Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad examines Iran's nuclear facilities.

The prospect of nuclear war between Israel and Iran over Iran’s disputed civilian nuclear program is ever-present as both sides attempt to determine the others intentions while preparing for the worst. The heart of the conflict is a debate over the true intentions of Iran’s nuclear program: Iran has long argued the nuclear program they are developing, one of the worst kept secrets in the Middle East for many years, is purely civilian in nature. But others in the West are skeptical.

Western reactions to the Iranian nuclear saga are far from homogenous — Israel, because of close proximity to Iran, has long argued a harder line against Iran than most. Britain, France, and the United States have sought a more moderate approach to Iran via sanctions as opposed to overt military actions, though ultimately supporting Israeli motivations for pre-emptive violence. Russia and China have consistently shown moderate support for Iran, asking for an end to sanctions and for the West to refrain from meddling in Iranian internal affairs.

To better understand the escalating conflict, here, then, is a brief timeline of the Iranian nuclear situation:

OCTOBER 12, 2011: The United States uncovered an alleged Iranian plot to pay a Mexican drug cartel to murder the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States in a Washington, D.C. restaurant. Despite Iran laughing off the plot rumours, this began a new round of U.S.-led efforts for the international community to isolate Tehran, with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden insisting it not be seen as a United States vs. Iran conflict, but a united, global front against the country. “These are cheap claims,” noted Iranian Parliamentary speaker Ari Larijani. “We have normal relations with the Saudis. There is no reason for Iran to carry out such childish acts.” Even U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton thought it was strange enough to remark: “nobody could make this up, right?”

NOVEMBER 3, 2011: Despite the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) plan to report on their probe into Iran’s nuclear program, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began rallying support in his cabinet for a pre-emptive strike against Iran. After Israel successfully tested a missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead into Iran, Netanyahu thought it prudent to begin consolidating support for such an action based on the assumption that if Iran does in fact have nuclear weapons capabilities (as Israel believes they do), his country would be the primary target of Iranian nuclear aggression.

NOVEMBER 8, 2011: The IAEA released a report asserting they have credible new evidence of a weapons-based purpose for the Iranian nuclear program. It is the strongest condemnation of Iran’s nuclear program in a decade, and one of the most intensive efforts to “pierce the secrecy” of the program. But cognizant of the 2003 “intelligence” report on Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, the IAEA thoroughly explained the broad origins and nature of the data gathered from 10 different national governments, independent agencies and interviews in a section entitled “credibility of information.”

NOVEMBER 9, 2011: After the release of the IAEA report, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad alleges the United States is using the IAEA as a “stooge” in its efforts to bully international public opinion against Iran. Ahmadinejad argued the report was a set-up for Israel to make a pre-emptive strike against Iran, and restated that Iran “does not need a bomb.” Germany, France and Britain all signaled a greater willingness to support U.S.-based sanctions as a result of the report and subsequent Iranian reaction.

NOVEMBER 21, 2011: With European support, the United States moved to apply significant financial pressures on Iran (sanctions) in retaliation for moving ahead with their nuclear program. The move was intended to cut Iran off from global financial institutions and apply pressures to their central and commercial banks, as well as to companies involved with Iran’s nuclear, oil and petrochemical sectors. Canada entered the fight, joining the United States and Britain in limiting Iranian access to foreign credit. “The message is clear,” said Hillary Clinton. “If Iran’s intransigence continues, it will face increasing pressure and isolation.”

JANUARY 27, 2012: Seemingly unfazed by global sanctions, Iran asked to call a meeting with other world powers (Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States) to discuss its nuclear program and uranium enrichment facilities. The call for talks came after European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton suggested all parties pick up where negotiations left off in Istanbul, Turkey a year ago. “They have this excuse that Iran is dodging negotiations while it is not the case,” Mr. Ahmadinejad told Iran’s state media. “A person who has logic and has right on his side, why should [he] refrain from negotiations?” The U.S. State Department insists on Iran’s “coming clean” about their nuclear program as a prerequisite for talks.

FEBRUARY 19, 2012: Iran moved to cut off oil exports to Britain and France, threatening other EU nations with similar bans through their state media should tensions escalate. Iran’s deputy Oil Minister, Ahmad Qalebani, claimed that “if the hostile actions of some European countries continue, the export of oil to these countries will be cut.” Concurrent with the ban, Iran announced several days of military maneuvers in preparation for real-life protection of their nuclear sites. Iranian naval vessels have moved into the Strait of Hormuz, ostensibly to protect nuclear sites, but also to assert their control over the strait where roughly 20 per cent of the world’s oil passes through.

