Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Tim Harper discusses Stephen Harper's current list of distractions - with Rob Ford and his Senate appointees naturally topping the list. But sadly, while John Ivison may be right in noting that actual citizens are having trouble getting the Cons to bother administering federal programs, the combination of scandal and dishonesty doesn't seem to be slowing down their anti-worker omnibus legislation in the slightest.

- On the Senate front, Scott Stelmaschuk compares the Duffy payoff and cover-up to the long-forgotten Chuck Cadman scandal - with the key differences in exposing the story being that Duffy both took the Cons' offer, and managed to document some of the dealings in writing. And Michael Harris points to Helena Guergis as a cautionary tale for anybody hoping to curry Harper's favour.

- Meanwhile, Rinaldo Walcott sees Ford as an ugly example of selective privilege. And John Cruickshank discusses the challenges facing the media in dealing with Ford and others who have no qualms about lying to the public - while hinting that the Star may be more willing to highlight false messages as an integral part of news coverage:

Journalistic fairness says subjects have a right to comment in stories about them. The Supreme Court of Canada insists this is indispensible to responsible journalism.

The Toronto Star has repeatedly quoted Ford denying the existence of a damaging drug video. We have quoted him denying that he has smoked crack cocaine.

But our reporters had seen the notorious cocaine video and knew that he was seeking to deceive Torontonians.

Were we unfair to our readers in allowing the mayor to practise his deceptions on them? Are journalism’s conventions too restrictive in an era when some leaders use lies and manipulative spin as basic tools to tighten their grip on power?
...
The Star has begun a practice of documenting factual errors in accounts of the mayor’s economic claims. This, in itself, is a departure from usual journalistic practice in which the fact-checking or “reality check” function is separated from the news coverage.

Until now, we have not questioned the mayor’s motives in providing the citizens with false news in our stories.

We have let him make his case as we would any news subject.

But the mayor has made all the Toronto media agents of his deceptive propaganda. And this can’t help but further erode the trust Torontonians place in politicians and the media.

- Finally, Jared Milne's detailed discussion of Red Toryism in Canada is well worth a read - even if I'm dubious about his claim that Stephen Harper has done much of anything to conform to its principles. 

On tests of character

Dr. Dawg has rightly pointed out the Cons' attempt to invent a story based on Tom Mulcair's audacity in driving to his own parking spot. (Though we can be assured that members of the limo-propelled Con cabinet will never face precisely that same scenario.)

But if there is a story worth noting, I'd see it in comparing Mulcair's response to a simple misunderstanding to the way far worse stories have been handled by his political counterparts.

Here's Mulcair's reaction to the incident:

Thursday morning, however, a new guard was on duty at the checkpoint and she didn't recognize Mulcair.

"I waved. I thought I got a wave back but I didn't so we wound up having the slowest promenade in front of the building. I went around the back (followed by) another officer who'd been dispatched to see who it was. The other officer was able to verify my identity and that was it."

A while later, Mulcair said he went back to the checkpoint to clear up the misunderstanding.

"When I went back and talked to her, she was apologetic and I apologized myself for the misunderstanding. I didn't want the misunderstanding to last. She felt bad, I felt bad, we shook hands and that was the end of it."

In contrast, let's take a look at the Cons' responses to incidents involving deliberate breaches of security check points. First, there's Pierre Poilievre:

Poilievre, who could not be reached Friday for comment, apologized to the RCMP two days later after he learned CTV was doing a story on the incident.

And second, there's Helena Guergis:

Junior cabinet minister Helena Guergis has issued an apology for her rude behaviour at the Charlottetown airport, where she allegedly threw a tantrum and screamed obscenities at staff who asked her to take her boots off for security screening.

 "On Feb. 19, I was rushing to catch a flight at the Charlottetown airport and spoke emotionally to some staff members," Guergis, the minister of state for the status of women, said in an unusually abject mea culpa. "Regardless of my workload and personal circumstances, it was not appropriate and I apologize to airport and Air Canada staff."
...
In her apology issued Thursday, Guergis said: "It was certainly not my intention to create any additional stress for airport or Air Canada employees who already have a very difficult job."

