A culture of indifference

It was surprising enough when Bernard Lord chose to go on the offensive over Michael Malley's departure from the NB Cons rather than doing his best to ignore the story. But Lord's sudden, public response seems all the more out of character in light of the conclusions from New Brunswick's ombudsman about Lord's government:

"Although it is my hope that our recommendations will be taken seriously by the government, based on last year's experience, I am not optimistic," Bernard Richard writes in the 2004-2005 report, released on Monday.

"We practically had to plead with departments to provide us with responses to last year's recommendations and, when some finally did send us their comments, they were, to say the least, disappointing, or to put it more mildly, perfunctory."...

"In the case of our right to information recommendations and our attempt to obtain all relevant information from the Department of Family and Community Services when investigating complaints there, no one bothered to respond."

Predictably enough, Lord hadn't yet responded to Richard's report by the time CBC wrote its story.

It's hard to blame Richard for his skepticism as to whether or not the province's Cons will break their pattern of unresponsiveness. If only Richard had the ability to directly shift the balance of power in the Legislature, maybe he'd at least be able to push Lord into an angry attempt to justify the government's lack of action.

Rights and wrongs

The Star reports that a government is planning to limit the scope of human rights investigations. It may sound like a Con effort to try to roll back federal human rights gains...but in fact, the culprit is Ontario's provincial government:

The provincial Liberal government will announce sweeping reforms to the Ontario Human Rights Commission as early as today, sources told the Toronto Star.

Among the changes expected are curbs on the rights body's role as a gatekeeper by limiting the need for it to conduct its own investigations. That would streamline the process and enable complainants to bring their cases directly to a tribunal...

Attorney General Michael Bryant, who was not available for comment yesterday, has been hankering to revamp the commission so complainants would have the same speedy access to a human rights hearing that they do at the labour relations board, small-claims court and other such tribunals.

Bryant's proposals will almost certainly be met with suspicion.

Already, labour leaders privately warn the Liberals are hell-bent on gutting the commission.

Now, it's fair enough to say that it's a plus to resolve human rights complaints more quickly. But that can readily be done by committing enough resources to ensure that the Human Rights Commission is able to investigate files with something less than the current 11-month turnaround period.

Instead, Ontario's government plans to turn human rights complaints into a do-it-yourself process - taking the responsibility associated with investigating claims away from the commission, and instead putting that burden onto the complainant. And while the effect may indeed be a reduced backlog, it's not a positive outcome if the waiting list is cut down due to the perceived futility of trying to stand up for one's rights.

On repopulation

Last year I noted that some towns in the American midwest have implemented programs where houses are effectively given away to potential residents. Now Yorkton mayor Phil DeVos is suggesting that the same be done in Saskatchewan:

The mayor of Yorkton and vice-president of the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association wants to see young families move out of the inner cities and fill up the empty two- and three-bedroom bungalows in small rural towns surrounding Yorkton...

"We have an abundance of little towns around us," he said. "So, we started doing an analysis of how many houses they had for sale. We have an abundance of nice little three-bedroom bungalows, 900 square feet, and nice little communities. These houses sell from $1,000 to $5,000.

"So, our idea is let's just say that we have 100 houses and let's say it is $1,000 for each house. For $100,000 we can go and buy all these houses. The plan is to go out to some of these areas around the world ... and resell these houses to people with families for a toonie.

"For $2, we aren't going to make any money off the houses. The reality is that you don't make the money off the houses. You don't make money off of property taxes. You sustain yourself. Where the money comes in is when you put somebody in the house, they get a job, and they pay your property taxes. They continue to contribute to your economy and then you get more taxes off the businesses."

I'd noted earlier that the idea may well be one worth pursuing here, and it appears that at least some people in a position to make the idea happen have caught on. As DeVos acknowledges, it'll also take added employment opportunities to entice a large number of people to move toward rural areas...but another step to make rural Saskatchewan all the more affordable has to be a plus in the effort.

On unwanted imports

Dave at The Galloping Beaver points out that fundamentalist Christian lobbying is apparently turning into a growth industry now that Harper's in power. And Dave nicely pegs the political ramifications:

Canadians need to be aware that there will be an effort on the part of these groups to suborn the federal government to their cause. Once that effort is underway the Conservatives need to be reminded that any involvement with these groups is flirting with political suicide. Should a dalliance with the religious conservative right become obvious, this current crop of Conservatives should be dispatched from office quickly and permanently.

Harper would be well advised to tell these groups publicly that he is not beholden to them and never will be.

Mind you, there are dangers for Harper on both sides, as any overly strong statement against the religious right could well force the movement behind the Christian Heritage Party. And if the Cons go into the next election losing those votes along with genuine reformist Reformers, there may not be enough centrist votes left for the taking to give Harper his desired majority.

That said, the lesser of the evils is indeed for Harper to make clear that the fundamentalist groups won't get to set policy for his government. And if he won't, then his government will likely be extremely short-lived.

On silver linings

It was certainly disappointing that Maher Arar's action against the American officials responsible for his rendition was dismissed last week, and I do hope that the decision will be appealed. But lest anybody think Judge Trager's ruling completely insulates Bushco from liability, a few passages from the decision are worth pointing out.

For example, Judge Trager made it clear at p. 23-24 that contrary to the defendants' arguments, a person who aided or abetted in torture rather than actually committing it cannot avoid liability on that basis:

The Torture Victim Protection Act does not specifically grant a right of action against those who aid or abet, or conspire with, primary violators. Noting this, defendants argue that only primary, not secondary, violators are liable. But every court construing this question has reached the contrary outcome, holding that the TVPA can be interpreted to allow claims for secondary liability.

At p. 47, Judge Trager refused to accept the defendants' argument that the action was barred since it arose out of a removal process which does not allow for judicial review:

(The statutory provisions in question were) intended to help restore order to the administrative process by preventing multiple lawsuits over claims arising from action involving the removal of an alien – not to foreclose bona fide legal and constitutional questions unrelated to the removal order by barring all federal court review.

At p. 58, Judge Trager rejected the defendants' claim that post-WWII precedents could be invoked to deprive Arar of any due process - and indeed hinted that some form of fair process must be available:

The Eisentrager petitioners had a trial pursuant to the laws of war. Although that trial might not have afforded them the panoply of rights provided in the civilian context, one cannot say that the petitioners had no fair process...Arar, by contrast, was held virtually incommunicado - moreover, on U.S. soil - and denied access to counsel and process of any kind.

This was followed at p. 79 by Judge Trager's flat rejection of the argument that Arar held no due process rights:

Arar's rights in the U.S. are by no means nonexistent. Although the federal courts have not fully fleshed out the contours an excludable alien's due process rights, certain developments since Mezei warrant mention...As already noted, Correa and Mezei are of questionable relevance to the case at bar because Arar was not attempting to effect entry to the United States. Regardless, the deprivations Arar alleges with respect to his treatment while in U.S. custody potentially concern the type of "gross physical abuse" that could trigger a due process violation.

And Judge Trager made clear at p. 84 that "gross physical abuse" will never be subject to the qualified immunity defence pled by the defendants:

Excluding the rendition aspect of the claim, the alleged "gross physical abuse" in the United States in Count 4 involved deprivations that would appear to violate clearly established rights. Such treatment, if true, may well violate the basic standards for a detainee in any context – civil, criminal, immigration, or otherwise – and possibly constitute conduct that a defendant could reasonably foresee giving rise to liability for damages.

Naturally, there are also many disappointing elements to the ruling as well - particularly Judge Trager's willingness to grant the benefit of the doubt to the defendants on national-security and foreign-policy concerns even on a motion where the facts as pled by Arar were presumed to be true. But even within a decision that foreclosed some grounds of relief, Judge Trager both left Arar with some means to bring the case back before the court, and made clear that that torture victims and foreigners on American soil have more rights than the defendants tried to claim.

All of which is to say that unlike Congress, the American judiciary at least hasn't completely given up its role overseeing the activities of the U.S. government. And hopefully both Arar and others will be able to use the openings left in Trager's decision to shed more light on Bushco's darkest secrets.

On neglect

The coroner's jury reviewing the death of Sherry Charlie joins the chorus pointing out the problems with Gordon Campbell's slashing of government:

An inquest into a toddler's death has recommended that B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell reinstate the office of the children's commissioner, which his government abolished in 2002.

The coroner's jury issued the recommendation and 18 others shortly before midnight Friday in Port Alberni after a 10-day inquest into the death of Sherry Charlie.

