Reasonable men and election

Everybody says that they don’t want one. Everybody talks about it. First, it was Michael Ignatieff’s turn. The leader of the Liberal party and the official Leader of the Opposition in one promised to deliver his verdict on the government’s economic report card on Monday. This was expected to be also the verdict on the future of the Stephen Harper’s Conservative government.

The former happened, the latter too. Sort of. A semantic decomposition of the Harper’s report card was rather brief – if the funds for infrastructure investments had been authorized, committed and flowing it didn’t necessarily mean that the money were already there. A clear message was sent on the employment insurance too.

The political part of the message was less plain. Sticking to his trademark, Ignatieff was as direct as two fighting pretzels when it came to answering the question whether he’s willing to bring the government down in the Friday’s vote and trigger an election.

Despite that, the message to the other side of the House of Commons was loud and clear: I don’t want an election, but your report is not adequate and I do have responsibility. But rather than threatening Harper with an early election and being the one who initiated it, Ignatieff played the ball to the other side leaving it up to Harper to decide. That left Harper with the only reasonable option. To react and, in the same pretzel fashion, agree to talk to the leader opposition.

Harper is apparently coming to terms with the idea that the leader of a minority government has a very limited set of options available to keep the job. And Ignatieff made that clear. It’s Harper’s responsibility to make sure the Government has the confidence of the House and it’s the Harper’s responsibility to seek the support of the opposition. Had he chosen to ignore Ignatieff, he would have turned himself into the man who triggered an election nobody wanted.

By the way, Harper made a big deal out of the fact that Ignatieff didn’t ask those question during the Question Period in the House. In fact, pretty much everybody expected the Leader of the Opposition to do so. But by refraining from triggering a fierce showdown over a two-sword-length wide demarcation line in the House, Ignatieff forced Harper, who simply had to react, to go the National Press Theater, which is an environment the Prime Minister doesn’t really like.

I’m a reasonable man, said Ignatieff to avoid being the one who triggered an election. I’m a reasonable man, said Harper to avoid being the one who triggered an election. Nobody wants it. But apparently, Harper doesn’t want it more. Which gives a tiny little edge to Ignatieff. Let’s see how the expected meeting between the two goes.

RE: Just visiting

“Can you imagine a man, who spent years outside Canada to be a prime minister of this country?” will be a follow-up on the last year’s mantra “Can you imagine Stephan Dion to be your prime minister?”.

I wrote that three weeks ago – the Conservatives would attack Ignatieff using rather pathetic form of nationalism. What a sin against being a “real Canadian”. Ignatieff lived abroad.

Nomen est omen at the Canadian jobs marketplace

Last year, Ottawa public transport facilities sported ads urging employers to employ immigrants. They featured a photo of a member of visible minorities* and their job application, foreign sounding name, various levels of academic degrees and foreign experience. Jobs poster immigrants applied for were low paid and low skill.

High educated and skilled immigrants often face incredible difficulties finding a job that would properly reflect their education and professional and language skills. For one thing, they are admitted to Canada on the basis of the government’s point system but employment is often governed by private organizations such as chambers, unions etc. which specifically require either Canadian education or experience or both. That practice would be in itself an interesting topic for research since foreign educational standards and professional requirements are often much higher than Canadian ones. Very often the only purpose of these chambers is not as much as to protect standards as to protect the members and the chambers’ existence.

However, even non-organized jobs are often off-limits to immigrants. Even their Canadian-born children may struggle on job markets.

One of the reasons could be their names. They sound, look and are foreign. Nomen est omen According to a research conducted by Philip Oreopoulos, professor of economics at the University of British Columbia, applicants with English names are 40% more likely to receive an call back for an job interview than foreign-named applicants who submitted identical resumes for the identical job. Matthews Wilsons and Gregs Johnsons would be selected over Arjuns Kumars and Chaundrys Mohammads. The rate dropped to 20% when the name contained both English and foreign parts, such as Vivian Zhang or Jennifer Li.

The research method was devised in a way that made a name the most prevalent feature determining whether a person received a call back. At the same time, it allowed the team of researchers to determine the effect of other individual categories such as foreign versus Canadian education and foreign versus Canadian work experience. The research concludes that “overall, the results suggest considerable employer discrimination against applicants with ethnic names or with experience from foreign firms.”