FEBRUARY 21, 2012: Iran warned of pre-emptive action against Israel if it believed they are planning a strike against Iran’s nuclear program. This is the most openly bellicose tone that Iran has struck on the matter in the past year. Mohammed Hejazi, Iran’s deputy armed forces head, told state media that “our strategy now is that if we feel our enemies want to endanger Iran’s national interests, and want to decide to do that, we will act without waiting for their actions.” This came after increased restrictions were placed on UN officials hoping to gain access to Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The conflict between Iran and the West over its nuclear program is on-going, and cooler heads have yet to prevail. Iran appears willing to meet with other nations to discuss their nuclear ambitions, but is less willing to fundamentally alter the nature of their nuclear program, or at least welcome the international community in to prove the absence of a weaponization program. Without any measure of trust between Iran and the West, and certainly no love lost, the talks are bound to be hollow if not followed by globally-measured and accountable actions not only for Iran to renounce any military ambitions for their nuclear program, but for the West to lift sanctions that are typically more harmful for civilians than the government.

Yet the U.S., Britain and France are right to pressure Israel to halt their escalating rhetoric of pre-emptive violence for its own sake. Now is not the time to play with fire. There is a way to deescalate the tension while allowing all parties to save face; it merely requires a willingness on all sides not to resort to nuclear war over suspicions of intent.

Ideally, this is something humanity should be capable of.

- – -

This article appeared originally in Toronto Standard on 02/21/2012.

Greek Olympics facilities from 2004 behind fences.

The Italian government has officially removed the city of Rome’s bid to host the 2020 Summer Olympics, citing economic instability in the country and the mounting costs of hosting the games, should their bid be victorious. “Italy can and must have ambitious goals,” stated the Italian Premier Mario Monti: “our government is focused also on its growth, not just on strictness, but at this time we don’t think it would be fitting to commit Italy to this type of guarantee which could put at risk taxpayers’ money.”

The estimated cost for hosting the 2020 Olympics in Rome? $12.5 billion.

“The decision of course must be respected, but in my view the Italian government missed the chance to send a signal for economic growth in Italy,” IOC Vice President Thomas Bach told Reuters on Wednesday.

While Monti has sent a clear signal to the European Union that Italy is serious about its efforts to reduce its monumental debt, he has also sent a clear signal to the International Olympic Committee, and any other would-be nation that hopes to bid on the games in future: betting on the Olympics as a positive investment in for the long-term economic prosperity of the host-city is a dangerous gamble. And Italy was not prepared to take the bet.

“(Rome’s withdrawal) is symptomatic of the financial situation that is engulfing Europe,” claims Danny Townsend, President of Brand Analysis at research company Repucom International; it was “inevitable.”

And Townsend is not alone in this thinking. “The IOC will be looking at numbers very carefully this time round, especially now, after Rome,” argued a veteran Olympic consultant who spoke with Reuters on condition of anonymity. “They will be looking at finances closely and they will also be thinking whether other parts of the world make more financial sense at the moment.”

Those other parts of the world include proposals from countries that the IOC and other world sporting organizations like FIFA have only recently been prepared to consider. With Rome out of the picture, Istanbul, Tokyo, and Madrid are still in play — but the front runners for the 2020 Summer Olympics now include Azerbaijan’s Baku and Qatar’s Doha. Both nations are flush with natural resource extraction capital, and are aggressively pushing to have prestige-building international sporting events held in their countries.

Doha has won the FIFA World Cup for 2022, and the eastward-looking trend is already in full swing. Townsend noted that despite more “traditional markets” like Spain and Italy remaining attractive to the IOC for security and economic reasons, “the Games will naturally and inevitably head [east].”

The opportunity to ensure the economic viability of the games by “[reaping the] benefits of natural resources,” such as Qatar’s liquefied natural gas and Azerbaijan’s Caspian Sea oil reserves, is too good to ignore when weighing an Olympic bid.

This speaks to a pronounced new reality for international sporting events: while the economic burden imposed upon the host-city and its taxpayers has always been monumental, the global recession which began in 2008 has ensured that smart nations have their own economic house in order before inviting the world to town. Proving a host-city has tangible uses for stadiums and athletic facilities once the games have ended is no longer enough — strong and stable economic growth, coupled with a manageable deficit and low unemployment are now far more critical indicators of a winning bid as how effectively a city embodies the “Olympic Spirit,” however defined.

Istanbul is now bidding to host the Olympics for the fifth time in six bids. A large portion of their application was spent on highlighting “Turkey’s sharp economic growth last year of about 8.0 percent,” according to Reuters, “as proof that the country can shoulder the financial burden of the Games.”

The severity of the burden comes down to how effectively a host-nation prepares for the long-term economic viability of its legacy infrastructure. Olympic history is replete with dramatic examples of host-city’s failing to build upon pre-games momentum to retain interest in the facilities once the games have ended to entice new uses, or even simply to pay for them.

