Cold, silent, deep; What more could you want in a country?

Ken Faught, Toronto Star Photo

Diebel and Faught in Montreal during cross-country tour.

Our online editors sought Canada Day photos and, with best wishes on our 141st birthday since Confederation, I present mine.

It's not my photo, but let me explain: It's of Star photographer Ken Faught and me on a cross-Canada trip at the end of 2004, my first since being back in the country after long stints as a foreign correspondent and Ken's last before going into management. How much more Canadian can you get than to do your travelling in December?

I was almost kissing the ground. There's nothing like being posted for years outside of Canada to make a person think about the essence of the nation — and my defining moment came during one of those seemingly mundane little episodes that turn out to branded forever in memory. We were five, friends having dinner in Mexico City, and the Mexicans began teasing the Swede and me about the strange, cold, northern places we call home. To them, we were the same; to us, we were completely different.

"Oh, you northerners are so cold," said a woman, laughing. She was being somewhat tactful because the Swede was her husband, but they still cut loose with all the clichés about Canada they'd ever heard. To be fair, she wasn't really talking so much about temperature, although she'd been to Canada in the winter, but about the silence of northerners compared to the constant clatter, conversation and intensity of life in a hot, crowded place. We all had another margarita before going our separate ways but that evening, I brooded for a long time on my balcony. It was that night, I think, I realized how homesick I was.

She's right about the silences. They are there, with our families, with our friends and with some of our greatest writers. In my view, it's there in the work of the two great Margaret's, Robertson Davies or Gilles Vigneault, all who convey great meaning with painful silence, metaphor and gesture. It's there in the beauty of Michael Ondaatje's prose, with its lonely yearning and misunderstandings.

I love the exuberance and colour of life in Latin America. But the silences between people can give us our sweet neuroses — and from away, we yearn for them, as well as the offbeat perspective of comedians who see the obvious between the lines. There is Canadian humour. I've always liked the answer to the contest to complete the phrase, "as Canada as," and the winner was "as Canadian as possible under the circumstances."

The silence also comes from the land. In my experience, it's the morning stillness of a northern lake, with the mist just rising and the occasional slap of a fish on the water, or the sound of my paddle. It's that same lake in the early summer twilight, with the haunting call of the loon coming across the water. It's because of the general feeling of silence we hear so sharply. Never, during all my time away, did I forget the sound of the loon, the whippoorwill, the summer grasshopper, the howl of the wolf or the call of migrating geese. I know, too, the sound of the mosquito. At home, they're a pain; away, they're like our fish stories. They were sooooo-ooooo big.

Silence and solitude. I've swum alone to a raft a few hundred metres out on a lake and stayed there of an afternoon, reading, swimming and watching cloud patterns across the sky. I've set out on a summer road by bicycle, destination unknown, opportunities boundless. Or skated for hours on a northern rink, round and round to music as if in a trance. The first zen moments of a northern child.

In many ways, the apartness of Canadians is well-suited to the business of being a foreign correspondent, or a journalist even.

I missed the seasons. You'd never think it, would you? But in Washington and, especially, Mexico City, where I slowly grew to recognize the different seasons and see their beauty, I enjoyed them, but they weren't mine. I don't think we necessarily need suffering to be true Canadians, but I ask you: can you really experience that wonderful, throw-up-your-arms, shout-and-dance feeling of spring, without having gone through winter?

The more I was away, the more I grew to recognize the inflections and tones of the many accents of Canada when I came home. I write in English and so I missed the sound of my own language. A writer needs that, even if only from time to time. Other Canadians miss the sound of other languages. Others thought I had the accent. Whenever he came by, the FEDEX guy in D.C. — who talked like Norm on Cheers — never failed to get a kick out of asking me to say, "out." Sometimes I would oblige him, although I never really got it.

And I grew nostalgic for the politeness. It's not merely a myth. Once, arriving in Vancouver straight from D.C. on a White House press charter, I remember being struck by the sudden politeness. At the airport, I heard the first person apologize for bumping into a pillar.

We have problems and injustices. No doubt. I'd like to wave a wand and fix everything. I wish we demanded more of our governments as citizens, especially in ending horrible inequality and getting rid of the indifference of politicians and ministries who sometimes forget who pays their salaries. I yearn for an election with the enduring  message for whomever wins being: "Hey, you're not the boss of us!"

Still, when I came home, I was delighted. When I asked a Canadian border official if she wanted to see the documentation for my animals, she said; "Yeah sure, if they are foaming at the mouth." I thought that was the funniest thing I'd ever heard, which tells you how emotional I was.

I've talked about some of my favorite Canadians things, obviously shaped by my background and perspective. Yours is undoubtedly different. The Dominion Institute, an organization that tries to preserve and honour this country's history, has a survey out to determine the top 101 things on this Canada Day. Readers can share their views with this blog, or with the Institute's own site. (There's some bad new on the site too. According to a survey for the Institute by Ipsos Reid, Canadians know more about U.S. history — 47 per cent — than they do about their own — only 42 per cent.)

I wish you a final Happy Canada Day, and leave you with an anecdote about attitude. I know there are many unfavourable attitudes towards Canadians these days. However, I have experienced so many good ones. In the United States, I often used to often interview an African-American teacher working with students in inner-city D.C. Pretty rough. We used to have long conversations about race and he once asked me: "Do all Canadians think like you? ... I want to live there."

"Yes," I said.

We knew it wasn't true, strictly speaking. But he knew what I meant.  Canada seems to me to be a C.S. Lewis kind of country, in the long run, more good than evil.

Giving George Bush a hand on Colombia

The Associated Press

President George W. Bush prepares to “bump chests” at a recent U.S. Air Force Academy graduation

Canadian human rights activists accuse Stephen Harper of rushing through a trade deal with Colombia at the expense of workers in both countries in order to please George W. Bush. The U.S. President can't get his own deal through Congress over Democratic objections and "he's just trying to help Bush out," says Rick Arnold, co-ordinator of Common Frontiers, an organization focused on international relations in the Americas. The terms of Harper's agreement are so hush-hush, Arnold tells the Decoder, rights groups in Colombia are hearing negotiators there were told not to talk about it under any circumstances - especially with Canadians.

It looks like there's a good reason for the gag order. Very worrisome details were leaked by NDP MPs, who refer to a "kill a unionist, pay a fine" deal. Last month, NDP critics Peter Julian (trade) and Libby Davies (labour), as well as Hassam Yussaff from the Canadian Labour Congress, denounced the deal at a press conference. Take a look at the NDP press release:

According to the negotiators’ testimony, the Colombian government would be required to make a token monetary payment into a "cooperation fund" when a Colombian trade unionist is murdered.

