Deep thought

I eagerly await the Conservatives' declaration that the only problem with the federal do-not-call list is a need for higher fines that offenders can continue to ignore.

On pressure points

There's been loads of backlash against the Cons' short-sighted attack on Canada's census, with the Libs going so far as to send up a trial balloon about legislative changes to require mandatory long forms. But this looks to be one case where the best course of action is to put pressure directly on the Cons, rather than to seek legislative change now or later.

That's in part because there's no prospect of actually making any changes in legislation in time to help without the Cons' support. Based on the few private members' bills which have become law over the past few years, the timeline to get a bill passed over the Cons' objections looks to be in the range of one to two years. And that's for a bill passing through the House of Commons with a privileged position in the Parliamentary lottery, and before the Cons' impending Senate majority takes hold this fall.

So there's no reason to think that the legislation actually can be changed in time for the 2011 census without a concurrent change in government (which would presumably make the point moot). But it's also worth asking whether legislation is the best way to deal with the issue in the first place.

I'd see two options to require a mandatory long form, but both would come with obvious drawbacks. A bill which prescribes the contents of the long form would make it more difficult for Statistics Canada to amend the form based on new or changing factors, while one which simply creates a requirement for a separate long form with contents to be determined could easily be turned into a farce by the Cons. (Remember how the Libs' "quarterly reports" on economic management turned into a political infomercial? Just wait until the Cons use their discretion to feature mandatory multiple-choice questions like "How great is Prime Minister Stephen Harper?" and "To what degree does Michael Ignatieff think it's all about himself?".)

Simply put, leaving the census form in the hands of Statistics Canada is the best way to deal with any circumstances other than the government of vandals currently afflicting the country. And legislative changes will either create new problems or offer another chance for the Cons to make a mockery of the value of census data.

Fortunately, there should be a realistic prospect of getting the Cons to reverse their decision - particularly by emphasizing some of their own constituencies which are hurt by the move. Sure, the anti-science Cons may not care in the slightest if they permanently gut the resources available to other levels of government and social scientists. But all indications are that they've completely failed to recognize that Canadian business also stands to be hurt by the loss of accurate information for the purposes of demographic weighting - and pressure on that front would figure to have a strong chance of forcing a change in course, particularly in the absence of anybody taking any particularly strong position to defend it.

So for the Libs and other opposition parties, the proper response is to challenge the Cons' decision directly, not merely hint at future interest in undoing the change. And if they join the business, municipal and academic communities in calling for action, there's reason for hope that this is one of the few decisions that the Cons can actually be persuaded to reverse.

The reviews are in

Frances Russell tears into Michael Ignatieff for his regressive instincts, and points out that the Libs figure to have nothing but trouble pretending to offer an alternative to the Cons because of them:

(Ignatieff is) losing because his default instinct is always right-wing.

He showcases himself as the inheritor not just of the Liberalism of Trudeau, but of Lester B. Pearson, the prime minister who created Canada's social safety net with nation-building programs such as medicare, the Canada Assistance Plan and the Canada Pension Plan. And he has even floated his own nation-building ideas: an east-west power grid; a national oil pipeline to service Quebec and the Maritimes; national child care and early learning; free university education for everyone with the marks.

But they are never fleshed out past the headline and often vanish completely. And when he is confronted with real challenges or opportunities to support or advance bedrock Liberal principles and policies, Ignatieff invariably drops the ball. When Quebec's 2010 budget announced plans to impose a universal health tax and floated the idea of user fees, Ignatieff not only wasn't critical, he wrongly claimed both conformed to the Canada Health Act.
...
"'I don't recall one instance this weekend when someone said, here's the problem, the solution is a big expensive government program. Didn't hear it. Didn't hear it,'" Adams reports Ignatieff said (after his thinkers' conference). "He obviously hadn't been listening," Adams writes. "Moreover, even those social policy objectives Ignatieff did enumerate turned out to be subject to a higher priority: eliminating the deficit. By making the deficit his overriding priority, he made jobs, education, health care, day care, pensions, and so on, secondary: a wish list for another day."

And there was more. Ignatieff insisted no new spending would occur unless funds were specifically identified, ensuring the deficit would not rise, Adams says. The Liberal leader also told delegates: "We are not a big government party; we are the party of the network." Adams believes this means the Liberals will just convene federal-provincial conferences and hope the provinces can work things out.

Ignatieff's leadership has "demagnetized" the Liberal party, Adams warns. It no longer can rally the anti-Harper vote. "Most Canadians who give up on the Tories go right past the Liberals to the NDP, the Bloc (Québécois) or, in particular, to the Greens," he concludes.