And even the current minister responsible isn't so much defending the current system as trying to deflect blame:

The minister of children and family development, Stan Hagen, said on Saturday that he had read the inquest's recommendations. But he said he wasn't going to decide what actions to take until he receives several other reports into the Charlie case, which he expects by June.

"It is important to note that we have made a lot of changes in practice in the ministry over the last four years."

Of course, part of the problem was based on the Campbell government's original unnecessary changes...which results in plenty of reason to be suspicious about Hagen's claim that matters have improved in the last few years. But whatever has been done since, the example of the Campbell government's neglect should be a warning sign to Harper as he contemplates how much of the federal government to axe in order to meet his own tax-cutting goals...as he surely doesn't want to be on the wrong end of similar judgments in the future.

On clear opportunities

Radio Shack CEO David Edmondson is in trouble for misrepresenting his credentials. But there may be good news as well:

Earlier this week, Edmondson admitted that he "clearly" misstated his academic record and that his resume was wrong. While he originally said he received a Bachelor of Science degree, he now says he believes he received a ThG diploma, awarded for completing a three-year degree in theology, but adds that he cannot document that.

Not there's anything positive for Radio Shack as a company in the news. But Deutsch personally may have timed his embarrassment just right, as at last notice NASA had a vacancy for someone whose job is to blur the difference between theology and science.

A natural progression

John Tory wants to send Ontarians an invoice for the cost of all health-care services. Can a bill be far behind?

On fair-weather friends

The Cons may be doing their best to avoid promising any added money to the provinces. But Quebec's government made clear today that a cash injection just in time for a provincial election next year may be too late...apparently setting the stage the province to start making immediate demands:

Finance Minister Michel Audet said at a Liberal party general meeting here Saturday that pay increases to public-sector workers had diminished his fiscal breathing room and that he would need an extra $1.3-billion to make his next budget work...

Asked if he would raise hydroelectricity rates or increase the 8 per cent provincial sales tax to create a special fund to pay down the debt, Mr. Audet would only say that he was looking at several options and that it was too early to make any announcements.

“We have to pay our bills, that's the first thing. We have to balance our budget,” Mr. Audet said.

The article discusses a mostly internal debate as to whether the Charest government will push forward with planned tax cuts when the result would be a deficit that large. But particularly now that the federal Cons are making new demands of Quebec's provincial government, it won't be long before Charest needs to start pointing fingers to explain his province's fiscal situation. And there shouldn't be much doubt that Ottawa will be Charest's main target in the process...no matter how friendly Charest and Harper may appear for the moment.

On the indefensible

A former adviser to several U.S. presidents has encouraged Canada to stay away from any involvement in U.S. missile defence:

A military adviser to three U.S. presidents says the cost of the missile defence plan is climbing and Canada should not get involved.

Philip Coyle, who was an adviser to presidents Jimmy Carter, George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton, says cost and reliability are two reasons to stay out.

Coyle says the U.S. has spent $100 billion US on missile defence since Ronald Reagan introduced the "Star Wars" program.

The article cites the Cons' promise to "take another look" at missile defence. But there shouldn't be any doubt that the program looks no more sensible now than it ever has...and that there's no point in Canada throwing its own money after the U.S.' based on the off chance that the program will suddenly cease to be the failure that it's been so far.

On predictable results

The CEO of Eli Lilly complains that pesky regulators have actually started doing their jobs in evaluating the side effects of new drugs:

The side effects of new drugs are receiving more attention than they deserve, said Eli Lilly & Co. Chief Executive Sidney Taurel on Thursday, unnecessarily delaying the regulatory approval process.

Asked in an interview why regulators have slowed down the approval of new drugs, Taurel told Reuters there was too much emphasis on drugs' side effects, as opposed to their benefits.

So where did that movement toward actually addressing side effects come from? One of the pharmaceutical industry's top lobbyists provides the answer:

"We've created an impression with the American public that when a drug is approved, it's perfectly safe," said Billy Tauzin, president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a lobbying organization for brand-name drug companies. "We have not done a good job about educating the patients of America that all drugs come with significant side effects."

Mr. Tauzin said the industry was "beginning to make progress and turn things around." He said it was addressing its image crisis by being more careful with its advertising, by pledging more disclosure of clinical trial results and by working to make low-priced drugs available to poor and uninsured Americans.

To summarize: pharmaceutical companies admit to having wrongly created an expectation that consumers could trust that medicine on the market would be safe, based in large part on the role of regulators in granting approval. But in acknowledging that fact, the industry never expected regulators to try to give some legitimacy to the expectation. And now that actual regulation is taking place, the industry is crying foul and demanding that the balance be shifted back toward favouring approval with less consideration of side effects.

There probably is a strong case to be made for a relatively streamline system to get drugs to market - provided, of course, that approval accompanied by reason to believe that the side effects are receiving due attention at some point in the process. But since it's hard to have any confidence in that prospect for now, nobody should be able to blame regulators for approaching new drugs with caution. And that goes doubly for the pharmaceutical companies whose actions led to reasonable suspicion in the first place.

Supreme vindication

Word finally comes out as to the process that'll be applied in the selection of Canada's next Supreme Court justice. And for all Harper's bluster about the courts, there doesn't seem to be too much reason to think the new choice will be a radical shift from the current justices, as the Cons will work from the list drawn up under the Libs:

Justice Minister Vic Toews will announce on Monday that he will set up an ad hoc committee of parliamentarians and hold a public hearing by the end of the month, a source confirmed.

The prospective judge, to be named from one of the Prairie provinces, will be chosen from a short list of three contenders that was submitted to the former Liberal government just before the election was called in November.

While the new judge will be questioned by a committee, the members will not have veto power, as they do in judicial confirmation hearings in the United States.

Unfortunately, the continuation of the rest of the existing process apparently won't prevent Toews from subjecting the new nominee to partisan questioning. But at the very least, the fact that Toews will choose from the nominees already approved by both the previous Lib government and an all-party committee highlights the fact that the system already places its emphasis on merit rather than partisanship. And that fact should be kept in mind next time Harper decides to complain about the judicial check on governmental power.

More would-be equals

The Cons' task in trying to please everybody with a new equalization deal just got even tougher, as municipalities have chimed in seeking more money in the "fiscal imbalance" negotiations:

A letter addressed to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities during the campaign identifies the fiscal imbalance as a priority for Mr. Harper, who vows immediately upon being elected to "begin consultations with both the provinces and municipal representatives" with a goal of reaching a long-term agreement addressing the fiscal imbalance.

(The members of FCM's Big City Mayors Caucus) said they fully support the Prime Minister's priority. They announced an internal working group comprising the mayors of Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton, London and Halifax to study the question of the fiscal imbalance as it relates to cities. The working group will report back in early June.

"Mr. Harper's focus on the fiscal imbalance is a significant development," said Montreal Mayor Gérald Tremblay. "The cities need modern fiscal tools to play their role fully as engines of economic growth and prosperity, while respecting the jurisdiction of all orders of government."...

"Cities were successful in achieving funding for public transit and infrastructure because we worked closely with the federal government," said Toronto Mayor David Miller. "We need to continue that partnership and we have the perfect opportunity to make it happen. We're looking forward to working with Mr. Harper to fix the fiscal imbalance so our cities' needs can be met."

Suffice it to say that given the Cons' well-known promise not to leave any province worse off than before a new round of negotiations. And with cities now also seeking a substantial piece of the pie, there's no way for the Cons to get any deal done with the pittance budgeted for the "fiscal imbalance".

Harper's choice now is between turning prominent provincial and municipal politicians against him, or blowing a massive hole in the federal budget to try to keep everybody happy. And either way, equalization looks like it's going to be a disaster for Harper's effort to portray his party as a responsible government.

The unrealistic target

The Tyee suggests that a movement to draft Louise Arbour as the next Lib leader may be afoot. And if Libs are looking to pull Arbour into the position, I can't blame them for the effort. There shouldn't be much doubt that Arbour's background would make her both the immediate favourite, and the best of all possible choices for the Libs if she were to run for the post.

But the one question the article can't answer is why Arbour would leave her current position at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to weigh herself down in Canadian politics. And the more energy the Libs put into trying to draft candidates with Arbour's credentials, the worse they'll look when the actual winner of the post is measured against the ones who got away.

A curious comparison

So let's get this straight. According to the Cons in general and Stockwell Day in particular, the gun registry is inefficient, useless, and an infringement on the privacy rights of law-abiding Canadians. But a person registry, featuring the costs (in money and privacy) of biometric imprinting, is such a great idea as to be inevitable.

