Comments on The Burd Report: Why this woman is important

The conservative tactical response to many progres...

2009-11-30T14:44:52.284-05:00

The conservative tactical response to many progressive issues is scripted like a play in three acts:

Act 1 – DENY that there is any real problem to be addressed;

Act 2 – DELAY as long as possible before acting on the problem;

Act 3 – DESPAIR that it is too late to do anything about the problem.

With respect to the issue of Corporate Social Responsibility:

MP Rick Norlock is following the script for Act 1. He claims that Canadian mining company operations follow a high level of CSR. In Colombia, for example, the Conservative government generally denies what many independent sources, including Canadian and international NGOs, report: Canadian mining companies are beneficiaries of monstrous human rights violations. (See Amnesty International Human Rights in Columbia webpage)

Anne (a.k.a. TINA) is playing a role from Act 2. She admits that the operations of SOME Canadian mining companies are not quite as benign as Mr. Norlock claims, but she insists that we must delay any immediate action with CSR Bill C-300, introduced by Liberal MP John McKay. Hence, TINA: There Is No Alternative to allowing SOME Canadian companies to continue their malignant complicity in actions that are highly socially irresponsible.

What can be done? Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff can persuade his caucus, including those Liberals who are, McKay reports, “wary of attaching themselves to a bill opposed by some of the richest companies in the country,” to join NDP/Green MPs in enacting Bill C-300.

We live in hope, noting that, when it happens, majority rule can be quite refreshing!

I did not say there was no alternative. I actuall...

2009-11-29T23:03:05.697-05:00

I did not say there was no alternative. I actually pointed out an alternative. I believe human rights are an absolutely essential element of what I think Canada should embody. I also think some human rights will be a non issue if our economy is a stagnant swamp of inefficiency when compared to the rest of the world. What constitutes a "reasonable" wage is certainly debatable, but it cannot price Canadian goods out of the market. There needs to be comprehensive policy in place to ensure these bills fit into the bigger national picture, as well as a plan to fit Canada into the global picture.

You can't just pass bills because they look good on paper. So does communism, as does capitalism. The real world is an issue that can't be ignored.

I'm thinking that Anne's middle name must ...

2009-11-29T19:44:59.404-05:00

I'm thinking that Anne's middle name must be TINA, as in There Is No Alternative.

For years progressives have been told that there is no alternative to the status quo. Anne maintains that there is no alternative to allowing business considerations to trump human rights.

Progressives know something very different. They want to see some movement by Liberals on this and other issues before the next election.

Conservatives, however, would like to bury the strategic voting notion entirely. It will be interesting to see what develops.

It was not my intent to encourage progressives to ...

2009-11-29T10:54:48.718-05:00

It was not my intent to encourage progressives to vote strategically, it was my intent to point out that your post was off the mark when calling attention to Bill C-300. I would be quite surprised if you could judge my political affiliation by my post.

To pass Bill C-300 would be irresponsible. To vote blindly in the vein of being progressive, with no consideration of the real world impact, does not make any sense to me.

An intriguing response, Anne, but not one that wil...

2009-11-28T14:56:15.655-05:00

An intriguing response, Anne, but not one that will encourage progressives to vote strategically for Liberals.

Progressives are able, from time to time, to work with Liberals in coalitions bcause some of them think other than do you.

The Liberal response to Bills such as C-300 (CSR) and C-377 (Climate Change Accountability) will be a factor in determinine whether they get the votes of progressives in the next election.

Thank you William for your elaboration. While it h...

2009-11-27T15:05:12.430-05:00

Thank you William for your elaboration. While it has shed some light on my ignorance of these things, it hasn't helped me to understand "common good" when it comes to the question of whether the common good is always for the good of all or just for some, as in "the community of interest" or "stakeholders". I'm of the simplistic opinion that nothing is ever good for ALL concerned or affected by any particular issue. How then do I rationalize that something is for the "common good" yet imparts disadvantage or expense (not necessarily financial) on some? I am still hopelessly shrouded in a fog on this.

In my opinion, that is an extremely simplistic ass...

2009-11-27T14:10:49.287-05:00

In my opinion, that is an extremely simplistic assessment of the merits/drawbacks of Bill C-300.