On due diligence

Shorter Don Morgan:

Hiring independent officers of the legislature is haaaaaaaaaaard. Can't we just agree to pick names out of a hat?

Burning question

Many of us will be hoping Dr. Dawg is right in theorizing that John Pruyn's story will be the last straw in the eyes of the public when it comes to evaluating the actions of the security forces in Toronto at the time of the G20 summit. (And the story should also serve as important inspiration for the rallies set to take place next week.)

But can it take long before the reactionary right starts declaring that having wandered out among the heathens with a prosthesis, Pruyn had it coming?

On wilful blindness

Shorter David Frum:

What's this world coming to when the most powerful country on the planet won't stubbornly prevent the rest of the globe from recognizing well-known facts in order to further the interests of a single ally?

On disaster response

Once again, Murray Mandryk is being too generous in suggesting that a single outburst of federal recognition of Saskatchewan's needs can make up for years of neglect as the Harper Cons have sought to buy a majority elsewhere. But his latest suggestion would at least represent a meager first step in making up for what Saskatchewan has lost from having both a provincial government and 13 federal MPs more interested in doing Stephen Harper's bidding than listening to their constituents:

For too long now, Wall has allowed Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the local Conservative MPs to take this province for granted -- largely because what Saskatchewan has requested from Ottawa has always been considerably less pressing than the disaster relief that is needed.

This is something neither Wall nor the province can continue to tolerate. If it wasn't worth going to battle with Ottawa over unfair equalization, infrastructure spending or support for the province's future economic initiatives, surely now is the time for Wall to call in his markers with Harper on flood assistance. Wall must demonstrate leadership by standing up to Harper and refusing to take no as an answer.

(Edit: fixed wording.)

The reviews are in

The Chronicle Herald lends its voice to the cause of reversing the Harper and Charest governments' shameful insistence on exporting asbestos even while acknowledging that it's not fit for use at home:

Not surprisingly, there’s virtually no use of asbestos in construction anymore in this country.

But for many years, Canada, to its shame, has led an ugly and hypocritical campaign to keep asbestos markets open wherever possible worldwide. Worse, Canada has even fought to keep information on the abundant dangers of asbestos from being distributed — via the UN-sponsored Rotterdam Convention — to countries importing the substance. More than 50 countries have banned the use of asbestos.
...
As the Quebec government pondered a $58-million loan guarantee to revive an old asbestos mine, a group of international health experts issued a stinging rebuke to governments worldwide that have failed to ban the material, despite "overwhelming agreement" that no safe level of exposure exists. It was published last week in the scientific journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

The politics behind continued production — entirely in Quebec — and export of asbestos is killing people.

Alternative explanations

Chrystal rightly points out that the drop in Canadian voter turnout in 2008 looks to have been largely centred in the 45-74 age range, signalling unusual disengagement by a set of voters which would normally be relatively active. But while I agree with her view that a more proportional system would be a plus generally, I'm not sure we can blame the same electoral system that a voter would have been familiar with for upwards of half of his or her life for a sudden dropoff in that age range.

Instead, I'd think there are two more obvious explanations as to how it's that group in particular that decided not to vote.

First off, there's the issue of partisan attachments in the context of a woefully weak Liberal campaign. For younger voters turned off by Stephane Dion's frailties and the lack of party support behind him, the lack of a long-term voting pattern would seem to make it comparatively easier to look to an alternative. But those who had been voting Liberal for decades may have been more likely to stay home rather than supporting the NDP or the Greens - and all indications are that Libs supporters did so in droves.

But that isn't a full explanation either since turnout was down for all parties but the Greens. And that leaves the possible effect of the new voter identification rules imposed by the Cons, Libs and Bloc.

My first impression would have been that the voters most affected would likely be found in the oldest and youngest cohorts where they'd be less likely to have all of the required ID. But that doesn't seem to have been a problem for voters 75+, who actually made up the lone group which increased its turnout from 2006. So could it be that the greatest effect of the new ID requirements was to restrict the turnout among older working Canadians who may have figured that it wasn't worth the trouble to go to the polls?

(Edit: fixed typo.)

Bending the facts

One of the major stories in U.S. politics today has been the Economist's manipulation of a photo of Barack Obama on its cover to make him appear more solitary. And particularly considering that the source image itself reflects Obama's willingness to be photographed by media outlets in an environment that wasn't image-sanitized for his benefit, there's plenty of reason for concern about the tactic.

But based on Canada's experience with the Harper Cons, it's worth noting that there may be some circumstances where that's exactly the best way to make up for the dishonest presentation of a leader by an all-controlling government. Keep in mind what the media is up against in trying to pick up any semblance of "reality" from the Cons:

Ms. Buzzetti pointed to one incident in which a group of smiling Cabinet ministers were snapped by the Prime Minister's official photographer when they were about to chow down on seal meat during a trip to the Arctic.

