Thursday, May 07, 2009
Deep thought
A failed approach
James Wood's article on the latest in the Lingenfelter membership controversy focuses mostly on the effect on the Flying Dust and Waterhen Lake First Nations. And it's undoubtedly a shame that the First Nations are receiving bad publicity through absolutely no fault of their own - not to mention that band members who might have wanted to participate have been cut out of the race due to the failings of the Lingenfelter campaign.
But what's perhaps more interesting in piecing together what happened is the timeline surrounding the memberships:
Second, the timeline looks to have been an extremely short one. I've raised before the question of whether one person would likely have filled out over a thousand membership forms without assistance. And it seems all the less likely when by all indications the volunteer only started filling out forms after two April meetings (and subsequent efforts to talk to Norman).
Finally, it looks like the Lingenfelter volunteer was less than accurate in telling Norman what would be done with the membership lists. And that looks to be perhaps the most damaging element of the incident for the NDP going forward.
After all, it's a must for any political party (particularly a citizen- and grassroots-driven one like the NDP) to work with other groups in establishing and working toward common interests. And that necessarily requires a substantial degree of mutual trust.
Which makes it a serious problem that Lingenfelter's volunteer - being somebody holding a prominent enough position to accompany Lingenfelter alone on the first visit - apparently violated that trust by using the membership list to actually sign people up without their consent rather than merely to canvas them. And it would figure to be much harder for the NDP as a whole to build connections going into the 2011 election if Lingenfelter emerges victorious in the leadership race while leaving any room for doubt that he considers that type of breach to be beyond the pale.
But what's perhaps more interesting in piecing together what happened is the timeline surrounding the memberships:
Norman said the band council met with Lingenfelter and a campaign volunteer in early April and was impressed with the leadership candidate's platform and his willingness to listen to their opinions.So what can we take from that timeline - provided by a party which is now expressing its frustration with the Lingenfelter campaign? First, it's worth noting that the incident would seem to be a one-off event based on a specific set of interactions between the Lingenfelter campaign and the two First Nations, rather than a matter of premeditation on either side.
He said the council took membership applications from Lingenfelter and said they would be taken around to people who had been NDP supporters, as has been the case in the past in order to foster political involvement among the First Nation's members.
However, in this case they were not distributed because of a lack of time, said Norman.
The campaign volunteer then returned and approached the First Nation's membership clerk about getting names so the campaign could approach people in the community about party memberships, said Norman.
Allowed to see the list, the Lingenfelter volunteer took down many names.
Norman said the worker then tried to contact him but the two failed to connect because of the chief's schedule.
The next time they spoke, the campaign worker told an apologetic Norman everything had been taken care of.
While the council had expected the campaign would canvass the community, Lingenfelter said Monday the worker had simply signed up individuals on the band list without speaking to them.
Second, the timeline looks to have been an extremely short one. I've raised before the question of whether one person would likely have filled out over a thousand membership forms without assistance. And it seems all the less likely when by all indications the volunteer only started filling out forms after two April meetings (and subsequent efforts to talk to Norman).
Finally, it looks like the Lingenfelter volunteer was less than accurate in telling Norman what would be done with the membership lists. And that looks to be perhaps the most damaging element of the incident for the NDP going forward.
After all, it's a must for any political party (particularly a citizen- and grassroots-driven one like the NDP) to work with other groups in establishing and working toward common interests. And that necessarily requires a substantial degree of mutual trust.
Which makes it a serious problem that Lingenfelter's volunteer - being somebody holding a prominent enough position to accompany Lingenfelter alone on the first visit - apparently violated that trust by using the membership list to actually sign people up without their consent rather than merely to canvas them. And it would figure to be much harder for the NDP as a whole to build connections going into the 2011 election if Lingenfelter emerges victorious in the leadership race while leaving any room for doubt that he considers that type of breach to be beyond the pale.
A cost/benefit analysis
Murray Mandryk seems to be coming around to the view that the Lingenfelter membership issue likely is the result of a single volunteer (and insufficient supervision by the campaign) rather than a strategy that started at the top. But let's look in a bit more detail at why that's likely so - and what Robert Hale will need to examine to answer the question one way or the other.
Let's start by asking what the Lingenfelter campaign could possibly have gained by submitting and paying for the memberships if it had been aware that they didn't reflect actual support for the leadership vote. At most, one could argue that Lingenfelter could point to the memberships as an indicator of momentum. But that hardly serves to add any great value for a campaign which already figured to have sold more memberships than any other - particularly when the number of memberships involved doesn't add to Lingenfelter's actual sales by a margin which figures to change the general narrative surrounding the race.
And the calculus makes even less sense if there was any assumption that votes could be cast on behalf of the members signed up without their consent. Simply put, if the Lingenfelter campaign was counting on a strategy of conscripting people's names against their will to make up his margin of victory, then why stop at 1,100 when that number would have at best a moderate chance of making the final difference in the race? And why concentrate those memberships within two First Nations so as to draw attention - not to mention bragging about the concentration of memberships which was virtually certain to bring the problem to light?
Of course, in order to verify that similar problems didn't pop up elsewhere, Hale will presumably need to be able to evaluate whether the same strategy was actually carried out anywhere else. Which means having access to the other memberships sold by Lingenfelter's campaign as well as the canvassers whose names were signed to those, as well as following up with at least some of the individuals signed up.
But if the two First Nations involved are the extent of the problem, then one could hardly design a scheme which presented a higher likelihood of severe embarrassment in exchange for marginal benefits. Which does indeed suggest some serious oversight issues within Lingenfelter's campaign - but also offers ample reason to doubt that the scheme originated at the top.
Let's start by asking what the Lingenfelter campaign could possibly have gained by submitting and paying for the memberships if it had been aware that they didn't reflect actual support for the leadership vote. At most, one could argue that Lingenfelter could point to the memberships as an indicator of momentum. But that hardly serves to add any great value for a campaign which already figured to have sold more memberships than any other - particularly when the number of memberships involved doesn't add to Lingenfelter's actual sales by a margin which figures to change the general narrative surrounding the race.
And the calculus makes even less sense if there was any assumption that votes could be cast on behalf of the members signed up without their consent. Simply put, if the Lingenfelter campaign was counting on a strategy of conscripting people's names against their will to make up his margin of victory, then why stop at 1,100 when that number would have at best a moderate chance of making the final difference in the race? And why concentrate those memberships within two First Nations so as to draw attention - not to mention bragging about the concentration of memberships which was virtually certain to bring the problem to light?
