oh good, he's calling other governments ideologies evil! maybe he should tell his mamma!!

and saying that his government is a big supporter of israel....when the fuck did this shit start????  harper you suck dude!  honestly, as if the russian fighter jet shit wasn't enough.  someone needs to go in and haul him by his ear!

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the NATO mission in Afghanistan is a serious test and its failure could have major ramifications for the military alliance, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Harper also said the Iranian government's ideology was "evil," the newspaper reported in its online edition late Friday.

"NATO has taken on a United Nations mission and NATO must succeed or I do think the future of NATO as we've known it is in considerable doubt," Harper said in an interview with the newspaper's editorial board.

"We have to get our act together . . . or NATO will not be able to undertake these kinds of missions in the future. There may be some around the NATO table who don't think it should. But if that's their position, that's not what they are saying."

As part of the NATO operation, Canada has about 2,700 soldiers based in Kandahar in southern Afghanistan on a mission due to end in 2011. More than 100 Canadian soldiers have been killed in the conflict.

The article said Harper was encouraged by U.S. President Barack Obama's decision to increase troop numbers in Afghanistan and that Harper thought the situation needs a return of U.S. focus that had been lost because of the war in Iraq.

"I would encourage the (Obama) administration to really assess what its objectives are and to make sure they are realistic and achievable," he said.

Harper, who leads a minority Conservative government, also criticized Iran, which the West accuses of covertly seeking to build nuclear weapons. Iran denies the charge.

"It concerns me that we have a regime with both an ideology that is obviously evil, combined with a desire to procure technology to act on that ideology," Harper said.

"My government is a very strong supporter of the state of Israel and considers the Iranian threats to be absolutely unacceptable and beyond the pale."

Canada's relations with Iran have been strained since 2003, when Iranian-Canadian photographer Zahra Kazemi died in custody in Tehran after being arrested.

Harper also complained that Russia has been testing Canadian airspace in the Arctic more frequently, which he said was "an aggression that is increasingly troublesome."

Canadian fighter planes scrambled to intercept an approaching Russian bomber less than 24 hours before Obama's visit to Ottawa last week, Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay said on Friday.

leave afghanistan.....it isn't worth the cost of children's deaths

THE CANADIAN PRESS

KANDAHAR–A Panjwaii district elder is accusing Canadian troops in Afghanistan of leaving behind an unexploded shell that has killed two children in a village set aside for the handicapped.

The explosion today prompted a furious demonstration by dozens of people outside of the provincial council office in Kandahar city.

The blood-spattered bodies of two boys were on display from the open back of a small, wooden taxi as the angry crowd chanted: ``Death to Canadians."

In a statement to the provincial police chief, a villager elder is blaming Canadian troops for the tragedy.

The Canadian military has yet to formally respond to the allegations.

The blast apparently occurred at the Mohammed Bin Rashid Village – named for its founder, the ruler of Dubai – about 15 kilometres outside the city.

and now we torture?? what a slippery slope we are walking.

Three Canadians who were jailed and tortured in Syria are filing new lawsuits against the federal government, armed with fresh information from an inquiry that implicated several agencies in their ordeals.

The renewed legal actions come four months after a commission of inquiry said Canadian officials contributed to the brutalization of Ahmad El Maati, Muayyed Nureddin and Abdullah Almalki by sharing information – including unfounded and inflammatory accounts of extremist links – with foreign intelligence and police agencies.

Former Supreme Court judge Frank Iacobucci cited the RCMP, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and Foreign Affairs for mistakes.

Iacobucci concluded the three men were tortured in Syrian custody and, in the case of El Maati, in Egypt as well. None of the men – all of whom are now in Canada and deny involvement in terrorism – has ever been charged.

Initial lawsuits by the three were put on hold during the inquiry, which lasted almost two years. Now the men are renewing legal efforts to wrest compensation from the government.

El Maati and Nureddin are seeking permission to amend their original suits, and have filed proposed new claims with the Ontario Superior Court. Almalki plans to update his claim in coming days.

In interviews, El Maati and Nureddin stressed that while they're suing for monetary damages, a federal apology is crucial.

"The apology's very important for me, because without (an) apology the suspicion is still hanging over my head," said Nureddin, who fled Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime 15 years ago.

"We're living in Canada, a democratic society. We should see accountability."

