No blank check

The Globe and Mail reports that the Liberal Senate majority is prepared to grant Harper his party's campaign promises. But there's a downside for Harper, as those promises include his promise that the Senate will keep a close watch on the Cons:

Liberal senators say they won't deliberately hold up the main policies of the incoming Conservative government, but any measures that were not part of the Tory platform can expect a rough ride in the Senate.

Prime-minister-designate Stephen Harper raised eyebrows during the election when he said the Senate would be a check on his power. Senators are now debating just how big a check they intend to be...

"If a government [has] run on an issue, as they did in 1988 on free trade . . . we passed it without further ado because they had a mandate," (outgoing Liberal Senate leader Jack Austin) said. "We look to see, 'is there a mandate? Does the government in our view have an endorsement by the Canadian electorate of the policy?' Basically, our role is the same, whichever party is in power."

It'll be interesting to see the interaction between the Commons and the Senate this time out. The upside from a "keeping Harper in check" standpoint is that the Libs in the House could well choose to allow their partisans in the Senate to take the job of defeating any overly harmful money bills where the Commons opposition doesn't yet want to precipitate an election. And that could be particularly useful in reining in Harper's first budget.

But then, any extended use of Senate control could also give Harper a chance to run a populist campaign against entrenched Liberal power in the upper chamber...which in turn could help set the groundwork for a Con majority in protest. And that may not only make it difficult for the Libs to defeat some bills in either chamber, but it may also provide some incentive for Harper to test the limits of the Senate's planned oversight.

In other words, the impact of Senate oversight is bound to work both ways. And whether it's the Libs or the Cons that best coordinates its strategy between the two chambers, the party which makes the best use of the upper chamber will be well-positioned next time Canada goes to the polls.

The wrong way of communicating

While some provinces are trying to win Harper's favour through public attention and the media, others are looking at other ways to try to influence federal policy:

Nova Scotia Premier John Hamm was set to officially open the province's new office in Ottawa on Monday in a bid to improve communication with the federal government...

Last month, Hamm appointed Ian Thompson to head the office. Thompson, a prominent Tory supporter, is set to earn $130,000 a year and receive a living allowance...

Prince Edward Island has taken the idea in another direction, asking prime minister-designate Stephen Harper to set up an office in P.E.I.

The Nova Scotia model seems particularly questionable in the degree to which it's apparently created a plush job to be handed out on a political basis. (Surely after spending the bulk of the last year hearing about Gomery, there should be at least some shame about such partisan appointments, particularly if there's some appearance of benefitting the federal government as well in rewarding one of its supporters.) And while the P.E.I. proposal at least doesn't add lobbying to the problems associated with partisan appointments, it too seems all too likely to turn into a way for Harper to reward his own supporters in the province, with any real policy influence ranking a distant second in the visible effects.

There's undoubtedly a need to ensure communication between the provinces and the federal government, and it's understandable that both Nova Scotia and P.E.I. want to make sure that they're heard within the new government. But surely there's a way to ensure that dialogue is on merit-based grounds rather than partisan ones...lest a brand-new culture of partisan entitlement become the standard for federal-provincial relations.

That which should be beyond debate

Awhile back, Canadian Cynic suggested that the best way to pin the right down on war crimes is to ask them to define just what is beyond the realm of acceptable conduct.

By that theory, one can at least give Bushco credit for not being hypocritical. In the administration's view, absolutely anything goes for the president, and the only question is how long it takes to convince the public that the War on Terra necessitates the action.

The latest evidence comes from Newsweek, as it becomes clear that Bushco considers the president entitled to order the extrajudicial killing of any "terrorist suspect" in the U.S.:

In the latest twist in the debate over presidential powers, a Justice Department official suggested that in certain circumstances, the president might have the power to order the killing of terrorist suspects inside the United States...

California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked Bradbury questions about the extent of presidential powers to fight Al Qaeda; could Bush, for instance, order the killing of a Qaeda suspect known to be on U.S. soil? Bradbury replied that he believed Bush could indeed do this...

The administration's public response has been to claim that the discussion is purely theoretical. Which, as pointed out by one commentator, is exactly what Alberto Gonzales said when discussing wiretaps in 2005 - before the then-ongoing program was made public.

Not that there's any indication that the same has yet happened with killings - but given that the administration's stance is identical on the two issues, it's hard to be confident that it'll treat the issue differently in the long run. And in keeping with CC's example, we can only hope that Bush's term as president runs out before Bushco's legal advisors start floating similar trial balloons about the president's inherent authority to publicly torture innocent children to death if he deems it necessary to fight terror.

(Via two Kos diaries.)

(Edit: typo.)

Waiting for the next step

The Financial Post's Claudia Cattaneo covers the high expectations for development in Inuvik:

(I)n the rest of the country, debate is sure to continue about whether this nearly untouched wildlife haven should be opened to the oil and gas industry so consumers can satisfy their insatiable thirst for energy.

But in this tough town on the top of Canada, the most affected by the project, residents are not only ready for the project after 30 years of preparation -- they're getting impatient...

With their checks and balances in place, aboriginals put to work some of their government money to build new businesses. Entrepreneurs pressed ahead, too, with their own money, in anticipation that the North's vast hydrocarbon deposits would eventually be developed...

(R)esentment is building toward the many forces seen as standing in the way of development -- from the federal government and its slow decision-making process to the oil companies that have been sitting on huge reserves for decades, to the militant Deh Cho First Nations in the Central Mackenzie Valley opposing the project to gain leverage in their land claim negotiations with Ottawa, to all those holding on to an unrealistic image of the North.

The article is naturally somewhat biased toward development at the expense of everything else. But it's certainly worth noting that many of the groups who were concerned about development in the 1970s and 1980s have managed to secure assurances that future development won't be at the expense of the well-being of the local people and environment.

As a result, the most significant factors standing in the way of development now are based on inertia and bargaining power rather than any principled basis to avoid getting started on the pipeline. And those are obstacles which the incoming federal government should make sure to overcome to help share prosperity with Canada's north.

The race to break promises

The Star reports on some rumours surrounding the Con's effort to fill cabinet positions and other government jobs. But buried in the article, one finds that having taken over government, the Cons are already making noises about avoiding the governmental ethics that formed the basis of their campaign:

Then there's the question of the Tory ethics package, which has caused reticence among some likely candidates for senior jobs because of the provision that will prevent ministerial staff from lobbying the government for five years after they leave...

An Ottawa-based Tory, who has been approached about playing a senior role in an as-yet unspecified minister's office, said the party's accountability plan still has to clearly define what activities would be subjected to the five-year cooling-off period.

There are whispers the Tories won't object if a parliamentary committee waters down some of the tough new rules, which only adds confusion to the party's official stance that the rules will stay as they were drafted.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that the Cons are now sending signals about encouraging future lobbying now that they see greater potential for future power as a result. But while the Cons appear to be demonstrating their own lack of principle, it's the response of the other parties that'll determine whether or not there's a meaningful obstacle against the revolving-door cycle of government work and lobbying in the future.

Note in particular the Cons' plan to get the rules relaxed in committee. Presumably the committee's makeup would reflect the proportion of seats in Parliament, such that the Cons couldn't make any change on their own. And given the relative lack of lobbying power in each party, it's hard to see why either the NDP or the Bloc would want to water down the bill.

Which means that with the Cons sending signals that they're willing to lower the bar now that they're in power, it'll be up to the Libs to determine whether or not to relax the restrictions on both the Cons today, and possible Lib governments to come. And that should give Canadians an excellent opportunity to see whether a reforming Lib party really wants to clean up government, or whether both the Libs and the Cons see criticism of the culture of entitlement as merely a means to set up new cultures in the future.

On impending failure

While Harper's room to maneuver may be limited within a minority Parliament, expectations are doing nothing but growing, as two jurisdictional leaders expect the Cons to devolve more power to the provinces and territories in addition to keeping more energy revenue in its home jurisdiction:

The premiers of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Northwest Territories, say they're optimistic the new federal Conservative government will give more powers to the provinces and territories...

For a long time both jurisdictions have been at odds with Ottawa over energy revenues.

Handley says Harper told him in a letter that northerners should be the main beneficiaries of their resources.

Williams heads the energy committee set up by the premiers' Council of the Federation.

The question now is whether Handley and Williams have talked yet with Bernard Lord about his opposite expectation. But it does seem clear that whatever Harper does, he'll be disappointing some people who are at least seeming to support him now - which can only make it all the tougher for Harper to get anywhere near majority territory once the expectations run into reality.

