Toronto Sun   -   EDITORIAL COMMENTARY

Mayor Rob Ford is right when he says his political enemies are out to get him.

So why does he keep making it so easy for them through his own bull-headedness?

A case in point is his conflict-of-interest trial over which Ford could lose his job, based on a trivial controversy the mayor could have easily avoided.

All he had to do was not speak in support of, or vote in favour of, a council motion excusing him from having to return $3,150 he raised from lobbyists for his charitable football foundation, in which he used his City Hall stationery to make the appeal.

(Alternatively, he could have complied with an earlier finding by the city’s integrity commissioner to return the money because of the perception of conflict created when a councillor uses the trappings of his office to raise money from people who may have business with City Hall.)

The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act isn’t complicated on this.

It says a politician can’t speak in support of or vote for an item in which he has a financial interest. Ford’s testimony Wednesday about why he didn’t think he was in a conflict was bizarre.

He said he believed for there to be a conflict, both he and the city would have had to benefit financially from his vote, and since this was about his private charitable foundation, it had nothing to do with City Hall.

Under cross-examination by Clayton Ruby, representing Toronto resident Paul Magder, who charged the mayor under the conflict law, Ford testified he hadn’t familiarized himself with the rules governing conflict when he was first elected as a councillor because he came from a political family — his father was a Tory MPP — and thought he understood them.

The problem is, according to his own testimony, Ford doesn’t.

Meanwhile, Ruby contended in his cross-examination that Ford did understand the rules and simply chose to ignore them, which Ford denied.

His accomplishments as mayor — including significant progress toward fiscal responsibility and accountability at city hall — are now in jeopardy over good intentions gone awry.

Justice Charles Hackland will decide the conflict issue, and could remove the mayor from office.

For the city’s sake, Ford must learn to pick his battles better.

National Post   -   J. L. Granatstein

The Quebec election results on Tuesday almost certainly put an end to the prospect of a secession referendum for the immediate future. With only a third of the vote and 54 seats, and with opinion polls showing only 28% in favor of another referendum, Pauline Marois has lost the ability immediately to muster nationalist Québécois for a third attempt at sovereignty. But the issue is not dead. This minority government will not last long, and if Ms. Marois governs well, she has a good chance of securing her majority in the next election, likely next year. Her rancorous election speeches — which doubtless read better in the original German, as the late, great Texas columnist Mollie Ivins once said of another politician — will need to be stored away only until the next campaign.

The prospect of a referendum has implications for Canadian defence and foreign policy. The possibility of a Parti Québécois referendum victory has even more.

The PQ’s platform makes the right noises on defense and foreign policy, pledging to remain in NATO and NORAD and to enthusiastically support UN peacekeeping. But during the election campaign, Ms. Marois attacked the Harper government’s supposed “warrior” mentality, its support for the F-35 fighter, its defense spending that metaphorically takes bread from the mouths of Quebec’s children. The reality is that no one in Quebec, or outside it, believes that an independent Quebec would want anything but the most bare-bones of constabulary duties for its military. That translates into either Canada or the United States assuming de facto responsibility for the defense of Quebec, responsibilities in which Quebec would have almost no say. Certainly both Canada and the United States are unlikely to be willing to make Quebec a third member of NORAD. There might also be opposition to allowing Quebec to join NATO. None of this may matter very much if there is no military threat to North America or Europe, but these conditions cannot be guaranteed to last forever.

Possibly bereft of alliances, certainly with its defenses under others’ stewardship, how Québécois could consider this independence is most unclear.

The impact of secession on the Canadian polity would also be severe. Some other provinces might decide that Canada no longer meets their long-term needs and seek statehood in the United States or independence. Whole industries — the aviation business in Quebec built with federal subsidies, for example — would be lost to Canada. Ottawa’s power and status would be greatly diminished in every international organization (while Quebec’s, of course, would be minimal in every case), and keeping the United States friendly to Canadian survival and trade would become even more critical than it now is.

Moreover, the implications of a separate Quebec for the Canadian Forces (CF) are also severe. First, every francophone in the military would face a difficult personal choice — to go with his or her heart or head. The only possibility of a serious career lies with the CF, but Canada’s post-secession military would likely be English-speaking. It would certainly be diminished in size and talent if many, or most, of the francophones who make up 28% of the present CF left for the new republic’s quasi-military. Moreover, much of the CF’s equipment and infrastructure in Quebec would accrue to the new nation, including bases at Bagotville, Montreal and Valcartier, and the Naval Reserve headquarters in Quebec City. The CF-18s at Bagotville — unless they were flown out before the referendum (as was done just before the vote in 1995) would fall into Quebec hands, as would the equipment and most of the personnel of the Ve Brigade — some one-third of the Army’s combat strength — at Valcartier.