Both El Maati and Nureddin say they have been shattered by their experiences, left physically and psychologically bruised, and unable to work due to the trauma. Even worse, they feel cut off from the world, having been ostracized by numerous friends and community members who fear any association will bring suspicion upon themselves.

El Maati, a former truck driver, was arrested in November 2001 upon flying to Syria to celebrate his wedding – nuptials that never took place.

"All my dreams were shattered," said El Maati, who lives with his mother in Toronto.

False confessions extracted under torture from El Maati were used to justify a telephone wiretap in Canada. After several weeks in Syria, he was flown to Egypt and further abused during two years of detention there.

His battered body has undergone several operations.

"I used to be someone who's very fit," he said. "And I used to like walking and hiking and stuff like that. Now I can't go for one block till I need to sit down and rest."

Nureddin, a Toronto geologist, was detained by Syrian officials in December 2003 as he crossed the border from Iraq, where he was visiting family. He was held for 34 days in Syria in late 2003 and early 2004.

Nureddin is now afraid to travel and wonders if he will ever again see his ill mother in Iraq.

Almalki, an Ottawa electronics engineer, was detained in Syria in 2002 and held for 22 months.

In their revised claims, El Maati and Nureddin allege that the government, knowing they could not be legally held or successfully prosecuted in Canada, facilitated their "arbitrary detention, torture, false imprisonment and assault and battery" overseas.

The claims against the government and various officials have not been tested in court.

After release of Iacobucci's report last fall, then-public safety minister Stockwell Day declined to comment on the prospect of compensation or apologies, noting civil suits were before the courts.

El Maati and several family members are suing the federal government for $100 million, while Nureddin and his family claim damages of $90 million.

The Commons public safety and national security committee plans hearings next month into the government response to the commission of inquiry into the cases of El Maati, Nureddin and Almalki.

MPs will also examine how the government handled recommendations of a 2006 inquiry report on the case of Maher Arar, another Arab-Canadian jailed and tortured in Syria.

The government apologized to Arar two years ago and paid him $10.5 million in compensation after he initially sued for $400 million, a figure later revised to $37 million.

bbbbaaaaahhhhhh....nothing else to really say!

it seems to me that they are just softening us for more military intervention in our society.....and what a grand way to spend my tax dollars!

Olympic security estimated to cost $900M

Last Updated: Thursday, February 19, 2009 | 4:09 PM PT Comments68Recommend23

CBC News

The Canadian Armed Forces will play a major role in security at the 2010 Winter Games in Vancouver and Whistler. (CBC)

The federal and provincial governments have revealed their revised estimates for 2010 Olympic Games security, now pegged at $900 million, or almost five times the amount initially estimated.

Under the new agreement, B.C.'s total contribution will be $252.5 million, which includes $165 million in new money that was announced Thursday.

The province's new funding will be go toward infrastructure and will involve capital spending spread over three years.

"This allows us to take what was going to be a pressure on our operating budget and cap it, so that we didn't have to divert dollars away from other programs in the province, such as health care and education, to live up to our Olympic security obligations," Colin Hansen, Minister Responsible for the Olympics, said Thursday.

The federal government announced in a news release that its total contribution will now be $647.5 million and also, that it will pay for any unforeseen costs that may arise.

"It would be nice if we could do it for less, but our approach has not been to set a budget and then deliver security for that budget," said Peter van Loan, the federal minister in charge of Olympic security.

The province initially estimated its contribution for providing security for the Games would be $87.5 million. As recently as last July, Hansen announced the entire security budget would be $175 million.

Subsequent estimates, including one from the federal government, suggested the entire cost of providing security for the Games could cost as much as $1 billion.

what'thefuck'ever!!!!!!!!!!

US/Canada Border Increasingly Militarized

Unmanned drone prowls over the lonely prairie

by Patrick White

WINNIPEG - Famed for prowling the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, a remote-control Predator aircraft took flight over the wheat fields of South Dakota yesterday, the first in a network of surveillance drones that could soon patrol the American border with Canada from Maine to Washington state.

The remote-control Predator aircraft will be confined to a 370-kilometre stretch along the Manitoba border for now. (Gerald Nino/U.S. Customs and Border Protection)

While security-conscious politicians applauded the start of Predator flight operations along the largely unmonitored northern border, some border experts regard it as a mere public-relations exercise.