And as an added bonus, here's Justin Trudeau today on the tens of thousands of dollars he's charged to charities and public institutions in speaking fees:

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau says he is willing to make amends with any charitable organizations that have paid him to speak and felt they did not get their money’s worth.

“I am going to sit down with every single one of them and make this right,” Trudeau told CTV’s Question Period Sunday, addressing an issue first raised in reports about his work with The Grace Foundation, which supports a seniors’ home.
...

“I’m willing to pay all the money back, if that’s what it comes to,” Trudeau said during an interview with CTV’s Question Period.

So where can we see a difference in the respective reactions? I'd see two key points worth noting.

First, in the cases of the Con and Lib examples, the MPs involved did absolutely nothing to try to address concerns until after the stories had surfaced in the media. Which signals that each sees the matter as solely one of public relations (see in particular Trudeau's "if that's what it comes to" as to his willingness to address charities' concerns), rather than a matter of personal integrity. In contrast, in Mulcair's case the effort to follow up with the new guard took place shortly after the events in question - at a point when it may not have been clear whether the events resulted in a story at all.

And more importantly, Mulcair actually reached out to the person involved and spoke to her directly - both to determine what happened, and to facilitate apologies on both sides.

Now, most of us might consider such politeness to be common courtesy. But it stands in stark contrast to the choice of Poilievre, Guergis and Trudeau to run to the media and issue blanket statements intended to depersonalize their issues - rather than to talk personally to the people individually affected by their actions.

In other words, the personal interactions necessary for any politician to do his or her job offer plenty of opportunities to test character based on variations of the Waiter Rule. And Mulcair looks to have passed with flying colours - while there's precious little evidence that the culture of the NDP's competition encourages their leaders to meet the standard.

[Edit: fixed typo.]

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Michael Harris continues to highlight some of the fundamental problems with the Cons' view of politics, this time identifying Stephen Harper as being afflicted with "master of the universe syndrome":

When you control all the levers of power, when you have no scruples, when you are surrounded by nutters who will do anything you say without thinking, when you conceive of language as disconnected from objective reality, when you believe biz bull and Beatle songs are enough to bamboozle the Great Unwashed, it’s understandable in certain personality types that the conviction begins to take hold that you are a master of the universe.

Here are the main symptoms of MOUS. You stop caring about what others think about you. They are merely the Plankton People – Vladimir Putin’s ringing coinage for the human flotsam and jetsam who throng to those soon-to-be terminated protests against his dark dominion in Russia. The kind of people, I might add, who now find themselves under arrest when a Harper cabinet minister is heckled...

When you have MOUS, it never crosses your mind that people would like more from their government than a cattle prod in their junk. That’s because being Boss is in your blood. You, and you alone, know what’s good for everybody. And what’s good for everybody? Well, it just happens to be what’s good for your friends. The pipeline people, the military, and of course, the Harper Party.

- NUPGE identifies several pieces of the Sask Party's labour and employment plans which violate well-established and internationally-recognized labour rights:

Implementing any of the following legislative changes would be seen as a violation of Canada's (and Saskatchewan's) commitment to adhere to ILO fundamental principles of freedom of association:

• excluding some employees from the right to collective bargaining;
• restricting unions from democratically deciding how they spend dues revenues;
• allowing individual members to opt out of paying dues;
• allowing individual members to make decisions on what their dues are used for that are contrary to the financial decisions made democratically by the majority of union members;
• eliminating 'dues check off', the process where an employer deducts union dues from employees' pay on behalf of the union; and
• denying essential employees the right to strike without access to impartial third party arbitration.

- Vass Bednar and Mark Stabile comment on the Cons' continued attacks on evidence-based policy in general and Statistics Canada in particular:

We would argue that there is a strong case to be made for a publicly funded and administered statistical agency that collects the kind of robust information required for government, business and individuals to make the best decisions they can.

For without being able to accurately describe the characteristics and trends of what that "problem" is, society will simply have to make policy in the dark.

