Silver linings

Having noted this morning the downside of what the fraud charges against Con MP Christian Paradis' official agent Stephane Fortin may have in terms of any hope that the Cons would govern responsibly, I'll take a minute to point out that the charges against Fortin may have some upside when it comes to getting to the bottom of Conadscam. If Fortin wants to cooperate with the Crown, he'd be an obvious source of inside information about how the Cons' campaign finance manipulations took place - and having been cut loose by both Paradis and his father's law firm, Fortin doesn't figure to have much motivation to cover up what happened for the benefit of the Cons.

Mind you, Fortin's word would obviously be difficult to rely on in any prosecution. But to the extent he can point investigators in directions which might not have been obvious from the outside, Fortin may be able to bring even more of the Cons' actions to light than his money management has done already.

On flawed judgment

Following up on yesterday's news that Con MP Christian Paradis' official agent Stephane Fortin has been charged with fraud, let's note how embarrassing it is that the MP who chose Fortin to run his campaign finances has since been handed a cabinet position which requires exactly the kind of attention to detail and judgment which was sorely lacking in Paradis' choice of agents.

In effect, at the time of the campaign, the only judgment which Paradis apparently had to exercise was to find a single individual to serve as his official agent. His choice was somebody who on the Cons' own terms was fired for gross incompetence, and who according to the charges now filed against him was already falsely representing himself to be a qualified lawyer within Paradis' father's firm. And it's in part because Paradis' campaign required blatant manipulation of its campaign books to make up for apparent overspending under Fortin that Conadscam now holds the potential to bring down dozens of Con MPs, candidates and agents from the 2006 election.

For most of us, that kind of track record of decision-making would demand some serious explanation before a person would be allowed to decide anything more important than whether to order soup or salad with a restaurant meal. But in the Cons' desperation to find somebody from Quebec to replace Maxime Bernier in cabinet, they instead decided to hand Paradis responsibility for a department which proudly proclaims that it handles more than $1.3 trillion in cash flow each year. And all this despite what one can only assume to be full knowledge of Fortin's failings in the election campaign, and at least some knowledge of his problems with at least Paradis' father's law firm even as he was trusted with campaign funds.

Needless to say, if a single decision of Paradis' in his ministerial role proves anywhere near as disastrous as his choice of official agents, the result could be catastrophic for Canada as a whole, not only the Cons as a government. And whether the Cons' choice to put Canada's public works in his hands was based more on a genuine belief that the rest of their caucus was even more flawed or a bare political calculation that location matters more than competence, the result should have Canadians eager to take decision-making power out of the hands of Paradis and his party.

On well-founded suspicions

Shorter Tony Clement spokespuppet on the Cons' efforts to hide Health Canada's report on the effects of climate change:
I can't imagine why anybody would get the idea that this government might consider shunting unfavourable reports into a conveniently-timed news dump.

On incompetents

La Presse reports that the official agent for Con Public Works Minister Christian Paradis at the time of the 2006 campaign - who already figured to get plenty of unwanted public exposure due to his apparent role in Conadscam - has been charged with fraud for trying to pass himself off as a lawyer. No word yet on whether further action will be taken against the Cons for trying to pass themselves off as a competent government.

On connections

The Pundits' Guide offers up an interesting comparison of Facebook support among Canada's party leaders, as well as the candidates in the current by-election campaigns.

Now, I'll agree with PG that it's far from clear what exactly the numbers mean: they could conceivably reflect grassroots support, but could equally easily be based more on a concerted effort directed at Facebook in particular rather than other party-building steps which might not be se easily compared. And indeed I'd think that a party is probably at least as well served building its own online infrastructure (with something like Facebook considered primarily a conduit to bring in new supporters), rather than putting a long-term focus on a third-party site whose own impact is likely to wax and wane relatively quickly in political terms.

Whatever the ultimate impact of the Facebook support numbers, however, it's probably safe to say that a party is better off having more support rather than less in nearly any medium. And to the extent the NDP's candidates are ahead of all competitors both nationally and in the two most contentious by-elections, that may offer another measure of strong NDP support that hasn't yet surfaced in national polling.