"I think this has far more to do with the theatre of security than with dealing seriously about issues surrounding the northern border," said border security expert Ben Muller, a political science professor at Simon Fraser University.

For now, the South Dakota drone will be confined to a 370-kilometre stretch along the Manitoba border to test how it holds up to Prairie winters. By 2010, however, U.S. border officials hope to see the $10.5-million unmanned aircraft monitoring both sides of the B.C. border during the Winter Olympics.

"If the RCMP or Canadian government believes they can make use of the aircraft for support during the Olympics, we will be more than willing to provide it," said Juan Munoz-Torres, spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Already the agency has established five bases to act as launch sites for the drones in Bellingham, Wash., Great Falls, Mont., Grand Forks, N.D., Detroit and Plattsburgh, N.Y.

The plan, called the Northern Border Air Wing, is a holdover from the 9/11 Commission Report, which recommended that the United States shore up security along borders with Mexico and Canada.

"It seems a palliative measure," said Michael Kergin, chairman of the Canadian International Council working group on border issues and a former ambassador to the United States, "but it does provide them with some assurances."

Five Predator drones currently patrol the Mexican border, and border officials give the aircraft partial credit for stopping more than 4,000 illegal immigrants and 8,000 kilograms of marijuana from crossing the southern boundary.

With a range of 5,900 kilometres and a maximum speed of more than 450 km/h, a single Predator will be capable of scouring a vast portion of the 9,000-km Canada-U.S. border. Sensors fastened to the plane's belly will take both infrared and HD video of anything within a 40-km radius.

Flight restrictions prevent the drone from flying any closer than 16 km to the Canadian border. That still leaves a roughly 24-km swath of Canadian borderland open to U.S. government eyes.

"There is no reason for Canadians to be concerned about this," Mr. Munoz-Torres said. "This is a military weapon adopted for civilian purposes."

But that relationship to bomb-ready military hardware is too close for some, who say the Predator challenges the border's distinction as the longest undefended border in the world.

"Post-9/11, there has been a significant militarization of the border," Dr. Muller said. "This certainly fits in with that."

More than a public-safety measure, the drone buzzing 20,000 feet over the prairies represents the clout of certain American political constituencies, Dr. Muller says.

"There has been a lot political pressure suggesting that these technological solutions will fix the security problem," he said. "They have this idea that if it's watched, we're all safer, but I'm very skeptical. They are the same people rolling out over and over again these examples that supposedly prove Canada is a terrorist hotbed."

Senators Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota have applied much of that political pressure.

Both have been instrumental in attracting federal funding for the Northern Border Air Wing by highlighting drug-trafficking and terrorism problems along the northern border.

"It is vital to America's security that we protect our borders, particularly the northern border," said Mr. Conrad upon the drone's arrival in Grand Forks. "The Grand Forks Air Branch plays an essential role in helping shut the door on terrorists who want to sneak across remote border points to strike on U.S. soil."

Their efforts to draw political attention to northern border security issues may eventually result in 20 unmanned air vehicles, or UAVs, being housed at the Grand Forks base.

And plans are under way to create an unmanned aircraft program at the University of North Dakota.

For the most part, the RCMP is on board with the U.S plan to secure the border using drones. Some officers even attended a ribbon-cutting ceremony in Grand Forks on Sunday.

The plan fits a larger North American strategy to scrutinize the border without bogging down crossing times.

"It's a technology that's not intrusive and is relatively user-friendly," Mr. Kergin said. "I would argue that it's a useful tool."

all right you goddamn sneaky manitobans, we're onto ya!

U.S. set to launch unmanned aerial drones to monitor Manitoba border

Last Updated: Monday, February 16, 2009 | 9:40 AM CT Comments51Recommend26

CBC News

Unmanned aerial vehicles will start patrolling the border between Manitoba and its southern American neighbours, North Dakota and Minnesota, on Monday. (Gerald L. Nino/U.S. Customs and Border Protection)

The first unmanned surveillance airplanes will start patrolling the Manitoba portion of Canada's border with the U.S. after a ceremonial launch Monday, officials say.

Based at a military facility in Grand Forks, N.D., the $10-million Predator drone aircraft are equipped with sensors capable of detecting a moving person from 10 kilometres away.

They will gather information as they fly along the 400-kilometre border and then transmit it back to operators who will in turn contact border agents. The drones will not carry weapons, such as missiles or laser-guided bombs, and will need permission to fly in Canadian airspace.

