Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Stephanie Larocque highlights the Cons' gall in hanging onto federal reimbursements from their own ad scam even after having admitted their guilt:

You don't have to prove guilt when the charged plead guilty. And that is exactly what happened last week when the Conservative Party entered into an agreement in Ottawa where they would plead guilty to overspending and pay the maximum fine allowable under the Canada Elections Act if the charges were dropped against their senior members.

One might think that pleading guilty to attempting to circumvent the rules that manage our democracy would be done with an air of regret or remorse. When it comes to the Conservatives, however, you would be wrong. Instead, Conservative spokesman Fred DeLorey issued a statement claiming the plea bargain was "a big victory'' for the party in its five-year "administrative dispute'' with Elections Canada over the legality of the in-and-out scheme. "Every single Conservative accused of wrongdoing has been cleared today,'' DeLorey said.

I don't think anyone has ever looked a an agreement that admits guilt as ever clearing anyone of wrongdoing. The notion is ludicrous. The coordinated overspending done by funneling funds through 67 ridings just happened spontaneously? No, the Conservatives accused of wrongdoing were only spared the embarrassment of having their involvement in the scheme dissected in open court rather than being cleared of anything.
...
Conservative Party spokesman Fred DeLorey responded that "The question of reimbursements will be dealt with in the ongoing civil proceedings." referring to the civil case the Tories brought against Elections Canada in which they dispute Elections Canada's ability to refuse to reimburse expense claims.

In other words, guilt not just without remorse, without apology, and without even having the decency to immediately repay funds improperly received from the taxpayers that they have already admitted were the result of a scheme to overspend their limits. Indeed, should they win the civil case they would compel Elections Canada to reimburse the outstanding expense claims which they have already agreed were illegal. The nerve of this position is staggering. They admit wrongdoing yet continue to seek a means of profiting from that wrongdoing, trying to have excessive refunds that were requested with fraudulent receipts taken from your tax dollars.

- pogge blasts Ontario's McGuinty Libs for decreeing that any deficit reduction will be accomplished solely through service cuts rather than even the most obviously needed tax increases.

- Mike DeSouza reports on Greenpeace's expose of multi-billion-dollar corporate lobbying against action on climate change.

- Tim Naumetz points out that even as the Cons claim to be retaining a meaningful gun licensing regime, their bill to torch the long gun registry also includes provisions to make it impossible to enforced the individual licensing rules.

- Finally, the Calgary Herald editorial board lists its home city as one of the areas which has been poorly served by utterly useless Con MPs over the past decade. And it's well worth using the attention of the NDP's national leadership campaign to change the part of the story which laments the lack of a viable alternative.

More like this

It may be only a start in comparing the Harper Cons' bloated communication spending to the much smaller amounts of party funding being targeted for slashing. But it's nonetheless a plus to see both national opposition parties in Parliament pointing out the amount of money being spent on self-promotion by the Cons - and Pat Martin's explanation in particular looks to be worth highlighting:

Liberals are accusing the Conservatives of spending millions of Taxpayers' money on government ads to trick their way to a majority government.

"Mr. Harper is a cheat," Liberal House Leader David McGuinty told QMI Agency. "He is trying to take public money to cheat his way into a majority."

Liberals say the Tories are using unprecedented means - through government advertising, taxpayer-funded direct mail campaigns and extra spending on communications staff - to make Canadians forget the feds have posted a record setting $55.6 billion deficit.
...
NDP MP Pat Martin said he believes the Tories are spending more because it is "a lot more expensive to peddle unpopular positions."

"In a period of fiscal restraint, when every government department is being asked to tighten their belt, the communications budget of the PMO is exploding," he said.

Even MPs, Martin notes, have had their budgets frozen.

"It's hypocritical and dishonest."

That didn't take long

Now that the ball is in the Libs' court on the gun registry, is anybody particularly surprised to see an immediate swing and a miss?

Speaking earlier Tuesday, Liberal House leader David McGuinty would not say whether all members of the Liberal caucus would show up for the Sept. 22 vote.

Which would seem to be a rather damning bit of obfuscation considering how much time the Libs have spent claiming that they consider anything short of a full whip to be a failure.

I stand corrected

So much for my expectation that the Libs would at least want to be seen doing what they could to pass the NDP's Climate Change Accountability Act - a bill they'd supported multiple times before - in time for the Copenhagen summit. Instead, they're now making excuses to join with the Cons in stalling the bill, and thus ensuring that Canada won't have an expression of the majority of Parliament to take to the world:

Federal Liberals say they won't support the NDP in its effort to push a private member's climate-change bill through the House of Commons on Wednesday.

The proposed legislation, called Bill C-311, the climate change accountability act, sets strict targets for greenhouse gas emissions and is currently being considered by a House environment committee.

The committee has asked for an extension of 30 sitting days to review the bill, a request that will be considered Wednesday when the House sits.