Message management

Crawford Kilian discusses the communications techniques used by one NDP riding in the federal election...and has some excellent suggestions for improvement:

(W)e should have been interacting everywhere, especially in a campaign that couldn't afford to spend much on print media. Instead, the Internet almost paralyzed the campaign. The avalanche of letters couldn't be efficiently answered. Other tasks went undone. Even when we could use the Web and email, it was only to pass along the Message Box just as Candidate Support had passed it along to us.

I can see how an online campaign might have worked better. With four or five full-time volunteers, a couple of them with good Web skills, we could have kept the candidate's website steadily updated. We could have used a blog to post answers to voters' questions. We could have worked more aggressively to get the candidate into other media through interviews and events...

(T)he Internet and traditional political campaigns are still at odds with one another. The politicians are still thinking ballistically, trying to blast a one-way message through the voters' thick skulls. The idea of an online conversation with the voters-with an unpredictable, unscripted outcome-is literally unthinkable. Better to strap down the loose cannons in every party, keep repeating The Message and hope it works.

At some point, however, we will all spend so much of our lives online that the FedEx strategy will simply not work anymore. Not in the next election, maybe not in the one after that, but some day, a party will run an improvisational, interactive online campaign.

My one area of disagreement with Kilian is in his assumption that a more interactive campaign can't happen next time out. I for one would love to see the NDP more on top of the possibilities - and there are at least some indications that the problem in North Vancouver wasn't an aberration.

Even during the campaign, the party was sporadic in releasing new content on its website, and the one visible form of user input was only a small part of the content on the party's site. And since the election, the NDP site has only been updated with one new speech. It's understandable that those in charge of the site might need a break after the campaign, but surely there has to be somebody available to make sure that the party's message doesn't disappear again until next time Canadians go to the polls.

At the same time, along with presenting its own message, the party also needs to be seen addressing the concerns of Canadians directly. No matter how much the campaign focuses on claiming that role, the party needs to be seen responding quickly and publicly to voters' issues...and sending an e-mail only a couple of days after the fact seems like a poor way to do that given the potential for instantaneous communication.

Some analysts may have taken the wrong message from Harper's "disciplined" campaign and assumed that voters respond positively to a one-way, predictable information flow. But while that stance may have differentiated the Cons from a Liberal party which couldn't even get its own message straight, there's plenty of room for a party to do better by presenting a generally unified message while also making itself more available to voters. We can only hope the NDP will work toward a fully interactive campaign model next time out in order to be able to point out a more stark difference between itself and a Con party which goes into hiding.

Mapping out our strategy

Donald Rumsfeld suggests a new twist in the war on terror:

Rumsfeld said violent extremism is a danger faced as much in Europe as in the United States, and said Islamic militants are on the move and have to be checked.

"They seek to take over governments from North Africa to Southeast Asia and to re-establish a caliphate they hope, one day, will include every continent," he said. "They have designed and distributed a map where national borders are erased and replaced by a global extremist Islamic empire."

Which clearly can't be allowed to happen: our goal should instead be to spread human rights globally. But why bother with any other measure when spreading maps is apparently enough to put the entire world at risk? Surely we can accomplish just as much with a targeted counterattack:

Of course, considering that Canadian provinces are talking about refining uranium and encouraging the use of nuclear power, I suppose the promulgation of the above map should put Canada at the top of Rumsfeld's hit list. But that's a small price to pay to show that we're dedicated to ensuring that our values prevail in the culture war that Bushco has done so much to inflame.

Failing to clear the air

Ontario's Energy Minister is laying the groundwork to back out of the province's commitment to move away from coal power within the next three years:

At least two coal-fired power plants long slated for closure by the Ontario government over pollution concerns may need to stay open a while longer to prevent electricity shortages, the province’s energy minister said Friday...

Ontario’s Liberal government promised in its 2003 election campaign to close all of the province’s coal facilities by 2007, claiming their emissions are a health hazard.

That plan was altered last June when the province said the Nanticoke plant by Lake Erie won’t be closed until 2009.

The government's backtracking is bad enough to begin with. But what's worse, the opposition parties are criticizing the government for making the promise in the first place rather than for failing to stick to it:

But critics insist the government needs to direct OPG to enter into more long-term contracts for coal now to avoid paying substantially higher costs down the road on the more expensive spot market — extra costs that ultimately might have to be covered by ratepayers.

“You can’t just go to Loblaws and buy a boatload of coal,” said Conservative energy critic John Yakabuski...

New Democrat Leader Howard Hampton said the government’s refusal to budge from its coal-closure promise will prove costly and put Ontario’s electricity supply at great risk.

“Anybody who has looked at this has said you need to keep the coal plants there because you don’t have a plan to replace the power,” he said.

Now, it's certainly fair to criticize the government for failing to plan sufficiently to allow the coal plants to shut down. But that's a problem of execution, not reason to see the plan to reduce coal dependency as bad in principle.

It's a particular disappointment that Hampton has taken such a short-sighted position on the value of greener energy. While last year's smog-covered summer may be a fairly distant memory by now, surely Ontarians and their leaders haven't forgotten the recent results of past environmental neglect. And matters won't get any better if the province's current planning energy is dedicated to lengthening the life-spans of coal plants, rather than building the foundation to move toward cleaner energy sources.

Cabinet-making

Lorne Calvert announces the newly-appointed Saskatchewan cabinet. A few notes on the announcements:

- Those theorizing that Andrew Thomson is set to succeed Calvert at the helm of the provincial party get a serious boost, as Thomson takes over the Finance portfolio among others.

- It's great to see Glenn Hagel back in Cabinet with a vengeance, as Government House Leader in addition to taking on a couple more roles.

- The one disappointment: of the 41 different Cabinet or governmental roles announced today, Calvert apparently couldn't find one for Warren McCall.

There's been some coverage from CBC and the Leader-Post already. More commentary here as more media voices emerge, but it looks like Calvert has done well in combining new blood with experience.

Trust issues

Murray Mandryk goes into detail about the Saskatchewan PC trust fund issue - and it looks like the fun is just beginning for the Saskatchewan Party:

(O)nce you get past personalities and whatever personal animosities may exist, Swenson and Schmidt actually make a very compelling case.

- The agreement that put the Progressive Conservatives into hiatus was specifically for two consecutive elections. We have had two consecutive elections, so Swenson and Schmidt do have an obligation to be doing what they are doing.

- Three of five trust fund trustees are extremely active in the Saskatchewan Party, including trust spokesman Doug Emsley, who helps run the Saskatchewan Party's communication firm...

- The decision of the trust to cut off funding to the dormant Progressive Conservative party (it last provided them $35,000 in March 2005 to run an office and continue some form of existence) suspiciously comes only after talk of revitalizing the party. If the trust fund was so concerned about how this paltry sum of money was being spent (less than half the amount the fund earns in annual interest, Swenson said) why didn't it cut off funding years ago?

Mandryk notes that any PC revival would coincide with the Weyburn-Big Muddy byelection...which makes it in the Saskatchewan Party's clear interest to try to bury both the issue and the revitalization efforts as best they can. That apparently puts the PC fund trustees who have since shifted their alliances in an obvious conflict of interest. And if that's a situation that the Saskatchewan Party is willing to ignore in opposition, then voters will have all the more reason to make sure the Sask Party never gets the chance to govern.

On feigning powerlessness

It's a plus to see Ontario taking somewhat of a stand with regard to the incoming Copeman clinics. But beneath the headline there's at best bad reporting, and at worst unquestioned acceptance of inaccurate spin about what can be done:

Abbott has given the firm until the end of February to comply with both federal and provincial health laws or face action by the province.

The Ontario government can't do anything until the clinics open, but Premier Dalton McGuinty promised there would be consequences if the company breaks the law.

Of course, the problem is that it's far from clear that the government is powerless to act when Copeman is actively soliciting customers. Or at least, that's what Sack Goldblatt Mitchell's legal opinion said earlier this week:

In our view, the Company's promotional materials represent an offer proscribed by s. 17(1)(c), namely to sell preferential access to insured health services, and therefore constitute an offence for which it is liable to a fine of $25,000. In this regard, the Minister (of Health) need not wait until the Copeman clinics are in operation in order to proceed. Moreover, as soon as the company accepts payments from any "client" both the client and the company would, in our view, likely be committing an offence under s. 17(1)(1) and (b) of the Act respectively.

I could understand if the reporting on today's statement had mentioned the legal opinion as only one potential interpretation of the law. But surely there's no good reason to claim that the province "can't do anything" without any qualification. And if the distortion is one that McGuinty's government has done anything to encourage, then there's all the more reason to doubt its sincerity in addressing the spread of for-profit clinics...no matter how much tough talk it directs Copeman's way.

