How The Conservatives Curtailed The Tamil Terrorist Network In Canada

The war between the Sri Lankan government and the Tamil Tigers terrorist network was perpetuated, largely in part due to the expatriate Tamils living in Canada. Estimates from a secret intelligence report obtained by the National Post revealed that up to $12 million a year was funneled from Canada into Sri Lanka:

“Canada’s Tamil community has been among the LTTE’s largest sources of funds, having contributed up to $10-to $12-million annually in past years,” the report says.

A copy of the report was released to the Post under the Access to Information Act. It was written last June, during the final months of a decisive Sri Lankan military offensive.

The RCMP began to investigate the Tamil Tigers fundraising efforts here in 2002, and police have reason to believe that money raised in Toronto and Montreal went to financing weapons purchases. This led to the Conservative government declaring the World Tamil Movement as a front operation for terrorism in 2008, and finally seized properties earlier this spring.

But what’s most surprising is that during the 13 years that the Liberals held office in Canada, they did nothing to curtail the terrorist network here in Canada that was funneling upwards of $1 million per month to the LTTE in Sri Lanka. The reason that the Tamils may finally have been broken, based on reasoning, is that Canada finally cut off their aid supply. Even more disturbing then, is that even as prominent Liberal politicians stood up for the Tamils during the waning days of the civil war, as the streets of Toronto were being literally choked with ethnic protesters, that we learn the Liberals could have done something a long time ago by curtailing this terrorist network entrenched in Canada.

Did they not know? Or, was it all a matter of pandering to an ethnic voting bloc by turning a blind eye to their actions? No Canadian politician would find it seemly to be caught defending an ethnic group known to be contributing to the Taliban or al-Qaeda, so it should be no different for the Tamil Tigers. The Liberals who tried to opportunistically fall on the side of humanitarian populism in this regard, will now pay a political price for not having the intestinal fortitude to rebuke the terrorist Tigers when they had the opportunity.

The Jealous Sibling Syndrome: Pride Montreal

You’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. That old axiom is particularly appropriate with regards to the $100-million Marquee Tourism Events [Porkulus] Program. Everybody involved in some kind of tourism event wants to qualify for the federal dough, and indeed they’re all trying to meet the criteria. Only large-scale events that could prove they draw a significant number of tourists could apply for the program. The organizers of Montreal’s Divers/Cité festival, which features international gay performers, have found out that they will not be receiving the funding. The result, of course, has been the bitter decrying of the government as straying toward their ideological roots in social conservatism.

But far from admitting to any such accusations, Industry Minister Tony Clement insists it has nothing to do with a gay arts festival, and everything to do with regional equality:

But Mr. Clement said Wednesday there had been an “avalanche” of applications under the $100-million Marquee Tourism Events Program and decisions had to be made.

He noted that Quebec received about 42 per cent of the total funds, roughly the same as the province of Ontario.

“I think we’ve been treating Montreal and Quebec very fairly, but it’s also important for us to fund other things outside of Montreal, and outside of the province of Quebec, so we have some regional fairness,” Mr. Clement said in Red Deer, Alta.

That means that around 80% of the tourism funding in this country has already gone to the two largest provinces in Canada. Which leaves 20% to be spread around among the rest of us. How lovely.

Of interest, Director of the Montreal festival Suzanne Girard had defended the Conservative government from attacks when it was rumoured that junior tourism minister Diane Ablonczy lost responsibility for the tourism program when she unilaterally awarded Toronto’s Pride Week $400,000. The government denied the charge, and said that Ms.Ablonczy had acted in proper accord with the program’s guidelines. Nevertheless, Tony Clement did take charge of the file. Now Ms.Girard suspects there is politics involved, only weeks after saying that they received federal money in the past.

The idea that the Conservatives awarded $400,000 to Toronto’s Pride Parade, felt wrong about it, and then decided to seek retribution in Montreal, is a little far-fetched. I see this as more of the jealous sibling syndrome. Toronto got a piece of apple pie, and so naturally Montreal is champing for a slice as well. But as cited in the Globe article, festival organizers must have known that the funding wasn’t guaranteed when Just for Laughs and the Montreal International Jazz Festival received half of Quebec’s $12-million tourism supplement from the program. And as Mr.Clement points out, with Quebec and Ontario taking the lion’s share of the funding, something had be saved for the other provinces.

The fact is that no matter who gets accepted or denied in this program, that there will be those who take on the conspiratorial meme. And while it might sound convenient to write this off as an ideological policy move, it seems rather unlikely. One gay festival was already funded, so does this automatically mean that all other gay festivals that aren’t approved are indicative of policy discrimination? Doubtful. In fact the larger story here, or at least it would seem to me, is that Eastern Canada is getting the bulk of so-called stimulus funding from the program, while the west gets the left-overs. At 42%, it’s amazing that Quebec is complaining at all.

Another Strike During The Recession? Gotta Be A Union.

