Beyond our wildest fears

I've frequently pointed out that a couple of the Cons' tax credit programs (implemented while they feigned interest in addressing climate change) made for the least efficient environmental programs on the face of the planet. But did anybody expect that evaluation could have been based on a highly optimistic estimate as to what Canadians actually paid for tiny environmental effects?

(T)he numbers in the report — Complete Analysis of Notable Climate Change Incentives in Canada, dated March 2 — estimates that several programs are costing hundreds of dollars for each tonne of pollution reduced. Two programs designed to encourage consumers to scrap old vehicles or buy fuel efficient cars are particularly costly, with cost estimates of about $92,000 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions reduced from the scrap program, and $18,990 per tonne for the ecoAUTO rebate — an incentive program that was subsequently cancelled.

Again, those prices are compared to reasonable market values in the range of $15-50 per tonne of emissions reduced. Which raises the question of how the Cons' willingness to pay thousands of times what emissions are normally supposed to be worth could possibly be seen as anything but evidence of gross incompetence and/or bad faith in government.

Wednesday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your midweek reading.

- Dan Gardner nicely sums up the Cons' destructive governing style with a handy analogy:

Lots of people accuse him of being ruthless, or an ideologue, but he’s usually credited with being a basically competent manager.

He doesn’t deserve that credit. His government is badly run and incoherent. Promising fiscal conservatism, Stephen Harper spent money like crazy, expanded the federal government, cut taxes, and turned a surplus into a structural deficit (yes, it’s structural, as even the International Monetary Fund agrees). He has no real plan for getting the budget back into balance.
...
To be clear, there’s nothing wrong with questioning the census or any other status quo. Indeed, it’s always good practice to consider the relative merits of alternatives.

But as any reasonably competent manager knows, you do that before, not after, you pick up the sledgehammer and smash stuff.

- But let's give the Cons credit for at least being efficient when it comes to what really counts: maximizing the amount of public money going to their cronies.

- Frances Russell points out what the Cons' use of public offices for political advertising says about their disrespect for Canada's political system and voters alike:

With his unprecedented commandeering of the Prime Minister's Office, Harper has out-Americanized the Americans -- and struck another blow against our constitutional tradition.

No U.S. politician, not senators, not congressmen, not even the president, can conduct fundraising, campaign ads or any overt political activity from Capitol Hill, the White House or federal buildings or facilities. The House of Representatives Ethics Manual prohibits the use of House recordings for "any political purpose."

Harper's attack on Canadian traditions doesn't stop there. The prime minister has his minions looking for ways he can appropriate the role of the Governor General as Canada's head of state to hand out honours and awards to Canadians.

He's already created the Prime Minister's Volunteer Awards. And he has been fighting his defence minister for two years to get one of the military's troop and cargo Airbuses repainted white.

Pollster Frank Graves told The Hill Times he believes Harper is trying to assume "symbolic office, similar to the president of the U.S., which is one of the things they have been shooting for."

- Finally, who plans to spend the afternoon refreshing this page waiting for Bev Oda's name to be added?

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday...

- Yes, the story behind the Cons' KAIROS funding forgery is far from over. And while the media and opposition will undoubtedly want to get to the bottom of the matter, Paul Dewar rightly notes that somebody else should be very interested to figure out who doctored an official document to mean the opposite of its original text:

NDP MP Paul Dewar wants Oda to appear again before the foreign affairs committee to face questions. He raised the prospect of a police probe if opposition MPs can't find out who “doctored” the document.

- Meanwhile, Murray Dobbin notes how the KAIROS forgery fits into the Cons' general style of governance:

Shocked hardly describes it. This is political thuggery worthy of a dictatorship. It clearly originated in the PMO, but Bev Oda, the hapless minister of International Cooperation, was assigned the role of Official Stonewaller. Oda's answers to questions put to her by a parliamentary committee reveal an arrogance of power that is identical in its mentality to the dozens of autocracies around the world. Oda stated she didn't know who doctored the documents she signed, but said: "I know that the decision ultimately reflects the decision I would support."