"The weakness of this so-called labour protection measure amounts to the decriminalization of murder," said Julian. "Fines are the type of penalty given out for speeding or parking violations, not for murder ... This deal leaves the door wide open for continuing violence against workers and activists."

It's worth noting 28 trade unionists have been killed so far this year in Colombia, where the army has been linked to rights abuses.

The deal-making process has been absurd. Earlier this month, the Harper government announced its agreement before the parliamentary standing committee had finished its report. All parties agreed to table that review in the House of Commons, which occurred on June 18. The committee recommended no agreement be signed with Colombia without a comprehensive human rights review.

Two days later, as Parliament was about to adjourn for the summer, the Conservative on the committee had a change of heart. According to Hansard:

"Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my Conservative Party colleagues on the Standing Committee for International Trade respectfully dissent from the report “Human Rights, the Environment and Free Trade with Columbia (sic)”.

It appears, by then, he'd read his committee's recommendations.

The Bush Administration has been pushing hard for its own deal, as has Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who dropped by Ottawa a week ago. Arnold says an interesting section of the standing committee's report - all over the map except for clear recommendations - could have been written by the White House:

Concerns have been expressed that if the current government in Colombia is not supported by its allies in the west, then Colombia could become vulnerable to a fate similar to that of its neighbours, further destabilizing the region and undermining Canada’s foreign policy objectives in the Americas.

Indeed, the goal of supporting a key ally in the Americas was one of the considerations behind the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (CTPA).

The United States government believes that approving and implementing the CTPA will be a “critical signal of America’s support for the Colombian people, who have chosen to strengthen ties with the United States in the belief that reciprocal market access will contribute to the overall growth and development of their nation.”

The aforementioned neighbours are Venezuela and Bolivia.

The NDP, Bloc and Liberals approved the committee report with dissenting opinions. Arnold, who's watching the drama unfold from the perspective of someone who really knows what's going on in Colombia, observes: "The mind boggles to think how the Conservatives are going to 'sell' the Colombia-Canada FTA to the House come the fall. And will the Conservatives wish to bring this all to 'public' attention?"

It may be that by year's end it won't matter, if the Republicans lose the White House. But don't bet on it. There's no guarantee Barack Obama would take a different stance. U.S. policy on Latin American over the last - well, since Manifest Destiny - has been consistent, no matter who's president. 

Maxime et Julie; Il dit, elle dit

CANADIAN PRESS PHOTO

Iconic Image?

That's how CTV and CBC presented the Maxime Bernier/Julie Couillard case on last night's news. Should be a movie by Truffaut or Godard - or better, Buñuel.

Conflicting stories do present the Political Decoder with a challenge.

First, an observation or two. What a surprise Bernier goes home to the Beauce to say Couillard failed to mention her past associations with people involved with organized crime.

He's the hometown boy seduced by the big-city woman and there's no place better to play that tune. And where better to suggest even more nefarious goings-on? 

Here's where that iconic photo comes in handy. The image of that woman is burned into the consciousness of Canadians, including les Beaucerons, surely influencing opinion. Poor boy.

That photograph may well turn out to be the iconic image of the fate of the Harper government. It's a government that's never seemed to cotton much to the female sex, and with yesterday's double-play in Ottawa and the Beauce, it really hit home how terrified Harperites must be of Couillard.

As to the original challenge of who said what? Can't say.

However, there's generally a pattern in male-female relationships. Some would say men always ask and women always lie. But I don't think that's the case. Rather, it seems men usually ask about a woman's past and women usually tell - too much.

Your opinion on the above question of gender politics probably dictates what you think about l'affaire Bernier-Couillard, as well as how/or if the scandal will affect your vote.

Hope this clears everything up.

When Elephants Weep/The Dog Hill poisonings

Part of my title comes from the book about the emotional lives of animals by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson and Susan McCarthy. The authors of "When Elephants Weep" explore what anyone who knows and loves animals already understands about their capacity to feel, what even Charles Darwin recognized when he said: "The Indian elephant is said sometimes to weep."

It's hard not to think about the suffering of animals today as developments continue in the Dog Hill poisonings. Since June 16, six dogs have been poisoned in the off-leash area of High Park by ingesting antifreeze-spiked water and, possibly, bread. Two died, as reported in the Star.  Now, we  learn from  Det. Suzanne Pinto, lead Toronto police investigator on the case, an unusual number of raccoon and squirrel deaths in High Park could be linked to these poisonings. Somebody practising perhaps. One raccoon was posed with flowers in his paws, another with dead squirrels.

I don't know whether the deaths are linked; it seems a fair supposition, at least for further study. But I do respect a police officer like Det. Pinto who was quick to call the dog poisonings "monstrous" and say she's investigating whether they are linked to the debate over reducing the boundaries of the off-leash area. The raccoon and squirrel deaths are now part of that investigation.

Isn't the resulting fallout just so typical of human beings? Here we have a police officer who clearly takes the lives of animals seriously and isn't afraid to show it. No, that doesn't mean she doesn't care about human beings. It's a good bet that, among other things, she recognizes well-documented studies relating abuse of animals to abuse of people.

Instead of appreciating the good detective, people start squabbling, They start being people. (God, I miss George Carlin.) First, Robin Sorys, chair of the park advisory council that recommended reducing the off-leash area, seems to believe Det. Pinto is accusing individuals actually associated with her committee of heading up the dog trails to lay poison. I didn't take that meaning. Who else did? And now she and others insist the "posed" animals were found in late 2007.

Not to worry, then. Det. Pinto says whatever is happening is pretty bizarre. What does she know?

What I know, and the reason I am blogging on this topic again today, is how much Star readers care about animals. Of all the stories I've written, probably the biggest reaction came after a series from Mexico about the savage trapping of seven dolphins destined for Mexican amusement parks. "Swim-with-dolphins" is big everywhere these days, never mind that these animals roam over huge tracts of ocean and live within a sophisticated social structure that includes complex communication and long-term care of young.

Readers responded with letters of concern. Then, other letters began arriving, criticizing people who supposedly care only about animals. I won't forget one reader who retaliated by pointing out the same people who campaign for animals, or simply enjoy them in their lives, also donate their change at supermarkets for food banks, volunteer their time on the weekends and read to children in hospitals.

I agree with that reader. I didn't interpret the reaction to the dolphin story (which did not have a happy ending) or another about Toronto raccoons a couple of years ago, as a denial of care for our own species. I've seen Star readers raise money for a little boy in Mexico whose arm was badly damaged in the Acteal Massacre and teachers organize campaigns to help rescued household slaves in Haiti, children known as "reste-avecs," get an education. (Sadly, this barbaric practice continues in Haiti.) These very positive actions by our readers occur all the time.

It's just that when people read about animal abuse, it drives home how completely our species believes itself to be master of the universe. It comes with that sinking feeling of the awful ending for all species such thinking surely will deliver in the end.