Of course, in order to verify that similar problems didn't pop up elsewhere, Hale will presumably need to be able to evaluate whether the same strategy was actually carried out anywhere else. Which means having access to the other memberships sold by Lingenfelter's campaign as well as the canvassers whose names were signed to those, as well as following up with at least some of the individuals signed up.
But if the two First Nations involved are the extent of the problem, then one could hardly design a scheme which presented a higher likelihood of severe embarrassment in exchange for marginal benefits. Which does indeed suggest some serious oversight issues within Lingenfelter's campaign - but also offers ample reason to doubt that the scheme originated at the top.
Virtual Document Drop - Note to the Campaigns
Following up on last night's post, a note to the campaigns in the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race. While I'll plan to post the candidates' materials as scanned, the candidates are welcome as well to send their mailers to the e-mail address on the right (I'll be posting as JPGs, but a PDF is fine as well) to avoid any issues resulting from the scanning process.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Virtual Document Drop
One of the greatest opportunities in the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race for the candidates to introduce themselves to voters who might not otherwise be familiar - or to describe their vision to voters looking to compare and contrast among the options - is through a one-time mailout which is going out to each member signed up by the deadline. And having received the candidate materials in the mail today, I'd think it's appropriate to facilitate more widespread discussion of what the candidates have had to say.
So stay tuned for a post apiece sharing the message which each candidate has sent to the voters in the leadership race. (Unfortunately the documents didn't all scan perfectly, but anything missing around the edges shouldn't affect the basic content.)
So stay tuned for a post apiece sharing the message which each candidate has sent to the voters in the leadership race. (Unfortunately the documents didn't all scan perfectly, but anything missing around the edges shouldn't affect the basic content.)
Apparently there's still a leadership race going on
And Ryan Meili has released an ad on First Nations - featuring people who actually wanted to participate.
On equal space
As I've noted in my earlier posts, for the most part the Saskatchewan NDP's response to the Lingenfelter membership controversy has been exemplary. But I'll note one possible question as to how the party has publicized the issue.
Until yesterday, the NDP's Leadership News page consisted entirely of two different types of stories: a single announcement of each candidate's entry into the race, and subsequent news from the party about scheduling, membership sales, and other matters which are entirely neutral among the leadership contestants.
But in dealing with the membership issue, the party has posted a statement of responsibility from Lingenfelter without any concurrent space being given to the other candidates.
It's understandable that the NDP would have to post something in explanation for its move to pull the questioned memberships. And obviously Lingenfelter would be the only candidate with information to offer about exactly what happened.
That said, though, it's far from clear why the NDP's news item couldn't have been written from the party's perspective rather than Lingenfelter's - or why it couldn't at least have been kept free of at least some spin about both the incident and the wider campaign. And if there was some particularly important reason to allow Lingenfelter to frame his own message, it's hard to see why the other candidates wouldn't receive some space to do the same.
Of course, the NDP is having to walk a fine line in determining how to deal with the Lingenfelter issue. But however unfortunate it is that the campaign is drawing more eyes over a controversy than it did for anything else so far, it doesn't help matters if anybody visiting the leadership news site for the first time is now seeing PR from Lingenfelter alone. And considering how easily that could seemingly be fixed, it hopefully won't take long for the party to return to its well-established policy of keeping the candidates on an indisputably equal footing.
Until yesterday, the NDP's Leadership News page consisted entirely of two different types of stories: a single announcement of each candidate's entry into the race, and subsequent news from the party about scheduling, membership sales, and other matters which are entirely neutral among the leadership contestants.
But in dealing with the membership issue, the party has posted a statement of responsibility from Lingenfelter without any concurrent space being given to the other candidates.
It's understandable that the NDP would have to post something in explanation for its move to pull the questioned memberships. And obviously Lingenfelter would be the only candidate with information to offer about exactly what happened.
That said, though, it's far from clear why the NDP's news item couldn't have been written from the party's perspective rather than Lingenfelter's - or why it couldn't at least have been kept free of at least some spin about both the incident and the wider campaign. And if there was some particularly important reason to allow Lingenfelter to frame his own message, it's hard to see why the other candidates wouldn't receive some space to do the same.
Of course, the NDP is having to walk a fine line in determining how to deal with the Lingenfelter issue. But however unfortunate it is that the campaign is drawing more eyes over a controversy than it did for anything else so far, it doesn't help matters if anybody visiting the leadership news site for the first time is now seeing PR from Lingenfelter alone. And considering how easily that could seemingly be fixed, it hopefully won't take long for the party to return to its well-established policy of keeping the candidates on an indisputably equal footing.
Deep thought
Of course it's entirely democratic to count non-votes as votes in one's favour. Which is why based on last election's 59% turnout rate, whoever claims the absent voters first actually won a majority government.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Due diligence and undue demands
The new developments in the Dwain Lingenfelter membership list controversy just keep on coming, with two more noteworthy happenings this afternoon.
First, the Saskatchewan NDP has announced an independent investigation into exactly what happened:
For today, the NDP's priority was likely to set the investigation in motion without making any final decisions as to how its results would be handled. But it's hard to see who would stand to benefit in any way from hiding the outcome of a review which we know to be taking place. And indeed the Lingenfelter campaign might suffer more than anybody if the investigation were to stay under wraps, as there seem to be plenty of voices assuming the worst until something else is shown to be true.
And unfortunately, one of the leadership candidates has apparently joined that group, as Yens Pedersen is publicly calling for Lingenfelter to drop out of the leadership race:
But even leaving that aside, one would expect the actual leadership candidates to take a more measured stance rather than making what would seem to be an extreme demand. And judging from the Lingenfelter camp's testy response, Pedersen's statement may have been the first in the race to create bad blood between the candidates which might outlast the leadership race itself - which can't do much good for any of the candidates' interests in the long run.
Update: The Pedersen campaign advises that Yens' call for Lingenfelter to step down came before he found out about the Hale investigation, which puts it in a somewhat different light as an initial position. I'd presumed otherwise based on the Lingenfelter campaign's response which seemed to imply that the party's review process had been made known to the candidates beforehand - but my apologies to Yens for the error.
First, the Saskatchewan NDP has announced an independent investigation into exactly what happened:
The party has arranged to have Swift Current lawyer Robert Hale look into how it happened and how it can be prevented in the future.Now, I wouldn't put too much stock in any question as to whether or not Hale's findings will in fact be made public.
