No reason for confidence

In case the likelihood of the Cons abusing confidence motions once again if their budget passes wasn't obvious enough from this afternoon's post, the Cons are now explicitly declaring their refusal to close the door on a repeat of the move:

The official said the government "reserves the right" to determine what constitutes a confidence matter. But he indicated that the government's fate is unlikely to turn on "secondary" matters not directly related to the economy.

Much like John Ivison's column mentioned in the earlier post, Joan Bryden's article attempts to paint the statement as evidence of the Cons not declaring frivolous confidence votes. But the official's statement can equally be interpreted to suggest that the Cons fully expect to make use of their same old tactics, with the Libs once again lacking the backbone to bring down Harper over "secondary" matters after giving in on the budget. And we're surely far past the point where the Cons could receive the benefit of any doubt as to their willingness to put political attacks first.

Canada's Single-Issue Government

Apparently in addition to being unable to find its own ass with a map and a flashlight, the Harper government also lacks the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time:

Conservative politicians turned aside questions about other issues, stressing that the upcoming budget was their top priority. Raitt, for example, was asked about an ongoing strategic review of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. That review was initiated nearly a year ago by her predecessor, Gary Lunn, with a view toward examining whether all or part of that Crown corporation should be privatized.

Raitt would only say that review will be dealt with in due course. "Right now, it's all about the budget," she said, noting that she's had 12 briefings since Dec. 8 focused on the economy.

Of course, there's little doubt that the budget figures to be important - for the country no less than for the Cons' political survival. But that's no excuse for apparently abandoning every other responsibility of government, particularly when Harper has obviously been able to find enough time to send his political cronies to the Senate (if perhaps not to properly vet them first). And the fact that the Cons seemingly can't deal with more than one task at once even with the entire governing apparatus in support should offer another reason to reduce their responsibility to that of the official opposition.

Foreseeable risks

A couple of recent columns look to form a nice summary of the conventional wisdom as to what's supposed to happen on Parliament Hill over the next month. But even as pundits set out their expectation that a Con budget will pass, they're also offering plenty of reason for doubt that the result would be positive for anybody other than Harper and his party.

Let's start with John Ivison - but look behind his far-too-charitable interpretation of the Cons' current spin:

When asked whether the justice bills will still be treated as confidence measures, the Prime Minister’s Office seemed to suggest only money bills will be deemed confidence votes going forward. “The government is focused on the economy. At this time, other issues are secondary,” said Kory Teneyecke, director of communications.
...
Rather, Conservatives say the Prime Minister is “reaching out” during the budget process, after being chastened by his near-political death experience before Christmas. The hope is that Mr. Harper will be more focused on the deteriorating economy than on inflicting political ill-health and penury on his opponents.

In other words, the Cons have at best hinted that "at this time", they're focused on the economy rather than on other issues. And even in the face of the Cons' complete lack of shame about breaking previous commitments, Corn Cob Kory won't bite on an opportunity to reassure the opposition and the public that Harper won't try to force a hard-right agenda through confidence votes this spring.

Moreover, even other Conservatives are left having to "hope" that Harper has somehow decided to change from his well-established track record of putting politics above good governance, rather than having any substantive reason for believing that to be the case. Which can hardly inspire any confidence for the rest of us whose jobs don't depend on feeding positive reviews of Harper's performance to the media.

All of which means there's ample reason for Chantal Hebert to be skeptical that any vote to prop up the Cons on their budget will actually buy political peace for any significant length of time:

Ironically, the prospect of a popular Conservative budget only acts as an accelerant on the election flames.

That's because the opposition suspects the Conservatives are preparing for war even as they overtly seek peace, by crafting a budget designed to become the stepping stone to a spring campaign. Having consolidated their advantage in public opinion with a well-received budget, they would be free to engineer their defeat on an issue of their own choosing later in the session.

Of course, Hebert considers that outcome as reason to expect that another election will be forced at some point in 2009, as the parties aside from the Libs find a theoretical "community of interest" in wanting to go to the polls before Michael Ignatieff settles in as the Libs' leader. But surely any Lib with an iota of foresight would anticipate the danger of ending up in that position - and recognize that there's a course of action which doesn't involve being forced into another election on Harper's chosen timing and terms.

(Edit: fixed wording.)

Promising signs

It remains to be seen whether the latest hints on Facebook will prove as illusory as the attempt to draft Andrew Thomson last fall. But with both a Deb Higgins Politician page and a "Deb Higgins for Sask NDP Leader" group popping up over the last week, there may be some signs of life in the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race yet.