The passage of Bill C-300 would put Canadian mining companies at a substantial disadvantage to their international competitors. To my knowledge, no other country has such a "progressive" CSR stance in the extractive sector.

It would certainly mean that Canada would be a leader in this regard, but do we have enough influence to get the rest of the international community on board? It is short-sighted to pass the Bill without thoughtful consideration of what this will mean for some major Canadian companies.

The Americans were in a similar position when they passed their anti-corruption Act that made it illegal to bribe foreign government officials. It was certainly a defined stance, but no other countries were bound by the same restrictions. It put American companies at a very serious disadvantage when bidding on the lucrative public-private partnerships that the World Bank was happy to fund. It was difficult for them to get other countries on board, so imagine the difficulty Canada will face.

Bill C-300 is not needed to ensure that bribing a foreign official is a crime in Canada as Canada has signed the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. There has been little traction because Alberta and Quebec refuse to participate. I believe Quebec has challenged the feds in the Quebec court of Appeal, and the feds responded with a filing in the SCC. The issue is whether or not this is will fall under the trade and commerce provision under the constitutional division of powers. My guess is that the feds will prevail and Canada will then be able to actively uphold the commitments they made under the OECD Convention.

I do believe Bill C-300 needs some serious thought and probably revision before it would be responsible to pass it. There are mining companies operating within Canada that have a strong CSR platform, are there are those that do not. There does need to be discussion as to what is possible, and what is reasonable.

In response to an overwhelming demand from the pro...

2009-11-26T10:31:16.609-05:00

In response to an overwhelming demand from the progressive community (thank you, Manfred) let me unpack the meaning of “the common good.”

To promote something for the common good is to promote it for the benefit of all who share an interest in it, not because they hold any special rank, status, or position, but because they are part of the common weal—an archaic meaning of which is commonwealth.

Related (but not equivalent) notions are “community of interest” and “stakeholders.”

With respect to any particular issue, reasonable people respond differently to questions like these: What is the real community of interest? Who are the legitimate stakeholders?

There are, however, patterns of response worth noting:

-- progressives generally seek to augment communities of interest by searching out and including legitimate stakeholders who previously have been systematically excluded from discussions and decision making.

-- conservatives generally seek to diminish communities of interest, at times by refusing entry to legitimate stakeholders, at times by supporting entry of counterfeit stakeholders, who have a special interest in the matter.

--- An illustration ---

Liberal MP Roy Cullen authored The Poverty of Corrupt Nations, explaining why transparency of international financial transactions can reduce corruption and improve living standards in developing nations. Cullen also reported these sad facts about Canadian mining companies:

-- they have, in particular and for years, refused to support transparency of international financial transactions;
-- they have, in general, refused to sit down at the table of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) with respect to their overseas operations.

In response, Liberal MP John McKay introduced private member’s Bill C-300 to address human rights abuses that are arising with increasing frequency out of the operations of Canadian mining companies in developing nations.

(The recent article Mining Unrest: a Star investigation by Brett Popplewell reports both the type of conditions that Bill C-300 is intended to address and the prospects of its passage in the Commons. The article quotes MP McKay: “some Liberals are wary of attaching themselves to a bill opposed by some of the richest companies in the country.” Pity.)

I wrote to MP Rick Norlock, urging his support for Bill C-300. Mr. Norlock replied, urging these points on me:

-- Canadian mining companies already adhere to a very high standard of CSR;

-- Bill C-300 is flawed because stakeholders were not consulted—he means Canadian mining companies and the special interest groups that promote their activities.

Here is my analysis of the Liberal and Conservative positions, as they relate to the common good:

-- the Liberal Bill C-300 envisions an expanded stakeholder base, including by proxy those people (largely indigenous) in developing nations who are being harmed by the actions of Canadian mining companies.

-- the Conservative response seeks a contracted stakeholder base, responsive to counterfeit stakeholders, the corporations whose operations are the causing human rights problems that Bill C-300 seeks to address.

Progressives support Bill C-300, which would, for example, prohibit Canadian corporations from bribing public officials in foreign countries. They regard with scorn the claim that it is not our business to enact laws that govern the behaviour of Canadian corporations in foreign countries.

I get it now. Somehow Janine Krieber was trying...