Hale is a New Democrat who ran for the party against Brad Wall in the 2007 election but has had no role in any of the leadership campaigns...
"We just need to do this for Mr. Lingenfelter; we need to do it for Ms. Higgins; we need to do it for Mr. Pedersen; and we need to do it for Ryan Meili," Hale said.
"But mainly, we need to do it for the membership of the New Democratic Party. We need people to feel satisfied that the leadership content committee has done appropriate due diligence on this when they make their decision of what is exactly going to take place."
The party hopes Hale will have his work done as early as next week. It's not yet known whether Hales's (sic) findings will be made public, McDonald said.
For today, the NDP's priority was likely to set the investigation in motion without making any final decisions as to how its results would be handled. But it's hard to see who would stand to benefit in any way from hiding the outcome of a review which we know to be taking place. And indeed the Lingenfelter campaign might suffer more than anybody if the investigation were to stay under wraps, as there seem to be plenty of voices assuming the worst until something else is shown to be true.
And unfortunately, one of the leadership candidates has apparently joined that group, as Yens Pedersen is publicly calling for Lingenfelter to drop out of the leadership race:
Dwain Lingenfelter should pull out of the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race for the good of the party after his campaign signed up more than 1,000 new party members without their desire, consent or knowledge, said leadership candidate Yens Pedersen on Tuesday.It's particularly striking that Pedersen apparently issued his statement even after he heard about the Hale investigation - which would seem to offer reason to hold back on any calls for immediate action until after the review is completed.
...
Pedersen, a Regina lawyer and former party president, said he welcomed the review by Hale but said Lingenfelter should take responsibility and step down.
“In my view, this has always been the party of integrity and morality. And in my view, for the party to maintain its reputation, if Dwain really believes in the objectives and ideals and priorities of this party, then I think for the good of the party he should step down,” said Pedersen, who added he is not accusing Lingenfelter of personal responsibility.
But even leaving that aside, one would expect the actual leadership candidates to take a more measured stance rather than making what would seem to be an extreme demand. And judging from the Lingenfelter camp's testy response, Pedersen's statement may have been the first in the race to create bad blood between the candidates which might outlast the leadership race itself - which can't do much good for any of the candidates' interests in the long run.
Update: The Pedersen campaign advises that Yens' call for Lingenfelter to step down came before he found out about the Hale investigation, which puts it in a somewhat different light as an initial position. I'd presumed otherwise based on the Lingenfelter campaign's response which seemed to imply that the party's review process had been made known to the candidates beforehand - but my apologies to Yens for the error.
And rightly so
The NDP's Leadership Planning Committee has addressed one of the bigger concerns with Dwain Lingenfelter's Meadow Lake membership purchases, declaring that all 1,100 questioned memberships will be pulled rather than allowing individuals to be contacted to sign up after the membership deadline.
Which means that the questioned memberships themselves shouldn't have any impact on the leadership race. But it remains to be seen whether Lingenfelter's campaign will face any difficulty keeping its actual party base of support intact in the aftermath of the incident. And the longer it takes for the remaining issues to get dealt with, the more painful the result figures to be for a front-runner who already seems to have lost any air of invincibility.
Which means that the questioned memberships themselves shouldn't have any impact on the leadership race. But it remains to be seen whether Lingenfelter's campaign will face any difficulty keeping its actual party base of support intact in the aftermath of the incident. And the longer it takes for the remaining issues to get dealt with, the more painful the result figures to be for a front-runner who already seems to have lost any air of invincibility.
No reformer he
Shorter Michael Ignatieff on electoral reform:
We must cling to the first-past-the-post system that has spawned the Bloc, Reform and other regional parties in order to prevent such parties from developing.
We must cling to the first-past-the-post system that has spawned the Bloc, Reform and other regional parties in order to prevent such parties from developing.
Taking stock
It looks like the Lingenfelter membership issue is starting to snowball, with bloggers and columnists alike putting matters in stronger terms by the day. But let's take a step back for a wider view of what we've learned over the course of the weekend - and more importantly, what questions remain to be answered and how.
Murray Mandryk's concerns about Lingenfelter's story notwithstanding, I'd tend toward the view that absent some evidence to the contrary, there's no obvious reason to doubt the general outlines as to what happened: that an individual volunteer (or volunteers) arranged memberships on the part of people who didn't want them by copying their names from an outside list, and the Link campaign took the memberships at face value and approved payment for them while missing or ignoring obvious red flags.
But the question of "who" is still up in the air - and that looks to be where there's some significant need for more public disclosure.
On the volunteer end, there's little apparent reason why the name of somebody who signed a thousand-plus membership forms with other people's names would be kept quiet. (And it's only by getting the name public that we'd be able to follow up by asking whether there was more than one person involved - which would seem likely given the time required to fill out that many forms.)
And on the campaign end, the question of who exactly approved the expenses and held responsibility for reviewing the memberships has likewise been glossed over so far. It's well and good that Lingenfelter has recognized that some measure of responsibility lies with his campaign generally, but it would be hard for anybody to be reassured if nobody takes personal responsibility for what Lingenfelter has acknowledged to be a serious problem.
Moreover, it's precisely by naming some names and getting details from the individuals involved in submitting the list and the payment that we can find out if there's any reason to doubt the current line from the Lingenfelter camp.
Meanwhile, there's certainly room for discussion as to what more the party can do to prevent problems like this from turning up. At least some have suggested that leadership campaigns shouldn't be able to pay for individual memberships, though I'd wonder if that should be accompanied by making fee waivers more accessible at the party level (as they don't appear to be provided for on the party's current membership forms). And I'll agree with Jason that the party's response to Lingenfelter's campaign needs to be strong enough to create a genuine deterrent to similar actions in the future.
But aside from one minor issue of membership policy and the yet-to-be-determined question of Link's punishment, it's hard to see how the NDP as a whole could have avoided the problem initially, or done anything more in response once it surfaced. And it'll be important to distinguish between the NDP's genuine interest in dealing with issues like this one to make sure they don't happen again, and the bad faith of those who would shriek "cover-up" in hopes of smearing the party no matter how thoroughly an issue gets canvassed.
Murray Mandryk's concerns about Lingenfelter's story notwithstanding, I'd tend toward the view that absent some evidence to the contrary, there's no obvious reason to doubt the general outlines as to what happened: that an individual volunteer (or volunteers) arranged memberships on the part of people who didn't want them by copying their names from an outside list, and the Link campaign took the memberships at face value and approved payment for them while missing or ignoring obvious red flags.
