Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Les Leopold takes a look at the underpinnings of Bernie Sanders' unexpectedly strong run for the Democratic presidential nomination. And Sean McElwee discusses the type of politics U.S. voters are rightly motivated to change, as big donors have been successful in dictating policy to both major parties.

- The Edmonton Journal comments on the unfairness of first-past-the-post electoral politics both in allocating power across a political system, and in determining regional representation within it.

- Murray Mandryk calls out the Wall government for its contempt for public money when it comes to handing over billions of dollars to P3 operators.

- Finally, Stuart Trew offers his take on the meaning of Canada's federal election. And Doug Saunders offers his take as to how the Libs are likely to exercise authority through new "delivery units" - which serves as a warning as to the need to identify and advocate to non-traditional power structures:

Members of Mr. Trudeau’s staff say they are drawing on a set of ideas that emerged in Britain more than a decade ago under Tony Blair’s prime ministership and applied in a different version in Ontario under the Dalton McGuinty government, with results that pleased insiders but have left a questionable legacy. (It is no coincidence that Mr. Trudeau’s two top aides, Gerald Butts and Katie Telford, were products of the top-level machinery of that Ontario government.)

It is a system which, in its most complete form, uses high-level “delivery units” to push key goals across the entire public service, sometimes bypassing the hierarchy of cabinets, departments and administrations, putting multiple government departments under the watchful eye (and sometimes forceful hand) of new organizations that report straight to the prime minister and impose their own goals and measures on the workings of government.

Their plans are likely to disappoint officials hoping to see a return to the sort of cabinet-driven government of the Lester B. Pearson years, where powerful ministers were given the autonomy and trust to shape their departments and legacies on their own. It is also likely to disappoint those who wish for a complete turn away from the top-down, prime minister-centred approach of Stephen Harper. 
...
(T)he delivery approach has its skeptics. They include Prof. Savoie, who sees them as yet another level of complication for public servants who already have far too many layers of oversight.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Andrew Coyne sees the powerful impact of local forces on nomination contests as evidence that grassroots democracy is still alive and well in Canada - no matter how much the Cons and Libs may wish otherwise:

What’s common to both of these stories is not only the willingness of local candidates and riding associations to defy the powers that be but their obstinate insistence that these races should be what party leaders claim they are: open nominations. With any luck, this obstreperousness will spread. Thanks to redistricting, there will be other ridings where incumbents face off against incumbents; in others, the promise of open nominations will run into the reality that leaders have favourites. Ridings that resist the inevitable attempts to stage-manage these races will do their parties a favour. Tilted nominations are not open nominations. They’re not even nominations, really.

The tendency, when these fights break out, is to view them as signs of weakness and division, if not anarchy. The tone of news coverage is often disapproving, as if party leaders were indulgent parents who neglected to discipline their children. Reporters pepper their stories with words like “messy,” “ugly,” even “vicious.” This is what you get, they seem to say, when you leave it to ridings to decide these matters. Yes, it is. Isn’t it glorious?

- But of course, we should be hoping for greater democratic participation (and yes, influence over results) within the broader electorate as well. And PressProgress notes that the Cons' Unfair Elections Act looks to benefit Pierre Poutine and his fraudster ilk at the expense of actual voters - while Alison points out the risk that any report on Robocon may be pushed past the next federal election due to the Cons' blindside attacks against Elections Canada.

- Thomas Walkom writes that Canada has received good value - if perhaps something less than the greatest possible return - from the long-term health care accord which the Cons chose to scrap.

- John Geddes highlights the stark gap between the Cons' lip service paid to climate change (based mostly on taking credit for the actions of others), and their utter negligence in reality. And the Edmonton Journal's editorial board makes it clear that even Alberta recognizes the need for real action to replace the current strategy of using misleading PR campaigns to greenwash dirty oil production.

- Finally, Christina Patterson writes that the economic forces which have already undermined wages at the bottom of the income scale may soon do similar damage to the middle class.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- The Edmonton Journal makes it clear that the Cons' efforts to stymie any global climate change agreement aren't without some serious controversy even in the party's Alberta core:

The year 2011 had better not go down in history as one in which Canada skated progress on climate change into the boards.

Because if it does, the Harper government has made an all-in wager that global warming is not being aggravated by human beings, and that proof positive of this fact will soon be established in a new global consensus.

And if that reckless Texas hold'em bet proves a loser, there won't enough public relations firms on the planet to sell a more positive picture of Alberta's energy industry, or of our Canadian commitment to fighting change to the political, environmental and meteorological environment on which our prosperity depends.
...
(I)f Canada really believed man-made climate change was an existential threat, we wouldn't be making a virtue of following the laggards, regardless of how the latter viewed the matter.
...
It should be a cardinal principle for an energy-producing land like Canada to be seen internationally as willing to act on climate change, and willing to sacrifice. We should recognize that what's important is not how we think foreigners should see us, but rather how they choose to see us, on the basis of self-interest and the evidence we give them.