Shut out

There was never much reason to think that a one-time consultation process would counter the obvious potential for abuse resulting from the Cons' immigration power grab. But the Star points out today that the Cons have started in with arbitrary preferences long before any immigration "instructions" are issued, as even the consultation process was set up to avoid hearing from anybody but the Cons' choice of stakeholders:

Immigration Minister Diane Finley has promised that implementation of her sweeping new powers under changes to the Immigration Act will be "fair, open and transparent."

But it doesn't bode well that the promised cross-Canada consultations she is just completing have been closed to the public, the media and a variety of concerned community groups who wanted to attend...

While some groups, such as the Chinese Canadian National Council and the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, were included in the list of "key stakeholders" invited to the Toronto consultation session, others were not.

These include the Canadian Arab Federation, the Workers Action Centre (a group concerned about a potential increase in labour rights violations under the government's expanded temporary workers program), and the United Steel Workers (the union that represents many vulnerable immigrant and temporary workers)...

The behind-closed-doors consultations will conclude with a round table involving "national stakeholders" in Ottawa in mid-August. Again, the session will be by invitation only. This is not a government that is open to conflicting views.

Again, the end result figures to be much the same in any event. Regardless of what's said in the consultation process, the Cons have shown a clear intention to prioritize corporate wishes first, potential Con voting blocs second, and anybody else to the smallest extent possible.

But it's still striking that the Cons can't even be bothered to pretend to care what groups on their political write-off list have to say about major immigration changes. And even among those who were granted an audience with Finley this time, the Cons' selective invitations have to be cause for concern for those groups whose votes might not be seen as so important the next time the Cons decide which doors to slam shut.

Can you feel the accountability?

Introducing your friendlier, more accessible Cons - where for once, Maxime Bernier is actually allowed to refuse to say anything of substance for himself.

Weaker in the world

Embassy's Michelle Collins reports on yet another area where the Cons' neglect is putting roadblocks in the way of actors who would have little trouble getting plenty done under a remotely competent government. This time, it's in the operations of international NGOs, who when they haven't been ignored completely have been told to base their funding proposals on standards which the Cons haven't bothered to announce:

While a change of government naturally results in a shifting focus and tweaking of priorities, actors within Canada's NGO community say that across the board, all are facing a much graver situation than in past years, and one from which it will take a long time to recover.

The culprits are strategic reviews of program funding at Foreign Affairs and CIDA, as well as an overhauling of their mandates and dramatic shifts in personnel, which has left organizations outside the government increasingly unsure of the government's changing priorities...

"There is a certain level of concern and a certain level of frustration at the lack of clarity," said Robert Fox, executive director of Oxfam Canada. "There's also a concern around the fact that given that lack of clarity, rumors abound and signals are not clear."

While Oxfam is blessed with strong public support, Mr. Fox said the current uncertainty has made a number of organizations "jittery."

Of its own international projects, Mr. Fox said he has been told by CIDA officials that when making proposals to be mindful of CIDA's "priority countries." However, CIDA Minister Bev Oda has yet to identify these countries of focus, as well as its long awaited new aid policy...

Mrs. Armit said the Parliamentary Centre has been waiting a year to hear back from CIDA about renewing its nearly decade-old and highly-regarded parliamentary project in Cambodia, but that they are now losing hope.

Compounding the impact from the top-down, many are also pointing to an overwhelming sense among federal civil servants that ideas contrary to the political direction of the day could cause unwanted headaches. Others say the process of project approval has also become more politicized than in the past, noting that intervention by a politician has increasingly become the solution...

Ms. White said the situation risks bringing about a decimation of the whole sector.

"And this is a sector that gives an incredible return of investment to its country," she said.

In a global context, NGO leaders say that forcing them to the sidelines will have long-lasting consequences for the country's influence — especially at a time when Canada is facing increasing competition from developing nations such as China, India and Brazil.

