Canadian news media less free

By Steve Rennie, The Canadian Press

OTTAWA - The news media got a little less free in Canada this year, says a watchdog group in its annual ranking of press freedom worldwide.

Canada fell to 19th place this year from 13th last year on Reporters Without Borders' index of freedom of the press. The analysis covers print, broadcast and online journalism in 175 countries.

The Paris-based group, also known by its French acronym RSF, says court challenges to journalists' rights to protect their sources precipitated Canada's drop six spots from last year's ranking.

Lawsuits intended to silence critics under the weight of the hefty cost of a legal defence - known as strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP suits - also factored into the drop, said Dennis Trudeau, a spokesman for Reporters Without Borders' Canadian chapter.

"There are issues like real protection of sources," he said.

"Where a reporter could theoretically face jail or a fine for not revealing his sources is in our view, especially when we're dealing with public issues, a unreasonable restriction on freedom of the press."

Earlier this year, Canada's top court agreed to take on a press freedom case involving the sponsorship scandal.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear the Globe and Mail's challenge of a gag order that barred it from reporting settlement talks between Ottawa and a Quebec advertising firm.

The top court has already agreed to hear a separate challenge of the Quebec Superior Court's attempt to force Globe and Mail reporter Daniel Leblanc - who broke many of the scandal's first stories - to reveal his sources.

Chris Waddell, a journalism professor at Carleton University, says another issue of news media freedom that comes to mind is the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which has come under fire recently over a couple of high-profile cases.

One of those cases involved a Mark Steyn book excerpt on the Maclean's magazine website. The excerpt was accused of promoting hatred and contempt of Muslims.

That case was tossed out, but led some to demand that the commission be disbanded.

Moreover, many Canadian journalists complain the country's freedom-of-information legislation lacks teeth.

The Access to Information Act allows people who pay $5 to request files held by the federal government.

The law requires a response within 30 days, though departments can take extensions under certain conditions. But delays of 120 days or longer are common, and even then the government frequently misses its own deadlines.

The Harper government recently nixed recommendations to expand and modernize Canada's access-to-information and privacy laws.

A House of Commons committee had recommended, among other things, that the information commissioner be given more power to force the government to disclose information in a timely manner.

But Justice Minister Rob Nicholson quietly rejected the proposed reforms as too cumbersome, unnecessary or ill-considered.

Mary Agnes Welch, president of the Canadian Association of Journalists, says reporters all over the country are having trouble prying even the most basic information from the federal government.

She says it takes departments days to answer routine questions, and even then replies often come in the form of email talking points.

"The amount of information flowing out of Ottawa has come to a trickle," Welch said.

A spokesman for the Prime Minister's Office did not directly answer questions about Canada's drop on the Reporters Without Borders' list.

"Canada's is a great democracy where freedom of the press is a fundamental part of our society," Dimitri Soudas said in an email.

The top three spots on Reporters Without Borders' list went to Denmark, Finland and Ireland, while Eritrea, North Korea and Turkmenistan rounded out the bottom three.

The United States rose to No. 20 this year from No. 40 in last year's ranking, which the group attributes to more relaxed attitudes toward the media under U.S. President Barack Obama.

The group compiles the list based on questionnaires completed by journalists and media experts around the world, as well as data on attacks, arrests, laws and overt or covert censorship.

From the ChronicalHerald

Spreading the wealth unevenly

Nova Scotia’s three Tory ridings getting more stimulus cash than the other eight put together

By STEPHEN MAHER Ottawa Bureau

Tue. Oct 13 - 4:45 AM

OTTAWA — Nova Scotians in Conservative ridings should be feeling a little action in their economic plan by now, because an analysis of federal stimulus spending in the province shows blue ridings are awash in pork.In fact, more money — $162 million — is being spent in those three Tory ridings than in Nova Scotia’s other eight ridings put together.

