A potpourri of thoughts

I hope readers will forgive me. I hate nothing more than inconsistency and -- worse yet -- missing deadlines. The last few weeks, between my post-Executive Board reporting crunch, the useless creation of last-minute lobbying reports and meeting minutes, and responding to an avalanche of emails, have kept me off-line with Canadiuns. That doesn't mean I haven't been thinking about blogging; I can't tell you how good it feels to get back behind the keyboard in support of the Great White North.

There's so much to write about. The past four weeks have seen a flurry of political activity in Canada, notably the complete avoidance of the collapse of the Conservative minority government. The soap opera around it has been just as fascinating -- the terrible Liberal Party playbook and revelation that Ignatieff is anything but Prime Minister in waiting, the disgustingly blatant politics of NDP leader Jack Layton, the parachuting of Elizabeth May into a riding almost as far away from her home in Cape Breton as the chances of winning her seat... the list goes on.

It has crossed my mind however, that I sound like a broken record -- over and over again with the critiques and over and over again with what might be perceived as sour grapes. To be honest, calling attention to the sorry state of our country is far more important than concerns that I sound like a broken record. We need progressive, intelligent, informed change, and we need it now. This sometimes requires relentless hammering.

The talk around my family's Thanksgiving table made that obvious. The discussion turned to the way in which technology, specifically 'e-books' have created an amazing opportunity to reduce the amount of paper necessary to publish traditional books. Someone even mentioned that e-books may supplant libraries in the future, alluding to an Internet and e-reader approach.

While transitioning quickly to a society galvanized more strongly by technology is no doubt important, I had to also draw attention to the fact that the concept behind the creation of public libraries was to ensure access to knowledge was exactly that, 'public' and open to all. Until such time as access to the Internet across Canada becomes as ubiquitous as a public utility -- something my readers know I have advocated for strongly -- it will be difficult to transition away from past models of knowledge access and knowledge dissemination. Another logical impediment is owning a computer or e-reader, which is affordable (or unaffordable) in relative terms.

The transition we need in order to be competitive and relevant beyond simply selling our oil and timber commodities must be swift, but it has to be nuanced and multifaceted because, building a just society requires as inclusive an approach as possible. That's the driving idea behind universal healthcare; it is as much an issue of public health as it is an issue of access. Preventive medicine for all Canadians, rich and poor alike, often pays back dividends not easily measured or understood, but which reinforce a collective mentality in our society -- we're all in this together. In the same vein, the responsibility rests with each of us to safeguard our system from dismantling or dilution, making informed improvements free of political influence and that preserve universality and fairness, while ensuring relevance in a rapidly and constantly changing context.

This surely must have been the prevailing thought in the late 1960s and 1970s when our Government provided young, cutting-edge Canadian talent with unfettered support to achieve great things for the benefit of all citizens. On a recent visit to Vancouver, MD walked me around the exterior of the Arthur Erickson-designed Provincial Law Courts, with its waterfall terraces and cantilevered walkways. The brilliance and whimsy of its design was evident immediately, and the discussion quickly turned to whether such a design would have even made the grade in the current fiscal accountability, value-for-money, era. "No," we both agreed, in the same way the modular, pre-fabricated public housing works in Montreal (Habitat '67) -- commissioned as part of Expo '67 and designed by an amateur at the time, Moshe Safdie -- would never have seen the light of day.

Brilliance needs a patron. In the United States, visionaries like Frank Lloyd Wright or Eero Saarinen were nurtured by private/industrialist capital and, for that reason, their genius was allowed to blossom. Canada is a different place, our relatively small society and modest personal incomes make for a society less apt to spending imprudently or superfluously -- perhaps that's the reason we don't have our own Kentuck Knob or Falling Water. Today, only through the kindness of individuals and an $18 entrance fee, can one tour Falling Water. Work commissioned by and for the Government is, by its very nature, owned by the people for all to enjoy.

Talent begets talent. Imagination begets imagination. Wise investment in today's young Canadians is not unlike planting seeds for a future harvest -- it is imperative for our well-being, for our souls and ultimately, to strengthen Canadian culture.

Red Canuck, in memoriam

My dear friend Red Canuck, the inspiration for having started my blog, passed away this afternoon, October 13, 2009, in Vancouver. He died peacefully, surrounded by his family.

May he rest in peace in the full knowledge that he touched so many with his biting wit, uninhibited humour, and incredible logic and persuasion skills.

Let me be the first to say that Canada has lost a great Minister of Health.

You are missed already, RC. But Zahra and I will take up the cause to build a just society in Canada, in your name and in the name of those like you, who never wavered in your support for this great land, who want nothing more than to see Canada a haven for thoughtful, intellectual policy and populace, and whose vision of Canada is to be a beacon of fairness, moderation, and tolerance for the world to envy.

Thanks for everything, RC.

