Question and answer

Sixth Estate and impolitical have both followed up on the Cons' attempts to attack Canada's opposition parties for having the nerve to ask questions of their government by noting that in contrast to the Cons' spin, the UK offers answers to MPs' questions at a hundredth of the cost. But I'll note that there's plenty more worth comparing between the two systems of questions and answers.

Let's compare the answers to written questions provided by the respective governments of Canada and the UK for October 31, 2012.

The Harper Cons answered two questions in the following terms:

Question No. 827-- Mr. Hoang Mai:

With regard to environmental assessment on the proposed new bridge on the St. Lawrence River at Montreal: (a) why was this assessment done using a screening type of assessment rather than a comprehensive study; (b) what type of assessment will this project be subject to, under the new regulations and changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act as proposed in bill C-38; (c) how many comments did Transport Canada receive concerning this project, before the April 4th Transport Canada deadline, in terms of the Draft Environmental Assessment Guidelines under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, (i) how will these comments be assessed by Transport Canada, (ii) will these comments be made public; (d) what specific expertise will the following federal authorities contribute with respect to the environmental assessment, (i) Health Canada, (ii) Parks Canada, (iii) Federal Bridge Corporation Limited/Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated, (iv) St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation; (e) what are the financial costs of the environmental assessment; (f) is Consortium Dessau Cima+ the only firm in charge of environmental assessment, (i) have they agreed to respect the preliminary timeline of mid-2014, (ii) will the drafting of the reports by all firms be made public soon after this date, (iii) what are the details of the contract, number T8080-110362, reference number 236518; (g) have the responsible authorities delegated the performance of the environmental assessment to any other party and, if so, (i) have the other parties agreed to respect the preliminary timeline of mid-2014, (ii) will the drafting of the reports by all firms be made public soon after this date; (h) what is the government’s policy in the eventuality that the responsible authorities conclude that the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects; (i) what are the public consultation processes involved in the environmental assessment and their timelines; (j) have the responsible authorities established a list of main interested parties and, if so, is it public, and, if it is not public, why not; (k) how many public consultations have been organized to listen to local constituents’ concerns, what was discussed, and are reports available; (l) which First Nations were included in the consultation, when, what points in the process what were discussed, and are reports available; and (m) will the official opposition have the opportunity to examine and comment on the environmental assessment according to subsection 18(3) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act?

Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, on January 22, 2012, the minister announced the launch of the environmental assessment, which is expected to be completed by December 2013.

The federal government announced on April 23, 2012, that the consortium Dessau/Cima+ of Montreal has been retained to complete the federal environmental assessment for the new bridge for the St. Lawrence. The assessment will include the environmental and technical components required to formulate recommendations to minimize repercussions of the project on the environment and on communities. The public, the local consultative groups, the private sector and the community groups will have an opportunity to participate in the environmental assessment process. 

Question No. 863-- Ms. Marie-Claude Morin:

With regard to Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission decision 2011-291: (a) what measures are in place to guarantee service for the 13,000 households in Quebec that could be deprived of service; (b) how much funding has been allocated to this issue; and (c) in case of loss of service, what is the plan to provide telephone and high-speed Internet services to the affected residents?

Hon. James Moore (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the CRTC can assure Canadians that they will not lose service due to this decision. One of the key policy objectives of the Telecommunications Act is to render reliable and affordable telecommunications services of high quality to all Canadians in both urban and rural areas. This includes the households served by small incumbent telephone companies in Quebec. The CRTC generally has two approaches to achieving this objective.

One approach is to rely on market forces to deliver high-quality service at a reasonable price. Where competition is strong, customers have a choice of service providers and these companies provide customers with innovative new services. In Quebec, wire line services will soon be available from competitive service providers. These will complement advanced wireless and satellite providers that already offer voice and Internet services to rural subscribers in Quebec.

With regard to (b), in areas where there is not enough competition to achieve this objective, the CRTC’s approach is to provide an annual subsidy to incumbent carriers in order to ensure access to telephone services at affordable rates. In 2011, the total amount of subsidy provided to incumbent carriers across Canada was $156 million; $6.5 million of this subsidy went to the small incumbents that provide service in Quebec.

With regard to (c), it should be noted that the CRTC monitors telecommunications markets across Canada, including the Quebec markets in question. The CRTC has broad powers under the Telecommunications Act that can be used as necessary to achieve its policy objectives, which include access to telecommunications services. 