More progress

The provincial government releases more good news about Saskatchewan's fiscal situation - and there's even more reason to be optimistic than there's been over the past couple of years, as the increase in revenue has a broader base:

The province's third-quarter financial report released Thursday shows another $144.5 million in revenue since mid-year, putting the government $987.9 million over its budget projections.

But a big change from the mid-term report is that the extra cash is coming not from non-renewable resource revenues but primarily from tax revenue -- with an additional $69.6 million in corporate income tax, $66.3 million in corporate capital tax, $48.6 million in personal income tax and $30 million in sales tax.

The government's projections for potash, oil and natural gas revenue actually dropped by $96.3 million since mid-term although they are still $539.1 million higher than in the budget.

In other words, there goes the usual Sask Party argument that the NDP should get no credit at all for added resource revenues: the increase is coming purely from increased economic activity. And while I don't doubt Wall's ability to complain about that as well, the whining is ringing awfully hollow these days.

Heh

From Layton's statement on David Emerson:

What Mr. Emerson fails to realize is that the people of Vancouver Kingsway have a seat in the House of Commons as a means through which their voices will be heard, not as a means to ensure that he gets to keep his limousine driver.

I for one eagerly await Emerson's response that PMPM "left him in the lurch" by no longer having limos to offer, contrary to the promises that "dragged" Emerson into politics.

Priority #1: Train the seals

The Cons may not have yet run into a problem with their socon backbenchers piping up and ruining Harper's pretended moderation. But they're now facing a second message problem to go with last week's grassroots anger, as the Cons' anonymous spokespeople apparently haven't been properly briefed on the party's platform:

The Conservative government's spring budget will not include a major cash transfer to the provinces to fix the so-called fiscal imbalance, officials said today.

The Tories will make good on their multibillion-dollar promise only in next year's budget after reaching a deal with the provinces over the coming months.

"It won't be addressed in the first budget," one federal official said...

(The Cons) see the fiscal imbalance as an ideal re-election trampoline for both them and their federalist cousins in Quebec.

"It could help Charest. And it's one more check mark next to our five priorities," said the federal official.

Now, it would be bad enough if the Cons really were holding off on their important priorities (and indeed the ones they'd promised to implement immediately) based on the potential for political gain. But when one takes a look at the Cons' five priorities, the fiscal imbalance is nowhere to be found.

And that leaves two possible interpretations. To be generous, it could be that the federal official quoted merely has an unusual affinity for placing checkmarks next to random policy documents as a means of celebration. But it seems more likely that even the people now speaking for the Cons don't really know what the party stands for. And if that's the level of competence that the Cons are bringing to government, all the well-timed policies in the world won't keep them in power past the next election.

On bluffs

So the Liberals claim they aren't afraid to fight another election. Based on what appears to be a strong case of Lib-voter remorse, there's every reason to think the NDP will be all the more more glad to go back to the polls:

Thirty-five per cent of respondents (in a poll taken February 9 to 13) said they would vote Conservative, compared with 36 per cent who cast ballots on election day.

The poll put support for the Liberals at 25 per cent, down five percentage points from Jan. 23.

Twenty-four per cent of respondents backed the NDP, up from 17.5 per cent election day...

In Ontario, the poll suggests the three main parties would be in a virtual dead heat, with 31 per cent supporting the NDP, 30 per cent backing the Liberals, and 29 picking the Conservatives.

If those numbers hold to any meaningful degree, one has to think we'll see a lot more praise for Harper by Graham over the next little while, and a lot less threats to force another election anytime soon. And the current numbers may be only the beginning of an NDP rise if the Libs' policy and leadership processes lead more to internal dissent than to consensus.

On poor opposition

Bill Graham claims that the Libs will vigorously oppose the Cons during the next Parliament. And it's hard to argue with that sentiment given his tough response to Harper's appointment of Michael Wilson as U.S. Ambassador:

"I think I would say this is a very good choice, if that's Mr. Harper's choice. I think Mr. Wilson will bring a lot of integrity and be a great representative for Canada," said Mr. Graham, who noted that Washington is one of the foreign posts where a political appointment can be helpful.

Okay, so maybe Graham isn't exactly holding Harper to account for the choice. But could that be because Wilson speaks to the values that Graham would want reflected as an opposition leader in any event? Well, here's Wilson's position on the Iraq war:

Mr. Wilson suggested the Canadian government's position could have been: "We did our best [to achieve United Nations' support] in the Canadian tradition, but in the end we have to back our friend and the country on which we rely the most."

Although Canadians strongly supported Canada's decision not to join the war, Mr. Wilson said governments driven by polls are abrogating their leadership responsibilities.

In sum: Harper has appointed as Canada's lead envoy on U.S. relations a man whose idea of "leadership" is to do what Bushco says, even if that's contrary to both the will of Canadians and an international consensus. And in Graham's role as leader of the Official Opposition, he considers that a "great" choice.

In the article on Wilson's past positions, Jack Layton is cited as the only leader looking to get some answers from Wilson before he's sent to represent Canada. And judging from the Liberal response, Graham has no less explaining to do than Harper as to why Wilson is supposed to be a "very good" choice to defend Canada's interests.

Trade-offs

It'll be awhile before we know what precisely the Cons plan to do when it comes to the environment. But Rona Ambrose sent an interesting signal yesterday, rejecting emissions credit trading while at the same time staying mum on Kyoto as a whole:

Canada's new environment minister says she won't support trading emissions credits with other nations or any other international deal that does not have a "direct environmental benefit to Canadians."

Rona Ambrose said she does not see the trading of emissions credits with other countries as being a high priority in her mandate of "cleaning up the air Canadians breathe."...

"On Kyoto, I will say that our government will not be shipping hot air credits overseas. Our focus is on a domestic solution," Ambrose told reporters Wednesday following a one-hour meeting with Alberta Environment Minister Guy Boutilier...

But Ambrose refused to discuss specifics of what will happen to the Kyoto accord or whether the Conservative government will scrap the deal to reduce Canada's emissions.

I won't wade too far into the middle of the emissions credits debate. But based on Ambrose's position so far, as well as her apparent mandate, it doesn't appear entirely out of the question that the Cons could keep Canada within Kyoto while ensuring that all emissions cuts are made domestically. And if the Cons were to follow that route, the political benefits to the Cons could match the environmental benefits to Canadians, as Harper would be seen taking a surprising direction toward David Cameron's "green politics" strategy that's worked so well in the UK.

Not that I ultimately expect the Cons to go that way, as it's tough to see them implementing a tough set of industrial regulations that's likely the only other means of achieving the Kyoto-mandated cuts. But if even the party which wouldn't answer Greenpeace's questionnaire during the campaign is making an effort to meet Canada's Kyoto commitments rather than rejecting the global action off hand, then there may be a strong opportunity for serious environmental progress during the upcoming Parliament.

On topics best avoided

Others have wondered why David Emerson won't shut up about the floor-crossing issue when he'd apparently be better off personally to let the matter die. But I have to wonder whether it's simply a matter of Emerson (and other politicians) needing to let out some politically counterproductive, "off-message" thoughts after the election. And if so, it looks like Emerson has been joined in that pastime by the man who recruited him:

Paul Martin has broken his post-election silence to blast former Liberal star recruit David Emerson for defecting to the Conservatives...

"To date, neither has been willing to subject themselves to an appropriate level of scrutiny on this matter - a decision that I believe robs Canadians and the people of Vancouver Kingsway of a deserved explanation," Martin said Wednesday in a statement from Europe, where he is on vacation.

Martin said he was "astonished" when Emerson - the man he personally recruited and named to cabinet - showed up Feb. 6 to be sworn in as the new Tory trade minister just two weeks after being elected as a Liberal.

"As we have seen, members do switch political parties when they feel their values are no longer welcome in the party they ran in. My government was the beneficiary of that phenomenon on a couple of high-profile occasions. But this situation is without precedent."

Now, I'm not entirely sure how Emerson's constant presence in the media falls short of any standard for scrutiny...and even if Emerson weren't going to the media at every opportunity, there can be little doubt that his constituents aren't about to let the issue die. But surely Martin and his party would also be best served if the Emerson controversy were to die down. And that's not only due to Martin's action in recruiting Emerson to begin with and in his apparent failure as a leader to keep his caucus and cabinet prepared for the possibility of defeat, but also in the fact that Emerson's defection helped prove that the Libs' entire campaign strategy was based on a false portayal of the Liberal party.

Mind you, I certainly won't complain about Martin keeping Emerson in the news. (And with any luck Martin's outburst will lead Emerson to continue a sniping match between the two in the press.) But it's hard to see how he or his party stands to gain anything by highlighting either Martin's poor leadership or the willingness of star Liberals to break ranks.