Manitoba has 12 official border crossings — only two are open 24 hours a day. Much of the land in between the crossings is either swampland, lakes or farmers' fields.

RCMP Staff Sgt. Ron Obodzinski said the new surveillance planes will be a big help in the fight against the smuggling of drugs, alcohol and people.

"The program is going to enhance our relationship between our American partners and the Canadian agencies," he said.

U.S. border protection official Michael Kostelnik said that in these "dangerous times," it's more important than ever for both countries to know who and what is crossing the border.

"There are vast parts of the border where, on any given day, we're not sure what's going on so part of this is to try to deal with the unknown and not be surprised," Kostelnik said.

Monday's drone launch comes a day before Janet Napolitano, the new secretary of U.S. Homeland Security, is to get a review of the security efforts along the Canadian-American border, and just three days before U.S. President Barack Obama's first visit to Canada.

we have to stop gangs from becoming even stronger

Prohibition benefits Vancouver gangs

By Carlito Pablo

A retired judge has doubts about whether Premier Gordon Campbell’s response to the recent upsurge in gang-related shootings in the Lower Mainland will quell organized-crime-related violence in the long term.

Jerry Paradis, who was a provincial court judge for 28 years until he retired in 2003, said that putting more police officers on the ground won’t lessen the danger to ordinary citizens, who are at risk of getting caught in the crossfire.

“The police will be unaware of when the next explosion will happen,” Paradis told the Georgia Straight in a phone interview from his North Vancouver residence. “They don’t know about them [shootings] until they happen.”

Paradis is a board member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a Massachusetts-based group composed of current and former members of the police and justice communities who are critical of current drug policies around the world.

“I’m satisfied in my own mind that although organized crime is involved in other things at the moment, while this particular or several gang wars may be due to other things that I’m not aware of, I have no doubt in my mind that it’s [an] attempt to either get status or maintain status in the drug market and protect turf,” he said.

In Canada, drug laws are a federal matter. Judging by pronouncements from Campbell and Attorney General Wally Oppal, it seems the province will be seeking federal help with this problem, but only in terms of expanding legal provisions for wiretapping, and toughening laws for bail and criminal sentencing.

The experience of the United States with outlawing alcohol in the 1920s and early 1930s is instructive, according to Paradis. Criminal organizations proliferated and made huge amounts of money from the illegal-alcohol market. With this came gang rivalries and violence. When Prohibition ended in 1933, Paradis stressed, the widespread gang violence disappeared almost overnight.

According to Paradis, “The same thing happens here, and until we legalize and regulate drugs—all drugs, but at least we can start with marijuana; that’s the one that’s got the most demand and therefore needs the most supply, and therefore is the most lucrative to get involved with—until we do that, it’s just not going to get better, no matter how many cops we put on the street or how much money we throw at the problem.”

Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, which is chaired by RCMP Commissioner William Elliott, has noted that B.C.’s Lower Mainland, Southern Ontario, and the Greater Montreal region are the country’s organized-crime centres.

“The illicit drug market remains the largest criminal market in terms of extent, scope, and the degree of involvement by the majority of organized crime groups,” CISC stated in its 2008 annual report on organized crime.

The report also noted that marijuana “remains one of the most trafficked illicit drugs in Canada, with extensive organized crime involvement at all levels of production, distribution and exportation”.

A 2006 drug situation report by the RCMP estimated annual cannabis production in Canada at 1,399 to 3,498 tonnes and said it “continues to be predominant in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec”.

In 2002, the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs released a report noting that the criminalization of marijuana has seen the “power and wealth of organized crime enhanced as criminals benefit from prohibition; and governments see their ability to prevent at-risk use diminished”.

Paradis said that the value of drugs on the street is grossly out 
of proportion to the real cost of production. He noted that a single shot of cocaine should cost about $3.50, with a “reasonable” return to the producer. He said that, in fact, it’s sold on the black market for about 10 times that price.

“As soon as you decriminalize, it becomes something like alcohol, which the provinces are in charge of,” Paradis said. “I see no reason why it shouldn’t be exactly the same as the liquor stores. The only difference would be—and I think it should be this way with liquor as well—there would be no marketing, no advertising, no promotion, zero.