And although we can scarcely bear even to think of this, the possibility exists that secession will spark violence that could escalate quickly into something approaching civil war. Quebec’s remaining Anglophones, its unassimilated allophones and its First Nations are not likely to acquiesce silently to becoming Quebec citizens and to losing their ties to Canada. Some will surely press to separate parts of western Quebec, Montreal and the north, efforts that the new republic would be obliged to resist. Seeing their compatriots confronted on the evening news, Canadians would certainly demand they be protected. A single misstep, a single rash act, could create a bloodbath.

None of these possibilities and calculations is new in 2012. All were considered and planned for in Ottawa and Quebec City in 1980 and 1995. Ms. Marois and Company will have their hands full for the next few months; but it may be time for Ottawa’s planners to dig out those dusty draft plans and orders from the department’s archives once more.

Toronto Star   -   EDITORIAL COMMENTARY

Prime Minister Stephen Harper voiced the feelings of a shocked nation when he expressed his anger and sadness at the fatal shooting that marred Parti Québécois Leader Pauline Marois’ moment of triumph as the province’s first female premier-elect. “It is a tragic day when an exercise of democracy is met with an act of violence,” Harper said. It is indeed.

Mercifully, Canadians are still shaken by such events. We are not immune to violence, of course. A Father of Confederation, Thomas D’Arcy McGee, was felled by an assassin’s bullet in Ottawa in 1868. Paul Chartier tried to bomb the House of Commons in 1966. The Front de Libération du Québec killed Pierre Laporte in 1970, and others. Denis Lortie killed three in a submachine-gun attack on the Quebec National Assembly in 1984. But such cases are rare enough that they still shake us to the core.

In this incident Marois’ Sûreté du Québec guards bundled her off to safety, fearing a political assassination. But not before a heavily-armed shooter at the Métropolis Theatre where she was making her victory speech late Tuesday night left one person dead and another injured. As police took a suspect identified as Richard Henry Bain into custody he shouted “the English are rising up,” and “there’s going to be fucking payback.” Chilling, divisive, even deranged words.

There is no question that feelings were running high in Quebec at the close of this tense campaign, and leading politicians were drawing more than their share of contempt and abuse. There was huge disaffection with Jean Charest’s corruption-tainted Liberal government. Anxiety over the prospect of Marois leading a new Parti Québécois run at secession. And anger with the PQ’s threats to curb English-language rights and minority religious rights. Still, none of it could possibly explain, much less justify, the Metropolis shooting. Marois herself called it an “isolated case,” an act of “madness” in an otherwise democratic, respectful, non-violent society.

The aberrant nature of such crimes makes it hard to distinguish the political extremist from the crazed individual, as the Norwegians well know from the case of Anders Breivik. Ultimately, that is for the justice system to sort out.

Already, pointed questions are being raised about the security surrounding Marois, and police are looking into how the shooter got so close. That’s as should be. But Canadians are singularly fortunate to have relatively easy access to political leaders, especially at election time. Sealing them up behind a police wall, or allowing only a closely-vetted few to get near them, would be foreign to our political culture. The police have to balance the need for access, against the need for safety. It’s not an easy job.

We can only be grateful that Marois came to no harm, even as we grieve for the victims. Fierce though the divisions of politics can be, in Quebec as elsewhere, an event such as this shrinks our differences and brings our common humanity to the fore. It also steels our resolve not to let our democracy be cowed by extremists of any ilk. As the Prime Minister said, violence has no place in our public life.

Toronto Star   -   Thomas Walkom

The election of a separatist minority government in Quebec promises few problems for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. In the crucial area of which government does what, he and the sovereignists tend to agree.

Tom Mulcair’s New Democrats, on the other hand, may run into difficulties that they have so far deftly avoided.

And Bob Rae’s federal Liberals? Maybe they have a new chance.

Harper first.

Parti Québécois leader and premier-designate Pauline Marois campaigned on a promise to wrest more power from Ottawa, including control over employment insurance.

If she were up against any other prime minister, that might cause friction. But Harper has long held that social programs like health and welfare should be handled by the provinces so as to let Ottawa focus on big issues — the overall economy, banking and war.

Harper didn’t complain when outgoing Quebec premier Jean Charest talked of introducing hospital user fees that would contravene Ottawa’s Canada Health Act. And he won’t complain if Marois does something similar.

Constitutionally, employment insurance is an explicit federal responsibility. But I doubt that Harper’s Conservatives will object if Marois tries to assume the burden of funding the province’s jobless.

True, there will be battles over equalization, the federal program designed to shift money from rich to poorer provinces — including Quebec.