» DETAILS: Click here for a complete list of where exactly the money is going (EXCEL spreadsheet)

Defence Minister Peter MacKay’s riding of Central Nova is the big winner, with $87.7 million in stimulus money, 13 times as much as the $6.6 million being spent in Dartmouth, held by a Liberal. In fact, Mr. MacKay’s riding received more money than all five Liberal ridings in the province combined.

After Central Nova comes NDP Halifax, which benefited from university infrastructure spending, then two more Conservative ridings: West Nova, where the feds are spending $41.1 million, and South Shore-St. Margarets, with $33.4 million.

The analysis by The Chronicle Herald supports the conclusions reached by a federal Liberal party report, which found that Conservative ridings across the country have been getting more federal economic stimulus funding than opposition-held ridings have.

Transport and Infrastructure Minister John Baird has rejected the Liberal analysis.

"The Liberals . . . are up to political mischief," he recently told the National Post. "I think any fair examination of all our infrastructure programs will show they’re pretty fairly distributed."

In Nova Scotia, though, the projects announced so far do not appear to be fairly distributed.

If the $322 million in federal stimulus funding so far announced were divided evenly among Nova Scotia’s 11 federal ridings, each riding would get $29 million. Central Nova is receiving about three times that much, while Dartmouth has received only a fourth of that amount.

Most of the stimulus money was negotiated between the Harper government and the provincial government of former premier Rodney MacDonald. The metro Halifax ridings — which lacked Conservative representation at either the federal or provincial level — got the smallest amounts of money, except for Halifax, which benefited from university infrastructure spending.

Much of the money for Central Nova is in the form of two highway bypasses at Antigonish, for a total of $45 million — projects that will benefit the whole province, according to Dan Dugas, a spokesman for Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Dugas pointed out that the federal funding is not decided only by the feds.

"There are three levels of government involved in the selection and the funding, so there are three levels of accountability," he said.

He also pointed out that the final numbers may paint a different picture than this database does.

"When you look at figures out of context, you paint a picture that isn’t complete," he said.

One federal Liberal riding that did well is Sydney-Victoria, which got $30 million. Liberals note, however, that much of that money went into the provincial riding of Cape Breton North, held by Progressive Conservative MLA Cecil Clarke.

New Democrat MP Peter Stoffer, whose Sackville-Eastern Shore riding received only $8 million, said the numbers show the federal Tories are spending money to look after their political interests.

"It appears that Conservatives looked after themselves first and everyone else second," he said. "This is understandable in pork-barrel politics. They would be screaming and yelling if the situation were reversed, if the Liberals or New Democrats had done that."

Things would have been better if the stimulus had been handed directly to municipalities using the gas-tax formula, said Sydney-Victoria MP Mark Eyking.

"It could have been rolled out quicker," the Liberal said. "It could have been rolled out fairer, and I think the accountability, they didn’t have to reinvent the wheel. They could have just taken a page from the U.S. book."

The final accounting will show that the money was handed out fairly, said Chris Day, a spokesman for Mr. Baird.

"We’re quite confident that, when judged on the totality of our infrastructure investments, each region will get its fair share," he said Monday. "Bottom line is: three levels of government are involved in selecting and funding projects. That’s three levels of accountability to taxpayers."

The independent parliamentary budget officer and opposition politicians have complained that the federal government has made it difficult to figure out where the stimulus money is going, in contrast to the United States, where details of all the spending are available online.

The main federal website tracking the spending — actionplan.gc.ca — has a map of the country with icons showing projects but no details about the amount of spending or the schedule.

Several weeks ago, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told a reporter at a news conference in Oakville, Ont., that he could produce a list of projects across the country. Despite repeated requests from The Chronicle Herald, the prime minister’s office has yet to produce such a list.

The Chronicle Herald compiled a database of federal stimulus projects using several lists on the federal government’s Building Canada website. The longest list — Nova Scotia Infrastructure Initiatives — is missing the dollar amount for many of the projects, so the newspaper acquired them from the provincial and municipal governments.

The paper also included all projects that aren’t on the lists but have been the subject of news releases under the federal government’s Economic Action Plan — for example, $10.3 million in federal funding for the Lunenburg County Lifestyle Centre, a new recreation centre planned for Bridgewater, in Conservative MP Gerald Keddy’s riding of South Shore-St. Margarets.