By way of contrast, here are the three first questions and answers from a much longer list of UK questions from the same day:

Northern Ireland

Billing

John Woodcock: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average time taken by her Department to settle invoices to external suppliers or contractors was in each of the last three financial years. [125307]
Mike Penning: My Department publishes prompt payment statistics in its Annual Report and Accounts each year.
Comparable figures for the Northern Ireland Office as it is now configured are not available following the completion of the devolution of policing and justice functions on 12 April 2010. In 2010-11, the Department paid 97% of suppliers within 10 days; 43% of payments were made within five days. In 2011-12, the Department paid 97% of all suppliers within 10 days, and 30% within five days.

Press: Subscriptions

Jonathan Ashworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to which magazines, journals and newspapers her Department subscribes. [125350]
Mike Penning: My Department does not subscribe to any publications but have the following newspapers delivered for which we are billed monthly by the newsagents:

Irish Independent (Monday to Sunday)

Irish Times (Monday to Saturday)

Daily Mail (Monday to Friday)

The Telegraph (Monday to Friday)

Financial Times (Monday to Friday)

The Guardian (Monday to Friday)

The Independent (Monday to Friday)

The Sun (Monday to Friday)

The Times (Monday to Friday)

The Spectator (Monday to Friday)

Belfast Telegraph (Monday to Saturday)

News Letter (Monday to Saturday)

Irish News (Monday to Saturday)

The NI Daily Mirror (Monday to Friday)

The Sunday Life

Communities and Local Government

Billing

John Woodcock: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what the average time taken by his Department to settle invoices to external suppliers or contractors was in each of the last three financial years. [125304]
31 Oct 2012 : Column 214W
Brandon Lewis: The following table shows the average time taken by the Department for Communities and Local Government to settle invoices to suppliers during the last three financial years.

Financial year	Average time (in days)
2009-10	6.29
2010-11	4.33
2011-12	4.15

The invoices included in the table are for all suppliers as DCLG does not distinguish between supplier types.

Now, I haven't been a regular reader of the UK's questions and answers, and presume that the above examples are in keeping with how questions are normally dealt with. But I've watched Canada's Hansard closely enough to see the sample above as being normal if not downright generous as an example of the Cons' responses (as they're at least relatively free of spin if equally lacking in substance).

So what differences can we see between the two sets of questions and answers?

To start with, Canadian MPs seem to be far more effective at asking detailed questions which would actually tell an important story if a useful answer were provided, with Hoang Mai's question #827 serving as a prime example on that front. And one might see that as a basis to think we'll get good value paying more for answers.

Here's the problem, though: while the questions and answers would seem like an important means of holding the government accountable, they're rather less useful when the answers consist of nothing but boilerplate talking points and PR messages vaguely related to the subject area of the question asked. And that's all the Cons are deigning to provide. 

While Mai's question includes a specific inquiry as to the number of comments received on the St. Lawrence River bridge project, Denis Lebel's answer utterly fails to provide that piece of information which should be readily available - sticking to pointing to the Cons' own press releases as somehow reflecting a full answer.

Likewise, James Moore's answer to question #863 conspicuously ignores Marie-Claude Morin's question as to the amount of funding allocated to services affected by a particular CRTC decision - instead pointing to overall program funding amounts which have nothing at all to do with the question.

Needless to say, that consistent obfuscation is in stark contrast to the UK's responses, which consist of little more than facts generally responsive to the questions asked. And the difference signals the utter breakdown in accountable government in Canada under the Harper Cons.

We should expect any remotely competent government to ensure that questions can be answered without too much cost or difficulty - whether a question originates within a federal department, or from an MP. And the UK example shows it's entirely possible to get that done.

But the Cons have apparently decided that their interest in limiting the flow of potentially useful information to opposition parties outweighs any sense that a government should actually inform elected representatives about its actions. 

In pursuing that strategy, they first decided that it's easier to not answer questions than to actually address them. And to add insult to injury, they're now trying to claim it's the opposition parties' fault that the Cons can't cut and paste unresponsive content from their own press releases for an average cost of less than $4,000 per question.

The key takeaway is then that the Cons are both inefficient and ineffective in answering simple and direct questions which are intended to hold them to account. And that should serve as yet more evidence that the Cons are in fact far more interested in making sure government doesn't work than in operating it with even the bare pretense of competence.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- The Mark is the latest to point out that the NDP's success in winning over former Bloc members and/or sovereigntists should be considered a huge victory rather than reason for criticism:

The Globe, at least, notes that “Canadians want, and need, former sovereigntists to join the ranks of federalist parties.” Which is, by and large, exactly what the NDP has done with much of Quebec, and certainly much more so than the supposedly more federalist parties (and heck, we give credit where credit is due to the Tories in bringing Lebel onside). Yet the tarring continues for the NDP, despite all their work in killing off the Bloc and bringing those sovereigntists on board. Sure, there will be birth pangs among the motley caucus, but incessantly arguing that every member of the NDP must pass a federalist smell test surely won't bring more sovereigntists their way. If it's good enough for their constituents, it ought to be good enough for the rest of us. Besides, it's not like we make every Tory MP who supported the Alberta firewall swear an oath to upholding confederation.