Letter to staff from the Secretary-General, 1 October 2009

This week's blog post is being put aside to instead feature reports from inside the UN on Climate Change and General Assembly happenings. With this letter of thanks from the Secretary-General however, the Canadiun blog will resume next week to provide commentary on important happenings back in my home and native land.
_____________

1 October 2009

Dear colleagues,

Thank you for your hard work and dedication during the opening weeks of the new General Assembly session. We are still in the early stages, but already many have observed that this was one of the most active and engaged openings in years. We saw leader after leader reaffirm the relevance of the United Nations and our work in tackling the many challenges before us.

The Climate Change Summit drew the world’s attention and has created solid movement towards sealing a deal at the UN conference in Copenhagen in December. The Security Council Summit, only the fifth ever and the first on disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation, has likewise improved prospects for progress in a critical area.

As these and other events unfolded, on food security, health and other challenges, we also faced the surprises that typically accompany this annual gathering. Through it all, you performed with your usual flexibility and grace. I was truly moved to see the many ways in which you contributed to our common endeavour. You bring great honour to yourselves and the Organization.

There are many weeks to go, of course, with work in the committees about to commence. This being a budget year, we can expect many long hours as Member States negotiate the allocations for our next biennium. But I wanted to thank you right away for making the past weeks such a success. You have helped the world see the United Nations doing what it does best: bringing people and countries together; finding solutions to the big issues of the day; leading the way in promoting peace and positive change.

In the weeks ahead, we will all be focusing on the many challenges that were highlighted in recent days. And as the Capital Master Plan proceeds, I will be visiting many of you as we get settled in our new working environments. I also look forward to connecting with colleagues at other duty stations.

Thank you again for your support and for your abiding commitment to the purposes of our Charter.

With admiration and respect,

BAN Ki-moon

The Climate Change Summit

This week's blog post is being put aside to instead feature reports from inside the UN on Climate Change and General Assembly happenings.
_____________
The largest-ever gathering of world leaders devoted to climate change took place at UN Headquarters on 22 September, with 101 Heads of State and Government and 163 countries participating. The Summit focused high-level attention on the issue, mobilized political will and reinvigorated the negotiating process aimed at sealing a global climate deal at the UN Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen in December this year.

The event emphasized dialogue rather than set-piece speeches. By giving leaders the opportunity to pre-record their national statements, which were then made available globally through the Internet, the Summit enabled leaders to engage in direct and small-group discussions throughout the day.

At the end of the Summit, the Secretary-General invited 23 world leaders to a smaller working dinner on the crucial issue of financing for climate change. He urged them to establish a $100 billion per annum fund to support adaptation and mitigation actions in developing countries during the next decade. Two days after the Summit, the Secretary-General attended the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, where in-depth discussions on climate change continued.

Regarding Seal the Deal: “There is still much hard work ahead of us if we are to achieve success in Copenhagen”, the Secretary-General said. “I intend to engage leaders both individually and collectively, in concert with the Prime Minister of Denmark, to maintain the new momentum and consolidate progress in the run-up to Copenhagen. As a start, I will visit Europe at the beginning of October to consult further with the Prime Minister of Sweden, which holds the EU presidency, and the Prime Minister of Denmark.” Denmark will host the December climate conference, which is being organized in the context of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Faces from UNHQ while the General Debate continues

This week's blog post is being put aside to instead feature reports from inside the UN on Climate Change and General Assembly happenings.
_____________

As police barricades turned sidewalks into an obstacle course and street vendors were missing from their usual strategic locations, the General Debate of the 64th Session of the General Assembly began on Wednesday, 23 September in New York.

As they do every year, the world's leaders have come to the United Nations Headquarters in full regalia. For those unable to witness the events first hand, here are some photos of the scene from various locations.

Inside the buildings and behind the scenes, a host of staff and associates work hard and for long, extra hours to orchestrate this massive event. From the Department for General Assembly and Conference Management, conference officers in the General Assembly Hall prepare documents and set up the room while interpreters get ready in the interpreters booths. Protocol staff log long hours escorting high-level official and making their visit to UN run as smoothly as possible.

In the Department of Management, Facilities Management Services have special events coordinators who make things happen.  Broadcast and Conference Support conference technicians work from the GA Hall control booths to provide live coverage.

In the Department of Public Information, Webcast, UNTV, UN Photo, meetings coverage and News Centre staff disseminate summaries, stories, still and video images of what takes place to the world at large.

Special Services and ARAMAK [sic] contractors have done a great job in preparing and servicing the various lunches and dinners, particularly for the Secretary-General's functions.

The Department of Safety and Security must work closely with a number of law enforcement and security forces to ensure the safety and security of delegates, staff and associated personnel.

This is only a brief and by no means exhaustive mention of the offices involved in the general debate, which continues tomorrow, Saturday and resumes on Monday, 28 September, running through the 30th.

Every day the UN works to solve global challenges

This week's blog post is being put aside to instead feature reports from inside the UN on Climate Change and General Assembly happenings.
_____________
As New York staff members arrived at work this morning, they were greeted by a fellow staff member or intern, introducing themselves while handing out a white and blue wallet-sized card.