Passing the buck

Shorter Con stimulus plan, as conceived by their new communications guru Moe Szyslak:
Can't somebody else do it?

Harper's Failing State

If Paul Wells was looking for more fodder to show that the Harper government isn't even competent enough to follow through on its own stated priorities or basic functions of the state (or indeed find its own ass with a map and a flashlight), today provides two worrisome new examples.

First, there's a promised set of vehicle emission standards which figure to be delayed a full year due to the Cons' missing their own deadline for the end of 2008:

Almost a year ago, Lawrence Cannon, then federal transport minister, vowed to publish new fuel-efficiency standards by the end of 2008. Those standards, he said at the time, would take effect with the 2011 model year.

"We made a commitment to implement fuel-consumption regulations for the 2011 model year that are benchmarked against a stringent, dominant North American standard, and we are keeping our word," Cannon said on Jan. 17, 2008...

The Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act, which became law late in 2007 during the Conservatives' second year in office, requires the federal government to give auto companies three years' notice before any new standard comes into effect.

By failing to publish the new figure by the end of 2008, the earliest the government could force car companies to meet new fuel-efficient standards would be the 2012 model year, a year later than Cannon had promised.

For those wondering, the Cons responded with their usual openness and competence:

After the October election, Cannon was replaced by John Baird, who moved over from the environment portfolio. A spokesman for Baird said Tuesday that Environment Canada was now the lead department on the file. Environment Minister Jim Prentice was not immediately available to comment.

And then there's a government's basic obligation to protect its citizens abroad, where the Cons have similarly failed miserably by dragging their heels in working to bring Canadians home from Gaza:

Canada only asked Israel for help in getting its stranded citizens out of Gaza after hundreds of other foreign nationals were able to depart, and as a ground assault was preparing to roll in.

More than 200 foreigners, including 39 Canadians, were to leave war-ravaged Gaza Monday, but the Israelis said security risks forced them to shut down access to the Erez Crossing into Israel. They said they would try again to get them out Tuesday.

It's unclear why Canada's officials did not ask sooner for Israeli assistance to get Canadians out – before the start of the ground war on Saturday that made travelling in Gaza far more dangerous.

Several countries clamoured last week for Israel to help their citizens leave Gaza, before an expected ground assault, prompting the Israelis to allow about 300, including Americans, Russians, Ukrainians and Moldovans, to leave on Friday.

A spokesman for the Foreign Affairs Department in Ottawa, Rodney Moore, said that's the day that Canada sent a list of 36 Canadians who wanted to leave Gaza, and asked for Israeli assistance.

But Peter Lerner, a spokesman for the Israel government civil administration in the occupied territories, said Canadian officials only approached them for help the day after, on Saturday.

And lest anybody think the Cons could be excused for not knowing any better:

During the 2006 Lebanon war, Canadian officials were criticized for the slow pace of their efforts to evacuate about 13,000 citizens from Beirut, as they struggled to arrange safe passage for ships for days after the United States and several European countries began ferrying out their nationals.

In this case, it's not clear why Canada did not ask for help sooner, before the situation on the ground in Gaza became dramatically more dangerous.

So to sum up, the Harper Cons have broken their own self-imposed deadline to do something about fuel efficiency by flat-out forgetting it existed, and left dozens of Canadians in danger due to their failure to learn anything from an equally well-publicized mistake two years ago. Which would seem to confirm that about the only thing Canadians can count on from Harper is continued incompetence - and offer all the more reason to hope to see some adults in charge at the earliest opportunity.

Between the lines

Perhaps the most significant development in the CP's report on the Libs' restructuring is one area which Michael Ignatieff isn't focusing on:

Mr. Ignatieff has not yet put his stamp on the Liberal shadow cabinet and Ms. Fairbrother said there has been no discussion about the various roles caucus members will play. She said Mr. Ignatieff may choose to make no significant changes to the lineup of critics assigned by Mr. Dion.

Given that the article describes wholesale organizational changes from the group which existed under Stephane Dion, it's highly improbable that Ignatieff's choice of shadow cabinets would be identical to his predecessor's. But wouldn't it make sense that Ignatieff might spend little time thinking about shadow critic assignments if he doesn't expect to be on the opposition side of the House for long?

(Edit: fixed wording.)