On foreseeing the possible

The Tyee reports on both the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment itself, and the corporate media's failure to pay attention to what should be important news:

The report's basic premise is that healthy ecosystems provide humans with a range of "services" -- things like food, clean water, clean air, buffers from natural disasters and even spiritual renewal. To the extent that these "ecosystem services" are degraded, so is the quality of human life.

And without serious behavior modification, we're headed for a bad run, Reid said. "We've badly mismanaged our ecosystems," he said. "As long as we regard ecosystem services as free and limitless, we will continue to use them in a way that does not make sense." Reid enumerated the main findings of the study he directed, which concluded that 60 percent of the planet's ecosystem services are being run down or used up faster than they can replenish themselves...

But the presenters last week were resolutely optimistic. "It's a good news message," Carpenter said. "We can make a very positive difference in ecosystem services by 2050. The caveat is that fundamental changes would have to be undertaken."

The article expresses concern that out of four plausible scenarios pointed out by some of the presenters, each presents at least some downside. But that acknowledgement of trade-offs should be the first step to ensuring that ecosystem preservation is given its due consideration. The contrast in the scenarios merely highlights the reality that local ecological management may not be sufficient to address global environmental issues, or that increasing international connectivity may reduce the force of community traditions. And it's better to recognize the inevitability of some trade-offs than to refuse any change which could possibly have any perceived negative effects.

The truly disturbing part of the scenarios is the degree to which the world's leading power seems bent on pushing the "Order from Strength" scenario, which by almost all accounts appears to be the worst future outcome (featuring some ecological deterioration and ever-increasing wealth gaps). But by the same token, once all the options are set out next to each other, there seems little reason to think that this particular scenario would win out...as long as the other options receive genuine consideration.

Which returns to the article's initial concern at the lack of attention paid to the MA in North America. Whatever the outcome of a discussion of our future path based on the realistic options, the end result has to be better than one which simply fails to acknowledge the possibilities. And hopefully the Tyee's attention will be a small step toward ensuring that Canada makes its future plans based on a more thorough appraisal of what can be done.

Reason to be suspicious

Saskatchewan's PCs surface in the news again - and this time it may actually cause some damage to the Saskatchewan Party:

What remains of the provincial Progressive Conservative party is pulling up stakes today, saying it can no longer pay the rent because it's being starved of funding in a dispute over the Progressive Conservative Party of Saskatchewan Trust Fund...

Swenson has said the trustees of the fund cut off its annual funding of the party last year because they objected to the PC executive committee's plans to sell memberships and hold an annual general meeting to determine whether the party should be revived.

Swenson has alleged that trustees are being influenced by their connection to the Saskatchewan Party.

We'll see if there's another explanation for the trustees' actions, as the PCs are apparently prepared to go to court to seek the use of the remaining trust fund. But if individuals tied to the Saskatchewan Party are in fact abusing their positions as trustees by preventing the PCs from making any use of the trust fund, then Saskatchewanians have wonder all the more what the Sask Party would do given the opportunity to exercise power over the province's finances.

On travel plans

I didn't think any CBC commentaries this week would manage to be more painful to read than Larry Zolf's "defence" of Buzz Hargrove. (Shorter Zolf: I like labour, therefore we should ignore everything everybody else involved in labour has to say and put our faith in Buzz Hargrove.) But Tom Velk goes several steps beyond in setting out his road map for the Con government.

Velk starts off with his policy suggestions, which (for a professor who supposedly has some legal training) demonstrate a surprising lack of knowledge of constitutional law even for a Bush/Harper apologist:

Harper should permanently diminish the centralizing and homogenizing power of the PM's office. Let Ottawa shed social power as well as giving up tax dollars. Give provinces and even municipalities authority over "values" legislation concerning marital status, gun ownership and social mores. Gay marriage might be OK in Quebec, but not in Alberta.

Now, there are enough problems with this suggestion from a policy standpoint. But is Velk completely unfamiliar with The Constitution Act, 1867? Last I checked, Canada's Constitution wasn't susceptible to amendment by Parliament alone, and there's no real doubt that federal government has the responsibility for the definition of marriage in particular (s. 91(26)) and "social mores" generally (which have generally been included under the criminal law power, s. 91(27)). Whatever Harper's strategy in power, surely focussing on things which can't be done isn't a winning course of action.

But then, it doesn't take long for Velk to manage to underestimate the well-established powers of the PM's office as well:

(D)on't fear an early election. Stable deals can be made. Not all sovereigntists are socialists. There are enough independent votes in Parliament to pass gun-crime laws, ethics in government rules, and to devise de facto Senate elections, for those provinces that want it.

Now, technically the power to make Senate appointments lies with the Governor General, but it shouldn't be news that it's the Prime Minister who already nominates Senators. So why would Velk see any need for Harper to seek out "independent votes" to enable him to do what's already within his authority?

Sadly, Velk's wishful thinking doesn't stop at the nature of Canada's division of powers. While his "hard followup issues" are apparently supposed to present a set of difficult challenges, they really sound far more like Bushco's fondest wish:

Mr. Harper has already said he will not support the Hamas government unless it renounces terrorism and withdraws its threat to destroy Israel. It's a beginning, but an easy one. Consider some hard followup issues: Benjamin Netanyahu becomes the leader of Israel, eliminates Iran's nuclear equipment, and then looks for help in fighting off increased terror attacks.

Surgically invaded, its atom plants bombed out, Iran cuts oil production, and Canada is asked to meet North American energy needs at below market prices. Terrorists pass through soft Canadian security on their way to a successful attack on a major U.S. target. The Americans threaten border closures if we don't raise our standards.

These and other international challenges will occupy the world's headlines for the next couple of years.

Needless to say, Velk's solution to these "challenges" is for Harper to "co-operate" with the U.S...which in context, apparently means granting a request to have Canada subsidize oil exports to the U.S. while allowing Bush to dictate our defence policy. I'll grant that Velk is right that the opposition parties would be awfully tempted to force an election at that point...but that action would be based purely on a rational response to the lack of any competence in power which Harper would show by following Velk's path, and not on some "short-sighted" political calculation.

In sum, Velk's road map suggests that the big question for some on the right is whether Harper can do no more than run into brick walls, or whether global events will allow him to go off a cliff. We can only hope that those making decisions in Harper's regime have a somewhat more realistic idea about the terrain that we're actually faced with.

On nonexistent threats

Bushco crosses yet another line that should never have been approached, as supporting American troops is now officially illegal. And no, that doesn't refer to Cindy Sheehan:

The wife of (Republican) Rep. C.W. Bill Young said she was ejected during President Bush's State of the Union address for wearing a T-shirt that said, "Support the Troops Defending Our Freedom," a newspaper reported Wednesday.

Beverly Young said she was sitting in the front row of the House gallery Tuesday night when she was approached by someone who told her she needed to leave...

"They said I was protesting," she said in a telephone interview with the newspaper Tuesday. "I said, 'Read my shirt, it is not a protest.' They said, 'We consider that a protest.' I said, 'Then you are an idiot.'"

Tough to argue with Young's take...but we all know far too well that that fact won't stop Bush's apologists from trying.

Money well spent

The Globe reported this morning on the Conference Board of Canada's comparison of provinces. But while B.C. emerged on top for health indicators alone, there can be little doubt that Saskatchewan is getting more bang for its buck than any other province.

In particular, based on the chart at the bottom of the article, Saskatchewan ranked 7th in per-capita health spending in 2004, yet placed 3rd in health indicators - a gap matched only by Quebec (9th and 5th respectively). So the money spent by Saskatchewan on health care has resulted in remarkably good outcomes.

But it gets better. Consider which other provinces managed to achieve high rankings in health outcomes. Saskatchewan was the lone smaller-population province to join B.C., Alberta, Ontario and Quebec in the top 5 for overall health performance...and it managed to make its way to the middle of that group despite being outspent by most provinces.

In other words, Saskatchewan alone has managed its resources efficiently enough to overcome both the economies of scale held by provinces with more population to support, and the additional funding put into health care by other provinces.

Obviously there's still a ways for Saskatchewan to go in strengthening health care (as there is for every other province). But Calvert, Nilson and company deserve credit for setting an example that other provinces should be eager to follow.

On unfortunate timing

David Wilkins figures Canada's relationship with the U.S. is strong and getting stronger. And it's tough to argue with that sentiment. After all, nothing says "strong relationship" like three shots to an ambassador's engine block.

(Edit: typo.)

Fruit of the poisoned tree

David Orchard's settlement with the Conservative Party has finally been judicially ordered...and the Con position suggests that the party is going to great lengths to prevent any new details about the Alliance/PC merger from coming to light:

Orchard was in a Toronto courtroom to resolve the final details of a December 2004 court settlement awarding him nearly $70,000 in campaign funds. The money was raised in 2003 as he sought to lead the Progressive Conservative Party...