Famously, it took the government of Quebec three decades to fully pay off their Olympic debt that ballooned to $1.5 billion for the 1976 Summer Olympics. After former Montreal mayor Jean Drapeau alleged the games would cost Montreal only $320 million, he scoffed at suggestions his payment plan would be insufficient, claiming not only the games would be a money-maker for the city, but infamously declaring that “the Montreal Olympics can no more have a deficit, than a man can have a baby.”

Today, Stade Olympique de Montréal is the epitome of Olympic white elephants.

Another classic Canadian example, although Canada has no monopoly on Olympic debacles, is the legacy of debt and lawsuits left in the wake of Vancouver’s Olympic Village condos. In March, 2011, over 60 Olympic Village condo owners filed a class-action lawsuit against the City of Vancouver for poorly built condo units — “water pouring out of light fixtures, heat not working, cracks in ceilings, [and] hardwood floors that are bubbling because of moisture,” according to the Globe and Mail — sold for upwards of $1.8 million each.

This was not the Olympic moment Vancouver had imagined for their once shining Olympic Village, nor for the owners who were sold a vision of owning and sharing in Canada’s Olympic glory. The city, which had intended to stay out of the issue, was forced to step in when Millennium Development Corp., the project’s developer, went into default.

An early sign of the dangers of poor economic planning is the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens, Greece. It was intended to signify the strength of the Greek state and the spirit of the people who hosted the first modern Olympic games in 1896; yet eight years later, the once magnificent buildings — costing $12 billion paid for by Greek taxpayers at double the budgeted total — now sit derelict, fenced in, and decaying.

“Peeling paint flakes from Athens’ Olympic park,” notes Greek newspaper Ekathimerini. “Its entrances locked, this once sparkling edifice to sporting greatness lies rotting and largely unused — maintenance costs too high for near-bankrupt Greece to operate.”

Ekathimerini notes that Greece was “crackling with optimism, pride and activity, as it rushed to deliver the multi-billion dollar Games organizers hoped would boost the country’s growth and its modern image abroad,” the hope of all host-nations and cities.

The problem? Greece had no exit-strategy, and idea of how to pay for it all. Hellenic Olympic Committee (HOC) President Spyros Kapralos told Reuters that “the success of the 2004 Olympics was lost when the lights went out at the end of the closing ceremony as our country had no plan to capitalise on [our] success.”

The IOC may continue to view the Olympics as a terrific financial opportunity for the lucky host-city, but the reality of global economic instability is clearly causing many prospective host-nations to balk at assuming such tremendous financial burdens. Townsend is correct in stating that “at the end of the day [national leaders] are paid to make decisions for the good of [their] country,” and not for the good of the IOC.

Italy was entirely correct in abandoning its Olympic bid if they felt unable to shoulder the cost, despite however their strong application. Premier Monti didn’t have to look far to see the disastrous effects of Greece’s headlong rush into financing an event they could not possibly hope to pay for. The result? Greece is now preparing to accept a 130 billion euro bailout from the European Union.

Rome will likely not be the first host-city that abandons its previous Olympic bid due to financial restrictions, and the shift eastward will likely continue as resource-rich Middle Eastern nations push for international recognition and prestige. The changing economic landscape in the West will ensure it.

- – -

This article was published originally at Toronto Standard on 02/15/2012.

Climatopolis by Matthew E. Kahn

Climatopolis: How Our Cities Will Survive and Thrive in the Hotter Future
Matthew Kahn
Basic Books | New York, NY
2010 | 288 pp

Despite the compelling title of UCLA economist Matthew Kahn’s Climatopolis, his work on identifying which cities will adapt to climate change and how they will survive is underwhelming. His focus is on cities, the “growth engines of capitalism,” to examine what qualities will keep them vibrant or ensure their failure as the planet heats up.

Kahn builds his argument on a highly debatable and oversimplified premise — that “we have already released too much greenhouse gas, and I see no credible signs that global emissions will decline in…future.” From this he ascertains that “if the world is going to get hotter…the fundamental question is what the future of our cities will be in our hotter world.” Many would strongly disagree with Kahn’s impression that limiting the effects of climate change is impossible, but may appreciate a deeper understanding of climate adaptation methods.

“I am explicitly embracing an economist’s ‘human centric’ bias,” he writes, removing any reference to the impacts of climate change on the natural world. Kahn’s decision to detach humanity from the natural world paints nature largely as the deliverer of hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis: this is troubling, assuming as he does that while human beings have the agency to relocate to escape a flood- or drought-prone city, flora and fauna are out of luck.

But no matter — Kahn is an economist, not a biologist, and his primary concerns are the important roles that individual choice and capitalism play in finding solutions for vulnerable cities. He is honest in identifying the irony of Climatopolis’s core theme, that while “capitalist growth created the problem of mass greenhouse gases…now capitalism’s dynamism…will help us adapt.”