Equal time

As a counterpoint to Hassan Arif's column which I linked to yesterday, let's take a look at the strategic thinking behind the case for the Libs choosing to prop up Deceivin' Stephen once again. Here's Tom Kent:

Mr. Ignatieff can lay Liberal arrogance finally to rest. He can replace it by common sense. He has only to say, soon and firmly, that this is not the year for another election. We face prolonged uncertainty about jobs and incomes, about prices and savings. Adding political uncertainty to the mix could only worsen our economic troubles. A responsible opposition would recognize that, for the present, steadiness is more important than changing the government through the conflict of election campaigning.

Such a statement would not give Mr. Harper a blank cheque. Further outrages would compel the coalition to defeat the government. But short of those, it should be held accountable not through daily debate and polling, but after enough time for the people to remake their electoral assessment. The Liberal Party, meanwhile, will probe, question, suggest; and if the government nevertheless introduces measures that Liberals cannot support, they will as a party abstain.

So in the name of "steadiness" and avoiding an election, the Libs would leave in place a government which regularly pulls the pin on live grenades just to watch its opponents squirm, rather than replacing it with a coalition which can produce at least a year and a half of stable government.

And if the Cons once again go too far? Well, then the Libs can register their disagreement through the power of suggestion (maybe even going so far as to set down "markers" as to what policies they oppose?), while giving Stephen Harper what he wants whether or not it's in the best interest of the country.

Needless to say, it's a wonder nobody thought of this strategy sooner. If only Stephane Dion had that kind of foresight.

Let's give Kent this much: his column does perform a public service by highlighting just how thoroughly the Libs would have to disregard recent history in order to think they have anything to gain by propping up Harper at this point. But when it's made clear that a decision to pass the Cons' budget can only set the Libs up for even more embarrassment and irrelevance to come, it should be obvious how they should handle the budget vote.

Spinners anonymous

Impolitical nicely dissects the Cons' latest sad attempt to humanize Deceivin' Stephen. But it's worth noting just how comical the effort is:

A Conservative official confirmed that the Prime Minister was deeply moved by the experience, particularly as he came to understand how the schools affected not only the former students, but their children.

"He was clearly, personally, very moved by it," the official told The Globe and Mail. "As he learned more about what had gone on, [he] went through an evolution in his own thinking, and I think it was very heartfelt and it was very personal."

That's right: the Cons can't even roll out a PR campaign based on something supposedly "very heartfelt and...very personal" without delivering it through anonymous internal sources. But then, it might make sense that any person would be embarrassed to attach their name to a branding effort which is so obviously contrary to reality.

On finality

In trying to defend the appointment of two senators who have spent decades living outside the provinces they're supposed to represent, the Cons have repeatedly claimed that all that matters is whether the constitutional requirements are met by the time any new senators are sworn in. Which would strongly imply that the appointments themselves don't have any constitutional effect until that time either. After all, surely a senator-in-waiting can't have a confirmed right to a position at a time before one can properly assess whether the individual actually qualifies for the job.

Needless to say, that fact may be worth keeping in mind when it comes to deciding whether the cushiest patronage appointment in Canadian history should go to somebody under investigation for sexual harassment. And if the Cons managed to miss that kind of time bomb in even a high-profile appointee in their rush to stack the Senate, then it may be best for evreybody concerned if they hold off on finalizing anything until they've had time to do their homework.

Rumours of the coalition's death have been greatly exaggerated

There's still a long way to go to make up for a month of the media parroting Con spin about the democratic coalition. But ironically, the consistent refrain that the coalition is dead may only have softened some of the possible opposition. And now that the case for the coalition is beginning to find its way into the public eye, could it be that the tide will turn just in time for the coalition to become a reality?

Burning question

Is it possible to design a Con talking point so glaringly flawed that even Tim Powers would be ashamed to proclaim it a brilliant insight?

On high-risk strategies

There's been far too little mention in the press of the obvious dangers to Michael Ignatieff and his party if they decide that Stephane Dion's strategy of giving Harper everything he wants is somehow worth repeating. But Hassan Arif nicely sums up the options now facing Ignatieff:

If the Liberals vote to support Harper's budget (or at the very least abstain) while the NDP votes against it, then Ignatieff's standing as leader could be severely damaged. For progressive-leaning Canadians, he will be seen as "collaborating with Harper" and "abdicating his role as Official opposition leader," both of which would gravely damage the Liberal Party among a crucial group of voters.