Evidence-based policy-making requires just that - evidence - standard, reliable metrics whose quantification and legitimacy is widely agreed upon. In their absence, policy-making at all levels and in every sector will be as expensive as it is hopeful, while policy actors are forced to gingerly "guess and check" over time.

In the absence of good data, our ability to fully comprehend complex policy issues will grow anecdotal and inconsistent. As admirable as the quest for efficiency in the public sector is, it can't be worth the confusion that it will promise in the future. Truly realizing the kind of savings that Statistics Canada claims to strive for in this budgetary cycle means continuing to invest in the foundational information that has wisely informed our nation for decades.

- Stephen Maher reports on the latest in Helena Guergis' defamation claim. But the most noteworthy part of the story may be the one tossed in as an afterthought: all investigation and discussion of the criminal case against a past Conservative MP - who was married to a then-current MP and cabinet minister - was shot down by yet another future MP and cabinet minister in Julian Fantino.

 - Finally, the Star-Phoenix editorial board has some pointed questions about the plan for a new Regina stadium.

On questionable privileges

It's interesting to note that Helena Guergis' use of parliamentary mailing privileges for explicit electoral purposes is being treated as a matter of general interest, while Greg Thompson's in endorsing a successor both as "next Conservative candidate and MP" is currently being reported as an internal Con matter.

But the overall message seems to be the same in both cases. As far as the Cons are concerned (including anybody who learned about politics through the party), the lone role of an individual MP is to use every available resource is to use every means at their disposal to convert public resources into campaign materials - whether or not they're supposed to be used for that purpose. And the more tired Canadians are of the results, the more incentive they'll have to remove the MPs who have been trained to use that strategy.

On misplaced appeals

Shorter Helena Guergis:

If the Conservative Party stands for anything, surely it's letting the "you people" decide who should rule them.

(Not to say that I particularly agree with the Cons' decision to nix Guergis as a candidate. But Guergis has to rank near the bottom of the list of people who should be making arguments based on respect for "grassroots electors".)

Edit: fixed wording.

Colour me skeptical

Let's get the current story straight.

Last summer, Rahim Jaffer was arrested on charges including cocaine possession. And notwithstanding that the cocaine presumably had to have come from somewhere, Stephen Harper went out of his way to say that the arrest had absolutely no potential impact on Helena Guergis' role in cabinet.

Instead, it took the intervening seven months, plus a direct tip from a private investigator, for it to occur to Stephen Harper that the "purchase and use of drugs" might make blackmail a risk. And at that point, he booted Guergis all the way out of caucus and called in the RCMP.

To which one can only ask: did Harper somehow conclude that Jaffer's supplier was such a fine, upstanding citizen as to raise absolutely no risk that any knowledge might be used against him or his spouse? Or did Harper simply pay absolutely no attention to a risk which he's now declared as serious enough to be worth siccing the RCMP on Guergis?

Sure, that's one theory

Those looking for a reasonable explanation as to what likely happened to trigger the RCMP being called in to investigate Helena Guergis will want to read David Akin's latest. But as long as the Harper Cons themselves don't think the public deserves even the most basic information about the investigation, I'd think it's far too soon to stop speculating.

Has anybody brought up cannibalism as a possibility yet?

The buck stops elsewhere

Shorter every anonymous insider the Cons could scrounge up to talk to the press:

Let's not forget that the real victim of Helena Guergis' disastrous tenure in cabinet is the Prime Minister who promoted her then refused to admit she wasn't up to the job.

Saturday Afternoon Links

A bit of light reading for those staying inside to avoid being blown over...

- Not surprisingly, the numbers on the limited amount of stimulus money actually spent confirms the concern that the Cons' choice of photo-op-friendly infrastructure projects would lead to little money being distributed when it was most needed.

- Murray Dobbin notes that it isn't just banks who have responded to decades of getting everything they want on policy by failing to provide the public benefits claimed in return:

Governments since Brian Mulroney's have given Bay Street virtually everything they have asked for: the lowest corporate taxes in the developed world; twenty years of "labour flexibility" which has flat-lined wages since 1980; massive deregulation; a plethora of free trade agreements; huge cuts to EI -- the whole corporate wish-list.