Journalists on the trip were prevented from documenting the seal sampling themselves and instead given the official handout photo, she said.

"They wanted us to have this nice slick picture of them all smiling and saying, 'Mmm, seal is good. Look at us, international community; we like seal in Canada'....The risk, of course, is we would have seen some Cabinet minister not trying it because they're disgusted by it," said Ms. Buzzetti. "The impact is that you don't have the real proof. You have propaganda."

With that in mind, let's ask the question: should Canadian media be less shy about altering images of a government which limits the media to pre-selected photos chosen to reflect its desired image, rather than anything approaching reality?

Unbalanced

Shorter Tony Clement:

We demand equal coverage for the tin-foil hat crowd!

On non-disclosure

I won't try to summarize Joe's latest post, since his research documenting a completely opaque decision-making process surrounding Saskatoon infrastructure among all three levels of government deserves a full read. But there are a couple of points that strike me as particularly worthy of some further investigation.

First, there's the provincial government's choice not to develop an infrastructure plan that was promised both to the federal government and to the people of Saskatchewan. And it doesn't look like they're even pretending to have an explanation for the failure:

In a letter dated June 28, 2010, highways and infrastructure deputy minister Rob Penny wrote: “You are correct in identifying the Canada-Saskatchewan Infrastructure Framework Agreement requires the province develop an infrastructure plan. The Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure is tasked with the preparation of the required plan; to date the ministry has not completed nor looked to implement a Saskatchewan Infrastructure Plan.”

Penny did not explain why.

The news that there will be no long-term infrastructure plan is surprising given that the Wall government told the people of Saskatchewan there would be one.

In its 2008-09 annual report, Highways and Infrastructure had this to say: “The Ministry initiated the development of the Saskatchewan Infrastructure Plan that is a signature document establishing a comprehensive infrastructure plan for Saskatchewan.”

However, there is no mention of the initiative in the ministry’s plan for 2009-10. What happened to it is a mystery.

Now, it's probably too late for a useful plan to be developed on at least one level, since infrastructure money under the federal stimulus program doesn't figure to be available for any more new projects. But even if the media has been thoroughly scooped by Joe on the story generally, a few follow-ups as to what happened to the plan and when it might be developed for provincial purposes would appear to be in order.

Second, there's the response by both the city and the federal government to requests for records covering a time period when it's known that many of the major decisions were made:

In February 2010, a freedom of information request was submitted to Infrastructure Canada for copies of any records from November 1, 2008, to December 31, 2008, regarding or relating to the Mendel Art Gallery. This covered the time period the city said discussions were taking place. And yet, on February 25, 2010, Infrastructure Canada advised that it had no records responsive to the request.

In a letter dated March 19, 2010, responding to a freedom of information request, the city clerk noted “that prior to the City’s formal submission of April 9, 2009, there was only informal dialogue between officials of the City and the Province as to the eligibility of the many potential projects that were being considered.” There “was no formal correspondence, merely emails between officials” that the city did not keep copies of.

Now, it comes as news to me that a government organization would be able to declare that records can be withheld simply because they're not "formal". And the fact that the city acknowledges the existence some internal e-mails which have been deleted (which itself would seem inappropriate) suggests that there was at least some paper trail covering the decision.

But based on the combination of answers from the city and the federal government, one has to wonder whether there's a deliberate movement - whether coordinated among different levels of government or not - to avoid keeping track of the decisions being made with our public money. And it's hard not to think that any such efforts have only reinforced each other in a case like this where all three levels of government have been working on the same project.

On international incidents

Even though the Libs and Bloc have capitulated on the means of assessing the Harper government's handling of Afghan torture documents, I'd hope there isn't much doubt left about the plausibility of the Cons' spin seeking to suppress vital information. But for those still looking to test whether the Cons have believed a word they've spoken in trying to cover up key documents, the news that word of Canada's treatment of prisoners has come out in a U.K. courtroom should offer a golden opportunity.

After all, if the Cons genuinely believe that information about detainee treatment has to be covered up due to the need for other countries to trust that their information will be kept secret, then today's news would make for a massive breach of that expectation. So the Cons should be in a full-blown rage at our British allies.

On the other hand, if international relations are simply an excuse to try to shut down public inquiry into a damaging issue, then we'd expect the Cons to downplay today's news in hopes that it'll go away. But that will speak volumes as to whether the publicization of information about detainee treatment is actually seen as affecting information sharing among countries.

Needless to say, the Cons' response so far shouldn't come as much surprise. But let's give them a bit more time to decide whether or not they're prepared to concede that their "international relations" excuse - which figures to play a role in the document review set to happen any month now - has been nonsense from day one.

