Canadians on the front line in Afghanistan
news.bbc.co.uk, Sep 16 '06

Nato forces in Afghanistan say they are on the verge of a major success in their battles against Taleban fighters but some of the troops have their doubts about the mission.

...The battle pitted Nato forces, with all their firepower and technological might, against the Taleban militia,...

It was far from clear who was winning.

...The Canadians lost five men in the first week of the operation and Major Abthorpe is anxious not to lose any more.

...When the Russians invaded Afghanistan, they fought two major battles on this very spot.

The precedent is an ominous one. Both times the Russians were defeated.

WHO backs DDT for malaria control
news.bbc.co.uk, Sep 15 '06

The World Health Organization (WHO) has reversed a 30-year policy by endorsing the use of DDT for malaria control.

...WHO says there is no health risk, and DDT should rank with bednets and drugs as a tool for combating malaria, which kills more than one million each year.

...A number of countries banned it, and in 2004 the global treaty on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) made the prohibition global - except for a clause allowing its manufacture and use in disease control.

Permission has been granted by WHO for millions of people to live again!

WHO promotes indoor spraying with insecticides to fight malaria
www.who.int, Sep 15 '06

Nearly thirty years after phasing out the widespread use of indoor spraying with DDT and other insecticides to control malaria, the World Health Organization (WHO) today announced that this intervention will once again play a major role in its efforts to fight the disease.

So will the governments and agencies who banned this chemical be held accountable? No.

Montreal Shooter had brief military service
www.theglobeandmail.com, Sep 16 '06

New evidence is emerging that suggests [Gill] had plotted his attack for a considerable time.

... first shots were actually fired at two police officers who happened to be at the school investigating a minor crime. Those shots hit two passers-by, and prompted the officers to confront the killer almost immediately, which likely prevented many more deaths.

... proceeded into Dawson College, where he shot a number of students and staff members and engaged in a gun battle with police. He used at least two other hostages as human shields during the shooting rampage.

The government leaves us helpless. It prevents law-abiding people from being armed and capable of defending themselves. If people were not prevented from carrying some kind of gun for self-defence, more would carry them. And in that case, this monster would have been stopped sooner, and perhaps nobody like him would even consider actions like this.

Gun law back in spotlight
www.ottawasun.com, Sep 14 '06

The Conservative government has tabled legislative reforms to crack down on gang and gun-related crimes, but has also drawn criticism for its plan to abolish the gun registry.

Tony Cannavino, president of the Canadian Professional Police Association, said shooting rampages are rare and difficult to prevent, but predicted yesterday's tragedy will raise questions about how guns are getting into the hands of young people.

The government should go ahead and abolish the gun registry. For a crime to be a crime, there needs to be a victim. Otherwise, government has no right to interfere in the lives of Canadian who respect the rights of others. Gun control empowers criminals and disempowers those who are law-abiding. Observe the total failure of gun control laws to prevent massacres and gang violence. But the Conservatives don't understand that outlawing other victimless activities (i.e. drugs) empowers gangs.

Harper sticks to plans to scrap gun registry
www.thestar.com, Sep 16 '06

"The unfortunate reality" is the federal gun registry failed to prevent the tragedy at Dawson College, Harper told CBC Radio's The House.

...His Quebec political lieutenant, Michael Fortier, went further, after meeting with Dawson College staff yesterday.

"The gun registry that will be abolished is the long-gun registry," Fortier told reporters in Montreal. He described it as a registry that targets hunters' long guns, and failed to prevent criminals such as the gunman from acting.

I wonder if Harper or Fortier ever use the word "freedom" or talk about the ethical problem of depriving people of the means of self-defence against criminals. In this article, Harper is quoted as referring to "effective" "public policies". This fits with my opinion of the Conservative Party as worshipping the State.

Softwood lumber dispute
www.cbc.ca/news, Aug 23 '06

..the most recent conflict boiled over in May 2002, when the United States imposed duties of 27 per cent on Canadian softwood lumber, arguing that Canada unfairly subsidized producers of spruce, pine and fir lumber.

Canada's protracted dispute with the U.S. over softwood lumber finally ended in April 2006 with an agreement that would require the U.S. to return about 80 per cent of the more than $5 billion in duties it had collected on lumber imports. The deal was signed in July 2006, but lumber industry groups in three provinces and the B.C. government said they would not support the final draft agreement. However, after the federal government made some adjustments, provincial governments agreed to support the deal....

...The deal removes tariffs on lumber, but includes export taxes that kick in if the price of lumber drops.

...The dispute centred on stumpage fees – set amounts charged to companies that harvest timber on public land. Many in the U.S. see Canadian stumpage fees as being too low, making them de facto subsidies. A U.S. coalition of lumber producers wants the provincial governments to follow the American system and auction off timber rights at market prices.

...The agreement [previous one that ended March 31, 2001] didn't apply across Canada. Since lumber harvested in the Maritimes comes mostly from private land, Maritime provinces weren't subject to the U.S rules. With no extra duties to deal with, Maritime producers saw business rise.

...A NAFTA decision on Aug. 13, 2003 was considered a partial victory for the Canadian side. A panel ruled that, while the Canadian lumber industry is subsidized, the 18 per cent tariff imposed on softwood lumber by the United States is too high.

...NAFTA decisions are legally binding and must be put into effect within 60 days.

...a WTO panel concluded that the U.S. wrongly applied harsh duties on Canadian softwood exports. The panel also found that provincial stumpage programs provide a "financial benefit" to Canadian producers. But, the panel made it clear that the benefit is not enough to be a subsidy, and does not justify current U.S. duties.

... on April 26, 2006, came word that Canada and the United States had reached a framework agreement that could form the basis for an end to the dispute.

...called for the U.S. to return about 80 per cent of the $5 billion in duties that U.S. Customs has collected in the previous four years. Canadian-sourced lumber would also be kept to no more than its current 34 per cent share of the U.S. softwood market.

Canada will also collect an export tax on softwood lumber exported to the United States if the price drops below $355 a thousand board feet.

On July 1, 2006, trade ministers from Canada and the U.S. signed the final legal text of the softwood lumber deal....

...[international trade minister David] Emerson says he will introduce legislation in September 2006 to confirm the agreement and hopes to have it in place by October 1, 2006.

...Import duties of $4 billion the U.S. charged Canadian companies since 2002 will be returned. But the U.S. keeps $1 billion.

...Restrictions on Canadian exports will kick in if prices fall too far.

...extra clauses give the lumber industry more stability...

Comments:
From the Maritimes example, it would be better if public land was sold in a fair way to private Canadian citizens. A free market approach would lead to rational decision-making about land use and would end any question of subsidies. Obviously the U.S. government subsidizes its own industries also and appears to be much guiltier in terms of applying these massive duties, so it's not a good example of free market either. With respect to NAFTA and the WTO, I disagree with these supra-governmental bodies that seem to put restrictions on what the Canadian government can do. I don't trust this managed approach to fixing this problem. If there were duties in the past, then they must have adjusted their business to account for the costs. So how can it be fairly determined who should get the money? The U.S. govt was robbing their own consumers of cheaply produced lumber. I don't think NAFA is a good idea. It's another level of government - unaccountable to the people. If Canada were to become more libertarian, it would be important to assert its sovereignty, because the effort at freeing trade, reducing taxes and ending prohibition might receive hostile political responses from the U.S.