While the judge imposed a release on both parties stating Orchard would not seek further litigation against the Conservatives regarding the disputed funds, it does not prevent Orchard from making other claims on other parties, such as MacKay.

Orchard's lawyer argued for a simple declaration that cleared the party of future claims regarding the disputed money.

But lawyers for the Conservative Party wanted assurances that no one associated with the party could face a claim for anything done in the past, even aside from the disputed funds.

Now, I don't doubt that it's generally in the Cons' interest to seek out the widest enforceable release possible. But surely a general release related to the money recovered by Orchard should have been enough to take care of most of the party's concerns. And if there is anything more worth trying to bring to light now, the Cons' rejected position will only encourage Orchard to keep up his devoted opposition to the party...and to see what else can be dragged up about the merger.

On getting the full picture

There's been plenty of talk about how Harper will be able to maintain power by proceeding issue-by-issue, putting forward only small proposals which will win certain support from at least one opposition party and thereby implementing much of the Con platform. For those wondering how far the Cons could get with that strategy, Jack Layton makes it clear that the NDP for one won't play along with such fragmented policy when it comes to the budget:

NDP Leader Jack Layton said Tuesday he wants to see the incoming Conservatives' full budget plan before deciding whether to back a Tory plan to cut the GST.

“We'll see what the proposal is with the budget,” he told reporters before heading into his party's caucus meeting in Ottawa...

Mr. Layton told reporters Tuesday that the NDP will now “consider all of the proposals in the context of the whole of the budget.”

Layton's move should be an effective one in forcing the Cons to put some more of their cards on the table. After all, why wouldn't the governing party be willing to at least set out a full fiscal plan rather than merely passing a GST cut immediately and leaving the rest of the country's finances for later?

Granted, there is one readily apparent reason to refuse...namely, if the Cons don't think that the budget as a whole can survive if all three opposition parties see it in its full context. But even if that seems likely, surely Harper would rather take his criticism through negotiations than through a non-confidence vote. And public discussion of the problems in a proposed budget could work wonders to force Harper into a more moderate arrangement.

Layton's move today should help both ensure a more open process for budget negotiations, and maybe play a role in influencing the content as well. And given Layton's proven track record of being able to make deals that work out for all concerned, Harper would do well to take the cue and ensure that the GST cut is packaged with a budget that won't drive the opposition away from the table.

On predictable patterns

While the U.S. has received plenty of attention for its trouble trying to attract enough recruits to keep its military going, it's not the only country facing such problems. And one top Australian official has now gone where nobody in the U.S. has dared, suggesting that Australia will need a draft to maintain its forces:

Admiral Chris Barrie, who retired in 2002 after 41 years' military service, the final four as chief of the defence force, said Australia's young work force would substantially shrink in the decades ahead due to lower birth rates. "In such a climate, we will not be able to attract the number of people we need, even if we attempted the usual financial incentives schemes," Barrie told a conference...

The military has warned that if a current downturn in recruitment continues, ranks will decrease from 52,000 personnel to 48,500 by 2010 - well below the 55,000 target the government has set.

Australia's military is reconsidering its ban on recruits who are overweight, have poor eyesight or suffer asthma as it battles to maintain troop numbers and is also examining expanding the roles of women in the ranks.

The country currently has thousands of troops on overseas deployments in countries including Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obviously the demographic problem makes the projections all the worse. But that future shift will only be exacerbated to the extent that today's potential recruits avoid enlisting due to their desire not to be pushed into action in Iraq (or Afghanistan).

Which leaves Australia in much the same lose-lose position as the U.S.: it can either concede defeat and reduce the size of its army, or it can take ever-more-desperate measures to try to hold its current structure. And no matter which option it chooses, the end result will be a weaker force in the long run.

On keeping one's commitments

The legal opinion related to the legality of Copeman Healthcare's planned Ontario clinics is interesting enough in pointing out the myriad of laws that would be violated by a fully-functioning clinic. But for those who would wonder whether there's anything that can be done before the clinic goes into operation, the opinion suggests that even Copeman's marketing campaign may violate Ontario law:

(U)nder section 17(1)(c) (of the ) Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act it is an offence for the clinic and its prospective patient to offer to make or receive the payments proscribed by this section.

Failure to comply with these provisions...is an offence under s. 19 of the Act and is punishable by a fine that ranges from $1,000 to $25,000...

In our view, the Company's promotional materials represent an offer proscribed by s. 17(1)(c), namely to sell preferential access to insured health services, and therefore constitute an offence for which it is liable to a fine of $25,000. In this regard, the Minister (of Health) need not wait until the Copeman clinics are in operation in order to proceed. Moreover, as soon as the company accepts payments from any "client" both the client and the company would, in our view, likely be committing an offence under s. 17(1)(1) and (b) of the Act respectively.

The good news in the opinion is that it confirms that there's no need to play "wait and see" as the province of Ontario now seems inclined to do. The Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act has given Ontario's government the means to defend single-payer health care before privately-funded clinics become an inevitability.

Of course, there is a downside, as the current plan to do nothing becomes all the more negligent if it's occurring in the face of readily-available remedies against what's already happening. If provincial authorities don't bother to enforce the provisions which are already being flouted by Copeman, there's little reason to have any confidence that action will be taken once the clinics are in operation.

Obviously McGuinty knows that single-payer health care is important enough that he wants to be seen defending it. The question now is whether the public can force the province to make use of the tools at its disposal.

Party on

Rather than forcing the provincial NDP to win a by-election to maintain its official party status, Dalton McGuinty has announced that the party won't be at risk of losing that status until at least after the 2007 election. Whether or not (as speculated in the article) McGuinty's move is based primarily on a desire to keep the NDP from appealing to keep its party status in the byelection campaigns, it's a plus to have a bit more security behind the party. And if the Dippers can indeed win a byelection or two in the meantime, then all the better.

Of friends and threats

Michael Byers covers the history and current status of the Northwest Passage in plenty of detail:

The changing ice conditions offer a sea route between Europe and Asia that is 7,000 kilometres shorter than the route through the Panama Canal. The Northwest Passage could also accommodate supertankers and container ships that are too large for the canal. International shipping companies are eyeing the fuel, time and canal-passage fees that could be saved; some are already building ice-strengthened vessels.

The cruise ship industry is also looking north; the Kapitan Khlebnikovi, a Russian-flagged converted ice-breaker, already offers luxury voyages through the Northwest Passage-at US $10,000 per person. The melting ice will facilitate access to Alaskan and northern Canada's vast stocks of oil, gas, diamonds and precious metals.

Also, Canada's Arctic waters could eventually become a valuable fishery as reduced ice cover and warmer waters enable plankton and fish species from more temperate latitudes to move north. Indeed, Pacific salmon and Atlantic cod are already invading Arctic waters, with likely dire consequences for smaller, slower-growing indigenous species.

Canadians should be alarmed.

Most of the article is simply a solid presentation of history and international law, and it's definitely worth a read. BUt the conclusion demands some further comment:

The uniqueness of the situation may help to explain why, in November 2004, then-US ambassador Paul Cellucci admitted that U.S. national security might actually be enhanced if Washington were to recognize Ottawa's claim. "We are looking at everything through the terrorism prism," he said. "Our top priority is to stop the terrorists. So perhaps when this is brought to the table again, we may have to take another look." Invitations to negotiate do not come any clearer than that. It is time to show that Canada is willing and able to police its Arctic waters; to make the case-not just with words-that Canadian sovereignty can work for America too.

While I'd like to think that the U.S. would indeed be willing to talk, I have difficulty believing that Cellucci's comment (or the U.S.' general interest in dealing with terrorism) presents much of an opportunity for a resolution on favourable terms for Canada.

More likely, the talk of terrorists instead would be taken as reason for the U.S. to demand control over northern regions. After all, many in the the U.S. have been all to eager to ignore the facts in order to blame Canada for exposing the U.S. to terrorism, and there's no reason to think that a Canadian Arctic surveillance program would be viewed with any more trust.

Besides which, the U.S.' clear track record is one of using terrorism as a justification to seek other ends rather than one showing a history of taking the path most likely to end terrorism. And there's again no reason to grant the benefit of the doubt that the Northwest Passage will be treated any differently.

I'll readily agree with Byers that Canada needs to take immediate action to defend the Arctic. But in light of both the U.S.' history of trying to set precedents to drag the Northwest Passage into the international strait category, and David Wilkins' reminder that the Bushco doesn't want to listen to Canadian claims of sovereignty, any responsible position on Arctic defence has to recognize that the U.S. is part of the problem, not the solution.

