Support denied

While farmers have been protesting in droves seeking assurances that they'll have enough resources to plant crops this year, the Cons have responded only by holding back on the collection of money owed under the CAIS program, not by providing a cent beyond what farmers currently have in their possession:

Effective immediately, the government is deferring the collection of overpayments to individual farmers under the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program -- the so-called CAIS clawback -- until the retroactive program changes announced in Tuesday's $1.5-billion agriculture budget are calculated, Strahl said Friday during a speech at the Calgary Chamber of Commerce.

He also said there will be no interest on overpayments until Jan. 1, 2007.

Strahl said the announcement "assures farmers that the money they have in-hand, at least they can keep in-hand" while recalculations are underway.

In other words, any farmer with enough money on hand already will be fine regardless of any amounts owing. But for those who need a cash injection to keep their farms running? Well, there it gets more than a bit hazy:

Strahl also made note Friday of a new program aimed at helping low-income farmers find more options for the future and assist them in improving their business opportunities. He did not provide further details.

Needless to say, one has to figure that Strahl wouldn't have been holding back on the details of any program which had been thoroughly thought out. Which means that aside from not taking away money that farmers already have, the best the Cons seem willing to do is to plan to develop a plan eventually. And that can't be particularly comforting for farmers who need money - not just a delay in amounts owing - in order to keep their operations running.

The inefficiency continues

The Edmonton Journal reported today on a move by Canada's military to privatize delivery of some services at Canadian Forces Station Alert. But the reason for the change doesn't make sense under the slightest bit of examination:

The military plans to replace half of its personnel with contract workers at Canadian Forces Station Alert, a secretive spying outpost at the top of the world, by November.

"We do have excess infrastructure that we're maintaining right now," said Maj. Gioseph Anello, who is in charge of the Alert modernization project, a multi-year effort to shave the military's costs at the station...

With 72 full-time personnel who rotate in and out on six-month terms, Alert costs the military about $30 million a year to operate. Contractors could run the station for less by multi-tasking their employees, said Anello.

"As an example, the (contracted) driver of the truck can maintain that truck, off-load the truck and load the truck," he said. "In the military we would have the driver, a mechanic and a traffic guy."

Needless to say, Anello's explanation begs the question: why can't the military train a single employee to handle all three duties if a private contractor is able to? Surely that should be a simpler way to cut costs at least as much - and probably more since (presumably) the Canadian Forces wouldn't be looking to make a profit off the work, and since it'll presumably take a significant amount more planning for a contractor to decide how to get employees to the base than for the military to modify its current rotation practices.

Meanwhile, guess which programs also operating in the area are facing higher costs as a result of the move:

(O)ther groups who use Alert say the changes might increase their costs. The station is home to a marquis Environment Canada facility that has for two decades monitored the atmosphere for pollutants and global warming gases. But researchers say they expect their program to continue, since the military is not planning to reduce the number of beds available at Alert.

"There might be some different logistical arrangements or maybe some more increased costs to travel and deal with the infrastructure up there," said Marjorie Shepherd, manager of air quality measurements and analysis for Environment Canada.

In sum, this looks like just one more lose-lose privatization plan. Sadly, the question for now isn't whether that pattern will continue, but only whether any of Canada's state apparatus will emerge unscathed.

Easy target

So much for any one hidden agenda. It turns out that the Harper cabinet now has many of them - and it's going to court to keep them that way:

The Conservative government is moving to ban the release of prime ministerial agendas, a surprising change of heart after fighting the Liberals for the documents for years.

Government lawyers told Information Commissioner John Reid's office Friday that they intended to proceed with a Federal Court case over the prime minister's agendas, as well as those of other cabinet ministers...

Other requests for agendas of the transport and defence ministers, as well as RCMP records of the prime minister's agendas, have also landed in Federal Court.

And the Cons can't even claim that their about-face is based on difference people being involved, as the original case involved a current ministerial aide:

The case was born in 1999, when then Reform Party researcher Laurie Throness made six requests for then-prime minister Jean Chretien's agendas, detailing his daily appointments.

The Privy Council Office refused, Throness filed a complaint with the information commissioner, and the issue landed in Federal Court.

Now Throness is chief of staff to Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl, and in the strange position of having his name in court affidavits taken on behalf of the information commissioner.

Once again, any claim Harper ever had to a belief in accountability has been left by the wayside in favour of covering up his (and his cabinet's) activities. But if there's any bright side, it's that now that the Cons are going to court trying to keep their agendas hidden, they'll have absolutely no reason to complain when Canadians speculate as to what Harper wants to cook up outside the public eye.

On ill-conceived alliances

There's been plenty of discussion today about Harper's efforts to build links with his ideological soulmates on the provincial level. It's hard to dispute Harper's apparent intention based on his record in office so far. But there's plenty of reason to think that all the right-wing parties involved have plenty to lose in tying their fates together.

For the provincial downside, consider Murray Mandryk's take on the risks to the Saskatchewan Party:

(W)hile it might seem to make political sense to hitch your wagon to a federal government that's now slashing sales and corporate taxes and handing out cheques to young mothers, there's an inherent danger in this strategy.

It has to do with the fact that Ottawa's interests are seldom aligned with Saskatchewan's interests for very long...

(I)f the Saskatchewan Party is shifting its allegiance to the interests of the Conservative party rather than the interests of the people of Saskatchewan, it's not a very smart move.

Mandryk goes into some detail about the Sask Party's sudden willingness to accept Con actions now which it actively criticized when the Libs were in power. And that should provide rich fodder for the NDP in the next provincial election, as it'll have plenty of examples of how the Sask Party's determination to stand up for the province apparently ends on Harper's command.

Likewise in Ontario, Harper's strategy seems to rely on voters being utterly ignorant as to who it was that put the screws to McGuinty's government. But it's just as likely that McGuinty will strengthen his position by tying Tory to Harper's cuts, and thereby win an election which might otherwise have eluded his grasp.

The situation may be different in other provinces where Harper may be seen more as giving in to provincial demands than forcing provincial parties to get in line with his policies. But in both of the apparent leading examples (Quebec and B.C.), that seems likely to be a losing cause at this point. And again, there's always a risk that association with the federal Cons will only be a weight on the chances of Campbell and Charest once Harper's honeymoon period is over.

Meanwhile, there's a serious danger to Harper as well. I'm not sure how far the same phenomenon goes in other regions, but it's fairly well understood that in the Western provinces aside from Alberta, a party which governs at the provincial level tends to be seen with suspicion at the federal level. (See the history of the B.C. NDP, passim.) Which could mean that if Harper is indeed successful in winning power for his provincial counterparts, he may only succeed in making his government more vulnerable in the next federal election as voters seek a counterbalance to more conservative provincial governments.