But New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton said the delay would undermine efforts to have the bill passed into law before the Copenhagen summit in December.
...
The bill has passed through two readings in the House of Commons since it was introduced by NDP member of Parliament Bruce Hyer, receiving support from the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois.

Liberal environment critic David McGuinty, however, said the committee needs more time to study the implications of the bill.

"We need to hear more about the American position, the European position, the Chinese position" before considering the bill, McGuinty told CBC News.

Needless to say, that raises some serious questions for the Libs to answer. For example, why on earth did they pass the same bill before if there was any need for "more time to study (its) implications"? What do the Libs think we don't yet know about the positions of other parties at Copenhagen, and why haven't they been doing any work to find out? And even if it would be ideal to have more information before making efforts to pass the Climate Change Accountability Act, isn't it a worse trade-off to wait for that information in exchange for losing any ability to act on it through Parliament?

Mind you, matters only figure to get worse from there. Remember that the hold-up on previous incarnations of the bill has been the Senate's delay in passing legislation which had already received the approval of the House - with delay being the best the Cons could do at the time since they were in the minority in the Senate. But with Harper's patronage-fest on the verge of flipping control of the Senate, it won't be long before the Cons have the numbers to vote down any environmental bills entirely.

Which means that a vote to delay C-311 now may do more than just eliminate the prospect of the bill's passing before Copenhagen; instead, it may allow the Cons to bottle up any action on climate change until the Harper government is removed from power (and indeed beyond if Harper's senators stay loyal to him after the House changes hands). So now is indeed the time for a push to force the Libs to put up or shut up on climate change - and to permanently brand them as Harper's accomplices if they choose to make sure nothing gets done.

Update: Devin has the definitive commentary on what the Libs' vote means.

Not according to plan

One more note on the Libs' message as to why they apparently intend to vote against the NDP's Climate Change Accountability Act and its binding greenhouse gas emission reductions:

Though he supported the bill in the past, Mr. McGuinty now suggests its targets are fiscally irresponsible because there is no accompanying plan to accomplish them.

There's just one problem with McGuinty's position: it's not as if the opposition parties are lacking a plan in principle. After all, it was over two years ago that they agreed on amendments to the Cons' ineffective legislation which would have set out both targets and a legislative framework to meet them. And the main divergence among the parties since then would seem to have been eliminated now that the Libs have scrapped their carbon tax plsn.

Which means that the Libs have a choice between passing the NDP's bill and pointing to a plan which already has majority approval in Parliament as a starting point, or starting once again from scratch. And the fact that they apparently see zero progress as their preferred option should speak volumes about how seriously Canadians should take any future proposal.

See more from pogge.

Change for the worse

It's been well chronicled that Michael Ignatieff has adopted all of the worst aspects of Stephane Dion's failed tenure as leader of the federal Libs, combining empty rhetoric and confidence-vote brinksmanship with a consistent willingness to give Stephen Harper whatever he wants. But lest anybody think there hasn't been any change under Iggy, it's worth noting that the Libs are distancing themselves from any real interest in the environment:

Michael Ignatieff pulled his Liberals away from a coalition with NDP leader Jack Layton. Now Liberals are hinting they may no longer support Mr. Layton's climate change bill.

Liberal MP and environment critic David McGuinty said he and his party have yet to decide what they will do Wednesday when the bill, C-311, comes to a vote.

Originally introduced in the last Parliament by Mr. Layton, the bill would put into law deep targets for reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. The bill calls for reductions of 80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050 and interim targets starting in 2015.

When Stéphane Dion led the Liberals, the three opposition parties worked together to move the bill through the House, agreeing on amendments and consulting with environmental groups, but the bill died when the 2008 election was called...

In an interview, Mr. McGuinty said a lot has changed since the last Parliament. His list of new factors includes the election of Barack Obama as U.S. president, the change in Liberal leadership and the fact that his party was defeated in the last election after releasing a detailed environmental plan centered around a carbon tax.

"I think we've learned from that," he said.

He said Mr. Ignatieff will announce a new environmental policy in time, but that it won't be rushed simply because of the upcoming vote on Mr. Layton's bill, which is now sponsored by NDP MP Bruce Hyer.

So in other words, the Libs' new stance on the environment consists of refusing to set any targets, and announcing some vague intention to develop a plan at some point in the future after the U.S. acts first. Which, for those keeping score at home, is exactly the same position which the Libs have been rightly bashing when it comes from the Harper government.

Fortunately, there is some upside to the Libs' position, as Hyer points out:

The bill's sponsor, Mr. Hyer, said he was "hugely disappointed" by Mr. McGuinty's comments. He said he hopes the Liberals do some "soul searching" before Wednesday's vote.