None of it has made one iota of difference except that Canadian corporations have a tonne of cash sitting in their coffers, cash they were supposed to spend on innovation, technology, training and -- gawd forbid -- taking risks.

- Gerald Caplan reminds us that while Abousfian Abdelrazik has at least made it back to Canada despite the Cons' best efforts, he's still stuck in legal limbo due to the arbitary application of anti-terror rules despite a lack of evidence against him.

- Kevin Donovan continues to set the pace in reporting on Rahim Jaffer's efforts to peddle government influence, this time with a remarkable set of revelations about Jaffer's business partner.

- Finally, Susan Delacourt points out a couple of the key questions about Helena Guergis' dismissal from Cabinet and the Cons which Stephen Harper can't avoid no matter how desperately he tries to hide behind the RCMP.

The reviews are in

The Star-Phoenix editorial board takes Stephen Harper to task for his refusal to tell Canadians why it is that the RCMP has been called in to investigate Helena Guergis:

In a country whose national police force is expected to be non-political, it's suspicious enough to have the prime minister order an investigation.

To then have him make the announcement without telling Canadians why he is stepping outside the traditional bounds of his office to call an investigation is unacceptable. Canadians have a right to know what is behind such a high-profile investigation.

The RCMP isn't Mr. Harper's police force, and it certainly isn't mandated to clean up the prime minister's political messes.

Mr. Harper should come clean, even if it's embarrassing.

If you haven't seen it yet...

Without a doubt, Kevin Donovan's story on Rahim Jaffer is today's must-read, offering at least a possible explanation for Jaffer's sweetheart plea bargain as well as a couple of essential lines for a future Twelve Days of Harper carol. But while "three busty hookers" may make for the sexiest possible lede, perhaps the most damning part of the story is the nature of Jaffer's business partners and the promises they've apparently made about access to the PMO:

“As most of you may have heard, we had a rather earth moving experience last night at dinner with Rahim Jaffer and Dr. Chen. Mr. Jaffer has opened up the Prime Ministers’ office to us and as a result of that dinner – he today advised me that is just as excited as we are and joining our team seems to be the next logical step,” Gillani wrote to a dozen close associates. (Tory insiders say Jaffer has no such access).
...
York Regional Police detectives charged Gillani, Mihelic and several others in November with fraud in connection with a deal Gillani allegedly orchestrated. A former senior employee of Rona was coerced into using his computer and finance knowledge to wire $1.5 million of Rona money to a dummy account in Hong Kong. Jasmine, the Cachet Ladies escort, was with Gillani in his bedroom when detectives arrived to make the arrest. Sobbing, she pleaded with them not to take her boyfriend away.

Two of those accused have said they will plead guilty in return for providing evidence against Gillani.

On eerie parallels

The Harper Cons' attempt at damage control just last month after it was revealed that political staffers had deliberately chosen not to follow the law in suppressing information without a legal basis:

Federal ministers have been warned by their boss against subverting Canada's freedom-of-information law after a political aide at Public Works ordered a sensitive document withheld from a media requester.

But of course, that public statement bore absolutely no resemblance to the message sent behind the scenes:

(D)espite PMO statements that all staffers have been directed to abide and uphold the Access to Information Act, the PMO interference continues.

"This still continues and staff are told publicly to 'respect the process' but are expected to find ways to thwart the process," the staffer wrote. "Trust me—despite the public musings—political staff were told 'not to interfere,' nudge nudge, wink wink."

Staffers, another Tory staffer said, are very aware they are being "reminded of rules which they know they haven't been asked to apply."

Today, the Harper Cons' attempt at damage control after a second cabinet minister decided that ministers don't have to follow the law when it comes to air travel:

The PMO says Prime Minister Stephen Harper will issue an edict to his ministers, reminding them that they're not above the law.

So are there any guesses as to what the Con cabinet ministers are in fact being told behind the scenes?

Edit: fixed label.