Two large funding commitments in Tory ridings weren’t added to the list because they were not made under the Economic Action Plan. They are $66 million in funding for CFB Greenwood, including a new recreation centre, in Conservative MP Greg Kerr’s riding of West Nova, and $12 million for a new recreation centre in Pictou County, in Mr. MacKay’s riding.

Mr. MacKay announced the sports centre in Pictou County in March, although the municipalities in the region had not agreed to provide their share of the funding.

"Making a difference at home is the reason I ran for public office," said the release from Mr. MacKay. "That’s why it gave me great pleasure to announce $12 million on behalf of the Government of Canada for the Pictou County Wellness Centre."

The release does not state under which federal program the recreation centre will be funded, which is unusual.

Several similar projects in opposition-held ridings have been unable to get federal money even though they, unlike the Pictou County centre, have firm funding commitments from the provincial and municipal governments.

In Halifax Regional Municipality, for instance, the federal government refused to provide funding for a new four-rink complex for Bedford, amid rumours of backroom manoeuvring by local Tories who support a rival project.

A Colchester County recreation centre has funding commitments from the province, the county and the town of Truro, but the federal government has yet to offer any money, although Mr. MacKay signalled during the provincial election that money would eventually be forthcoming.

A federal byelection in the riding of Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley is to be held Nov. 9, and Ottawa can’t deliver a funding commitment until the campaign is over. The traditionally Conservative riding was held by Bill Casey, who defied Mr. Harper over the Atlantic accord and then sat as an Independent. He resigned in April to become Nova Scotia’s representative in Ottawa.

Greg MacArthur, Truro’s deputy mayor, said he expects a cheque from Ottawa after the byelection, as Mr. MacKay has indicated the rec centre project will get federal support.

"I said that Mr. MacKay is not going to lie to 50,000 people," Mr. MacArthur said. "He’s an honest man and he’ll show up with the funding."

WHERE THE MONEY IS GOING

Federal stimulus spending, by riding:

Conservative ridings

Central Nova: 32 projects, $87,702,343

South Shore-St. Margarets: 39 projects, $33,493,446

West Nova: 42 projects, $41,162,998

Total: $162,358,787

Liberal ridings

Cape Breton-Canso: 24 projects, $18,771,176

Halifax West: 6 projects, $7,992,432

Kings-Hants: 19 projects, $15,653,857

Sydney-Victoria: 35 projects, $33,267,380.67

Dartmouth: 7 projects, $6,646,292

Total: $82,331,137.67

NDP ridings

Halifax: 12 projects, $45,008,653.33

Sackville-Eastern Shore: 7 projects, $8,050,735

Total: 53,059,388.33

Independent ridings

Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley: 30 projects, $24,746,730

Total of all spending: $322,496,043

Sources: The following online lists of federal program spending — Nova Scotia Infrastructure Initiatives, Recreational Infrastructure Canada Program, Community Adjustment Fund, Knowledge Infrastructure Program, 2009 Government of Canada Economic Action Plan news releases.

Gun Control Canadian style!

Ottawa giving up millions in gun registry fees

Last Updated: Monday, October 5, 2009 | 6:15 PM ET Comments368Recommend74

Alison Crawford, CBC News

The Conservative government is relinquishing millions of dollars in gun registry and licensing fees at a time when the government is running record budget deficits.

Documents obtained by CBC News under access to information show the federal government's decision to waive fees for people licensing their firearms will cost more than $15 million this year alone. Should the fee waiver be extended for another three years, internal forecasts predict an additional $60 million in "projected lost revenue."

The Conservatives started granting amnesty to gun owners in 2006 — neither forcing new owners to register rifles and other long guns, nor collecting fees from those who already had. It also waived fees for licence renewals. The amnesty has been extended twice more since then.

Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan didn't dispute the amounts cited in the documents, but he insisted no money is being lost.