But the question of "who" is still up in the air - and that looks to be where there's some significant need for more public disclosure.
On the volunteer end, there's little apparent reason why the name of somebody who signed a thousand-plus membership forms with other people's names would be kept quiet. (And it's only by getting the name public that we'd be able to follow up by asking whether there was more than one person involved - which would seem likely given the time required to fill out that many forms.)
And on the campaign end, the question of who exactly approved the expenses and held responsibility for reviewing the memberships has likewise been glossed over so far. It's well and good that Lingenfelter has recognized that some measure of responsibility lies with his campaign generally, but it would be hard for anybody to be reassured if nobody takes personal responsibility for what Lingenfelter has acknowledged to be a serious problem.
Moreover, it's precisely by naming some names and getting details from the individuals involved in submitting the list and the payment that we can find out if there's any reason to doubt the current line from the Lingenfelter camp.
Meanwhile, there's certainly room for discussion as to what more the party can do to prevent problems like this from turning up. At least some have suggested that leadership campaigns shouldn't be able to pay for individual memberships, though I'd wonder if that should be accompanied by making fee waivers more accessible at the party level (as they don't appear to be provided for on the party's current membership forms). And I'll agree with Jason that the party's response to Lingenfelter's campaign needs to be strong enough to create a genuine deterrent to similar actions in the future.
But aside from one minor issue of membership policy and the yet-to-be-determined question of Link's punishment, it's hard to see how the NDP as a whole could have avoided the problem initially, or done anything more in response once it surfaced. And it'll be important to distinguish between the NDP's genuine interest in dealing with issues like this one to make sure they don't happen again, and the bad faith of those who would shriek "cover-up" in hopes of smearing the party no matter how thoroughly an issue gets canvassed.
Protected by apathy
To nobody's surprise, the Cons' ludicrously high barriers to any nomination challenges have served their purpose. And as a result, Rob Anders, Peter Goldring, Leon Benoit and every other MP who would face a serious risk of losing a democratic contest will avoid having to answer to their constituents in a fair nomination contest.
That said, it's worth wondering whether the Cons will offer up a bit more detail which might put into perspective the combination of arbitrary standards and public apathy which seems to have led to the actual result.
So far, all the Cons have said is that none of the ridings received a 66% vote in favour of holding a nomination meeting. But is there a single riding where the 66% of the Cons' members even bothered to respond to the party's poll one way or the other? And if not, then what does it say that the Cons' MPs are only avoiding democracy due to the fact that party members don't care enough to participate?
That said, it's worth wondering whether the Cons will offer up a bit more detail which might put into perspective the combination of arbitrary standards and public apathy which seems to have led to the actual result.
So far, all the Cons have said is that none of the ridings received a 66% vote in favour of holding a nomination meeting. But is there a single riding where the 66% of the Cons' members even bothered to respond to the party's poll one way or the other? And if not, then what does it say that the Cons' MPs are only avoiding democracy due to the fact that party members don't care enough to participate?
Monday, May 04, 2009
Uselessness in motion
Just when you thought they couldn't get more cowardly, the Cons have managed to lower the bar once again in trying to escape responsibility for disowning Abousfian Abdelrazik:
(NDP) MP Paul Dewar tabled a motion at the House of Commons Foreign Affairs and International Development committee to force that stranded Canadian to appear for testimony.That's right: while the Harper government continues to make up ever-less-plausible excuses to try to wash their hands of a Canadian citizen stranded abroad, the Cons' rank-and-file MPs have apparently been ordered to pretend the problem doesn't exist rather than taking a stance one way or the other. Which should offer yet another reminder that when Canadians' interests are at stake, they can count on any Con MP to be told to sit down and shut up rather than doing anything to help.
The would-be witness - Sudanese-Canadian Abousfian Abdelrazik - has been effectively barred from the country and is living at the Canadian embassy in Khartoum.
...
Dewar's motion passed easily, with support from all opposition parties while the Conservative members abstained Monday.
A partial explanation
Dwain Lingenfelter has released a statement on his campaign's questioned membership lists. And while the Lingenfelter campaign is rightly (if inevitably) accepting responsibility for the issue, there are a few points worth noting which appear to add to what we knew about the race so far.
First off, there's Lingenfelter's mention that his campaign has processed a total of "more than 6000 memberships" during the course of the leadership campaign. Interestingly, that looks to largely answer my question as to just how many new memberships had come through each campaign - and it to the extent it's correct, it would signal that Lingenfelter could take credit for a majority of the new members signed up during the campaign so far.
Mind you, that margin figures to be substantially reduced if the challenged memberships from Meadow Lake are taken out of the mix. In that respect, it seems fairly striking that nearly a fifth of Lingenfelter's new members would come from a single volunteer focusing on only part of a riding. And indeed, there's some quesetion as to why his campaign wouldn't have had some significant follow-up questions about that kind of influx - especially when it was being asked to foot the bill.
Which brings us to Lingenfelter's statement as to how it came to pay for the memberships:
After all, Lingenfelter's own account suggests that not all of the listed names could be linked to any difficulty paying for a membership (though of course we know now that there was little if any followup to confirm the information on the face of the applications). And it's worth wondering how many more of Lingenfelter's new memberships were similarly added to the party rolls based on Link's willingness to pay to bring new votes for himself into the fold - and if so what that might say for the likelihood that his new recruits are willing to take any personal stake in the future of Saskatchewan's NDP.
First off, there's Lingenfelter's mention that his campaign has processed a total of "more than 6000 memberships" during the course of the leadership campaign. Interestingly, that looks to largely answer my question as to just how many new memberships had come through each campaign - and it to the extent it's correct, it would signal that Lingenfelter could take credit for a majority of the new members signed up during the campaign so far.
Mind you, that margin figures to be substantially reduced if the challenged memberships from Meadow Lake are taken out of the mix. In that respect, it seems fairly striking that nearly a fifth of Lingenfelter's new members would come from a single volunteer focusing on only part of a riding. And indeed, there's some quesetion as to why his campaign wouldn't have had some significant follow-up questions about that kind of influx - especially when it was being asked to foot the bill.
Which brings us to Lingenfelter's statement as to how it came to pay for the memberships:
In the weeks before the membership deadline, one of our many northern volunteers was asked to oversee membership renewals, and applications for membership, among people on First Nations in the Meadow Lake constituency. In the week prior to the membership deadline we received 11-hundred membership applications from these First Nations. Our northern volunteer told us that in most cases, these new members would not be able to afford the cost of a Party Membership.Even leaving aside the issues I raised in my earlier post as well as the question of the sheer numbers involved, it's still worth raising the question of why Lingenfelter's campaign would have seen its role as involving paying for all of the members on the list.