This would open the door for Jack Layton and the NDP to be the dominant voice of progressive Canadians.

The Coalition may not have caught on with the public at large, but it does enjoy a significant degree of popularity among progressive and left-leaning Canadians...

If Ignatieff can articulate a vision that inspires Canadians, and if he can rise to deal with the economic challenges of the current downturn, showing that he understands the problems of Canadians worried about their jobs and livelihoods, then he could be a successful leader.

This could be derailed in the eyes of many Canadians if he is seen as collaborating with Stephen Harper and selling out on progressive values. This is a prospect which Michael Ignatieff must be keenly aware of if he is to succeed.

Indeed, for those looking for the quickest possible path to Liberal destruction (which of course tends to be the Cons' fondest hope), it likely involves Ignatieff taking on for himself exactly the same mantle of weakness and ineffectiveness that sunk Dion. And that negative impression would almost certainly spill over onto the party's image as well: while the Libs could relatively easily paint Dion's mistakes as his own based on his seemingly accidental ascension to the leadership and limited ties to the party structure, they would have a much harder time shaking off Ignatieff's failures when the party has effectively chosen him by acclamation.

Moreover, there's ample reason to think the Libs' current base will be less than happy with any move to keep propping up Harper. After all, Liberal voters have not only shown themselves to be strong supporters of the coalition, but have also expressed their willingness to switch their vote if it leads to a better chance to stop the Harper Cons. And if two Lib leaders in a row demonstrate that they're not up to the task, then the result can only be to strengthen the NDP's hand as the best available alternative.

(Edit: fixed wording.)

Action and reaction

The Cons' unauthorized recording of an NDP caucus meeting may have taken a back seat to Harper's prorogation crisis last month. But it's good to see that the NDP is keeping the issue alive - and the latest reports may only hint at what's coming:

The NDP wants the names of "any and all individuals" involved in the Conservative decision to record and distribute copies of a New Democrat caucus meeting – and it is threatening legal action to get them.

A letter from NDP counsel presses the Conservatives for the information and strongly suggests litigation will follow unless the names are forthcoming.

"Our client will, if necessary, take appropriate measures to protect its interests," says the Dec. 23 letter from lawyer Steven Barrett to Arthur Hamilton, counsel retained by the Conservatives...

The letter from Barrett reveals a Dec. 3 conversation in which Hamilton is said to have told him the Conservatives would stop publicly referring to the recording, and that they were prepared to address NDP concerns.

The letter also notes the NDP's demand for the names of everyone who participated in the recording and distribution of the tape, as well as those involved in the decision.

"Please let us know how you would like this matter to unfold and provide us with the information we have been waiting for, or in the alternative, confirm that you are authorized to accept service on behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada and its various members and employees of any legal proceedings my client may initiate."

Now, it's worth noting that the above paragraphs - especially the last one - suggest that the NDP is doing far more than simply maneuvering to get the names of the Cons involved. Indeed, any attempt to get the names now looks to be merely a means of setting a broader litigation process in motion to claim damages from the Cons for their wrongful taping and distribution.

At this point, the only apparent obstacle to the NDP issuing a claim is that aside from John Duncan's role, it doesn't know for certain who bears responsibility for what.

There are a few ways around that problem. The apparent preferred option is to have the Cons supply that information, which would make it a relatively simple matter to include the relevant names within the original claim and serve it personally on the Cons involved.

Of course, the Cons don't figure to be eager to cooperate, as the list of names and descriptions of actions would have obvious political implications. But there is another equally viable option alluded to in Barrett's letter.

Some of the defendants can be identified only by their actions for now rather than names, so long as the NDP can show that the claim was properly served on those affected. Which is where the request to have Hamilton accept service on behalf of all Con members and employees becomes significant: if he agrees, then the NDP won't need to worry about the names for now, and can fill in the blanks based on information which the Cons would be required to provide as the litigation proceeds.

If the Cons aren't willing to cooperate even to that extent, then the final recourse would be to seek a court's approval to serve the unnamed defendants through another means. I'd have to think the Cons would think twice about going down that route, since the NDP could frame a request to involve putting public notices in newspapers about the Cons' wrongdoing at their own expense. But if the Cons are determined to obstruct as much as possible, that would be the fallback option.

