August 2, 2011
So, another Canadian foreign minister has visited China, presumably to sell more Canadian raw materials – as if that were a problem. The media seems satisfied that John Baird mentioned human rights – though what he said is left to conjecture. And who might care is another matter entirely. There was also the ritual nod to Canadian values, whatever those might be these days.
In a hawkish July 5 Maclean’s interview, Stephen Harper did talk a bit about Canadian values. He said he was “not dismissing peacekeeping… but…” we should now be thinking mainly of what he called “the triumvirate” in Canadian values: Canada as “the courageous warrior, compassionate neighbour, confident partner”. He doesn’t have to dismiss peacekeeping, of course; that has already been done. As of June 30, out of 83,400 blue-helmeted UN peacekeeping troops, only 21 soldiers were Canadians.
As for the courageous warrior, we don’t have to look a lot farther than John Baird’s June trip to eastern Libya. It is, of course, a good idea to get to know who we’re supporting in that mission, and for that Baird is to be commended. As evidence that he has perhaps watched the 1949 American war film Twelve O’Clock High a few times too many, however, he signed one of the bombs that Canadian fighters will drop on the western part of Libya, “Free Libya. Democracy.”
Meanwhile, in another part of the forest, CIDA’s results-obsessed Minister Bev Oda was bragging that she had taught the head of the World Food Programme the difference between outputs and outcomes. Maybe she could do the same with John Baird. The Libya mission is expected to have cost about $60 million by the end of September (probably a sizeable under-estimation), a good chunk of it in democracy-inducing bombs. By now, Canadians might ask themselves whether we should still be playing Monty in the eastern desert, signing bombs and the cheques that go with them, or whether we should be thinking about potential outcomes – not all of them, on second thought, perhaps so favourable.
As for the money, as C.D. Howe might have put it, “What’s $60 million?” Especially when we get to play with the big kids?
Well, it’s actually a lot where the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is concerned. The CEAA, which evaluates potentially harmful policies and projects before they get the green light, has just had its budget chopped from $30 million in 2011-12 to $17.1 million in 2012-13. This follows a 6.9% cut between last year and this. OK, maybe that’s just a red herring. But $60 million really is nothing compared to what we’re going to spend on prisons. The government’s forthcoming crime legislation is expected to increase Canada’s prison population dramatically because of tougher parole rules and the elimination of “two-for-one” sentencing guidelines. That means we’ll need more prisons. The government says the cost of the package will be about $4 billion. The Parliamentary Budget Office, among others, says it will be much higher – as much as $10 billion. This, despite the fact that Statistics Canada tells us the country’s crime rate has plunged to its lowest level since 1973. Using data provided by police forces across Canada, StatsCan says there were 2.1 million crimes last year, a drop of 5% from 2009. Statscan’s “Crime Severity Index”, which tracks violent crime, also dropped to its lowest level since the index was created in 1998.
Courageous? Compassionate? Confident? Perhaps StatsCan and the Parliamentary Budget Office will get theTwelve O’Clock High treatment next, like Libya and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.