It's anybody's guess as to how Harper's strategy will work out, and of course the Bush example might suggest the upsides of a nationwide bloc outweigh the downsides. But at this point, Harper seems a lot more stubborn than savvy in his effort to select Canada's premiers...and it may not be long before a lot of parties regret the associations.

A dirty-air act

Since we clearly needed one more example of the insanity of the Cons' made-in-Canada inaction on climate change, the Globe and Mail reports that the Cons are pulling funding which was to have assisted in Ontario's effort to phase out coal-fired power plants:

The federal government has pulled the plug on hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding that was supposed to help Ontario phase out its high-polluting, coal-fired power plants while it concentrates on its "made-in-Canada" approach to fighting emissions that cause climate change.

Ontario officials say that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty wrote on Wednesday to Dwight Duncan, his provincial counterpart, informing him that at least $538-million the previous Liberal government pledged to help defray the costs of the province's actions to fight global warming were off the table...

Ontario officials say the action breaks a funding commitment for an important national environmental goal. The coal phase-out is the largest effort in Canada to reduce greenhouse gases, and when it is complete in 2009, would reduce emissions by up to 30 million tonnes, or the same amount as taking seven million cars off the road, according to Ontario estimates.

In addition to the "need to reevaluate" excuse, the article notes that the funding was to have been provided under the Libs' "partnership agreement" giveaway to Ontario, some parts of which were retracted by the Cons as being national issues rather than bilateral ones. But there's no apparent reason for the Cons to maintain funding under that agreement only for areas which are supposedly Ontario-specific, while undermining national (and global) policy goals by withdrawing funding. And the article points out that to the extent the issue is a national one, there may be a spillover effect in preventing Manitoba and Quebec from being able to plan on an Ontario market for hydroelectric power - which surely won't go over well in those provinces either.

As for the environment, it's once again clear that the Cons will gladly throw important policies out the window in order to avoid the risk that the Libs might look good in the long run. And to the extent that Ontario is delayed in (or prevented from) taking coal-fired plants offline, the damage may be felt by Ontario and the rest of the world for a long time to come.

On coalition-losing

I'll stand by my conclusion that the NDP's focus for now needs to be on making inroads in Quebec. But the Cons have made it mighty tempting to look to the West first with their inexplicable - and thus far unexplained - decision to cancel the planned transfer of a fleet of hopper cars to a coalition of grain farmers:

The new federal Conservative government has scrubbed a long-anticipated sale of 12,000 grain hopper cars to a coalition of farm groups.

Western farmers had struck a $205-million agreement-in-principle with the former Liberal government just before the federal election.

But Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon announced Thursday he will not proceed with the deal, which had been 10 years in the making.

The government will maintain ownership of the cars instead, and will cap the amount rail companies can charge farmers for maintenance.

"A decision had to be made. We made a decision," Cannon said outside the Commons.

"I think it's in the best interests of Canadians. It's also in the best interests of the people that are involved."

Of course, it helps to defend one decision with a stronger argument than "It's done. We did it. And we won't tell you why." And needless to say, the actual people involved are far from agreeing with the Cons' conclusion as to their best interests:

Sinclair Harrison, president of the Farmer Rail Car Coalition, which negotiated the sale with Ottawa, said he felt betrayed by the announcement...

The National Farmers Union said Thursday its members wanted some ownership stake in the transportation of their products...

The other problem, Boehm said, was that farmers had a plan to replace aging cars. The government made no mention in its announcement of how it will ensure that railways maintain the same-sized fleet.

On the surface, the decision seems to run contrary to anything the Cons could possibly want to accomplish. After all, it leaves the cars in government hands when a group of private operators was willing to take over. And it certainly doesn't seem to be meeting with a positive response from the Cons' rural base.

Moreover, it's hard to see how anybody stands to benefit from the decision: the railways presumably won't be too happy with the reduced maintenance rates, and there doesn't seem to be any compelling benefit for the government in maintaining ownership of the cars. We'll see if some interest affected leaps to the Cons' defence, but on the surface there's no apparent reason why anybody would.

With all those negatives, only two flimsy explanations seem to present themselves as to why the Cons would undo the deal.

First, it could be that the Cons decided that the deal fell into the category of "things which are inherently evil since the Libs had something to do with them". I tend to have my doubts on this one: it seems to me that the opportunity to take credit for the end result would be a more compelling interest than trying to avoid Chretien cooties.

More dangerously, perhaps the Cons don't want to create a positive example of what farmers can do as a united group for fear that it'll affect the Cons' plans to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board. This seems to be at least a plausible belief for Harper and company, but it could easily backfire. I have to figure there's a non-trivial chance that the Cons' action will drive the members of the Rail Car Coalition to make sure the Wheat Board is defended by an even more concerted effort, and of course the NDP will be waiting to present itself as the defender of farmers' ability to band together to improve their lot.

One way or the other, the Cons have wasted no time in showing that farmers' needs won't be any better served under Harper than they were under the Libs. And the pattern of Lib inaction followed by Con destruction is one that the NDP will be able to point out on this issue among so many others.

Update: Alex Atamanenko is on the case.

On suggestions ignored

In March, the Green Budget Coalition offered its suggestions to meet Stephen Harper in the middle, recommending ways of helping the environment while cutting government costs. Instead, Harper chose to cut positive environmental spending while continuing to toss money at harmful industries...and the Green Budget Coalition is none too pleased:

The Green Budget Coalition today expressed disappointment that the 2006 federal budget ignored prime opportunities to protect Canada's air and water, and to reduce climate change risks.

"There is virtually nothing in this budget to make good on the government's Throne Speech commitment to 'tangible' reductions in pollution and greenhouse gases," said Stephen Hazell, Coalition spokesperson, and Acting Conservation Director for the Sierra Club of Canada...

"Furthermore," added Hazell, "the federal government missed a great opportunity to announce the phase-out of the $1.4 billion in annual subsidies to the oil and gas sector, and the over $150 million annually to nuclear power. For decades, these 'pollution subsidies' have contributed to market failure, industrial inefficiency, unsustainable energy consumption, and unnecessary pollution and health damage."

Apparently dealing with such problems is a secondary concern for the Cons. Instead, the Cons took only one action supported by the Coalition (the tax exemption for donations of ecologically sensitive land), while cutting and adding spending in all the wrong places...meaning that the Cons will have to do a complete about-face from their budgetary policy if they want to create a Clean Air Act that will receive or deserve the support of Canada's environmental groups.

A growing culture of waste

It shouldn't come as a surprise in light of historical experience. But on some level, it never ceases to amaze me how parties who are supposed to be the ideologically opposed to government waste also tend to be the most wasteful. And it's clear that on issues ranging from crime to emissions reduction to economic stimulus, the Cons are proudly following in the footsteps of Mulroney and Bush.

Update: And speaking of waste...