Other researchers have questioned the humanity-saving potential of technology and capitalism. But Kahn is adamant that by adding the power of individual choice, what technology cannot save — New Orleans in a flood scenario, for example — people can by moving to safer cities like Salt Lake City, Utah. And if people refuse to “vote with their feet,” the rest of society should not be held accountable for their care.

There is an individualist streak that runs through Climatopolis that is less rugged than it is unsettling for those who see climate change as a problem to be solved through governments and collective action. The power of the free market and individual choice reign supreme, for Kahn. “Cities compete with one another,” and “climate change will effect the competitive landscape for cities, [allowing] people…to choose the winner” by relocating, leaving climate-dangerous cities to those who cannot do the same.

But “Kahn can’t seem to get two things right without getting a third wrong” notes Emily Green in her L.A. Times review, and his “sloppy assessments” detract significantly from the overall potential of Climatopolis to address a critical issue. His outlook is reservedly optimistic, but the caveats he places on success makes one question just who “wins” in Kahn’s vision of the future.

Four Fish by Paul Greenberg

Four Fish: The Future of the Last Wild Food
Paul Greenberg
The Penguin Press | New York, NY
2010 | 284 pp

Paul Greenberg’s expose on the global commercial fishing industry is less a lament for a traditional way-of-life lost to industrialization than it is a dire warning of about the biological impacts of our current methods of fish cultivation. Greenberg is concerned not just with the auxiliary impacts of commercial fishing on “undesirable” marine species discarded as bycatch, but the secondary impacts of our selective breeding of four particular fish humanity has deemed pleasant to the palate.

By examining the four fish that humans have deemed appropriate for “dewilding” — salmon, tuna, bass and cod —  Greenberg uses Four Fish as an opportunity to develop a historical understanding of how and why these species have been selected for industrial human consumption, and what this means for the future of fish.

Humanity has shifted its thinking about what fish should be, Greenberg argues — so far, perhaps, that salmon, tuna, bass and cod have been reduced to “four archetypes of fish flesh.” This is the crux of Greenberg’s thesis: while admitting “this is not the first time humanity has…selected a handful of species to exploit and propagate,” the ignorance which plagued the food selection process of early humans has no modern equivalent. Humanity “is fully aware of [its] capability to skew the rules of nature in [its] favour.”

And skewing nature we are. By selecting four species of fish for human cultivation, we have inadvertently downgraded the worth of other, less desirable fish, “abandoning the rest to gradual extinction” as Wayne Grady noted in his review.

Greenberg takes the reader around the world to seek answers to what is the fundamental question of Four Fish: “must we eliminate all wildness from the sea and replace it with [a] human controlled system,” he writes, “or can wildness be…managed well enough to keep humanity and the marine world in balance?”

He spends the rest of Four Fish successfully convincing you of the latter, and the range and depth of his experience go some way towards making the current system of fish-farming seem repugnant. Greenberg weaves together the significance of his scientific opinions with the adventure of discovery as he introduces you to Mediterranean entrepreneurs, Middle Eastern marine researchers, Japanese offshore fisheries experts, and Alaskan Yupik Eskimos.

While Greenberg is not in favour of a radical overhaul of commercial fisheries, he advocates for a greater awareness of what exactly humanity is doing when it manipulates natural food supplies. “Wild fish did not come into this world just to be our food,” he notes. And if alternative species are to be domesticated in future, Greenberg rightly notes the decision must be based on more than “market principles and profit” with little regard for how the chosen species naturally behaves. Fisheries managers and biologists must be brought into the conversation about food supply.

Knowledge is power, and Four Fish is a tremendous place to start learning the history and politics of the fish on your plate.

Young Liberal pamphleteers attacking the crowd with pens and stickers.

“The future leaders of the party are in this room,” Bob Rae told the assembled crowd of Young Liberals. “They’re you.”

And they want Rae to be right. In fact, they want him to take this platitude one step further — that the future leaders of this country are assembled there, never mind the party. They came to think big, and so they hooped and hollered as he told them what political leaders have told youth wings in their parties since parties have had youth wings: that they are the leaders of tomorrow. And to show their appreciation for his kind words, they gave Rae an NHL All-Star Game hockey jersey with his name on it.

These Young Liberals came from across the country to hear encouragement from their (interim) leader who shares their belief in a common set of guiding principles: that ideology is not central to how they define themselves; that universality and equality mean more than social justice or social conservatism, staples of the left and right; and critically, that fact-based evidence over gut feeling remains the best method for governing.

