Asleep at the switch

Over the past year and a half, I've generally figured that the Libs at least have some idea what it is that they're allowing the Cons to get away with. But Paul Szabo raises the possibility that they really don't have the slightest clue what's going on around them:

Paul Szabo takes over after Block’s clock runs out, and wonders about the recent revelation of the privacy concerns inherent in the changes to the Elections Act that resulted in dates of birth of electors being released to parties. He wonders if Stoddart’s office brought that up during committee, and the commissioner explains that both she and her Ontario counterpart did, at length. That was some impressive witness-listening y’all did on those committees, guys.

In agreement

The Globe and Mail reports that Lib Ethics Committee Chair Paul Szabo agrees with NDP MP Pat Martin's take that for now, Cadscam should be dealt with by the RCMP rather than the committee:

(E)ven the Liberal chairman of (the ethics) committee does not agree that it is the right venue for an airing of the facts in the Cadman case.

“The best outcome here to clear the water is for an RCMP investigation,” Paul Szabo said. “We're not a court. We can't lay charges. It would just delay, ultimately, the process.”

Which would seem to give those principled Libs who have spent the last couple of days bashing Martin for saying the exact same thing a choice if they want to be consistent: they can either turn their vitriol against Szabo as well on the substance of the matter, or alternatively start slamming Elizabeth May for being the lone holdout against a united national opposition front. But needless to say, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for either to happen.

Differential treatment

Lib MP Paul Szabo pointed out yet another example of the Cons' hyperpartisanship, as even requests to non-political parts of the federal civil service are apparently being filtered by party affiliation:

(D)uring our break period, a constituent came to my office. I was there. The constituent asked about the serious issue of the policy of the government related to the importation of goods from countries such as China where there has been some problem in terms of health and safety.

We immediately contacted Service Canada to find out if it had the documentation on this issue that is very prevalent. It told us that we had to talk to Health Canada product safety.

My staff did contact Health Canada product safety and they were advised by Health Canada product safety that it would have to get back to them on that matter because there was some process to go through.

A phone call was received back from a different number totally. I have the name and phone number of the individual and I have personally talked to the person subsequently.

The question that was posed to my staff and subsequently to me was: “Is your member of Parliament a member of the opposition?” The Health Canada product safety representative was asking, with regard to my query, whether or not the member was a member of the opposition.

When I learned of this communication from my staff, I immediately contacted this person. I had an extensive conversation with the individual. I was told that there was a requirement for Health Canada product safety to fill out an MP response form which it receives from Ottawa. It must fill it out including quotations and extracts from the conversation with the member of Parliament or the member of Parliament's staff.

This matter goes to Ottawa so that Ottawa, wherever this little black hole may be in this government, it appears decides what can be told to a member of Parliament.

It remains to be seen how the matter will be handled as a question of Parliamentary privilege (which is where Szabo raised the issue).

But while it's possible that the action might not attack Szabo himself directly enough to make for a violation of privilege, there can be little doubt that it reflects yet another example of the Cons' determination to use the entire federal government apparatus for its own partisan purposes. And it shouldn't take long for Canadians from across the political spectrum to realize that the end result can only be worse results for the country as a whole.

Return of the Pod People

In the midst of a week of speculation and analysis of the throne speech and its fallout, the first House of Commons mention of the Cons' Pod People Plan didn't receive any attention in the media. But with all three opposition parties apparently presenting a united front on a story which is starting to come into focus, it may not be long before the Cons find themselves on the defensive.

Not surprisingly, the point of privilege was brought up by Nathan Cullen, who generally summarized what's already known about the Cons' pseudo-MP in Skeena-Bulkley Valley. But two of the points in response add new information to the story.

First, while the Cons previously disavowed any national support for the Pod People plan, they seem to have let the mask slide. Now, their Saskatchewan caucus chair Tom Lukiwski has also tried to defend the Cons' undemocratic appointments. Which should remove any plausible claim that the plan stopped at Harris, and provide a strong suggestion that it's indeed a national policy (contrary to the Cons' initial protestations).

Second, other opposition MPs besides Cullen also had additional examples to offer. Perhaps most interesting was Paul Szabo's statement as to what he's been told while trying to do work for his own constituents:

Mr. Speaker, just this past week I had a case in my constituency office requiring the urgent intervention by a minister to get a family member to come over to attend to a terminally ill child.

We wrote to the minister but we did not get a response within a reasonable period of time. We made the necessary inquiry. We were told directly that the department no longer responds to opposition members' requests for assistance and ministerial intervention.

Now, the prospect that the Cons have instructed federal departments to ignore requests from opposition MPs would be dangerous enough on its face. But it's all the more so when combined with this week's news about the Cons' data-gathering techniques:

CIMS is used not only to track voter allegiance in a given riding -- something every political party attempts -- but also a host of other data gathered in the course of an MP's constituency office duties.

"Any time a constituent is engaged with the member of Parliament, they get zapped into the database," Turner said in an interview. "It's unethical and it's a shocking misuse of data.

"Because once you cotton on to what's going on here, it's not good constituency work at all to allow that data to fall into any kind of hands. But the party is desperate to get more and more data in there because the primary use is fundraising. The secondary use is voter tracking to get out the vote."

Putting the pieces of the puzzle together:
- The federal government won't deal with any constituent issue unless it's brought up by a government MP.
- Government MPs won't deal with any constituent issue without collecting whatever information they can get from the encounter, and using it for Conservative Party purposes.

In sum, under Harper, any benefit from the Government of Canada is contingent on a constituent's giving a quid pro quo (whether knowingly or not) to the Conservative Party.

So what can the opposition parties do about it? The first step is obviously to raise the issue publicly wherever they can. And it's possible for them to do more on that front: while the Ethics Commissioner investigation, point of privilege, and media exposure have helped, it's long past time to use some prime Question Period time to force Harper to answer for his government's patronage.

Second, the opposition parties should be working together on legislation to ensure that neither the Cons nor any other party can misuse personal information about Canadians, and agreeing to use whatever means available to fast-track it through Parliament.

This could be as simple as making political parties subject to the Privacy Act, or it could involve a new set of rules under the Canada Elections Act. But whatever mechanism is chosen, it would both make for good public policy, and put a serious dent in whatever advantage the Cons may be deriving from their misuse of data.

And if the Cons want to make such legislation a confidence matter and fight an election over their ability to use the federal government as the Patronage Distribution and Information Gathering Department of the Conservative Party? Well, that's exactly the kind of ground where a referendum on the incumbent figures to be a losing proposition for Harper.

We'll see if the issue gets as much attention as it deserves going forward. But once again, the problem isn't so much any hidden agenda from the Cons as the one that they've already put in plain sight - and the opposition should be happy to make sure the public pays due attention to what's going on.

(Edit: fixed typo.)