Now that takes nerve

After two separate missions to the Middle East at public expense, one would think Wajid Khan would at least have the sense not to direct attention toward his broken promise to make any reports public. But his statement in the House of Commons yesterday can't be taken as anything but a deliberate decision to do just that:

Mr. Speaker, I am dismayed by the accusations and innuendoes of the opposition parties about our mission in Afghanistan. It is time for them to stop using this mission for their own political purposes.

The situation in Afghanistan is far more complex than is generally understood. The government is taking a realistic, multidimensional approach.

Let's note that responsibility for the statement doesn't lie with Khan alone. Remember that the Cons' Statements by Members are included in the materials which require preapproval from the PMO. As a result, the statement reflects a joint decision between Khan and Harper to complain that Canadians shouldn't discuss an important subject based on their refusal to provide background information about it.

Of course, if there really is something about Afghanistan and the region generally that's misunderstood by the general public, the logical way to fix that would be for Khan (and others) to deliver more information to Canadians...for example, any reports which Khan may actually have completed.

But apparently Khan and the Cons have not only bought into a Bush-style strategy of saying "we're right - and if we could tell you why, you'd agree", but see it as worth their while to actively turn discussion in that direction. Which, in light of the complete lack of a factual basis behind the similar claims of Harper's southern ally, offers just one more reason why the Cons shouldn't be trusted for a second.

Classified disinformation

Surely this part of Wajid Khan's Question Period appearance has to be the worst April Fool's joke of all:

Khan was unwilling to give a clear answer, however, when asked about whether he would be submitting a report about that trip.

"I would not want to jeopardize the security of our troops. I would not want to compromise national security," Khan said.

About the most charitable possible interpretation is that Khan simply didn't bother listening to the question before spouting off the Cons' usual spin to justify not sharing any findings with anybody besides PMS.

But is it possible that Khan honestly believes that even saying whether or not he will be submitting a report would result in a threat to national security? And if so, why was he so willing to endanger our security last year with his clear (if inaccurate) answer to exactly the same question?

On useless advice

The CP reports that while Wajid Khan's stint as an advisor to PMS looks dubious from the standpoint of those who would expect such a position to have some meaning or responsibility, it fits in far too nicely with how the Libs handled similar positions in the past:

Liberals may be basing their skepticism about the value of MP Wajid Khan's report to Stephen Harper on their own experience with special prime ministerial advisers.

Onetime Liberal MP Sarkis Assadourian says he never did a day's work after being appointed a special adviser to former prime minister Paul Martin...

"They put out a press release and he said to the media and the nation with a straight face I was working with him as (his) adviser on the south Caucasus and Middle East," Assadourian said in an interview.

"The whole thing was a lie . . . I never a single day worked in his office. I was never paid a single penny."

At the same time, Martin named MP Sophia Leung as a special adviser on international trade and emerging markets. She stepped aside in her Vancouver riding for star recruit David Emerson, who later defected to the Tories.

At the time, a Martin spokeswoman said that Assadourian and Leung would not be paid for their advisory roles as long as they remained MPs. Whether they'd be paid after the election was to be "decided at that time."

Assadourian said that after the election, Martin's office wouldn't even return his phone calls, although he ostensibly remained a special adviser.

Now, it's hard to see how the Cons seem to expect to gain any political mileage from the Libs' history. After all, it's not as if the Cons look any better for following that pattern. And indeed the claim that Khan's advice is somehow important enough to merit total confidentiality seems all the more dubious given the trend of past advisors contributing absolutely nothing.

Of course, both parties are doing their best to distinguish the respective treatment of the advisors - the Libs by highlighting the fact that their non-productive advisors also cost nothing, the Cons by pointing to the supposed report as evidence of something productive. But in truth, it's all too likely that Khan's appointment ultimately reflects nothing more than Harper's continuation of the Libs' culture of patronage. And neither party should be the least bit proud of that reality.

Stretching the excuse

The Cons show their continued commitment to open and accountable government by refusing not only to release the contents of Wajid Khan's alleged report, but even to confirm publicly-reported details surrounding Khan's itinerary:

Stephen Harper's office won't disclose the names of people who met with MP Wajid Khan during his tour of the Middle East, much less the report he submitted to the prime minister.

Harper spokesman Dimitri Soudas said Wednesday that Khan met with "government officials, stakeholders, NGOs (non-governmental organizations), members of our own diplomatic corp" during his 19-day tour of the strife-torn region last September.

But he wouldn't provide any more specific information, even though the names of some of Khan's contacts have been reported in the media.

A foreign affairs spokeswoman was similarly non-forthcoming, referring the question to Harper's office.