(Edit: fixed typo, wording.)

Conservative Money Management in Action

I'm not sure what's more disturbing: the fact that the Con government managed to lose $869 million in sole-source contracts in the first place, or the fact that their discovery is being treated as a footnote rather than front-page news. But either way, this looks to be yet another indication that Canada can't afford much more of Stephen Harper.

Time to be counted

The Star Phoenix editorial board slams the Cons for their short-sighted view of the long form census:

It's hard to imagine Industry Minister Tony Clement thought much beyond short-term politics when he unilaterally decided to axe from next year's census the mandatory long form Statistics Canada has used for 35 years to gather detailed information about Canadians.

Mr. Clement conceded he hadn't consulted any of the groups that will be affected -- among them municipal governments that had been working with Statistics Canada to increase accessibility to local data -- before deciding to placate some Canadians who'd complained that the census form was coercive and intrusive.
...
As anyone with a modicum of knowledge about surveys could have told the minister had he stopped to think things through, he's dead wrong to claim such a self-selecting response system "is a sound method that would beat the issue of concern of degradation of data."

This is little more than anti-intellectualism and political pandering that proves right those critics who have suggested the Conservative government's goal seems to be to discourage Statistics Canada from conducting analytical pieces that may prove politically embarrassing.
...
Had Mr. Clement consulted with others, he might have been able to come up with a workable solution. But it's apparent that he doesn't care about the long-term ramifications his decision poses for intelligent and informed public policy analysis across Canada as long as it buys the Conservatives a few votes on the fringes.

Fortunately, there's an easy step that Canadians can take to express their own concern about the Cons' push to gut the census. So take a moment to sign the petition calling on the Cons to reverse course.

More and Better New Democrats

While we're comparing the state of online organizing in Canada and the U.S., let's note one important difference which is fairly surprising considering the seeming amount of organization required to affect political outcomes.

In the U.S., even a single primary can cost as much as an entire Canadian general election, and the scale of money involved in general elections dwarfs what exists in our system. But rather than seeing that as a problem, grassroots online organizations have been able to exert substantial amounts of influence on both. And indeed, Barack Obama's presidential campaign was able to harness small-money donors to swamp both public funding and corporate contributions as a force for change.

In Canada, on the other hand, the dollar amounts needed to radically change the outlook for any given seat should be well within the reach of even a small amount of online political organizing.

For general elections at the federal level, candidate spending caps ensure that nobody can spend more than a high five-figure or low six-figure sum to pursue any seat. And that amount is further reinforced by our electoral financing system: the tax credit system refunds 75% of low-level individual contributions, and the post-election expense rebates cut the real costs to any given candidate by 60%. Which means that a campaign which takes the simple step of borrowing against its expense rebate can run a fully-funded campaign of $80,000 at a real cost of $8,000 to its donors.

For nomination races which represent the best opportunity for change within a party (to the extent they're allowed by party leadership), the credit and rebate systems don't apply. But the cost of nominations as they're currently run is also substantially lower: a few thousand dollars are generally enough to fund the level of operation normally carried out. So again, a relatively modest amount of organization should be able to make a massive difference in outcomes.

The rules may vary at the provincial level, but the dollar amounts would figure to be lower than the ones which apply federally. So in effect, there shouldn't be a single race in Canada where the cost of running a campaign is beyond the reach of our own netroots.

Yet while a few isolated campaigns have tapped into online fund-raising, nobody has made a concerted effort to imitate the Blue America movement to fund progressive challengers within the Democratic Party, nor mirrored the "More and Better Democrats" credo that's driven the most successful progressive blog on the planet. And my sense is that it's time for change on that front.

So beginning in the near future, I'll be introducing a new feature: "More and Better New Democrats", which will provide ongoing placement on Accidental Deliberations (rather than the isolated posts I've sometimes put up in the past) to draw readers' eyes to the candidates who are best positioned to strengthen the NDP in numbers and in principle. The idea will be to provide each candidate with:
- an initial introductory post profiling the candidate and providing links for readers to get involved through donations or volunteering;
- a profile on my sidebar for a fixed period of time (likely a week or a month depending on the level of interest), again with links to donation/volunteering opportunities; and
- a continued sidebar link to the profile as a listed "More and Better New Democrats" candidate as long as the candidate continues to run for the office or nomination involved.

For the most part, I'll try to avoid too much focus on candidates who are already on the NDP's list of targets or provincial equivalents, since the candidates already highlighted by the party figure to have enough organizational heft to run fully-funded campaigns.