“We managed to price alcohol in such a way, in a variety of alcohols, that people who are addicted to alcohol but have little funds don’t steal to get what they want,” he added.

back when i was a princess....

more news about stephen harper and ex pm brian mulroney

Schreiber wins expanded role at Mulroney probe

Updated Thu. Feb. 12 2009 9:22 AM ET

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- Karlheinz Schreiber will have a legal say not only on his business dealings with Brian Mulroney, but also on potential ethical reforms that could guide federal politicians in future.

Justice Jeffrey Oliphant, in a ruling made public Wednesday, granted Schreiber full standing to participate, through his lawyers, in wide-ranging policy deliberations to be held by a public inquiry.

Schreiber is "intimately involved in almost all, if not all, of the matters covered by the mandate of the commission," wrote the judge.

As such he is likely to be "substantially and directly affected" by any policy recommendations arising from the investigation. And although he may not have any professional expertise on ethical issues, "he does have a particular perspective that may assist me," said Oliphant.

That's especially true, he added, of matters related to the handling of correspondence by the Prime Minister's Office.

Schreiber has said he wrote to Stephen Harper last year outlining his complaints against Mulroney. Harper has said the letter was never passed on to him by federal officials.

The German-Canadian arms dealer already had legal standing for the fact-finding portion of the inquiry, meaning his lawyers can make submissions, cross-examine witnesses, propose witnesses of their own and otherwise fully participate in proceedings.

Schreiber applied last month for similar status in the broader policy deliberations - unlike Mulroney who has shown no interest in participating in that part of the inquiry.

In other rulings, Oliphant also granted standing for the policy review to the federal Justice Department and to Democracy Watch, a group that has long campaigned for improved ethics in government.

Duff Conacher, head of the group, welcomed the decision and said Democracy Watch can provide an independent voice that might otherwise have gone unheard.

"Every government since the (ethics) rules were created has ignored them or played around with weak enforcement measures," said Conacher.

"We want to make sure the commissioner knows all of the loopholes that exist that need to be closed."

Oliphant, appointed by Harper to get to the bottom of the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, is expected to hear his first witnesses in late March. A final report isn't due until the end of the year.

Mulroney has admitted he accepted $225,000 from Schreiber after he stepped down as Conservative prime minister in 1993 to promote the building of German-designed light-armoured vehicles in Canada.

He says he tried to line up support among foreign political leaders whose countries might buy the vehicles.

Schreiber says the deal was struck before Mulroney left office although the cash didn't change hands until later. He also claims the payments totalled $300,000 and that Mulroney was supposed to lobby the Canadian government, not foreign leaders.

Schreiber faces charges of tax evasion, fraud and bribery in Germany and has been fighting extradition for years. Justice Minister Rob Nicholson ruled last year he could stay in Canada long enough to participate in the inquiry.

it's interesting to see this get dropped so close to the court date? oh steven harper..

Harper dropped lawsuit ahead of key hearing

Updated Tue. Feb. 10 2009 7:19 AM ET

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- Stephen Harper dropped his lawsuit against the Liberals in the Cadman affair just weeks before a hearing on whether his emails, notes and agenda could be called into evidence.

A court date was to be scheduled this month over the failure of the prime minister's legal team to provide documents and answers to questions that had been requested during a series of cross-examinations last summer.

The lawyer for the Liberal party was set to ask the court to rule whether Harper would have to provide emails and notes for meetings his staff held related to Chuck Cadman.

The matter involves allegations that the Conservatives offered a financial inducement to Cadman, an Independent MP, while trying to defeat the minority Liberal government in 2005. The Tories deny the charge.

The prime minister dropped his $3.5-million defamation lawsuit on Friday after reaching a deal with the Liberals.

Sources say the Liberal party is not obligated to pay any damages or apologize for claims on its website that Harper was aware Tory officials offered Cadman - who was dying - a $1-million insurance policy if he sided with them in a Commons budget vote.

Despite the refusal of either side to comment about their agreement to dismiss the case, records show a legal fight was brewing over the documents and other information Liberal lawyer Chris Paliare had requested.

Hearings were expected to begin this month over Harper's failure to have his lawyers respond to Paliare's request for documents and information from the prime minister's office.

In a series of cross-examinations last summer, Paliare requested copies of Harper's agenda for the day he was interviewed by B.C. journalist Tom Zytaruk, who reported the life-insurance allegations in a biography of Cadman.