Feet to the fire

Taking the helm as the true opposition to the Cons, the NDP reminds Stephen Harper of one of his opposition commitments:

NDP Leader Jack Layton is calling on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to show his commitment to more foreign aid by setting specific goals in legislation.

Layton says Harper has previously supported setting aside 0.42 per cent of the value of the GDP by 2010 and should increase that goal to 0.70 per cent by 2015.

NDP foreign affairs critic Alexa McDonough says increasing foreign aid would be Harper's opportunity to show how different he is from former prime minister Paul Martin.

Sadly, there's not much reason to think Harper wants to differentiate himself too much from Martin given his immediate turn toward Liberal-style cronyism. But at the very least, it's a plus to highlight the gap between the Cons' opposition rhetoric and their actions in government. And if raising the issue of foreign aid leads the Cons to at least pay some attention to Canada's low current contributions when it comes to creating their first budget, then all the better.

The benefit analysis

The Caledon Institute for Social Policy makes its case to have the Cons look at boosting the Child Tax Benefit rather than trying to implement its "child-card program" as planned:

The (Cons') proposed child-care allowance favours one-earner couples over single parents and two-earner couples. One-earner couples do well at higher income levels, and better than modest- and middle-income single parents and two-earner couples.

But families with modest incomes, in the $30,000 to $40,000 range, are especially penalized by the taxback on other benefits. Only at very low income levels do all types of families get close to the advertised $1,200...

Luckily, there is a straightforward solution: Ottawa should deliver the allowance through the tried and true Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB).

The maximum CCTB for a young child will reach $3,426 this July. Adding $1,200 to the CCTB would boost this amount to $4,626 - close to the $5,000 target for an adequate child benefit. The full amount of the allowance would really go to all families -- single parents and one-earner and two-earner couples -- with incomes less than $100,000, with gradually diminishing payments above that level...

The child-care allowance will never be a substitute for a solid, high-quality, child-care system, but it can at least be transformed into a sensible and equitable child benefit that will reduce child poverty and help families meet the costs of raising their children. Delivering the allowance through the Canada Child Tax Benefit will be more faithful to the Conservatives' promise of $1,200 a child under 6 than stealthily taxing much of it away for the families who need it most.

It's tough to argue with the article's reasoning, and for that reason one would think that a public debate on child care would tend toward the CCTB as a compromise measure. But there may be only one way to get to that result from the status quo...and it'll depend on Harper's government making the first move.

The problem is that given the Cons' insistence that their plan is really a child-care measure rather than a tax cut, both national opposition parties have plenty of reason to criticize the absence of any new child-care spaces (or reasonable expectation thereof). And in turn, if either of them took the step of publicly proposing a plan based solely on the CCTB, the other would get plenty of mileage criticizing the failure to propose any answer to actual child care needs. Supporting a perceived compromise may be another story, but neither opposition party can afford to stick its neck out if a deal is anything short of certain...lest that party be left subject to attack from both sides.

That leaves the possibility of the Cons making the first move toward a CCTB-based benefit. And it's here that we'll really see to what extent the Cons are determined to engage in social engineering by offering disproportionate benefits to families with stay-at-home parents.

It's not unrealistic to think that one of the opposition parties (most likely the Libs given the NDP's public commitment to introducing federal child care legislation in Parliament) could play along with a CCTB-based benefit once the Cons take the first step. But it'll be up to Harper to demonstrate first that he's willing to work toward better policy even if his socon supporters don't approve. And if he won't, then the result will either be a benefit which is wide open for justified criticism during the next election, or a failure to pass any child-care measure at all.

Win some, lose some

The good news: the content of the NDP's announcement as to the party's new shadow cabinet.

The bad news: choosing to make the announcement on Valentine's Day. I'm not sure whether the party sees room for growth among the "Unmarried. Unattached. No commitments" demographic, or whether it's banking on a lot of candlelit conversations turning to what Jack and Olivia are up to now...but those are the best explanations I can come up with for choosing to make a political splash on a day when there's even less interest in politics than usual.

Questionable politics

More fun with David Emerson, as the ex-Lib, newly-minted Con blames ex-PMPM for causing his party switch:

Under mounting fire for defecting to the Conservatives, Trade Minister David Emerson is suggesting that Paul Martin forced him to run in the election and then left him in the lurch when the Liberals lost.

"Paul Martin dragged me in to work for him on a series of economic issues. I was loyal to him to the very end. He left," Emerson said of the former Liberal prime minister, who has said he will not lead his party into the next election.

Emerson's new excuse leads to a few questions.

For example, is Emerson right to place the responsibility on Martin for stepping down when he did? Or was PMPM right to make his announcement immediately, leaving the blame for Emerson's party switch with the man who suddenly lost his enmity for Stephen Harper when the right job came along?

How many other current "Libs" (whether in Parliament or not) are really only PMPM loyalists who would gladly switch to the Cons if offered a suitable reward for doing so? Would they too be justified since their loyalty is purely to the power promised by PMPM, rather than to any principle?

Will the outflow of Martin loyalists match the inflow of Chretien loyalists who lent their support to the Cons this time out to seek retribution against Martin?

And most importantly...why would any voter who's actually concerned with progressive values want to support a party whose actions give rise to these kinds of questions?

Fighting the power

The Ontario Power Authority may have gone out of its way to avoid heading anything but the message it wants to hear...but even its negligible amount of public consultation has been enough to produce little doubt as to what Ontarians think about increased reliance on nuclear power:

A plan that recommends $40 billion worth of new nuclear power for Ontario was slammed at public hearings last night in Toronto and Mississauga.

At the Toronto meeting more than 250 people appeared just as angry about what they described as a sham three-day consultation process that continues today and tomorrow across the province...

Jeff Leal, parliamentary assistant to Energy Minister Donna Cansfield, however, suggested last night that the plan's hostile reception might delay a final decision.

Speaker after speaker last night argued nuclear power is expensive, unreliable and dangerous to the environment and human health.

It's a shame that the case against nuclear power apparently isn't one that had received much previous attention from the Authority. But one night's worth of public backlash has apparently had some impact. And if the continued consultations are along the same lines, then maybe there will be some hope for Ontario to make a move toward more positive energy sources, rather than relying on highly dubious assumptions as to the efficiency of continued nuclear development.

What's allowed and what's right

Another amusing turn in the Emerson saga, as Emerson himself now says that he's willing to vote to prevent MPs from crossing the floor without a by-election if the issue comes up:

A defiant David Emerson said Monday he would support legislation forcing MPs who switch parties to run in a byelection.

But without a law, the Vancouver MP said he's not willing to face voters in his riding who are upset he defected from the Liberal party to become international trade minister in Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet.

Angry residents of his blue-collar Vancouver-Kingsway riding, where no Conservative has won since 1958, turned up at two weekend protests organized by the NDP and have been signing a petition demanding he step down and run in a byelection.

But Emerson said he sees no reason to resign without a law.

"I'm not opposed to a byelection," he said during an appearance on radio station CKNW's Bill Good open-line show. "All I'm saying is let's have a set of rules that applies to everyone.

Now, it's well and good that Emerson would respect a by-election law if it was passed. But based on today's comment, Emerson isn't even sure that what he did should be legal. And particularly in light of a campaign that was based on largely on questions of ethics in government, voters should be able to expect something more from the new government than the bare minimum of behaviour that isn't yet prohibited by law.

Emerson's complete refusal to hold himself above the letter of the law is in stark contrast to the the NDP's willingness to hold itself to a higher standard of accountability in the political realm than the other federal parties. And if there's going to be any hope of having a cleaner Canadian political system in the future, that's going to have to be based on voters rewarding those who are determined to set a genuinely positive example - not those who believe that when it comes to politics, anything above the letter of the law is good enough.

The false economy

After years of Liberal bragging over how great the Canadian economy is allegedly running, it's not too surprising that the Cons have started claiming the same now that they're in power. But while the weaknesses in Canada's economy may not be evident from anything the two main national parties have to say, more evidence comes out today that Canada's "strong economy" has created a precarious situation for most Canadians:

One thin dime isn't much but it's how little the real hourly earnings of Canadians have increased over the past decade and a half, suggests a new report that warns cash-strapped and deeply indebted families had better tighten their belts...

Average household incomes are now about $55,000 a year, roughly the same as at the start of the decade and up only one per cent, or about $500, from 1990.

In contrast, average household debt now stands at about $70,920, up 16 per cent from 2000, and 40 per cent from 1990.