In many ways, the Liberal Convention held in Ottawa last week was the coming out party for the Young Liberals of Canada. Former party president Alfred Apps indicated that of the 2,600-3,000 people expected to attend the event, over a third of the registered delegates were under 26. I met one delegate on the escalator who told me he was 16, but had trekked to Ottawa from Southern Ontario to vote for the behind-the-scenes policy wonk and strategist that would be the party president.

This would be, for many, their first foray into the political world that is the national convention. It would be mine, too.

Many delegates came to kick-start their own burgeoning political careers. Zach Paikin, the 20 year-old son of TVO The Agenda’s Steve Paikin, was the youngest delegate running for National Policy Chair. And he garnered endorsements from former Ontario Premier David Peterson, former astronaut and MP Marc Garneau and former Ontario Cabinet Minister George Smitherman.

“Zach is the future and he’s here now,” Smitherman told CBC of his endorsement of Paikin.

Smitherman was not alone in his enthusiasm — many witnessed a changing of the guard, that these Young Liberals were there to be heard.

“There is a certain amount of generational change happening in the Party,” claimed Sam Lavoie, president of the Young Liberals. “Young people want to take a bigger role. We are willing to push the envelope, and we have the numbers and the willpower to flex our muscles when it’s needed.”

After the Liberals were shellacked in the May 2011 election, everyone anticipated a period of defeat-induced malaise. But to surprise of many, the Liberals came out swinging. They indicated the January convention would not be a maudlin or dour affair, but rather an opportunity to revitalize and rebuild. They hoped to start the process of determining what they stand for, why they still exist, and why people should vote for them.

The Young Liberals of Canada think of themselves as the life of party, both literally and figuratively, and the conventions are their time to shine. I saw them on the convention floor as they cheered policy resolutions; as they queued up to vote; as they pamphleted for candidates; and as they ate cold pizza in back rooms.

So when the life of the party throws a party, you attend. We were supposed to assemble at the National Convention Centre 10:45 pm. As I entered the historic building, the first thing that struck me was the noise — the pounding beat of muffled bass, the same noise you hear standing in line outside a club. I had to speak up to persuade the security guard on duty to let me in with my media badge. The event was for Liberals, after all. He could tell I wasn’t one of them, but he acquiesced.

Down the stairs and into the hall, there was a smattering of people standing in dim lighting around cocktail tables with drinks, avoiding the dance floor that was set up in front of the massive DJ table and speakers. To his  credit, Bob Rae was in attendance, chatting easily in an off-hand way — as easily as one can shouting over music — with Young Liberals keen to experience what the centre of power (of the third party) feels like.

It was awkward, in the way that quasi-political events can be when you introduce club beats and halter tops. While most of the young men milled about in the first suit their parents had bought them, acting the high-rolling political figure they one day aspire to be, some of the women swayed through the room as they would at any nightclub.

But the party arrived then, as it so often does in the Liberal Party, with a Trudeau. I had been walking towards the Convention Centre behind Justin Trudeau and a friend laughing jovially in French until we parted to use separate entrances. 20 minutes later, Trudeau arrived. He didn’t so much enter the room as the room parted to make way for him, before a bevy of young women cocooned him for giddy laughs and snapshots with his famous father’s smile. The cult of the leader appears alive and well in the Liberal Party.

It would be easy to make fun of the Young Liberals of Canada, especially after seeing them in action at the convention. This weekend demonstrated that despite some of them being too young to even know what governing feels like, there remains an underlying arrogance to their view of the Liberals as the ‘natural government party’ of Canada. The youth wing oscillate between worshiping yesterday’s leaders and treating the party as theirs for the taking. They are giddy at the thought that “Yes, we are the leaders of tomorrow!”, which sounds disturbingly like the arrogance that left them with 34 seats.

They talk of connecting with Canadians, so they allow “supporters” to vote for party leader. But when they talk grassroots fundraising, they allow the Laurier Club to throw private parties for $1,200 donators. How can they support something within the party that seems fundamentally at odds with the Liberal message of reconnecting with everyday Canadians, most of whom don’t have that kind of money to donate to a political party?

They take it for granted that 3,000 Liberals came to a non-leadership convention — after all, why wouldn’t they come?

Every tempered step forward is counteracted by intense navel gazing. And against their better judgement, they cannot let this strange mixture of timidity and arrogance go.

Their challenge, when the music fades and they fly away home, is how best to translate this momentum, this great sense of pride they have in being Liberal, into workable politics once again. Perspective is crucial. Yes, two thirds of the resolutions debated at the convention were put forward by the Young Liberals and yes, over half were adopted — but this assumes the resolutions they put forward were the most pressing concerns of Canadians.

But were they? They were unable to control their own message going into the convention, allowing themselves to be defined in the media by their interest in legalizing marijuana and abolishing the monarchy. However interesting or legitimate, these are tired and divisive non-starters, and unlikely to rally voters to the cause. And of these, only legalization was adopted.