First priorities

Greg at Sinister Thoughts tells Jack Layton that now is the time to go on the road to reclaim the populist vote. I certainly agree with the general theme, but I do disagree as to where Layton's first priority should lie. While the Prairies will certainly be a battleground for next election, the aftermath of Harper's budget seems to be the perfect opportunity to make some waves in Quebec - and it's time to strike while the iron is hot.

After all, Gilles Duceppe's immediate acceptance of the Cons' budget suggests that the Bloc's hatred of the federal government far outweighs any commitment to progressive policies, whether Kyoto or otherwise...and it's likely that some of the voters who have supported the Bloc in the past would at least reverse those priorities. Meanwhile, the Libs are plainly too busy sorting out their internal mess to regain much ground in Quebec - and thanks to their track record, they don't have a much better starting point than the NDP. The Cons may well be the only other party in a position to try to make gains as a result of the budget, but that will only create a greater need for a party capable of demanding more from its government than random tax handouts.

The end result is that the door is wide open for Layton to win support among both the unions who have backed the Bloc as a progressive voice, and Quebec voters generally who see the federal government as able to do more than just buy votes through tax credits. And it's hard to see how the opportunity will ever be better than now.

On the Prairies, in contrast, the Libs have much less chance of reorganizing into a strong position in the immediate future, and the Cons will look even worse once their lack of support has time to settle in. Which means that the opportunity to win back Prairie support will be at least as good, and perhaps better, in the few months before the next election.

With a concerted effort to win new Quebec troops to its side now, the NDP may well be able to collect enough support to start winning seats in La Belle Province next time the country goes to the polls...which of course is a precondition to any chance of forming government a couple of elections down the road. And that kind of upside more than justifies making the Prairies only the second stop on Layton's populist journey.

An absence of green

A few weeks back in the comments to this post, one Tory commenter planned to come back and offer a defence of Harper's environmental plan once the budget was released. (And in terms of the Cons' loyalty to Harper that should say a lot, given that he didn't have any idea what he was committing himself to answering.) But I wonder if that plan has changed now that the budget is out, and limited to a tiny list of environmental priorities (see p. 115-117):

- $400 million (plus $900 million contingent on a year-end surplus) for capital investment in public transit nationwide;
- the individual transit tax credit, which by all accounts is far more efficient as a vote-buying scheme than an emissions-reduction scheme; and
- $10-20 million in corporate tax breaks for a form of bioenergy.

In other words, reducing emissions in any industry besides forestry doesn't even register as a priority. And neither does reducing individual emissions from any other source besides vehicles. If that's the Cons' "made in Canada" plan to reduce emissions, then frankly it's about time to see what can be imported to do the job better.

Amazingly enough, in the Con view, that's apparently more than enough environmental action for one budget. One can arguably classify the pine-beetle funding (p. 86) and the Ecological Gifts Program (p. 231) as potentially having environmental benefits as well, but the former is explicitly lumped in with all other aid to the forestry sector, while the latter is referred to only as a tax measure. From the Cons' classification of these initiatives it's pretty clear that the environment isn't their primary concern in including them, and in any event any environmental benefit is speculative at best.

With that little by way of new ideas, one would think the Cons would at least refer to the plans which already existed and were rumoured to be cut. But from what I can tell, there's no mention of funding for previously-existing emission reduction programs - which makes it unclear whether any or all of what progress had ever been made has been completely undermined.

In other words, the Cons don't have much by way of new ideas, and don't even appear to acknowledge the existence of existing environmental plans. And even the Cons' claim that the environment would be a top priority this fall seems rather empty when the government has suggested that it will be completely reworking federal/provincial relations at the same time.

In that context, does anybody still want to try to defend the Cons' environmental plan? Or can we all agree that at least to date, Harper has a black thumb when it comes to environmental issues?

(Edit: typo.)

On weak positions

It's hard to see how anybody besides the most ideological of Cons could like today's federal budget. But whether or not it's based on the assumption that he doesn't have any choice other than to prop up Harper, Gilles Duceppe seems to be putting on an act to that effect:

Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe says he's willing to support Prime Minister Stephen Harper's budget and prop up his minority Conservative government.

"This is a transition budget. The real budget will be next year," said Duceppe, whose party's 51 seats can combine with the Tories' 125 seats to deliver enough votes to pass the budget...

Duceppe said Harper's "firm commitment to settle the fiscal imbalance" within a year is the main reason his party will support the budget.

Harper campaigned on a promise to address the fiscal imbalance, or the difference between what the provinces send to Ottawa and the amount they receive back in federal transfer payments and other spending.

"This is the one thing we've been fighting for for quite a long time. The burden of proof is now on their side," said Duceppe.

From a quick review of the Cons' "fiscal balance" document, it seems pretty clear that any commitment is much less than firm: the Cons are leaving only a few months for discussion with all stakeholders, then banking on being able to win provincial agreement this fall. Which means that the Cons have plenty of built-in excuses if (and when?) the effort fails - and that contrary to Duceppe's statement today, the burden of proof may soon fall on the Bloc to justify its belief in Harper.

Out of sight, out of mind

For those who missed it, Haiti's new president visited Canada yesterday to make a pitch for aid in order to ensure that the current incarnation of Haitian democracy lasts longer than the previous one. But if you did miss the news, that may not be by accident:

Preval's visit was almost invisible, with few of the normal trappings associated with a foreign dignitary.

There were no news releases or briefings on his meetings with Harper, MacKay or Jean.

There was no joint news conference. The prime minister's office made no announcement of the visit beforehand.

Unfortunately, it appears that Harper has classified Haiti's democracy as an issue to be hidden rather than acknowledged. And if Harper doesn't even want Canadians to be reminded of what Haiti's needs are, there's little reason to think that his regime will look past ideology to help Preval develop a stable government in a country which sorely needs it.

On your marks...

For those wondering how far one may go in bashing a government before facing legal recourse, an Ontario court has ruled that municipalities and other government bodies aren't entitled to bring a civil claim for defamation:

(A)ny restriction on the freedom of expression about government must be in the form of laws or regulations enacted or authorized by the legislature; the common law position, in the absence of such legislation, is that absolute privilege attaches to statements made about government.

The ruling does note that government has the power to pass laws to address concerns about defamation against it - at least to the extent that such a law can survive a constitutional challenge. So nobody can claim to be entirely without some danger of retribution.

But my guess is that by the time any appeal is heard, there'll be plenty of added evidence to suggest why an absolute privilege may be going too far. In the meantime, it's effectively open season on Canada's governmental authorities.

(Via the Law Society of Saskatchewan.)