The card highlights 10 amazing achievements accomplished by the UN, every day of every year. The numbers show the impact the Organization has on the world’s poverty stricken and those affected by climate change and violence. These 10 global challenges also highlight peacekeeping efforts and increasing primary education in developing countries.

Every UN staff member has a hand in these achievements which positively impact the world, every day of every year.

Women, gender equality, and climate change

This week's blog post is being put aside to instead feature reports from inside the UN on Climate Change and General Assembly happenings.
_____________

To coincide with the Summit on Climate Change today, 22 September, and to mark Global Climate Week, 'WomenWatch', the UN portal on gender equality and women’s empowerment, launched a new online feature on the gender perspectives of climate change. Illustrating the need for gender-sensitive responses to climate change, and for involving women as agents of change and decision-makers, the web page offers a downloadable sheet with key facts, issues and recommendations.

Visit WomenWatch for comprehensive information for advocacy, research and programming for Governments, NGOs, United Nations entities, global and regional bodies, academia, women’s groups and networks and interested individuals. There is also comprehensive information on all relevant global UN commitments, resolutions and other intergovernmental outcomes, UN publications, UN events, and other resources on UN web sites.

WomenWatch was developed by staff of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs Division for the Advancement of Women, the WomenWatch Task Manager, in close collaboration with the UN Inter-Agency Network on Women and Gender Equality Task Force on Gender Equality and Climate Change, an initiative co-chaired by the UN Development Programme and UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

Playing nice in the political sandbox

I didn't blog last weekend, opting instead to enjoy three full days off thanks to Labour Day. In my mind, I saw it as an expression of solidarity, since writing is my 'labour,' of sorts. More to the point, if you were staring at the gruelling week I was about to launch into, you too would have opted to stay in bed all day Monday. Starting Tuesday and ending Friday, each day was filled with a lot of hot air from well-meaning but ineffectual bureaucrats in the UNDP Executive Board.

It seems the United Nations doesn't have a monopoly on hot air, though. Canadian politicians are doing a commendable job generating their own brand of greenhouse gasses and I have to say, it's doing nothing to help Canadians or the political landscape in this country.

The news that Micheal Ignatieff is no longer going to prop up the Harper Conservatives comes as no surprise. Ignatieff's accusations of Harper's lack of cooperation, his disingenuous approach, his mean-spirited ideology, and his underhanded tactics are all true. We've seen it in the policy that has come out of Ottawa, we've seen it in the Government's contempt for Canadian institutions and traditions, and we've seen it in the Conservative quest to make Canada something it must never be – a 'mini-me' of America.

Perhaps not in recent memory, but Canada used to be a place where a plurality of voices was welcomed and differing opinions could be openly expressed without fear of retribution or ridicule. In my opinion, this trait has been a critical part of setting ourselves apart on the North American continent. But our leaders – political, business, academic – also had a lot to do with it, establishing a level of maturity and security where all could speak, but where consensus would ultimately rule, with an eye to achieving the most good for the most people. That's what makes a society fair and just.

Harper, as we have seen, cannot be trusted to promote such an environment – his team is, at best, unaccountable and petty. But the next question that comes to mind is, can Ignatieff and his team handle the task any better?

I have doubts, which were very quickly confirmed late last week, when the Liberal leader decided to announce to all Canadians he would never form a coalition government with socialists (NDP) and separatists (Bloc Quebecois). I'm wondering if any of the geniuses advising him thought about the irony in making such an announcement. I've played the scenario over and over in my head: Ignatieff, insisting that the Harper Government is unwilling to cooperate with others in the House of Commons and therefore justifying a unilateral decision to defeat the Government at the earliest opportunity, has essentially taken the same arrogant, inflexible, acrimonious approach to wrestle power and govern the country. But how, if not without the help of the other two parties?

He's either a hard-core gambling man – gambling with his career and the fortunes of the Liberal Party – or he's banking on some kind of miracle to secure him a majority. But either way, it's a zero sum game. By taking Canada into a rather bitter, some might even say wasteful, election, he risks antagonizing a large number of Canadians of all political stripes. Conversely, there's no majority in sight for any party.

And so Iggy's rather foolish announcement of not willing to work with others seriously handicaps his attempts to form a "compassionate, moderate government of the centre." Let's face it, even if you don't want to play in the sandbox with the other kids, throwing sand is more likely to get you a spanking than a lollipop. It's a rookie mistake in the typical cut-and-thrust of politics, and you can be assured a seasoned veteran like Bloc Quebecois leader, Gilles Duceppe, will have a field day with it.

I'm worried. At the end of yet another election, we will end up with the same political gridlock in Ottawa – possibly with a different grey-haired white man leading – only with a more fatigued, disenchanted, disinterested and distant Canadian electorate. Worse, the dishonest breath of Canadian politicians is likely to add tons more hot air into the atmosphere. Sadly, I don't think I'm wrong in saying that, unlike the collection of bureaucrats with whom I spent the week, there's not much good intention coming out of the jokers in Ottawa.