Now, it wouldn't come as much surprise if the Harper regime is perfectly happy to weaken organizations which would tend to present independent Canadian voices abroad rather than being bound by the Cons' messaging rules.

But any harm done to NGOs today figures not only to limit Canada's ability to project its voice on the international stage in the short term, but also to make it far more difficult to recruit strong Canadian representatives in the future. And if the Cons aren't the least bit concerned about that outcome, then it's long past time for a change in government before the damage becomes irreparable.

On obstacles to change

Shorter Christian Conservative:
I'm deeply committed to fighting rampant political sexism by supporting a female candidate - with just a few exceptions like the two by-elections where non-Con parties have females running. Or the 83% of ridings nationally where the Conservatives' candidate is male.

An exit strategy

Both the Star's editorial board and Linda McQuaig are worth a read in discussing how the U.S. election may affect Canada's role in Afghanistan. But while both seem to look largely at the downside that an increased U.S. focus (particularly under an Obama presidency) might lead to pressure for yet another round of mission creep, it's worth noting that the possibility of the U.S. diverting a large number of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan also presents a significant opportunity for any Canadian government willing to take a stand to end the combat mission.

After all, there doesn't seem to be much disagreement among the NATO countries now involved in Afghanistan that Canada's combat role has left us taking a disproportionate share of the international burden. But the absence of anybody else apparently willing to take over the role now played by Canadian troops has been cited as one of the main reasons for extending the mission rather than seeking to disengage from combat and take on a different role.

From that starting point, a planned influx of U.S. troops which dwarfs what Canada could possibly contribute would seem to offer an ideal opening to ask the U.S. (and anybody looking to win favour with the new American regime) to take over. And while the Harper government obviously isn't about to go in that direction, a renewed prospect of ending the combat mission in Afghanistan might well be enough to help topple the Cons in time to take the opportunity.

(Edit: fixed typo.)

Ad nauseum

Sure, the untrained eye might see the Cons' typical one-two punch of doubling federal advertising spending then covering up that fact as a problem. But let's be fair: if the Cons keep suppressing enough reports which would inform the public about their own failings in office, the savings in printing costs can surely start putting a dent in the amount they've blown on self-promotion.

The hidden campaign

It's hard to say what's more disturbing about the Hill Times' latest report on the Cons' ethnic strategy: an apparent pattern of hiding Jason Kenney's interactions with community groups from public view, or the fact that Kenney seems to be downright proud to be blurring the lines between government functions and partisan campaigning:

Conservative MP Jason Kenney, secretary of state for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity, says he's attended more than 500 ethnic community events since his party took power in January 2006. And counting.

"I don't have an exact count, but personally it would be in the range of several hundred. I'm sure it will be north of 500," he said in an interview last week, adding that his busiest weekend was last year when he attended an estimated 24 events in three days in the Greater Toronto Area, which is crucial political territory for the Conservatives to win more seats in the next federal election.

A vast majority of the events he attends are not open to the media either on the request of organizers or his party's strategic reasons and therefore not listed on his ministerial website...

Right after the last federal election, Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) chose Mr. Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Alta.) as his point man to help woo ethnic minorities by first appointing him his Parliamentary secretary for multiculturalism and later secretary of state for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity...

Mr. Kenney denies his party is strategically targeting the nine ethnic communities.

"We work with all communities. I meet with a very wide array of communities. Essentially, any community group that wants to get its message across to the government, contacts me. I'm available to meet with them and our government is accessible to them. We don't exclude any group," said Mr. Kenney.

Putting together the pieces of the article, this looks like another prime example of the Cons using public positions and resources for purposes which are obviously subordinate to their partisan efforts. From what I can tell, Kenney's strategy for keeping contact with groups looks something like this:

1. Group contacts Kenney to invite him to participate in an event in his publicly-funded capacity as secretary of state.

2. Kenney's secretarial office uses public resources to plan his attendance at the event.

3. Kenney attends the event under rules established by the Conservative Party which not only prevent the media from attending, but also prevent the public from being informed that Kenney ever participated.