Second time as farce

I didn't think any of the U.S. election-year war rally against Iran could possibly be qualitatively more absurd than the pre-Iraq Bush demand that Saddam Hussein prove a negative (the absence of WMDs) beyond a reasonable doubt. (Of course, that demand was all the more ridiculous given that the jury was already firing up the electric chair even as the trial took place.) And it's downright shocking to see a nominally left-wing Canadian blogger managing the feat. But Jason Cherniak is up to the task, suggesting that military action in Iran is appropriate unless the Iranian regime can prove the future negative that it will never acquire nuclear weapons.

It should be clear that it's in everybody's interests to make our best reasonable efforts to avoid the proliferation of nuclear weapons - no matter which country might be developing them. And Iran's regime makes the general principle all the stronger.

But that's a far cry from saying that there's reason to launch a military action to preempt an outcome which by any reasonable account is at least a decade in the future. And we certainly can't afford to let the issue be defined by as simplistic a theory as "we must avoid a nuclear Iran at absolutely all costs" - especially keeping in mind who would be making the final decision as to what "all costs" will include.

Labouring on

While it may be easily drowned out by both the hype surrounding tomorrow's budget and speculation about the future of the Accountability Act, the NDP is once again putting federal anti-scab legislation before Parliament:

NDP MP Pat Martin (Winnipeg Center) is introducing legislation today that would ban the use of replacement workers during labour disputes and work stoppages under federal jurisdiction...

"Workers have the right to organize, the right to bargain collectively, and the right to withhold their services in the event negotiations fail," said Martin. "Using scabs to replace striking workers undermines those rights."...

"Anti-scab legislation means fewer and shorter strikes and lockouts and less likelihood of violence or property damage," said (NDP MP Yvon) Godin. "Anti-scab legislation helps keep workers on the job and businesses on the go."

"Look at jurisdictions where you have anti-scab legislation," said Godin, "there are fewer days lost due to strikes and lockouts. Disputes are settled quickly and peacefully because the system is working the way it was intended."

It'll be interesting to see whether the Libs are determined enough to polish up their left-wing credentials to actually cooperate in passing the bill now that they're in opposition. Unfortunately, it seems highly unlikely that the Libs will stop sulking long enough to back the NDP's effort, meaning that the bill won't likely make it through Parliament.

Even with the bill likely doomed to rejection in Parliament, it's nonetheless worth the NDP's while to highlight both the problems in the current labour relations scheme, and the presumptive unwillingness of the Cons and Libs to be part of any solution. And Canadian workers should once again take note as to which federal party is looking out for their interests.

On backup plans

The Cons can't say they weren't warned about the lack of interest in their scheme to create child-care spaces through corporate tax credits. But in case there was any hope left that spaces would be created under the plan, a survey by CTV should put an end to the notion, as even corporate figures with an interest in tax incentives generally won't claim there's any likelihood of success:

An informal CTV News survey found that not many major employers are interested in creating new child-care spaces for their employees' children -- even if the upcoming federal budget offers tax incentives to do so...

"A day-care centre at our downtown office is not the optimal solution for most of our employees," said Karen Wensley, a human resources specialist with Ernst and Young.

"It wouldn't make sense for us to provide day care for each of these branches," said Ann Leckie of VanCity...

"I'm a big believer in tax incentives," said John Watts, president of General Dynamics Canada, whose firm has company sports teams. "Whether it would make any difference with day care, I couldn't say."

If there's any good news in the apparent lack of interest in the program, it's that the Cons surely can't argue that there's no need for a backup plan when the targets of the tax credit have absolutely no interest in making use of it. And that could sow the seeds of a compromise on child-care space creation.

After all, the Cons' current plan involves continuing to fund the provinces until March 31, 2007. Assuming companies can be required to notify the federal government in advance of any intention to use the tax credit, it should be abundantly clear by then whether or not any of the money allotted to child-care space creation will be used for the 2006 taxation year. (Even if an advance notice requirement can't be built into the credit, it shouldn't be difficult to monitor any announced intentions to offer child care under the plan.)

Since the Cons themselves would presumably consider it a failure for the pool of child-care money go untouched without any spaces being created, it would only make sense to work out a deal with the provinces to transfer any unused amount of the credit in order to allow for space creation under the existing provincial plans (or better yet, an NDP-drafted child care framework).

Naturally there'd be plenty to be worked out about such a plan. In particular, there would be an obvious need to expand the pool of money available: even with advance notice both the NDP and Lib plans involved substantially more money going to the provinces than the Cons have set aside, and any deal would have the added disadvantage that provinces wouldn't know for sure how much money was available under the first few months of each year. The exact terms of any transfer to the provinces would also have to be hashed out...which could be complicated all the more by the need for multiple federal parties involved.

But on the whole, a solution along these lines would seem to be one of the better possible outcomes. The Cons could claim to have made their best effort to give the private sector the first crack at expanding child care, while the provinces would likely receive enough money at the end of the day to proceed with at least part of their previous plans. And assuming that businesses don't take the Cons up on their tax incentives, it shouldn't be long before the provinces would make a concerted push for increased stable funding, this time armed with proof that the Cons' own plan for private-sector expansion has failed.

(Edit: cleaned up wording.)

On solutions

While all federal parties seem to operate under the assumption that the national debt should be largely left alone for the moment, Robert from My Blahg presents a simple yet realistic plan to pay off the federal debt within 15 years with no spending cuts, and with only one tax increase (which would still leave corporate tax levels well below the percentages in place a few years ago). Naturally the plan is far too sensible to ever be implemented. But it should be an interesting exercise to compare the priorities funded by Canada's federal government to a straightforward path to being debt-free - and to ask whether tax cuts with a small individual impact are worth the long-term debt which Canada will continue to carry.

Promise and reality

The CP reports that the Cons' next set of major priorities (to be implemented this fall) will be headlined by a new Clean Air Act. If such legislation is actually going to be based on viable environmental ideas rather than Bushesque newspeak, then it could be a terrific step for both the party and the country. But it's hard to be optimistic when the Cons' current blueprint for the environment is to plow money into only the least efficient program possible.

Must-see

As already pointed out by the Galloping Beaver, Stephen Colbert delivered a fairly brilliant performance at last night's White House Correspondents Dinner. Click here and here for some of the highlights, and here for part of the video.

(Edit - only part of the video is at Crooks and Liars - I'll be on the lookout for a full one.)

Suspicions confirmed

The Canadian Press confirms my concern that while every possible voice against Canada's position was consulted during the softwood lumber negotiations, Harper deliberately left Canada's stakeholders away from the table in order to force them to buy in afterward:

Canadian industry leaders, who'd been closely consulted in past talks, were kept out of the loop initially. The concern was too many voices might create static before the outlines of a proposal were ready.

U.S. negotiators, meanwhile, consulted directly with the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, whose trade complaints produced the duties.

Keep in mind that even the historical composition of past talks had failed to include some stakeholders with an interest in eliminating the tariff, including particularly lumber importers and construction groups who just a month ago were urging Canada to defend its position. But rather than seeking to strengthen his side to move negotiations toward a more favourable result, Harper secured his deal only by ensuring that Canadian interests wouldn't be represented (or even consulted) at the negotiating table.