"Federal budgets have committed funding to offset the cost of this waiver to the RCMP," he said in a statement emailed to the CBC.

The statement also said that statistics compiled by the Canadian Firearms Centre, "indicate that compliance with the requirement for Canadians to register as a firearms owner has increased throughout the extended waiver period."

A spokesperson for Van Loan, responding to requests for more detailed information, said that between 2006 and 2008, the renewal rate of possession-only licences increased to 65 per cent from 50 per cent.

Those numbers, however, appear to be at odds with statistics produced by public servants at the Department of Public Safety, which show a downward trend in licence renewals.

In February 2008, Lyndon Murdock, the director of firearms and operational policing policy at Public Safety, emailed his director general Mark Potter. The message said, "Data does not tell compelling story re: effectiveness of measures vis-a-vis promotion of compliance."

The department refused CBC's requests to speak with Murdock.

That's not the only discrepancy.

Scott McDougall, the director of strategic policy and planning at the Canadian Firearms Centre, also wrote an internal memo in February 2008 stating that 95,000 people had not renewed their firearms licences but still appeared to have guns in their possession.

Lot of confusion

Last week when CBC asked for more up-to-date information, the RCMP reported that 138,000 have let their possession-only licences expire. Of those, 70,000 are people who moved and never provided the centre with a new address. The Mounties say 1.9 million Canadians own guns.

Toronto Police chief Bill Blair said that among gun owners, there is "a great deal of confusion about a number of amnesties that have been announced by the federal government."

Blair, who also heads up the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, pointed to Project Safe City in Toronto, where officers physically show up to check in on known gun owners.

"We have been going to people's homes where we know that they were previously in possession of firearms that were registered that they failed to re-register and we're finding not only those weapons but additional weapons that people have acquired as well and failed to register," Blair said. "And so I think the amnesties have even caused some confusion among gun owners."

The Liberal Party's public safety critic Mark Holland agreed.

"If people are told that there is no consequence for not licensing their weapon, it's no surprise that they don't. And these facts bear that out. When they're told that there's no impact for them to ignore it, then they're going to ignore it."

As for the fee waivers, Blair said the lost revenue "just adds to the burden that Canadians are going to have to pay eventually to get this caught up when we restore the requirement that these weapons get properly registered. And we're very hopeful that that will take place."

Very nice solution

The University of Lethbridge political science professor Peter McCormick said that's unlikely to happen any time soon. By extending the amnesty year after year, he said, the Conservatives are deftly handling a hot-button issue.

McCormick said the strategy allows the government to pacify rural and western voters who oppose the registry as well as urban Canadians who support it.

"Elegant is too nice a word, but this is actually for the government a very nice solution," he said.

"You can keep saying to the westerners, we're amnestying, we're doing what we can. And everyone goes off saying, yeah, yeah and they're nodding their heads and they're happy. Not a bad package for the government."

The balancing act may cost millions, but the political payback is worth it, McCormick added.

"Amnestying fees is not the same thing as abolishing the registry. It's hard for the Opposition to get traction on it. And sure, it costs, what, $10, $15 million dollars a year in forgone revenue for the government, but we're talking $50 billion deficits these days. What's $15 million among friends? For the government, I think it's quite a bargain."

controversial truth!

This article was highly controversial with people from both side of th political spectrum . but upon further verifications, I found everything mister Martins says to be true.

Lawrence Martin

Why the Harper government flunks the Reagan litmus test

Lawrence Martin

Last updated on Saturday, Sep. 19, 2009 03:07AM EDT

The maestro is at it again. Stephen Harper controls the political universe. His opponents make a lot of noise, but down deep, they're timorous. His stock rises, theirs falls.

He forced an election last fall without a compelling reason. He said his legislative program was being blocked when it wasn't. He unfixed his fixed election date. Now, when the popgun shooters on the Liberal benches want to bring on an election, Mr. Harper, with a straight face, flattens them with shame. They don't have a good reason, he says. It being Ottawa, hypocrisy's hometown, no one even burps.