Our Party Constitution and our Leadership Contest Rules do not limit or restrict helping those in need, who wish to become part of the democratic process. We wanted people from these First Nations to have an opportunity to participate, and our campaign decided to cover the cost of these applications.
After all, Lingenfelter's own account suggests that not all of the listed names could be linked to any difficulty paying for a membership (though of course we know now that there was little if any followup to confirm the information on the face of the applications). And it's worth wondering how many more of Lingenfelter's new memberships were similarly added to the party rolls based on Link's willingness to pay to bring new votes for himself into the fold - and if so what that might say for the likelihood that his new recruits are willing to take any personal stake in the future of Saskatchewan's NDP.
On contributions
CBC follows up with more on the Lingenfelter membership story. And there's one previously-unreported piece which looks like it might be highly significant:
Under most circumstances - i.e. where people pay for their own memberships - Saskatchewan's Election Act, 1996 wouldn't figure to come into play. In general, the rules for donations only require that a party collect information for donations of over $25 and publicly disclose donations over $250 - so there isn't any particular concern about the party financing rules when an individual pays for his or her own membership within a party.
But it would seem to be a different story where a leadership campaign puts together a coordinated effort which results in it donating thousands of dollars to a provincial party in the name of individuals. And indeed, amounts received in membership fees are specifically included as contributions for at least some purposes under the legislation: see section 250(5), which deems membership fees or dues to be contributions for the purposes of parties' annual returns.
Now, it might be that since membership fees are specifically included in that section, they're excluded by implication from other requirements - such as that contributions in a person's name must come from that person's own money (section 239(1)). But it's not hard to see how a plan involving an entity making multiple small contributions through people who aren't even asked whether or not to attach their names to them could result in some significant potential problems. And that may mean that while the party's investigation deals with the internal ramifications for the leadership race, there may be a need for some review from Elections Saskatchewan as well to make sure the Lingenfelter campaign's process isn't on thin ice legally.
All of the New Democrat membership applications that are being investigated by the Saskatchewan NDP were paid for by the Dwain Lingenfelter campaign, the party says.Now, the first point to be taken from the payment details is that the issue goes at least to somebody with authority to spend significant amounts of money on behalf of the Lingenfelter campaign. But that looks to be a relatively small piece of the potential problem.
Party officials spent the weekend investigating 1,100 applications after concerns were raised in the Meadow Lake constituency.
...
The NDP leadership committee spent the weekend contacting applicants to find out whether they really wanted to be members of the NDP — and some didn't, McDonald said.
"The Lingenfelter campaign paid for all of them," she said.
Under most circumstances - i.e. where people pay for their own memberships - Saskatchewan's Election Act, 1996 wouldn't figure to come into play. In general, the rules for donations only require that a party collect information for donations of over $25 and publicly disclose donations over $250 - so there isn't any particular concern about the party financing rules when an individual pays for his or her own membership within a party.
But it would seem to be a different story where a leadership campaign puts together a coordinated effort which results in it donating thousands of dollars to a provincial party in the name of individuals. And indeed, amounts received in membership fees are specifically included as contributions for at least some purposes under the legislation: see section 250(5), which deems membership fees or dues to be contributions for the purposes of parties' annual returns.
Now, it might be that since membership fees are specifically included in that section, they're excluded by implication from other requirements - such as that contributions in a person's name must come from that person's own money (section 239(1)). But it's not hard to see how a plan involving an entity making multiple small contributions through people who aren't even asked whether or not to attach their names to them could result in some significant potential problems. And that may mean that while the party's investigation deals with the internal ramifications for the leadership race, there may be a need for some review from Elections Saskatchewan as well to make sure the Lingenfelter campaign's process isn't on thin ice legally.
On transfer effects
Erin suggests once again that we might want to revisit corporate tax cuts just because their main effect internationally is to redirect money currently paid to Canadian governments toward the U.S. instead. But doesn't he know that a reduction in government capacity is reward enough for the business crowd even if nobody actually saves a dime?
Overzealous
The Star Phoenix reports on the initial results of the Saskatchewan NDP's investigation as to the member lists submitted last month:
But at the very least, the investigation looks to have undone a strong majority of the damage which might have been done if the list had been left as submitted. And we'll find out before long whether the campaign representative responsible will in turn face the music for what looks to have been a highly dubious tactic.
An investigation by the Saskatchewan NDP into the work of one its leadership campaigns in the Meadow Lake constituency has found names of people who don't want to be members but had memberships purchased for them.Now, there may be some room for debate as to whether or not the party's solution goes far enough. In effect, the people signed up without their consent are being given a chance to get around the membership deadline which applies to everybody else in the province - which would be avoided if the party's question was whether the people involved actually signed up before the deadline, not whether they want a membership now.
The NDP has pulled more than 1,100 memberships sold by one campaign in the northern constituency and is contacting as many people as possible to confirm their memberships.
"This is someone who was overzealously working to renew memberships," said NDP provincial secretary and CEO Deb McDonald.
Purchasing memberships for other people is not illegal under party rules.
The investigation started Friday and will continue until this evening, when the results will be handed over to the leadership committee that governs the campaign, McDonald said.
...
In a constituency where members usually number around 400, the large number of returning forms raised eyebrows. The party received phone calls from current members and leadership campaigns.
...
An unknown number of the memberships have been purchased for people who did not want to be members.
"If we find 1,000 of the 1,100 are invalid, we'll remove them and destroy them," said McDonald.
The party can track which campaign sold the memberships through forms that must include the signatures of people, usually associated with a single campaign, who sold them.
But at the very least, the investigation looks to have undone a strong majority of the damage which might have been done if the list had been left as submitted. And we'll find out before long whether the campaign representative responsible will in turn face the music for what looks to have been a highly dubious tactic.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
A just suggestion
One of the more striking shifts in Canadian politics over the past decade-plus has been increased pandering on crime across the political spectrum - and the last few years of Con grandstanding at the federal level have only made matters worse. Which is why even as the U.S. is starting to wake up to the implications of its own ineffective policies, Canada is unfortunately trending toward a more costly, more rigid system which nonetheless does less to protect public safety. And the Harper government has led the charge while bragging that its strategy relies on telling Canadians to ignore actual evidence about crime rates and results.