According to Professor Oreopoulos this apparent name-based discrimination, while contravening anti-discrimination regulations, may or may not be intentional. For example, jobs requiring specific language or social skills may induce higher non-call back rates for bearers of ethnic names since, statistically or based on experience, their level of English may not.

Statistics, however, cannot explain a 40% difference. Professor Oreopoulos stayed clear of drawing far reaching conclusions and limited his reasoning to admitting “an element of unfairness”.

The report, albeit conclusive, has few shortcomings. The research took place in Toronto, where a half of the population is foreign born. Not just of foreign descent. Foreign born. Is Toronto less immigrant-friendly? Is it based on statistical experience? Other regions of Canada can produce different results.

The researchers only evaluated Indian, Pakistani and Chinese names. What about less visible minorities? There are many distinctly non-English names in Canada of say, Russian, Italian, Polish, Slovak or Czech origin. Ignatieff and Gretzky may be anglicized but their original is distinctly Russian (Ignatiev and Greckij). London (Britain) based HR agencies are very careful to avoid accusations of discriminating against South Asian job seekers but often feel free to discriminate against job-seekers from EU countries, especially those coming from Central and Eastern Europe.

Still, the outcome of Professor Oreopoulos’s research is rather conclusive. Is the observed state of the affairs triggered by immigration-related issues only? Or is it a fear of foreign elements?

* I use the term for the convenience’s sake and not to determine a category or social status. The UN describes the term as “racist”.

Imports in different ways

Every so often a half-witted twit or a support seeking politician, categories which are not mutually exclusive, boldly steps out of the mind-capsule and starts to preach about how imports are to blame for the decline and fall of the US automotive industry. Or declares war on current “imports” and urges, under threat of dismissal from the job, employees to Buy American, as Jim Fouts, mayor of Warren, Michigan, did.

The problem with Mr Mayor’s idea is the definition of what an American car actually is. Take a Pontiac Vibe and a Toyota Matrix. These cars are siblings, products of an unholy alliance between former and current world No. 1 car manufacturer. It would be interesting to see what would happen if a daredevil city employee bought a Saturn Astra. The brand is American, but the car is, let’s face it, a German Opel Astra, or, for those missing colonial ties and times, a British Vauxhall Astra. There are few European Chevrolet sourced cars in the US, not to speak about Korean based Chevrolets and Pontiacs. A Mazda Tribute is a badge engineered Ford Escape, in other words, that particular Mazda model is exactly as American as the Ford’s car sans the brand sign. There was a time when a Ford Probe was a Mazda MX-6 with a Ford’s body and, well, quality control…

Unions have a long history of bashing, often literally, imports and latest round of negotiations with General Motors didn’t really buck the trend. Although this time it was about GM’s own imports. As a way to streamline operations, the US manufacturer plans to increase imports of its own cars from China, South Korea and Mexico. This outlook didn’t mix well with the proposal to cut 21,000 jobs in the US. But lets do the math. According to Automotive News, quoting Jato Dynamics, in 2006, of over 4 million cars sold in the US, GM imported 23%, about 1 million, out of which 618,912 cars and trucks rolled from Canada and 214,096 cars and trucks from Mexico. In 2014, GM plans to sell 3+ million vehicles on the home soil. 51,000 will be imported from China, 501,000 from Mexico, 157,000 from South Korea and 330,600 from Canada. That’s 1,040,100 vehicles.

Speaking of Canada. Former CAW boss Buzz Hargrove can’t pass by a microphone without uttering a rant against bad bad bad imports, but that’s already well documented phenomenon. Here’s the news. Canadian Automobile Dealers Association (CADA) went on a crusade recently against, wait for it, right hand drive vehicles (RHD). Now, Canada is the last place one would expect to have a problem with RHD imports. RHD in Canada? Like, how? And, more importantly, like, why? Canada’s market is about the size of California’s. Size wise. Although that’s subject to discussion, because Canada minus oil riggers and hockey players equals Vatican so, as a consequence, Canadian fast and furious community lusting for JDM only (Japan Domestic Market) sports cars is too small to drive the demand for RHD.