2009-11-25T13:42:04.208-05:00

I get it now.

Somehow Janine Krieber was trying to tell us something about Wally Keeler.

"Sure has a well-earned sense of bloated self-importance; every swamp has its bull frog."
Sun Nov 15 2009

The common good is something strived towards by an...

2009-11-25T13:04:45.697-05:00

The common good is something strived towards by anti-individualists. 'Progressives' are largely about group identity politics, rather than individual rights advocates. For progressives, the group always trumps the individual. Reminds me of that progressive teacher I had in high school that told my mother that Wally was a round peg in a square hole. We'll make him conform to the common good.

As well, perhaps Bill could provide a clear idea o...

2009-11-24T15:31:56.485-05:00

As well, perhaps Bill could provide a clear idea of what he holds out to be "the common good". I, for one, am unable to detect the outer limits that define his vision of "the common good" - does that include only political boundaries such as municipal, regional, provincial or national good, or does it also include the rest of the continent, or the whole globe, or does it include only some or all races and religions? Just how "common" are we talking?

While he is certainly free to say and write what he wishes, as are all, it is, in my opinion, rare that William offers his OWN opinion on matters, ones that are not simply restatements of someone else's thoughts or data used as illustrations of what we are expected to deduce from his posts. Anon hit it pretty much on with the "dodge" observation. Personally, I've asked William to respond to a point or two and never received a direct answer. Kind of renders those 'non-discussions' as pointless and a waste of time for me.

William, run for government. You would make a g...

2009-11-24T13:47:08.209-05:00

William, run for government.

You would make a good politician.

You excel at dodging questions.

Is it reasonable for progressives to believe that ...

2009-11-24T13:34:34.902-05:00

Is it reasonable for progressives to believe that a minority government led by Michael Ignatieff would advance government action for the common good?

Some evidence to the contrary:

The Climate Change Accountability Act was originally tabled in October 2006 in the Canadian House of Commons as Bill C-377 by Jack Layton, Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada. It passed 3rd reading in that House with the support of caucuses of the Liberal Party of Canada, the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP (the Conservative Party of Canada, led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, voted against it).

However, due [to] the 2008 Canadian federal election ending the parliamentary session prematurely, the bill did not achieve royal assent despite reaching the Senate.

On February 10, 2009 Bruce Hyer, New Democrat Deputy Environment Critic and MP for Thunder Bay-Superior North, seconded by Layton, reintroduced it as a Private Member's Bill, renamed as Bill C-311.

After months of delays, a contentious request by the House Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development for more time to consider C-311 was granted with the Official Opposition supporting the government on an Oct 21 vote in the House of Commons [my emphasis].

Passage of the Climate Change Accountability Act was therefore effectively delayed until 2010, meaning it would not influence the government in negotiations at the UN COP15 global climate change treaty negotiations held in December 2009 in Copenhagen.

-- source: Wikipedia

The critical difference between the votes in 2006 and 2009: the Liberal leader had changed from Dion to Ignatieff.

On the face of it, progressives ought not expect that a minority government led by Michael Ignatieff will reliably advance government for the common good.

William, if the accord led to a coalition governme...

2009-11-24T13:12:56.664-05:00

William, if the accord led to a coalition government, Iggy would NOT have been Prime Minister, Dion would have been. That's what the accor specified among other things like how many Cabinet positions each party would have, etc.

Martin wrote: "So I completely understood Ign...

2009-11-24T13:07:18.818-05:00

Martin wrote: "So I completely understood Ignatieff's total retreat from the idea [of a 3-party coalition]."

Thank you, Martin, for setting out for us the history of your thinking on this matter.

Permit me these comments:

(1) Michael Ignatieff didn't retreat from an idea, he retreated from an agreement;

(2) Progressives don't have difficulty understanding what Ignatieff did, but we do draw different conclusions from what he did.

Ignatieff recently suggested that Liberals could/would (re)introduce a universal child care plan--sometime. Had he not retreated from the coalition, he could/would have done just that earlier this year as Prime Minister, with full support from his NDP and BQ coalition partners. But....

The fallout from Ignatieff's retreat is that we progressives conclude that Ignatieff is not someone who can reliably be expected to move government forward for the common good.