Again, the important point is that the NDP looks to have everything in place for a claim against the Cons except a means of determining who it needs to serve and how. And the fact that the Cons have already tried to "address NDP concerns" in a likely attempt to minimize the eventual damages suggests that they fully expect the end result to be in the NDP's favour - meaning that there's every reason to look forward to what will happen with the claim.

The reviews are in

Paul Wells again with a panoply of amply descriptive phrases for the Harper government. Indeed, the biggest question is which one may be most worth highlighting to define the Cons' stay in office: "a failing state"? "No coherent government"? "Canada has become a more genteel Somalia"? Or the slightly longer option:

(I)t’s not hard for this government to do what it promised it would do. Or rather, it would not be hard if the current government, the one run by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, could find its own ass with a map and a flashlight.

(Edit: fixed typo.)

Self-serving

Lorne Gunter is determined to bash Jack Layton for having the nerve to cooperate with anybody other than Deceivin' Stephen. But in so doing, he only offers up another stark reminder of the petty and destructive view of Canadian politics which still serves as the Cons' main governing focus:

First, he had a chance to do the Liberals in and replace them as the default selection on the left had he gone along with the Tories' plan to end public funding to parties. Next to the Tories, the NDP have the best chance of replacing public handouts with private donations. Layton could have crippled the Liberals, instead he tried to vault himself into cabinet by riding into power as the Liberals' shotgun.

With the revealing of the coalition, Layton was also exposed as a self-serving opportunist...

So let's review how the above statements compare to each other. In Gunter's world, Layton ought to have lent his support to a fiscal update that was both antithetical to the NDP's policy vision and likely to hurt them as a party as well, all for the sole purpose of helping Harper to inflict a death blow on the Liberals. Which would apparently be considered a selfless act of principle.

Instead, Layton cooperated with the opposition parties to work out an agreement which would not only improve the NDP's standing on the federal scene, but also help to ensure that policies closer to its values would be put in place (both in dealing with the recession and in governing over the next year and a half). Needless to say, that earns Gunter's condemnation as "opportunism".

Ultimately, Gunter's column looks to be just another example of the Con base's warped attitude that Harper's goal of destroying the Libs matters more than anything. But the more the Cons and their flacks try to project the same pathology onto the NDP, the more clear they make it that there's only one party which truly puts a perceived political war above the good of the country. And the Libs should be careful to keep that distinction in mind in deciding whether they want to leave Harper in control.

(Edit: fixed wording.)

Historical parallels

Far too many retrospectives on 2008 have tried to paint the Cons' Afghanistan manipulations as a shining example of political cooperation to be emulated at budget time, rather than one of the most glaring cases of Harper arm-twisting and deception. So let's take some time to review exactly how it was that the Libs were pushed into giving Harper the extension he wanted - and how the result has turned out poorly for both the Libs and for Canadians in general.

Remember that in 2007, the opposition parties' position on Afghanistan was broadly in agreement to the effect that the combat mission shouldn't be extended past 2009. At the time, there was no actual vote in Parliament against an extension, as the parties couldn't agree on wording to take into account whether Canada's combat role should continue even until the existing end date. But the default position was that all three opposition parties would carry out the will of the general public by voting against any further extension.

That is, until Harper commissioned a clearly biased panel - featuring a single high-profile Lib to try to present the conclusions as "bipartisan" - to deliver an "expert" report on the mission. While it was obvious from the beginning that the report was aimed at doing little more than avoiding the actual will of Parliament, the Libs chose to keep their powder dry as to the legitimacy of the panel and to avoid making any strong noises against any extension.

Which meant that once the panel reported back with the inevitable conclusion in favour of an extension, the Libs claimed to have little choice but to go along with its conclusions.

Of course, the Libs claimed relative victory in the form of a 2011 end date and a few non-binding conditions which the Cons began ignoring within days. But one of the most potent issues against the Harper government was effectively taken off the table for the immediate future.

So where has that managed to get the Libs? Today, public opinion is still strongly against the elite-driven deal which the Libs got themselves roped into.

But while the public doesn't even want Canada to maintain its current Afghanistan mission for the length of time the Libs agreed to, the Cons are laying the groundwork to back out of the agreed mission end date of 2011. And as long as they're still in power to make the call, there's little reason to think they won't once again ignore what Canadians want.

In sum, the result of the supposed "compromise" is that the Cons got everything they wanted: not only were they able to maneuver the Libs into granting the extension, but they also managed to parlay their manipulations into an undeserved reputation for working across the aisle. And the Libs and their supporters are likely to wind up with absolutely nothing.