Dogs die but nothing to do with off-leash debate - okay, sure

What is it with these City employees? Happy pills?

Twice this week, they've searched for that single, fragile thread of cock-eyed optimism where others see unpleasant reality.

Two dogs died and four others are sick after drinking antifreeze in High Park. Police suspect the poisonings are related to controversy over the Dog Hill off-leash area. Take it out on innocent animals, why don't you?

But as Nick Kyonka reports in today's Star, a top park official sees no connection whatsoever. According to the analysis of Robin Sorys, chair of the park's advisory committee:

"I think this is just an isolated situation. It just happened to come at a time when we were reviewing the off-leash area."

Say what?

And here's more reason not to worry: TTC streetcars are safe, as long as they don't jump the tracks.

Over the past 10 days, four people were hospitalized after one streetcar rear-ended another on the Queensway, and another seven were off to hospital, including the driver, when another two cars collided at Bay and Dundas, knocking one off the track.

A Prithi Yelaja Star story says TTC chair Adam Giambrone isn't overly worried because they didn't jump the tracks. That's a relief. Toronto has the best tracks in the world. Giambrone could get worried, but not now:

"If we get another two in the next two weeks then we begin to say at what point is it coincidence and at what point do you have a big problem?

So two, no problem. Four, a big problem.

Maybe it's just me, but what if there's a problem now?

And what about not pointing an easy finger of blame at the drivers? As in Giambrone's "these cases usually come down to driver error."

Barack Obama, K Street lobbyists and the grab for Mexican oil

Canadian unions may have found an ally in their fight to stop the endless rush to privatization in the Americas: Barack Obama.

This particular battle involves the significant issue of energy. Over the past week, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) and the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union (CEP) sponsored a trip to Mexico by two trade lawyers to lend support to efforts to stop the privatization of the national oil company, PEMEX.

Lawyers Stephen Shrybman and Hugo Neal-Leri, who've done substantial work for both unions, spoke at various events in Mexico City and Villahermosa (in the oil state of Tabasco) and met with opposition party politicians and workers from small independent unions. It was a trip to offer moral support. Rick Arnold, from the advocacy group Common Frontiers (another trip sponsor), calls what happens to PEMEX (Petróleos Mexicanos) "a litmus test" for Latin America.  His worst-case scenario would be the entire Americas being controlled by a handful of powerful energy companies.

Mexico has been a holdout. It would difficult to find a prouder moment in recent Mexican history than when President Lázaro Cárdenas nationalized the oil companies in 1938, kicking out interests including Rockefeller's Standard Oil. U.S. trade negotiators, with their energy working groups, have tried to reverse that decision since free trade talks began in the 1980s. Remember, the genesis of free trade lay with Corporate America, and not with politicians like Ronald Reagan or Brian Mulroney.

When Canada agreed to NAFTA clauses ensuring proportional energy sharing even in times of shortage, Mexico said, "No, thanks."

Now, it looks as if PEMEX could fall. It's not that Mexico has such a sweet deal over Canada; the country still imports gasoline for its citizens in spite of being the world's sixth largest producer of crude. Still, the symbol of PEMEX is important.

President Felipe Calderón is pushing Congress for what his PAN party calls "minor" privatization, a move opponents see as a vast sell-off. It means that 37 of 41 divisions would be open to outside contracting to companies such as Halliburton. (Yes, that Halliburton. ) The Washington-based think-tank Council on Hemispheric Affairs has published a background report on the situation.

Arnold says the ongoing debate in the Mexican Congress is critical for the battle against privatization in South America, notably Venezuela and Bolivia. He argues his group is not against trade but opposes NAFTA because, in his view, it ignores social and labour concerns. A recent document published by Common Frontiers offers further insight and sets up Democratic candidate Barack Obama as a potential ally. The report opens with a statement from his recent policy paper:

In Mexico, as in the U.S. and Canada, citizens and democrats wish to “close the revolving door between the executive branch and K street (corporate) lobbying …”. Mexicans are currently mobilizing to stop the deeply un-democratic practice of lobbyists [writing] national policies.

From Barack Obama’s Blueprint for Change

It would be be wise to remember that, during another presidential race, the major unions in the United States believed they could count on another Democratic candidate, Bill Clinton. They thought he would join them in opposing NAFTA but, despite hints to the contrary, he waited until after Labour Day in 1992 to announce his support for the deal.

Now Democratric presidential candidate Obama is looking good. He doesn't oppose NAFTA (apparently not any longer) but it was the clout of corporate lobbyists that gave us the trade deals in the first place. Taking on the K-Street lobbyists could define an Obama presidency. Their business includes the energy industry advocates who push U.S. President George W. Bush to open up national parks to drilling and water down environmental legislation. They currently have their sights set on PEMEX. The lobbying industry could be seen as the fourth pillar of the U.S. political system - and arguably the most powerful. Closing that "revolving door" will be no easy task for Obama - if he attempts it.

The politics of Big Chew

MICHAEL FONG PHOTO

CHEWY AT 9 WEEKS

Readers sure know how to lift the spirits of a lowly blogger. When I asked for material for an occasional "FlowerPower" post to ease the grind of politics, Michael Fong figured his new pup, Chewy, would be perfect. And on my day off too.

He's right. Who better at the good deed thing than a dog? Loyalty,  friendship, wisdom, consolation. protection. Our best pals. OK, maybe Chewy has a few months (many months?) of living up to his name to get through, but he'll get there. (Hang in, Michael).

Now, I'm not going to turn into some "cutewithchris" blogger because I don't want to tell readers, "Your dreams are dead!" (even if I'm thinking it) or "What are you sick people looking for?" (ibid).  So thanks, Chewy, but I'll pass on more cute animal pix.

I will toss you folks a link, however, because it's really funny. Chris Leavins is Canadian and I like the idea of Decoder readers tuning into Episode #164 tonight and showing up at work tomorrow morning completely whacked because they've watched the other 163.

Fair warning, though. You either started tuning into his blog, like, a year ago, and are his biggest fan, or you'll be offended and hate it. Ask yourself:

Are you 14?

Do you act like a 14-year-old?

When you laugh, do people look at you strangely?

Yes, to any of the above and you too could become a Chris addict. Otherwise, turn away, turn away, from Cute with Chris.

MICHAEL FONG PHOTO

BIG CHEW- THE DEFENDER

Upon reflection, Chewy does work in a political blog and I offer another photograph to prove it. What could be more political than loyalty? (Hahahahahahahaha) Look at Big Chew with his owner. So sleepy, but ever watchful. How loyal is that?

I say some Liberal leadership hopefuls (not mentioning any names) could learn a thing about loyalty from Big Chew. Maybe Stéphane Dion should take note.

Oh wait, he's already got a dog. Well, there you go.