After going down to defeat in 2008 thanks largely to the unpopularity of a carbon tax, Liberals are terrified of even talking about this idea. Young Liberals should be free of such constraints in their thinking, able to see themselves as the conscious of the party. We see glimpses of this in their resolution to abolish the monarchy, yet even here they fail to see that while important to them, few Canadians lose sleep over the framework of our constitutional monarchy. And in the process, they look hopelessly out of touch.

Yet they are cutting their political teeth at a time when it is unfashionable to be a Liberal, which may train them well for the hard slog back to respectability they face. The Young Liberals are becoming a force to be reckoned with within the Liberal Party, but is their youth, energy and enthusiasm enough to keep the party on-track towards political relevance? Can they escape the confines of the past that — more often than not — seem to chain their feet together?

Can the Young Liberals save the Liberal Party of Canada?

I don’t believe so. But for the youthful delegates listening to R. Kelly tell them that usually he doesn’t do this, these are questions and debates for another day. Here, on the dance floor in our frozen capital, they could forget the dire political straights their party is in and just enjoy themselves. 

While Trudeau was entertaining his adoring fans, Mr. Rae had somehow been convinced to join the growing party on the dance floor. And I watched as the former Premier of Ontario, now interim Liberal Party leader Bob Rae, got his groove on to “Club Can’t Handle Me” by Flo Rida. Trudeau spotted the good times being had and, never one to turn down a party, escorted his cadre of female fans to the floor to tag Rae off the dance floor.

Rae looked relieved. I finished my drink and bundled up to face the cold night outside.

- – -

An alternative version of this article appeared on the blog at This Magazine.

Treasury Board President Tony Clement

New allegations arose this past week over the depth of former Industry Minister Tony Clement’s involvement in selecting infrastructure projects in his Parry Sound-Muskoka riding that received G8 Legacy Funding. The NDP allege that Mr. Clement was more directly involved in selecting sites that received federal funding than he is letting on.

The NDP obtained what they believe to be damning evidence of Mr. Clement’s impact on the process. And while the ‘evidence’ is not as cut and dried as the New Democrats maintain, it does point to a greater knowledge of, and involvement in, the selection process.

Here is part of a January 13, 2010 email from Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario (FedNor) official Tom Dodds:

“It is my understanding that MINO [Tony Clement's then-Ministry Office] advised Infrastructure Canada which projects should be supported under the G8 Infrastructure & Legacy Fund and their staff prepared the contribution agreements for them accordingly.”

This isn’t Watergate, by any means, and in their haste to find cracks in the Conservative armour, the NDP must remember that making a mountain out of a molehill can make them look foolish.

“I expect and I am calling on the Conservatives not to treat the Canadian public like fools. Canadians are patient people, but they’re not idiots,” NDP MP Charlie Angus said. “They have seen what this man has done with money that he shouldn’t have had his hands on. They’ve seen the cover-ups, they’ve seen the bogus tales, they’ve seen the fact that they have gone all the way to committee and misrepresented facts before a parliamentary committee.”

And they’re not wrong, which makes the Conservatives cursory dismissal so typical — and intriguing. “I know there is this mythology…that I was at a bar somewhere in Muskoka with two other guys making the decisions,” Clement told the public accounts committee on November 2 last year, but “that’s just a myth. It never happened that way. We were not involved in selecting the projects.”

The Toronto Star notes that at the time, Clement was willing to concede that the paperwork he filed on the G8 Legacy Funds was imperfect, but would admit no wrong-doing.

From the documents obtained by the Federal NDP

I have written here and here about how Toronto was left to fend for itself after G20 violence escalated over the weekend in June 2010. I cannot be alone in feeling that left-leaning Toronto was left penniless in the aftermath of the global conference while Conservative Muskoka received just shy of $50M for infrastructure! Regardless of the damages caused by rioting in Toronto, this was $45.7M by way of a thank-you for letting the government host its Summit there. And the money went not towards replacing damaged infrastructure caused by rioting protesters in Parry Sound, but rather to sidewalks and road improvements, and building gazebo’s.

All of these projects were identified in the NDP-obtained documents as for the purposes of “maximizing the tourism benefits of hosting the G8.”

This is akin to Rahm Emanuel’s infamous quip that “you never want a crisis to go to waste.” Think it if you must, but the CPC should no better than put pen to paper in stating the questionable and oft-protested G8 Summit is a tremendous opportunity to boost Muskoka tourism. It’s tactless and insulting the people who genuinely believe globalization to have negative effects on their lives.

And lest anyone consider the amount of money trivial, remember the Sponsorship Scandal which helped bring down the Liberal Party machine involved only $4.75M, compared with $45.7M in question here. The Conservatives can claim all they want the NDP is digging up a dead story, but the Liberals told the Conservatives the same. And look what they dug up.