From that starting point, let's note one of the more interesting platform planks in the Saskatchewan NDP leadership campaign. While the other candidates have stayed silent on the issue, Ryan Meili's stance on justice makes for a much-needed break from the usual:
But there's still plenty that can be done to make the justice system more efficient and more effective. And the more politicians at all level are willing to highlight the absurdity of using public resources to make the public less safe, the better the chances of turning the tide in the long run - no matter how much easier the pandering option might seem for now.
From that starting point, let's note one of the more interesting platform planks in the Saskatchewan NDP leadership campaign. While the other candidates have stayed silent on the issue, Ryan Meili's stance on justice makes for a much-needed break from the usual:
Saskatchewan needs a criminal justice system that is effective. A system that (step 1) efficiently and accurately identifies those who harm other citizens and (step 2) uses the most effective techniques for reducing the possibility that they may again harm other citizens. Our present methods do not focus on effective measures (step 2); instead, we focus on incarceration to attempt to “frighten” potential offenders. Simply put, that technique, especially in Saskatchewan’s unique circumstances, has been proven to be worse than useless.Of course, a provincial government can't solve the problem on its own, particularly in the face of a federal government so eager to make sure that more resources get wasted on needless incarceration.
...
There are many reasons for sending persons to prison (for example, the offender refuses to quit harming others) but the conclusion that we should not rely on incarceration to reduce future crime is inescapable. Incarceration tends to increase, not decrease crime.
...
An effective justice system must measure its success mainly on how well it changes harmful behaviour to social usefulness (step 2). To do that we must reduce those techniques which have the side effect of increasing crime. The money saved should be used to fund those organizations which have shown that (sic) are (or can be) successful at dealing with persons with multiple disadvantages.
We need to aim for effective measures and rely less on trying to frighten the marginalized to transform our justice system into a powerful force for good.
But there's still plenty that can be done to make the justice system more efficient and more effective. And the more politicians at all level are willing to highlight the absurdity of using public resources to make the public less safe, the better the chances of turning the tide in the long run - no matter how much easier the pandering option might seem for now.
Deep thought
There's no more sure sign of a fiscally-responsible government than its willingness to spend a million dollars in support of nothing.
The reviews are in
Greg Weston:
In the past year, (Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin) Page has been at odds with the Harper government on just about every major economic prognostication, from the size of the projected deficit to the anticipated depth of the recession.
So far, he seems to be batting a thousand, while the Conservatives are proving no more honest with their numbers than the Liberals were.
Clearly, the PM and his control freaks could not allow this sorry state of integrity to continue.
While any successful attempt to stifle Page would be the public's loss, there is something far more dire and dangerous at play here.
Fact is, the meddlesome budget office is only the latest target in a sustained and systematic assault on dissent, led by a prime minister who brooks no criticism from within government.
Leadership 2009 Week in Review - May 3
Last week, I offered my first assessment of the Saskatchewan NDP leadership candidates' chances of victory - and wondered whether much might happen to change the odds. Needless to say, though, the last week has offered plenty of indication that the direction of the race might be changing.
Whatever the outcome of the NDP's investigation into the allegations of improper membership lists coming from the Lingenfelter campaign, the issue seems likely to stop Link in his tracks.
Even in a best realistic case where only a few of the questioned memberships are pulled, the incident seriously undercuts the message of a campaign based on competence and inevitability. And at worst, if the problem goes beyond an isolated individual or two, the Lingenfelter campaign as a whole may end up operating under a cloud during the month when members will make up their minds as to who to support. Which may both shift top-line support in other directions, and cement Link's place at the bottom of the preferential ballot of those whose first-ballot support lies elsewhere.
Meanwhile, Lingenfelter's loss looks to be the other candidates' gain - turning an otherwise quiet week into a huge opportunity. And there may be one more prominent endorsement headed elsewhere as an immediate reaction to the membership list issue.
So with that in mind, here's the updated chart for now, with last week's estimated chances in parentheses.
Whatever the outcome of the NDP's investigation into the allegations of improper membership lists coming from the Lingenfelter campaign, the issue seems likely to stop Link in his tracks.
Even in a best realistic case where only a few of the questioned memberships are pulled, the incident seriously undercuts the message of a campaign based on competence and inevitability. And at worst, if the problem goes beyond an isolated individual or two, the Lingenfelter campaign as a whole may end up operating under a cloud during the month when members will make up their minds as to who to support. Which may both shift top-line support in other directions, and cement Link's place at the bottom of the preferential ballot of those whose first-ballot support lies elsewhere.
Meanwhile, Lingenfelter's loss looks to be the other candidates' gain - turning an otherwise quiet week into a huge opportunity. And there may be one more prominent endorsement headed elsewhere as an immediate reaction to the membership list issue.
So with that in mind, here's the updated chart for now, with last week's estimated chances in parentheses.
| Candidate | 1st Ballot Win | Final Ballot | Final Ballot Win | 4th on 1st | Total Win |
| Dwain Lingenfelter | 30 (35) | 52 (55) | 18 (20) | 0 (0) | 48 (55) |
| Deb Higgins | 5 (3) | 32 (28) | 21 (20) | 5 (5) | 26 (23) |
| Ryan Meili | 3 (2) | 34 (32) | 20 (18) | 10 (10) | 23 (20) |
| Yens Pedersen | 0 (0) | 6 (5) | 3 (2) | 47 (45) | 3 (2) |
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Turning back the clock
A couple of noteworthy developments in the Saskatchewan Legislature this week don't seem to have found their way into the media. But let's take a moment to note just how the Sask Party looks to be moving itself and the province far into the past.
First, there's Christine Tell's explanation as to why the Sask Party plans to spend millions of dollars at the 2010 Winter Olympics:
First, there's Christine Tell's explanation as to why the Sask Party plans to spend millions of dollars at the 2010 Winter Olympics:
Mr. Nilson:... To the minister: why are Saskatchewan taxpayers shelling out more than $4 million for the Vancouver Olympics while families pay more to camp in Saskatchewan parks?Naturally, John Nilson responded Tuesday with the following:
Some Hon. Members: — Hear, hear!
The Speaker: — I recognize the Minister Responsible for Tourism, Parks, Culture and Sport.
Hon. Ms. Tell: — Mr. Speaker, all we have to do is look at 1986 Expo. The Government of Saskatchewan spent over $6 million to have Saskatchewan House at the Expo and the pavilion, Mr. Speaker. We are talking more than 20 years later, Mr. Speaker, and we are putting, we are putting our best foot forward . . .