But, apparently it exists. Despite and because of Canada’s ridiculous import restrictions. Even importing a car from the US is a chore. Imports from Europe and Japan are practically impossible. However, cars older than 15 years can be imported without complying with the Canadian “motor vehicle safety standards” which roughly translates as ‘are exempt from import restrictions’. According to CADA estimates, more than 13,500 exempted vehicles were imported in 2007. Out of them, 1,934 were likely RHD, up from 1,230 in 2006. British Columbia estimates that 100-200 RHD cars are registered in the province every month, probably due to large Asian community.

It is hard to imagine that these are all collectors’ cars from pre-war continental Europe or Blighty. CADA claims that most of them are 15-16 year old sedans, minivans and SUV.

It’s understandable that in these times CADA is fighting for every possible car sale but fighting the RHD issue on safety standard grounds is just too simplistic and too insincere. Any new car brought in from Europe would be just as safe as any car sold and bought in Canada, especially those models that sell both in Europe and North America. Which is yet another point why Canada and US should adopt international vehicle standards and stop this protectionist nonsense. Of course, CADA is not calling for rewriting Canadian import laws to allow modern and safe LHD imports.

Back in RHD-car-in-LHD-country world, driving a car with a steering wheel on the wrong side of the car is no big deal. On a highway, it makes no difference. In the city, apart from few very specific situation, it makes no difference. And overtaking on rural roads is not an issue as these are empty in Canada.

STV died. Democracy died a little bit, too.

Vox populi, vox dei? Well, it depends. Sticking to the world of secular politics, without venturing into murky waters of religious debates, the Latin phrase usually freely translates as “the voters have spoken”. Riding along this particular interpretation, the decision of British Columbia’s voters to reject electoral reform has to be respected and supporters of the current first-past-the-post system will trump it up all the way down to Ottawa.

There are many reasons why BC voters rejected electoral reform that would replace ancient first-past-the-post system with the proportional representation. Campaigning of the anti-proportional camp is one thing and it was hard for the pro-side to fight the propaganda that could simply hitch a ride on the “tradition” of the first-past-the-post system. Even the name of the particular proportional system, Single Transferable Vote, acronymed as STV, had very little chance to become another ATM.

The outcome of the Tuesday’s BC referendum reaffirms the rejection of the proportional election system from 2005 and that means the reform on national level is very unlikely. The nation has spoken.

On the other hand, the will of the same nation, its decisions, are being ignored during every single election on any level. Seven million votes were not counted in the last year’s federal election. Voters did vote, but thanks to the magic of the first-past-the-post system, their votes did not count. Earning 49.9 percent votes doesn’t guarantee a single seat in the parliament (1987 New Brunswick election). On the other hand, a majority government can be formed by a party that comes second in popular vote and, in effect, lost the election. 1,379,991 voters elected 49 MPs for the Bloc Quebecois, 2,515,561 votes were enough only for 37 NDP parliamentarians. Bloc earned only 2 percents of the popular vote more than the Green Party which ended up without an MP. Nearly million Green Party voters were disenfranchised.

Canada will continue to function according to a medieval voting principles and will exercise its democratic deficit as a reminder of the colonial legacy. Yes, the nation has spoken and rejected the proportional representation. Chances are that at the next election the nation will speak again and those who advocate it’s right to speak and be heard now will deny the same right to the same nation. Again.

Asylum assault?

Visa regimes that regulate or restrict movement of citizens of two countries appear to live their own lives sometimes. Unfortunately, the necessity to get that visa sticker usually complicates lives and travels of people who were in no way the reason why the visas were introduced in the first place.

The Czechs travelled to Canada freely until 1997 when Ottawa slammed the door due to the high number of asylum seekers. The same issue marred Prague’s relationships with Britain in the past. Apparently, former federal ties were stronger in a certain demographic, as Slovakia had the same problem with Britain, Finland and Belgium – influxes of asylum seekers prompted the harsh response, sometimes in the form of introducing visa requirements. There was an era when keen asylum seekers quickly found a replacement country – sometimes with the help of even more keen for-profit “helpers”. Once the visas were lifted, exodus re-started with varied degree of intensity. Fortunately, within few years it all became pointless since both Slovakia and the Czech republic joined the European Union.

In October 2007, Canada lifted the restriction for Czech citizens and since March 2008, Slovaks could travel to Canada without visas too. Following the pattern known from the past, the Czechs flooded Canada again. And, following all previous exoduses, it’s mostly the Romas who apply for asylum. Or so the Czechs claim, but given their and the Slovaks’ previous experience, it can be taken for granted.