Now, there's probably some room for the public to find out just where Kenney has been despite his own lack of disclosure, as a past schedule would seem to be available through a well-targeted access to information request. And there's plenty of reason to think that some interesting stories may be found in such an investigation.

Most obviously, it's worth wondering just how far public resources have gone in supporting Kenney's attendance at these events. Con cabinet members have already been caught several times failing to report or misreporting their travel expenses - and Kenney's secrecy about the events attended might signal a strong likelihood that there's plenty more where that came from.

In addition, it's also worth wondering just what Kenney has been saying to the groups involved. And if word comes out that the Cons have been making private promises to targeted ethnic groups which differ from their public positions - or which misuse federal power such as their newfound ability to arbitrarily categorize potential immigrants - then there will be all the more reason for both the groups involved and Canadians in general to distrust the Cons.

On electoral calculations

For all the conventional wisdom about what the upcoming by-elections might mean to Stephane Dion's leadership, I'm not sure that any outcome would actually give the Libs much reason to change their apparent push toward a fall election. And what's more, the only outcome which might justify delaying the current conditions for an election would involve the Bloc backing down, rather than the Libs continuing to prop up the Cons.

Let's consider first what the Libs' results in the by-elections might indicate about the party's position. For all the talk about a loss in Westmount-Ville Marie being seen as a disaster, the reality is that the same factors which helped the NDP to win Outremont are still largely in play this time out - meaning that a loss shouldn't be seen as an unprecedented outcome for the Libs so much as the result of a support shift in a relatively distinct type of riding. And that shouldn't be the end of the world for Dion or his party, particularly since the Libs' national polling numbers seem to have bounced back since Outremont.

What about Guelph? It's true that the battle there may be more plausibly seen as a microcosm of what the Libs would face in a fall general election. But with the NDP and Cons both running seemingly strong campaigns and the Libs having fought through a contentious nomination battle, there's still reason to argue that its results wouldn't reflect national conditions. And to the extent those factors might not be in play in a general election, a strong could be made that a loss in next month's by-election wouldn't rule out the prospect that the Libs could Guelph and similar seats if they can run a strong national campaign.

As a result, the most important question for the Libs may not be whether they win any or all of the seats now in play, but whether they manage to drop off the radar entirely in one or more of the ridings. As long as they're within striking distance once the by-election ballots are counted, there may be every incentive for the Libs to figure that a successful national campaign will push these types of seats back into their column.

In contrast, if the Libs come in a distant third in both Guelph and Saint Lambert, then one could plausibly say that the party is in serious trouble. That would suggest that the NDP has managed to position itself as the main contrast to the Cons in parts of Ontario which which formerly served as the Libs' firewall, and that the Cons have fully taken over as the federalist alternative to the Bloc in ridings which were held by the Libs as recently as 2004 and which weren't yet within the Cons' area of strength. And that combination would call into doubt whether the Libs can bring enough ridings into play to have any real chance of winning a general election.

Such a result would thus give the Libs reason to think that the national conditions are such as to make a successful election difficult. But even then, delaying any further could still be seen as doing at least as much harm than good.

After all, any possibility that a scandal might explode in the meantime to improve the Libs' position would be at least counterbalanced by the Cons' certain ability to use their financial advantage to blitz the airwaves in advance of a fixed election date - particularly with the Libs demoralized enough for the financial gap to get even worse than it currently is. And a movement to push Dion out the door resulting from also-ran finishes might well see an immediate election as the best way of removing him.

From my standpoint, then, virtually all roads for the Libs lead to their having ample reason to vote down the Cons.

However, the same may not apply to the Bloc. While the Libs (and indeed all of the national parties) can point to the possibility of potential gains in other types of ridings as reason to minimize any disappointing results in these ones, a party whose focus is inherently limited to a few dozen ridings can't help but to see Saint Lambert as a relatively accurate reflection of the type of challenge it will face in seeking to defend its territory.