Also unsurprisingly given the outcome, the Cons' focus was purely on short-term gains rather than the long-term implications of the deal - and that fact was made clear in the Cons' message in trying to secure agreement:

Federal officials pushed Canadian producers to think of the big picture. Would they be any happier, any better off, a week from now if they rejected this deal?

Had the time frame been expanded beyond the honeymoon period of the next week, producers would surely have had a different perspective. The cash infusion may well be a strong short-term incentive, but it's not hard to anticipate that years down the road, producers will wish the government had pursued one more line of litigation to secure payment of the illegal tariffs, rather than locking the industry into managed trade for the next seven years or more.

Not that anybody should be surprised with a short-sighted, poorly managed effort from Harper's government. But seldom are the facts laid bare quite as thoroughly as they have been on softwood lumber...and that will give Canadians a strong frame for comparison next time a similar situation comes up.

Rock and a hard place

Maple Leaf Politics discusses how Harper has apparently cornered the Bloc for the moment. Noteworthy in the article is the Bloc's apparent flattery-by-imitation of one of the NDP's central themes from the last campaign:

Bloc officials say their party won't be fooled again when the next federal vote rolls around.

It's hard to blame Duceppe for picking up on what was a generally successful strategy for the Dippers. But with enough repetition of a line that's rightly associated with Jack Layton, the Bloc may just end up unwittingly reminding Quebeckers of yet another federalist competitor. And if the NDP is able to take over the support of any significant chunk of the Bloc's left wing, then the Bloc may well reached its feared extinction before long.

On positive trade agreements

While Stephen Harper has been putting on a clinic in how to utterly mangle trade agreements (both in effectively ceding Canada's rights under NAFTA and in negotiating the new lumber deal itself), two stories come out today suggesting that not all leaders are similarly clueless.

First, surprising kudos to the Klein and Campbell governments for agreeing to remove barriers to interprovincial trade in a way that may help business while at the same time raising regulatory standards:

Western Canada's two strongest economies agreed to a landmark internal trade pact aimed at creating the dominant economic region in Canada, the premiers of British Columbia and Alberta announced Friday.

The comprehensive deal, which took three years to draft and goes into effect in April 2007, is intended to break down internal barriers that limit trade, investment and the movement of skilled labour across the B.C.-Alberta border. The agreement also forces both governments to harmonize rules and regulations to the higher of the two standards, a process that will take place over the coming three years...

Klein added that he hopes other western provinces will see the potential of the agreement and sign on.

Taking the deal at face value, it looks like nothing short of a brilliant means of benefitting both businesses and citizens generally. From a business perspective, the cost of researching and complying with several different sets of requirements is likely to be far higher than the cost of simply meeting a higher uniform standard. From a citizen perspective, the application of the higher standard should eliminate the usual concern that free-trade agreements tend to lead to a race to the bottom; instead the top possible level of citizen protection is included.

Of course, the details can easily undermine a positive general idea, and there are some legitimate concerns about the structure of the deal both in its current form and in any future expansion. For the present, it's worth wondering whether either Klein or Campbell has preserved any meaningful standards during their respective anti-government movements, and some sources in the article are unsure as to whether the higher of even those low standards will actually be applied.

From the standpoint of future expansion, it almost certainly would be a worthwhile effort for Saskatchewan and Manitoba to sign on in the future if their own respective higher standards are also applied. But I worry that the B.C./Alberta bloc will assume that its harmonized set of standards should take precedence over any higher requirements in Saskatchewan or Manitoba law.

Those concerns aside, and even if the model isn't well applied in the Alberta/B.C. agreement, the idea is one that could easily be replicated in both interprovincial and international agreements.

Meanwhile, on an international level, several countries are joining together to show that a U.S. model for free trade isn't the only one available to states wanting to foster closer cooperation:

Bolivian President Evo Morales was joining fellow leftist leaders from Cuba and Venezuela on Friday to endorse their concept for shared regional commerce that follows socialist principles and rejects U.S. control.

Morales has said on Saturday he will officially include his Andean country in the "alternative" trade pact presidents Fidel Castro of Cuba and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela devised a year ago...

The agreement will allow Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela to trade some products with zero tariffs and strengthen already close ties among the three countries, whose leaders are known for their strong opposition to U.S. policy.

Again, there are some obvious problems both with the agreement and with the inferences drawn about the countries' intentions. It's dangerous to accept the article's implication that the new bloc is outright "anti-U.S." rather than merely an alternative to the current American model for partial free trade. Along the same lines, it's unfortunate that free trade in the hemisphere appears to be sprouting only within competing blocs rather than based on a general agreement which doesn't proceed only along ideological lines. Finally, it appears clear that the agreement only frees up trade to a fairly limited extent, meaning that there's plenty of room for further improvement in the future.

But those flaws aside, the agreement makes clear two aspects of free trade which are all too often forgotten.

First, free trade doesn't need to be a right-wing concept. While our current models have all too often been hijacked by corporate interests, free trade is a desirable concept for a population as a whole as long as any agreement is designed to properly balance the interests of businesses and citizens.

Second, free trade doesn't have to be entirely separate from other forms of cooperation. The agreement as drafted includes an obligation for the countries involved to work together in providing charitable programs and other common goals...meaning that within the Bolivarian bloc, free trade is to be applied as a general source of agreement rather than of irritation as has often been the case between Canada and the U.S.

It remains to be seen whether any of the good ideas contained in the above agreements will be applied on a greater scale than they are now. But both models should be kept in mind as governments look for ways to develop increased business and trade without inflicting needless human costs as a result.

On fiction-based policy

The softwood lumber file may tell us all the more about what a "mature" Canada/U.S. relationship actually means. But with the release of the U.S.' Country Report on Terrorism, it's worth asking whether it's possible to have a mature relationship (even on Harper's terms) with a country which is even more obviously than usual basing its foreign policy on fantasy rather than reality:

The Bush administration on Friday said Canada has become a "safe haven" for Islamic terrorists who exploit lax immigration laws and weak counterterrorism enforcement to raise money and plan attacks...

The State Department's harsh language on Canada contrasted with its statements in the report of Iraq, which it said was "not currently a terrorist safe haven" despite the continued attacks carried out by al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi and other groups in the country. (Ed. note: The article later notes that according to the same report 30% of all documented terrorist acts, and 55% of all resulting fatalities, took place in Iraq last year.)...

(According to the report), "The Arar case underscores a greater concern for the United States: the presence in Canada of numerous suspected terrorists and terror supporters."

Last week, the Federal Bureau of Investigation accused two Muslim youths from Georgia of traveling to Toronto in 2005 to plot attacks against American military bases and oil refineries. The arrests were part of an ongoing FBI investigation into Islamic terror cells in Canada, the agency said.