Instead, the goal is to identify and promote candidates - at any level of government or organization - who can best improve their ability to make the case for progressive change with a modest amount of exposure outside their core supporters. At levels where the NDP isn't considered a likely potential government, the focus will largely on the "more" part of the equation - while for those where the NDP is in or near power, the "better" aspect will come into play more often as a means of ensuring that future NDP governments include the strongest possible left-wing voices.

Naturally, I have some ideas in mind as to who might get promoted in the future. But I'm wide open to input from candidates and supporters as to who might fit the criteria and why - or indeed how best to describe our goals. So please feel free to leave comments or send e-mails with your suggestions - and hopefully this can serve as a first step toward closing one of the most important gaps between Canadian progressives and our U.S. counterparts.

On narrow interests

Gary Mason slams the B.C. business community's decision to attack the province's HST petition through the courts only after a massive proportion of the province has already made its opposition clear:

For most of his nine years in office, Mr. Campbell has taken criticism for a policy agenda perceived to strongly favour business over unions. The business community has mostly rewarded that loyalty by donating generously to Mr. Campbell’s Liberals, helping to ensure they remain in power.
...
Now that the anti-HST campaign appears to have more than enough signatures on its petition to get a bill calling for the tax to be repealed introduced in the legislature, the business community has decided to enter the fray. With friends like that…

A coalition of business groups has asked the B.C. Supreme Court to rule the petition drive unconstitutional. The group’s argument is that B.C. does not have the right to quash the federally created HST.
...
There is a time and place for court challenges. But coming so late in the game, as this one does, looks cheap and undemocratic. It’s moves like this, quite frankly, that give business a bad name. Business leaders were too lazy to get off their duffs and do something when they should have, so now they are going to dig into their bloated wallets and take the easy way out. By going to court.

At this point the move is only going to make matters worse for Mr. Campbell – if that’s possible. The public will look at what the business coalition is doing as an attempt to thwart the will of the people on behalf of a governing party it has always supported.

Sunday Morning Links

- skdadl's post applying G20 security standards to that all-important question, "should I go out today?", is of course a must-read. But I'm surprised skdadl missed one of the most important questions of all: "do you plan to carry or transport any weapons such as rope, tennis balls or books?" Because I'd hate for an unwary citizen to fail to ask that question and end up contributing to Bill Blair's travelling road show.

- Sean Bruyea and Allan Cutler rightly point out that the Cons' stifling of creativity and dissent within the civil service has done far more to hurt the chances of public servants coming up suggestions to improve efficiency than their incentive scheme can possibly do to help:

This government implemented legislation and a Public Service Integrity Commissioner, purportedly to protect whistleblowers in a civil service where 400,000 employees are responsible for administering more than $50 billion in annual expenditures. However, in the three years since taking office, the commissioner has apparently not found one incident of government wrongdoing, nor has she apparently identified one whistleblower who needed protection.

In such an unsupportive atmosphere, it is unlikely that most federal civil servants will jeopardize their career, retirement, health and dignity to confront a system merely in the hopes of receiving a cash incentive, especially when any protection is either too weak or non-existent.

- Pundits' Guide features a guest post from Chanchal Bhattacharya which compares the types of strategies normally used in the U.S. and Canada, then nicely summarizes where each of the Canadian political parties stands in trying to adopt the type of social-network-era grassroots organization that served the Obama campaign so well in 2008.

- Finally, Richard Shearmur nicely sums up the questions Canadians should be asking about the Cons' move to gut our census:

Canadians need to ask themselves: Why does this government not value accurate information about Canadian society and its regions?

Is it because it wishes to protect people's privacy? Or is it because an ignorant and ill-informed society is easier to manipulate and govern?

(Edit: corrected author of the first link.)

Upcoming Saskatchewan NDP Nomination Dates - The Battlefords, Saskatoon Sutherland

For those who didn't get enough nomination drama in June or are already looking for their next fix, the Saskatchewan NDP has posted a couple of nomination dates for September and October:

- On September 16, the NDP will hold its nomination meeting for The Battlefords riding held by Len Taylor.

- And October 2 will be the date of the Saskatoon Sutherland nomination meeting, featuring a hotly contested race among Ryan Meili, Naveed Anwar, Rob Dobrohoczki and Scott Stelmaschuk.

Neither of the event listings yet includes locations or times - but I'll post those once they're available.

Meanwhile, for those looking for a dose of politics in the meantime, Michael Medby's Northwest Rebellion is worth a listen.

But are they listening?

While he's more optimistic than he probably should be as to the likelihood of anything improving, Murray Mandryk is right to note a common thread linking most of the Wall government's most glaring mistakes:

(I)f you look at where this government has struggled, it usually boils down to a minister who didn't listen.