As a result, if any of the other parties manages to pull out a surprise win there or even make the seat competitive, then the Bloc - which has seemingly relied more on its ability to exploit the scandal of the moment than on more stable factors for its support - figures to be awfully tempted to roll the dice on the possibility that something might stoke the anger of its historical voters over the next year, rather than walking into an ambush this fall.

Which means that much of the current conventional wisdom may well be off not only in terms of how the Libs might respond to any by-election losses, but also in its assumption that the Libs control the timing of the next federal election. And it'll be interesting to see both how the parties' by-election strategies turn out, and how they react as a result.

The mission creep continues

I noted yesterday how the Cons' Afghanistan mission creep is based on dishonesty with the public when it comes to the terms of motions in Parliament. But let's note that the Cons have been equally deceptive when it comes to justifying increased troop levels based on Canada's actual operations, as the Cons' planned numbers run contrary to their own stated reason why the number of Canadians in combat was increased from 2,300 to its current level of 2,500:

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says Canada will have to send more troops to Afghanistan if it takes command of NATO forces in the country...

O'Connor says it will mean a larger commitment of troops - but only about 100 more than the 2,300 currently deployed in Afghanistan.

Given that Canada increased its troop levels for the specific purpose of supporting its command role, one would expect that the numbers would then drop back down when another country rotates into the command responsibility. And that's due to take place this November.

But based on David Emerson's comments yesterday, the Cons don't have any intention of reducing the current contingent of 2,500 troops by the first part of 2009, even though the reason for the previous increase will have ended months earlier. Instead, they're apparently planning on ignoring the possibility of reducing troop levels at the end of the command stint, using the 2,500 level as the new baseline, then adding to that in order to reach 2,700 troops in combat in 2009.

All of which goes to reinforce a couple of points which are far too familiar based on the Cons' stay in government. First, the Cons' strategy in Afghanistan is simply to be seen expanding Canada's military role, with no regard for whether there's any link between military commitments and end goals. And second, the Cons still can't be trusted to provide honest information about the mission - which should make it all the more obvious why it's long past time for both Canada's Afghanistan combat role and the Cons' stay in power to end.

History repeating

In the wake of David Emerson's declaration that the Cons plan to increase the size of Canada's combat contingent in Afghanistan by another 200 troops, let's note is that this isn't the first time the exact sequence of events has played out. Indeed, the first extension to 2009 similarly involved no mention of increased troop levels, but was followed quickly by an announcement that more Canadians would be sent into combat.

Now, if the Libs wanted to, they could point out that the motion they agreed to also suggested that development work should be proportionally increased to change the balance of the mission. But it seems far too likely that they'll let the whole matter slide to avoid any reminder of just how irresponsible the Libs were to put their desire to be seen as "bipartisan" ahead of any effort to extricate Canada from Afghanistan combat.

As an aside, a quick trip in the wayback machine turns up this from the time of the first extension:

There have been suggestions Canada might play a role in an eventual international effort in the Darfur region of Sudan, but O'Connor says the military already has its hands full with Afghanistan.

He told a Senate committee that the Afghanistan operation can essentially be maintained at the present level (then 2300 troops) forever, but there's nothing to spare for any other deployments.

Does anybody else find it interesting how the Cons have stuck to the position that Canada's can't spare military resources for any other international mission, but apparently haven't had any trouble rounding up enough additional troops to expand combat operations in Afghanistan by nearly 20% in the meantime?

(Edit: fixed wording.)

Material dangers

It's unfortunately inevitable that a governing party which doesn't care about competence and is outright hostile toward honest communication will see that attitude spill over into nonpartisan parts of the public sector. And today, the Globe and Mail reports on just how thoroughly Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. has absorbed the Cons' governing philosophy:

Staff working for Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. lost a metal part they removed from a reactor at the Bruce nuclear power station in April, and didn't tell anyone until an employee from the station found it in June when it triggered the alarm on his radiation monitor...

