On giveaways

It seems that our former Lib MP is chuffed about the corporatized FCL's takeover of the assets of True North Renewable Fuels. But Regina's citizens may have some questions.

After all, it was just a month ago that City Council approved a million dollars' worth of public money to fund an engineering study for True North. And one would think the decision-making process would have looked rather different if the proponent was one which could easily have funded the expense itself.

Moreover, if True North's assets are being transferred, the grant money and any results of the study would figure to form part of that - while any ability to repay the City will be in severe doubt.

So let's ask: how did True North's valuation for sales purposes change as a result of the City's grant? How much will FCL benefit from a public grant intended to support a new operator rather than an existing corporate monolith? And how much information - or how little - about the now-concluded sale was communicated to the City when it made its decision?

Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Anushka Asthana, Jessica Elgot and Rowena Mason report on Jeremy Corbyn's path as Labour leader - which include genuinely moving the UK's political centre of gravity to the left while improving his party's electoral prospects in the process.

- Andrew Boozary and Danielle Martin write that the U.S.' health care debate should lead us to discuss how to improve Canada's universal health care - including by adding pharmacare into our public system.

- Christina Gray discusses how an increased minimum wage helps the working poor in particular.

- Chris Arsenault reports on newly-revealed details showing how insiders have long known B.C.'s Site C dam was an expensive failure - even while trying to push to spend billions more on it. And Jessica Glenzain compares the treatment of the public to the corporate sector in Michigan, where Nestle offers up a pittance to bottle publicly-owned water while Flint residents pay exorbitant prices for an unsafe supply.

- Finally, Michael Harris takes note of the fact that Ralph Goodale and the Libs seem to have no more conscience when it comes to the fruits of torture than the Harper Cons.

New column day

Here, on how a change in government hasn't done anything to slow the spread of Canada's surveillance state - both in terms of intrusive new legislative proposals, and a continued determination to operate even outside the law.

For further reading...
- Again, Dave Seglins and Rachel Houlihan reported on the Cold War-era wiretapping approvals which are still being officially denied by the federal government.
- Justin Ling documented the history of "lawful access" legislation, along with the more recent effort of Ralph Goodale and the RCMP to repackage the same intrusions in a new message.
- Tonda MacCharles reported on both CSIS' admission that it too spied on journalists, and its subsequent broken promise to own up to its past surveillance - seemingly because it's still engaged in the same tactics now.
- Finally, Colin Freeze reports that CSIS has also been seeking bulk data collection mechanisms for years. Asha Tomlinson points out how many apps already collect far more data than they need for business purposes. And Sasa Petricic looks to China for a warning as to the implications for privacy and individual freedom when state power meets the centralized collection and use of data.

Wednesday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Thomas Frank writes that a progressive party can only expect to succeed if it places principles of equality and workers' interests at the core of everything it does - rather than serving mostly as the voice of a wealthy professional class:

Somewhere in a sunny corner of the country, either right now or very shortly, a group of tech tycoons or well-meaning private equity investors will meet to discuss what went wrong in this election cycle. They will consider many things: the sexism and racism of Trump voters, the fundamental foreignness of the flyover, the problems one encounters when dealing with evangelicals. They will celebrate some activist they learned about from NPR, they will enjoy some certified artisanal cuisine, they will hand out prizes to the same people that got prizes at the last event they attended, and they will go back to their comfortable rooms at the resort and sleep ever so soundly.

These people think they know what liberalism includes and what it doesn’t include. And in the latter category fall the concerns that made up the heart and soul of liberal politics a few decades ago: labor and work and exploitation and economic equality.

To dedicate your life to concerns like these today is to sign up for obscurity and frustration. It’s to enter a world without foundation grants, without appearances on MSNBC, and without much job security. Nothing about this sphere of liberal activism is fashionable or attractive. Books on its subjects go unreviewed and unread. Strikes drag on for weeks before they are noticed by the national media. Labor organizers are some of the hardest-working but least-thanked people I know. Labor reporters are just about extinct. Promises to labor unions are voided almost as soon as they leave a politician’s lips.