Having reviewed just what happened on the Afghanistan extension, let's turn to the obvious parallels to the current economic crisis. Once again, the Harper government is desperate to get somebody else to share the blame for its policies - and this time also fearful for its political survival.

As a result, the Cons have once again convened a panel hastily assembled to provide cover for the Cons' plans, and made noises about cooperation while refusing to even hint at relinquishing any control over the end result. And it's surely no surprise that once again, there's plenty of elite pressure on the Libs to give the Cons what they want and call it a compromise.

But fortunately, the budget vote will also present an obvious opportunity for the Libs to ensure that the Cons can't back out of the 2011 Afghanistan deadline, or otherwise continue to work contrary to Canadians' interests. And since all that will require is their follow-through on an actual cooperative agreement with other parties who don't carry the Cons' stench of bad-faith dealing, the choice should be clear as to what kind of cooperation is really best for both the Libs and the country at large.

Deep thought

If random tax cuts actually had any meaningful effect on consumer confidence, we wouldn't need a federal stimulus package in the first place.

A call to inaction

Red Tory is right to dismiss Lawrence Martin's musings about Stephen Harper leaving Canadian politics voluntarily within the next year. But the problem with Martin's theory goes far beyond mere wishful thinking.

Indeed, Harper could hardly ask for a greater gift than speculation like Martin's. After all, what better way to soften what should be a stark clash in values when Parliament reconvenes than by suggesting that if the opposition parties just leave Harper alone, he might get bored and wander off on his own?

The reality, of course, is that none of Harper's actions in power are those of somebody who's willing to exit gracefully. And one need not go back as far as RT does to find reason to doubt Martin's theory.

Surely nobody paying attention to Canadian politics has forgotten that Harper's main goal in the fiscal update was to cripple the opposition parties for the next election cycle, or that in the midst of the Harper-engineered prorogation crisis he and his party vowed to do whatever possible to cling to power.

Which should point to the more plausible conclusion that Harper will only leave 24 Sussex kicking and screaming. And given the damage he and his government continue to do while in power, there's no reason for the opposition parties to put off that result.

On destructive choices

Jan and Scott have already highlighted Monte Solberg's column bashing Employment Insurance as a "government mandated pyramid scheme".

But the discussion so far seems to have missed the most important point, as Solberg is no ordinary Con MP or cabinet minister. Instead, Solberg was precisely the Con chosen by Stephen Harper to be responsible for Employment Insurance in his role as the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development. In that role, he both oversaw the process of putting a new board in charge of the EI's funding, and administered dozens of EI projects - all within what he apparently considered to be nothing more than a "pyramid scheme". Which seems to me to make for a strong statement on both Solberg's dedication to principle, and Harper's interest in having EI and other social measures run effectively.

And in case anybody wanted to theorize that Solberg's column might just be a one-off lapse in judgment, here's what else he had to say on the topic of EI recently:

I’ll go even further than that. Make me emperor for a day and Employment Insurance in it’s (sic) present soul destroying and hideous form would be violently and ironically tossed from the Peace Tower and smashed to bits on the steps below. I would then gather up the pieces, set them on fire in a way that would cause a large carbon footprint, and then toss the remains into into an improperly lined landfill site.

Which may well make for the most apt description yet of how the Cons have treated federal infrastructure in general since they took power. But the fact that Harper happily put EI and other programs in the hands of a minister with such a destructive outlook surely serves as an indication that it's long past time for a federal government which isn't so focused on the prospect of trashing Ottawa.

(Edit: fixed link.)

Out of proportion

It's always worth pointing out that it takes only a matter of hours into the new year for Canada's CEOs to make more money than the average worker makes in a year. But perhaps the most interesting part of this year's article is the sidebar as to just how much executive compensation increased in 2007:

• Average annual CEO earnings: $10,408,054
• Increase over previous year: 22 per cent

Of course, the economic conditions of the time were far better than those today. But it's still striking how the percentage increase in executive pay dwarfed the rates of change in other seemingly related factors.

In 2007, GDP grew by 2.7%, wages by 4.9%, and corporate profits by 5.8%. And considering that the latter two numbers reflect both the work done by all other employees toward the same ends and the resulting corporate outcomes, it's particularly doubtful that executive pay could justifiably outpace both of these measures by as much as it did.