And as bad as the debt situation appears for Canadians generally, Macleans points out that it's all the worse among young adults:

Time, they say, is on their side. They have years to start saving for marriage, kids and mortgages, let alone retirement. They have low inflation and interest rates to enjoy, and the federal surplus means that even if they aren't saving, the government is -- which economists say gives them a sense of security. They are better educated than previous generations and will earn more at a younger age than their parents did. Maybe most importantly, they can take advantage of easy access to credit. "Today, it's not the Gretzky model -- work hard as a child, play hard as an adult," surmises Pedro Antunes, director of national forecasting at the Conference Board of Canada. The "celebutante" lifestyle of Paris Hilton prevails: live like a young heir, whether or not you are one...

While all Canadians are feeling the pinch of rising debt levels, young people are being squeezed hardest. A recent report by the Vanier Institute for the Family shows that average net worth (assets minus debt) for those under the age of 25 dropped by an astonishing 95 per cent between 1984 and 1999. And consumer borrowing has only accelerated since.

It's particularly worrisome to think that more responsible government is considered a cause of less responsible consumer behaviour. While I'd be surprised if there is a direct connection between the two, it does seem clear that the example set by a good number of governments is one that far too many Canadians (especially younger ones) have ignored.

Meanwhile, it should be noted that Canada's economic growth on paper can itself be traced in part to the influx of debt-fueled spending. Yet even with consumers spending at unsustainable rates, that hasn't been enough to allow the benefits of economic growth to make their way down to Canadian workers.

In other words, Canada's economy is a lot less strong than the two main federal parties want to claim. And matters are only going to get worse if that fact isn't noticed and dealt with before consumer debt becomes completely unmanageable.

On allowing for exceptions

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association suggests a more flexible alternative to strict minimum sentences:

Canada's premier civil liberties group is urging Justice Minister Vic Toews to reconsider plans to expand the use of mandatory minimum sentences, calling them "dangerously simplistic" solutions bound to produce "grave injustice."

(I)n its letter, the association urges Toews to consider instead "presumptive" minimum sentences, now in use in Britain. Under such an option, judges would be expected to impose a prescribed minimum punishment, but would retain the power to deviate from the minimum in exceptional circumstances.

It's difficult to see how there could be much of an argument against the CCLA's proposal on principle. But unfortunately, it looks like politics will easily trump policy when it comes time for the House of Commons to make its choices on the issue.

After all, there's little reason to think that Toews will be swayed by the harsh consequences which result from mandatory minimums. And in light of the consensus that formed around strict minimums in the past election, any opposition party which takes up the CCLA's call is bound to face calls of being soft on crime.

As a result, we're all too likely headed toward mandatory minimums for at least a few more criminal offences. And it'll probably take a fresh example of a minimum-sentencing regime in action, rather than a hypothetical application to past events, to change both public opinion and party lines on the issue.

On lose-lose situations

The problems surrounding the results of Haiti's election shouldn't be much of a surprise given the months of delays and suspicions that preceded the vote. But however the results of the first round of voting turn out, there'll be plenty of reason for many Haitians to be suspicious about the results:

A member of Haiti's electoral council said results of the presidential elections were being manipulated, echoing complaints by throngs of supporters of Rene Preval, who poured into the streets Sunday with angry allegations of fraud...

"According to me, there's a certain level of manipulation," Pierre Duchemin, an electoral council member, told The Associated Press, adding that "there is an effort to stop people from asking questions" about the counting process...

Suspicion has risen among many Haitians that the results were being manipulated in the five days since voters turned out in droves to elect a new government. It will replace an interim government installed after then-President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was ousted in a bloody rebellion two years ago.

Jean-Henoc Faroul, the president of an electoral district with 400,000 voters northeast of the capital, accused the electoral commission of trying to force a run-off, saying tally sheets from Preval strongholds have vanished...

Preval was leading 33 candidates with 49.1 per cent of the vote, short of the 50 per cent plus one vote he needs to avoid a March 19 run-off with the runner-up. Leslie Manigat, also a former president, was second with 11.7 per cent of the vote.

There's already been ample reason to wonder whether the "caretaker" regime would ever cede effective control over the country, particularly given its efforts to set irreversible policies before Haitians received another chance to vote. And the contrast between an unaccountable, foreign-imposed regime and a democratic leader is all the more stark now that an official from the temporary regime seems to hold unilateral control over the question of when any transition takes place.

But then, it would be tough to describe a late shift toward Preval as a particularly positive outcome either. Even if a late shift does occur based on a genuine vote count, opposition forces may well claim that it was the post-vote rallies that pressured the electoral authorities into that outcome. And the rivals of Haiti's democratically-elected leaders haven't shown much of a history of respecting even results that were beyond doubt.

Unfortunately, every outcome now looks far worse than the result had the countries currently involved in Haiti (Canada included) used their influence to allow the last democratically-elected Haitian leader to complete his term of office. And whatever the outcome of the election, it's clear that there's an awfully long way to go in trying to build a stable Haitian democracy.

A change would do you good

A strong majority of Canadian voters went into the past election looking for change. Unfortunately, it looks like the attempt has failed on two fronts. It should be no secret that Stephen Harper is all too happy to continue with entitlement politics as usual. But today, we find out that rather than taking some lessons from the past election, key Liberals are determined not to learn a thing after being removed from power:

Liberal officials are being urged to hasten the selection of a new leader so that the party can be ready as soon as possible for an election.

"We are, I would say, reinvigorated and energized," interim Liberal leader Bill Graham said in an interview at the end of Harper's controversy-plagued inaugural week...

"That's the shortest honeymoon of any government in Canadian history," chortled former deputy prime minister John Manley in brief remarks to the assembled aides.

"David Emerson really is a great Liberal. In one move, he united the Liberals and divided the Tories."

Manley joked that "every once in a while we have to let the Tories take over so that Canadians remember just how good a Liberal government is."

Indeed, the Libs are so unconcerned with the shenanigans of Harper's first week that it took the NDP to organize a rally where Emerson's voters could show their frustration with being lied to over the course of the campaign. The Liberal riding association got into the act somewhat, but the national party has been happy to largely accept Emerson's betrayal as politics as usual - as long as that leads to positive results for the Libs in the end.

In fairness, the Libs' power structure has at least shown more consistency than those who have tried to find differences between the respective defections of Emerson and Stronach. But that consistency puts the Libs squarely on the wrong side of a Canadian public which wants to see a country run with more ethics and less cynicism. And the more both the Libs and the Cons go out of their way to show that they couldn't care less about respecting the voters, the more opportunity there'll be for the one party which has consistently advocated for keeping MPs accountable.

Keeping up the message

I mentioned last weekend that it's disappointing not to see the NDP keeping up more of an online presence on its main site in the time since the election. With that said, let's give due credit to Paul Summerville, who's kept his site updated with a steady stream of interesting news items. If the NDP is going to position itself in creating an interactive model in dealing with voters, Summerville looks like he'll be leading the charge.

Getting rid of that annoying Buzz

It's now official that the Ontario NDP has revoked Buzz Hargrove's party membership. But lest anybody think the party unduly dumped Buzz without any opportunity to make amends, the NDP offered Hargrove a fairly simple term to regain his association with the party:

(Hargrove) can regain his membership if he writes a letter indicating he would not endorse candidates for other parties again. But in a Toronto Star interview, Hargrove said "that won't happen."

That's at least one more added chance than Hargrove deserved after his actions in the last campaign. But fortunately, even the requirement that he not undermine the party in the future was too much of a constraint for Hargrove's ego.

Human wrongs

Another of the Cons' frequent topics of discussion in opposition has predictably been tossed by the wayside, as Jim Flaherty gives no indication that he's the least bit concerned about human rights in Russia as long as he personally gets treated well:

(Flaherty) shrugged off widespread criticisms that Russia has been backsliding on human rights and democracy development since Mr. Putin came to power.

“They've hosted a very good meeting here, and we appreciate it,” he said. “I'm not going to talk about Russian internal affairs, that's for sure.”

A British think tank, the Foreign Policy Centre, last week published a G8 Scorecard that gave Russia failing marks in a dozen areas that count as core values among most of the group's members, including openness, free speech, transparent governance, rule of law and civil society.

Of course, given the Cons' similar turnaround when it comes to the "transparent governance" issue in Canada, it shouldn't be surprised that key government ministers aren't the least bit interested in discussing whether Russia is living up to any standard. But just in case anybody thought the Cons would at least try to present a less cynical picture abroad than at home, Flaherty's initial trip abroad strongly suggests otherwise.