Now, given that the Cons had settled on a relatively firm excuse ("confidentiality") as to why they wouldn't release the report itself, the new refusal to even mention who Khan met with only gives rise to more questions. Was Khan's trip planned around such a biased set of sources that merely disclosing their names would make it obvious how Khan would then advise Harper? Or was it such an insignificant group as to render the mission a farce?

Not that we can expect answers out of PMS anytime soon. But if Harper really prefers to face those questions than reveal even the most basic details about Khan's trip, then it's all the more clear how unlikely the Cons are to disclose the information that really matters about their government - and how important it is to end their stay at the controls as soon as possible.

Proudly under investigation

Wajid Khan responds to the question of whether his car dealership's loans to his former Lib riding association violated the Canada Elections Act:

Khan said he's been cleared. "Why don't you talk to the authorities and find out yourself instead of me telling you. Let Elections Canada let you know," he told ctv.ca.

The only problem with such a statement is that it tends to lead an enterprising reporter to actually ask Elections Canada. And from them, the story is somewhat different:

Elections Canada said it is "in the process of reviewing" the case.

Granted, an ongoing review is far from a finding of guilt - but no further than it is from a final decision that's "cleared" Khan at the other end of the spectrum. And if Khan is as far out of touch with Elections Canada's actual rules as his new party-mates, the last thing he may want in the long run is for Election Canada to be the one "telling" Canadians whether what he's done was valid.

Easily exploited

The Globe and Mail follows up on the status of the Libs' riding association in Mississauga-Streetsville. And while NDP MP Pat Martin is rightly concerned about the loopholes exploited by Wajid Khan while he ran the show, it looks like the Libs themselves plan on making use of an even bigger one:

The Liberal Party said it would create a new riding association in Mississauga-Streetsville. Party officials said the new entity will not carry any outstanding debt from Mr. Khan's time, saying he has to settle the matter with his former financial agent.

Liberal president Marie Poulin said Mr. Khan's outstanding debts are not the responsibility of the Liberal Party.

“We have no intention of helping Mr. Khan to raise funds to pay his debt. Not at all,” Ms. Poulin said.

She said the Liberal Party has no information on the size of the remaining debt, and that the party was unaware that the association was late in filing its returns to Elections Canada.

Poulin's statement confirms my suspicion that the Libs utterly failed to look into the status of their riding association once Khan's departure became a likely scenario. But regardless of how the Libs got into their current mess, their way out of it looks even more problematic: as dangerous a loophole as Khan seems to have exploited, it's even more worrisome where a riding association and its debts can simply be disavowed by a party.

After all, there are many ways in which a riding association can be deregistered - either involuntarily where the association fails to meet its obligations under the Canada Elections Act as in the present case, or by party request. In the latter case, the Chief Electoral Officer doesn't even seem to have any scope to look into the circumstances behind the deregistration.

As a result, it would seem fairly simple for a party to create riding associations with no intention of preserving them, arrange for the associations to take out loans on commercial terms from entities who would be willing to donate the money otherwise, use that money for electoral purposes, allow the riding association to lapse, then form a new one to start the cycle again. A single financial agent would be left with the responsibility of filing a return for the defunct association, but it's not clear that anybody would hold any obligation to actually repay any money owing if the party is able to wash its hands of the mess.

In fairness, the Libs' apparent plans don't rise to anywhere near that scale, and it seems safe to say there was no intention not to repay any loans until Khan's departure. But the precedent is one that could easily set the stage for the worst-case scenario to become commonplace in the future. And if the Libs are willing to let their understandable anger with Khan serve as an example of how to subvert the Canada Elections Act, the result could be harmful for both the Libs as a party and Canada's electoral system as a whole.

On ruthlessness

There's been some talk today about the questionable financial arrangements between Wajid Khan and the Libs' Mississauga-Streetsville riding association. But I haven't seen any commentary on what seems to be the more important part of the story - which is that thanks to the combined effect of the timing of the party switch and the way in which his loyalists ran the riding association previously, Khan left the Libs helpless to start rebuilding in the riding for at least some time afterward:

Elections Canada revoked the legal registration of new Conservative MP Wajid Khan's former Liberal riding association in December because it failed to file financial returns for 2004 and 2005, the Ottawa Citizen has learned...

An Elections Canada spokesman did not comment on the details of the financial returns, but said the association's registration had been revoked as of the end of 2006 because the returns had not been filed well beyond their deadlines of May 31, 2005, for the 2004 period, and May 31, 2006, for the 2005 period.

"The Mississauga-Streetsville federal Liberal association was deregistered effective Dec. 31, 2006," said spokesman Stephane Bachand. "It is still deregistered. They can apply to be registered again."