If you, Martin, are hoping that progressives will support the Liberal candidate in Northumberland-Quinte West, you need to address that fallout.

William, you state we now agree. I would like it i...

2009-11-24T12:21:33.901-05:00

William, you state we now agree. I would like it if we did. However, it appears to me that we still do not agree on the facts.

When she met with Harper, one course of action open to Governor General Jean on December 4, 2008 was to ask him to resign. This would not have been the same as agreeing to dissolve parliament, which would have led to an election being called less than 2 months after the October 14 election; it would have left the G.G. open to invite the Liberals and the NDP to form a government with the support of the Bloc on all confidence motions. Obviously, the Liberal - NDP accord and the Bloc support of it was not a secret to the G.G.

In the one act, she both prorogued parliament and did not allow a coalition government. All constitutional experts I have read seem to agree on that. I am not sure what you think happened because you do not state it in so many words. You are implying a position, not stating one.

Help me out. State your understanding of the historical sequence as I have done for mine.

1. "Ad hominem" means to personalize an ...

2009-11-24T11:50:09.702-05:00

1. "Ad hominem" means to personalize an argument, rather than deal with the objective points made by an opponent. A good recent example is Peter MacKay's dodge, 'Richard Colvin is nothing but a Taliban sympathizer.' It doesn't require malice, but it helps for the speaker to be wily, desperate and perhaps unscrupulous.

2. My own journey through the coalition days: Initially I was enthusiastic about a coalition. I attended the local three-party presentation at Victoria Hall (Green, Lib, NDP). I had encouraging discussions with Green and NDP supporters who were present. I was appalled when Harper convinced the GG to ignore constitutional convention and prop up the government long enough for Harper's goons to muster an attack.

The attack worked. Support for the coalition dropped to 16% across Canada, I believe. A long-time Lib supporter and worker hung up the phone on me, so upset was he about a deal involving "the separatists".

So I completely understood Ignatieff's total retreat from the idea. Though legal and desirable, it would have been politically catastrophic.

A footnote: I gave up on Dion (and therefore Krieber) at the Lib convention in Vancouver in May when he was given the microphone for a 3-minute thank you for his departure tribute, turned it into an hour-plus campaign-style harangue (covering all the losing issues from the election that killed him), and drove away in droves the formerly supportive Libs that had filled the vast hall including myself. He proved his lack of political acumen to everyone there, and his wife just proved its source to everyone else.

Those meanings do not appear in my dictionary defi...

2009-11-24T11:28:03.442-05:00

Those meanings do not appear in my dictionary definition search. The following do, which conform with the meanings I had in mind -- and as I said, I am as guilty of falling into ad hominem methods as the next person. My only caution is: be aware of this danger and try to avoid it. I completely accept there was no hatred or malice intended from you or William.

Here are the meanings:

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
3. Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.

Anon, s/he wrote: "December 4, 2008, Harper ...

2009-11-24T10:29:53.991-05:00

Anon, s/he wrote:

"December 4, 2008, Harper requests prorogue of parliament until January 26, 2009. Governor General Jean grants this request.

"During the time between December 4, 2008 and January 26, 2009, Iggy replaced Dion...."

Refreshing that progressives and some anonymous folk now agree on the history of this issue:

(1) the GG did NOT refuse to allow a coalition government to be formed;

(2) nor did the GG turn down the proposal from Dion, Layton and Duceppe.

Now, can we move forward to get some agreement on the future? Can we agree that Liberals in Northumberland-Quinte West hoping for strategic voting support from progressives need to mend fences by acknowledging that walking away from the Coalition Agreement was a colossal mistake? If not, then....

Ben: you are correct to suggest that criticising a person's statement of fact is not in any sense an ad hominem. Anon's original statement of the events of Dec/Jan last was utterly at odds with the facts, as the rest of us know.

If there is a tendency to be tough on anonymous po...

2009-11-24T10:08:00.778-05:00

If there is a tendency to be tough on anonymous posters I suspect it's because those posters don't have the courage to put their name to their opinions and it is difficult to respect them as a result.

It's easy to blast off on any topic when you hide your identity, not so easy when you sign your name and are accountable for yourself.