Exodus may sound like an exaggeration, but the word is rather appropriate when things are put into a proper context. In 2008, 861 Czechs sought asylum in Canada. The first quarter of 2009 saw 653 asylum applications (34 succeeded), mostly claimed on the minority related issues. It doesn’t sound like much but it’s more than asylum applications put forward by the Afghans (488), the Iraqis (282) and the Cubans (184). In fact, Czech asylum seekers placed fourth behind the Mexicans, the Haitians and the Colombians. Indirect threat that the visa regime could be reinstated is not entirely out of place.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper acknowledged that the current state of the affairs might not be entirely Czech government’s fault. Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, who used what was perhaps a less diplomatic language, called Canadian asylum system “soft” and suggested that the two countries wouldn’t be discussing the issue if Canada reclassified the Czech republic as a safe country of origin. If that was a case, Czech citizens wouldn’t be eligible to apply for asylum. More on that later.

The Lidove noviny (Czech daily newspaper) reminded that Mr Harper had already admitted that the influx is organized. The daily also mentioned a secret expert report that claimed the mass emigration is coordinated by former Czechoslovak citizens living in Canada. If so, this would not be entirely new situation, since similar “agencies” were suspected to be behind past exoduses of Slovak and Czech Romas to European countries. Profiteers or “employment mediators” operate on both sides of the Atlantic which means that both Prague and Ottawa need to cooperate to eradicate their operations or, at least, limit their influence.

The Czech government cannot restrict the right of Czech citizens to travel – to Canada or any other country. However, as Mr. Topolanek noted, the solution would be to find jobs for the asylum seekers in the Czech republic. Another good thing might be to make sure the message “don’t believe the scams” gets across to those who need to hear it the most. Apparently, an abundance of people who lost a great deal of money to the profiteers is not enough to deter new victims.

The Czech side feels that Ottawa should reclassify the Czech Republic’s safe country of origin status. The problem is, the safe country of origin status is a tricky concept, and, according to Canadian ambassador to Prague Michael Calcott, every applications are considered on a case-to-case basis and everybody can apply (source: Czech Television). If so, a change of attitude is necessary. Sure, Czech republic has its problems, but the country is perfectly safe, certainly no less safer than Canada. It’s Canada’s NATO ally. If Ottawa needed any further assurance it should have found it in 2004 when the Czech republic joined the EU, or at the very latest, in 2007, when it joined the Schengen Area, a part of Europe (26 countries) with no border controls, open for the free movement of more than 400 million Europeans.

Count Ignatieff. In.

There will be many lines along which the Conservatives will attack the Liberals in the next election campaign but one will stand out. Having an extensive foreign experience, being known and respected abroad can be played out as a sign that a person with such characteristic is not a good Canadian. Read any Internet forum and the international experience of the new Liberal Party leader emerges as the main objection that disqualifies him from being a prime minister in the eyes of many Canadians. They call it “he lived abroad”. The official campaign will not be different.

Targeting a single person for what and who they are has become a standard of the Conservatives’ partisan politics. “Can you imagine a man, who spent years outside Canada to be a prime minister of this country?” will be a follow-up on the last year’s mantra “Can you imagine Stephan Dion to be your prime minister?”. Of course, Canadians do no vote for a prime minister but a potentially decisive number of Canadians does hold a belief that they do as was demonstrated last year during the parliament crisis.

Another point is nationalism. Stephen Harper was very quick in hitting on the very dangerous pseudo-patriotic string during the last year’s parliamentary crisis, the attack that peaked with a pure lie. Harper claimed that the three political leaders who signed the coalition treaty didn’t do so with a Canadian flag in the background. It was pathetic, sure, but heyday patriots bought it as well as a even more pathetic Harper’s follow up (flags pushed aside). Simplifying is the essence of politics but at times it borders on primitivism.

Finally, the Conservatives has become a one-man party over the past few years and simply do not have a candidate that would be on par with Michael Ignatieff. Personal attack, beyond the usual campaign standards, is inevitable.

Harper is a brilliant politician, a master of partisan politics, of the realpolitik. Otherwise he wouldn’t be able to sustain his primeministership for so long with a minority government. But his ability as prime minister ends with divide et impera. And the trouble with this tactics is it works only for Harper and his immediate clique in the Conservative party.