Canada's foreign policy train wreck

I present this week a triumvirate of articles from Embassy Magazine on the rather scandalous topic of the underhanded and unpalatable language shift in Canadian foreign policy, a la Stephen Harper.

Alluding to the language contained in these policies using the only tool in his arsenal -- the Liberal versus Conservative binary -- is not only transparently idiotic, it's dangerous and disastrous for Canada, who has been at the table to negotiate international legislation through successive Liberal AND Conservative governments. But if such lunacy wasn't enough, how about the impossibility of getting the Conservative Party to defend their course of action. The spokespeople and justifications are few and far between. The best Lawrence Cannon, supposedly the mildest of Conservative ideologues, can do is proclaim that Canadians elected his party to set the foreign policy agenda.

Really? When was foreign policy "language" a hotly contested topic in political debates?

And so, with hands thrown way back into the air and teeth gnashing with each passing day, my sense of concern for the Canada I thought I knew -- compassionate, accepting, progressive -- grows ever stronger.

(These articles are long, but worth reading. Please take action by voting and writing to your Member of Parliament in disgust!)

Liberal-Era Diplomatic Language Killed Off
by Jeff Davis
July 1, 2009

It was once considered a hallmark achievement of modern Canadian foreign policy, but few breathe the words "human security" in Stephen Harper's Ottawa. And this is no accident.

Since taking power three years ago, Conservative political staffers have worked to purge the language of the previous Liberal government's much lauded "human security" policies from the DFAIT lexicon.

This has prompted a debate between those who feel a "smaller" Conservative foreign policy has been implemented, and others who argue that human security still plays a role in Canadian foreign policy beneath what is merely a political rebranding exercise.

DFAIT insiders tell Embassy that since the Conservative government took power in 2006, political staffers have directed rank and file Foreign Affairs bureaucrats to stop using policy language created by the former Liberal government.

"There are phrases you are not supposed to use," said one Canadian diplomat, on condition of anonymity. "Anything that smacks of the previous government is totally verboten.

"There is this tendency, almost like a knee-jerk reaction, to discount or ignore or change whatever it is the Liberals did and let's put a new Conservative face on it," he added. "There's a whole range of words and expressions that are being depopulated out of the documents, and are replaced with ones that are more to the [Conservatives'] liking."

Chief among the forbidden phrases, multiple DFAIT insiders have told Embassy, are "human security," "public diplomacy" and "good governance." Preferred key words include "human rights," the "rule of law," and "democracy" or "democratic development."

Human security refers to a package of policies advanced by the Liberal government in the 1990s, most notably by former Chrétien-era foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy. The human security paradigm, as opposed to the traditional state-centric view of foreign policy, focuses on the rights and well-being of individuals around the world. This bundle of policies included the promotion of the International Criminal Court and the Responsibility to Protect, as well as various initiatives related to child soldiers, land mines, small arms controls and economic and food security.

Indications of the lexicon change first arose several months ago when the Conservative government instructed Canadian diplomats not to use the phrase "Responsibility to Protect". However, as the government started preparing for a run at a seat on the UN Security Council, Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon issued an internal memo removing the "Responsibility to Protect" ban.

DFAIT sources say political staffers have made their disapproval of Liberal policy language known to senior bureaucrats when they happened upon such phraseology in policy documents. The orders, DFAIT insiders say, trickle down "by osmosis."

"The way you learn about a lot of this stuff is when you do a draft, and you use a phrase you are used to, and then it comes back crossed out and new expressions are put in," said one.

"Once you realize that, at the director or director general level, these are things they don't want to hear you use, that becomes a command performance and that's it... and that filters right down to desk level eventually."

The message to avoid the Liberal language of human security has also moved well beyond the ramparts of Fort Pearson, sources near the United Nations say.

Bill Pace, the New York-based executive director of the World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy, said Canadian diplomats have told him of the restrictions on their use of certain language.

"I talked to [Canadian] ambassadors in Africa and Asia who told me they were under instructions not to use the term 'human security' because the Harper government considered it part of the Liberal government legacy," Mr. Pace said.

"It's probably very accurate that the current government saw this as key elements of the previous government's foreign policy, and distanced themselves from it," he added, iterating a view expressed to Embassy by a number of academics and DFAIT insiders.

A Rebranding Exercise?

Some three years into its rule, the Harper government has largely completed its work of removing overt references to human security from its websites, division names and programs.

The Human Security Policy Division, for example, has been renamed the Human Rights and Democracy Bureau. DFAIT's Human Security Program, meanwhile, was renamed the Glyn Berry Program for Peace and Security in 2007.

Other programs have not fared so well.

Funding has been cut to the Canadian Consortium on Human Security, an "academic-based network promoting policy-relevant research on human security." The Human Security Fellowship program, which sent graduate students to do field work related to human security in places like Central Asia, Haiti and Africa, was also halted.