It is with the most severe hubris that I think the public sector unions of this nation happen to be waging war against the people who sign their pay cheques. Inside and outside city workers in Windsor have held the southernmost city in Ontario hostage for over four months for, as it turns out, a measly $800,000. Then it was the LCBO that threatened to strike over “casual workers” rights, arguing that these part-time workers don’t receive vacation, sick time or benefits. If the mighty union had cared to find out, one might have pointed to the private sector “casual workers” who are pretty much in the same situation. In fact during this recession the words “vacation” and “sick time” is pretty much an invitation to be laid off.

Of course we all know that CUPE took Toronto to the dump a month ago over contract negotiations with municipal workers. This has left Toronto, for the second time since 2002, with a summer of garbage snow banks, rat infestations, and a smell that is utterly repelling for a city that already suffers from poor air quality. Thanks to the union, fighting over a ridiculous thing called “bankable sick days” [which rewards healthy workers for not deciding to take their freebie unionized sick days just because they exist], Toronto is left to fend for itself during a recession, and at a time when the tourism industry is struggling for air.

A letter to the National Post recently offered some sage advice for David Miller. Why not allow those workers who wish to return to work to do so? There are thousands of unemployed Torontonians who would be happy to fill in for the union. At a time when the monthly job losses in Ontario number in the tens of thousands, it’s not just unconscionable that the city has come to a standstill, it’s completely illogical. The concept behind a union’s power is that the workers threaten to abandon their positions en masse, making it impossible for the employer to replace or hire substitutes. That concept is moot during a time when literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians would jump at the chance to even get their foot in the door of a “recession-proof” government job.

And then there’s VIA Rail. Just when you thought it was safe to ride the rails, [you know the one endorsed by our eco-friendly politicians?] the union has threatened to walk out. This comes at a time when the government is spending one third of a billion dollars on VIA Rail upgrades, for goodness sake, and has made numerous indications that it wants to strengthen rail corridors and improve rail transit.

The Teamsters Canada Rail Conference union informed VIA Tuesday that its members would go on strike Friday, July 24, at noon ET if the two sides don’t reach a new deal. A mediator has been brought in.

The union’s 340 engineers have been without a contract since Dec. 31, 2006. They’re looking for improved wages and benefits, scheduling that allows them two consecutive days off, and increased training schedules for engineers.

“Many of the issues related to what we’re trying to achieve here are quality-of-life issues,” TCRC president Dan Shewchuk said.

Quality-of-life issues? Do the unions even read their own rhetoric, or are they so far disconnected from the nonunionized Canadians who hold on to their tenuous positions, that they just simply don’t care? This is a time of survival, an economic crisis from which many Canadians will not emerge unscathed. And the union is talking about benefits, wages, and “quality-of-life”. Beyond the 340 engineers who are members of the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference Union, hundreds of other workers related to VIA Rail would be forced out of work if the strike went ahead. That’s hundreds of workers who will need to be laid off, to suffice for the demands of the union. But as we all realize, the unions care about the workers. The workers who pay their dues to the union, that is. All aboard!

Canada Changes Clemency Policy To Fit New Attitude

We’ve heard a lot about the federal Conservative government’s apparent subjective approach to determining whether to appeal for clemency in the case of Canadians sentenced to death abroad. Because Canada has traditionally taken the blanket approach to requesting clemency for any Canadians sentenced outside of Canada, many had assumed the current government would continue this policy. It has not. Many Canadians were upset when the government did not press for such an agreement with the state of Montana over inmate Ronald Allen Smith, who has been on death row for 26 years. Mohamed Kohail is another such example in Saudi Arabia, where the government has been accused of being late to responding to the verdict.

What’s at stake here isn’t necessarily the actions, or lack thereof, by the government, but the perception that Foreign Affairs is taking a rather arbitrary approach to cases. Stockwell Day said in May of 2008 that the government would be reviewing such incidents on a “case-by-case basis”, which raised the ire of many who believe that this gives the freedom of the government to decide who they want to lobby for, and who they want to ignore. Even more grievous, said some international human rights agencies, was the fact that as a signatory to the United Nations declaration on the abolition of the death penalty, Canada was in default of it’s obligations internationally.

The government must have mulled over these thoughts for a while, and have come up with a solution. Foreign Affairs has now released a statement on their website that encourages Canadians to seek more than just governmental assistance in the event they face the death penalty on foreign soil. A guide has been released, explaining that the government would not intervene unless asked in writing to do so.

“The Government of Canada strongly urges applicants and their advisers to vigorously pursue all avenues for both clemency and exoneration available under the law and practice of the foreign country,” the website says.

So is Canada in default of their obligations to Canadians facing execution overseas, and to international agreements under which they are a signatory? Good question.