- Meanwhile, Tom Parkin discusses how the NDP - and Jagmeet Singh in particular - may serve as Canada's antidote to the Trump brand of politics.

- Chuck Collins, Helen Flannery and Josh Hoxie examine the toxic effects of relying on gilded giving from a small number of extremely wealthy individuals to support services, rather than being able to build a base of broader funding (whether public or charitable). And Cathy Crowe makes the case for a push toward building affordable housing.

- Daniel Leblanc reports on the CRA's long-awaited progress in cracking down on offshore tax havens.

- Kevin Metcalf discusses how the new surveillance state established by C-51 is only criminalizing and isolating youth while offering no real security benefit. And Justin Ling notes that the RCMP's response to the repeated rejection of "lawful access" legislation is to push for the same powers under a different name - with Ralph Goodale and the Libs only enabling them in the cause.

- Finally, John Doyle writes about the blatant elitism behind Kellie Leitch's drive to destroy Canada's only major media outlet which isn't ultimately answerable to corporate interests.

New column day

Here, on the forces competing to determine the scope and shape of Canada's security state - and why we shouldn't think it's good enough to settle for a status quo which includes needless intrusions into our civil liberties.

For further reading...
- Jim Bronskill reported here on Randall Garrison's plans to bring C-51 back before Parliament rather than letting the Libs keep delaying. And the bill establishing a closed-door parliamentary committee to review security matters (subject to full government control over both what it sees and what it reports) can be found here.
- CBC reported here on the outline of Aaron Driver's case, while Elizabeth Thompson highlighted how the system set up under C-51 failed utterly in managing an individual who was identified as a risk. And again, Murtada Hassain discussed Driver from the standpoint of the congregants of the mosque he attended.
- Finally, Bronskill also reports on the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police's resolution calling for people to be required to hand over electronic passwords. And Susana Mas reports on Ralph Goodale's response.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Paul Krugman writes that we're far closer to a major energy transformation than many people realize - but that public policy decisions in the next few years may make all the difference in determining whether it materializes:

According to a recent report by the investment firm Lazard, the cost of electricity generation using wind power fell 61 percent from 2009 to 2015, while the cost of solar power fell 82 percent. These numbers — which are in line with other estimates — show progress at rates we normally only expect to see for information technology. And they put the cost of renewable energy into a range where it’s competitive with fossil fuels.

Now, there are still some issues special to renewables, in particular problems of intermittency: consumers may want power when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. But this issue seems to be of diminishing significance, partly thanks to improving storage technology, partly thanks to the realization that “demand response” — paying consumers to cut energy use during peak periods — can greatly reduce the problem.

...

I’d argue that the kind of progress now within reach could produce a tipping point, in the right direction. Once renewable energy becomes an obvious success and, yes, a powerful interest group, anti-environmentalism will start to lose its political grip. And an energy revolution in America would let us take the lead in global action.

Salvation from climate catastrophe is, in short, something we can realistically hope to see happen, with no political miracle necessary. But failure is also a very real possibility. Everything is hanging in the balance.

- Ian Welsh argues that the 2008 bank bailout - which effectively prioritized financial gambling over real economic development - is largely responsible for the lack of any real recovery afterward.

- Jim Stanford explains why Canada's auto sector in particular stands to suffer under the Trans-Pacific Partnership. And Shachi Kurl finds that Canadians in general are rightly concerned about what the TPP means for jobs.

- Finally, Laura Tribe comments that we shouldn't have to wait indefinitely to change the civil rights abuses pushed through in Bill C-51:

[Ralph] Goodale has said that reforms on C-51 won't likely be introduced until the fall at the earliest. Sadly, in the meantime, Canadians' rights are being violated everyday C-51 remains in place.
Oversight can't retroactively undo the damage that current legislation is doing. Each day, we're being subjected to excess surveillance. Our data is being shared without any checks and balances in place. There is no recourse for innocent Canadians.

C-51's overreaching powers are being normalized.