Exaggerate they might, but the NDP are right to keep digging. That’s what we pay them to do.

Sums It Up Quite Nicely. | Image from The Guardian.co.uk

18 U.S. Senators have withdrawn their support for the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) due to an overwhelmingly negative online reaction, including a Google petition that garnered over 4.5M signatures and the Wikipedia-led blackout of over 7,000 popular websites.

Here in Canada, Bill C-11, the Copyright Modernization Act is slowly making its way through the halls of power. Although it has been spoken to seven times already since October in the House of Commons as part of its Second Reading, and is still a long way from becoming law. But given the overwhelming support that Conservatives have shown for its passage and their majorities in both the House of Commons and the Senate, Canada might succeed in compromising the freedom of the internet where the U.S. has failed through SOPA.

University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist is the best Canadian reference to the ins and outs of our arcane copyright law. He runs a fantastic blog that outlines the contemporary history of copyright law in Canada, and how the Conservatives have been attempting to modify this in the past two years or more. (I won’t bother summarizing — if this is something you want to know more about, go straight to the source and visit his blog. You can also visit the Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights for more information.)

But for an interesting summary of why the Conservatives are proposing to move forward with this legislation now, I would recommend reading this excerpt from Paul Calandra, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

During second reading of the bill, Calandra said the following on December 12, 2011:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to our copyright reform legislation. This is our third attempt at bringing this very important legislation forward and get it passed through this place. In those attempts, we had spoken with hundreds of thousands of Canadians. We have heard from people from across the country. The House has heard hundreds of hours of debate. At committee, we have spent an equally long time speaking about the issues with respect to Canada’s copyright reform.

We know that the legislation is extraordinarily important to the Canadian economy. It is very important that we bring forward legislation that brings us in line with international standards. We have heard from people and creators in my riding, particularly in the video game industry, who have been calling on us to ensure that we can actually get this copyright legislation passed through the House, so that they can compete on a fair and level playing field with everybody else.

The legislation is important to hundreds of thousands of Canadians. It helps protect Canadian jobs. It balances the rights of consumers with our creators. This is the type of legislation that we need to ensure that Canada’s economic recovery continues and that Canada continues to lead the G7 in terms of economic productivity.

We know that creators and consumers across the country are looking to the House to show some leadership.

What is phenomenal to consider is the Conservative dedication to framing any and all issues within the context of rescuing the Canadian economy from the depths of global recession, and their continued insistence on most issues to fall as quickly in line with the U.S. stance as possible. (Except when U.S. money supports environmentalists in their campaign against the oilsands — then U.S. opinion and money has no place whatever within Canada. But only then.)

So since the U.S. has backed off SOPA for further review, can we expect a similar redaction from the Canadian government? Likely not, especially considering CBC is reporting via WikiLeaks that some of the impetus for the bill was U.S. pressure on Canada follow their lead. This is what the bill means when it says it “brings us in line with international standards” —U.S. standards that the Conservatives assumed would pass until 18 U.S. Senators backed off.

I would love to know the “consumers” are that are craving “leadership” from the CPC on this issue, let alone to video gamers who crave further online regulation.

Should there be any misconceptions about what Bill C-11 means to the Conservative government, look no further than the summary:

(a) update the rights and protections of copyright owners to better address the challenges and opportunities of the Internet, so as to be in line with international standards; (b) clarify Internet service providers’ liability and make the enabling of online copyright infringement itself an infringement of copyright;

This is about making sure the “rights and protections of copyright owners” are upheld to protect and maximize profits. And to make sure it’s as easy as possible to provide that protection, they will give themselves the right to go after internet service providers with the deepest pockets. All this to ensure ISP’s know they are liable when people use their services for the purpose of infringing upon a company’s copyrights, and may be forced to reveal who those individuals are.

It’s about money. And it’s about corporations using the government to force consumers to pay, one way or another, for copyrighted material. They, after all, will always find a way to get theirs.

German Solar Park.

For most of the past winter, Germany’s 1.1 million solar power systems that crisscross the country have sat relatively idle. Overcast skies and a relative lack of sunshine has meant the powerful solar-generating system has produced little energy, forcing Germany to import electricity from nuclear power plants in neighbouring France and the Czech Republic.

Public discontent at the high cost of electricity and increasingly shaky support from the coalition government headed by Chancellor Angela Merkel are threatening to undermine German advances in solar-power generation. Merkel has long touted the sector’s “opportunities for exports, development, technology and jobs,” but she will find it increasingly difficult to defend when members of her own ruling Christian Democratic Union are calling the system a “money pit.”