On unlikely agreement

It's exceedingly rare for me to agree with much of anything Lorne Gunter has to say. But as one might have guessed from my post yesterday, I'd have to say that he's on the mark when it comes to the real problem with Helena Guergis' airport eruption:

This Friday, Guergis apologized for speaking "emotionally" and admitted her behaviour was "not appropriate." But even if only half of the foregoing is true, this goes way beyond simple emotionality and inappropriateness. This exemplifies the worst of the arrogance that gets into the heads of some politicians.

Who in this day and age arrives at an airport 15 minutes before a flight and expects to be waved through check-in and security? Only someone who is so convinced of her own importance that she has come to believe the rules that apply to mere mortals do not also apply to her.

Witness her remark about how she had been on the island working hard for "you people." There is in that a regal complex in which the speaker believes her magnanimity towards the little people entitles her to their gratitude and favour.

Of course, I strongly disagree with Gunter's apparent view that we should assume that the problem is solely with Guergis personally rather than with the Cons' government as a whole. Which is why I part company with the suggestion that firing Guergis should be enough to put the incident in the past.

But hopefully we can agree that if Stephen Harper continues to defend Guergis, then that will tell Canada that the regal attitude is at least accepted if not fully shared by the Cons in general.

On privileged classes

There's been plenty written about Helena Guergis' airport meltdown. But only a couple of commentators have even hinted at what looks to me to be the most important part of the story in assessing the source of Guergis' behaviour - and what it says about the Harper government in general.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the starting point for Guergis' behaviour is that she was already being treated as a VIP, with she and her aide being allowed to board her flight at a time when any member of the general public would have been told that it was too late. So Guergis was already being granted indulgences not available to ordinary Canadians at the start of the incident.

But that level of special treatment was apparently nowhere near enough for Guergis. Instead, she threw tantrums over having to comply with any of the rules which apply to every single air traveller - while also showing thorough disrespect for her aide in demanding that she pick up Guergis' boots.

Moreover, the mere mention of some of the privilege which had been applied to Guergis sent her into a rage about her "working (her) ass off for you people". Which looks like rather irrefutable evidence of a belief in Guergis' mind that there's a radical difference in kind between the likes of herself, and the mere "you people" who should presumably consider themselves fortunate to occupy the same country.

Now, there are certainly issues worth raising as to whether the incident justifies considering Guergis as petulant or mean. But the greater issue is Guergis' apparent sense of self-superiority - which has seemingly reached levels where even damning words like "entitlement" fall far short as descriptors. (Though additions like "rude" and "imperial" do come closer to the mark.)

In effect, Guergis' tirade reads like a lost Leona Helmsley anecdote, where a violent outburst is merely a particularly dramatic manifestation of the speaker's complete contempt for anybody who doesn't occupy the same social circles. And Guergis' after-the-fact half-apology focuses completely on the former issue (responding "emotionally" and behaving inappropriately as matters of one-time concern) rather than the latter.

Which isn't to say that I disagree with Devin's view that the Libs' calls for Guergis' resignation are rather pointless. But I reach the same conclusion from an entirely different starting point.

Sure, Guergis' outburst may make for a particularly visible example of the Cons' detachment from and distaste for mere common folk. But there's little indication that most of the Harper cabinet sees its place any differently - and indeed plenty of reason to think that from Harper on down, the Cons have been conditioned to adopt the attitude of a royal court marked by bottom-up fealty and top-down patronization.

So the proper response isn't to pretend that replacing Guergis with another Harper sycophant will have any positive effect. Instead, the core problem is a government which firmly believes that "you people" - defined as mere Canadians in general outside their circle of power - fall into a lower class of citizen who should be overwhelmed with gratitude at the chance to be ruled by their betters. And the only way to change that attitude in government will be to remove the Cons from power as a party.

A resounding gold in hackery

Shorter Kelly McParland:

Nothing could be more heroic than to cultivate an irrational, unfocused anger at the abstract idea of government, then take it out on the nearest public servant who had no role in causing one's frustration. Embrace the hate!

Hyperwinguttization

I remember well the justified outcry when the Cons decreed that "equality" was no longer part of Status of Women Canada's mandate. But did we miss when they snuck in "subjugation and repression" instead?