The State Department cited the presence of five other terror suspects -- Mohamed Harkat, Mohamed Mahjoub, Mahmoud Jaballah and Hassan Almrei and Adil Charkaoui -- as further evidence of an ongoing Canadian problem with Islamic extremists.

Harkat, Mahjoub, Jaballah and Almrei are being held on security certificates in the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre, dubbed "Guantanamo North" by human-rights activists. Charkaoui is free on bail.

With respect to the last paragraph, the Globe and Mail's coverage points out that such "freedom on bail" includes surveillance and reporting conditions. Also of note within the Globe and Mail's coverage is that the U.S. report doesn't bother to tell the truth about the Canadian suspects' status:

The latest U.S. report takes the unprecedented step of naming “other known terrorists in Canada” and then lists five. It doesn't mention that all but one have been detained, without charge, for years on controversial Canadian security certificates.

In other words, the Bush administration considers itself entitled to omit the fact that every example of a potential threat in Canada has already been addressed. Which to me makes it appropriate to point out the U.S.' failure to address the grave threat to Canada posed by Jose Padilla, Richard Reid, Zacarias Moussaoui and other terrorist suspects who at last notice were "present" in the United States.

Once that minor omission is rectified, the evidence to claim that Canada is a "safe haven" is based on a total of seven suspects arriving or living in Canada, all of whom are already either detained or under regular surveillance. And the dangers associated with the monitoring of those suspects is considered to make for a worse situation than actual attacks which killed over 8,000 Iraqis last year.

Of course, it's also worth noting the U.S.' treatment of the Arar situation. The report not only refuses to acknowledge Arar's innocence in the matter, but cites the Canadian public outcry over Arar's torture as evidence that Canada is soft on terrorism. From the tone of the article, this appears to present Bushco's real problem with Canada's security certificate system: while suspects are detained or supervised indefinitely and thus pose no actual threat to the U.S. or to anybody else, their documented presence in Canada means that any suspects also face no apparent risk of being illegally rendered elsewhere. And one could technically argue that the suspects are thus to some extent more "safe" in Canada than in the U.S. or Iraq. (Even more cynically, I suppose the Canadian-held suspects are more "safe" in their likelihood of survival than Iraqi insurgency members, 360 of whom died in suicide bombings last year.)

By any remotely reasonable standard, though, the U.S. has classified one of the safest countries of the world as a worse risk than the world's leading terrorist breeding ground. And one would think that Bush's newest and best international friend would have a close enough relationship with the U.S. to be able to point out the problem. But instead, Canada's response to date seems to indicate that Stockwell Day's office will respond to the report with immediate cooperation - regardless of whether or not the U.S.' position is even faintly based in reality:

"What I can tell you is that Canada's new government believes in maintaining a vigorous counter-intelligence program to safeguard our nation's security," said Day's communications director Melisa Leclerc.

"This government does not tolerate inappropriate activities and will restore our reputation as a leader and dependable partner in defending freedom and democracy in the world."

Which means that Canada may soon look forward to being just as unsafe as the U.S. for any person (whether Muslim or Quaker, environmentalist or whistleblower) who happens to find his or her way onto one of the Bush's hit lists. The problem is that it's hard to see how anybody besides Bushco's collective imagination (and the echo chamber which sustains it) will be any better off as a result.

Standing up against Canada

Several major media sources have somehow claimed that Harper's softwood lumber deal is a victory rather than a complete concession - a fact which hasn't gone without due comment. But within one of the attempts to fawn over Harper's betrayal of Canada lies the surest indictment of Harper's actions:

There will be many complaints, protests and bellyaches from interest groups, opposition parties and sectors of the lumber industry that have been shortchanged in the agreement. They had already started before the seven-year deal was announced.

But the big political message of the day is that Mr. Harper pulled off a feat that eluded Paul Martin, by both strong-arming and smooth-talking Canada's provinces and lumber industry, and by cozying up to U.S. President George W. Bush. In doing so, he managed to get the two countries and the three major lumber-producing provinces -- Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia -- to reach a near-unprecedented consensus.

Now, I tend to the view that Canada should never have been looking to negotiate its wins in the first place. And there's plenty of reason to doubt that there's any point in negotiating another deal when the conflict itself arises out of the U.S.' refusal to live up to the last major trade agreement between the two countries.

But let's put that aside, and ask what policy should have been adopted if Canada was going to look to negotiate a settlement. From my perspective, the best strategy would have been to assemble Canada's allies on the issue...which if played right, could have included its domestic producers, its provinces, a Bush administration which for all its faults has at least tried to pay lip service to freeing trade rather than shackling it, and American industries who would be better off if Canadian lumber was traded freely rather than subject to CFLI's obstruction. Perhaps the Libs' stated animosity for Bush kept them from putting together that combination, but there's no reason why the Cons couldn't have put in more effort to band those groups together in order to counter CFLI's lobbying.

With all those groups lined up together, there would have been a serious chance to negotiate an agreement worth signing (to the extent the U.S. could be trusted to keep it). Maybe Canada would have had to leave some money in the hands of the U.S. government, or maybe it would have accepted a few lesser restrictions on its own industry...but surely an effort to negotiate the best possible deal wouldn't have led to Canada turning legal victories into negotiated defeats on every issue involved.

But instead of uniting those who share his interests and dividing his nominal opponents in order to secure the best possible deal for the country which he was elected to represent, Harper took the exact opposite tactic in order to make sure that some type of deal got done. Hence his strong-arming Canada's provinces and domestic industries, ignoring the potential for support for a reasonable deal from within the U.S., and accepting a deal which the Libs almost certainly could have achieved themselves if they'd been irresponsible enough to see it as a positive outcome.

It's been well pointed out that the end result will almost certainly be more arbitrary actions against Canadian goods as other industries (or perhaps CFLI again) decide that they'd like to take advantage of the next Harper windfall. But as bad as that end result may be, it's even worse knowing that the man nominally speaking for Canada in any conflict is perfectly willing to harm his own side for political gain.

On starting points

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released its alternative federal budget yesterday, with plenty of good ideas worth adopting. But even more interesting than the suggested policy is the CCPA's starting point in evaluating the federal government's fiscal position. From page 3 of the CCPA's Budget in Brief:

The presentation of a plausible federal forecast in last November’s Economic and Fiscal Update was a watershed in federal fiscal politics. Commentators on federal fiscal policy may no longer have to engage in arcane debates over the accuracy of forecasts and instead can concentrate on the real debates we should be having over budget policy and spending priorities. Certainly, there is now no longer any need to debate whether the federal government has sufficient funds to afford AFB priorities.

Based on this more realistic forecast, the AFB departs from past practice and relies on the official fiscal framework rather than generating an independent forecast.