On contrasting details

Kudos to Babylon Project for providing a thorough rundown of current news from Haiti. If only commercial media sources such as the Star were willing to discuss any of the facts surrounding Canada's involvement...rather than discussing Canada's current involvement with pablum like this:

Right now, Canada's largest commitment in the Latin American-Caribbean region is in Haiti, which hopes to go to the polls next month.

Canada has spent $180 million over two years for reconstruction and development in Haiti, has committed 100 civilian police officers to a United Nations stabilization force and plans to send 300 observers to oversee elections in that country.

Apparently in the Star's view, any acknowledgement of the darker side of Canada's "soft power" involvement would be out of place in determining what role Harper should pursue within the hemisphere. Unfortunately, with that position apparently reflecting a consensus among far too much of Canada's media, it seems all too likely that Harper will be able to get away with maintaining Canada's status as an accomplice to the suppression still occurring in Haiti.

Reading list

A few of today's posts that deserve a bit more attention:

Mike from Rational Reasons sets out the case against privately-funded health care.

Idealistic Pragmatist takes on the challenge of trying to explain the federal Liberals.

And Chad from Random Thoughts discusses possible funding options for Saskatchewan's municipalities - pointing out both Pat Fiacco's temper tantrum over current funding levels, and the fact that there'd be little concern over funding if not for a persistent pattern of corporate subsidies.

(Edit: typo.)

Target practice

While there's been recent talk about the Cons quietly allowing the gun registry to continue to operate, one longtime opponent of the registry is determined to dismantle it - regardless of what the police have to say:

Ewatski (the chief of the Winnipeg Police Service) said statistics show police officers electronically query the registry about 2,000 times a day, which can, for instance, help them determine whether guns are in a house they are about to enter.

"We take the approach in policing that information is the lifeblood of our work," he said. "And the more information our front-line officers have on the streets to do their job, the better prepared they are to deal with situations of public safety as well as officer safety."

Saskatchewan Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz, a vociferous critic of the registry, questions the notion that thousands of police benefit from it daily.

Breitkreuz argues many of those officers are actually looking for other information -- not firearms data -- when they log onto the computerized banks.

He insists the firearms registry, which lists more than seven million guns, is not a cost-effective tool.

"It's of no use to the police right now," Breitkreuz said.

The Cons have generally been trying to keep expectations low and humility high since winning power. But Breitkreuz' claim that he can tell police how they should do their jobs and what information they need shows that the mask is slipping.

Breitkreuz suggests also that there's no reason at all for the Cons not to follow through on a longtime policy promise. Which will leave Harper with the choice betwen abandoning one of the policies that's done a lot to win over rural Western Canada, and trying to maintain a "tough on crime" line while taking away existing tools for the police to better protect and serve. Either way, the Cons have plenty to lose and very little to gain from the gun registry getting attention...but there's also little reason to think Breitkreuz and his ilk will let the issue die.

Credit where credit is due

One would expect a politician to do everything possible to claim positive attention where it's offered. But rather than taking all the accolades for the NDP's well-received economic platform, Paul Summerville instead sets the record straight as to who deserves the credit:

I am very flattered that I am being given so much credit for such an excellent document.

However, I did not write or craft the platform...

(T)he truth must be known, Jack (Layton) is the one that pitched the tent big enough for me to come in, not to mention hundreds of thousands of other Canadians.

The NDP's economic message certainly helped to boost the party's fortunes in the election, and Summerville's contributions to that message haven't gone (and won't go) unrewarded. But it takes a substantial amount of honesty and humility to decline credit for initiatives which the media assumed to be related to Summerville's arrival.

Kudos to Summerville for making sure that credit goes where deserved. And hopefully he'll be rewarded with a seat in Parliament - and the chance to contribute to a government as well as a party platform - next time Canada goes to the polls.

On choosing one's demise

Kenneth Kidd apparently thinks highly of the Cons' ability to manage the next Parliament so as to win a majority in the next election. But is the confidence in Harper all that well-deserved?

To get Conservative legislation through the House of Commons, Harper knows he'll need to play a kind of Parliamentary Twister — touching the different NDP, Bloc Québécois and Liberal spots for support at various times. And, like the parlour game, this one will end when such contortions prove elusive.

But here's the thing about the parliamentary version: It will undoubtedly be Harper himself who manufactures a Conservative defeat in the House of Commons, the one that heralds the next federal election.

"Harper will introduce something that will sound popular but will go against the principles of all the other parties," says Nelson Wiseman, associate professor of political science at the University of Toronto. "He will engineer his own defeat."

The parallel: 1972 to 1974, when Pierre Trudeau (with just two seats more than the Progressive Conservatives) led a precarious minority government with the support of a strong NDP contingent. The question facing Trudeau was how and when to pull the plug.

The article nicely covers Harper's ideal scenario as to how the Cons could manage the next Parliament. But unlike Kidd, I'm far from sure that Harper will get to choose positive terms for his party as the start of the next election.

Granted, there's likely going to be some sort of grace period, particularly as the Libs try to get their house back in order - and there'll be some opportunity for the Cons to build a record in government while that's going on. But particularly if an election is going to be a year-plus down the road, it's hard to see how Harper can win a majority by precipitating an election.

After all, given the range of ideology within the opposition parties, virtually any genuinely popular policy would find at least some support in one of the other parties. Which means that if the Cons are going to engineer their own defeat, it'll be based on either a wrong calculation as to what issues really are popular, or at best based on an issue where Harper's being on the wrong side is counterbalanced by a likely split in the opposition vote. And neither of those sounds like a recipe to add to the Cons' current support.

Indeed, Harper's best chance may be instead to make the minority last as long as he can. That way, Canadians may get accustomed to the idea of Harper being able to build consensus, and figure that a Con majority would operate on the same terms. But picking a divisive issue to force a campaign can only highlight some differences that Harper needs to try to suppress in order to succeed.

Mind you, there is an even worse-case scenario for the Cons than reminding Canadians of the divisions between themselves and the rest of the parties. Contrary to Kidd's view that the Cons will get to engineer their own defeat, it's not hard to envisage a situation where a moment of Con mismanagement could make all three other parties see an opportunity to improve their electoral lot. And that's not the kind of the momentum that a government wants to face going into an election: see Martin, PMP.

There's some opportunity for a Trudeau-type leap next time out. But that'll have to be based on the other parties failing utterly in a campaign, not based on Harper choosing to go to the polls based on an issue where Canadians back his party. And the more Harper appears to be calculating the next election rather than running the country in the meantime, the easier it'll be for the other parties to make sure that majority never materializes.

On admitting one's losses

Whether or not one believes Rumsfeld's "you go to war with the army you have" rhetoric, it surely has to be a bad sign for Bushco that the administration is now having to accept reductions in the size of its army due to the lack of new recruits:

U.S. President George Bush will use his new budget to propose cutting the size of the Army Reserve to its lowest level in three decades and stripping up to $4 billion from two fighter aircraft programs...

Under the plan, the authorized troop strength of the Army Reserve would drop from 205,000 — the current number of slots it is allowed — to 188,000, the actual number of soldiers it had at the end of 2005. Because of recruiting and other problems, the Army Reserve has been unable to fill its ranks to its authorized level.

Army leaders have said they are taking a similar approach to shrinking the National Guard. They are proposing to cut that force from its authorized level of 350,000 soldiers to 333,000, the actual number now on the rolls.

I have to wonder whether (in keeping with the Orwellian overtones of Bushco generally) the new strategy will be to claim that the actual numbers were always lower, and that the change is really an increase. (This may be the next great test of the strength of the Republican noise machine.) But there can be little doubt that the obvious decline in the sustainable size of the U.S. military reflects rather poorly on a president who's supposed to be strong on defence.

Partisanship and accountability

A Zogby poll suggests that a plurality of Pennsylvanians want to vote for candidates who back impeachment. But take a look at the notable exception:

A new poll conducted in Pennsylvania (a battleground "purple" state) by Zogby International and commissioned by OpEdNews.com found that 84.9 percent of Democrats said they would be likely to vote for a congressional candidate who "supports having impeachment proceedings against President Bush."...

The results were even stronger when people were asked "How likely would you be to vote for a candidate who supports a recommendation of impeachment against President Bush if he is found guilty of violating the law?" Among Democrats, 90.8 percent responded either "very likely" or "somewhat likely" (85.2 percent very likely).

Among Republicans, 90.4 percent said they were not likely to vote for a pro-impeachment candidate, and 80.5 percent said they were not likely to back even a supporter of impeaching a convicted violator of the law.