Ignatieff said something very similar at the Liberals’ convention over the weekend when he sent a message directly to Stephen Harper. “For three years you have played province against province, group against group, region against region and individual against individual. When your power was threatened last November, you unleashed a national unity crisis and you saved yourself only by sending Parliament home.”

This, however, is not a mere political, partisan statement. This is a political analysis. But the phrasing is spot on, target audience is Canadian public at its most inclusive definition. Ignatieff is occasionally criticized for being too academic, too scientific and too elitist. He is all those things and it is appreciated where and when necessary. But in Vancouver he proved more-less conclusively that there is a different Ignatieff. The fact that the Conservatives are already targeting his international experience via viral Internet campaign is a definitive proof that Ignatieff and the Liberal party are on the right track. And the only alternative the Conservatives can offer is blatant nationalism.

Teasing the public opinion

Few days ago I was going through old advertisements from the heydays of marketing when, apparently, nobody bothered to check the alleged studies and experts’ opinions that were supposed to back up claims of the advertiser. Or use common sense for that matter. A 12-year old boy was beaming with pride and praise to his dad who got him a winchester rifle for Christmas. A soda giant advertised its caffeine and sugar-rich drink as good for the kids and babies telling mums across the US of A that the earlier they start pouring the beverage down their kids’ tiny little throats the better; for the kids and mums alike. Nowadays, the technique is called “pushing” and what’s grown up from the decaffeinated kids is called a “stereotyped American”. OK, a caricature of the concept. I also learned that, in the 1950s, more doctors smoked a particular brand of cigarettes.

Building on that great tradition of industry backed expert’s opinions, Taser International sponsored studies showed that their stun guns are safe from medical point of view. That would be normal, in a very specific way. What’s not normal by any stretch of imagination is that after several hundred Taser related death and independent expert opinionsns law enforcement agencies still refer to Taser International’s studies in defence of the controversial stun guns use.

Public opinion was teased again this week when an cardiology expert who happens to be on the Taser International’s payroll testified in the Braidwood inquiry into the death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski. Predictably, Dr. Charles Swerdlow said he didn’t think Dziekanski’s death was at all related to the use of a taser. It’s not necessary to go into medical details, that’s for the experts to decide. On the other hand, to base the opinion on the testimony alleging that Dziekanski had a pulse after being tasered 5 times, appears to be a little suspicious because A) it’s a matter of minutes and B) people in coma have a pulse too.

The issue here is that the taser was deployed in a way that contradicted RCMP’s own guidelines and, in an indirect way, to the Taser International lab tests since these involved neither a multiple use nor an police officer kneeling on the tasered person in a way that restrained breathing.

Swerdlow has an obvious conflict of interests but his testimony should stand. It is a great evidence of reluctance on part of both the manufacturer and the RCMP to provide independent tests’ results and to accept independent experts. I just wonder what Dr. Swerdlow smokes.

Why Garth Turner’s Sheeple matters

Accounts written by defecting spies are usually exponentiated to a power which increases with the rapidity of the fall of their former masters or how crushing the defeat of the country they denounced was. To get the approximate representation of what really occurred, one needs to reverse the process and take a root of their accounts.

Accounts of wranglings inside and outside boundaries of corridors of power also tend to bear that handle-with-care sticker. Churchill’s autobiography is almost worthless as a history book but serves well as a psychological profile of the person when checked against what really happened. Which might be difficult because British historiography tends to lean towards producing political manifestos. A hero-by-accident writing about his life? A politician denounced by his own party taking out the dirty sheets? Seriously?

Former Canadian MP Garth Turner’s book “Sheeple” would normally fall into that pitiful category – take a root of a number and wash thoroughly before, during and after use. But it doesn’t. Why? Because the detailed account of the modi operandi of both the Conservatives and the Liberals a) doesn’t reveal anything groundbreaking, b) it doesn’t change a thing, c) it does nothing to advance the author’s political career. Don’t forget, Turner did not defect. He was thrown out from the Conservative party for being a Conservative.

Stephen Harper’s authoritarian style of doing politics and handling communications is well known, Turner who basically didn’t shut up when told so, merely lifts the veil from inner sanctum of the Conservative caucus. The very reason why Turner was kicked out of the party was what was already published. B) Long after Turner had left the Parliament Hill, the Conservatives still didn’t change their ways and, following the September’s general election, neither did the Liberals. As for the “c”, Turner was ostracized from the Conservative party, failed to get re-elected as a Liberal, but his livelihood doesn’t depend on politics.