"I'm beginning to wonder if they have an ethic that they stick to on anything," Mr. Hyer said. The first term NDP MP did say however that he thought it might be good for the NDP if the Liberals change their position.

"To be honest, it will probably be really good for the NDP and me if the Liberals vote against this," he said, "because I think they're going to wear it."

Update: Cam has more.

On crisis management

JimBobby is right to point out that the global food crisis deserves more attention than it's getting. So let's note a couple of facets of the story which seem to have passed largely without comment so far.

First of all, from the Globe and Mail story pointed out by JimBobby, it's worth pointing out just what it took for the U.N. to take note of the need for action:

The United Nations plans to establish a task force to tackle the global food crisis to avert "social unrest on an unprecedented scale," Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Tuesday.

Mr. Ban, who will lead the task force, said its first priority will be to meet the $755-million (U.S.) shortfall in funding for the World Food Program.

"Without full funding of these emergency requirements, we risk again the spectre of widespread hunger, malnutrition and social unrest on an unprecedented scale," he told reporters in the Swiss capital, Bern, where the UN agency chiefs have been meeting.

Obviously the anticipated increase in starvation may make the stakes higher than usual. But as JimBobby notes, the pre-crisis situation already involved 24,000 deaths every day due to starvation. And given that that number apparently wasn't seen as deserving of special attention, it seems that the possibility of "social unrest" is serving as a greater motivator than any agreement that hunger should be tackled in general.

Even once it's acknowledged that there's some need for action, of course, it still falls to individual countries to determine - if at all - they plan to improve matters. And the indications from Canada don't look promising at this point, as only the NDP appears willing to discuss whether proposed regulations on ethanol might make matters worse:

Concerned about the widening food shortage, the NDP has introduced an amendment seeking to have Bill C-33 sent back to committee where issues such as food scarcity, and whether or not ethanol is helping the environment, can be considered before the law is passed.

"We need to take a breath here and think about this," said Nathan Cullen, NDP environment critic. "Politicians need a little humility, and sometimes they need to say that it's time to think before we act, especially in light of recent events."

Which would seem to be an eminently sensible suggestion as to one means not to make the problems worse - particularly if coupled with discussion about contributions to the World Food Program and other ways to help.

But even Lib David McGuinty responded by trying to shout down any discussion of whether the impact of biofuels on food supplies should be considered. And given the Cons' connections to the industry group which pushed for an ethanol plan based on foods rather than other inputs, there's little prospect that Canada's possible role in contributing to the diversion of food will receive the attention it deserves.

Compare and contrast

For those wondering which opposition parties are actually focused on the Cons and which are most interested in sniping at each other, yesterday's climate change motion offers about as vivid an example as one could find.

After a speech centred on the Cons' failures in office (most notably surrounding Bill C-30), Jack Layton was offered a clear invitation to slam the Libs' management of the environment and performance in opposition. Rather than taking the bait, though, here's what Jack Layton had to say instead:

Mr. Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, CPC):
...
I just wanted to ask this member, who has been around this House longer than I have, if he feels that the previous government acted proactively on behalf of the environment? Does he see anything in the Leader of the Opposition that indicates to him that the action that he desires would be carried forth by the Leader of the Opposition?

The Leader of the Opposition last night tried to pass a motion of non-confidence in the NDP. What does he see from this leader that indicates to him that there would be proactive action on behalf of the Liberal Party?

Hon. Jack Layton:
Mr. Speaker, I choose not to really offer observations on the conduct of other leaders.

I just simply wanted to say that I thought there was a moment of hope in this chamber when we were able to secure agreement from all parties on the issue of climate change to send a piece of legislation to a special committee.

In fact, it was done in a way, using the procedures of the House, that allowed all parties to bring forward their best ideas, to remove those elements of the climate change legislation that would not work, and to replace them with a plan that represented the best thinking of this House.

This does not happen very often, I think members would agree. But when it does happen, it should be celebrated. And not only that, it should be respected...

If there was one issue that Canadians would tell us they want us to work together to address, it would be the climate change crisis and that is exactly what was done by this House. But the attitude of the government is totally disrespectful to this House of Commons.

That is why we have been forced to place a motion of non-confidence on this issue, specific to this particular action by the government, or inaction as it would more appropriately be called.

On the other hand, there's the Libs' environment critic David McGuinty, who was the Libs' main voice in dealing with the motion. And for McGuinty, no invitation was needed to start a round of gratuitous smears toward the NDP:

Before I get into the substance of some of the issues raised in the motion, I do want to make a few general comments about the nature of the motion and some of the motivating factors behind this motion.

First, I would like to remind the House that the official opposition of any political stripe does possess, in the case of a minority government, a certain amount of power. That power culminates, I believe, in the exercising of a decision which would take down a minority government and cause an election. It is a power which, I believe, has to be exercised responsibly, judiciously, and one that cannot be taken lightly.