On failing to learn

Alberta's labour minister shows both an incredibly short memory and a remarkable lack of foresight, declaring that it's not worth the province's time to even talk about first-contract legislation now that the Lakeside Packers violence is over with:

Three months ago, Mike Cardinal said he would be giving serious consideration to so-called first contract legislation following the settlement of a three-week strike at Lakeside Packers. But Cardinal told The Canadian Press Friday that he no longer sees a need for a law that would force an arbitrated settlement for a first contract if the two sides fail to bargain a deal.

"I don't plan to make any changes," he said in an interview after touring the Lakeside slaughterhouse in Brooks, Alta. "Let's leave things as they are."...

"We're deeply disappointed that the minister hasn't taken this opportunity to improve our labour laws," said Gil McGowan, president of the Alberta Federation of Labour...

Tom Hesse, the chief union negotiator in the Lakeside dispute, was also dismayed that Cardinal had decided to drop any further discussion of a first-contract law...

Hesse said a first-contract law could have prevented the violence during the Lakeside strike that sent three pickets to hospital.

Now, nobody would expect the Klein government to take any action beyond the bare minimum to protect workers. But even in the face of those low expectations, it shows nothing but contempt for workers that the Lakeside dispute is apparently being treated as an aberration rather than evidence of a need for at least some changes to protect Alberta's workforce. And that's doubly so when Cardinal had already promised action in the past.

Cardinal's justification seems to be based on the prospect that in a tight labour market, workers shouldn't need any added protection. But workers will have the option to vote both at the polls and with their feet - and Alberta's government has plenty to lose in both areas if it refuses to do anything to help the workers needed to carry out the province's plans.

Continued development

While much of Saskatchewan's improved financial outlook over the past year-plus relates directly to oil and gas prices, word comes out that those aren't the only industries prospering in the province:

Potash production surpassed 16 million tonnes last year, beating the previous year's record by five per cent.

The value of potash sales also peaked at a record $2.7 billion -- a 26 per cent increase over 2004...

The province made significant changes to potash taxes starting in 2003 to encourage more sales and investment.

They say the changes encouraged the industry to invest an extra $600 million to expand potash mines.

It's especially impressive that the potash industry has been able to get that much mileage out of its new investments despite having to compete with oil and gas over a limited supply of construction workers. Both the tax incentives and the investment have been money well spent so far - and the added economic activity will be all the more important for the province if oil prices don't stay at their current levels.

On justified suspicion

We can add Murray Mandryk to the list of typically-conservative commentators opening fire on Harper and company - and better yet, Mandryk draws the provincial connection as well:

The clear message this week is that ethics are something you talk abut while in opposition, rail about during election campaigns, but immediately dispose of the first time you encounter a politically inconvenient situation as the government.

With all due respect to Saskatchewan Party leader Brad Wall and his party's bid to force its members to behave in an ethical way during campaigns, this was a very bad week for a right-wing Opposition party to be taking the moral high-road on ethics...

At the risk of sounding overly suspicious, my sneaking suspicion is that (the ethis package which the Sask Party plans to debate) may be more for the Saskatchewan Party's own benefit than ours. What better way for the Saskatchewan Party to distance itself from a wingnut? And what better way for it to ride herd on its membership?...

So here's the depth of the Conservatives' ethical commitment, folks -- something that can be wiped out in a couple of key strokes.

Frankly, we don't need grandiose ethics codes from opposition parties that serve their purposes more than ours. We just need politicians who truly live by what they promise and propose.

Mandryk does take an obligatory shot at the NDP in the column. But let's face it, without that part of the column nobody would have believed that Mandryk really was the writer.

What's particularly significant is that Mandryk seems to be encouraging Saskatchewan voters to learn from their mistakes in the federal election, and cast a critical eye on an opposition which pushes for the toughest ethical rules imaginable only as long as those rules are binding somebody else's actions. There's plenty of time before the next Saskatchewan election...and the more than message resonates in the meantime, the better off the province will be in the long run.

Unbelievable

Robert points out a handy site listing the orders-in-council made by Harper so far (as well as by previous PMs). And for sheer chutzpah, these ones may top anything else Harper has done yet this week:

Amendment to Schedule I.1 to the Financial Administration Act designating the MINISTER OF CANADIAN HERITAGE as the appropriate Minister with respect to the Office of Indian Residential Schools Resolution of Canada, effective February 6, 2006.
Registration: SOR/2006-0039

And for those holding out hope that's an accident or a misprint, you'll be sorry to note that it isn't:

Order transferring the OFFICE OF INDIAN RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS RESOLUTION OF CANADA to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, effective February 6, 2006.
Registration: SI/2006-0047

Just by way of review, let's take a look at the Canadian Heritage mandate:

Canadian Heritage is responsible for national policies and programs that promote Canadian content, foster cultural participation, active citizenship and participation in Canada's civic life, and strengthen connections among Canadians.

And in the department's expanded mission statement:

Promoting the creation, dissemination and preservation of diverse Canadian cultural works, stories and symbols reflective of our past and expressive of our values and aspirations.

Just for added effect in that context:

Amendment to Schedule I.1 to the Financial Administration Act designating the MINISTER OF CANADIAN HERITAGE as the appropriate Minister with respect to the Office of Indian Residential Schools Resolution of Canada, effective February 6, 2006.

I for one would think there has to be a difference between past policies and programs which are properly the subject of apologies and compensation, and ones which we celebrate as part of the heritage which defines us as Canadians. And it's plenty disturbing that Harper has signed onto the idea that Canada's shameful residential school legacy should appropriately be classified under the latter.

The pro-ad campaign

CanWest Global has brought a court action claiming that regulations on prescription drug advertising are contrary to its Charter right to freedom of speech:

The court action, launched by the company's MediaWorks division, comes amid a lobbying effort by Canada's broadcasting, newspaper and magazine industries, which have been trying for several years to have the rules changed...

The regulations date back several decades and were put in place to prevent drug companies from fear-mongering or from making false claims about the effects of a particular medication...

However, critics of drug advertisements say the laws must be kept in place to ensure consumers aren't exposed to overly aggressive advertising campaigns. A report prepared for the Health Council of Canada by a researcher at the University of British Colombia (sic) recommended last month that the government not only preserve the rules, but strengthen them.

Providing detailed information on drugs should not be left up to commercials, the report said. Rather it should be a publicly funded service.

CanWest chief executive officer Leonard Asper told the company's annual meeting in Toronto last month that several regulatory changes are needed in Canada's media sector to ensure companies can be profitable.

Off the cuff, it seems highly unlikely that the case itself will go far. While there's an apparent surface limit on freedom of expression, there's almost certainly a sound basis for the policy under s. 1. And the case should be all the weaker since the law isn't being directly challenged by the drug companies who might want to advertise and thus engage in the suggested expression.

Instead, the challenge comes from a media conglomerate whose sole purpose is to charge the greatest amount of money possible for the privilege of allowing advertisers to express themselves. And it's worth noting that based on the article, a good chunk of the national media (with CanWest merely taking the lead in the litigation) seems to consider itself entitled to be a compensated conduit for whatever information big pharma wants to spread - whether or not that could lead to harmful effects for Canadian citizens.

Unfortunately, even if the court case fails, it sounds like CanWest may have a sympathetic ear in the Con government. Harper himself may be ready to reward the media for the campaign gone by, and we should all know that Harper himself has argued that unlimited advertising is a Charter right. Which means that any hope of stopping the lobbying effort may require that Canadians make clear that the U.S.' lax standards aren't an example that we want to follow.

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

The NDP continues its mission to show that it's possible to work toward getting things done in Parliament, unveiling plans for child-care legislation modelled on the Canada Health Act:

“We aim to enshrine childcare in Parliament through this National Childcare Act just as healthcare has been enshrined with the Canada Health Act. As with healthcare, childcare must become a cornerstone of Canada,” said Chow. “Only through legislation can we protect and build on the existing childcare agreements the federal government has forged with the provinces.”

“The NDP will put forward legislation based on the principles of quality, universality, accessibility, educational development and inclusiveness,” said Chow. “This legislation will ensure two-way accountability between the federal and provincial governments.”

The NDP's strategy should offer a nice contrast to Harper's "money without accountability" angle on child care. And while it's doubtful that the NDP plan will pass given the Bloc's likely preference for free money for its home province, the legislation will both help to highlight the importance of the existing child-care deals, and ensure that the issue won't die away before the next Canadian election.