Postscript: Don't blame me if you didn't heed my warning about the link.

I'll be lining up to see Paul Gross and Passchendaele

Promotional Photo/Star Files

Paul Gross in scene from Passechendaele

It was great news this week that Passchendaele, the film written, produced and directed by Paul Gross, will open the 2008 Toronto International Film Festival in September. The Canadian actor also stars, playing his grandfather, Sgt. Michael Dunne from the Canadian Corps, in his film about the third battle of Ypres, also known as Passchendaele, in the rain and muck of Belgium in the autumn of 1917. In The Great War, Passchendaele was another symbol of the growing reputation of Canadians as elite fighters, but as our young country came of age there was an awful price. By the capture of the town of Passchendaele in early November, the Canadian casualty count stood at 15,654. Star movie critic Peter Howell reports Gross as saying, "Passchendaele took longer to make than the First World War to fight."

He was joking, perhaps, but it sounded as if he were obsessed by the project, thinking about making the movie for more than a decade. He could not help but understand the horror of the place from his many conversations with his grandfather. As the old man lay dying, he told Gross ... ah, but this is his story to tell and best left to the filmmaker.

Like so many other Canadians, it feels as if I, too, have been waiting my whole life for this film. (We, too, have our own family war wounds.) I brooded endlessly over films like Australia's Gallipoli, loving it, hating it and raging at the inability of Canadians to tell our own stories — especially ones revealing what it was like to be a colonized country in time of war. That's not necessarily a phenomenon restricted to the past, however that's another topic. Today, I simply wish to acknowledge what Paul Gross has done and underscore how long we've been waiting. Not that Slings and Arrows wasn't terrific (in my opinion), but Passchendaele has the potential to be a touchstone for us all.

No pressure there.

I once saw a little Australian B-flick called Emerald City, not great, but so Canadian in its story about two writers desperate to make a movie about the experience of aboriginal peoples in their country. One of the guys — the slick one with the ready patter —  goes to the States to raise money and comes back all a-twitter because he's got funding — with only a few teensy changes. Like the guy is no longer an Aborigine, but  American Black, and the setting is no longer the Australian Outback but the American Deep South.

You get the picture.

His partner quits the project, but not before delivering a speech:

"We need to feel important enough to have fiction written about us. Otherwise, we will grow up thinking real life is something that happened to somebody else, and in accents other than our own."

Those lines from Emerald City have always stayed with me.

I hardly think they will apply to long-awaited Passchendaele.

First Iraq and oil, now Afghanistan and natural gas

Before U.S. President George W. Bush ordered the bombing of Iraq in 2003, some analysts were saying the war was really about oil. At the time, it had been 23 years since former president Jimmy Carter revealed the heartbeat of Washington policy by linking U.S. security - "the vital interests of the United States" - to the control of oil in the Persian Gulf. In March, 2003, Michael Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, told me in an interview for the Star that Washington was convinced the combination of its control of Gulf oil and military technology decades ahead of anyone else "would guarantee American supremacy for the next 50 to 100 years."

Now, moving east from the Gulf states, we recognize a familiar theme, this time in a report suggesting Canadian troops could find themselves guarding a U.S.-backed natural gas pipeline through Afghanistan.  Once again, what's really at stake appears to be control over energy resources. That's the view of international energy economist John Foster, who believes Canadian troops face another danger in Afghanistan: that of being played in what he calls the new "Great Energy Game."

Foster outlines the searing scenario in a report, released today by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, that says Canadian troops could find themselves under orders to protect the natural gas pipeline in the most dangerous region of Afghanistan. That would be an extremely risky proposition, even by the standards of the ongoing war. To date, 85 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have been killed in that country, by every lethal means from suicide bombers to insurgent attacks and landmine explosions.

Educated at Cambridge University, with experience in the oil business, including Petro-Canada as lead economist, and at the World Bank, Foster writes that the pipeline could turn Afghanistan into "an energy bridge" between Central and South Asia. His report - A Pipeline Through a Troubled Land - documents how the proposed Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline is slated to transport natural gas 1,680 kilometers from southeast Turkmenistan through southern Afghanistan, to Pakistan and India. Construction is set to begin in 2010, with natural gas flowing through the $7.6 billion (U.S.) pipeline by 2015. (Construction costs are almost certainly expected to soar.)

On April 25, 2008, the four nations involved signed a "Gas Pipeline Framework Agreement," committing themselves to construction deadlines.

Still, it's in the proposal stage, which is why Foster decries the absence of debate over how its construction would affect the lives and efforts of Canadian soldiers. The absence of such discussion - indeed, even a mention in speeches or media releases, despite the presence of MPs and officials at regional energy meetings - could explain the Conservative government's single-minded goal of having Canadian troops stay beyond the original 2009 date for withdrawal. According to the report, it's as if no meetings have ever taken place. Have promises been made to the U.S. Administration for reasons we don't know about?

Bruce, Campbell, executive director of the Centre for Policy Alternatives, an independent think-tank based in Ottawa, also criticizes the lack of debate on the proposed pipeline. Campbell wants to know if Canadian Forces will become "guardians of this pipeline."

Says Foster in his report:

The U.S. is our ally and it clearly asserts the geopolitical importance of the region. But the quest for energy security risks drawing Canada unwittingly into a new Great Energy Game."

Will the Prime Minister change his mind about international aboriginal rights?

THE CANADIAN PRESS PHOTO

Chief Phil Fontaine and Prime Minister Stephen Harper, June 11, 2008.

The battle is on to push the Conservative government to redress its failure to recognize aborginal rights at the international level. In September, 2007, Canada stood with only the United States, Australia and New Zealand in opposition to 144 proud countries who overwhelmingly passed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. History was made on a day that ensured 370 million indigenous peoples in 70 countries have a comprehensive universal framework to address human rights violations.

In Australia, new Prime Minister Kevin Rudd will soon change the country's position and officially endorse the General Assembly's Declaration, according to a recent report in The Australian. The Rudd government was lauded for its apology earlier this year to the "Stolen Generations" of its own residential school system.

So first Australia, can Canada be far behind?

There was a brief respite from this fight last week in Canada. There were tears, joy and celebration after Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized in the House of Commons to Canada's First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples for the system of residential schools. The triumph belongs to the estimated 90,000 who still survive, among 150,000 aboriginal people who, as children, were snatched from their parents and sent to be educated in residential schools, under legislated federal policy now recognized as cruel and wrong-thinking.

Many waited last week for Harper to talk about human rights. "The issue of residential schools is primarily a human rights tragedy and atrocity," lawyer Paul Joffe told this blog. A 30-year veteran of cases involving the rights of indigenous peoples, he added: "Yet, in the Prime Minister's apology, no mention is made of 'human rights' or the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples."