Little if anything related to human security, furthermore, remains on DFAIT websites. Pages on the "Human Security Program of Foreign Affairs Canada" no longer exist, for example.

Liberal Foreign Affairs critic Bob Rae described the scrubbing of Liberal language and policies as "Orwellian."

"They're also not allowed to use the phrase R2P because they see that as another Liberal inheritance," he said. "It's a sad reflection of their ideological desperation, and I think increasingly sets Canada back."

Mr. Rae said the Ontario government of Conservative premier Mike Harris, which succeeded Mr. Rae's NDP government and for which many of the Harper government's ministers and staff worked, similarly forbade officials from using language such as "equity" and "social justice."

However, Fen Hampson, the director of the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, said the changes are unsurprising. He said every government will engage in "relabelling" and that showing differentiation from your predecessor—in policy or language—is a political imperative.

And despite the fact that overt references to human security policies are largely absent, he said, the underlying ideas appear to have held fast within the ranks of the bureaucracy. The Glyn Berry Program, for example, reflect a focus on good governance and the rights and well-being of the individual, ideas deeply interconnected to human security. Meanwhile, Canada's engagement in Afghanistan and Haiti are driven by human security-like ideas like peacebuilding, assisting war-torn countries and democratic development.

"In a lot of ways, that agenda was successfully institutionalized in the bureaucracy," said Mr. Hampson. "The human security unit has been relabelled, but it's still doing many of the same things, so it hasn't been totally thrown overboard."

In fact, Mr. Hampson said that the softening of Canadian support for human security issues began even during the reign of the Liberal governments, though they left the programs and language of human security in place.

"The downplaying of human security and the language of human security really began right after Axworthy left the scene," he said. "I think it's probably fair to say when John Manley was foreign minister, the sort of rebranding and refocusing to a much more, shall we say, hardcore view of Canada's security interests, and the importance he gave to the bilateral relationship with U.S. [took place]."

Mr. Manley inherited the mantle of foreign minister from Mr. Axworthy in October 2000, during a time when relations with the United States seemed strained, partially because of the human security agenda itself. Many of the major human security initiatives, the ICC and the land mine ban being two examples, were not supported by the United States.

"Some people felt that the human security agenda...had become somewhat of an irritant with Washington," Mr. Hampson said. "There was a feeling that [human security]...had been seen south of the border that we were running interference on U.S. policy."

Support for the human security package and R2P weakened further after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and especially following the invasion of Iraq.

Many developing countries, Mr. Hampson said, feared the Responsibility to Protect could facilitate their invasion by powerful Western nations.

"R2P, which they saw as very interventionist, almost became discredited after Iraq," said Mr. Hampson, adding that it is viewed by many as "yet another doctrinal instrument to interfere in the internal affairs of countries."

Professor Brian Job, director of the Centre of International Relations at the University of British Columbia, agreed that human security's fingerprints can still be seen on Canadian foreign policy.

"The paradox that has occurred is that Canada and its diplomats and websites no longer feature the words human security as a programmatic label," Mr. Job said. "But they articulate the agenda of human security in their programs such as in Afghanistan, which is all about the human security of Afghan civilians, and the same goes in Haiti.

"The government doesn't pronounce on human security, but looks to achieve humans security," he added.

Mr. Job said a more substantive shift has occurred on the diplomatic front, where Canadian diplomats adopted a less active and activist demarche.

"Where you've seen the current government draw back from the previous human security agenda has been on its proactive leadership at the institutional level in the international system," he said, citing a lack of enthusiastic support for the International Criminal Court and R2P as an example.

This lack of diplomatic leadership, Mr. Job added, has left Canada with a foreign policy of a much narrower scope.

"The Conservatives as a government have a quite different notion of what a foreign policy agenda should be, and it certainly is not one of proactive leadership at international level," he said. "It's much more reactive, selective, I would say a much smaller foreign policy. Human security was a broad agenda about looking for opportunities to be innovative, and that's not the modality of the current Conservative government."

Mr. Pace from the World Federalist Movement said he found it quite "ironic" that Canada, under the Harper government, turned its back on the human security paradigm just as it was being accepted by more governments and civil society groups around the world.

"Even if Canada abandons it, it's now firmly implanted and there's tremendous support amongst civil society in small and middle power democracies," he said. "Canada was being viewed as much more of a leader in progressive international politics than it is now, and in the last several years it is seen more as looking inward, more dealing with economic issues, and protecting its relationships with the U.S."

And while Lloyd Axworthy may be viewed by the Harper government as a Liberal partisan, Mr. Pace said, he is remembered abroad as a "world community leader and organizer, someone who wanted to take advantage of the end of the Cold War and get not only Canadian but international policies onto a much more peaceful path."


Leaked DFAIT Memo Documents Struggle Between Conservative Political Staff and Foreign Service
by Jeff Davis
29 July 2009

Fearful that political staffers are severely diluting Canada's foreign policy through alterations to policy language, senior Foreign Affairs officials have begun pushing back against their political masters.