- Meanwhile, yet another federal poll signals that little has changed since the May election, even with Jack Layton out of the picture on an interim basis. But there's still some rather important news in that lack of change - as anybody who tried to pretend that the NDP's newfound strength was either entirely fuelled by Layton or a temporary blip would seem to have to put that skepticism to rest now that it's stabilized over a period of months and under Nycole Turmel's interim leadership.

- Thanks to the Harper Cons, Canada's federal government is now a dependent subsidiary of the oil industry. And it fully expects Canada's provinces to become the same. Don't everybody be shocked at once.

- Finally, Ontario's other provincial parties are feigning outrage at negative messages while contributing two for every one they criticize. But the NDP is actually working on debunking them without adding more into the mix.

Still feigned indignation

At the very least, the media finally seems to have picked up on the reality that all Canadian national parties include some former Bloc members and/or sovereigntists in their ranks. But that leads to the next obvious problem: that it's scolding the NDP for a position it doesn't hold rather than picking up on a rather important difference in the parties' messages.

No, the NDP is neither saying "everyone was doing it" as a defence to any misdeeds of its own, nor implying that other parties' acceptance of former Bloc members is wrong while its own is just fine. And the Globe itself knows better:

“What is at issue is the hypocrisy that the Conservatives displayed when they were commenting on Madame Turmel’s former membership in the Bloc,” said Mr. Lavigne. “They did this at the same time they themselves have members of their cabinet who are former members of the Bloc Québécois.”

And again, if spun to fit the Globe's narrative rather than the real one:

Mr. Lebel has a defender in an unexpected corner: outspoken Winnipeg NDP MP Pat Martin: “He is one of the most affable and friendly Conservative Ministers in cabinet,” Mr. Martin told the Globe. “He’s my office neighbour and frequent gym buddy. Quite the athlete, actually.” Mr. Martin argues that you cannot “grow your party” by ignoring others and “shunning anyone who once belonged to a different party.”

“Denis Lebel reminds us that many people have been associated with the Bloc for many different reasons quite separate and distinct from the sovereignty issue,” he says. “I hope more former Bloc members come and join the NDP.”

So the NDP's position is in fact consistent: national parties can, do and should accept former Bloc members and/or sovereigntists (which aren't necessarily synonymous). And the other parties' criticisms of the NDP for doing just that are entirely hollow given that they've adopted the exact same principle in putting together their past and present cabinets.

Of course, there are indeed two parties trying to say "sovereigntists for we, but not for thee". And those are the Cons and Libs - in part based on a typical IOKIYAC/IOKIYAL sense of self-entitlement, in part thanks to a delightfully brazen "but we question the NDP's dedication to federalism, therefore we get to invent different standards for them" argument.

If there's any good news, it's that it only took a week to get the media to notice the first bit of absurdity in the other parties' attacks on the NDP. And if the NDP's message machine can get the next part of its position to sink in on a similar time frame, then it should be able to put the issue to rest long before Parliament reconvenes.

[Edit: fixed wording.]

On distinguishing factors

Lest there be any doubt, it's still ridiculous to pretend that any person's past involvement in a Quebec sovereigntist party should be taken to disqualify that person from Canada's public discourse. But for those looking to facilitate the Cons' attacks on the NDP by trying to differentiate between Con MP and cabinet minister Denis Lebel and interim NDP leader Nycole Turmel, let's note that any reasonable distinctions look worse for Lebel than for Turmel.

After all, Lebel's involvement with the Bloc came in the '90s when its primary focus was on separation - while Turmel's came well into the 21st century when the Bloc had settled predominantly into a role as a regional rather than a nationalist party.

And for anybody looking to impose a loyalty test, surely Lebel's lack of ties to any federalist party while he belonged to the Bloc would serve as far more of a red flag than Turmel's simultaneous membership in the sovereigntist Bloc and the federalist NDP.

Again, though, the proper conclusion is that none of Lebel, Turmel or the leaders who appointed them should be forever banished from national participation based merely on past Bloc ties. And to the extent the Cons try to pretend otherwise, the right answer is to suggest that they'll have the right to take an even faintly principled position on giving power to a former Bloc member just as soon as we see Stephen Harper's resignation papers for appointing Lebel to cabinet.