In other words, 4 out of 5 Republicans would rather see a lawbreaker go unpunished than see proceedings brought against one of their own. Not that anybody should be surprised...but it's sad to think that even if the 2006 U.S. elections are fought on the battleground of law against lawlessness, the vast majority of registered Republicans won't give the slightest consideration to voting for the former.

On issues that won't be ignored

Harper's plan to deal with equalization and federal/provincial relations later rather than sooner isn't much of a hit with Canada's premiers, who have good reason to want to get a deal done in the next year-plus:

There is...a sense of urgency among the premiers as the window of opportunity for an overarching fiscal deal may have a short timeframe. The window has been opened by the election of Harper, but it will be closed if Charest, who is trailing in the polls, loses the next Quebec election — expected in the spring of 2007 — to André Boisclair and the Parti Québécois.

As the other premiers see it, they aren't likely to be able to strike a deal with the separatists, whose objective is to leave Confederation, not fix it.

On the other hand, a new fiscal deal that is seen as beneficial to Quebec (as well as the other provinces) could help Charest remain in power.

Now, there's obviously some danger in trying to work out a deal too quickly. But that's only reason to make sure that as much concentrated effort as possible is applied to the issue now.

Given that there's a foreseeable endpoint on when a deal can get done, the only responsible course of action now is to make the fiscal imbalance an immediate priority - rather than something to be revisited at some point in the future when Quebec is unwilling to listen. And if Harper pushes forward on his personal priorities while trying to sweep the provinces' most important issue under the rug until it's too late, then some of the premiers who explicitly or implicitly endorsed him this time out may not be so friendly next time he goes to the polls.

Request granted

Maurice Vellacott has gone public asking for "a modest role" in the Conservative government:

In the two-page letter, Vellacott says he'd prefer to be appointed either a vice-chair or chair of the Human Resources, Aboriginal Affairs, Foreign Affairs or Health committees.

He also says he's concerned that if he were appointed to a senior cabinet role he would be prevented from speaking his mind on certain issues, such as "ethnic outreach, marriage, family and life."

Presumably Vellacott wants to leave a bit more of a paper trail so he can't again be accused of doing nothing as an MP. But given those views that Vellacott wants to be able to speak his mind about, I'm sure Harper will be glad to find him the most modest role possible - preferably one which won't result in any publicly-recorded proceedings to be used against the Cons in the next election campaign.

Pushme-Pollyu

More Saskatchewan political news, as David Karwacki's fight to stay relevant has led to tripartisan agreement to deal with the issue of push-polling, which was apparently due to become a problem in the province any decade now. But while Karwacki's effort has confirmed a lack of intention to use a tactic that apparently wasn't in use anyway, the move may just be conceding the strategy to the other party which is looking to back into the Legislature:

All three of Saskatchewan party leaders have now pledged they won't use "push polling" in the next provincial election...

The issue came up recently when Liberal leader David Karwacki wrote to Premier Lorne Calvert and Saskatchewan Party leader Brad Wall suggesting several ways the parties could keep the next campaign more positive...

Calvert said the NDP doesn't do push polling and he promised it wouldn't.

"I personally find it offensive," he said. "To my knowledge, we have never used it and so long as I'm leader of this party we will not use it."

Karwacki and Wall pledged they won't engage in push polling either.

I'll note that while CBC uses a fairly restrictive definition of "push polling", it doesn't necessarily need to be negative if it has the effect of presenting a biased picture to a respondent. And with the three main parties all agreed to take the push-polling weapon out of their arsenal, I have to wonder whether a soft push poll might be just the break the Sask Cons need to make a comeback:

"Question 1: Do you consider yourself a Christian?

Question 1A (if answer to (1) is "yes"): Do you believe that Jesus Christ came back from the dead?

Question 1B: Do you believe that a political party can do the same?

Question 1C: Do you believe in Jesus' message of forgiveness?

Question 1D: Would you consider voting for the Saskatchewan Conservative Party in the next provincial election?

Question 2 (if answer to (1) is "no"): Do you believe that that people can be rehabilitated?

Question 2A (if answer to (2) is "yes"): Do you believe that a rehabilitated person should be given responsibility in order to prove he or she has changed?

Question 2B: Do you believe that a political party should have the same chance?

Question 2C: Do you think it's time to give Saskatchewan's provincial Conservative Party another chance at government?"

Not that it's actually likely to work, even if the bulk of the province's voters would presumably be caught by one of the two pushes. But the multilateral disarmament by the other parties is more of an opening than Saskatchewan's Cons have had for awhile - and it's not as if the party's rumoured financial reserves are being put to any better use.

Turnover

The CP reports that Peter Prebble and Joanne Crofford won't seek re-election next time Saskatchewan goes to the polls:

Corrections Minister Peter Prebble and Community Resources Minister Joanne Crofford said Friday they will continue to represent their ridings until an election is called.

Voters aren't expected to go the polls again until 2007.

Premier Lorne Calvert is expected to shuffle his cabinet, possibly within two weeks.

The upcoming shuffle will become all the more interesting now that two longtime stalwarts have indicated that they won't be sticking around. While the experience and knowledge will undoubtedly be missed, it's also a plus for there to be some room for renewal both in the cabinet and the caucus.

That said, the electoral implications remain to be seen. There hopefully won't be too much doubt whether the NDP can hold Prebble's and Crofford's ridings: the party won them by 17% and 41%, respectively, in 2003. But the question of whether the NDP can attract positive attention - both for any new cabinet appointments, and for the replacement candidates - will likely play a large role in whether the Dippers can hold onto government past the current term.

Update: While the NDP's departing members will leave the caucus on good terms, the same doesn't appear to be true of the Sask Party's Brenda Bakken-Lackey:

In a cryptic statement distributed by the party, she says the political system did not always allow her to do what she believed was in the best interest of her constituents and she found that frustrating.

Bakken-Lackey also alludes to how she will not compromise her commitments to accountability and transparency, but she does not elaborate.

Considering that the Sask Party has another chance at forming government within a year, one would have to figure that the problem isn't so much frustration with the opposition benches as concerns with the party itself. And when sitting MLAs are leaving on principle, that could be a prelude to voters doing the same.

Winners and losers

Apparently at least some people have reason to be happy about the U.S.' current economic situation, as increased corporate profits have helped to boost the stock market:

U.S. stocks rallied on Friday, with the Dow and the Nasdaq each up 1 percent, as higher corporate profits, including those of bellwether Microsoft Corp. (MSFT.O: Quote, Profile, Research), overshadowed a government report showing slower-than-expected economic growth...

Which is good news for those with substantial share investments. But what about, well, everybody else?

Official figures from the Commerce Department this afternoon showed US economic growth slowed to its weakest annual rate in three years.

Growth for the quarter was estimated at just 1.1 pct, well below the 4.1 pct recorded in the third quarter and expectations of a much more modest slowdown to 2.7 pct...

The Federal Reserve will nevertheless be concerned by evidence of core inflation heating up. The core personal consumption expenditure price index -- which excludes food and energy prices -- rose at an annual rate of 2.2 pct, above the Fed's 1-2 pct target range.

To sum up: Americans generally are paying more that expected to produce less...but as long as the end result is higher corporate profits, nobody's apparently complaining. Or at the very least, nobody with reason to complain seems to be able to find a major media platform to do so.

Ralph unleashed

While he made a couple of embarrassing appearances during the election campaign, Ralph Klein was generally subdued in an effort to avoid torpedoing Harper's chance at government. But now, Klein won't keep silent any longer:

Premier Ralph Klein said his Tory caucus agreed unanimously on Thursday to move ahead with revised laws that would, among other things, allow people to buy private insurance for some procedures. Another of his government's so-called "third way" reforms would allow doctors to practise in both the public and private-health systems...

The provincial government has seven other, unspecified changes it plans to make. Klein admitted that some might violate the Canada Health Act...

To ease concerns during the federal election campaign about his party's agenda, Harper pledged to be a strong defender of the public health-care system.

The jury is still out on how receptive Harper will be to opening the door to more privatization, given his Conservative party's minority status.

It may not have been realistic to think Klein would let the issue stay dormant until the federal Cons were able to pull out a future majority. But the fact that Klein couldn't even wait a week after the election before claiming Harper as an ally in his crusade to tear down single-payer health care does nothing but to give tons of ammunition to the federal opposition parties, and to force into the limelight an issue that Harper would rather see ignored.

Imposing the message

There's been plenty of talk today about Frank McKenna's past anti-choice actions as Premier of New Brunswick. But while there's plenty of speculation about McKenna following the same strategy that PMPM used on same-sex marriage, some Liberals may be looking to tie McKenna's hands instead:

There is a consensus building within the (Liberal) party to have some sort of policy exercise before the leadership convention to replace Martin. But whether it will be a full-blown national convention or smaller ones held across the country is yet to be decided.