Yesterday the minister compared the $6 million spent by the Devine government on the 1986 Vancouver Expo with the 7 million the Sask Party is spending on the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. Mr. Speaker, the opposition is willing to concede the point that this government manages public finances as prudently as the government of Grant Devine.But while one would expect to see a government led by a Devine-era party apparatchik imitating that government's rationale to throw money down the drain, it might be a bit more surprising to see gender parity being set back several decades further. And Deb Higgins revealed a fairly stunning bit of news on Wednesday suggesting that's exactly what's happening within the Sask Party:
(T)he average Saskatchewan woman is paid 84 cents for every dollar paid to the average Saskatchewan man. But figures provided by the government show that women working for the Sask Party are paid just 53 per cent of the median salary earned by men working for the Sask Party.Needless to say, the Sask Party wasn't about to actually answer Higgins' questions about that fact, even given another day to prepare for followup questions on Thursday. But their choice of how to pay men as opposed to women working under their own banner likely says more than enough already - and Higgins and the NDP would figure to have plenty of opportunity to highlight the Sask Party's gender gap in election campaigns to come.
On disclosures
While we await some definitive answers about the membership lists coming out of the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race, there's more definitive information available about the funding of the province's political parties. And while the party picture looks to be a positive one (with the NDP not only holding more of its total election-year funding than the Sask Party even while losing office, but substantially beating out the Sask Party in individual donations), a couple of details about the 2008 donation list (warning: PDF) may be worth looking at in conjunction with the financial information from the race.
For the most part, there looks to be relatively little change in circumstances from my previous post looking at the donations to date. But the disconnect between Dwain Lingenfelter's leadership donors and the party's base of support looks to be all the more striking now that we know who gave what last year. In particular, of his fairly lengthy list of corporate donors, not a single one donated a disclosed amount to the NDP in 2008.
And the candidates themselves? Both Higgins and Pedersen gave substantial contributions in 2008, which won't come as any great surprise given their positions as an MLA and party president respectively. But the other two candidates don't show up on the donation list - which is particularly striking for Lingenfelter, who was of course the only leadership candidate to have declared his candidacy for the leadership for the last few months of 2008.
For the most part, there looks to be relatively little change in circumstances from my previous post looking at the donations to date. But the disconnect between Dwain Lingenfelter's leadership donors and the party's base of support looks to be all the more striking now that we know who gave what last year. In particular, of his fairly lengthy list of corporate donors, not a single one donated a disclosed amount to the NDP in 2008.
And the candidates themselves? Both Higgins and Pedersen gave substantial contributions in 2008, which won't come as any great surprise given their positions as an MLA and party president respectively. But the other two candidates don't show up on the donation list - which is particularly striking for Lingenfelter, who was of course the only leadership candidate to have declared his candidacy for the leadership for the last few months of 2008.
On rapid responses
Eddie has already pointed out the CBC's story on complaints about some NDP membership sales in northern Saskatchewan. But while there isn't enough information available yet to comment one way or another about the allegations, it's certainly worth highlighting how the party has dealt with them:
In contrast, the Saskatchewan NDP has rightly acknowledged that the allegations exist at least in the eyes of some callers, and has placed its focus on figuring out exactly what happened. And whatever the result of the investigation, the party looks to be far healthier for that response.
Update: Eddie provides a few more details.
The party's CEO, Deb McDonald, says the party has had phone calls from people in the north who expressed concern.Compare that response to what would figure to have happened if a similar internal party issue had been raised when it comes to, say, the Harper Cons. From them, the default responses would be an angry denial to start with, followed by an attempt to point at some unrelated issue in another party or to smear whoever raised the issue, with the possibility of temporarily punishing a lower-level operative kept in mind as an absolute last resort. And at no point would getting at the facts behind the matter be seen as a priority.
However, she wouldn't say what those concerns were or how many people had complained.
"We can't be sure the memberships that they're speaking about — whether it was only one camp that has sold these memberships," she said.
The party leadership committee will be meeting Friday night to discuss the issue and will spend the weekend investigating, McDonald said.
"We're going to take a look at these memberships and we'll phone some of the people and we'll talk to them and just check out with regard to how they obtained their membership — if they're happy with their membership, if they really wanted a membership — and just give them options," she said.
In contrast, the Saskatchewan NDP has rightly acknowledged that the allegations exist at least in the eyes of some callers, and has placed its focus on figuring out exactly what happened. And whatever the result of the investigation, the party looks to be far healthier for that response.
Update: Eddie provides a few more details.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Deep thought
In fairness, Michael Ignatieff probably didn't have much choice in declaring his fealty to Gordon Campbell. After all, the last thing he wants is for anybody to get the idea to ask whether a right-wing reactionary might be hiding behind the Liberal party name.
No hubris here, nosiree
Take your pick of Michael Ignatieff's latest messages and decide which is the most laden in arrogance and hubris. Is it the call for a Liberal one-party state?
We want to be that great big tent that includes every single Canadian.Or is it the declaration that Canada owes its existence and success to the Liberal Party?
We are not an election machine. We are a national institution that inspires our country to greatness, and that holds our country together.
On quarterly returns
Pundits' Guide has posted the fund-raising numbers for the first quarter of 2009. And there are a couple of factors worth highlighting in evaluating the NDP's performance, which shows a drop from the party's usual first-quarter numbers over the last few years.
I'll start off by noting that the drop is probably less significant than it looks due to the fact that the NDP's focus was elsewhere for a substantial chunk of the quarter. For nearly the entire month of January, the party's top priority was to promote the progressive coalition in the eyes of the public and the Libs, which presumably left less resources available for party-specific messaging and fund-raising. So there's ample reason to doubt the significance of the year-to-year comparison.
What does seem significant, though, is that the party's effort to pivot from that point seems to have been less effective than hoped. Remember that immediately after Michael Ignatieff decided to prop up the Cons, the NDP responded with an ad campaign intended to start defining Ignatieff on its terms - and concurrently put out a fund-raising call to promote the ads.
One would figure that if all had gone as hoped, the ads would have inspired enough of a response to make up for the earlier lost time. But the first-quarter returns suggest that they didn't do much to bring in donations - which likely explains both the relatively short shelf-life of the ad campaign, and the rebranding work that the NDP has done since then.