Consider the government's problems in the last year: The massive overestimation of potash revenues, changes to Bill 80 that appeared to have been written by the construction industry; the more legitimate union concerns about abuse of the new essential services law and unfair bargaining; the privacy commissioner's concerns about disclosing patient hospital stay information to fundraisers; the unpopular changes to the Wildlife Habitat Protection Act (WHPA); the surprising furor over SCN cuts; the witch hunt over the NDP leak on the wrongly released sex offender, and; (sic) even the piddling budget cuts to Dutch elm disease and mosquito control.

So what do all these problems have in common? Well, the problems tended to start with either the minister concerned not seeking better advice or choosing to listen to only what he or she wanted to hear.
...
Too much government time has been wasted listening to friendlies blowing smoke -- the construction industry, the potash corporations promising gigantic production numbers and expansions, the business sector, etc. Not enough time has been spent listening to others that would help develop more rounded policies. For this, Wall must take responsibility. He's allowed too many ministers like Rob Norris, Bill Boyd and Don McMorris to cater to specific interest groups at the expense of others. In short, he's made it easy for them not to listen.

Spending money to make money

There's plenty to discuss about the 2009 year-end returns - both in their original form, and the handy comparison put together by Alice at Pundits' Guide. But let's start with an obvious explanation for the differences in fund-raising between the national political parties which signals both an opportunity for the opposition parties to bring in more money, and the fact that there's much less of a gap in apparent fund-raising capacity than the top-line contribution numbers might suggest.

While the Globe and Mail notes the massive amount spent by the Cons on fund-raising only in passing and doesn't mention the comparable figures for the other parties, take a look at the relationship between expenditures on fund-raising and returns:

Party	Expenses	Contributions	Net
Cons	$7,183,514	$17,704,401	$10,520,887
Libs	$2,377,395	$9,087,756	$6,710,361
NDP	$1,594,566	$4,006,641	$2,412,075
Green	$0*	$1,142,893	$1,142,893

*It's possible that the Greens may have fund-raising costs embedded in another category ("wages and benefits"? "professional fees"?). But I'll count this as zero since they don't list a separate expenditure category for fund-raising.

So what can we take from the net numbers? The first obvious point is that the Cons' advantage over the Libs in particular looks a lot smaller when one considers the respective amount each party is plowing into fund-raising efforts. Rather than having an insurmountable lead in the amount of money they're able to raise for advertising or other purposes, the Cons actually have a relatively small advantage which seems to be driven mostly by their more aggressive fund-raising efforts.

But that isn't to say that the Cons have their strategy wrong by any stretch of the imagination. As I've noted before, the ideal point of fund-raising for any political party would seem to be that where the incremental fund-raising value of the next dollar spent approaches zero - or maybe even slightly less than that to the extent it's possible to derive valuable information about donor preferences and public buy-in from a fund-raising campaign. And from the massive gap between the amounts spent by the Libs (and Greens) and the amount received in contributions, it looks like both of those parties are falling well short of the ideal spending amount.

Meanwhile, the NDP looks to have roughly matched the Cons' spending on fund-raising as a percentage of its contributions. But of course that's a double-edged sword: if the NDP is already near the optimal point of fund-raising spending for its current level of public support, then any further increases in fund-raising would figure to involve an extra step to try to expand the pool of potential donors.

Musical interlude

Delerium - Angelicus

On voluntary restrictions

It shouldn't be news that the claims relied on by the Harper Cons to suppress information from Parliament and the public - including that of cabinet secrecy - reflect areas where Harper and his government are choosing to hide the truth, rather than cases where there's any particular obstacle to providing full and accurate information to Canadians. And Jean Charest has offered up a prime example of what a government can do to open up its operations to the public where it wants to do so:

Premier Jean Charest is forcing the hand of former justice minister Marc Bellemare by lifting some cabinet secrecy restrictions, allowing him to testify before the inquiry looking into the nomination of judges in the province.

Bellemare had refused to testify before the Bastarache Commission, because he said he could not break cabinet confidentiality rules.
...
In a statement released on Friday, the premier's office confirmed an order of cabinet had been adopted suspending the obligation of confidentiality for Bellemare and a handful of others...

Of course, the purpose of pointing out Charest's action isn't to suggest that he's setting any particularly useful standard for transparency. After all, Charest's motives look to be entirely self-interested in wanting to allow an inquiry to test damaging allegations against his government, rather than genuinely opening up his government's decision-making in general for greater scrutiny.

But it's still worth remembering that cabinet confidences can be (and are) opened up where that course of action serves a government's purposes. And the fact that the Harper Cons consistently throw every excuse they can in the way of accountability for their own actions should provide ample reason for concern as to what lurks behind their blanket of secrecy.

Friday Afternoon Links

- Dan Gardner's column offers a useful reminder of the role of luck in sports and political outcomes alike. But there are a couple of points worth some additional discussion.