The best indication so far, is that the vote to replace Martin probably won't happen any earlier than November.

It strikes me as odd that the Libs would be looking at policy first rather than leadership. Surely if there's anybody in the party who's seen as having a vision worth implementing, the party would prefer to go through a leadership race first, rather than dictating what the next leader will have to say once chosen.

Which isn't to say there's no upside to such a move...assuming that the Libs are resigned to having a leader with serious policy baggage. The effort to come up with a policy platform first could help to inoculate the Libs against the obvious flaws of each of their leaders. From McKenna's anti-abortionism to Ignatieff's warmongering and validation of torture, there's plenty about the Libs' potential leaders that the party will want to suppress - and putting words in the mouth of whoever takes over next could be one way for the party to claim that any public concerns are outdated.

But then, the talk seems to speak more of the Libs' lack of trust in their potential leaders than of anything positive about the party. And if the Lib party apparatus has that little trust that their next leader will be in tune with Canadian values, it's hard to see why voters should believe the next Liberal leader any more than the last one.

Arctic chill

Ambassador David Wilkins makes it clear that anybody expecting the Cons' platform to improve Canada/U.S. relations is headed for disappointment - and Harper will get to decide between pleasing Bushco or defending Canadian territory:

The United States opposes a plan by prime minister-designate Stephen Harper to deploy military icebreakers in the Arctic in order to assert Canadian sovereignty, says the U.S. ambassador to Canada.

"There's no reason to create a problem that doesn't exist," David Wilkins said Wednesday as he took part in a forum at the University of Western Ontario in London.

"We don't recognize Canada's claims to those waters... Most other countries do not recognize their claim."

During the election campaign, which culminated with Harper's win this week, the Conservatives promised to spend $5.3 billion over five years to defend northern waters against the Americans, Russians and Danes.

Now, the promise to defend the Arctic isn't apparently a priority issue for the Cons, which offers a ready excuse to avoid doing anything. But I'd fully expect the opposition parties in Parliament to be all over any delay in action - and to be willing to work with Harper to make sure that Canada is doing its utmost to supervise its own territory.

With Wilkins ensuring the issue into the public eye, we should expect a quick response from Harper as to which parts of his platform he really meant, and which ones will be forgotten on instructions from Washington. The question of Arctic defence will offer the first real test as to whether Harper really plans to "stand up for Canada", or whether he'll accept the U.S.' word that Canadian sovereignty is a non-issue.

Making progress

Good news for Regina residents, as the auto theft prevention strategy put in place a few years ago is producing huge results:

Auto thefts are down by 44 per cent in Regina, a city that earlier in the decade had the dubious distinction of being Canada's car theft capital.

While there were around 3,800 motor vehicles stolen in 2001, in 2005 the number had dropped to about 2,100.

Police attribute that to the Regina Auto Theft Strategy, a policy the Saskatchewan government, the City of Regina and the Regina police department introduced four years ago. The program takes the approach that although thousands of cars were being stolen every year, the majority of the crimes are being committed by a relatively small group of repeat offenders.

The plan includes curfew checks and electronic monitoring for those repeat offenders. It also prepares offenders for work once they're released from custody.

The program helps to demonstrate that while added punishment may not have any effect, a combination of stronger monitoring and positive options for offenders can work wonders in reducing crime. There's still a long ways to go yet, but at the moment Regina is setting the standard in how to deal with car theft. And the lesson is one that shouldn't be ignored when it comes to dealing with other crimes as well.

Contempt of public

Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro's report on the Grewal taping scandal gives rise to some shocking circumstances - but the shock has nothing to do with the facts found by Shapiro, which are basically as expected. From Shapiro's press release about the report:

The report was, in fact, ready for release last Friday, January 20, 2006, pursuant to our normal practice of releasing inquiry reports as soon as they are available. In this case, however, I decided that the report should be released shortly after the federal election had been held, so that my Office would:
- avoid any perception that, on the last day of a volatile electoral campaign, the Office of the Ethics Commissioner deliberately released an inquiry report that contained comments on individuals who were involved in the electoral process; and
- ensure that the report would be considered on its own merit, rather than being used as an electoral spin, and possibly be labeled as a tool for unjustified interference in an ongoing democratic process in which Canadians were engaged.

Let's translate this into plain English. As of last Friday, Shapiro had completed his neutral, non-partisan report into the facts surrounding the Grewal affair. Rather than letting that report be made public according to the normal procedure, he unilaterally decided that the facts shouldn't intrude on the ongoing election campaign, and that instead Canadians should go to the polls with a less than complete picture of the actions of members of two of the parties running for office.

In light of some of the rhetoric surrounding the income trust investigation, I won't be surprised if Lib supporters use Wilson's decision as a model for what the RCMP should have done - suppress the issue until after the campaign is over with, at which time the public can be allowed to know what's going on with its elected officials. But to me, that's the wrong position. Instead, the RCMP handled its side of the bargain properly by ensuring that the public was informed of the facts.

In contrast, an officer appointed by Parliament went out of his way to hide the truth behind the actions of two members of that Parliament, for fear that the public couldn't be trusted with the truth in an election campaign. And in my view, that precedent does nothing but to "(weaken) the public's trust and confidence" in an office which is supposed to keep Parliamentarians honest.

Continued inertia

CBC reports that at least one U.S. environmental group, the Natural Resources Defence Council, doesn't figure the Cons will do any worse in power than the Libs would have. Given that the Cons didn't even care enough during the campaign to bother answering Greenpeace's election survey, that has to speak volumes about the Libs' habit of putting talk over action.

One step back

The CP notes that Marilyn Churley's run in the federal election campaign may result in the Ontario NDP losing official party status:

The NDP lost its eighth member, Marilyn Churley, when she resigned last fall to run in the federal election...

Premier Dalton McGuinty says if the NDP doesn't win one of those ridings the party will lose its party status because — with only seven members — they'll be one short of the requirement.

It helps to have three chances at winning a seat in order to keep the official party designation. But even so, the potential to fall below official status in Ontario, along with the fact that Churley and some other high-profile candidates were't able to turn their recognition into seats in Parliament, indicates that the NDP has plenty of building left to do on all levels. One battle may have ended with some noteworthy gains last night, but the war for long-term influence in Canadian politics isn't getting easier.

On difficult choices

The Cons have their work cut out for them in trying to be seen as anything other than the Bloc's fondest wish - and Gilles Duceppe is only making the job harder:

Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe said the burden of proof is on Conservative leader Stephen Harper to make good on his promises.

Speaking in Montreal Tuesday, Duceppe said he expects Harper to give Quebec a bigger role on the international stage and to solve the so-called fiscal imbalance between the provinces and the federal government -- a major issue for Quebec.

The Bloc leader also said he wanted to remind Harper that the Bloc holds the balance of power.

The Cons are currently doing everything in their power to kick any discussion of equalization well into the future. But it's clear that Duceppe isn't going to take that for an answer...and that the Cons will face a choice between alienating a good chunk of its newfound support in Quebec, or being seen to give into the wishes of the Bloc when it comes to federalism (not to mention having to deal with a thorny issue generally). Best of luck to PMSH, as it looks like he's going to need it.

Promise and pitfalls

Even with the party falling just short of the balance of power, there's still plenty of opportunity for the NDP depending how the next Parliament shakes out. While both other major national parties will have to deal with significant internal divisions, the NDP alone looks like it'll have an easy time staying united...leaving only the perennial question of how to gain some attention for what the NDP accomplishes.

For the Cons, the major challenge will of course be to govern moderately without offending the party's base. The minority may provide an acceptable excuse for caution to some, but surely there are plenty of people within the party who will demand quick action to radically reshape the political scene while the opportunity is there. And while there's also a clear opportunity to win over voters in the longer term by governing moderately, a desire for rapid change could leave Harper fighting just as much opposition within his own caucus as outside it.

For the Libs, the upcoming leadership race should be extremely interesting with nobody now looking like a particularly good bet to walk away the winner. It'll be an opportunity to win back some of the Chretienite supporters who bled away to the Cons - but also a chance for the contenders to create new rivalries and grudges. The Libs could either unite quickly or fragment in a hurry, and a lot of egos will have to be held in check to avoid the latter outcome.

As for the NDP, there really isn't any comparable potential for internal difficulties. But there's also little more to prove in the party's current state: it should already be obvious that the NDP can get plenty done with a relatively small allotment of seats, so nothing the party does now is likely to be perceived as exceeding expectations. Most of the upside looks to come from the potential for the Cons and Libs to run into internal divisions - and while that offers some hope for the Dippers, it's frustrating to once again see so much of the NDP's future out of its own hands.