The omission wasn't lost on Phil Fontaine. The national chief of the Assembly of First Nations underscored its importance, but recognized June 11, 2008, was the day to mark the official ending of the sad chapter in Canadian history.

That was last week.

Yesterday, in the House of Commons, Liberal MP Tina Keeper, an aborginal activist from the Manitoba riding of Churchill, introduced Bill C-569 to ensure the laws of Canada are consistent with the UN Declaration. Moreover, 101 of Canada's most respected academics, lawyers and social advocates, among them former cabinet ministers and senior bureaucrats, recently sent an open letter urging the government to reverse its decision on the UN Declaration. Whatever their professions, all have been strong supporters of the tenets of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Signatories to the petition include Warren Allmand, Paul Copeland, Professor Shin Imai, Barbara Jackman, Chief Wilton Littlechild, Alex Neve, Allan Rock, Maxwell Yalden and many other illustrious names.

The letter pulls no punches:

"September 13 , 2007 was a shameful day for Canada, but a tremendous achievement for the world's indigenous peoples and the international system. It is time for the government of Canada to cease publicizing its misleading claims and, together with indigenous peoples, actively implement this new human rights instrument."

Read the full letter, with a fuller list of signatories.

Now that the number of UN nay-sayers appears to be being whittled down, Canadian activists hope Stephen Harper will rectify what they see as a tragic decision for Canada at the UN. In the spirit of optimism, they believe the day will come.

Stephen Harper, John McCain and the politics of Colombia Lite

John McCain speaks Friday at the Economic Club of Canada (in Ottawa), during a visit described by Star Washington bureau chief Tim Harper as a backdrop for his campaign for the presidency. Certainly, the Republican candidate sees eye-to-eye with Prime Minister Stephen Harper on a range of subjects, including the controversial issue of free trade with Colombia. Like Harper, McCain is a booster, a big booster, as readers can see:

For McCain, free trade with Colombia is all about promoting democracy in the Andean region. Problem is, the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, sent to Congress by President George W. Bush earlier this spring, is stalled, essentially put on life-support by Democrats hungry for the White House. Still, the deal faces concerns over human rights abuses, as well as U.S. military spending in a country where the armed forces have been linked to the death squads.

It's too soon to know whether the PM will have better luck than Bush. On June 7, the Conservative government announced the completion of negotiations for its own free trade deal with Colombia, touting significant protection of environment and labour rights, as well as bilateral trade and business opportunies. The deal was announced in spite of human rights protests - and before the parliamentary standing committee on international trade had completed its report. The government must still introduce draft legislation to be passed and implemented - a tall order with summer adjournment looming and likely delays in the fall.

Nevertheless, human rights groups are worried Canada is trying to do what a lame-duck U.S. president cannot - and hurting its own international reputation in the process. Colombia has been torn apart by civil war between government forces and guerrilla groups, largely FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) and the ELN (National Liberation Army).

Kathy Price is a Colombia specialist for the Canadian chapter of Amnesty International, based in Ottawa. She maintains there must be a comprehensive and complete examination of the situation in Colombia before Canada commits to free trade. In an interview for this blog, she stressed the question must be asked "Why when the U.S. has pulled back, are we, at that very moment, rushing in?"

During his recent trip to Toronto, Price had a chance to listen to Colombian Vice-President Francisco Santos Calderon at a Toronto event. He said his country has moved into what he called a "post-conflict" era." Price stood up to say she didn't know what he meant by that, explaining Amnesty has seen no easing of death threats against, among others, trade unionists, human rights defenders, campesino organizations, religious and indigenous groups. Recent reports detail particular threats against trade unionists by paramilitary groups. The death squads have changed their names over the years - fashionable now are Frente Aguilas Negras (Black Eagles Front) and Nueva Generacion (New Generation) - but their murderous acts remain the same.

Alex Neve, president of Amnesty International Canada has long made the dire situation in Colombia a priority. As well, a report by Human Rights Watch in the U.S. cites human rights abuses, including statistics compiled by an in-country organization that shows 4,000 union members have been killed since President Alvaro Uribe was elected in 2000.

A myth of the seemingly endless civil war is that government troops and rebels mostly kill each other. Instead, countless human rights reports indicate the greatest losses have been suffered by civilians. There is little question guerrilla groups have been corrupted over the years, as evidenced by a growing taste for raising money by kidnapping children. There's also little question rebels kill civilians. However, civilians also die at the hands of the death squads and, too often, the paramilitaries have operated with the apparent complicity of the regular armed forces.

I wrote about one such event in the Andes mountain hamlet of La Union in 2000. There, according to three witnesses - nuns from the Missionary Order of the Sacred Heart - a death squad of 20 men in military uniforms with black hoods, lined up six men in the town square, made them kneel and opened fire, maybe 80 rounds, with AK-47s. The area was crawling with government troops and, during the massacre, army helicopters circled overhead. The official report blamed rebels. During extensive coverage of Colombia as Star correspondent in Latin America, I taped countless eye-witness accounts of similar killings by paramilitaries and interviewed rights activists who, shortly thereafter, were themselves assassinated.

Canada can be proud of its human rights defenders. They get too little credit. Over the years, I have seen so many of them working in hot zones at great personal risk, and read exhaustive reports written both to bear witness to atrocities and to educate the public. The Canadian chapter of Amnesty and the ecumenical group, KAIROS, are only two examples. I take their concerns and observations seriously, including an incident recited by Price. She told me of the disappointment in Canada expressed to her recently by a Colombian human rights defender. According to Price, he said: "We used to think of Canada as our friend and supporter at the United Nations, but that isn't the case anymore. Canada has gone off in a different direction."

Given the amazing courage of Colombian rights defenders who struggle every day to build a country free from killing, we should ask ourselves: Is this a direction Canadians really wish to take?

GM: kinda, maybe, sorta - but not really the d-word

In our continuing series on semantics. . .

General Motors workers lifted their blockade of company headquarters in Oshawa early this morning as instructed by the court. However, in his ruling last Friday, Mr. Justice David Salmers of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice noted GM's parent in Detroit had shown "deceit-like behaviour" in announcing the shutdown of its truck plant two weeks after its Canadian negotiators signed a three-year contract with the union.

The judge also used the term, "almost deceitful business practice."

If a reporter were to hand in copy using terms like, "almost deceitful" and "deceit-like," an editor would demand: "Is it deceitful or not deceitful? Say what you mean. Help our readers out, why don't you?"

Maybe not quite in that language.

Of course, if it's in quotes, editors don't do that. They just shake their heads.

We understand the language of the law is fraught with connotations and consequences, potentially expensive consequences, beyond the ken of the layperson.

Let's just have a collective head shake, shall we?

Politics of Living. Forget about the rest.

It's Friday and summer is almost here.

EDWARD OZOG PHOTO

Roses, the kind of flower that has nothing to do with this new category of mine.