Simmering internal tensions over language changes were first discovered by Embassy in recent weeks, but newly leaked documents indicate that senior departmental officials have had enough.

On May 7, a DFAIT bureaucrat acting as a departmental adviser to the minister's office wrote an email to some of DFAIT's most senior officials, outlining concerns about the many changes to policy language being made by exempt ministerial staffers. The message was obtained by Embassy last week.

The email is titled "[The minister's office] and language related to human rights, child soldiers, international humanitarian law." It was addressed to about two dozen senior officials—including four assistant deputy ministers and a number of directors general—from divisions dealing with human rights, international organizations, Africa, the Middle East and others. Also copied are a number of departmental lawyers and staff from the office of the deputy minister.

In the email, the departmental adviser outlines a number of significant changes made to policy language by political staffers recently. Among them are changes to the "standard docket response" of Canada's position on the violence in Democratic Republic of Congo.

"Suggested changes to this letter include removing the term "impunity" in every instance," he writes. "E.g. "Canada urges the Government of the DRC to take concerted measures to do whatever in necessary to put and end to impunity for sexual violence..." is changed to "Canada urges the government of the DRC to take concerted measures to prevent sexual violence.""

These type of linguistic alterations have become commonplace, the message says.

"Furthermore, the word 'humanitarian' is excised from every reference to 'international humanitarian law.' References to gender-based violence are removed. And in every phrase 'child soldiers' is replaced by 'children in armed conflict.'"

These changes, the adviser implies in the email, have major policy ramifications.

"For example, sentence cited above changes the focus from justice for victims of sexual violence to prevention."

He adds that he doubts whether the political staffers fully understand the significance of their language changes.

"It is often not entirely clear to us why [the minister's] advisers are making such changes and whether they have a full grasp of the potential impact on Canadian policy in asking for some changes to phrases and concepts that have been accepted internationally and used for some time."

The adviser writes that officials from a number of divisions have raised this issue with him, and he suggests a co-ordinated approach may be needed to stop these types of changes.

"I do not believe the requests from [the minister's office] to make these kinds of changes to language will diminish," he writes. "It might be necessary for a more co-ordinated approach as these issues interest a number of different bureaux and are recurring fairly frequently."

In a subsequent email, the adviser writes that he received much positive response to his suggested push back. Then, a preliminary meeting was scheduled so that DFAIT officials could present a united front to their political masters.

"Just to be clear, this would be an initial meeting for officials only, not [the minister's] exempt staff. The purpose of this meeting is to ensure we are clear on the issues we are facing and that we have a co-ordinated departmental view," he wrote. "A meeting with appropriate exempt staff would follow at a later date (and with only a small number of officials)."

The meeting was then set for May 21, in the deputy minister's boardroom on A8.

This is where the paper trail ends, and Embassy was unable to confirm the outcome of the projected meeting with the political staffers, if it happened at all.

Only one departmental source would speak about the internal push back and then only in general terms and on condition of anonymity.

"Multiple times documents will go up and changes will be made, sometimes factual ones, and they'll be changed back at the political level," said the DFAIT insider. "One of the reasons for the email you're seeing is the bureaucracy is saying 'We've got to get ahead of this curve because we're getting hammered every time we send documents up and they come back.'"

The insider situated this confrontation in the context of the unprecedented message control thirsted for by the prime minister, who has decreed that ambassadors cannot speak publicly without first getting their message approved by Conservative spin doctors.

"None of our ambassadors are allowed to speak unless comments go through [the Prime Minister's Office]," the source said. "And the reason for that is because ambassadors are inclined to speak within the context of decades of Canadian foreign policy and because the government doesn't agree with some or much of that approach, they want to vet everything."

Given this ambassadorial "gagging," the source said, it's no surprise Conservative political agents are delving deeper into the fundamental language of Canadian foreign policy.

"It's more than just a close-hold by the PMO....in this case there's actually a determined effort to re-orient Canadian foreign policy, and so the standing speaking lines don't work and need to be checked."


Tories Elected to Set Foreign Policy: Cannon
by Lee Berthiaume

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon has shot back at critics and federal civil servants upset over the government's recent changes to Canadian foreign policy language reported in Embassy.

In an interview on July 30, the minister said some of the modifications are semantics, but acknowledged that others are designed to move the country's foreign policy in a direction decided by the government. Either way, he said the government's actions are what matter.

Others, however, have questioned whether Mr. Cannon fully understands the implications of the changes being made, and have called on the government to bring the issue into the public to be debated in front of all Canadians.

Last week, Embassy reported that terms such as "gender equality" and "child soldiers" were being stricken from the language employed by Canada's foreign service. From now on, diplomats are to use the terms "equality of men and women" and "children in armed conflict".

In addition, "international humanitarian law" would now be simply "international law" and, in one specific example, the words "impunity" and "justice" would not be used when calling for an end to sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Instead, there would be calls only for efforts to "prevent" sexual violence.