That is almost impossible to believe. Almost surely, the only reason the not was inserted into the document was that it had already been signed by Oda -- indicating she accepted the recommendation by CIDA officials. Had Oda not signed, authorizing payment of the grant, there would have been no need to doctor the document to reverse its intent. She could simply have declined to sign it and announced that KAIROS would not be getting a grant. The vulgar method used to circumvent the law demonstrates just how little this government cares about the rule of law. They couldn't even be bothered to make it credible.

- But if there's any good news to be found in the Cons' constant cover-ups, it's that they may be setting up their own government's demise. Here's John Ibbitson:

(N)ot only do the Conservatives give tax cuts to fat cats and waste billions on toys for the military and prisons that turn scared kids into hardened criminals, but they also erode democratic freedoms by keeping Parliament and the rest of us in the dark about their plans.

Only you don’t have to camp out at Liberation Square to bring this government down. You only need to cast a ballot.

None of this may matter. The Conservatives think they can win the next election on the ballot question of competence and leadership, and the polls suggest they’re right.

But don’t be surprised if you see a Liberal attack ad that shows Parliament with the doors chained shut. And the Conservatives will have only themselves to blame.

- Finally, the Star points out the dishonesty in the Cons' attempt to play to prejudice by attacking veiled voters:

No fewer than 253,069 voters cast mail-in ballots in 2008. Elections officials had no way of checking their faces. Other voters turned up at the polls with two pieces of acceptable non-photo ID, such as a hydro bill, a government cheque or an insurance policy. Still others with no valid ID at all just swore an oath and had a neighbour or roommate (with valid ID) vouch for them.

In a crunch, a veiled Muslim woman can either show her face in private to an official, or swear an oath that she is qualified to vote, and present two pieces of ID.

Given all these factors, it is absurd, as the Star has argued before, to think of veiled Muslim women as posing a threat to the integrity of our electoral system. Laws that in effect single out Muslim women send an ugly message that if minorities want to exercise their rights as Canadian citizens, they should behave and look more like the “mainstream,” whatever that might be.

Just wondering

No, it isn't necessarily inconsistent for an anti-government dogmatist like Stephen Harper to posture about "red tape" in the private sector while shackling public employees.

But Susan Delacourt's post of the Cons' form "message event proposal" does raise a couple of questions that I don't recall being asked the first time they were in the news. Namely, when does the government of Canada - as distinct from the Conservative Party or its MPs - ever engage in tactics such as direct mailouts and op-eds? And if the answer is "rarely if ever", then is there reason to wonder whether the resources used in developing MEPs are finding their way into partisan systems?

All you need to know

Ah, the prestige of being appointed into federal cabinet. The raised profile, the responsibility to make decisions on weighty matters affecting the country...wait, what's this?

We filed an ATIP request for Min/State Finance Ted Menzies briefing books: Answer today: There are none.

Never mind: apparently the main difference between being a Harper cabinet minister and a Tim Horton's cashier is that the cashier would normally be expected to learn the menu before starting.

On malign neglect

The CP's story about the Cons breaking rules about avoiding partisanship on government websites is certainly noteworthy on its own. But it's particularly worth highlighting how one part of the story also fits into Paul Wells' classic critique of the Harper government:

According to federal documents obtained by The Canadian Press, bureaucrats advised that the Economic Action Plan website didn't meet rules (to ensure they are credible, technically accessible, uniform and non-partisan) – and didn't merit an exemption from those rules.

However, the website was given the green light anyway by then-Treasury Board president Vic Toews.

He justified it by writing that the rules – which only came into effect in 2009 – were going to be changed at some future date.
...
More than a year after the exemption, the rules remain in place – as does the website.

Of course, it's a problem as well that the Cons couldn't care less whether or not they're following the rules - particularly those which they've put in place themselves. But it's particularly worth noting that whether due to disorganization, neglect or some other factor, they also can't be bothered to follow through on their own supposed plans to change them - even when they've stated their intention to do so in order to offer some retroactive justification for their actions.

In other words, the problems with the Cons involve flat-out incompetence in addition to blatant ethical failures. And while we might take some comfort in hoping that the former may limit their ability to capitalize on the latter, both serve as rather compelling reasons for a change in government.

Con values at work

Really, why should Canada waste time on elite concepts like reading, math and science anyway? As long as our Tim Horton's consumption doesn't start dropping, we have nothing to worry about.

