On fixed outcomes

The CRTC's move to enable the dissemination of false news leads to a major public outcry:

Canada’s broadcasting regulator has received more than 3,000 responses from the public about its plan to change a regulation that prohibits the dissemination of false or misleading news, most of them passionately opposing the proposal.

The comments are posted on the website of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.

So how do the Libs respond to the public's demand to keep some semblance of truth in broadcasting?

Despite the outcry, the joint committee for the scrutiny of regulations is unlikely to back down, said Liberal MP Derek Lee, a long-time committee member.

“The fact that a lot of Canadians are concerned about this means we will have to handle it carefully at committee. We represent them,” Mr. Lee said in a telephone interview Thursday.

“But our main function is to assure legal compliance of all government regulations. I think we will simply proceed with the files as they are, put on the record our response, and acknowledge the desire of the public to do everything we can to assure truth in broadcasting.…”

So for those who made a submission in response to the push for false news, rest assured that the Libs - who figure to hold the median vote on any committee decision - plan to proceed no matter what you say. (Though they will "acknowledge" your interest in the truth before declaring it inconsequential.)

And next time, the media will be free to report that all good Canadians agree with them - no matter what the submissions to the CRTC actually say.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Erin thoroughly debunks Jayson Myers' attempt to fabricate a nonexistent link between tax cuts and job creation:

Myers actually does not find a very close correlation between after-tax profits and employment (page 16), so he instead focuses on the unemployment rate (page 17). His summary mistakenly states, “Close positive relationships exist between: Canada’s unemployment rate and after-tax business profits” (page 3), implying that higher unemployment corresponds to higher profits. As noted later, “it is a negative relationship” (page 17).

This negative correlation is hardly surprising. In boom years, profits go up and unemployment goes down. In recessions, profits fall and unemployment rises. Indeed, Myers’ graph of profits and unemployment looks like a graph of Canadian business cycles (top of page 17).

However, correlation is not the same as a causal relationship. It is always possible that a third factor – such as the business cycle – is driving both variables.

Even if there is a causal relationship, it is unclear which way the causation runs. Myers’ story is that higher business profits cause more hiring, which causes lower unemployment. But an equally plausible story is that lower unemployment causes more consumer spending, which causes higher business profits.
...
Myers’ report is not about corporate tax rates or their possible incentive effects. In his model, corporate tax cuts matter only insofar as they increase after-tax profits. Rather than implementing planned corporate tax cuts at an annual cost of $6.2 billion, Ottawa might as well just write corporate Canada a series of postdated cheques for $6.2 billion each.

But of course, the Globe and Mail reproduces Myers' take without question. So the facts don't seem likely to matter when it comes to what actually gets published in the corporate press.

- Which means it falls to the rest of us to point out the obvious: demand creates jobs.

- Were you worried that Canada might have the necessary equipment to track down pollution in case of an oil spill? Don't worry: the Cons are shutting it down - so that anybody responsible for a spill won't be faced with inconvenient realities about what's actually been released.

- But of course, who has time to deal with environmental emergencies when there are volunteer efforts to be co-opted? Up next in the Cons' plan to attach themselves to anything popular regardless of their utter lack of contribution to it: new Senate appointee Larry Smith uses his influence with the CFL to make sure that next season's championship game is played for the Harper Cup.

- Finally, Linda Deibel documents the Cons' appalling efforts to stifle dissent in the public and private sectors alike. But perhaps the most telling part of her article is the Libs' typically timid response - which Deibel can't allow to pass without comment:

Asked about Liberal tactics, caucus member Lee responds: “We generally go into things being nice and we're not used to being elbowed in the corners. There's a reluctance to get down in the mud.”

It's frustrating, he adds. “I think the hope is that it will all go away . . . Maybe we are being naïve.”

Ya think?

Facepalm moment of the day

Yessiree, if there's anything the Libs can do to help the cause of accountability in opposing a government determined to stonewall at every turn, it's setting the example that committee orders don't need to be followed.

Well done

Not surprisingly, I'll join the chorus offering kudos to the members of all three opposition parties for acting on the Cons' blatant violations of Parliamentary privilege. It's worth keeping in mind that the contempt motions are just the start of the process, and indeed the more important question is the willingness of the entire House of Commons to back up the motions presented today - but this morning's events made for a necessary step in actually preserving some semblance of Parliamentary supremacy.

On time pressures

I'll echo the many posts this weekend to the effect that the opposition parties need to press forward with their Afghan detainee document order in order to preserve any semblance of Parliamentary supremacy (even if I'm pessimistic about the prospect of their taking the advice). But it's worth pointing out that their case to do so will only get weaker with time if they choose to let the Cons off the hook - even if they claim only to be waiting to see what questions the Cons get around to asking Justice Iacobucci.

Remember that just last week, Lib MP Derek Lee was hemming and hawing as to whether or not to introduce the privilege issue immediately - balancing what I still find to be weak concerns about interfering with the throne speech and budget against a requirement that privilege issues be brought up as soon as possible:

Mr. Lee has told Speaker Peter Milliken he wants to raise a point of privilege, arguing that Defence Minister Peter MacKay and an assistant deputy minister in the Justice Department “obstructed” the release of the documents by stating a “false basis” for withholding them.

He also says the Conservative government is in contempt of Parliament for not producing the documents in defiance of a motion passed by the House of Commons on Dec. 10.

The rules around matters of privilege state they must be raised at the earliest possible time and that they take precedence over other business.

Now, we can only hope that Lee's reticence hasn't already led to a situation where the Cons can avoid being held in contempt due to his delay - particularly since he inexplicably backed down again on Friday in response to Rob Nicholson's stalling tactics.

But if the Cons are allowed to delay any contempt motion by stringing out the introduction of Iacobucci's terms of reference into next week or beyond, that will only make matters worse. If even a day or two posed a potential problem last week which justified working out an extensive review of the available options as to how to bring the matter forward as soon as possible, then surely another span of time without the same considerations in play will be no less problematic.

And there's little prospect that Lee will be able to use anything that's now in play as an explanation for any delay. In particular, even the most expansive terms of reference for Iacobucci wouldn't seem to provide a reason to hold off on pressing a privilege claim: in the unlikely event that Iacobucci is acually asked to deal with the privilege issue, his ruling won't be binding on anybody, and indeed won't even be publicly released unless the Cons choose to make it so (since the indication is that it's the government that's retained him).

So there's a real risk that if Lee keeps holding off on the privilege motion, it'll become less and less viable with time. And whenever the Iacobucci report is released (or suppressed, or the retainer cancelled), the Cons will surely have no qualms about claiming that the fact that the opposition allowed his review to play out prevents it from acting on the order passed in December.

In sum, the opposition faces a choice of use it or lose it when it comes to its authority to enforce the order which the Cons are ignoring. And the fact that the smaller fight over documents may have ramifications in all kinds of areas should only provide all the more reason to tell Harper and the Cons that they can't simply ignore the will of the majority.

Update: Impolitical points out on Twitter that the NDP has set a March 19 date for a contempt motion if the Cons haven't complied with the order by then. That will at least alleviate the risk of the issue being left hanging for months, though I'd still think there's little reason to wait.

Burning question

Why exactly are the Libs going out of their way to say they'll try not to alter the Cons' timelines for the throne speech and budget, rather than taking the position that contempt for the House of Commons rightly has consequences for Stephen Harper's stage management of Parliament?