Many of the effects of this legislation won't be felt for years to come -- but in the meantime, we go on with our lives. Canadians remain on no-fly lists. Our private data is being collected. Information is being shared and compiled between government agencies. Rights are being violated. And all of this is happening without the oversight to ensure it's being done legally, effectively and safely.
...
It will take some time for public consultations, expert input, and analysis to determine the best policies and legislative solutions for Canada's security mechanisms. But we do know that right now, C-51 is quite simply incompatible with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Why do we have to spend the best part of yet another year subject to laws that even the Liberals, the party ruling with an overwhelming majority, thinks are problematic?

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- In reviewing Gabriel Zucman's new book, Cass Sunstein discusses the need to rein in tax havens and ensure that the wealthy pay their fair share of the price of a functional society:

(W)hatever your political party, you are unlikely to approve of the illegal use of tax havens. As it turns out, a lot of wealthy people in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere have been hiding money in foreign countries—above all, Switzerland, Luxembourg, and the Virgin Islands. As a result, they have been able to avoid paying taxes in their home countries. Until recently, however, officials have not known the magnitude of that problem.

But people are paying increasing attention to it. A vivid new documentary, The Price We Pay, connects tax havens, inequality, and insufficient regulation of financial transactions. The film makes a provocative argument that a new economic elite—wealthy managers and holders of capital—is now able to operate on a global scale, outside the constraints of any legal framework. In a particularly chilling moment, it shows one of the beneficiaries of the system cheerfully announcing on camera: “I don’t feel any remorse about not paying taxes. I think it’s a marvelous way in life.”
...
In the aftermath of the financial crisis, you might expect that there would be an international crackdown on the use of tax havens, and as we shall see, international attention is indeed growing. But the numbers demonstrate that no crackdown has occurred. In Luxembourg, offshore wealth actually increased from 2008 to 2012 (by 20 percent). In Switzerland, the increase has been comparable; foreign holdings are now close to an all-time high. Disturbingly, the new wealth is coming mostly from developing countries, which poses a serious problem in light of the severe strains on their limited budgets.
...
A strong virtue of Zucman’s book is that it puts a bright spotlight on an area in which significant reforms might appeal to people who otherwise disagree on a great deal. You might believe that the tax system should be made more progressive, or you might believe that it should be made less so. But whatever you think, you are unlikely to support a situation in which trillions of dollars are hardly taxed at all.

- Judith Shulevitz writes that a basic income could be particularly important in extending recognition to the value of work normally performed unpaid by women. And Andrew Jackson comments on the best options to reduce poverty among seniors.

- Gregory Beatty rightly points out (as I've done previously) that Saskatchewan's current problems with equalization can be traced back to Brad Wall's choice to abandon the exact same cause when he first took power.

- Ian MacLeod notes that the Libs' supposed commitments to improved oversight over security and greater power for individual MPs both seem to be undermined by the top-down naming of a chair for a new committee on spying. And their apparent starting point of not thinking much needs to be done with C-51 doesn't bode well for the prospect of anything changing for the better.

- Finally, Murray Dobbin argues that the Libs have an ample mandate to pursue the type of proportional electoral reform supported by a majority of parties - meaning that their most important task is to get the new system right.

Just Not Ready, Civil Rights Edition

So let's get this straight: Ralph Goodale's plan to address the unconstitutional civil rights intrusions imposed under Bill C-51 (which his party waved through in the face of widespread opposition) is...to leave them in place indefinitely while the Libs figure out what they can get away with keeping.

Needless to say, we should expect any government's starting point to be to minimize any interference with our Charter rights at all points - not to leave existing abuses in place as the default option. And if the Libs aren't willing to offer that possibility, we should fully expect the NDP to do so.

On reasonable responses

Let's offer a quick reminder to the Libs' spin machine, and particularly to the people who should know better who are choosing to echo it.

No party is under an obligation to reflexively attack or belittle everything another party proposes in its election platform.