Critics say the incident highlights a serious loophole in Canada's nuclear regulations. AECL is a contractor at the site, refurbishing the aging Bruce 1 station, and isn't immediately required to divulge when it loses track of highly radioactive materials pulled from reactors.

The missing part - a piece of metal about 10 centimetres in size - came to light only because a worker inadvertently received a radiation dose, which is considered such a serious incident that it must be reported to regulators either "immediately" or by the end of the next business day...

The missing piece was emitting high amounts of radiation, and would have given any worker holding it the maximum yearly allowed dose of this form of energy - feared because it can cause cancer - in only a few minutes...

The regulatory report filed by Bruce on June 24 indicates that AECL "became aware on April 23" that the piece was missing, but "they failed to notify" the station's radiation protection department. "The increased hazard would have existed from that time," it said...

Dale Coffin, a spokesman for Crown-owned AECL, played down the events, saying no one was harmed over the two-month period that the piece was missing because workers weren't in the area. Once it was found, the location, in the reactor vault, was safely cordoned off. "There is no requirement on our behalf to notify the CNSC because nobody was in there working," Mr. Coffin said.

This news follows on the heels of the news this week that AECL's regulatory reporting in the wake of the Chalk River fiasco focused entirely on meaningless communications issues rather than any explanation for failing to comply with the law. And from its response to today's revelations, there's no indication that AECL's priorities are doing anything but getting worse with time.

After all, AECL's statement is based solely on trying to minimize the incident. From my standpoint, any remotely responsible entity in AECL's position should be concerned with making sure similar problems haven't happened elsewhere and won't happen in the future. But AECL's response doesn't even hint at any interest in figuring out how the part was lost in the first place.

And the communications side only looks even worse for AECL. While the Globe and Mail's article points out a regulatory loophole which theoretically doesn't require that AECL inform the CNSC about incidents such as this one, that focus seems to me to miss the point entirely.

Regardless of what type of reporting is required by current regulations, anybody responsible for managing something as potentially dangerous as nuclear technology should recognize the need to mention a potential hazard. And whether AECL was completely unaware that it had lost the part or simply suppressed the information, the effect was to needlessly jeopardize the health of workers at the plant (not to mention others if the part had managed to find its way out of the facility).

Sadly, AECL looks to be more concerned with keeping a potential problem hidden as long as possible than with ensuring that its operations don't cause potentially serious harm to others. And for Canadians who don't want to see something far more serious suppressed until it's too late, it's long past time to replace the Harper regime with a government which doesn't encourage the practice.

On starting points

For all the talk about the upcoming federal byelections, I'm surprised that one piece of information from earlier reports hasn't received more attention as an indication of what the race in Westmount-Ville Marie will look like:

Although Westmount has been an unshakable Liberal bastion for decades, deputy NDP leader and Outremont victor Thomas Mulcair said his party's polling suggests that Garneau enjoys a meagre four-point lead over NDP candidate Anne Legace Dowson, a well-known CBC radio personality.

"Anne's numbers are the same as mine were" at the start of the Outremont campaign, Mulcair said in an interview. "We think it's takeable."

Let's leave aside the actual number for now. What seems most significant about the current state of Westmount-Ville Marie is that the NDP is already in what seems to be as strong a position as it was at the start of the Outremont campaign despite a couple of points of distinction which would seemingly give the Libs a far better starting point in Westmount-Ville Marie.

First off, Lib apologists looking to minimize the Outremont outcome have generally done so by suggesting that it was a one-time event based primarily on Thomas Mulcair's personal popularity and name recognition. If that were true, then one would expect the starting position of any non-Mulcair candidate in Westmount-Ville Marie to be far worse, rather than substantially the same.

Instead, all indications are that Lagacé-Dowson is doing at least as well as Mulcair out of the gate. And while that can be interpreted in a couple of ways (either that Lagacé-Dowson is no less strong than Mulcair as a candidate, or that the NDP has built up its standing such that she doesn't need to carry the party brand as far), it's hard to see how either can be reassuring for the Libs.