And as evidence goes, failing to comply with Kyoto, and then arguing it was a failure because some countries didn't comply, wasn't the best. Neither was vowing not to take action more vigorous than the United States. And then there was the risibly illogical "ethical oil" argument, which effectively says we shouldn't worry about climate change because Venezuela violates human rights.

- But then, it's also worth noting that responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions is also rather unbalanced within Canada - and a similar level of responsibility would seem like a must in developing a strategy that can work for the entire country:

According to Environment Canada, Alberta was the country’s heaviest greenhouse gas emitter in 2009, responsible for almost 34 per cent of the 690 megatonnes released into the atmosphere nationwide. Ontario, and its manufacturing economy was once the largest emitter, but Alberta leapfrogged it in recent years as petroleum production for export markets soared.

Road transportation, which includes everything from motorcycles to heavy duty diesel trucks, accounted for 19 per cent of nationwide emissions. That’s still lower than what California tailpipes alone spit out.

Still, fossil fuel industries (coal, oil and gas) and transportation in Canada were the main culprits, making up the 17 per cent increase in emissions this country has experienced between 1990 and 2009.

- Meanwhile, to the shock and amazement of anybody paying no attention whatsoever, the Cons' gratuitous cuts to the public service have started to have a serious effect on the availability of the programs involved. But I'm sure we can count on the Cons to point out the problem is that we shouldn't bother with such frivolities as Employment Insurance in the first place.

- Nor for that matter running water, at least as far as First Nations are concerned.

- Finally, I don't doubt that it's worth exploring some new planning options in Saskatchewan's health sector. But is there a more sure sign of a project that's proceeding from questionable assumptions than to have the price suppressed in the name of efficiency?

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading...

- The Edmonton Journal slams Stephen Harper's continued stuffing of the Senate:

(L)et's be clear: when an unelected body thwarts the will of a majority of the elected House of Commons, democracy is not served. It is for the electorate, not a collection of appointed party loyalists, to act as a check on the people's representatives.

But the contrast between the Tories' commitment to the theory of an elected senate and their practice of appointment as a key to getting their way on Parliament Hill does contain contradictions that need to be resolved.

We now have a party supported by less than 40 per cent of the electorate giving itself a majority in the Senate. Doesn't this seem odd? And given the Harper's dislike of resistance from parties representing at least 60 per cent at last count, is he truly committed to a system of Senate election that would accurately reflect popular will?

Some day, perhaps, these puzzles will be solved. In the meantime, decisions of the House of Commons will be enacted. Like them or not, that's as it should be.

- Dylan offers up the definitive response to the Cons' decision to swear in Santa Claus as a Canadian citizen. Though of course it's well worth noting that the Cons had long since devalued any concept of citizenship through their regular attacks on Canadians abroad who should have been able to expect their government's support.

- Deficit Jim Flaherty's year-end message looks to be rather stunning, as the perpetually-wrong finance minister is apparently admitting yet again that the course he's insisted on for the past year - both in terms of expected future growth and the best policy to get there - is wrong on nearly every point. If you're looking for the story the Cons are trying to bury under the Larry Smith controversy, this is it.

- Finally, the Tyee's Crawford Kilian is the latest to comment on Richard Wilkinson's work on inequality. But the point most worth noting from Wilkinson's interview is this:

On the response in Canada:

"So far we haven't seen much response except from Jack Layton."

C-311 Roundup

It took a couple of days for the media to catch up with the Cons' use of unelected senators to override the will of democratically-elected MPs. But now that it's started to notice, the Cons are taking plenty of fire for both definitively demolishing any pretense to wanting to do anything positive about the Senate, and reaching new lows in their disrespect for the will of Canadian voters.

Here's Craig McInnes:

As recently as three years ago, Harper argued it would be intolerable for unelected senators to defy elected members of Parliament.

It was a message that resonated with many Canadians, especially here in the West where disdain is particularly acute for the institution that many see as the ultimate symbol of patronage and pork-barrel politics.

That was before Harper abandoned his promise never to appoint a senator and stuffed the Senate full of his own yes-men and yes-women, before what used to be abhorrent became first tempting, then convenient.
...
What we have learned in the meantime is that Harper is not the reformer he pretended to be. He has no more interest than any prime minister before him in creating a Senate that has the ability to independently represent Canadians, that can, in fact, operate as a chamber of sober, second thought. What he wants and what he created by offering what are still among the juiciest patronage plums available is another partisan tool to do his bidding.

The Edmonton Journal editorial board:

The elected representatives of the Canadian people created this bill, debated it, voted on it and it passed. That it was then killed by an unelected body -- not delayed, not modified, not put over for more debate, but flat-out killed -- goes against the core principles of the movement that brought Stephen Harper to power.