It is fair to say that this motion is more than tinged in partisanship. The leader of the NDP made comments this morning that were somewhat troubling to me and to the official opposition. He made comments, for example, around the notion, in my view, that the NDP is prepared to put this motion in a confidence form because it is unwilling to cooperate with the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party of Canada in taking the time necessary to expose for Canadians just what has been happening with this minority government. [Ed. note: This is about as accurate as it sounds. About the closest one could find would be Layton's admonition that there was "no time for more mistakes" on climate change.]
...
Why is it wrong for the NDP to play partisan politics with this motion? It is wrong because it is important for Canadians to get to know more about the character, the nature, the values, and the approaches taken by this Prime Minister and his reformed Conservative Party.

So, with respect to the politics of this motion, that is all I really wanted to say, except that it is unfortunate that the NDP, by couching this important climate change debate on a motion of confidence, is really aiding and abetting the government in its attempts to hide from plain public view what has been happening on a number of key fronts...

With respect to the motion, the NDP may say that it cares about climate change, but it is the reason we have a Conservative government today. [Ed. note: What reason could there possibly be to doubt the Libs' conventional wisdom on that?] Its members brought down the Liberal government right when the world came to Canada for the 2005 Montreal climate change conference, despite all of the leader of the NDP's rhetoric. He is accountable to the Canadian people for that decision. He will ultimately be accountable for these kinds of partisan moves.

So, let's ask the question: based on the above choices of focus on a subject which both the NDP and the Libs recognize to be a core issue facing the country, which opposition party is actually focused on holding the Cons to account, and which is once again too busy jockeying for position against its opposition rivals to keep the Cons under the microscope?

Counterproductive

Nearly a week after the Cons released their blatantly misleading (and possibly copyright-violating) attack video, the Libs are still trying to figure out how to respond. And it looks like they still have a long way to go.

Just look at their latest threat, offered up today by David McGuinty:

McGuinty said if the ad is aired, he will ask Advertising Standards Canada for an independent opinion of whether it violates Canadian ad standards.

"Although political parties are not legally bound to comply with the code, Canadians are entitled to expect that political advertising, and election advertising, will respect the standards articulated in the code," he said.

It's comical enough that the Libs are only threatening to do more than gripe if the ad is aired elsewhere, given that the Cons have already managed to make it one of the dominant political stories in Canada for the past week.

But even the seeming threat if the Cons do decide to pay for what they're now getting for free looks to be completely useless. After all, the Cons have made clear that they don't have the least bit of shame being caught violating Canadian elections law, and indeed consider themselves entitled to continue doing the same. In light of that background, could anybody paying the slightest bit of attention think the Cons would blink based on the prospect that the Libs might seek an opinion about whether the ad meets standards that don't even apply?

On mushiness

Just over a year ago, the Libs went through a convention which was supposed to offer a chance for party renewal. So let's take a look at just what kind of inspiring new vision they've managed to develop under their new leader. From David McGuinty in the Hill Times:

"When Mr. Dion kicks off the campaign, in due course, whenever that happens, I'm confident that he will present to the Canadian people the same kind of scenario and that is if you want to stop a right-wing Republican-like party, which is embedded in its Alliance Reform DNA, then you have to make the choice. You either have to vote for the Liberal Party of Canada who can form the government or you'll have to vote directly or indirectly to support the Conservative Party of Canada," said Mr. McGuinty.

"They [NDP] fear what they know is coming, which is ultimately a two-way race in Canadian society to decide whether they want a centrist party possibly even a centrist-left party, i.e., the Liberal Party of Canada, or do they want a right-wing party."

Now, the gap between words and actions is reason enough not to take the Libs seriously. After all, the same party which now plans to sell itself as devoted to "stopping" the Cons is also the one which has been deliberately propping up the Harper government since this fall's throne speech. And an opposition party trying to position itself as the comparatively left-wing option presumably shouldn't be egging a right-wing government on toward even more gratuitous corporate tax cuts than it already had planned.

But perhaps more interesting is McGuinty's choice to portray the Lib/Con dichotomy as centre-against-right - with "possibly even centre-left" seemingly tossed out as McGuinty's idea of a carrot for progressive voters.

From what I can tell, McGuinty is operating under the assumption that left-wing Canadians will be entirely happy to see a continued shift of Canada's political centre toward the right as left-of-centre ideas receive - at best - some "possible" role within the Libs. And of course, that effect can only be amplified by both the Libs' track record of shifting to the right in government, and their unwillingness to stand up to the Cons while in opposition.

Fortunately, voters aren't stuck taking McGuinty's word as to what options they'll have at the polls. And with the Libs having shown no sign of new ideas or new principles after their effort at internal renewal, a wholesale electoral shift to the NDP offers the best opportunity for a real countervailing force against the Cons - and the only option for a strong left-wing voice on the federal political scene.