Yet to be determined

As a follow-up to this post, let's note that Harper himself doesn't yet look bad as a result of Emerson's involvement in the softwood lumber affair. But while the Libs seem jealous of the idea that Harper could claim credit for the agreement, if Harper does indeed choose to accept an agreement which grants Canada less than it's already won before the NAFTA tribunal, then there'll be ample reason to doubt that he plans to "stand up for Canada" rather than happily settling for whatever crumbs Bush wants to toss our way.

(Update: The Wingnuterer expands on the same point.)

Softwood power

While BCer in Toronto notes that David Emerson is supposedly ethically bound to avoid taking any action in the softwood lumber dispute, the Star points out that Emerson apparently didn't let those concerns keep him from making the call as to whether a planned deal would be announced. And neither Emerson nor the Libs comes out of this one without some serious damage:

Former colleagues as well as officials and diplomats privy to the secret, backchannel talks insist Emerson was instrumental in delaying a breakthrough in the decades-old dispute that cost thousands of Canadian jobs. They say the former Liberal industry minister worried that a pre-election announcement would damage Liberal prospects in key British Columbia ridings...

Liberals and non-partisan sources...say the B.C. government and its powerful forestry industry only lost interest in the plan after meetings with Emerson. His objections, along with concerns in Paul Martin's office that a pre-election deal would stop the then-prime minister from using George W. Bush as a campaign punching bag, convinced Liberals to delay formal negotiations at least until after the January election.

Informally discussed on parallel tracks here and in the U.S., the plan calls for Washington to reimburse about 75 per of the disputed $5 billion in tariffs imposed on Canadian lumber in return for Ontario and Quebec export quotas. In B.C., there would be higher stumpage fees to keep mills in the province's interior from flooding the U.S. market with cheap wood culled from forests hard-hit by mountain pine beetle infestations.

(W)hile making noisy demands that the U.S. abide by the letter and spirit of cross-border treaties and by threatening a trade war if it did not, Martin's government was quietly building a Canadian consensus. First, the three biggest softwood provinces tentatively agreed to the hybrid formula, and then key parts of the industry were brought into the talks on condition of strict confidentiality...

Other sources, including diplomats, confirm the template was complete before Martin's minority government fell. But for reasons Liberals now blame on Emerson, it stepped back from a deal that now falls into Stephen Harper's lap.

Emerson certainly comes out of this looking bad - in his failure to avoid involvement on the file as promised, in his being one of the Liberals who actively demanded that the U.S. meet its international obligations while aware of a deal which would entitle the U.S. to keep over a billion dollars worth of illegal tariffs, and to the extent that the Cons appear likely to push forward with the deal that Emerson kept the Liberals from announcing. And it's likely that all opposition parties will do their best to point that out.

But let's not pretend the Libs are off the hook in the least. It's also clear that PMPM's bluster over softwood lumber was (predictably) nothing but posturing designed for political gain. Indeed, the entire Liberal party was perfectly happy to sign away both money which rightly belongs to Canada, and B.C.'s ability to determine its own forestry policy. And the only reason the Libs didn't announce the deal was that Emerson persuaded them that political concerns should trump policy.

It's particularly amusing that the Libs seem to be leaking the information now in an effort to get retribution on Emerson. The facts seem to show nothing more than that Emerson's hunger for power and pattern of dishonesty made him the poster boy for how the Libs operate - and it's impossible to point that out about Emerson himself without seeing the parallels within the party as a whole.

The role model

While Harper continues to suffer from the fallout of his opening shenanigans in power, his party's godfather (and Harper's ethical model) gets dragged back into the limelight:

Former prime minister Brian Mulroney received $300,000 from a secret Swiss bank account after he left office because he was strapped for cash, German businessman Karlheinz Schreiber has told The Fifth Estate.

A Fifth Estate investigation has revealed new details of the money trail between Mulroney and Schreiber, raising questions about whether the former prime minister misled Canadians about their relationship.

Mulroney received $300,000 from a secret Swiss bank account controlled by Schreiber, the German-Canadian businessman told The Fifth Estate in his first sit-down interview...

Schrieber said he gave Mulroney the money after being approached by former Mulroney chief of staff Fred Doucet. According to Schreiber, Doucet told him Mulroney was not financially well off and needed some help.

In fairness, the report does suggest one important ideological difference between the Cons and the Libs, as Mulroney appears to have been the beneficiary of a far more privatized culture of entitlement. But the reminder of what happened last time the Cons got a majority, particularly in the context of Harper's own demonstrated lack of principle, should only help to ensure that Harper never gets near that result for himself.

The bare minimum

It's been fairly well-reported today that the judge in charge of the Milgaard inquiry has ruled that Milgaard will have to testify by videotape. But more interesting than content of the decision is the reasoning behind Justice MacCallum's ruling:

Justice Edward MacCallum said Wednesday that Milgaard must testify, but added that he could do so on videotape and be questioned solely by the inquiry's lawyer in order to reduce the stress of the event...

On Wednesday, the judge said in a 10-page written decision he hadn't been convinced there are medical reasons Milgaard can't testify. It didn't help that Milgaard wouldn't turn over his medical records, he said.

He said he could allow the videotaping option because all the lawyers said they could agree to it.

Now, it's to the credit of the other parties to the inquiry that they were willing to allow for some concessions based on Milgaard's health. And the compromise is a reasonable one supported by expert evidence.

But the end result is that Milgaard receives only the concession that counsel for the other parties would allow him, and not an inch more (aside from refusing one lawyer's request to have a right to cross-examine which would have completely undone the good of any accommodation). And indeed, Justice MacCallum indicated that it was only the agreement of the lawyers that led him to grant any accommodation at all. While it's fair enough that the evidence in support of Milgaard's application could have been a lot stronger, the ruling doesn't bode well for any attempt to repair the rift that's already apparent between Milgaard and the man responsible for figuring out why Milgaard was jailed.

Even worse than it seems

At least a few commentators have drawn the comparison between Harper's cabinet surprises and Dubya's nomination of Harriet Miers to SCOTUS. And the analogy may be accurate in terms of the grassroots reaction within the leader's own party. But the comparison is misleading to the point of unduly flattering Harper when considered in the context of what the leaders had actually promised to do.

When Bush made his nomination, the outrage from within his own party wasn't based on his violation of any explicit promises. In fact, the nomination could at least plausibly be seen as one of Bush's few efforts to actually keep his explicit promises (i.e. some degree of bipartisan cooperation since Harry Reid had suggested Miers for the job, and an absence of "litmus tests" on particular issues).

Sure, there were unseemly overtones in Miers' presence in Bush's inner circle...and there were valid concerns about whether Miers was truly qualified for the job. But the nomination itself did nothing to undermine any of Bush's genuine promises. The backlash from the religious right was the result of an unspoken expectation (which Bush couldn't publicly promise) that any Supreme Court nominee would be at least as reactionary as Antonin Scalia. And while Bush deserves plenty of criticism for meeting the terms of that bargain with his subsequent nominee, he certainly can't be considered to have violated any positive principle in nominating Miers to begin with.

In Harper's case, on the other hand, the situation is reversed. The Cons' entire platform was based on trying to make a change from the Libs' bad habits of doing absolutely anything to stay in power...and his action in luring Emerson (as well as appointing Fortier both to cabinet and to the Senate) violated at least the plain meaning of prominent campaign statements. As a result, it isn't just the Cons' base that is (or should be) up in arms: whether or not they voted for Harper, voters across the spectrum have reason to be angry with the new PM for not even waiting until the end of his first day in office to start ignoring what got him elected.

There's one final key difference based on the nature of the respective actions: unlike with the Miers nomination, there's no way for Harper to make up for his action after the fact. Miers was a loyal enough Bush soldier to be willing to give up her appointment without turning on her nominator in the process, and Bush could at least be seen to meet the far right's expectation when he tapped Alito later on. But even if Emerson were to step aside from the spotlight and into a backbencher role out of some bizarre sense of loyalty to his "worst enemy", Harper's promise to conduct politics differently can't be unbroken.

In sum: as harmful as the Miers nomination was to Bush, there's every reason to think that Harper's actions will be all the more damaging to his party in the long term - and you don't have to take my word for that. The only question now is whether there's enough anger to tempt the opposition parties to move up their plans to bring down Harper, or whether the issue will simply linger for a couple of years before Harper truly faces the consequences.

Choice quotes

Apparently a few Con MPs, while not willing to identify themselves, aren't any happier with Harper's cabinet antics than most of the blogosphere:

"This looks like expediency, even hypocrisy," a veteran Conservative MP from Western Canada said of the appointments of David Emerson, who was elected last month as a Liberal, and Conservative campaign co-chairman Michael Fortier, who didn't run but will get a Senate appointment.