The early Reformers split from the Progressive Conservative party for many complicated reasons. But one core grievance was always the democratic deficit.
...
With the Senate now controlled by

his party (thanks to the power of appointment), Harper had a chance to set a new precedent. He could have instructed his senators to advise and debate, but not block legislation passed by the House.

Instead, by having them kill a duly passed bill, he may well have made legitimate a whole new level of senatorial interference. For however the former Liberal senate majority may have slowed things down with assorted parliamentary moves, it never actually never voted down a piece of legislation.

The underlying principle is this: Democracy is not a cudgel to be wielded when the people don't pick you. It's a principle, a belief that the voters get the final say, whether you agree with them or not.

The Toronto Star editorial board:

Harper, who used to rail against Liberal senators second-guessing the work of the Commons, stoutly defends this act of parliamentary sabotage as a way to spare the country from legislation that “sets irresponsible targets . . . throwing hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of people out of work.”

In fact, the bill was largely aspirational in content, setting out long-range targets to reduce carbon emissions. It did not bind the hands of government, although it would have required regular reports to Parliament. In other words, this bill would have held the government to account. Not any more, thanks to the pre-emptory move by Conservative senators.

The Globe and Mail editorial board, making a point that's worth some further discussion:

The Conservative senators were fully entitled to vote against the Climate Change Accountability Act on Tuesday, but the power of the Senate to reject Commons bills should be limited, in the same way that the British House of Lords is restrained.
...
(In Britain), the solution was essentially to let the House of Commons pass a bill again in a subsequent session of Parliament, without further assent of the upper house – so that the Lords could significantly delay, but not definitively veto.

In Canada, an equivalent reform would require a constitutional amendment. Despite the understandable dread of “reopening the Constitution” ever since the Charlottetown Accord referendum of 1992, amendments have been passed in recent years, secularizing school systems in Quebec and Newfoundland. A constitutional change giving the Senate a suspending, not a final, veto ought to be equally uncontentious, being based on a widespread consensus of the supremacy of the House of Commons.

The Winnipeg Free Press editorial board:

Where Mr. Harper has been less consistent, however, is in his position on the Senate. He has, as Mr. Layton pointed out, always opposed it as an unelected and undemocratic institution that can thwart the will of the House of Commons on a whim. This week, Mr. Harper used his new majority in the Senate to thwart the will of the House of Commons because his party opposed the legislation in question, and invited Mr. Layton to join the Tories in reforming this unelected Senate.

But Senate reform, it seems, is merely a merry-go-round of hypocrisy, and no major political party appears willing to get off it. That's a pity, because an unelected Senate can be abused, but it cannot be truly useful or convincing as a chamber of sober second thought.

And finally, John Ivison:

Stephen Harper used to campaign on the phrase “promise made, promise delivered”. Now, his application of principle is so flexible, he would be in danger of being re-branded as the Rubber Man of Canadian politics...

The Prime Minister, having stacked the Senate with his own partisans, knows that they will vote for his agenda. But, on occasion, this means they will overrule the will of the elected House – something he used to consider an affront to democracy.

The reviews just keep on coming

Murray Mandryk:

(W)hat we're witnessing from Harper takes contempt for democratic principles to a whole new level. Actually it may be worse. He is using public cynicism as a blunt hammer to pound in the detour sign that allows him to get around the last bastion of true accountability for his PMO.

And that truly separates Harper from his predecessors.

By proroguing Parliament again -- this time for no better reason than the political convenience of sidestepping an increasingly troublesome Afghanistan debate while carefully positioning his government for what he hopes will be the afterglow of the Vancouver Olympics and a possible gold medal hockey win -- Harper is abusing tradition like no other recent PM.
...
What's truly loathsome is that he announced the prorogation through an unelected communication functionary between Christmas and New Year's, as if it were no more important than the local Queen's Counsel appointments.

Maddeningly, Harper is simply banking on Canadians' abysmal understanding of British parliamentary practice and counting on a cynical public to see this as nothing more than another bit of gamesmanship in a minority Parliament. And he's counting on the wealth of the Conservative party coffers and the friendlies on talk radio and elsewhere to spin this to his advantage.

Canadians should know what's at issue is far more nefarious.

At a time when the country needs to have meaningful debate about vital issues such as defence policy and our role in the longest war Canadians have ever engaged in, the prime minister is silencing the very institution -- perhaps the only institution -- capable of holding his office accountable.

Lawrence Martin:

We won’t know for sure until some polls come in, but there are indications the prorogue gambit is backfiring on (Stephen Harper). The reaction has been demonstrably negative. Media comment boards have lit up in protest. The Globe and Mail went to the unusual extent of running a front page editorial. Conservative newspapers, normally in the prime minister’s stable, have condemned the move. The Facebook group, Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament, already has 15,000 signed up.

