Sunday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your weekend reading.

- It remains to be seen whether Canadians Against 41 in 41 will get noticed by many who aren't already fully engaged in Canada's political system. But I'll fully endorse its reasons why Canadians should make the effort to vote, particularly this one:

Reason to vote #3: You deserve to be represented. If you don't cast a ballot, your values and beliefs will not be heard. The best way to make sure the things you care about are actually reflected in society is by actually supporting those things at the polling station. If you don't vote for what you believe in, no one else will do it for you.

- Darwin makes a great point as to how the Cons' refusal to follow Parliament's orders may have resulted in a precedent which will strengthen the hand of MPs in dealing with recalcitrant executives in the future (emphasis added):

Because constitutional conventions is the source of both cabinet confidentially and Parliament’s right to demand documents it wasn’t clear to me which would take precedence. I suspected that the Speaker would rule that Parliament could not demand documents that where subject to cabinet confidentiality but these documents could be demanded because cabinet confidentially does not extend to supporting documents for a decisions that had already been made. Because the cabinet had decided to move forward with these crime bills the supporting documentation, like the cost estimates, where no longer confidential.

Instead in his ruling he seemed to suggest that there is no limit to what Parliament can demand, not even cabinet confidentiality. He quoted House of Commons Procedure and Practice:

The Standing Orders do not delimit the power to order the production of papers and records. The result is a broad, absolute power that on the surface appears to be without restriction. There is no limit on the type of papers likely to be requested, the only prerequisite is that the papers exist—in hard copy or electronic format—and that they are located in Canada….

No statute or practice diminishes the fullness of the power rooted in the House privileges unless there is an explicit legal provision to that effect, or unless the House adopts a specific resolution limiting the power. The House has never set a limit on its power to order the production of papers and records.

Cabinet Confidentiality isn’t completely dead. It has been just lowered in status to the level of other documents that are not publicly available by access to information requests, like military secrets and personal information, but is available to parliament if requested.

- Meanwhile, Stephen notes that the Uncut movement is starting to develop in Canada - even if you may never know it if your news intake is limited to mainstream sources.

- And finally, Rachel Maddow points out yet another U.S. state facing an all-out Republican assault on less-connected people, as Michigan's governor has launched attacks on both the financial and democratic fronts:



But Maddow's initial riff is particularly striking given that two of Canada's largest provinces have just gone through a similar shift in their tax systems to privilege corporate activity at the expense of mere citizens, even while exacerbating the deficits that are supposedly the impetus for change.

[Update: fixed link.]

More and Better New Democrats: Daniel Beals for Kingston and the Islands

It's been a few months since I've added to the list of New Democrats deserving of particular attention and support in their local races. But with the year-end donation cutoff fast approaching and a huge opportunity having just opened up in Kingston and the Islands, now seems like the perfect time to highlight Daniel Beals.

The Candidate

One of the perennial questions facing the NDP is how to attract small business owners and operators as supporters and candidates. But it's worth noting that there are already plenty within the party's midst, with Beals serving as a prime example - having worked in the local tourist industry for over a decade, in addition to launching his own game publishing company in 2004.

That said, his background in small businesses doesn't stop Beals from sharing the strong social values which motivate the NDP's base. Indeed, Beals has taken a prominent role within the Campaign to Save Prison Farms, and has proven his interest and skill in pitching a left-wing populist message:



The Riding

Of course, the obvious opening in Kingston and the Islands came when longtime Lib MP and Speaker of the House Peter Milliken announced his intention to step down at the next federal election. While the riding was becoming less and less secure for the Libs even with Milliken as their candidate (as he won by only 7% of the vote in 2008 after posting past wins by as much as 38%), his departure obviously creates an opening for another party to make a strong push for the seat.

And while the Cons would figure to have been next in line as the second-place party in the most recent election, they're facing the prospect of starting from scratch due to the resignation of Brian Abrams, the candidate who brought them to the brink of victory in 2008.

That means that Beals will actually go into the next federal election with a greater head start than his Lib and Con competitors. And there's no reason to think that the riding is unwinnable for an NDP candidate: the provincial NDP won it in 1990, nearly held onto it in 1995, and finished just behind the PCs for second place in 2007, while most recent federal elections have seen the NDP as part of a pack of non-Lib parties fighting for the 2nd through 4th positions. So a drop in the Lib vote should vault the NDP into contention.

The Competitors

Naturally, the Libs don't figure to give up one of their Ontario strongholds without a fight. Ted Hsu won their candidacy after a hotly contested nomination battle which reportedly saw the riding turn at least temporarily into the Libs' top membership base in the country. But it remains to be seen whether his success in the nomination race will translate into general election support.

Meanwhile, the Cons still need to nominate a candidate to replace Abrams, while Green candidate Eric Benoit Walton will also apparently be running for a third consecutive election.

The Plan

With the Cons in flux in the area, now makes for an ideal time to build up Beals' resources so he can assume the mantle of the leading alternative to the Libs heading into an anticipated federal election. The local riding association has all the links you'll need to contact it to volunteer, or you can donate directly - so take a moment to pitch in before the end of 2010.