Mr. Bachand said Elections Canada finally received the returns Jan. 7. They were postmarked Dec. 30, but the deadline for deregistration had already been given.

An unregistered riding association may continue some informal activities, but cannot accept contributions or provide goods or services or transfer funds to a candidate or to registered parties or other associations.

Needless to say, the timing could offer some explanation as to why Khan may have waited until after the new year to make the jump. Khan and his supporters could easily have seen a benefit in leaving the riding association in disarray (both in the damaging contents of the returns, and in the real risk that the riding association would be de-registered) if they knew that a party switch was imminent. Meanwhile, the last-minute submission of the returns would offer some deniability to the former executive.

So why aren't Lib bloggers up in arms over the possibility that Khan and his cronies engaged in a scorched-earth strategy before crossing to the Cons? It's possible that some just haven't looked at the issue all that closely, or that they're genuinely more interested in the financial matters (which would seem to implicate the riding association itself at least as much as Khan) than the fact that the riding association itself may have been sabotaged by Khan's departure.

But it seems more likely that they recognize that their own party could have done plenty to anticipate and avoid the problem. After all, Khan's announcement that he planned to serve as Harper's adviser was met with ample concern that his future affiliation with the Libs was in doubt. And in light of that suspicion, there's no apparent reason why somebody wouldn't have checked out the current state of the riding association and pressured Khan's loyalists to either submit their returns in time to avoid deregistration, or at least decide on their future sooner to enable somebody else to carry out the task.

Instead, the Libs appear to have done nothing while one of their riding associations was run into the ground. And as a result, a riding which presumably has no lack of Libs motivated to defeat Khan is unable to take direct donations or otherwise act in response to his defection. Which gives Khan (who moves to a riding association facing no similar difficulties) a significant head start on whoever his Lib opponent turns out to be...making it all the more clear that the Libs won't be able to treat Mississauga-Streetsville as a safe seat.

The goings-on in Mississauga-Streetsville may play into a U.S. Democrat (circa 2004)-like image which the Libs want to avoid: that confronted by Khan's (and the Cons') pursuit of power over principle, they've limited themselves to a meek PR-based defence while failing to take even the most basic substantive steps to prevent real internal losses. But while admitting and learning from Khan's defection could be painful, the Libs will be even worse off if they try to pretend the incident never happened and leave themselves open to similar incidents in the future - which could lead to the party losing far more than a mere riding association.

(Edit: fixed wording, typo.)

Lacking value

Apparently the Cons are roughly sticking to their first excuse when it comes to their refusal to disclose any report by Wajid Khan. But their reasons for doing so are only getting less plausible and more hypocritical:

The government has insisted that Mr. Khan did submit a report, but that it is based on private meetings and provides confidential advice to the Prime Minister. A spokesman for Mr. Harper, Dimitri Soudas, rebuffed Mr. Dion's call for the report to be made public.

"If this is a way for Mr. Dion to see this report in order to figure out what his policies will be, then he has a lot of work to do," Mr. Soudas said.

Remember that much of the Cons' criticism of the Libs this past election was based on a rightful concern about paying large sums of money for oral reports which would give rise to no documentation or accountability. Given that background, it's remarkable that the Cons are now eager to defend exactly the same practice without even seeming to be aware of the turnaround.

Not that the move necessarily conflicts with the Cons' values since they took office, as PMS has clearly demonstrated his view that accountability doesn't apply to him personally. But the conflict with the Cons' self-proclaimed values seems like it should be a far bigger potential problem for Harper than the contents of the report itself. Which can only lead Canadians to wonder just how little Khan delivered for the money - and what other "confidential advice" might be serving as an excuse to funnel money to the Cons' political ends.

Hidden from sight

The latest embarrassing round of Con spin seems to have started, as Harper's inner circle tries to explain why Wajid Khan's report on the Middle East will apparently be suppressed rather than going public as was originally promised.

The first obvious problem with the newly-announced suppression of the report is that it was never part of the discussion when Khan was first assigned the task. As noted in the article, Khan himself made perfectly clear that the report was to be available at least to politicians from all parties:

But Mr. Khan, the MP for Mississauga-Streetsville, insisted at that time that his work was not partisan, that his report would be made available to politicians of every stripe, and that he would brief former interim Liberal leader Bill Graham.

"I want to make sure that the Prime Minister gets it and all parliamentarians get it, because my work is not limited only for the Prime Minister. I'll be talking to Bill Graham. The critics will have information.

"The idea is to educate everybody with the best information that I can get and then they can go from there," Mr. Khan said in an interview last August with The Globe and Mail.

When asked specifically if his report would be made available to all political parties, Mr. Khan replied: "Oh yeah."