Last week's report came hot on the heels of other reported changes to Canadian foreign policy language, unearthed by Embassy, which included abolishing "good governance," "public diplomacy" and even "the Responsibility to Protect"—many of which came into use during the tenure of previous Liberal governments.

Malcontents Free to Leave

Sources within the public service have pointed to political staffers at the minister's office as being behind the changes, and an internal email acquired by Embassy and circulated to numerous senior officials within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade say bureaucrats have been looking at ways to stop the changes.

Mr. Cannon said Foreign Affairs deputy minister Len Edwards is in charge of implementing government policy and would be responsible for dealing with any malcontents within the bureaucracy. However, he said anyone who disagrees with the government's direction is free to leave.

"I've told my people that this is the policy that we carry out and if anybody is not happy with these policies that we're carrying out, well all they have to do is go and run in the next election and get themselves elected and support a policy that is different from ours," the minister said.

"We've been elected to govern the country and the government of Canada puts forward, sets forward its objectives, its policy objectives as it does in any other department. And it is up to the departments to execute the policies that the Canadian population supported and acknowledged by putting this government in place. And that is exactly what we are doing."

When asked specifically about the language changes, Mr. Cannon simultaneously downplayed the significance and acknowledged that the government is charting new territory.

"They don't change anything," he said. "It's our vocabulary. You're driving this down into the weeds."

However, he later said that "in some circumstances it's semantics. In other circumstances...whether it be the Responsibility to Protect, we're going to be changing policies so that they reflect what Canada's values are and what Canadians said when they supported us during the last election. That's the role of government, that's the role of an elected official."

Mr. Cannon indicated what is more important than any language change is the actions a government takes to implement its foreign policy.

"If you change a word, it doesn't make a substantial difference," the minister said. "If you do a different action, if you take a strong stance on human rights, if you stand up for Israel and make it quite clear that you want to be able to make it known that we can't continually be on a picket fence, that you have to be able to stand up and be counted for, that's the role that this government is playing."

Changes a Fait Accompli

In an open letter to Mr. Cannon in response to last week's Embassy articles, NDP Foreign Affairs critic Paul Dewar decried the changes, saying there will be major ramifications.

"Your government may not agree with the evaluation that Canadian citizen Omar Khadr is a child soldier," he wrote. "However, removing the term 'child soldier' and replacing it with 'children in armed conflict' is a significant legal and political change that will have a critical impact on Canada's foreign policy and its reputation on the child-soldier file.

"The same applies to modifying the language of impunity on sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, an effort that goes hand-in-hand with the government's inaction on Security Council resolutions 1325 and 1820, which call for an end to impunity and a meaningful engagement of women in peace building."

Such dramatic changes, he wrote, should evolve from deliberations between government officials, experts in the field and, most importantly, the Parliament of Canada.

Mr. Cannon said he is "always amenable to debating anything with [Mr. Dewar], but it's not going to change the government of Canada's policy. We're elected to govern and that's exactly what we're doing."

In an interview, Mr. Dewar said it's a fair point that the government has been elected to govern. However, he refuted Mr. Cannon's statement that the Canadian public was supportive of the changes.

"No one elected the Conservatives to drop nomenclature terms like 'child soldier,'" he said.

Mr. Dewar said it is inappropriate for staffers within the PMO to be politicizing Canada's international positions and language, which he feels is exactly what is happening.

"Let's be frank here, this is ideological," Mr. Dewar said. "This is controlling a message and certain words they don't want used because they're seen as either too soft or kind of connected to another political persuasion.

"It's not by people who have spent their time working in the area of foreign affairs, but people who have spent their time working in backrooms. And that's really a huge change from any government in being that controlling on what is being stated by our foreign affairs representatives, diplomatic corps, and it's very chilling."

It also confuses those with whom Canada interacts internationally, he said, who won't understand why Canada would stop using an accepted term like "child soldiers."

Former deputy minister Gordon Smith, now a professor at the University of Victoria, said he found the reported changes "disturbing."

While he agreed there is no question a government can change foreign policy and the way it is presented, he said excising words like "human security" goes too far.

"They are not just 'Liberal' concepts or policies," he wrote in an email. "The concept of human security is now deeply rooted in international organizations, international politics and scholarly works. It is not an 'either or' matter.... It is both.

"Policy is being changed and so is the way it is being presented. The point is that the changes should be clear and not hidden in the clouds of obfuscation, as now seems to be the case."

Reflections on the CRTC

I've blogged before on the merits of revisiting and revising legislation regulating the Internet in Canada. There's no doubt in my mind that we are at a competitive disadvantage, collectively, without high-speed internet access for all citizens. The same can be said for mobile phones -- the plans and access are just too limited. We need a technological sea change in Canada and we need it yesterday.

In the course of following Canadian news this week, I came across a CBC story about an online petition calling for the Canadian Radio and Television Commission (CRTC) to be scrapped. This petition, organized by a 23-year-old Ottawa man, is exactly the reason politicians need to move quickly to change the way our country regulates its communication technologies.