The book, however, is important, in what it points to or hints at – the deficiencies of Canadian political system. Be it the first-past-the-post voting system (Turner supports change to proportional vote) or the system of political institutions themselves. It may be argued that the current system has worked for years but it only takes one prime minister to exploit existing conventions in the caucus by fostering a public beta version of cult of personality or, at the constitutional level, by forcing the only constitutional brake to prorogue the parliament which declared it would bring the prime minister down.

It should have alarmed Canadians. But there is a profound lack of understanding of how the system actually works among general public, demonstrated by “we elected Harper as prime minister” mantra repeated by people with every possible political affiliation during the last year parliamentary crisis. The drive for a change is scarce among voters and unwelcome within the political elite.

It did “alarm” Turner, though. And this is what matters about the Sheeple, it’s a statement about the state of the Canadian politics. Yes, the book is a political and a bizarre two-way partisan document which at the end comes out as anti-harperian. But in a different, mature, modern and more democratic political environment there would be no need to write it because, very likely, there would only be Stephen Harper, MP. Not PM Harper.

When politics seals the cause

If you really want, you can come up with evidence to support or justify any theory, objective or cause. Inventing a suitable euphemism for a rather unpleasant activity is a good start. Traditional seal hunt becomes a “seal harvest”, for example.

Name aside, seal hunt is a controversial activity but, unfortunately, both sides of the debate often support their respective causes with less then honest arguments and ways of putting them forward. Those campaigning for the ban of seal hunt and the related merchandise tend to use heartbreaking imagery, including pictures of the techniques that are no longer used and the species (e.g. whitecoats) that can no longer be “harvested”. However, that doesn’t relegate the fact that there are wild-life animals being killed en-masse for profit.

The pro-hunt defense is more complex though hardly sophisticated enough to pass successfully through both thorough scrutiny and opponents’ review. The latest initiative came in the form of the “Universal Declaration on the Ethical Harvest of Seals” prepared by Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette, and endorsed by Gerry Byrne, MP, the Liberal fisheries and oceans critic.

Prepared by the team of, and I quote from the Senator’s press release, “eminent scientists and experts”, it does have a feel of serious document and undoubtedly a solid scientific substance including data from environmental protection groups. The only trouble with politicians hastily harvesting expert opinions under the agricultural moniker is that their activity will very likely backfire.

And as such an activity, the Declaration has very little credibility.

It’s not universal, as it claims in its title. It’s Canadian. Canada accounts for most of the seals killed worldwide and therefore has the greatest interest in promoting the cause. Other countries that practice seal hunt were not consulted. The Declaration is aimed solely at the European parliament members who are about to vote on ban of seal products.

Another issue was presentation. During the introduction of the Declaration to the media, words such as “lies”, “misinformation” and “propaganda” were uttered with rather unsettling regularity in connection with the anti-hunt side of the argument. European parliament members could vote for the ban to “appease animal rights groups”. The same groups whose numbers are being used to justify the sustainability of the harvest. By the way, the use of the word “harvest” is an ammunition material for the anti-hunt camp and they often use within inverted commas. In other words, “harvesting seals” is a linguistic and euphemistic equivalent of the Japanese whaling for scientific purposes.

Canada usually emphasizes the “native” part of the seal hunt, portraying the activity as a natural part of lives of the northern communities. And rightly so, hunt and fishing has been their traditional way of life and source of nutrition, that’s why the proposed EU ban would exempt Inuit hunting. Seal hunting is vital for survival of many northern communities. But again, there is significant difference between traditional seal hunt and industrial, for-profit, activity that is, somewhat ironically, called “seal harvest”. In this context, shifting attention to the historic and native heritage of seal hunt plays on emotions in the same way as a picture of slaughtered whitecoat and, frankly, can be easily, although perhaps unjustifiably, dismissed.

Which is not surprising given the fact that the presentation of the Declaration simply dismissed arguments of the dissenting parties, many of which are valid in the same way as those used in the Declaration itself. The document, scientific as it is, coated in environmental and sustainability furs with a hint of universal pedigree, remains a political initiative of the pro-harvest Canadian political scene.