Paliare had also asked for copies of Cadman's journals and diaries for the period of time during which the financial inducement allegedly took place.

Harper lawyer Richard Dearden abruptly quit last November, to be replaced by Toronto lawyer David Wingfield, after the initial stages of the Liberal efforts to obtain the documents and information began.

Dearden gave no explanation for his departure, and court notices of the lawyer swap do not indicate whether it was at Harper's wish or Dearden's.

During the examination of Harper last August, Dearden objected to Paliare's request for an email said to discuss a meeting between Cadman and two Conservatives the day of the confidence vote in 2005.

Other documents Paliare requested during his cross-examination of Harper included the notes of "all the people" who attended meetings in the prime minister's office in late February when the allegations were first reported.

Harper's lawsuit prevented the Liberals from exploiting the allegations during the federal election last fall.

Tom Conway, a prominent Ottawa lawyer who represented a former Tory member who sued Harper, said the looming court fight over access to emails and notes may have been behind Harper's decision to abandon the lawsuit.

"People drop lawsuits for all sorts of reason and sometimes they drop lawsuits because they are being asked to produce information they don't want to produce," said Conway, a member of the board of the Law Society of Upper Canada.

The NDP is calling on both parties to disclose the terms of their deal.

"Now it just sort of disappears from the radar because of this closed-door agreement?" said Vancouver MP Bill Siksay. "I don't think that's acceptable."

our gov is pretty powerless to other influence.

Scaling wall over Canada's trade complaint against China

 Email story

 Print

   Choose text size

 Report typo or correction

 Email the author

 

Feb 09, 2009 04:30 AM

Comments on this story  (8)

MICHAEL GEIST 

Late last month, the World Trade Organization released a much-anticipated decision involving a U.S.-led complaint against China over its intellectual property laws. Canada was among a number of countries that participated in the case, which alleged that China's domestic laws, border measures and criminal penalties for intellectual property violations do not comply with its international treaty obligations.

On April 25, 2007, David Emerson, then the Minister of International Trade, issued a press release announcing Canada's participation, stating that it was "based on concerns expressed by Canadian stakeholders on a range of issues related to China's intellectual property rights regime."

Yet, according to dozens of internal Canadian government documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, Canadian officials, unable to amass credible evidence of harm to Canadian interests, harboured significant doubts about the wisdom of joining the case and ultimately did so only under the weight of great pressure from the United States.

The case centred on three claims:

• That Chinese law does not provide adequate legal protection to all works;
• That its border measures, which allow customs officials to donate confiscated items to the Red Cross, violate international trade law;
• That Chinese criminal enforcement does not live up to international standards by establishing a minimum threshold before authorities are able to prosecute cases of infringement.

Canada supported the U.S. position on all three issues.

The WTO panel confirmed the U.S. claims on legal protection for all works, but virtually all of the Chinese border measures were upheld as lawful. Moreover, the panel rejected claims regarding the criminal thresholds, admonishing the U.S. for failing to provide adequate evidence to demonstrate a violation of China's treaty obligations.

The panel's emphasis on the lack of evidence should resonate with Canadian officials, since documents indicate that the inability to gather solid evidence of Canadian harm in China hampered the case from its very inception.

Government records reveal that the U.S. began to pressure Canada to join the case as a full party in 2006, months before the case was formally filed with the WTO. In April 2006, officials at the Department of Foreign Affairs asked the Beijing and Shanghai consular offices for information on intellectual property infringement problems, but neither provided much assistance.

Two months later, with the case making little progress (in May, an RCMP official wondered aloud why Canada was even concerned with enforcement in other countries), Foreign Affairs launched a public consultation on intellectual property enforcement abroad. The consultation was not limited to China, as officials decided to keep it open-ended.

The consultation generated 55 responses, but officials, hoping to build a solid case against China, were left sorely disappointed. According to a government summary (the consultation results have never been disclosed to the public and were obtained under Access to Information), only one-third of the responses specifically referenced China as a problem. In fact, there were more responses that criticized the United States and the consultation itself.

By the end of the summer, the U.S. had provided Canadian officials with its legal arguments, but Canada was without the evidence it needed to demonstrate harm and thereby participate as a co-complainant in the case.

Indeed, on the key issue involving criminal enforcement thresholds, a Department of Justice official noted Justice and RCMP guidelines used similar thresholds for prosecutorial decisions, and that the Chinese could effectively make similar claims against Canada.