The PM caves on employment insurance, doing stuff he said he'd never do. But he wins the spin game. Headlines suggest his opponents have fallen victim to his sorcery, as they have so many other times. Threatened by the notion of a coalition, Mr. Harper has turned the public perception of a coalition government – routine in other countries – into some kind of rare disease. Michael Ignatieff dare not mention it. Nor, despite the growing deficit, dare he mention new taxes. While planning to raise EI premiums, the PM has cast tax hikes into something worse than scurvy.

He lords over all. It's a jaw-dropping performance. It's as if he's bulletproof when, in fact, he's highly vulnerable.

Vulnerable? There's a wonderful litmus-test question once posed by Ronald Reagan. In campaigning against Jimmy Carter, the Gipper famously askedwhether the country was better off than it had been four years earlier. If the Harper foes put forward that query, they might find more appetite for going to the polls.

Our economy was quite splendid four years ago, just humming along. It staggers now. Owing to the global recession, unemployment nears double digits. The deficit gathers at an alarming rate, moving toward record levels.

On trade, our exports to the United States have declined over the past four years. Instead of pursuing alternative markets, the government, in the grip of old-think, dithered. Only now is it waking up to Asian opportunities.

On the Afghan war, the Conservatives saw promise four years back. Gung-ho on the mission, Mr. Harper forced a quick vote for its extension. His optimism was misguided. Today, more than 100 deaths later, the inferno worsens. Our withdrawal is planned.

There's the environment. A breakthrough has seen the Conservatives progress from climate-change deniers to climate-change dawdlers. Instead of having Canada take a lead on the international stage, it plays a wait-and-see game.

Four years ago, the Tories made high-sounding promises on democratic reform and transparency. Today, Mr. Harper runs one of the most overcentralized command centres the country has ever seen. On matters too many to mention, his cynical government has seized the moral low ground.

On health care, there's been little progress of note. There's no national energy policy, despite the projected shortages of natural gas. There's no overarching ambition for this country, period.

There've been some accomplishments: a revitalized military, a higher profile for Arctic sovereignty, anti-crime measures and, by way of the PM's brilliant stroke on nation status for the Québécois, some progress on national unity.

The Conservatives should neither be blamed for starting this recession nor credited with ending it. Economic tides from afar were, and remain, the decisive influences. The Tories' stimulus spending will help the recovery, but the outlays were opposition-induced. Their economic forecasts have been repeatedly cockeyed and embarrassing. Because of their prerecession profligate spending and their slicing of major revenue providers such as the GST, the Conservatives bear a goodly part of the responsibility for what could very well become a structural deficit.

The record leaves ample ammunition, but the Liberals have allowed Mr. Harper to frame the debate. Smartly, he has made the opposition the issue. And he's kept the national discussion focused more on his political machinations than his policy history.

So far, the Liberals have come at the PM with an empty suitcase. Their policy alternatives are few, and there's no application of the Reagan litmus test. It's a test they should have ringing in every Canadian ear. It may even be justification for an election campaign.

Too much control?

Article taken from CBC.ca

VIEWPOINT

Henry Champ

Mr. Doer goes to Washington

Last Updated: Friday, September 4, 2009 | 2:44 PM ET Comments8Recommend19

By Henry Champ, special to CBC News

Upon hearing that former Manitoba premier Gary Doer will be the next Canadian ambassador to the United States, Fen Hampson of Carleton University's School of International Affairs told the Ottawa Citizen: "Doer has a good personal relationship with the prime minister and Americans will know he's someone who can pick up the phone and call the prime minister."

Hampson has at least part of the equation right. Americans like to do business with ambassadors who have the ear of their leaders.

But the reality is that it's been a long time since Americans have felt the Canadian embassy is the place to go to reach Canada's prime minister.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and former Manitoba premier Gary Doer, Canada's new ambassador to Washington, on the day of his appointment. (Canadian Press)

This is not to question whether Gary Doer is the man for the job.

America's political elite likes dealing with its counterparts. They like doing business with politicians.

They especially like those who have a history at the ballot box and who know what it takes to be successful.