If this optimism sounds a little out of character, chalk it up to a few days in wonderful Newfoundland. People are so nice. It reminds me of people in Mexico (minus the drug lords) and in Colombia (apart from the ones who want to kidnap you). I suppose being in Newfoundland brings out my true self who still lives somewhere in North Ontario, where folks are also damned nice.

If your teeth aren't aching yet, read on because this trip helped me decide about an idea I've been pondering for some time. It could be tricky, and I can't say I haven't been warned. When I wrote about driving from Mexico City to Toronto with my cats in the back seat, Don Macpherson, my friend and Quebec columnist for The Gazette, told me I had a one-story limit on cute stories, and I'd hit it. Any more cats or their ilk and I'd forfeit my right to the proud title of political journalist and morph into a sentimental sap. O horror, O Kurtz, O, Don. Really?

But I say you only live once and I'm going ahead with an occasional blog category - very occasional - in which I'll write about decent things people have done for me or others. I've always believed doing something good doesn't count if it's not done existentially which, I suppose, contradicts the meaning of the word. (BTW, loved Gore Vidal's sniping in the June issue of Esquire that Norman Mailer, who liked to say, "It's existential," died "without knowing what the word meant." )

Growing up, a good deed existed only in and of itself, in a black hole as it were, and not for the sin of spiritual pride or some other nonsense. And, although this again rather negates the meaning of existential (I know, Mr. Vidal, but mine is a strange family, like everybody's I reckon), it was important one didn't ever speak of having done something nice.

But let's throw my childhood rules away, although I am the recipient and not the doer of the following examples:

• My vet in Mexico City once took my failing cat into his own home for the care he needed so I could cover the war in Colombia for another week. (Whoops, Donnie, I'm out-of-control.)
• An old man once hobbled across a field at dawn in Chiapas, carrying sweet black coffee for photographer Pete Power and me. We'd been trapped overnight between Mexican army lines and the Zapatista rebels and the old man was the most beautiful sight in the world.
• Last week at Sun Valley Foods, a young girl, maybe 11, surreptitiously picked up a couple of mandarins I'd let roll onto the floor and intended to pick up. (Yeah, right.) She didn't think anybody saw her.

Small stuff, but life-affirming.

When I talked to blog editor Aneurin Bosley, he said my idea mirrors our very popular Feature, Acts of Kindness. But we agree: how can there be too much of a good thing?

MARK BAKER/AP

This isn't our Flower but it is a   meerkat - under a heat lamp for some reason, in Australia.

Besides, my idea differs. It's called FlowerPower, not after distant fads of the 60s, but the late great Flower of Meerkat Manor. As with any other post, I invite comment. Plus, from time to time, I will post a blog using accounts - short ones - of experiences of readers sent directly to my email address.

A few rules, however. Please don't:

• Tell a story to demonstrate "everything happens for a reason."
• Describe how somebody found "closure".
• Misuse the term, "hero". When in doubt, don't, just like taking off that extra piece of jewellery.
• I'll remember other rules as we go along. It's all very arbitrary, but only for my postings. Your comments are your own.

Go crazy. Or not.

Last thoughts (for now) on Indian Affairs at its worst

Say What? No. 1

I blogged yesterday about genocide and its potential link to the history of residential schools in Canada. With the Truth and Reconciliation Commission set to begin hearings, I just wanted readers to understand it's not so unthinkable to link our own history ("to kill the Indian in the child") with the ignomy of genocide. However, punishment isn't the purpose of the commission and it doesn't look as if it's going to go in that direction, although there will be sworn testimony in these hearings to break the heart of a nation. As it should be. Broken hearts have been the special burden of aboriginal families for too long.

But last night I got home from Parliament Hill in time to catch the last few minutes of Stolen Children, the excellent documentary series on residential schools that's been running all week on CBC News. (Here's the link for the schedule.) The segment quoted a high-ranking Indian Affairs bureaucrat early in the last century talking about "the final solution" to what he and his contemporaries considered to be "the Indian problem." Their goal was assimilation until there wasn't an Indian left outside the context of mainstream Canadian society but this particular part dealt with a death rate of children in residential schools that was much higher than on reserves.

I turned cold to hear those words, the final solution, in a Canadian context - and filled with shame.

The final solution.

I don't know, maybe I was all wet yesterday to suggest it's for the best the commission's parameters appear to be narrow.

Say What? No. 2

The Assembly of First Nations has worked with Health Canada to set up a helpline for people requiring counselling over residential schools. I suppose the AFN knows what it's doing. Me, I'd want to stay as far away as possible from any agency, including Health Canada, that's any part of a government that caused the problem in the first place, however long ago.

An ugly word with an ugly connotation

Discussions of genocide have not been part of the national dialogue leading up to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's apology in Parliament today to Canada's First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples for the travesty of residential schools. Beginning in the 1840s and lasting (unbelievably) until 1996, more than 150,000 children were taken from their families and shipped off to residential schools, most often under the auspices of the clergy, to be assimilated into the country's dominant culture.  They were robbed of their traditions and their identity, a tragedy that devastated them and their descendants in ways that will never be forgotten, as residential schools survivor Shirley Williams said in an interview earlier this week.

The story of these children - and it allegedly includes physical and sexual abuse, as well as accounts of bodies buried in unmarked graves - will be the subject of Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Residential Schools, headed by Justice Harry Laforme. Two weeks ago, I asked him if the commission's work would involve any research into whether this tyranny should be investigated as genocide and he said he honestly didn't know. It was too soon, he said, to know how the commission would function. Still, it's not likely there will be allegations of genocide in the final report in five years time, although it could come up in individual hearings.

It's not that the actions of Canadian authorities might not be considered to be genocide. Although it's a matter upon which criminal authorities and international tribunals of justice would rule, there certainly appear to be areas that could qualify under the definitions of "genocide" by the Office of the High Commission for Human Rights at the United Nations. The U.N. code is clear. In the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genoicde. Introduced in 1948 and ratified in 1951, the definition (linked above) establishes that "genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish." In Article 2, the convention says genocide means "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group:

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Nevertheless, the tradition over the past two decades has been for truth and reconciliation commissions  in other countries to seek the truth about what happened and to find ways for people - and countries - to heal. It has not been not to try to establish the existence of genocide and, therefore, to punish the guilty. Instead, the most well-known commissions in South Africa and Chile both offered freedom from prosecution for people who testified and, as a result, sought ways in which each nation could get past its own horrific histories. In South Africa, it was the abomination of apartheid and in Chile, the savage regime of the military junta after the 1973 overthrow of president Salvador Allende. It wasn't easy. During hearings in South Africa (leading to a 1998 report), Archbishop Desmund Tutu was in tears more than once and, during Chile's tribunal (reporting in 1991), relatives sobbed as they listened to accounts of the murder of mothers, fathers and children. Some died when they were thrown from helicopters into the Pacific Ocean.