In all fairness...

It's only half right to say, as Stephen Lewis did today, that the Harper Cons had no clue what they were doing when it came to their failed bid for the UN Security Council.

Far more accurate to say instead that the Harper Cons don't have a clue what they're doing the bulk of the time - with the Security Council vote serving as just one more glaring example.

So many narratives

Stephen Harper. Pariah.
Stephen Harper. Quitter.
Stephen Harper. Failure.
Stephen Harper. All of the above.

On defining moments

One could hardly ask for a better example of Stephen Harper's stay in power in a nutshell:

The rogue PM eventually returned to the aircraft where he was surrounded by reporters and photographers, one of whom wondered whether he had a licence to operate the vehicle — especially on restricted space such as an air strip?

“I think I make the rules,” the PM quipped.

And truly he does.

Think he makes the rules, that is. So when he figures it's convenient to break laws, promises or both, or to shut down democratic institutions or fire civil servants for the offence of failing to subordinate the truth to his political purposes, he's consistently acted as if nobody can possibly question his impulses.

And after over four years of carefully insulating himself from anybody who might dare question his infallibility, with an Official Opposition working feverishly to keep him in office until its next turn to exercise absolute power and a media who views his megalomania as the stuff of "quips" rather than an indication that something has gone horribly, horribly wrong, it's half understandable why Harper thinks himself a dictator entitled to make any inconvenient rules disappear on a whim.

But some of us might see reason to disagree that the rule of law has been officially preempted in favour of rule by Harper fiat. And we'll have all the more reason to be concerned about what's happening elsewhere in Harper's regime as a result of his firm belief that he can declare himself to be above the law.

Just one problem

It's definitely worth noting Stephen Fienberg's followup commentary on the census. But I'm not sure it'll necessarily have quite the effect anybody is hoping for. After all, isn't it all too likely that Harper's crew of know-nothings will take "mindless" as a compliment?

What Dr. Dawg said

Dr. Dawg makes the case for booting the Harper Cons out of office ASAP, and with extreme prejudice:

If it weren't for the harm done to our country, including the legitimation of unrestrained police violence in Toronto and the loss of our corporate memory, we might allow ourselves to be mildly amused by a government that resembles, policy-wise, a mash-up of the Keystone Kops and the Inquisition. But our foreign policy has become an embarrassment, and our domestic policy is in tatters. Ministers routinely interfere with arms-length agencies, or attempt to exile Canadian citizens,(claiming "royal prerogative" with entirely straight faces), while the King padlocks Parliament--or just tells it to go fly. The man who laughs has simply not yet heard the terrible news.

It's nothing less than our civic duty to run this horrific gang of subliterate hoodlums out of office, by any means necessary and as soon as possible, to get the hands moving clockwise again. We're in serious trouble, folks, and it's time for the craven politicians of the Opposition to gird their loins.

Go read.

Let's make this easier

Apparently my suggestion last week to focus on Stephen Taylor's gleeful violence toward public services hasn't yet gone anywhere. So here's a more concrete thought for anybody more cinematically inclined.

The scene: a popular, familiar embodiment of positive social services. Say, a hospital bed where a nurse is attending to a grateful patient.

Two figures enter the room in Conservative Party jackets - one with a distinct Harper head of hair, one with a Taylor beard.

The Harper figure whacks the nurse over the head with a chair, WWE-style. The patient reacts in horror. The Taylor figure pumps his fist and shouts, "About time!".

Cut to a visual of Taylor's quote about "dealing a huge blow to the welfare state".

Now was that so hard?

On legacies

John picks up on Scott Adams' question about "legacy systems", and has some useful examples of areas where it would be a plus to effectively start policy development from scratch. But while I tend to agree with John's ideas, it's worth highlighting a crucial distinction that Adams seems to miss:

One of the biggest problems with the world is that we're bound by so many legacy systems. For example, it's hard to deal with global warming because there are so many entrenched interests. It's problematic to get power from where it can best be generated to where people live. The tax system is a mess. Banking is a hodgepodge of regulations and products glued together. I could go on. The point is that anything that has been around for awhile is a complicated and inconvenient mess compared to what its ideal form could be.

My idea for today is that established nations could launch startup countries within their own borders, free of all the legacy restrictions in the parent country.