Three times a winner as Manitoba premier will get Doer a tonne of respect in the American capital.

What's more, Doer's Rolodex has probably more American names in it than almost any other Canadian politician.

He's been active on the border issues, particularly with his efforts to create enhanced driver's licences. He's on first name basis with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, after joining the governor's Western Initiative on Climate Change, the only Canadian to do so. And he established a Manitoba office in Washington. In fact, I've often seen him in the company of top congressional figures. He looks right at home.

Doer is a schmoozer. He never saw a crowd he didn't like.

The shacklers

However, there is one crowd he is not going to like. The bureaucrats at Foreign Affairs in Ottawa and the public relations folks in the Prime Minister's Office.

As Stephen Lewis, who served successfully as Brian Mulroney's ambassador to the United Nations told the Globe and Mail recently:

"It's a bit of a shock when you get into the role and realize that you're much more shackled.

"Foreign Affairs dictates the content of what you say and do in a significant measure. They can write the speeches and insist you deliver them, and they make sure that the talking points on your policy briefs are adhered to.

"You're sort of unprepared for it and I think I learned over time you shouldn't be constrained by it."

It's hard for me to imagine Stephen Lewis being "constrained" by very much. I would love to have been a fly on the wall during some of his conversations with the Ottawa mandarins and public relations folks.

Mulroney had a foreign policy agenda he wanted put forward and he was generally happy to deal directly through his UN ambassador. Ottawa's bureaucrats didn't interfere.

It was the same tone with Allan Gottlieb, a Trudeau appointee, who had a long run (1981-89) as the ambassador to Washington.

Mulroney kept him on because he felt he needed Gottlieb and his huge array of social contacts during the delicate free trade talks. Gottlieb had a pretty free rein and the prime minister's ear.

Rebuked

Since then, however, Canadian prime ministers have been content to allow some of the other power centres in Ottawa to whittle away at the Washington embassy.

The embassy once had the finest set of contacts in the American capital and Canadian embassy staffers covered Capitol Hill like dust.

Every committee meeting that remotely involved Canada had a staff person present taking notes and schmoozing the members before and after the hearing.

Regular visits were made to member's offices. No celebration, no event went uncovered.

But then the embassy official who headed this operation was seen by some in then prime minister Paul Martin's office as trying to be too much the diplomat: he was better known than the ambassador.

So he went back to Ottawa, somewhat rebuked, and the Capitol Hill effort waned.

The PM's ear

One of the more successful of Canada's recent ambassadors to the U.S., I would argue, was Frank McKenna, like Doer a former premier.

A Liberal, McKenna nonetheless forged a solid relationship with the George W. Bush White House in his short time as ambassador, partly because he had been close to the president's father. Both McKenna and the former president, George H.W. Bush, had been on the board of the powerful Carlyle Group investment firm.

McKenna was a frequent visitor to the White House, more often than previous ambassadors. But his time in Washington was one of frequent bickering with Ottawa insiders.

McKenna was a much sought after dinner speaker. He made a speech in Canada once in which he called the American government "dysfunctional" and was highly critical of Congress. He praised the Canadian parliamentary system as more "efficient."

Official Ottawa choked on the headlines, but many American politicians thought he had it about right.

Of course it is not just the ambassadors who face continual second-guessing. The prime minister's office recently hired two former White House press secretaries to do the kind of prep work and background studies normally done by the embassy.

This is the situation Gary Doer is walking into.

Now, I'm one who believes Prime Minister Harper should take every advantage of the American media to sell Canada's case. But the recent hiring of former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer to arrange interviews for Harper while he was on his latest trip here is over the top.

There is a large press office in the Canadian embassy here that is more than capable of arranging those interviews. Getting on Fox news and CNN, or being interviewed by the Wall Street Journal, is not magic.

There is no question a prime minister must be served. It is, after all, his foreign policy and his duly elected government.

But as Doer measures the curtains for his new office, he needs to be aware that recent history does not bode well for what Prof. Hampson calls having the prime minister's ear.