Germans pay the second-highest amount for electricity in Europe, and most of that due to the massive state investment in renewable energy. The government has spent more than €8 billion in subsidies in 2011 alone to solar farm operators and individuals with small-scale solar plants on their roofs through a feed-in-tariff (FIT) program. In total, solar power generated just 3 per cent of the total energy supply Germany needs, and at “unpredictable times.”

The future of the German solar power system is at a crossroads. Ontario modeled its own Green Energy Act on the German FIT system, and is currently conducting a mandatory two-year review of the system to deal with similar criticisms of ballooning expense and low power generation.

Can Green Energy survive in Germany?

- – -

A shorter version of this piece ran in Toronto Standard on 01/19/2012.

Enjoy!

Media Stage at LPC 2012

Liberal Party President Mike Crawley rallies the troops in the lead up to the vote.

Candidate literature at LPC 2012.

Party volunteers reshuffling stage props between speeches.

Mike Crawley volunteer keeping a Crawley Shark afloat.

Creative fundraising. Anonymously domate upwards of $20 (at a time) to "Hot Button" party issues you think deserve more attention. In return? Get a button.

Former Liberal PM Paul Martin Jr.

The Liberal crowd at the Ottawa Convention Centre.

Standing room only at a planning session on the lessons to be learned from the 2004 and 2008 US Democratic National Conventions.

A Liberal Leadership hopeful.

Young Liberal pamphleteers attacking the crowd with pens and stickers.

On the set of Liberal Live in Canada Hall.

The podium on stage in Canada Hall.

The wall of Liberal Party donors.

Stage in Canada Hall at the Liberal Biennial Convention.

Canada’s die-hard Liberals are wrapping up their Biennial Convention in Ottawa this afternoon. It has been an enthusiastic affair, despite the fact that it is not a leadership convention. (Although the Liberals have had enough of those in the past decade to last a generation.)

Turnout has been much larger than anticipated which everyone takes as a welcome sign of the party’s future prospects, especially when you factor in that by most accounts, over 1/3 of the delegates are likely under 26. So interim leader Bob Rae was not far off when he addressed the Young Liberals on Friday afternoon and told them that the future leaders of Canada were in that room.

They came mostly to elect a new party leader, primarily between front runners Mike Crawley and Sheila Copps. Crawley ended up taking the Presidency, winning by a nail-biting 26 votes after three recounts, signalling a definitive willingness on the part of the LPC to look progressively forward. Yet the momentum heading into the conference was the determine whether to adopt a U.S.-style regional primary system for electing the next leader of the party. Despite having very little idea of how creating that system would go, the Liberals invited two speakers from the U.S. Democratic Party to speak to their experiences of the primary system, ostensibly for guidance.

Tellingly, the vote garnered a majority of support at 57%, but failed to reach the 66% level needed for the resolution to be adopted. And so before the idea was ever really an idea, it was null.

The largest debate of the night seemed to centre around whether “supporters” should be allowed to vote for the party leader at future leadership conventions. Whereas now only party members can vote, the “supporter” system intends to cast a wider net in the search for members, and more importantly, votes. The idea is that “supporters” of the Liberal Party can attend a leadership convention and cast a vote, despite not being members. The hope is that if they care enough about the fortunes of the party to participate, they might just be cajoled into membership at a later date. The key here is getting people into the organizational database who can be hit up later for money and votes.

And despite fears that the leadership could be hijacked by special interest groups or outsiders, the Liberals voted to adopt the “supporter” system. So even without the U.S.-style primary system, some real change will be coming to the Liberals in the near future.

Other highlights include the decision to reject the Young Liberals resolution to abolish ties with the monarchy. Many questioned whether it would be worth a constitutional battle to achieve let, in addition to whether it was even legal – all questions we won’t have to find answers for.

The convention did approve of the other key Young Liberal resolution – the legalization of marijuana. With 77% approval, the Liberals opted to consider this in more detail at their 2014 Convention to determine if it should be part of their platform in the 2015 general election. The move to get the Liberals to legalize marijuana has been a decade or more in the making, and it’s passage now at the insistence of the Young Liberals led their President, Samuel Lavoie, to note it was a sign of the youth wing “flexing their muscles” within the party. It’s an early indicator of greater generational changes to come.

Oddly, the Liberals also opted to keep a policy veto in place for the leader of the party, regardless of whether they are the interim or permanent leader. Meaning that regardless of whether the members support a resolution, if the leader doesn’t, it’s dead. And Bob Rae has said in the past he is not in favour of legalizing marijuana, as an example.

Overall, the Biennial Convention was focused on renewal and rebirth, although that is a common theme. Olivia Chow told me that the Liberals have been promising this since John Turner was Prime Minister, and yet the debate continues. But it should be remembered that renewal is not a static thing – a healthy party never stops growing and entertaining new ideas and people. Or at least it shouldn’t.

Yet for the Liberals right now, renewal is the only thing.