It remains to be seen whether the trends from the first quarter prove largely to be blips for the NDP along with for the other federal parties. (And it's worth wondering how sustainable the Libs' pace in particular might be, considering that nearly a third of their fund-raising came from donors who are now at or near the annual maximum.) But it does seem safe to say that the NDP's most creative attempt to turn the outcome of the coalition into a fund-raiser fell short of what the party was apparently hoping for - and that will make it interesting to watch where it goes next to keep the money flowing.
Update: As a reader notes in comments, David Akin reports that the NDP also held back on its own fund-raising due to the provincial campaigns over the first quarter. Which means that we can likely expect a relatively soft second quarter as well, since three of the four campaigns involved are still ongoing (or just about to get underway in the case of Nova Scotia).
I'll start off by noting that the drop is probably less significant than it looks due to the fact that the NDP's focus was elsewhere for a substantial chunk of the quarter. For nearly the entire month of January, the party's top priority was to promote the progressive coalition in the eyes of the public and the Libs, which presumably left less resources available for party-specific messaging and fund-raising. So there's ample reason to doubt the significance of the year-to-year comparison.
What does seem significant, though, is that the party's effort to pivot from that point seems to have been less effective than hoped. Remember that immediately after Michael Ignatieff decided to prop up the Cons, the NDP responded with an ad campaign intended to start defining Ignatieff on its terms - and concurrently put out a fund-raising call to promote the ads.
One would figure that if all had gone as hoped, the ads would have inspired enough of a response to make up for the earlier lost time. But the first-quarter returns suggest that they didn't do much to bring in donations - which likely explains both the relatively short shelf-life of the ad campaign, and the rebranding work that the NDP has done since then.
It remains to be seen whether the trends from the first quarter prove largely to be blips for the NDP along with for the other federal parties. (And it's worth wondering how sustainable the Libs' pace in particular might be, considering that nearly a third of their fund-raising came from donors who are now at or near the annual maximum.) But it does seem safe to say that the NDP's most creative attempt to turn the outcome of the coalition into a fund-raiser fell short of what the party was apparently hoping for - and that will make it interesting to watch where it goes next to keep the money flowing.
Update: As a reader notes in comments, David Akin reports that the NDP also held back on its own fund-raising due to the provincial campaigns over the first quarter. Which means that we can likely expect a relatively soft second quarter as well, since three of the four campaigns involved are still ongoing (or just about to get underway in the case of Nova Scotia).
On easy reporting
I'm not sure if the National Post plans to make a regular feature out of its post entitled "Good question, lousy answers from Thursday's Question period". But while that might be a useful way of generating dozens of separate pieces of content for every day Parliament is in session, wouldn't it be more newsworthy if the Cons actually provided just one good answer for a change?
Ignatieff on Asbestos Still a Health Hazard
The Tyee points out Michael Ignatieff's latest attempt to weasel his way out of his earlier reversal on asbestos. But all indications are that Ignatieff is still looking for excuses to change the subject from Canada's continued production and export of a hazardous product:
But more importantly, even if the full study hasn't been released publicly, its main findings have been reported. And they couldn't be much more clear in reaching a conclusion on exactly the question which Ignatieff is looking to paint as unresolved:
Mind you, it's hard to see how that position helps the Libs in the long run. At most, it deflects a small amount of current attention toward the Cons on an issue where the Libs haven't historically done anything differently. And Ignatieff will have to address exactly the same findings once the full report is made public.
But the fact that Ignatieff's latest attempt to tap-dance around the issue looks to be a political failure doesn't make it any less wrong as a matter of substance. And Ignatieff's attempt to keep one foot in the denialist camp should give a strong indication of how he'll handle the issue later on.
Update: Dr. Dawg has more.
What does he think now?Of course, there are a couple of major problems with that position. First, Ignatieff didn't seem to have much interest at all in the study - or the subject generally - until he first got himself in trouble. Which gives him little credibility in now trying to put the focus on whether and how this particular study is released.
“The complication in the issue is simply chrysotile asbestos in the Eastern Townships of Quebec,” he said. “I've had strong representations since I said what I said, which has been my basic position, that there is a form of chrysotile asbestos that is not as harmful as other forms.”
Whether that's true is a matter of science, not opinion, he said. “The issue is whether that is factually correct or not. The government has a study on chrysotile asbestos they have not released. They should release that and then we can resolve this once and for all.”
He added, “It doesn't substantially alter what I said in Victoria. It simply says on that issue we need further scientific clarification.”
If it is harmful, he said, it should not be exported or produced. “No country, certainly not Canada should export materials that are known to be harmful. Nor should we produce them.”
But more importantly, even if the full study hasn't been released publicly, its main findings have been reported. And they couldn't be much more clear in reaching a conclusion on exactly the question which Ignatieff is looking to paint as unresolved:
For more than a year, Health Canada held onto a report by a panel of international experts that concludes there is a "strong relationship" between lung cancer and chrysotile asbestos mined in Canada.In other words, even while professing to believe that Canada shouldn't be exporting hazardous substances, Ignatieff is going out of his way to ignore the findings of exactly the study which he says should be the final word as to whether or not chrysotile asbestos falls into that category.
...
While the panel found the relationship between chrysotile asbestos and the rare of form of cancer mesothelioma "much less certain," there is a "strong relationship of exposure with lung cancer," panel chairman Trevor Ogden wrote in the newly released introductory letter to the report...
In an interview, panelist Leslie Stayner, director of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, said while the panel agreed the link between exposure to amphibole asbestos -- another form of the mineral -- and mesothelioma was stronger than chrysotile asbestos, the experts couldn't agree about the actual degree of that difference.
"The most important thing is what it doesn't say, which is some people have alleged it would say. What it doesn't say is that exposure to chrysotile asbestos is safe," said Stayner.
"I think the bottom line here is that all forms of asbestos cause both mesothelioma and lung cancer. We will probably for many years still be debating this question of relative hazard of chrysotile. The fundamental question of whether it's hazardous or not is clear. I think the answer to that is, yes, chrysotile is a hazardous substance.
Mind you, it's hard to see how that position helps the Libs in the long run. At most, it deflects a small amount of current attention toward the Cons on an issue where the Libs haven't historically done anything differently. And Ignatieff will have to address exactly the same findings once the full report is made public.
But the fact that Ignatieff's latest attempt to tap-dance around the issue looks to be a political failure doesn't make it any less wrong as a matter of substance. And Ignatieff's attempt to keep one foot in the denialist camp should give a strong indication of how he'll handle the issue later on.
Update: Dr. Dawg has more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)