If a platform plank or general principle raised during the campaign can't reasonably be opposed, the appropriate response is to at least recognize that fact before trying to start spinning. And one Lib spokesperson roughly followed that course in addressing the NDP's push to fund women's shelters to ensure nobody in need of a safe place gets turned away.

Another did not. And it's no excuse to say that Ralph Goodale chose to respond to a specific idea by ignoring the subject at hand, and instead reverting to his party's most tired, off-topic talking points.

It's absolutely true that the goal of combating violence against women should be so obvious that no reasonable public representative could pretend it doesn't matter. That leaves plenty of room for response to any proposal - including general agreement in the context of the wider campaign, an offer of alternative solutions, or pointing out a valid reason why the proposal fails to meet the purpose.

But if Goodale or any other politician is so caught up in negativity as to pretend both a policy and the undisputed issue it addresses don't matter, surely the fault lies with him - not with the party pointing out his unreasonableness.

Worth following up

There doesn't seem to be much doubt that Lib candidate Scott Sarna will be an also-ran in Monday's Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette by-election. But he may manage to have some significant impact on his party due to a seemingly new position which looks to demand some response from Ralph Goodale and other Libs who have normally pushed a different line:

Liberal candidate and young businessman Scott Sarna said he's heard a mix of views from farmers -- most prefer the wheat board but some would like reforms or alternative marketing options. He said the party is toying with the idea of allowing farmers to decide riding by riding on the issue.

White elephants on parade

On the federal scene, a remarkable amount of attention and energy has been devoted to the Cons' stadium-funding talk over the past week - featuring a fair amount of cross-partisan opinion as a few actual right-wing deficit hawks point out the frivolity and futility of most of the plans.

But this looks to be the kind of issue where conservative theory conflicts most directly with how right-wing governments operate in practice for a couple of key reasons - making it seem more likely than not that the Cons will happily take the opportunity to promote their own profile at public expense.

After all, the Cons look to be entirely happy to drain Canada's public coffers as much as possible to keep resources from being put to more socially responsible uses by future governments. In that sense, the stadium projects can be seen as similar to their much-panned GST cuts and comically useless "environmental" programs, serving more to limit future federal fiscal capacity than to accomplish anything positive.

But while they'll be happy to give away public money simply so nobody else can use it, the Cons do want to get some political value for it where they can. Which makes stadium construction a natural follow-up to a stimulus program which has allowed the Cons to develop their taste for gratuitous photo ops and other publicly-funded advertising. While Harper and company obviously don't have any interest in extending the potentially useful parts of infrastructure spending, they're surely happy to put up hundreds of millions of dollars in order to take centre stage in the development of new vanity projects - particularly when their media ally Pierre Karl Péladeau figures to be one of the main beneficiaries.

Mind you, the political calculations might be different if the Cons saw any risk that their utterly undeserved managerial branding might be at risk. But any cost to the Cons figures to be minimal given that the Libs have been taking a lead role in pushing for stadium funding.

Of course, it's fair enough to point out that the Cons' irresponsibility seems to match exactly the factors which caused Canada's right-wing movement to fall apart just a couple of decades ago. But that kind of fissure may only emerge in the face of a stable government of some stripe - and by the time one turns up, we may already be stuck with an ever-expanding bill for the Cons' stadium projects.

On contrasting treatment

Following up on this morning's post, I'll note that there's one area where the NDP has left itself open to significant criticism on the detainee document process.

The party's current message is one of making the truth public and upholding Peter Milliken's ruling. And I'm all for framing the NDP's position around those concepts.

But having accepted (and indeed trumpeted) the earlier agreement in principle which fell short on both of those points, the NDP unfortunately contributed to the idea that there was no longer a problem with the Cons' actions. And that may have the unfortunate effect of allowing the Cons to claim far more legitimacy than they deserve for a process which looks to be nothing short of a farce.