And the problems for the Libs are particularly obvious given the organizational differences between Outremont and Westmount-Ville Marie. Remember that another of the Libs' main excuses for their Outremont loss was that Dion appointed Jocelyn Coulon as the party's candidate relatively shortly before the by-election call, allowing Mulcair to build up his presence in the area and leaving the Libs to play catch-up.

In Westmount-Ville Marie, the dynamic is just the opposite. The Libs announced last fall that Marc Garneau would carry their banner, seemingly giving him plenty of time to get the jump on any of his competitors. Meanwhile, Lagacé-Dowson's candidacy was just announced earlier this month, which in principle would leave her with a significant deficit to make up.

Instead, Garneau doesn't appear to have been able to put any distance between himself and Lagacé-Dowson even with nearly a year's head start. And while it's arguable that some work during that time might still give Garneau some advantages at the ballot box which wouldn't show up in the polls (particularly if he's been able to spend more time on voter identification and organization-building), one still has to figure that if Garneau hasn't yet had any success in solidifying Westmount-Ville Marie for the Libs, he'll have an awfully tough time improving matters during the campaign.

On empty announcements

The Cons' announced infrastructure deal with the province of Ontario seems to be primarily a poor attempt to change the subject from Conadscam. But let's take a moment to look at why the latest photo op in fact means far less than meets the eye.

First, the money announced yesterday isn't new.

In fact, all of the federal money for which the Cons are once again trying to take credit was already part of the Cons' 2007 budget. What's worse, at that time the amount of investment was already insufficient to meet Canada's infrastructure needs, and largely reflected nothing more than an extension of existing programs with a slight twist to favour privatized projects.

Second, the money isn't primarily intended to be used on the projects most needed to improve infrastructure.

Instead, the Cons established their own Department of Pork last year to make sure that money is funnelled into "strategic" ridings. And while (as noted below) that effort apparently didn't succeed in getting things moving any faster, it reflects the reality that the main intention behind the funding is political rather than having any basis in intelligent federal planning.

Finally, yesterday's announcement wasn't necessary for money to flow.

Instead, it's the Cons themselves who imposed a requirement that provinces sign on to the type of "framework agreement" announced yesterday. And after establishing that requirement, it's the Cons who didn't bother to actually work out agreements with the provinces until this June or later (or otherwise convert their previous set of photo-ops into actual results) - with the result that not a penny of promised municipal funding had been paid out more than a year after the Cons started bragging about their dedication to infrastructure renewal.

While the Cons bleat about how infrastructure spending is overdue, the sad fact is that it's their negligence that has delayed the funding for the last couple of years. And that only ends up inflating the costs to other levels of government who have had to put projects on hold while waiting for the Cons to get their act together - ensuring that the already-meager level of federal investment puts even less of a dent in Canada's actual infrastructure deficit.

In sum, the Cons' established history shows that their spending announcements at best can't be taken at face value, and at worst may be worse than useless. And no matter how many times the Cons seek to take credit for the same proposed funding or proclaim their commitment to projects which they're holding up, their track record on infrastructure actually provides one of the best examples of just how unfit the Harper government is for office.

When in doubt, make it up

The CP's report on funding for social development offers another prime example of the Cons simply making up self-aggrandizing claims without any idea whether or not they're true. And this time, the offender is one of the few cabinet ministers who was once considered a relatively candid source of information in a time before the Cons took power:

Social Development Minister Monte Solberg says Ottawa is doing its share to address homelessness, despite claims by anti-poverty activists that more and more people are living on the streets while affordable housing disappears...

Solberg reiterated a claim that his Conservative government is spending more money on affordable housing than any government in Canadian history, but the Social Development department couldn’t provide data comparing spending with previous governments.

Of course, the "more money than ever before" is itself essentially meaningless given that the cost of accomplishing any particular task will itself have generally risen due to inflation. But in Solberg's case, even that facade isn't apparently backed up by the minimal amount of research required to assess its accuracy.