First off, it's worth keeping in mind that while actual results will indeed vary based in large part on random events, actors in both spheres do have opportunities available to help turn the odds in their favour. And considering the real-world ramifications of political success or failure, it's remarkable that it may be in sports that more of that analysis has taken place.

At the same time, it's also worth noting that the political sphere lends itself far more readily to spin.

While there's no denying the score at the end of a sporting event (even if the means of getting there may be in controversy), political events short of election results leave room for all parties to claim victories for themselves and defeat for their opponents - and indeed there's a strong incentive for parties to claim all events as evidence of their own merit and their opponents' weakness. So political actors have reason not to publicly acknowledge that luck is at play even when it does have a major impact on events.

- In light of the Harper Cons' unfortunate success in limiting the amount of reporting on climate change issues, I won't let this story pass without a link:

The Department of Finance recommended over the spring that Harper lead by example and get rid of tax incentives that encourage oil and gas production.

But documents obtained by The Canadian Press, to be released in conjunction with the final G20 communique on Sunday, show the prime minister opted instead to reiterate actions taken in the past rather than volunteer any additional gestures.
...
"If Canada undertakes no reforms, it would eliminate the need to co-ordinate action internationally, though justifying inaction could be challenging if others are taking action," says the March memo to Flaherty.

Sadly, the Cons managed to avoid that need for justification by ensuring that climate change wouldn't form a meaningful part of the G8/G20 discussion as long as they had control of the agenda. But the more important question is whether Canadians want a government so devoted to inaction in the first place.

- Meanwhile, the Cons' commitment to evidence-free policy-making shouldn't come as much surprise - even if the latest steps to restrict the collection of useful information are worth pointing out.

- Finally, A Tiny Revolution highlights John Ralston Saul's insights into the actual meaning of money and debt. But it's truly sad that in the time since Saul wrote the quoted passage, we've seen more and more public policy dictated by exactly the same arbitrary forces that form the target of Saul's critique.

On joint efforts

It's probably worth making sure we start getting our "coalition" terminology right as Canada's political parties consider their options for the next election and beyond - and on that front, one can't paint the Libs as having won any of the benefits normally bestowed on the junior partner in an actual coalition government. But otherwise, Paul Wells is once again all too accurate in describing the partnership between the Cons and Libs:

(E)ven though Ottawa is rife with rumours this summer, yet again, that Harper will contrive a reason to trigger an election in the autumn, there’s no reason to doubt something else that he told Reuters, which is that he doesn’t want one. If an election goes really well for him, he’ll be Prime Minister when it’s over. But he’s Prime Minister already. And he’s really the Prime Minister. Another evergreen Ottawa myth asserts that Harper is somehow unfulfilled without a parliamentary majority. But he has had a majority for four years, thanks to a succession of not-ready-for-prime-time Liberals...

And in concert with the Liberals, Stephen Harper is changing this country. He was able to gut environmental oversight of energy projects in the middle of a historic energy-sector environmental disaster. He is stuffing the nation’s prisons like Christmas geese. He spent $1 billion turning the country’s biggest city into a demonstration of the necessity (if not, ahem, the effectiveness) of tough policing against thugs, rabble, bicyclists and other miscreants. Inside the riot zone, with the world watching, he stared down Barack Obama in a debate over continued fiscal stimulus vs. relative budgetary restraint. He gets to name Supreme Court justices. He gets to name a new governor general. He’s in charge of nominations to every board and agency.

So when Liberals debate the wisdom of coalition government, it would be well for them to remember they are already in one. And when they debate the worth of Michael Ignatieff to Liberals, they will perhaps be heartened to learn that Conservatives are tremendously fond of him.

On unifying principles

Since the Charest government first introduced user fees for health care earlier this year, there's been plenty of question as to who would lead the charge to preserve and improve health care on the federal level - with the NDP taking up the cause last month. Now, Chantal Hebert points out just how significant the opportunity looks to be for a party which focuses on substantial policy results rather than taking the word of the likes of Charest that the federal government shouldn't try to enforce national standards:

(In the latest Angus Reid polling,) there was no regional fault line in the increase of the public attachment to medicare.

In its last budget, the Quebec government took steps to refinance the province’s health-care system. It introduced a universal health levy and it floated the idea of imposing user fees on medical visits.

The result was a massive backlash with at least one poll showing that a majority of Quebecers would favour a federal intervention to nip the user fee plan in the bud; even it meant that Ottawa would trample on an otherwise exclusive provincial jurisdiction to do so.

Now, I'd be particularly interested to see whether that same conclusion would apply in other areas where even the NDP has gone out of its way to allow Quebec to opt out of what are intended to be national standards.