It was the same for truth and justice commissions in Peru, Salvador and Bolivia.

This doesn't meant separate criminal proceedings haven't been launched. In Chile, the courts tried over several years in vain to bring General Augusto Pinochet to justice for his actions as a junta leader after the overthrow of Allende. Moreover, other international tribunals have attempted convictions for the crime of genocide, notably in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

These are very different endeavours than the truth and reconciliation commissions that have set a model Canada is likely to follow. Maybe it's a good thing.

Globalization and more tomatoes

While we're on the subject of tomatoes. . .

In the United States, tomatoes are believed to be the source of 145 cases of salmonella poisoning reported across 17 states since mid-April. The Food and Drug Administration reports 23 people have been hospitalized and the federal agency put out an advisory about certain types of raw tomatoes on June 7.

While no cases of salmonella poisoning have been reported in Canada, several fast-food chains pulled tomatoes temporarily from their menus as a precaution.

Finding the source of the tainted tomatoes is difficult. As David Acheson, FDA assistant commissioner, today told Bloomberg News: "The tomatoes must be traced back from stores to distributers to suppliers - it's very time-consuming."

The problem has become even difficult under harmonization and the streamlining that has been going on in North America over the past two decades, largely as a result of free trade initiatives.  As I described in my earlier post today, I came up empty when I tried to find the point of sale for particular Mexican tomatoes some years ago. I knew the field (town, state, country) where they were picked and the date of picking. I knew they'd been shipped to the U.S. , however, once there and likely reboxed, I had no idea where they ended up.

That's the problem , for health officials in the U.S. and Canada and for you - the consumer.

Globalization and Mexican child labour

A reason I began this blog was for the interaction I saw among readers in yesterday's comments on the "Peel me a grape" post about working conditions in Mexico and elsewhere. How does a consumer know who's treating employees well or what to buy? Great question from a reader, and one for which there are no easy answers.

It's research, research, research, hopefully aided by the media, and sometimes running into a dead end. It goes beyond companies assembling cars or televisions sets to involve what we we put into our mouths.

Let me give you you an example: I covered Latin America for the Star for many years from my base in Mexico City and once, en route to write about drug-trafficking in Sinaloa, I came upon children picking tomatoes in a field. The children looked as young as five, with little hands that could barely grip the tomatoes and, as they worked (30 or more) men drove rickety contraptions through the fields spraying pesticide, including on the kids. They were coated with the poisonous stuff.

It was an ugly sight, and the kind of thing you find only by chance. If you tried to set that story up, you'd be told there's no child labour in Mexico, blah-blah-blah-dee-blah.

Of course, I wrote about what I'd seen and photographed the children. Once back in Mexico City, I tried to find out where the tomatoes were going, but ran into a brick wall. They were exported from Mexico but, and here's the thing, it was to California where they were re-boxed and shipped out. I couldn't find out who handled these particular tomatoes — to underscore, even seeing the kids was purely an accident — nor could I find out where they were being sold to consumers. I called all the food importers in Toronto, the big food chains, even individual markets. I talked to importers and store managers. They could tell me most tomatoes came from the U.S. at that time of year but not whether they originated there. The same tomatoes I saw being picked by those children could have ended up on Canadian plates.

Food labelling laws have improved in Canada since I wrote that story in 1997. Still, when I look at produce that's labelled U.S., even from a particular company, it's no guarantee to me the original crop wasn't picked in fields south of the Rio Grande. By children.

There is a much larger problem with Mexico and other nations than the stories we tend to follow when Canadians are injured or murdered in a particular country, not that we shouldn't investigate these close-to-home stories. Globalization is a fact of life, however it's important to look at it from all angles, including the car plant workers who have no choice but to work for a couple of dollars an hour — or kids in the fields being prescribed eventual death through pesticide poisoning.

Peel me a grape y pronto! says Mexican auto-worker

Wouldn't it be refreshing to see context in stories that refer to the difference in wages for autoworkers in Canada and Mexico? A weekend story in the National Post/Financial Post on the changing nature of the Ontario economy — specifically the decline of the manufacturing base — highlighted this gap and pointed out:

"But no amount of money would entice auto manufacturers to pay Ontario workers $33 an hour when they can pay US$2.50 in Mexico."

True, it would seem, but then it's not the full story.

I don't fault Post reporter Jacqueline Thorpe for an excellent read on her basic thesis, which is the changing face of the Ontario job market to knowledge-based employment. Or Post reporter Nicolas Van Praet for an accompanying story that talks about the cuts bringing Mexican wages "down to near-Chinese levels." And the original report from Mexico was written by Associated Press correspondent Mark Stevenson, a respected veteran, so no problem with the numbers. Indeed, the facts are autoworkers' wages are being halved from a whopping $4.50 an hour in order to help secure 4,500 jobs at Ford's new Fiesta plant on the outskirts of Mexico City.

The context that falls off the table when events are transposed to Canada, however, is unions aren't free in Mexico. Instead, they are overwhelmingly under the government's thumb. The autoworkers, for example, are associated with the CTM (Central de Trabajadores de México), which is controlled by the government and notorious for stories of financial support for candidates picked by the presidential palace at Los Pinos.

Leaders who step out of line are harassed, kidnapped and, in extreme cases, assassinated. A few years ago, when workers tried to strike at a Volkswagen plant near Mexico City, the army opened fire on their front lines. Human rights abuses against union leaders and their membership in Mexico have been the subject of countless national and international human rights reports — as is oppression against teachers, left-wing politicians, religious workers, social advocates, students and anybody else who fights for decent working and living conditions and political and religious freedom. In Mexico, the essential trade-off that's occurred over the past 20 years is the central government in the Federal District (Mexico City) deals with international treaties, such as NAFTA, while the military runs the states, working with whatever power holds that part of the country, be it big landowners, industrialists, drug cartels, or any combination of the three. (This clearly is not meant to apply to everyone, nor suggest for a moment I am not in awe of valiant Mexicans who have fought against oppression for years, sometimes at the expense of their lives.)

As long as we continue to ignore these human rights abuses and intimidation against Mexican workers, we can blithely pretend they are giving up wage concessions with intelligence and foresight, in order to preserve jobs. All very civilized. No consequences whatsoever, other than job loss.

Workers in Canada should not have to compete with workers who are intimidated, beaten and killed in Mexico and other countries. Workers in other countries should not have to face these gruesome consequences.

This is not the normal give-and-take of globalization. It is not even close to the description by CAW economist Jim Stanford in Van Praet's story's of his union' struggle to "set a higher standard than who's the most desperate and who will do if for cheapest."