Having noted the area where the NDP probably deserves some criticism, though, it's also worth pointing out how ridiculous the Libs' response looks to be. In particular, Ralph Goodale's decision to lash out at the NDP stands in stark contrast to his regular admonitions that the the Cons could be counted on to negotiate in good faith (not to mention his expectation that they'll suddenly start showing "honest behaviour"). And the Libs' continued choice to equate "good faith" with "giving Stephen Harper what he wants" can only further call into doubt their interest in doing their job in opposition.

(Edit: fixed wording.)

Regina Anti-Prorogation Rally Photos

A few photo highlights from today's event...

NDP Palliser candidate Noah Evanchuk with organizer Brendan Pyle.


Brendan with some of the handmade signs for the event.


Update: Crowd shot.


Emcees Tamara Harder and Mike Medby.


Sign in the crowd: "Whatever happened to accountability?"


Sign in the crowd: "Prorogue Harper Permanently"


"Stephen Harper" (along with "Cheddar!") takes the stage to say a few things which the real Stephen Harper once claimed to believe.


Another crowd shot with sign: "Parliament for the People".


The hands-down winner of the "Best Dressed" award.


Finally, the crowd as Evanchuk, Lib MP Ralph Goodale and Green candidate Larissa Shasko take the stage together.

On outsourcing

I'll start off this post by noting that there are few more tiresome refrains in Canadian politics at the moment than the Cons' line that Michael Ignatieff is about to run back to Harvard at the drop of a hat. So take the below as a point about what Ignatieff is doing while he's in Canada, not a reason to claim that he'll be teaching classes by next semester.

That said, there's reason to wonder whether Ignatieff is checking out of a seemingly vital part of his role as Lib leader. From yesterday's Hill Times:

In the past month there have been operational changes to try and make things run more smoothly. For instance, Mr. Ignatieff's so-called "Kitchen Cabinet," comprised of senior Liberal MPs, has stopped meeting every morning for half-an-hour and instead now meets weekly for two hours. Also, responsibility for preparation for the daily Question Period has been moved out of the OLO and is now overseen by Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale's (Wascana, Sask.) office.

Now, one could argue that Ignatieff's choice to farm out responsibility for question period would be consistent with the theory that he needs to focus less on Parliament in general and more on travelling around the country. But even if that's the reason for the switch, it looks to me like a highly questionable move.

After all, I've mentioned before the disproportionate amount of attention that question period receives in Canadian political reporting. And that only seems to be getting worse now that question period regularly the subject of live Tweeting from multiple sources, as well as near-instant reporting through two major media outlets.

Of course, there's no indication that Ignatieff will ever be able to get meaningful answers out of Harper or his government anytime soon. But the themes raised in question period still form the basis for most reporting on developments in Parliament. And even in the absence of any prospect of actually finding out anything new from the Cons, it's still the lone time when Ignatieff gets the chance to challenge Harper in direct wit-to-wit combat rather than having to fight the Cons' PR machine - not to mention a chance for many MPs to show their mettle in front of a national TV audience.

Based on that background, I'd expect question period to at least be included as a component of the messaging strategy being carried out by an opposition leader's office. Instead, though, Ignatieff has apparently washed his hands of it, leaving Ralph Goodale to manage it separately from the Libs' party-building work.

That might result in the Libs developing stronger direct challenges to Harper in the House, as Goodale presumably has far less qualms about the kind of oppositional politics which seem to have tripped up Ignatieff. But it also figures to raise far more likelihood that the Libs' questions will operate solely as temporary pokes at the Cons, rather than as part of the party's work on a longer-term narrative. And the Libs have to be wondering whether Ignatieff's decision to offload a major part of his and his party's work might be a sign of more flagging interest to come.

Unsettling

As Greg points out, the Libs' apparent unwillingness to discuss anything to do with Cadscam looks awfully suspicious. So let's compare the Libs' apparent position with what might have been expected in assessing the outcome of the Cons' strategy to suppress a scandal.

Here's Ralph Goodale's response to a question about Pierre Poilievre's latest smear of Tom Zytaruk in Parliament:

Outside the Commons Friday, Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale said he could not comment, because the terms of the Liberals' settlement of the lawsuit preclude him from discussing the case.