But when it comes to health care at least, there looks to be plenty of voter demand for meaningful enforcement of the Canada Health Act which both the Libs and Cons have ruled out. And with citizens in all parts of Canada seemingly in agreement that our health care system is worth preserving and reinforcing, this looks to be a rare issue where there are few tradeoffs to be made in taking a strong stand.

On compulsive secrecy

The Star-Phoenix editorial board rightly slams the Wall government for hiding a death in custody as long as it could:

There was a time when provincial Corrections officials felt responsible enough for the people in their care that they realized it is news whenever a prisoner dies in custody.

Not any more. Now, if they are lucky enough, the media must depend on inside sources, leaks or accidental admissions to get timely access to information about a death.

Let's be clear here. Nothing that a government does on behalf of the citizens it serves is more sensitive than depriving people of their freedom. Whether these are prisoners or children apprehended for their own protection, it is done on behalf of us all.

And when someone dies under these circumstances, it is the responsibility of those in charge to inform citizens immediately.
...
Corrections, Public Safety and Policing Minister Yogi Huyghebaert and his ministry already have done much to erode public confidence in the way the ministry conducts its business. From refusing to notify the public when potentially dangerous offenders have been released in error, to conducting witch hunts and firing employees who potentially blew the whistle on these mistakes, it is difficult to trust that Corrections officials have the interests of society in mind at the best of times.

This is further exacerbated by having a minister threaten opposition MLAs with police investigations for raising such matters in the legislature.
...
Until (the ministry reverses course), Saskatchewan residents can't be confident they know who, or even how many persons, apprehended on their behalf are dying. It is hard to imagine a topic that should be less private.

On rationalizations

Bill Tieleman's response to Gordon Campbell's HST op-ed is definitely worth a read. But for those of us in Saskatchewan, it's part of Campbell's excuse after the fact that bears particular attention based on the spin currently emanating from our own premier:

Although you may not have seen much media coverage before last summer, combining the PST and GST to create a harmonized sales tax is something that has been discussed publicly for many years.

Federal governments - past and present - and business organizations - large and small across the province - repeatedly asked us to harmonize the PST with the GST...

Each time we were asked, we said we would not consider it for two primary reasons. First, it would eliminate B.C.'s ability to set our own tax rate.

And it still does - BC has given up its tax sovereignty to Ottawa for the most part.

Second, we wanted to be able to shape our tax regime with flexibility that would allow us to exempt certain goods and services from being taxable. It wasn't until last year that kind of flexibility was available.

So the fact that harmonization had been discussed in some circles before - even having been rejected by Campbell's own government at the time - is being put forward as justification for not bothering to consider how the province might react to the HST, whether by consulting with voters, or even by taking their interests into account. Which looks to offer yet another parallel between Campbell's modus operandi and Brad Wall's - and serves as all the more reason to distrust Wall when he claims that we shouldn't worry about his making the same move in Saskatchewan.

Extra fireworks

In addition to Canada Day, let's not forget that two provinces are getting to celebrate Prostrate Yourselves Before Your Corporate Overlords Day as well. And while the general theme is one of rightful frustration, at least some people seem disturbingly enthusiastic about the prospect.

Well said

By all means, today should be a day to celebrate Canada. But James Travers offers a needed reminder that pride in our country should also involve working to improve it, rather than resting on our laurels:

Still, there is a real and pressing danger. We are at risk of impaling ourselves on our own indifference.

For decades now the going has been so good and easy that Canadians are forgetting that citizenship is a participatory sport. Together we are ignoring that nations built brick-by-brick fall piece-by-piece.

Strange and counter-intuitive as it seems, that deconstruction is most difficult to spot here in the capital. Tens of thousands will crowd to Parliament Hill on Canada Day without realizing that the towering Gothic symbols of our political freedoms are figuratively, as well as literally, crumbling.

What began with Pierre Trudeau’s steady erosion of accountability has become under Stephen Harper a handful of democratic dust. Autocracy best describes the between-elections reality of a prime minister, surrounded by fawning whisperers, ruling behind closed doors.

No party or leader bears the full burden of blame. All since Trudeau share responsibility for the result. Confused by Big Man presidential politics and understandably disappointed in the poisonous results, voters stay away from federal elections in droves.

A legacy that shabby would be a shame if that’s left by a generation bequeathed so much. Sadly, we are also abandoning our garbage. For our own comfort and convenience we are dumping on the future fiscal, social and environmental deficits.
...
Today is the moment to wallow in the joy and privilege of being Canadian. It’s also a day to remember that those pleasures come wrapped in duties.

To abandon those responsibilities is to foolishly assume that there will be as much to swell the hearts of our children and their children.