These are international human rights crimes and it would be heartening to see our governments — at all levels — recognize this fact. Companies that collude with oppression by closing their eyes to everything but profit motive should have to face the consequences of disillusioned consumers. At the least.

Let's stop pretending wage concessions in Mexico are just a matter of smart thinking across the bargaining table — although it's certainly smart to want to stay alive.

Hot Docs and other things hot

Can't leave Friday on a NAFTA note. To temper the mood, I offer non-NAFTA reading and other suggestions.

The first isn't so light, but Tracey Deer's documentary, Club Native, is a good analysis of the lunacy of the Indian Act on who has the right blood quantum. I can't offer the film, which previewed recently during Toronto's Hot Docs festival, but here's a taste:

Two other suggestions:

I just read Cormac McCarthy's The Road and loved it. Starkly poetic. I should strike that description, but will leave it in to remind myself how pretentious I can sound.

And, finally, I saw In Bruges. I'd say it's Shakespearian if I could decide whether it's tragedy or comedy.  I was on the floor.

Michael Ignatieff: Canadian nationalist?

THE SEAN KILPATRICK/CANADIAN PRESS

Liberal deputy leader Michael Ignatieff speaks during question period in the House of Commons in Ottawa May 28.

The above title by no means suggests Michael Ignatieff is not a proud Canadian. But there's garden-variety Canadian nationalist and Canadian nationalist. The deputy Liberal leader's recent musings on the anomalies of the Canadian energy maze puts him dangerously close to Category 2, one which, for reasons I utterly fail to comprehend, carries oooooh! a whiff of danger in this country. Unpatriotic, no less.

It takes being slapped around pretty hard for Canadians to think differently, which is what I'd call the GM closure announcement Tuesday, two weeks after signing a contract with the Canadian Auto Workers. Star business reporter Tony Van Alphen brings us up-to-date on today's developments. But I digress.

The energy status quo is unfathomable and Ignatieff, quite naturally, has questions. He's an intelligent man. Why are we a big net importer of oil in the East and a big net exporter in the West?  Why indeed? And where is that east-west hydro corridor? What about stringent NAFTA energy provisions?

Lawrence Martin reveals Ignatieff's thinking in a recent Globe column. Understandably, Ignatieff stresses he's no "Walter Gordon nationalist." Still, he asks, why do oil, natural gas and hydro links all go south? Says Ignatieff: "I look at the east-west linkages that tie our country together and I do wonder whether they are strong enough to offset the north-south flows that dominate our economy."

Good question. Consequently, he's brought in researchers to find out and explore solutions.

None too soon, I say. If this indicates the Liberals as a party are moving to tackle issues most often shouldered by New Democrats, and carry their solutions into an election campaign, it can't be a bad thing for the country, especially one that imports 49 per cent of its oil.

As minefields go, this topic is red-alert dangerous. (Or is it orange?) Ignatieff's attention to the problem is significant. But as he well understands, there are political and economic wheels within wheels, internationally, nationally and in his own party. There's already an energy critic in the Liberal caucus, Omar Alghabra (Mississauga-Erindale) who supports a national energy strategy, and water critic Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-St.-Louis), has been fighting above his weight class on a related topic in the Commons.

But this is too important an issue to hive off to one or two critics. I'm assuming — although one never knows in this wacky party — this first balloon sent up by Ignatieff in the Globe has the approval of Liberal leader Stéphane Dion.

Solutions to the problem? That depends on how far Ignatieff cares to go in his summer research.

However, its genesis is obvious, and has been for a very long time. The singular focus of Canadian national policy, beginning with Brian Mulroney's Conservatives in 1988, has been greater integration along north-south lines. (For picky historians, I am aware of the ebb-and-flow of debate over continentalism since Confederation.) That integration is the purpose of the 1989 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the U.S. and its offspring, the North American Free Trade Agreement, which brought in Mexico in 1994. The Three Amigos. Remember them? NAFTA was negotiated on their watch: Mulroney, U.S. President George H.W. Bush and Mexican President Carlos Salinas.

Some of you will remember Liberal Jean Chrétien campaigned against the NAFTA in 1993 and promised to re-negotiate, but then, once Prime Minister, he forgot. He was a busy man.

It's not just about trade, but rather harmonization across-the-board. The point was to entrench policy in the serious stuff of international treaty. And, while the public's attention is on the nightmare of the post-9/11 border, don't believe for a moment negotiations aren't continuing apace to expand the deal. Mexico has done its part for the moment, and the focus has shifted back to the original two nations. An elite business team, (Security and National Prosperity Partnership of North America), is beavering away on the next generation of vertical integration policy, while significant U.S. federal departments, including energy and transportation, have their own divisions for the same purpose.

Moreover, the north-south linkages go beyond these treaties. It's a mindset. Everything reflects it, from the privatization of Canadian National to the creeping move to Open Skies. Sneaky little deals, not widely publicized. Ever wonder why it's increasingly difficult to get a flight to somewhere in Northern Ontario, but easy to fly into the United States (apart from security lines)?

Ignatieff refers to NAFTA energy provisions, particularly the guarantees on Canadian supply even in times of shortage. (See 605a in the above link.) There's that, and the clause dictating Americans can't be charged more than Canadians (605b). However, a lesser-known clause (605c) says no substitutions "among specific energy or basic petrochemical goods ... for example between crude oil and of refined products."

That clause is impressive to trade lawyer Steven Shrybman because it was negotiated by the American team almost 20 years ago in the FTA. "Pretty amazing," he told me. "It's pretty sophisticated pro-active strategic thinking."

Were Canadian negotiators under-the-weather that day?

It means that once a product is in the pipeline — literally — it can't be changed. And jobs are lost when crude isn't refined.

They are lost big-time. The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers of Canada (CEP) made that point in an appeal to the National Energy Board last fall. Ottawa-based economist Mike McCracken did an analysis for their presentation to the board, in which the union opposes the application by two pipeline companies, Transcanada Pipelines Ltd. and Transcanada Keystone Pipelines Ltd. for the expansion of their infrastructure by two more lines.

More north-south flow.

The union argued jobs and benefits would be shipped south from the Alberta tar sands to U.S. refineries and, subsequently, the U.S. economy. McCracken determined if the unprocessed bitumen were to be upgraded in Alberta, some 18,000 jobs annually — that's 18,000! — would be created nationally. (See sections 20-24 of the above presentation for McCracken's analysis.)

The NEB quickly rejected their appeal. The union appealed to the federal cabinet, to no avail.

The kicker, according to Shrybman, is that should there be a future upgrade of the crude in the two pipelines — critical value-added to Alberta and the country — it would contravene NAFTA energy provisions, specifically 605c.

Is it any wonder Shrybman says he has to tip his hat to U.S. negotiators?  Or that Michael Ignatieff has his work cut out for him?