On the other hand, if you have been victimized and attacked on a personal level for your comments, sometimes it seems safer to comment anonymously where personalities don't become the topic.

On balance though, I will take a poster more seriously, and more respectfully, when they sign their names.

to the second anon Thank you for the detailed comm...

2009-11-24T09:35:53.529-05:00

to the second anon
Thank you for the detailed comment and good post. Ad Hominem attacks seems a bit strong for a couple of pointed questions. As a non Latin scholar I do believe the term refers to attacks with Hatred, Malice, Bad Intent etc. I don't think any of the above questions fall into this category
ben

Sure, January and February 2009 has its history. ...

2009-11-24T09:14:36.451-05:00

Sure, January and February 2009 has its history.

However, in my post I refer to the history of October, November and December, 2008.

Here is a quick recap: October 14, 2009 election -- Conservatives form minority government. November 27, 2008 Harper government presents fiscal update. This leads the Liberal Party and NDP to forge an accord to form a minority coalition government. The Bloc agreed to support confidence issues for a fixed period --at least 18 months-- to ensure such a coalition government did not fall -- essentially guaranteeding the coalition could operate as if it were a majority government. Though not in Parliament, the Green Party weighed in to support the coalition. Note: Dion was leader of the Liberal Party at this point, not Iggy. Also note: the accord was facilitated by work by Ed Broadbent and Jean Chretien.

December 4, 2008, Harper requests prorogue of parliament until January 26, 2009. Governor General Jean grants this request.

During the time between December 4, 2008 and January 26, 2009, Iggy replaced Dion and Harper significantly changed the proposals of November 27 that triggered the crisis in the first place.

In answer to your questions, William and Ben: no, I did not write a letter to the Globe & Mail. I don't think I have ever written a letter to the Editor of the Globe. No, I am not a closet Liberal or a Conservative plant. However last week I was told in these posts that I might be NDP but I am not socialist enough.

As I said then, these kind of ad hominem attacks do little to advance the exchange of ideas. They only serve to sour the atmosphere of debate.

I do not say this in a holier than thou way. I am guilty often enough of making that error, attacking the speaker rather than dealing with the ideas that are being spoken. It is just as faulty a form of (non) argument when I do it as when someone else does it.

To go a little further and answer questions you have not specifically asked: I was very excited at the possibility of a coalition government approximately a year ago. I would have embraced that outcome. That is not what happened as things evolved to my sadness.

For the Second Anon, did you also write to the Glo...

2009-11-23T17:20:07.666-05:00

For the Second Anon, did you also write to the Globe and mail today?
quote from Ibbotsen comments:
Mr Ibbitson,
Mrs Kreiber little rant this weekend was nothing more than "sour grapes" big sour grapes. The coaltion was not rejected by liberal strategists it was rejected by the governor general and by the people of canada...also as for mr dion's leadership well the canadian voter voted with their feet in the last election and over 800K liberals stayed home in the last election...

Anon, s/he wrote: "it was the Governor Genera...

2009-11-23T16:31:22.296-05:00

Anon, s/he wrote: "it was the Governor General who refused to allow a coalition government to be formed. She turned down the proposal from Dion, Layton and Duceppe."

Really? Was this person out of the country during the events of last December/January? Or merely engaged in a long winter's nap?

Liberals who want progressives to vote strategically in Northumberland-Quinte West need to address the residue of bad feeling over the lost opportunity for change caused by Michael Ignatieff's abandonment of the Coalition Agreement.

Ben: I can't decide whether Anon is a revisionist Liberal deeply in denial or a wily Conservative attempting to poison the pot of strategic voting. What do you think?

Mr. Hayes -- and others -- when we replay history,...

2009-11-23T11:06:19.760-05:00

Mr. Hayes -- and others -- when we replay history, let's try to do so correctly: it was the Governor General who refused to allow a coalition government to be formed. She turned down the proposal from Dion, Layton and Duceppe.

She accepted Mr. Harper's proposal instead, ignoring the sound of his shaky knees clacking together during his visit.

What Iggy refused was to turn that one-time only gambit into an on-going alliance of any sort.

Perhaps he was wrong. However, let's argue that what he did was wrong. Let's not argue that he was wrong when he "did" something that he did not do.