“Mr. Poilievre, presumably using the protection of parliamentary privilege, made some remarks. Perhaps he should be pressed to explain himself,” Mr. Goodale said.

Now, one of the main unanswered questions about the settlement was just what it was that the Libs had agreed not to talk about. And the more likely prospect also seemed to be the more palatable one: that any agreement limiting the Libs' ability to do their job as the opposition would extend only to the specific bribery accusation that gave rise to Harper's defamation lawsuit, rather than rendering the Libs unable to comment on a matter of public interest.

But from Goodale's response, the opposite appears to be true. While the contents of Zytaruk's tape and other questions about the Cons' offers to Cadman were public issues before any of the statements which gave rise to the lawsuit, the Libs are apparently operating under the assumption that Cadscam as a whole - which of course is far from being resolved - is included in what they've agreed not to discuss. Which raises a serious concern about why an opposition party would agree to those kinds of terms.

And that goes doubly when one notes that Goodale himself recognizes a significant need for Poilievre and the Cons to be held to account for their continued attacks on Zytaruk. It would seem virtually impossible to reconcile the view that Poilievre "should be pressed to explain himself" with an agreement not to make that happen - particularly coming from a party which is otherwise bleating about the need for accountability to originate from opposition benches.

Of course, there isn't much anybody else can do to reverse the Libs' bad choices. But now that their ineffective opposition extends beyond propping up the Harper government to agreeing not to raise subjects which the Cons find inconvenient, there should be all the more motivation to make sure the responsibility to hold the Cons in check is held by a party which is up for the task.

Lessons unlearned

In case anybody held out hope that the Libs would start to focus some of their attention on actually opposing the Cons rather than navel-gazing and internal warfare, it's time to lower those expectations yet again. Not only does the Libs' impending leadership race figure consist of little beyond ammo for future attack ads and a chance to renew the party's usual internal rifts, but they apparently can't even name an interim leader without a fight to the death.

Either/or

In trying to defend their carbon tax, more than a few Lib supporters have made the point that a carbon tax and other plans like cap and trade aren't mutually exclusive. And in theory, that's a fair enough claim. But it might help if somebody informed Ralph Goodale of that fact, considering that his latest submission to the Leader-Post couldn't be much more clearly directed against the very idea of regulating greenhouse gas emissions:

What about Stephen Harper's plan? Harper is proposing a punitive regulatory scheme. It would involve quasi-criminal penalties against all energy utilities, like SaskPower and SaskEnergy, the oil and gas industry, IPSCO Steel, PotashCorp, Cameco, cement companies, chemical producers and many others.

In their public sales pitch, the Conservatives peddle the false notion that this scheme would be entirely cost-free. Nothing will impact investment or consumers, they claim. They'll just slap carbon regulations on "dirty" businesses spewing emissions.

But if those Conservative regulations are more than just a sham, they will indeed create new business costs to be passed along to consumers. Unlike the Green Shift, however, there will be no offsetting tax cuts of any kind. And a small army of bureaucrats will be required to enforce the Conservative regulations.

Remarkably, Goodale only hints at the virtual certainty that the Cons' intensity-based scheme will be next to useless in actually reducing emissions. Instead, he eagerly throws out loaded terms like "punitive", "quasi-criminal" and "small army of bureaucrats" to try to paint any effort to regulate emissions in as harsh a light as possible - and that analysis applies equally strongly to either the Cons' regulation-only approach, or the cap-and-trade system favoured by the NDP.

From what I can tell, there's absolutely no way to run a cap and trade system without exactly the elements which Goodale is criticizing. It's obvious that some public-sector resources are needed to monitor compliance with any system, and at least some real penalties are surely a vital element in ensuring that industry carries out its obligations to monitor and report on emissions.

Which means that either Goodale's latest screed reflects general Lib disdain for some of the required elements of any cap and trade system, or Goodale is trying to peddle a line which directly contradicts the position which other Libs are trying to use against the NDP in other parts of the country. If it's the former, then the NDP does stand alone as the only federal party looking to include Canada in the international consensus favouring cap and trade - and if the latter, then Canadians have one more reason to doubt anything the Libs say about the carbon tax.