"This is shocking. It's just unbelievable. Who was Stephen talking to? We campaigned against this kind of stuff," the MP said.

A rookie MP said: "I'm not sure how I'm going to explain these appointments to my constituents. It's bewildering."

Unfortunately, no Con MPs who were willing to be named spoke out specifically against the Dear Leader, though a couple were willing to similarly mention the difficulty explaining the turnabout to their constituents. But with even Con MPs joining the fray, it should be glaringly clear that Harper's sudden anti-accountability turn won't be forgotten anytime soon. And nobody should be surprised if these quotes (combined with a few of Harper's campaign entreaties about the need to clean up government by preventing precisely what he did) end up making a huge contribution to future NDP campaigns on the issue.

Getting ready for the blame

Vic Toews makes his first comments since taking over the federal justice portfolio - and unfortunately, it looks like the Cons' promise-breaking won't extend to the selection process for Canada's next Supreme Court justice:

Following the first cabinet meeting, Toews said he would like to hold public hearings on the qualifications of the next top-court judge. There is currently one vacancy...

But on Tuesday, Toews said public hearings would make the process more transparent and give parliamentarians the opportunity to "demonstrate their maturity.

"It falls on the shoulders of parliamentarians to demonstrate restraint and appropriate questioning. If that fails, we'll have no one to blame but ourselves."

Of course, if (and when) the questioning of the next justice goes off the rails, there will certainly be room to blame the questioner as well. But Toews himself should bear a heavier part of the responsibility.

After all, it's Toews who's apparently determined to push through with a policy change which relies on Parliament suddenly acquiring a degree of civility and maturity that's been sorely lacking for ages. And it seems all too likely that Canada's judiciary will be worse off for his insistence.

Clash of the turncoats?

As much appeal as there is to the Emerson-recall movement, wouldn't it be even more fun to see David Schreck's proposed matchup next time Canada goes to the polls?

When questioned about Emerson, Prime Minister Harper said that it is important to him to have representation from the city of Vancouver. If he is going to keep that representation, Emerson will have to find another seat for the next election...

The seat where the Conservatives would probably stand the best chance in a 2007 election is Vancouver South, currently occupied by Ujjal Dosanjh, who won 20,991 votes, while the Conservative, Tarkok Sablok, came second with 11,856. The Liberals won by almost 12,000 votes in Vancouver Quadra, and they were more than 13,000 votes ahead of the Conservatives in Vancouver Centre. It's no wonder that Dosanjh was particularly agitated when interviewed shortly after the announcement about Emerson's change in parties.

It has to be a plus to know that whoever won that matchup, there'll be at least some element of justified schadenfreude in seeing the other one defeated. And if the NDP could sneak up the middle (Bev Meslo was a couple of thousand votes behind Sablok this time around)...well, that's one to file under "we can only hope".

Putting the "pal" back in municipalities

The timing may not have been the greatest since nothing was going to push Harper's first day in office away from the front page. But the impending Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association convention provided the backdrop for some key provincial news yesterday:

Calvert's announcement, in a speech at the annual convention of the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association provides an extra $52 million in grants to local governments...

The package announced by Calvert includes a permanent $10-million-per-year increase in revenue-sharing grants to local governments plus an additional one-time $10-million increase for this fiscal year.

Calvert brought the total up to $52 million by also announcing a one-time "Community Share 2006" program that will provide local governments across the province with an extra $32 million for capital projects.

While the one-time funding should be a boost in allowing municipalities to look at capital improvements, the more important part is the permanent increase in revenue-sharing grants. Thanks to Calvert's announcement, municipalities will have the opportunity both to make immediate capital investments, and ensure that sufficient ongoing funding is available to allow those investments to be maintained. And if indeed the end result is also some added ability for municipalities to avoid higher taxes while making those improvements (which unfortunately appears to be the central theme of the CP article), then all the better.

(Edit: typo.)

A cabinet candidate in the making?

Amidst the Emerson furor (and who thought the outcry among Cons would be even louder than that among Libs?), another former Liberal cabinet minister sounded like he was giving a belated audition for a role on Harper's team:

"We need to invest a great deal in the effort to re-establish the proximity of our relationship with the United States," Manley said at a Toronto forum on security issues.

Manley said he has long believed that a prime minister's biggest responsibility, outside of national unity, is managing Canada's relationship with the United States, its largest and most significant trading partner...

"Whether it's now Prime Minister Stephen Harper or whether it has been other prime ministers in the past, we need to cut the prime minister a bit of slack," Manley said.

Manley called on Canadians to support Harper in efforts to improve border security without harming trade between the two countries, which became heavily scrutinized after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Which by my count makes two recently-mooted Liberal leadership contenders going out of their way to make life easier for Harper. And here I thought the Libs generally had already done pretty much everything they could to hand as much power as possible to the Cons.

Message received

While most of the talk today is about the messages sent by Harper's cabinet choices, the undertones of his latest policy announcement (which I'm not surprised to see buried under the cabinet news) may say a lot more about the course of Harper's government:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he will move forward July 1 with his child-care plan, including a $1,200 payment for each child under age six.

Harper, speaking after his first cabinet meeting today, said he will put his proposal before the new minority Parliament in the federal budget this spring. He also announced that the House of Commons will resume April 3...

He said he will end the current national child-care funding deal with the provinces effective March 31.

The most obvious content of the announcement is that regardless of the fact that all three other parties want to see some form of child care funding to the provinces, Harper has no intention of putting a cent toward that. And indeed he's apparently willing to let his government fall on the principle that public daycare shouldn't be offered anything. While it's a bit more adversarial than I'd expected Harper to be before unveiling a budget, nobody should be all that surprised to see the Cons ideologically opposed to any positive government action.

But while the stop to public funding is telling, Harper's attitude toward child care is best reflected in the timelines involved. In his view, it shouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to Canadians if there's a three-month gap where not a single cent gets put toward child care under either the existing agreements with the provinces or under the Cons' "child-care" plan. And in fact Harper won't even call Parliament back to debate the issue until after the existing money has stopped flowing.

I'm sure more than a few Canadian parents might have their own opposing opinion as to what a difference a few months may make in the life of a child. But in Harper's government, offering nothing whatsoever to parents is a legitimate way to save the cost of three months worth of child care policy. And any parents caught unexpectedly short in the meantime, whether based a need for an affordable child care space or merely for the cash offered instead under the Con platform, shouldn't forget that lesson next time Harper claims to be standing up for families.

Pragmatism and principle

The two subplots receiving the most attention in the Cons' cabinet announcement today are Harper's success in luring David Emerson across the floor, and the naming of Michael Fortier with the expectation that he'll then find his way to the House of Commons through a byelection. Both moves are significant tactical gambits to help Harper keep power for now. But while the Cons will gain somewhat in their immediate ability to govern, it's the NDP that should be the largest long-term beneficiary of the moves.

After all, the significance of the Emerson switch is to ensure that any Con deal with the NDP will be able to pass in the House so long Peter Milliken (as rumoured) continues as speaker. And assuming that Fortier waits and wins a seat now held by the Libs or Bloc (or alternatively if Andre Arthur jumps to the Cons), then the NDP will hold a true balance of power no matter who's in the Speaker's chair.

At the same time, though, anybody who genuinely opposed either the Stronach defection or the Senate appointment system has no reason to be anything but disillusioned with the Cons. And that could well represent enough votes to continue the Cons' drop in B.C. seats next time Canadians go to the polls...particularly since the NDP can point out its consistent stance against Emerson/Stronach-style party jumping.

So do the Libs gain anything on principle? Not for a second. After all, none of Harper's actions look any different from what the Libs have gone out of their way to deliver over the last decade-plus. And what's worse for the Libs, the jump by Emerson helps to show that even where a vote for the Libs doesn't deliver a three-way race to a Con in name, it can also result in the NDP losing out to somebody who's willing to jump to the Cons at the first whiff of added power. Meanwhile, the tactical implications are obviously a problem as well, since the Libs will no longer have any stronger voice in policy-making than the NDP.

In sum, Emerson's move is a disaster for the Libs on all counts, and at best a guarded win for the Cons given both the complete repudiation of the principles the party has claimed to speak for in the past, and the energy the party put into tearing him down through past campaigns. For the NDP, though, it means that Layton holds both the balance of power, and the ability to speak out as the only national leader whose party doesn't make a habit of offering inducements to other parties' members to jump ship. And it's tough to imagine a much better starting point for the Dippers going into the next Parliament.