It’s become a question of how many times the people will let a leader bend a democratic system to his will before they fight back. If the prime minister doesn’t take a hit in the polls on this, he will feel the sting in other ways. The opposition to his methods is hardening. People are angry. When they get angry, they mobilize.

This prorogation story, which comes on top of his defying the will of Parliament by refusing to turn over documents on the Afghan detainees affair, is different from some of the other abuse-of-power stories. This one has legs. Every day the Parliament’s doors remain closed will serve as a reminder of what the supreme ruler did.

The Edmonton Journal:

There is no looming emergency, no threat of a non-confidence vote, no plausible reason other than blatant political gamesmanship to support suspension of the people's business for more than two months.

Using the Olympics as a foil is preposterous, as if opposition parties would do anything to embarrass the nation while the spotlight is on Canada.

The excuse that the government needed time to readjust given the changing Senate scene is also specious, since Parliament wasn't set to return until Jan. 25 anyway, allowing a decent interval.

Once again the Conservatives under Harper, formerly outspoken on the need for greater accountability and reforming the murky, partisan nature of Canadian politics under successive Liberal regimes, have shown a predilection for more of the same -- even when they don't have to resort to trickery. Indeed, the only thing transparent about this cessation of open government is its obvious motivation.

The Hamilton Spectator:

There is no doubt the Stephen Harper government's strategic move to prorogue Parliament until after the Olympics is nothing short of self-serving. It is not about what is good for Canada, for democracy, or even for the Olympics. It is only about what Harper has decided is good for his federal Tories. Even sober second thought cannot cast a positive light on his decision to interfere with democracy.
...
In the days since Harper opted to side-step the democracy of the House of Commons, it has become increasingly clear the prime minister has established a nasty habit of shutting down the system when he wants to avoid controversy and hard questions.

The Tories shut down Parliament in late 2008 when they faced almost certain defeat by a minority coalition on a key vote. They have shut down Parliament in early 2010, ostensibly so we can all watch the Vancouver Olympics without the distractions of democracy. It also allows the Tory government to duck the substantial heat churned up by the sensitive issue of Afghanistan prisoner abuse, as well as the high level of criticism resulting from Canada's less-than-stellar performance in the Copenhagen climate change talks.

It is both unseemly and disturbing that the Tories' cynical move played out quickly, without debate and, apparently, with automatic acceptance by the Governor General.

Harper knows most Canadians aren't overly concerned about it -- close to half don't care whether Parliament resumes now or after the February games. A sizeable slice of the population probably doesn't care whether Parliament resumes at all.

But that apparent indifference doesn't make the erosion of democratic accountability good or acceptable. It is a frightening abuse of the democratic process. It not what prorogation was intended for. And it further clarifies the government's intention to minimize the role Parliament plays in Canadian democracy.

And of course, Errol Mendes:

Apart from the doomed attempts of Charles I to prorogue the British parliament in the 17th century, there was no precedent in any parliamentary democracy anywhere in the world where a democratic parliament was shut down to hide from a vote of confidence. It opened the door for other abuses of the rights and privileges of the majority of Members of Parliament elected by Canadians. Harper has gone through that door once again.

This time, the insult to Canadian democracy, while less spectacular, is no less disturbing. The Governor General did not even merit a personal visit to be told to shut down Parliament until early March. Respect, even for the Queen's representative, by this Prime Minister is in short supply.

This behaviour by the Prime Minister is another piece of evidence of a major shift in Canadian constitutional democracy taking shape. First, there is the unconstitutional behaviour of the Harper government to deny the committee uncensored documents despite a motion of the House of Commons. Second, there is the boycott of the committee by the Conservative MPs at the committee. Third, we have seen the sandbagging of the Military Police Complaints Commission and the "yanking" of its chair, Peter Tinsley. This commission, a quasi-judicial tribunal has been stymied in its attempt to determine the truth over the detainee transfer issue. Finally, there is the unprecedented slamming of Richard Colvin for just doing his job of speaking truth to power and then accusing anybody who supports him of either being Taliban dupes or undermining our brave Canadian military heroes.

These are serious examples of abuse of executive power over Parliament, the Governor General, the public service and ultimately the Canadian voters who elected MPs to make Parliament work.
...
Some Canadians may not pay much attention to archaic constitutional terms such as prorogation of Parliament or even to the fate of Afghan detainees transferred to torture. Other Canadians will care greatly about both these issues. But all Canadians must care about a minority government that undermines the fundamental democratic institutions of this country while also manipulating quasi-judicial tribunals and intimidating the public service from speaking truth to power. This abuse of executive power is tilting toward totalitarian government and away from the foundations of democracy and the rule of law on which this country was founded.