What Adams seems to overlook is that many of the most problematic "legacy systems" (the "entrenched interests" blocking action on global warming, the lobbyists and their benefactors pushing for tax exemptions and regulatory loopholes, etc.) are private actors rather than public ones, and would face no restriction in their ability to operate across borders. That means that their resources built up elsewhere would undoubtedly be applied in any "startup countries" from day one, ensuring that any new systems would be developed around their interests. And in the absence of any countervailing forces, it's all too likely that they'd end up being able to turn any untilled soil into an even more tilted (if perhaps less complex) playing field than the one which Adams is seeking to improve.

Which leads to a more general philosophical point which should be particularly salient based on recent experience, whether it's the Harper Government of Vandals shredding whatever it can get its hands on or the Wall government's all-out attacks on the labour movement. As we sort out the nature of progressivism and seek to apply it, part of our theory needs to ensure that whatever progress we make is durable enough to withstand even the most antagonistic of future governments. And that means encouraging the development of positive "legacy systems" as counterweights to the interests which would otherwise crowd out all other voices.

On bare minimums

Impolitical notes that Tony Clement seem to be hinting at modifying the short form census in response to the threat of litigation over French service delivery. But it's worth pointing out what Clement's declaration actually means in terms of the Cons' positioning.

Aside from the prospect of the Cons themselves deciding that maybe an all-out assault on the delivery of public services isn't a fight they want to take on at the moment, there's effectively only one way for anybody to force them to reverse course. That involves finding ways in which the Cons' plan involves a breach of law, then persuading a court to order that the census proceed as normal as a remedy for that impending breach. It's not a likely outcome (since courts are generally hesitant to dictate the outcome of discretionary decisions), but it at least offers some fallback option when the party in charge so stubbornly refuses to listen to reality.

In that context, Clement's concession mostly looks to signal that the Cons aren't about to take the risk of that happening. Instead, they're insisting on using their own zero-consultation, zero-reason gutting of the long form as the starting point. And from there, they're apparently willing to make small concessions only on issues that involve potentially enforceable legal duties (which they apparently never bothered to take into account in the first place) - with the apparent goal of undermining as much of the long form census as they can.

Needless to say, that's about the worst possible ground of discussion for those of us in the reality-based community. So let's keep focused on the Cons' more basic choice to trash the long-form census and how it feeds into their general desire to destroy effective government in Canada, rather than being the least bit satisfied with the Cons doing the most damage they can be assured of getting away with.

The plan of attack

Since there seems to be plenty of agreement with the sentiment that the Cons' war on public services demands a strong opposition response. With that in mind, what should we be looking to in order to turn the admitted goal of sabotaging governments across the country into the defining public perception of the Harper government, rather than just another ephemeral story?

1. Keep focused on the story.

The Libs in particular have taken loads of well-justified criticism during their stay in opposition for reflexively responding to the minutiae of the day rather than setting out a larger narrative. But a declaration that the Cons are actively working to prevent would seem to provide the perfect opportunity to connect an immediate story into a broader message - that is, if the Cons don't manage to change the subject again.

2. Connect all talk about the census to Taylor's declaration.

One of the Cons' great "successes" has been in consistently framing opposition positions as implausible extremes with no basis in fact - and I won't suggest the opposition parties should want to sink quite as low as Harper's crew. But now that the Cons' leading spokesparrot has said outright that his party's goal is to tear down the factual foundation for civil society, there's no reason for the opposition parties to allow the Cons to pretend their attack on the census represents any less.

So by the time the next election rolls around, Taylor should be better known than he is now as "Stephen Harper's court stenographer". Phrases like "ideological force-feeding" and "dealing a huge blow to the welfare state" - or better yet, stronger versions on terms not set by Taylor - should be highlighted often enough to penetrate the public's consciousness as defining the Cons. And every Con MP, candidate and spokespuppet should be forced to either distance himself or herself from Taylor, or agree with the statement that the Cons' ultimate goal is to destroy Canada's public infrastructure for good - and that the choice to gut the census is a "shortcut" to that end.