It's not entirely clear whether the Cons planned all along to suppress any report while telling Khan the opposite, or whether the position changed (perhaps as Khan took his walk across the floor?). But there's plainly no reason why a publicly-available report would have been valuable then but would be useless now.

Leaving that change of position aside, though, there's an even bigger story based on the Cons' response, as the wider view on information in general only confirms the worst suspicions about PMS:

(T)he Conservative government will not release the report, said Dimitri Soudas, a spokesman for Mr. Harper. He argued that Mr. Khan's advice would become less valuable if his report is made public.

"It defeats the purpose of Mr. Khan being an adviser to the Prime Minister. He would then be a pundit rather than an adviser, on such an important issue," Mr. Soudas wrote in an e-mail replying to The Globe's request for a copy of the report.

Apparently the Cons have no shame at all about claiming that information is worthless to them if it's publicly available. Which can only indicate that Harper sees himself as a Bush-like "decider", with neither Parliament nor the public at large playing any role in measuring his actions against the information on which they were based.

In effect, Soudas' statement has the ring of Kim Campbell's greatest gaffe writ even larger: "the public is no place to discuss serious issues". And unlike in the case of Campbell's statement, the context only aggravates the comment, as it's clearly expansive enough to apply to any "important issue" at any time with no advance warning. Meaning that Khan's reversal can only be seen as the tip of the iceberg when it comes to information that's being hidden from the public view.

Not that the Cons' attitude is particularly new given the haste with which they ensured that the Accountability Act would leave the executive untouched. But Soudas has now said publicly what the Cons were only willing to imply with their previous actions. And that position once again begs the question of why Canadians in general should put any trust in Harper when he has nothing but contempt for them.

Update: Paul Wells points out a few of the well-known documents which would qualify as mere "punditry" under the Cons' definition. Can it be long before the Wheel of Excuses gets another spin?

Continued loyalties

While Wajid Khan's defection has certainly received plenty of comment so far, one key element of the move seems to have slipped by unnoticed so far. Unlike his fellow Lib-turned-Con David Emerson, Khan appears likely to maintain at least some support from the organization that helped him to win his seat:

In an interview with the CBC following the defection, riding association president Khalid Sagheer said Khan "is my friend, I support him and I will continue to support him."

Asked whether backing Khan would mean switching party memberships himself, Sagheer said "that decision will come in due course."

"I agree with him and my own personal opinion is that the Liberal party has been taking us for granted — immigrants that have worked and supported the party so much, it's been so far only a one-way street," Sagheer said.

It remains to be seen whether Sagheer and others ultimately will follow Khan in his party switch. But if so, then the Libs now touting Mississauga-Streetsville as a cakewalk for a star candidate of the party's choosing may face a much tougher battle than they're anticipating. And if Sagheer's apparent views are shared by other Lib organizers, then the loss of a single MP could be the least of the Libs' worries going into the next election.

Eyeing the jump

It remains to be seen whether or not Wajid Khan actually will jump to the Cons as speculated by Susan Delacourt. But it can't be a good sign for the Libs that Khan himself doesn't even pretend to have a preference to stay in his current party:

(W)hether Khan intends to stay as a Liberal or cross the floor to the Conservatives became more of a mystery yesterday when neither he nor the Prime Minister's Office wanted to answer any questions about the political future of the MP for Mississauga-Streetsville.

"You are best to go to Khan directly on this," said Carolyn Stewart Olsen, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

"I will not comment on speculations and rumours," said Khan.

Nor would the PMO, on the eve of today's expected cabinet shuffle, answer questions about whether Khan had been approached to join the Tory caucus, as has been expected.

The mystery may not be allowed to last for too long, though. New Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion is due to sit down with Khan by the end of this week.

A spokesperson for Dion said yesterday that the discussion would include questions about the MP's future political allegiance.

"He is scheduled to come in and meet Stéphane later on this week. ... I'm sure it's something that will be addressed when they meet," said André Fortin, Dion's spokesperson.

Mind you, it would have helped if the Libs had insisted on some of that discussion last summer when Harper first recruited Khan as an adviser. Instead, they've allowed the issue to fester for several months, offering PMS a prime opportunity to offer Khan whatever inducements he may want in exchange for a party swap. And Khan's public silence only seems to suggest a refusal to acknowledge any party loyalty - which has to call into question whether he really has any preference as between the Libs and the Cons.

Of course, the Libs were entirely willing to ignore their own member's nonexistent loyalty as a factor last time one of their MPs crossed the floor. But the more often Canadians see the apparent interchangeability between the Libs and Cons in the eyes of the MPs jumping back and forth, the less likely they are to believe the Libs' protestations that there's a real difference between the two.