Meanwhile, let's not forget that while the Cons fabricate trivialities, the housing issue like so many others has real-world consequences for a large number of Canadians:

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities called earlier this year for a national, 10-year strategy to eliminate homelessness.

The federation estimated such a strategy would cost $3.35 billion a year, shared by all levels of government.

A federal program, called the Homelessness Partnering Strategy, is providing $270 million over two years, ending next March.

In B.C., a Simon Fraser University report released earlier this year pegged the provincewide homeless population at 12,000 — compared with less than 8,000 shelter beds.

And another count of Greater Vancouver’s homeless population by volunteers in the spring found nearly 2,600 homeless people — a 19 per cent increase over 2003 figures.

That count was conducted by the Greater Vancouver Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness, a group that represents dozens of agencies in the Lower Mainland and makes funding recommendations for the federal spending.

The group’s co-chair, Alice Sundberg, told Wednesday’s news conference that it received requests for more than $39 million to fund local projects, but could only hand out $12 million in federal money.

And Solberg's response to that need?

"We’re doing a lot in terms of providing resources, but I think there’s more that needs to be done. Part of the answer is expanding the number of partners," such as businesses and donations from the public.

That's right: while trying to trumpet his government's self-professed generosity (without any factual basis for doing so), Solberg is also actively trying to reduce its role in addressing housing issues. And that combination should make it clear just how little interest the Cons have in actually addressing the housing issues that have already worsened on their watch.

On spent forces

The Pundits' Guide offers a breakdown of party and candidate spending in last year's set of byelections. And the contrast between the parties which appear to have maxed out their potential and those which have room to grow may offer some important signs as to who has the best chance to improve its standing in future elections:

Only Conservative Party candidates spent > 75% of the candidate spending limits in each of the 3 ridings, and in total its candidates spent some 95% of the limit.

The Bloc spent >75% in 2 of the 3 ridings (total spending of 86% of the candidate limits), while the Liberals and NDP clearly concentrated on Outremont.

In addition to the $254,876 that could be spent by candidates across the 3 ridings, a registered party fielding 3 candidates in that set of by-elections could itself spend an additional $171,997 in support of those campaigns. The amounts spent are reported in Part 3a of the Registered Parties annual returns (you can find the details here, at the Elections Canada site, for the 2007 By-Elections; select the party you're interested in from their drop-down list once you get there).

Again, the Conservative Party spent 92% of its party by-election spending limit. However, interestingly it split the spending mainly between Roberval – Lac-Saint-Jean and Saint-Hyacinthe – Bagot, the two seats where they wound up being more competitive.

The Liberal Party spent just under half (46%) of its party by-election spending limit; and all but $3800 or so of that was put into Outremont.

The NDP spent 12% of its by-election spending limit, split equally between the three ridings.

Neither the Bloc nor the Green Party reporting (sic) any party-level spending on the three by-election campaigns.

So what do those numbers say about the parties' positions in Quebec? First off, it's worth noting that the Cons' reasonably strong performances in the two ridings previously held by the Bloc were both based on pouring in significantly more money than the Bloc did. And in Outremont, the Cons managed to see a drop in their share of the vote despite spending nearly as much as the other main parties. Which suggests that the Cons may have relatively little room for growth - particularly in a general election setting where the Bloc is better able to balance out the expenditures involved.

In contrast, the returns offer up what strikes me as a surprising fact about Thomas Mulcair's win in Outremont, as it was apparently achieved even at a financial disadvantage against his main competition. While Mulcair spent slightly more than Jocelyn Coulon at the candidate level, the Libs managed to outspend the NDP by tens of thousands of dollars of party money even while losing what was supposed to be a safe riding.

And that may be particularly significant based on the imminent by-election in neighbouring Westmount-Ville Marie. While the NDP once again faces the challenge of attacking a former Lib stronghold, the expense numbers suggest that the NDP actually has room to improve somewhat on its relative performance in Outremont - either if the NDP increases its own expenditures to match the Libs' level of spending, or if the Libs themselves can't afford to spend the kind of money they did in an effort to stop Mulcair.