3. Raise the census at every opportunity.

Here's the plus side of a conflict which goes to the basic capacity and decision-making philosophy of government: every political issue can easily be linked back to it. So it shouldn't be difficult to make sure that every piece of news - including the Cons' own moves to change the subject - gets greeted with a response leading right back to Harper's ideological vandalism.

The Cons make a spending announcement? Point out how census information is important to making it, and how the Cons have basically said they don't care if the money produces results.

The Cons meet with a community group? Ask whether the group is satisfied being dismissed as a "special interest" which should be permanently shut out of public decision-making.

The Cons proclaim their fiscal responsibility? Highlight their ridiculous choice to pay more for less usable information, and tie it back into the broader theme of refusing to even have outcomes accurately evaluated.

Needless to say, I'll encourage readers to come up with more to add to the above. But the most important point is to make sure that our ideas now come to define the Cons by the time Canadians next go to the polls.

Compare and contrast

Doug Saunders on the important lessons being re-learned by most of the world in the wake of the financial meltdown:

Last time everything was ruined and trust had fallen apart, after the horrific experience of the Great Depression and the wars, we gave up on a strictly economical, cost-benefit calculation model of government and turned to the larger, more important questions. It became a time of high seriousness, a turn to the state.

“The urgent question was not how to celebrate a magnificent victory and get back to business as usual,” he writes, “but how on earth to ensure that the experience of the years 1914-1945 would never be repeated.”

People were frightened of the economy: It had done terrible things to them. There was, by 1945, what John Maynard Keynes called a “universal craving for security.” This craving, Mr. Judt notes, led some people, even those not conquered by Stalin, to put far too much trust in the dangerous logic of planned economies. In the capitalist world, this widespread fear was “addressed by the provision of public services and social safety nets incorporated into postwar systems of governance from Washington to Prague.”

We didn't just use government to get us out of a trap. It, and its social-safety-net mechanisms and welfare-state provisions, became the backbone of the greatest stretch of innovation, entrepreneurship and employment that capitalism has ever seen. It was only when those mechanisms began to be winnowed down that capitalism became dangerously wobbly.

“Today,” he writes, “it is as though the 20th century never happened.”

We will have to relearn it.
...
Only governments can address the huge problems of a global economy that is increasingly only beneficial to those with elaborate educations. Only governments can keep the deep troughs of economic downturn from becoming recursive cascades of ruin – but they can also turn the peaks into periods of shared prosperity for entire communities, something we've forgotten. “The task of the state,” he writes, “is not just to pick up the pieces when an under-regulated economy bursts. It's also to contain the effects of immoderate gains.”

The Star-Phoenix on the course being taken by Canada alone due to the Harper Cons:

One suspects the loneliest jobs in Ottawa these days involve being either technical experts or program overseers responsible for advising the government on adopting best practices.

Over the past four years, the Harper government has mocked, ignored or fired almost everyone it has in place to provide guidance on the most complex issues that Canada needs to address.
...
(Christian Paradis) expects commercial interests to pick up the responsibility for producing isotopes, while the government cuts the role played by such agencies and ministries as Agriculture and Agri-Foods Canada, Western Economic Diversification, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Industry Canada and Natural Resources -- all of which will lose more than 40 per cent of their funding beginning in next year's budget, according to a study by the Globe and Mail.

This government's plan to get out of deficit seems to be to get out of governing. Only the Corrections ministry is expected to see a significant increase in government involvement, growing to $3.128 billion from its current $2.267 billion -- a 36 per cent increase -- by the 2012-14 budget year.

Although innovation and support for research were a crucial aspect of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's speech from the throne, that research apparently had better fit into a tough on crime agenda if it's to receive any government support.

Clueless

Kady has the most ridiculous detail yet about the Cons' attempt to hide from the Afghan torture issue:

SO YEAH, ABOUT THOSE TERMS OF REFERENCE UPDATE: Apparently, Nicholson's office will be putting out a press release on the Iacobucci review just as soon as they've managed to nail down the details, although when that will happen -- or, for that matter, what that down-nailing entails -- is not entirely clear.

Combining the highly visible public announcement of they-haven't-yet-figured-out-what with their immediate backtracking on a change to the national anthem which they so proudly unveiled just two days ago, it's looking more clear than ever that the Cons are just as incompetent as they are dishonest. But with the fundamental question of parliamentary supremacy still left unanswered, it'll be up to the opposition parties to refuse to be thrown off course no matter how desperate the latest distraction may be.