For the moment, it's an open question whether executive compensation will be reduced as much during the current recession as it was inflated during the earlier boom. But while the massive compensation increases would seem to offer an obvious place to start cutting back, the continued rise in income disparity leaves little reason for confidence.

Selective benefits

It shouldn't come as much surprise that at least some are looking to use the economic crisis as an excuse to funnel any effective benefits upward rather than to recognize the effect that a downturn can have on everybody. And the Sask Party has not surprisingly made its choice - with a stark, if thus far little-noticed, example to be found in its proposal (warning: PDF) to deal with pension funding obligations.

The starting point is the assumption that in defined-benefit pension plans, a market downturn which reduces the value of the assets held by a plan may lead to a significant increase in funding obligations just at a time when an employer is least able to assemble the cash required to provide the funding. Which reasonably enough gives rise to the two suggested courses of action to benefit employers - one to temporarily suspend the usual funding rules, the other to give employers more time to meet solvency requirements under the usual rules.

Assuming that an employer can reasonably be given some leeway in a downturn to temporarily trade off some measure of plan solvency for the immediate benefit of reduced funding obligations, then so far, so good. But then one arrives at the first condition which the province wants to impose as a requirement for any employer taking advantage of a relaxed funding requirement:

Although the relief may be subject to several requirements, there are three conditions that the SFSC would consider important:
1. The benefits provided by the plan cannot be improved on or after the date the notice of election has been filed with the Superintendent and during the course of the relief period, except where the benefit improvements have been previously established by contract or agreement. This condition is aimed at minimizing the risk of a plan worsening its solvency position during the course of the relief.

In other words, having reached the policy conclusion that the downturn may require relaxing the normal solvency rules for an employer's financial benefit, the province is simultaneously looking to prohibit any discussion of whether the same principle might apply when it comes to members - no matter how negatively any workers or retirees might be affected by the economic crisis.

What's more, the balance of the proposal suggests that it's up for discussion as to whether the rule could be triggered by an employer request alone with no input from the plan members affected - and indeed this isn't suggested as one of the province's preferred conditions. Which would provide an obvious loophole for employers to reduce their longer-term funding obligations by artifically limiting pension benefits even if they're perfectly capable of funding a plan under the current rules.

Now, the proposal is up for comment until January 31, and hopefully the end result will contain at least some recognition of the interests of pension plan members. But it still speaks volumes that the Sask Party's first inclination is to make zero benefit to workers a condition of its proposed help for employers.

From order, chaos

Plenty of others have commented on Rona Ambrose's order requiring the union representing Ottawa transit workers to vote on an offer to capitulate. But while one expects the Cons to decide on the result most damaging to workers regardless of the merits, it's worth noting that the Ambrose's order looks to have been a complete and avoidable failure even on her own assumptions as to how the dispute should play out:

Federal Labour Minister Rona Ambrose took an unprecedented step Wednesday and intervened in the city’s labour dispute with its striking transit union when she ordered a membership vote on the city’s last contract offer no later than Jan. 9.

Ms. Ambrose made the order Wednesday at about 3:30 p.m. after the city requested that she do so...

In a statement, Ms. Ambrose said “the fastest way to resolve this matter is for the parties to get back to the table and reach an agreement,” but Mayor Larry O’Brien quashed that idea shortly after the minister made the order.

“I think now that the vote is on the table, there will be no bargaining,” he said...

Union officials said they didn’t take the city last two offers to a vote because the offers contained the same scheduling and route assignment demands by the city that were rejected by 98 per cent of their membership in vote a week before the strike began on Dec. 10.

From the turn of events described, it would seem that Ambrose didn't bother going back to the city and even discussing whether it would be willing to talk to the union after she acceded to its request, or considering whether to set any conditions on a vote which might encourage talks in the meantime.

Instead, Ambrose apparently gave O'Brien the order he asked for without looking into how it would affect potential talks between the parties. Which led to O'Brien being able to summarily dismiss her public suggestion - and ensured that the city will have no motivation to work toward her supposedly preferred outcome (at least until after a vote takes place and rejects the offer).

Of course, it's difficult to tell whether Ambrose merely took a misleadingly soft public line while delivering the most employer-friendly result possible, or whether she was genuinely clueless about the likelihood that an order made without some conditions or assurances from the city would serve as an obstacle to further negotiations. But it surely can't be a good sign when the only explanations for a ministerial action are dishonesty or incompetence - which makes it a serious problem that the Cons are still leaving little room for any other conclusion.