Needless to say, it's an embarrassment for Canada when an accurate public presentation of our government's finances represents such a radical departure from how the country has been run in the past. As the CCPA notes, there's still plenty of work to be done to make sure that governmental resources are used for the greatest possible benefit. But that task should be easier to accomplish now that the resources involved are being more accurately assessed.

On comparative advantages

The OPSEU points out that the results are in on a Mike Harris-fueled trial run at privatizing a jail. And based on a direct comparison between the private facility and a public one, the McGuinty government has come to the conclusion that the province is getting a better deal in the public sector:

The (Ontario) government announced (today) that the contract with a Utah-based company to operate the Central North Correctional Centre in Penetanguishene, the first private adult jail in Canada, would not be renewed...

The Mike Harris government announced in May, 2001, that Management & Training Corporation would have a five-year pilot project to operate the 1,184-bed correctional centre. It would be compared to the operation of the new Central East Correctional Centre in Lindsay, which is publicly-run. According to the study, the publicly-run CECC performed better in key areas such as security, health care and reducing re-offending rates.

The areas of success for the public sector are particularly worthy of notice given the central functions of incarceration and rehabilitation - both of which appear to be better carried out by the public sector. Next time a Harris type wants to ask what we have to lose by giving privatized correction systems another shot, the ready answer is security, both inside and outside the institution. And few Canadians will be happy to accept higher re-offending rates as the price to indulge a government's privatizing ideology.

Crime and punishment

It's hard to disagree with Jack Layton's take that the softwood lumber capitulation is nothing short of a crime. But at least from the Globe and Mail's coverage, even Layton has missed what may be the worst part of the tentative agreement:

The remainder (of the duties collected to date) (lesser of 20% or US $1 billion) will be split evenly between members of the Coalition and jointly agreed initiatives.

I presume there can be little doubt that the "coalition" refers to the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, which has been pressuring the U.S. all along not to live up to its NAFTA obligations, and which for obvious reasons is one of the few groups that seems truly happy with the proposal.

It would be bad enough for any of the money to be kept by the U.S. government or used for purposes other than a return to Canadian producers. But it's all the worse if the effect of the agreement is not just to reward the U.S. for obstructionism generally, but to hand up to half a billion dollars to the obstructionists themselves for their trouble.

And it's not as if it's only Canada who's seen a problem with payments to groups such as CFLI. After all, the WTO ruled three years ago against the legality of the Byrd Amendment which allows for distribution based on trade obstruction, and Congress finally repealed the law last year. Which makes the payment to CFLI one which would properly be considered illegitimate under the laws of either country involved.

But then, the legitimacy of the U.S.' process doesn't matter as long as Canada is willing to sign away its right to defend its interests. Based on the Cons' agreement both to ludicrous restrictions on Canadian industry and to the protection payments to CFLI, it looks like Harper is a willing party to the crime. And that means that it'll be up to Canadian voters to impose the proper sentence on Bush's willing accomplice.

More results in the making

It looks like at least one part of the NDP's democratic-reform platform (albeit one which was also part of the Cons' platform) may soon become law:

The Conservative government is canvassing the opposition parties to see whether they would support fixed dates for federal elections, The Globe and Mail has learned...

The Conservatives promised during the election campaign to introduce legislation modelled on B.C. and Ontario laws that require fixed election dates every four years. The pledge was made to address criticism that former Liberal prime ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin called early elections when they thought they could win...

The government's intention to pursue the issue may be an attempt to secure good relations with the NDP before the Tories bring down their first budget on Tuesday.

The NDP also campaigned on fixed election dates and Mr. Nicholson's overtures come amid reports that the Tories will announce more than $3-billion in spending through Bill C-48, the NDP amendment to last year's Liberal budget.

Now, there's still plenty not to like about the Cons' actions in government. And even within the democratic-reform file (and the NDP's ethics package), the fixed election dates issue is a relatively small one...which should hopefully be accompanied by at least some talk of first steps toward PR.

But at the very least, some concrete results may soon be on their way. The question now is whether the reports (which one can presume haven't become public by accident) represent only a starting point for negotiations, or the Cons' total willingness to listen to the NDP.

Privacy rights and wrongs

The big story during my absence was obviously the uproar surrounding the Cons' decision to sweep military casualties under the rug. But for all the parallels between this move and Bushco's longstanding policy, perhaps the most disturbing element to the story is the argument enthusiastically embraced by the Cons to try to defend Harper's decision:

Conservative MPs gave Stephen Harper a standing ovation during a closed-door meeting Wednesday when he told them he will not yield to criticism of the way the government commemorates military deaths.

Sources said the prime minister and Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor went to pains Wednesday during the Conservative weekly caucus meeting to explain the revised protocol for when soldiers are killed abroad...

MP Garth Turner said the issue has been characterized by Harper and O'Connor as one of privacy, and most of his colleagues have accepted the explanation.

"Whether in fact that's a truthful position, in other words whether the media would infringe on privacy, is another matter," Turner said.

Harper's government is of course far from the first to argue that the privacy interests of others should form the basis to cover up inconvenient facts. But while Harper's argument may be somewhat less ludicrous than the more extreme forms adopted by Bushco, it's worth noting that both arguments represent an attempt to turn privacy rights on their head.

After all, the essence of the right to privacy (as with other individual rights) is that it must be held by the individual affected. Which would imply that if the concern really was one of individual privacy, the logical policy would be to determine the wishes of an individual soldier (or failing that, his or her family), and decide what type of public commemoration is considered appropriate accordingly.

But then, that would come with the risk that the individual's views might not be in line with Harper's. As with any other right, different people may have different values: while some families or soldiers may well guard their privacy closely, others would like to see their sacrifices acknowledged more than once a year.

To the extent that this is a rights issue, Canada's soldiers and their families should no more be told how to exercise their privacy rights than any Canadian should be forced to publish a newspaper based on freedom of the press. But then, Harper doesn't invoke soldiers' privacy rights for the purpose of allowing those soldiers to decide how much privacy is important to them.

Instead, Harper based his argument on Bush's all-too-often-implied position that individual rights don't belong to the individual at all. In the Bush/Harper view, others' rights belong only to the government to be wielded as a weapon where politically convenient. And it's not hard to anticipate that like Bush, Harper will be all too eager to ignore those individual rights when they would serve to limit executive power, rather than to provide a specious defence of it.

So much for Harper's initial decision. But judging from today's response, the problem doesn't lie with Harper alone, as his caucus is downright happy to go along with both the argument that privacy is at stake, and the view that Harper knows better than any mere ordinary Canadian how that privacy should be handled. And the degree of support suggests that nobody within the Cons is willing to put the slightest check on Harper's ability to tell Canadians which rights they should and shouldn't see fit to exercise.