Multiple choices

Take your pick as to the saddest part of the Cons' latest evidence that after three and a half years in power, they still don't have the faintest clue what they're doing. Is it that they're bothering to hold presentations to advise of the possible purchase of they don't know what at some unspecified point in the future?

A $3-billion project to buy new search-and-rescue aircraft kicked off Tuesday in Ottawa amid complaints from aerospace industry officials that government representatives can't even say how many planes will be purchased or when.

The industry day, signifying the start of the much-delayed program, left aerospace representatives puzzled and at times, frustrated.

Government representatives who called the meeting couldn't answer questions on how many planes would be bought, when they would be purchased, whether they would be equipped with sensors or how they would be maintained.

Is it the fact that the minister responsible for the prospective purchases has wasted his time publicly pleading for bidders to violate his government's own rules?

Secrecy around equipment programs and how the Defence Department spends tax dollars has grown significantly under the Conservatives.

In May, (Peter) MacKay pleaded with industry representatives to get out the word that military purchases were good for the Canadian economy.

But industry officials note that it is often MacKay's office and other government representatives, such as the Privy Council Office, who prevent firms from discussing projects.

Or is it the farcical way that the media who had originally been invited to the presentation was summarily ejected not only without an explanation, but with a concerted effort to avoid stating who (if anybody) made or enforced the order?

The Defence Department had approved a request from Canwest News Service to be allowed to listen to the search-and-rescue presentation by Brig.-Gen. Greg Matte, but at the last minute, that invitation was cancelled on orders from "higher up" in the Harper government, according to various officials.

A supervisor at the Government Teleconferencing Service, which was involved in broadcasting the meeting, said the order to ban the media "just came down" Tuesday morning. "We're doing what we're told," said the supervisor who declined to provide his name. "They've said to disclose nothing further."

He also declined to provide his name, confirm whether he was a public servant or discuss who "they" were.

Of course, one's preference may vary: for substantive impact the lack of a clue what the Defence Department actually wants would seem the most damning, while for sheer absurdity the unexplained, anonymous media ban likely takes the cake. But one way or another, all indications are that the Harper failing state is getting more dysfunctional by the day.

Still more of the same

Martin Mittlestaedt highlights yet another example of Stephen Harper's failing state, as yet another supposed Con priority has been stopped in its tracks without warning or explanation:

The federal government made international headlines last year when it added bisphenol A to the country's toxic substances list, but it has quietly stopped issuing new reviews of hazardous chemicals under the program that highlighted the dangers of the plastic-making compound.

The initiative, known as the Chemicals Management Plan, was supposed to issue assessments during November and December of the effect on human health and the environment of about 50 possibly hazardous substances.

Among them are several that European regulators have flagged for their cancer-causing potential, and a group of substances, using silicone, that are widely added to cosmetics and other personal-care products.

Ottawa hasn't issued evaluations of any of them, stoking worries among public-health and environmental advocates that the government is cooling toward the plan...

And lest anybody hope for a straight answer on that or any of the Cons' other failures, those are no more likely now than they've ever been. After all, the Cons are too busy speaking from their all-politics script to acknowledge any of their own mistakes:

Conservatives have been told to communicate the government's intention to run a deficit in the range of $20 billion to $30 billion.

Don't expect apologies for having projected surpluses just two short months ago or for inserting into the November economic update those provocative cuts to public financing for political parties or curbs to public servants' right to strike that sparked the opposition's threat to bring down the government.

And don't expect any acknowledgment that Conservative policies – such as relaxed rules around mortgage financing brought in by the government – exacerbated the economic situation.

Instead, the tone remains defiant.

So once again, the Cons' actions have signalled their complete lack of fitness for office. But once again, they couldn't care less about actually following through on their supposed commitments, instead dedicating their efforts to drowning out that reality with spin.

Fortunately, the decision as to whether or not the Cons can keep exercising power that way isn't in their hands. And the more the Cons keep up their combination of stonewalling and finger-pointing instead of doing anything useful, the more obvious the choice will be for all of the opposition parties to decide that it's time for some positive change.