Wednesday Evening Links

Assorted content to end your day.

- Charlie Angus is leading the charge against the Cons' plan to ram through lawful access legislation, labeling it as warrantless snooping and spying on Canadians. We'll have to see how far Angus can get in swaying public opinion, but a concerted effort over the summer could go a long way to at least make this part of the dumb-on-crime strategy into a political loser for the Cons.

- Sun Media isn't prepared to meet basic media standards for accuracy and fairness. On a newsworthiness scale, this ranks somewhere below "dog bites man" - is "dog wants food" common enough to fit the bill?

- Meanwhile, the Conference Board of Canada not only recognizing a growing level of inequality but also hinting that it's a problem actually does qualify as a remarkable turn of events.

The 33-year trend which has accelerated since 1993, raises questions about the country’s economic well-being, including whether Canada is using all the skills and talents of its citizens and whether social cohesion and fairness are being undermined, says How Canada Performs: Is Canada becoming more unequal?

Social policy experts who have been raising the alarm over Canada’s growing income gap since 2006, say the Conference Board report represents a watershed.

“The significance of this report is that it is now firmly on the radar of the business establishment,” said economist Armine Yalnizyan who has written several reports on the issue for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives that are referenced by the Conference Board.

“The jury is no longer out. This is a pressing issue of our era,” Yalnizyan said in an interview.

- Finally, the Cons have officially completed the Harper Shuffle on their earlier suppression of a report on the Champlain Bridge, having completely reversed their position without either admitting they were wrong or even acknowledging that they've changed course.

A bridge to know-nothingness

Shorter Denis Lebel:

Ignorance is bliss. And we're hard at work making sure Canadians are nothing less than euphoric.

Below the radar

A couple of notes which you may have missed from yesterday's Hansard...

First, Con MP Denis Lebel counted himself as one of his party's ideal target voters by making a statement about his fondness for storytelling. Presumably Lebel is eagerly anticipating tomorrow's Question Period Storytime, featuring such classic tales of creative fiction as "Karlheinz' Letter Gets Lost" and "The Wonderful Magical Happyland of Afghanistan Where There Was No Evidence of Torture Until Two Weeks Ago".

Second, as part of their effort to use absolutely every means at their disposal to put party interests over government accountability, the Cons have made a habit of using their own questions in Question Period for sheer self-promotion rather than allowing back-benchers to actually express even the slightest concern with government actions. But it strikes me as curious that they were eager to use that platform yesterday to highlight their own lack of a meaningful response to U.S. interference with Canadian emergency vehicles seeking to cross the border.

Same old story: Roberval-Lac-Saint-Jean edition

La Presse reports on the past party loyalties of the Libs and Cons in the Roberval-Lac-Saint-Jean by-election. And if we needed another indication of how interchangeable the parties can be, it appears that the star candidates from both parties have switched their affiliation from one to the other within the last two years:

L'élection partielle du 17 septembre dans la circonscription de Roberval-Lac-Saint-Jean donne lieu à d'étranges rebondissements. Depuis le 24 juin, Louise Boulanger, candidate du Parti libéral dans ce bastion souverainiste, est en effet membre en règle du Parti... conservateur.

Selon ce qu'a appris La Presse hier, Mme Boulanger, femme d'affaires de Saint-Félicien, a acheté sa carte de membre le jour même où le premier ministre Stephen Harper est venu fêter la Saint-Jean à Roberval en compagnie de son candidat Denis Lebel...

Mme Boulanger a aussi affirmé que M. Lebel, son adversaire conservateur, est membre du Parti libéral. «Il a sa carte de membre du Parti libéral et je peux vous le prouver», a-t-elle dit. Mais chez les conservateurs, on a indiqué hier que M. Lebel n'a jamais renouvelé sa carte de membre, échue depuis 2005.

The article goes off on a couple of other interesting tangents, including an attempt by Boulanger to minimize her Con involvement, as well as an inexplicably anonymous statement of Con spin which blissfully ignores the Con-to-Lib conversions of both Boulanger and Bernard Potvin (who apparently wanted to challenge for the Con nomination until Lebel's candidacy was announced). But while the Libs fight a losing battle arguing about timing and reasons and the Cons try to spin the game of musical supporters as proof of their own momentum, the more important lesson lies elsewhere.

Namely, there's little enough principled distinction between the two parties that high-profile backers see no problem in jumping back and forth without an apparent second thought. And when the actions of the parties' own supporters show so little difference between the two, there's all the more reason to doubt that voting for one will do anything to avoid the problems with the other.