So close yet again?

The numbers have been bouncing back and forth all night, but right now it's looking like the NDP is once again just short of the balance of power, pending some BC results. And on a personal level, it's particularly sad to see so many strong Saskatchewan candidates (Nystrom, Dusel, Wiebe, Mason, Kossick and Kovatch among others) running strong second places even as the party is apparently shut out again in the province.

There's still time for a few seats to turn around - and there's little doubt that the party has made plenty of progress since 2004. But unless there is a change in the BC numbers, it looks like it'll be all too easy for Harper to repeat Martin's "two seats short of being able to demand anything" line in the next Parliament.

On curing what ails one

It's been a bad day for Buzz Hargrove so far. But apparently a bit more media attention will make it all better.

On losing one's troops

I'm not quite sure how this went largely unreported until today. But suffice it to say that Gilles Savard's campaign manager was just the tip of the iceberg:

Dozens, possibly hundreds, of supporters of former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien have been quietly working in this election against the party they backed for years, fuelling the Conservatives' campaign in many parts of Quebec.

While a few have been willing to come forward and talk about why they switched allegiance - at least for this election - many others prefer to work in the shadows, bringing the knowledge and talents they honed for years as Liberal organizers to bear for Stephen Harper's Tories...

"If I base it on what is happening here, I would say there are hundreds of people." (a former Liberal MNA) said he recognized dozens of former Liberal organizers at a recent rally for Harper in Montreal. "Liberal organizers, we know each other and we talk," he said. "They were there to take the pulse and offer their services."

Lorraine Dery, a veteran Liberal organizer in the Quebec City-area riding of Louis-Saint-Laurent and a former member of its riding executive, estimates at least half the Liberal organizers in the riding, or about 50 people, have moved to the Tories.

While PMPM's message during the campaign never changed from "stop Harper at all costs", surely it's worth a mention that Martin's leadership of the Libs has handed Harper an election machine in Quebec - and in all probability the keys to 24 Sussex as a result.

If this is Martin's idea of "fighting the Conservatives", then Canada has had about all the Conservative-fighting it can take. Fortunately, voters have a chance today to decide who they most want fighting the battle - and it looks like a good number will choose the general who hasn't handed half his army to the opponents.

Nothing but blue skies

The Globe and Mail notes that today's weather should be unusually calm and warm for winter, which should in turn make it far easier than expected for parties to get out the vote:

"There's an expression used in the weather office where we say, 'There is no weather today,' " David Phillips, senior climatologist with Environment Canada, said in a telephone interview yesterday.

"Essentially, election day will be as close as you could have to a no-weather day across the country."

Environment Canada will likely have no weather warnings out on voting day, which is highly unusual for the dead of winter in a country as large as Canada, he said...

As Mr. Phillips put it: "People clearly will not be able to use weather as an excuse [not to vote]."

With the climate not apparently playing a role in influencing who can and can't get to the polls, it's all down to the parties' effectiveness at getting out the vote. We'll find out soon who's best able to get that job done.

Still the positive choice

For all the talk of strategy and polls (and there's certainly been plenty from this corner since the campaign began), the ultimate question still has to be that of which party best reflects one's values. So let's take a look at how the NDP has addressed some of the concerns of Canadian voters.

Worried that the need for better care for seniors has been neglected so far in the campaign? Look no further than the NDP's platform, which features an expanded caregivers program as well as investments in home care and long-term care.

Concerned that womens' issues have received short shrift? In addition to having more female candidates than any other party, the NDP has a sound set of policies to help move toward gender equality.

Wondering if anybody is standing up for Canadian culture? The NDP has that covered as well, with better support for artists as well as measures to make sure that Canada keeps ownership of its own culture industries.

I'd continue, but I'm sure you get the idea.

Of course, the tone of campaign coverage has characteristically been based largely on the personal actions and foibles of the politicians involved. And the NDP has done nothing but improve its standing with the public in that arena as well.

But for Canadians wondering whether the federal parties care about the same priorities as they do, the odds are that they'll find a positive answer in the NDP. And if any significant fraction of the voters who want to see these issues addressed vote accordingly, the NDP will be able to ensure that those voices are heard and those views are reflected in the next Parliament.

And getting closer

SES has the results from the last daily poll of the campaign - and there's lots to like. The NDP is at 22.2% of all voters and climbing, and has even better numbers (23.3%) among "very likely voters". Meanwhile, Layton is within 11 points of both Harper and Martin in the PM index, and has taken a strong first place among the leaders on trust.

Never mind the NDP needing any more momentum - even at those numbers we're likely looking at the party's best result ever. And now that it's clear that voters aren't abandoning the NDP late in the game, the strategic voting admonitions will ring all the more hollow.

So close

There seems to be little doubt that the NDP is picking up momentum going into election day. But the Star's Kenneth Kidd points out that it won't take much more movement for the NDP to achieve unprecedented results tomorrow:

It wouldn't take a lot of votes to give the party its long-cherished breakthrough on the road to replacing the Liberals as an alternative to the Conservatives. Unlike the other parties, the NDP doesn't need a huge jump in the popular vote before it starts raining MPs.

That's because NDP support tends to be concentrated in parts of Ontario, a swath of British Columbia, and chunks of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Or, as (Jamey) Heath puts it: "If you want to vote NDP, chances are really good that your neighbours do, too."...

(In the NDP's best-case scenario), the Conservatives, though still out front, slip in the polls to something like 34 per cent on election day, and the Liberals fail to gain, sticking at 26 per cent. And the NDP? Well, if Layton's strategy works, the New Democrats clock in between 19 and 22 per cent...

The Conservatives would end up with a minority government of 134 or so seats, followed by the Bloc with around 67. And the NDP and Liberals? In a dead heat, each with 50-something seats. That would put the New Democrats tantalizingly close to doing what the Labour party did in Britain in the 1930s: supplant the Liberals as the natural alternative to the Conservatives.

Obviously those numbers would require most of the NDP's serious challenges to go Layton's way. But unlike PMPM's apparent best-case of finding some way to cling to power by shifting the polls by 10 points in a day, they're at least a reasonable possibility given the current trends. And these numbers would leave the Bloc with nowhere to go but down, Harper with no chance of pushing a neocon agenda through a minority Parliament, and the NDP with an extremely strong position both to set the agenda in the next Parliament, and to make a run at government an election down the road.

We're not far from what could be the NDP's best-ever outcome in terms of both seats and long-term policy implications. All the NDP needs now is for its natural voters to remember their justified concern about PMPM's trustworthiness, and to cast their votes for the party which can be believed when it talks about progressive values.

Ouch

On Question Period, John Duffy tried to defend the Libs' chances of winning government by mentioning the infamous "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline as evidence of the media's tendency to be overly confident in its perception of election results. In response, Craig Oliver noted that last time he heard that message, it was from Walter Mondale in 1984. And that can't be a precedent the Libs want to see followed this time out.

Meanwhile, one of the underlying themes of the show was discussion about the NDP's gains in the last week as both the Lib and Con votes have stagnated. The message about NDP momentum is out there - we'll now just need to see if it can carry over to election day.

Fighting on

While Liberals are giving up before Canadians' ballots are even cast...

Liberal volunteers, organizers and even MPs are admitting certain defeat tomorrow night at the hands of Stephen Harper's Conservatives barring an 11th hour change of heart by Canadian voters...

"I wish we were going to win, but we are going to lose," said a long-time Liberal organizer working in Toronto who has booked a vacation to a sunny spot next week to lift his spirits. "I wish we could pick up just enough seats to pull it off."...

An MP of 18 years said there's little hope the tide will swing in his party's favour by tomorrow, but he's convinced he'll win his GTA seat...

A Liberal minister's senior aide predicted voters will hand the Tories a slim five- to 10-seat advantage in the Commons, and if southwest Ontario goes blue, then other ridings are sure to follow.

The aide said there's a silver lining to defeat, pointing out a small minority would make Harper vulnerable to defeat on his first budget vote and see a likely Grit comeback.

...the NDP soldiers on as the one party not willing to concede an inch to Harper and company:

Appearing Sunday morning in Hamilton, where the NDP holds one seat, Layton positioned the party as one that would defend the environment, health care and foreign policy in Parliament from Conservative policies...

The Conservatives expect tax cuts will fix Canada's problems, but that's not right. The tax cuts will give dimes to people but dollars to banks and oil companies, Layton asserted.

"Working families are tired of being at the back of the line when they deserve to be at the front of the line," he said.

There shouldn't be much doubt left as to which party is doing its utmost to show Canadians how Harper's values differ from their own - and which one is giving up the fight in hope that the next election will be different.