Plus ca change...

The federal Libs under Stephane Dion may be scrambling when it comes to fund-raising, party-building and candidate recruitment. But they can still take pride in leading the pack when it comes to papering over internal divisions in the most literal sense of the word - by forcing would-be candidates to sign unenforceable documents to be waved in their faces in the event of political emergency.

And the reason we know is because Ralph Goodale himself is gleefully waving one of those documents around:

David Orchard knew full well that the federal Liberals wanted an aboriginal woman to run in a northern Saskatchewan byelection and shouldn't be surprised that one was handpicked to do so, MP Ralph Goodale suggested Wednesday.

The twice failed Tory leadership hopeful - and anyone else who expressed interest in running as a Liberal in the Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River riding for that matter - signed a paper warning that leader Stephane Dion may appoint a qualified woman candidate, such as Joan Beatty, Goodale said.

"Everyone was informed about the leaders prerogative to appoint a candidate and the leader might want to exercise that prerogative if the appropriate strong, female, northern-riding resident came forward," Goodale said in a telephone interview with The Canadian Press...

(Orchard's) campaign manager, Marjaleena Repo, called Goodale's comments "spin."

She said Orchard, who delivered key delegates to Dion during the Liberal leadership race, was told that the party was looking for an aboriginal woman to run. But when they couldn't find one, she said Dion encouraged Orchard to put his name forward.

Orchard has already sold more than 500 Liberal memberships to supporters in the riding, Repo said.

To the extent there is a dispute about whether or not Orchard was aware about the possibility of an appointment, it's hard to disagree with Goodale's side. As I noted when the Beatty appointment was first suggested, anybody who's paid the slightest attention to the Libs' internal workings would be aware that both Dion personally and the party in general have plenty of history of imposing candidates from on high.

But that history is equally obvious whether or not a candidate had signed a waiver acknowledging it. And it seems striking that the Libs still have little enough internal trust - in both their own potential candidates, and the ability of their central story to hold up to scrutiny - to be going out of their way to get written evidence to be used against their own members.

Update: And now Orchard is outright denying that such a paper exists. It's hard to see either side avoiding some reputation damage: taking Goodale's case at his highest he's still bragging about an asinine process, while even if Orchard's right he can only seem painfully naive about the inner workings of the Libs. But it looks like either Goodale or Orchard is headed for some serious egg on his face.

Edit: fixed wording.

Still not to be trusted

Obviously today's announcement of charges surrounding an income-trust leak has given rise to some differing views on who owes who an apology. But on closer examination, the Libs' position today doesn't seem any more tenable than their previous claim that they could be trusted in saying nothing was amiss.

From Ralph Goodale's statement today:

The investigation has indicated no involvement in this matter by me, my staff or any other political person.

Let's compare that to the details of the individual charged:

The RCMP have concluded a 14-month investigation into the possible leak of income trust tax details by charging a senior civil servant in the Finance Department with breach of trust.

Serge Nadeau, the general director of analysis, tax policy branch, was charged Thursday, the RCMP said in a statement.

Now, it would seem to me to be a painfully weak argument to try to claim that a senior official in the department directly supervised by Goodale doesn't qualify as "staff" who should have fallen within the scope of his investigation. But even if there's a distinction between "staff" and "department", Goodale himself volunteered at the time that both were free of responsibility:

Mr. Speaker, first, let us be clear. There is no evidence of a leak. There is an allegation on this, particularly from the opposition.

The hon. gentleman asked if I inquired within my staff and within my department. Indeed I did, and I am satisfied that all requirements were met.

Of course, Goodale conveniently modified his wording today to try to pretend that his original position had been vindicated. But in reality, it appears that Goodale was, at best, flat-out wrong in so readily becoming "satisfied" that nothing worth investigating had happened within his department. Which means that if anybody's gonads are in evidence today, it's the Libs who have the nerve to ask for an apology for their own mistake.