According to the 1989 Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aimed at the abolition of the death penalty worldwide, Canada is a signatory to this resolution. Nowhere in the articles does it state that a State Party needs to request “clemency intervention” for one of it’s citizens. It does forbid Canada as a signatory party to the resolution from executing anyone within it’s borders, and must take steps to abolish the death penalty within its jurisdiction. It also urges any State Party to make claims against another State Party that is not fulfilling its obligations under the Protocol.

Then there’s the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted in December of 1966 and ratified in 1976, specifically with mention to Article 6 and the “right to life”. The very first sentence in Article 6 pertains to the belief that every human being has an inherent right to life, protected under the law, and that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of that life. It permits nations that have not abolished the death penalty to carry out their sentence only for the most serious crimes, and in accordance with the rule of law. It also says that anyone sentenced to death has the right to seek clemency, but not under what authority that right is bestowed.

According to these rules, Canada has therefore not abrogated their international obligations, since we maintain the articles set forth in treaties to which we are signatory. What I will say, however, is that if Canada is not in breach of any articles, it is quite possibly not living up to the spirit of these international agreements, which is to seek out and censure capital punishment wherever it may exist. That is not to say that I agree with the abolition of the death penalty; on the contrary, I believe it should be reinstated. But while this latest clarification of Foreign Affairs on what the Canadian government can be expected to do under circumstances in which Canadians face the death penalty on foreign soil, I believe that we are not being faithful to the spirit of our signed agreements. It would therefore seem to me to be prudent, although perhaps not practical under a minority government, to either remove ourselves from these agreements, or else act more forcefully in conviction of them.

Invoking Nationalism To Sell Governmental Bailouts

The problem with government intervention in the marketplace under the concept of “saving jobs” or protecting private institutions of national heritage, is that it becomes the benchmark by which all other corporations are judged. Because of the corporate bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler, Canadians have come to expect, perhaps unreasonably, that other industries and companies should also be “saved”. But interference in the free market comes at a price that isn’t just attached to the monetary contributions of the taxpayer, but it has a lasting residual effect for years to come. The more that government tries to influence an outcome that it believes is favourable, the less we can expect to see naturally occurring corrective market forces that would propel a new, and arguably more deserving, company to the forefront of an industry.

One can use the example of the foreign companies in Canada that were not given the same advantage as GM and Chrysler. Although it’s usually easier to sell the idea of defending Canadian companies by invoking some sort of nationalist significance to their existence. Even though General Motors and Ford have always been symbolic of American corporate power, their presence in Canada has existed for a long enough period of time that many Canadians see the automotive production plants as domestic. These companies are also filled with workers from the powerful Canadian Autoworkers Union, a lobby group that carries a considerable amount of clout in Canada, having originated from their American cousins, the UAW. One such Canadian company that doesn’t have a powerful union protecting it’s interests in Ottawa, is the struggling Nortel Networks, a company on the verge of being sold off to foreign interests.

Jeffrey Simpson argues that Nortel Networks deserved the same chance to keep afloat, but were ignored by the federal Conservatives who “waxed their ears and watched the company slide beneath the waters of insolvency.” But what possible argument could Mr.Simpson use that would provide compelling reasons for the government to bailout Nortel? The single theme I get from the article is that because Nortel spawned a considerable amount of research in Canada, with estimates that it allowed 260 companies to startup because of it’s existence, it should have been saved.

Even those who say that we should have bailed out Nortel, don’t know if it would have worked anyway. “Ottawa didn’t even try”, so how would we know? This kind of argument could be used for anything from Nortel to Korean fruit stands. The concept behind the “free market” is based on not needing to know whether a company will fail or not, because the forces that drive the economy will determine it. If Nortel falls, something else will take it’s place, inevitably changing the structure of jobs and investments. For many people, change is scary. It’s just easier to say “let’s bail them out”, and save Canadian jobs and Canadian companies.

Even worse than the rather ill-conceived argument for government bailouts, is this desire to keep insolvent companies Canadian, as though losing Nortel to Finnish Nokia is an affront to our very sovereignty. It would be better, Mr.Simpson argues, to keep Nortel Canadian by selling it to Jim Balsillie, and Research in Motion. “[H]ere’s a patriot who believes in doing something for his country and company at the same time” raves Mr.Simpson’s column. As though being Canadian is an important indicator of the success of a company, or how it resonates in our identity politics. Please. Do any of the millions of Canadians who grab their double-doubles on the way to work every morning really care whether Tim Hortons was under American ownership for several years? Did the Montreal Canadiens lose their history, their culture by being owned by George N. Gillett Jr?

Although I wouldn’t have a problem if the government let Mr.Balsillie bid on the sale of Nortel, I also don’t have a problem with it going to some Finnish company either. The whole concept of international free trade agreements, globalization, and broadening markets, is to take advantage of the resource of foreign trade and investment. In fact allowing Nortel to be bid on by foreign buyers is a great advertisement for investment in Canada, and if anything, the kind of attitude we should be cultivating is strengthening this image, not imagining how our tax dollars might have propped up some insolvent company for a few more years.