Without delving deeply into a very storied history, the creation of the CRTC dates back to the early days of 'telecommunications' in this country. It has been an important player, along with the CBC and NFB (among other examples), in helping build and protect Canadian communication infrastructure and culture. The mandate is one to which I subscribe:

"...to ensure that both the broadcasting and telecommunications systems serve the Canadian public. The CRTC uses the objectives in the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act to guide its policy decisions."

The critical part, to me, is the idea of service to Canadians. And, while "service" is open to interpretation, the impact on the lives of Canadians has to be tangible. There can be no denying the significance of Canadian technology and approach in the course of the late 19th century and throughout the 20th century. We have a laundry list of successful technological advances, documentary, television and radio programs and radio and television personalities who were big in Canada, some of whom went on to bigger careers off our shores.

Canada was an incubator and leader. And, Canadians felt that impact.

Because of the rapid shift in technology and an inability to have key cultural and regulatory institutions such as the CRTC move quickly to reflect the demographic embracing new technology and the intricacies therein, we have lost our competitive edge. Keeping young people engaged and in Canada, and ensuring our values are protected, is a critical part of restoring the impact for Canadians.

In that sense, I think disassembling the CRTC would be unhelpful. It has a significant history worth saving and has done much to keep Canada "Canadian." But ensuring the CRTC is composed of those with a greater awareness of how new technology actually works, and how best to encourage its use, absorption and fair distribution to all Canadians, is laudable. It's also necessary if we are to prove that protecting Canadian culture is not antithetical to new technologies.

In the case of the young man from Ottawa, the ease of mobilizing support in cyberspace to destroy almost a century of work and knowledge amassed by the CRTC would certainly be an ironic twist of fate. It would also be a real shame, as the petition comes from a very clear consumer perspective. However, there is intrinsic value in protecting Canadian culture, which must be very difficult to see when you're 23 years old.

Revisionist rubbish

Ever since the Progressive Conservative party merged (many say illegally) with the Canadian Alliance party in late 2003, Joe Hueglin has been an active and vociferous critic of the resulting Conservative Party of Canada. So much so that he and a band of former disgruntled Progressive Conservatives, including former Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister, Sinclair Stevens, formed the 'Progressive Canadian' party. I've been following them from the sidelines since the early days, mostly because of Hueglin's unceasing commitment to sending out 'Daily Digest' emails and critiques.

It was not without some irony that I noted the Digest he sent out last Wednesday featured a column from the Globe and Mail entitled: The Resurgence of the Red Tory brand. In it, author Lawrence Martin makes a rather feeble case for why moderate Tories should feel validated that, despite the Conservative Party's attempts to govern from a strict right-wing ideological perspective, their policies always seem to moderate. He cites a host of examples and innocuously calls the Harper's Government the 'better late than never' gang.

Not only is this type of article dangerous, I would venture to call it revisionist.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and many of the same characters that have been around since the Reform Party days, the Canadian Alliance Party days, and the Canadian Reform Alliance Party (CRAP) days, are running the 'new' Conservative Party. These jokers have not moderated their views. They have not magically become a gang of compassionate, informed, educated individuals.

(By the way, is it just me? I can't help but laugh -- I'd be crying otherwise -- every time I see Stockwell Day speak on TV. Enjoy this Jet Ski photo at left, remembering that Mr. Day is Minister for International Trade and represents all Canadians. Maybe we can get him to Jet Ski to China?).

The Party's recent restraint comes from necessity and self-preservation, not altruism or reality. These are the worst types of politicians and Canadians should be wary of engaging with what is a regional party in national party clothing. When the economy was in a tailspin last October, the Conservatives took a hard line approach, saying everything was fine. When the Conservatives were under threat of collapse by an alternate minority coalition government, the Prime Minister sought shelter by lying to Canadians about the legality of replacing their government and then abused the Constitution and somehow persuaded the Governor General to prorogue Parliament. In effect, the Conservative Party had an extra-long holiday break and left Canadians without due representation in what was arguably one of the most important periods of modern history.

The list goes on: on global warming, the Conservatives have made a mockery of international processes. On medical isotopes, the Conservatives have been unresponsive to the needs of patients by getting Chalk River running again. On agriculture issues, the Conservatives have whittled away at institutions like the Canadian Wheat Board, effectively putting our farmers in a less protected and vulnerable position. In my mind -- the environment, the medical industry, and our farmers deserve better.

As long as the petro-dollars keep flowing into Alberta coffers, the Conservative Party will have a Western base and the funding to continue to compete in politics on a national level. But any responsible politician, driven by a true calling for public service and to serve his or her country with repute, would never be so short sighted; we have had plenty of forward-thinkers in the past. Harper and his Conservatives are more likely to join the club of Tupper, Abbott and Bowell -- all short-term Prime Ministers -- than the pantheon of great Canadian politicians like Macdonald, Laurier, Trudeau and Chretien.

In a sense, we need to thank patriots like Joe Hueglin and others across this country -- all voices in the wilderness. For now.