But there would have been battles over equalization if Charest’s Liberals had been re-elected. Federal and provincial governments have squabbled over money since time began.

A majority PQ government bent on separation might have caused serious headaches for Harper. But all that Marois’ minority government can do is call for a greater devolution of power. And in most cases, Harper is fine with that.

For the NDP, however, a Quebec-driven devolution agenda is more problematic. On the one hand, Tom Mulcair’s caucus is dominated by Quebec MPs, many of them sympathetic to sovereignist parties like the PQ or the more leftish Quebec Solidaire.

On the other, New Democrats need votes outside of Quebec to win power. And among the non-Quebec voters that Mulcair needs, particularly in Ontario, strong national social programs remain an article of faith.

What’s more, the return of a PQ government to power in Quebec City will refocus unwelcome attention on the NDP’s approach to secession.

Under the NDP’s 2005 Sherbrooke declaration, former party leader Jack Layton committed his party to accepting — as the basis for breaking up the country — a simple majority vote in any Quebec referendum.

It’s a position that’s widely accepted in Quebec. But it puts the NDP at odds with both the federal clarity act of 2000 (which the party voted for) and the Supreme Court.

It’s also not universally popular in Canada outside Quebec.

As long as separation was a theoretical proposition, the NDP’s delicately phrased and internally contradictory position on secession didn’t much matter. Now, with a PQ government again talking of separation, it has the potential to matter more.

Finally, the federal Liberals. For decades, the party of Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chrétien proudly presented itself as the party of federalism. When national unity was an issue, the Liberals had a reason for being. When the possibility of secession retreated, Liberal fortunes fell.

Now, thanks to Marois, national unity is back on the table. Quebec’s new government may not be rushing to the barricades. But it will be at least talking about sovereignty.

In the past, when that happened, Canadians outside of Quebec gravitated to the party they thought could hold the country together. The desperate federal Liberals may have a future yet.

Toronto Sun   -   David Akin

Canadians overwhelmingly agree that convicted terrorist Omar Khadr can stay right where he is, in prison at U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Though Canada's chief ally wants to send Khadr back to the home and native land where he was born, six in 10 Canadians don't want him back, a new poll finds.

Khadr, born in Toronto in 1986, pleaded guilty in front of a U.S. military court judge in 2010 to several crimes including the killing of an American soldier and two terrorism-related charges. Though a jury recommended he be sentenced to 40 years in jail, the judge gave him an eight-year sentence as part of a plea agreement in which the U.S. agreed that Khadr could serve his time back in Canada.

But though the U.S. government - Canada's most important ally - as well as groups like Amnesty International and the Canadian Bar Association have been pressing the Harper government to take Khadr back, Ottawa has been dragging its heels.

"Don't judge him based on what happened when he was 13- to 15-years old," Khadr's court-appointed lawyer U.S. Army Col. Jon Jackson told Sun News Network during a recent visit to Ottawa. "Judge him on the actions he's taken since then. I think what you'll find is he's a person of a good heart ... He's a good kid who deserves a chance at a very productive life. I think Canadians are going to see him as someon who is not a threat."

But the poll commissioned by Sun News Network and done by Abacaus Data of Ottawa, shows that a healthy majority of Canadians have not been swayed by that plea.

When asked if they support or oppose Khadr's transfer to Canada, 60% say they strongly or somewhat oppose it while just 24% say they strongly or somewhat support his return.

A majority in all parts of the country oppose the transfer though opposition is strongest in Alberta (69%) and Ontario (65%) and weakest in Quebec were 51% oppose the move.

And both a majority of those who voted for the Conservatives (79%) or the NDP (52%) in the last election don't want Khadr back.

It's a different matter for those who voted Liberal. A slim plurality of Liberal supporters (42%) oppose his transfer compared to 39% of Liberals who support his transfer back to Canada.

Khadr has already served enough of his sentence in the U.S. that he could be eligible for parole under Canadian laws.

The survey found an overwhelming consensus - across regional and partisan lines - that Khadr not be released on parole but should serve out his full sentence if he is transferred.

Across Canada, 71% were opposed to his parole, while 15% supported it. By partisan affiliation, 88% of Conservatives, 63% of New Democrats and 61% of Liberals were opposed to his parole.

The online poll of 2,099 Canadians also found surprisingly high familiarity with the Khadr case. When asked if they were aware of the matter, 74% said they were and 26% said they were not.

The poll was conducted Aug. 10-12. As the survey respondents were not selected randomly but were drawn from an online panel of more than 150,000 Canadians, a margin of error could not be calculated. The pollster weighted the survey sample by age, gender, region and education level according the most recent census data.