On rulings

For all the attention paid to Peter Milliken's ruling this week, I haven't yet seen any commentary pointing out the contrast between the unequivocal statement of the supremacy of Parliament that has been rightly praised, and the rather weak remedy linked to the finding that the Cons have breached their obligations to Parliament. And it's worth pointing out not only that the disconnect exists, but also why it seems to have come about.

So I'll offer a reminder that Milliken's ruling results in a shorter timeline and more apparent pressure on the government than any of the opposition parties has ever been willing to demand. And it's not reasonable to expect a decision-maker to grant an outcome substantially better than the winning side of a dispute has bothered to ask for.

Once again, the opposition parties' willingness to compromise has resulted in their being in a worse position than if they'd actually stuck to the principle of genuine governmental accountability - both to Parliament and to the public. And the absolute certainty that Harper will play them against each other during Milliken's 14-day period (secure in the knowledge that agreement with one eliminates any risk of a finding of contempt) only makes it all the more likely that the result will be less of the truth coming out than should be expected.

On Parliamentary knowledge

For all the accolades Susan Delacourt is receiving for her latest, I'd argue that her view that the current detainee document issue resembles the coalition showdown is completely off base - or at the very least that despite the common theme of the Harper Cons flouting whatever power they can get their hands on, the roles are actually reversed.

Of course, we don't know exactly how or why Michaelle Jean decided what she did. But all indications are that she saw her role as the delegate exercising the Crown's authority to mean generally taking the instructions of the Prime Minister, with no room for input from the opposition parties or anybody else aside from her own chosen advisers due to the limits of "constitutional knowledge".

If there's any analogy to be drawn, it's that Peter Milliken derives his authority entirely from the House of Commons, and is responsible for administrating the will of the House alone. And accordingly, any decision should be based primarily on the order passed by Parliament - with any representations from both sides serving only to assist in interpreting and applying it, rather than influencing the outcome based on political considerations.

Update: EFL reminds us of the historical context as to the Speaker's role.

On confidence

I've made the point before. But since it seems to need repeating, let's go over this again. There's no reason why any vote dealing with document disclosure should cause an election. And it's a sign of bad faith that the Cons are looking to pretend that's the only option if the opposition parties affirm the supremacy of Parliament.

To see why that's so, keep in mind just what it is that Parliament has voted on. The order giving rise to the current allegation of contempt isn't directed at non-confidence in the government, and indeed it implicitly rules out any intention to cause a change in government by ordering the government in power to deliver the listed documents to Parliament.

And any enforcement will be even more clearly aimed at accountability for the current government rather than an attempt to topple it. Of the two draft motions, Derek Lee's explicitly states that it "shall not be taken to be an expression of confidence or non-confidence in the Government by this House", while Jack Harris' is less direct but makes clear that "other business" will continue following the adoption of an anticipated declaration of contempt. And both are aimed solely at requiring the production of documents by two responsible individuals rather than disrupting the operations of the government.

Of course, it's true that Harper could decide to treat any given contempt motion as a matter of confidence if he's eager to provoke a needless election. But that's no less true for, say, an opposition day motion on prorogation. Or a bill on child care or climate change. And thankfully, we're not at the point where anybody is pretending that those offer Harper any reason to stomp his feet and demand a trip to the polls.

But for some obscure reason, far too many commentators seem eager to argue that Parliament's efforts to secure needed information somehow serve as a reason for Harper to force an election. And it's worth responding that it's Harper alone who should bear responsibility for doing so without justification - lest we otherwise face the mooted possibility that the Speaker will cut away at Parliamentary supremacy based on nothing more than the risk that Harper will abuse some of his other power in response to a correct ruling.

(Edit: fixed wording.)

Relevant possibilities

On further reflection, I probably aimed too low in my suggestion that the Speaker of the House of Commons should merely apply the same standards to questioners from all parties. Instead, if a relevance filter is being applied to questions, then why wouldn't the Speaker follow the exact same principle for the Cons' answers?

Just think about it: every Con non-response (which for the moment covers virtually all of their answers in question period) could be met with the Speaker's reply that the answer is out of order for failing to deal with the subject matter of the question.

Needless to say, constant statements to that effect - with video readily available for public consumption - would almost certainly serve as a source of immense embarrassment to the Cons. That would carry obvious pluses in and of itself - but even better, it could help to force a retreat from the Cons' all-talking-points, all-the-time communications strategy at least within question period.

So, I'll encourage Peter Milliken and his deputies to police question period to ensure that all sides are forced to stick to relevant issues - as nobody has more to lose from such an edict than the government which to this point has refused to do anything of the sort.

On mandates

Shorter Peter Milliken and Noel Kinsella, trying to start a turf war against Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page:

Dammit, how are members of Parliament supposed to pretend to know better than the unwashed masses when you insist on providing accurate information to the public?

(Edit: added label.)