Given the weak position, Canadian officials could not support becoming a co-complainant, instead recommending that Canada join as a third party. Anticipating an October 2006 complaint, a press release was prepared but never issued after the U.S. decided to delay launching the case.

With no complaint in sight, the Canadian Recording Industry Association, which had been the most vocal supporter of Canadian participation, met with senior Foreign Affairs officials in January 2007. Documents prepared by department officials in advance of the meeting noted that CRIA's previous efforts to encourage participation had "lacked specifics."

The memo concluded that "we remain of the view that we do not have enough information related to specific Canadian experiences and interests to go forward as a co-complainant" and that "there is still no real concrete information, however, of Canadian interests that have been harmed in China."

Over the next few months, Canadian officials grappled with several concerns as a U.S. complaint appeared inevitable. For example, with plans for Canada to participate in the intellectual property case against China but not in a second case on market access, officials feared that the Canadian steel industry would voice its objections.

Further, as Canadian officials drafted a formal letter of notification of its participation, a Geneva-based official asked "do we have statistics to mention about intellectual property owned by Canadians sold in China or something like it to explain why we are interested?"

Without solid statistics, the formal notification did not reference the issue, instead merely stating Canada's "concern" with Chinese practices.

The U.S. commenced its action on April 9, 2007. Canada filed its notification as a third-party participant two weeks later and within hours, CRIA wrote to Foreign Affairs to offer its assistance on the case.

Nearly three years after Canada began exploring its potential participation, the case has led to a double loss for Canadian interests. Not only has the WTO panel rejected most of its key arguments, but Canada's politically motivated participation has undermined its relationship with China. 

oh stephen....you are a shady one! my prime minister....sigh

Why didn't Stephen Harper sue Chuck Cadman's biographer, Tom Zytaruk?

By Charlie Smith

I never thought that Stephen Harper’s lawsuit against the federal Liberals was anything but an attempt to get the media to stop reporting on the Conservative party’s conduct before a 2005 budget vote.

Yesterday’s news that the case has been dropped suggests that Harper really didn’t want to hear what a judge might say about his unproven allegation about Surrey reporter Tom Zytaruk.

The pro-Harper news media routinely portray the prime minister as a man of integrity.

This nasty business involving the taped interview got in the way of that storyline. In the same way, his failure to keep promises about his so-called accountability legislation reinforces Opposition claims that Harper can’t be trusted.

Here’s the story in a nutshell: Zytaruk, who wrote a biography of former MP Chuck Cadman, included an astonishing revelation from Cadman’s wife Dona.

She said that her husband, who died in 2005, told her he was offered a $1-million life insurance policy if he voted with the Conservatives against the 2005 budget.

Cadman voted with the Liberals, and said he wasn’t offered anything to do this.

Zytaruk also quoted Harper, then Opposition leader, saying he knew there were discussions.

After the book was released last year, the federal Liberals posted a statement on their Web site claiming that the Conservatives had offered a bribe to Cadman. Harper went ballistic (yes, the man has a temper) and sued.

His local henchman, Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam MP James Moore, led the attack on the Liberals and the veracity of the tape.

Harper also claimed that Zytaruk's tape was doctored. However, a court-ordered analysis suggested there was no tampering in the section in question.

Harper never sued Zytaruk. The prime minister only filed an action against the federal Liberals.

It would have been a shocking act of mendacity for Zytaruk to do something like this, considering that it could conceivably cost Harper his job as prime minister.

If Harper truly wanted to clear his name, why didn’t he include the Surrey reporter as a defendant?

Could it be because Zytaruk might have turned around and filed a counterclaim, which would elevate the risk of a judge nailing Harper for not telling the truth with his allegation of a doctored tape?

We’ll never know because this case has been dropped and Zytaruk was never named as a defendant.

Let’s hope the public doesn’t forget this the next time national columnists suggest with a straight face that Harper’s trump card is his integrity.

As with his failure to keep his promises with his accountability legislation, Harper also didn't demonstrate the most savoury character in this instance.

If he really wanted to clear his name, he would have sued Zytaruk. But instead of doing this, Harper only sued the federal Liberals.

Draw your own conclusions.

Miriam Makeba - The Click Song

i wish that this incredible lady was still alive.....