None of the above is to say that Harper's policy itself is necessarily disastrous; while I don't see a particularly strong argument in favour of it, the harm is one of the more symbolic ones being inflicted by the Cons at the moment. The bigger problem is with the defence offered by Harper and accepted by his party: if the Cons consider themselves entitled to dictate how military families should balance their individual rights, it's hard to see which Canadians will be immune from the government's attempt to make Canadians' choices for them. And that should give many Canadians pause when they get a chance to determine whether they want Harper to exercise majority - or indeed any - power after the next election.

Great risks and small rewards

The CP reports on a poll asking whether the Libs and NDP should consider a merger. But the analysis seems completely counter to the results of the actual poll, which suggests strongly that the NDP is far better off staying away from any merger:

A new poll, released as two more left-leaning candidates prepare to enter the Liberal leadership race, suggests a merger of the Liberal and New Democratic parties could be an electoral winner.

The Decima Research poll found that 25 per cent of Canadians believed the two parties should unite.

Voters who supported either of the two parties in last winter's election were even more receptive to the idea: 36 per cent of Liberals favoured a merger and 32 per cent of New Democrats...

In the last election, Decima found 17 per cent of Canadians voted strategically for a party that was not their first choice, motivated primarily by a desire to defeat the Liberals. More than one-quarter of those strategic voters cast ballots for the NDP.

While that's a relatively small number, the Decima analysis points out that the election results hinged on fewer than 20,000 votes in 14 ridings, where the split between the Liberals and NDP allowed the Tories to win. Had the Liberals won those ridings, they would have formed a minority government.

To sum up: sound majorities of the Dippers surveyed don't like the idea, and Canadians in general are even more thoroughly opposed. Even among the party which lost power in the last election, the appetite for change is limited to just over a third of those surveyed.

Meanwhile, based on Decima's own election analysis, any electoral gains for a "united left" (which of course means a Lib-dominated party with the NDP merrily agreeing to its own destruction) would only have resulted in a minority government which would then have had to seek Bloc or Con support. And even that relatively small improvement ignores a substantial portion of NDP voters who weren't at all interested in voting Lib, and may well have voted Cons as their second non-Lib choice. Which means that even for the "stop Harper at all costs" crowd, there may not have been any meaningful benefit to a merger...while the dangers of rightward drift in a Lib-type party with no NDP counterweight could lead to all the more damage in the long term regardless of who managed to win power.

It's only in the face of what sounds like strong disapproval and a lack of any great electoral gain at stake that the article tries to claim that the small group of people receptive to an NDP/Lib amalgamation is supposed to favour a merger. But the majorities in both parties seem to prefer the status quo. And for the NDP in particular, it'll take a far better deal than could possibly be expected from the Libs - and far more foreseeable gains than the Decima analysis suggests - to justify going through the trouble of convincing two-thirds of Dippers and three-quarters of Canadians generally that it's worth taking on the Libs' baggage.

Bared clawbacks

The Globe and Mail reports on another way in which the Cons' child-care plan will benefit wealthy parents far more than poorer ones:

The Conservative plan for meeting the country's child-care needs is to give families a direct payment of $100 a month, $1,200 annually, for every child under 6. The specifics of how that plan will be unveiled are expected to be in next Tuesday's budget.

But the young-child supplement of the Canada Child Tax Benefit, which currently pays $20.25 a month to parents who do not claim child-care expenses for their preschool-age children, will be eliminated at the same time. The benefit is due to increase in July to $249 annually...

The (Caledon Institute) has calculated that the families who will benefit most from the child-care allowance, after taxes and clawbacks, are those making $200,000 a year or more with one parent at home. They will keep $1,076 of the $1,200 annually.

Families with two working parents and a combined income of $30,000, by contrast, will keep just $199 annually of the new payments.

Naturally, the Cons' parliamentary party line doesn't seem to involve any acknowledgement of the lack of benefit to working-class parents. Instead, Diane Finley apparently took pride in the possibility that the entire amount of the "benefit" may be clawed back from poorer parents by only some provinces rather than all of them...while refusing to listen to the possibility that the federal government could avoid its own set of clawbacks.

Ultimately, Finley's answer only highlights a second layer of clawbacks which hadn't even been asked about. And the commitment of some provinces to do better than the Cons are willing to do federally offers only another reason why the Cons' plan is flawed - not a reason to believe that it's anything approaching fair to the parents who most need help to meet their child-care requirements.

Spring break

I'm off for a week and a half of vacation, and likely won't be blogging in the meantime. Enjoy the meantime, and I'll be back on the blog soon...

On clear messages

A mere two months into power, the Cons are already telling a novelist that he'll have to toe the line on climate change as part of his other job with Environment Canada, and sending signals to other government employees to the same effect:

A scientist with Environment Canada was ordered not to launch his global warming-themed novel Thursday at the same time the Conservative government was quietly axing a number of Kyoto programs...

Publisher Elizabeth Margaris said that Mark Tushingham, whose day job is as an Environment Canada scientist, was ordered not to appear at the National Press Club to give a speech discussing his science fiction story about global warming in the not-too-distant future.

"He got a directive from the department, cautioning him not to come to this meeting today," said Margaris of DreamCatcher Publishers.

"So I guess we're being stifled. This is incredible, I've never heard of such a thing," she said...

"I obviously not only hope, but expect, that all elements of the bureaucracy will be working with us to achieve our objectives," Harper said at an appearance in Wainright, Alta., Thursday.

The prime minister's comments might be seen as a clear warning to public servants thinking of straying from government orthodoxy.

In the short term, the move is bound to backfire to at least some extent, since it'll likely grant tons more attention to the novel than would have been available without the warning. But for other civil servants, the message more than counters any claim to encouraging dissent that one might try to imply from, say, a small reward for whistleblowing under the Accountability Act. And if this is just the beginning for the Cons, I'm not sure I want to speculate as to what's next in Harper's effort to create his own made-in-Canada echo chamber.

On instincts

Apparently Rex Murphy is eager to join the ranks of Harper-friendly media figures, gushing over the Accountability Act while ignoring some of the notable exclusions:

(The Accountability Act) is a ripe, thick, sprawling piece of legislation, 274 pages, that very largely redraws the map on everything from fundraising to transition of aides and party functionaries to the civil service or lobbying, that expands the eagle and much-dreaded eye of Sheila Fraser to Crown Corporations and Trusts, sets up a parliamentary prosecutor.

This is big stuff. In essence, Mr. Harper has said, "You wanted accountability. I'll give you accountability."

The problem is that Murphy ignores the next sentence in Harper's implicit statement: "I just won't accept any for myself."

Granted, Murphy's rant can be justified to the extent that he prefers Harper's instincts on accountability to those of the Libs. But that's not a credit to Harper by any means. Instead, that comparison only works in Harper's favour due to the Libs' absurd calculation that they're better off trying to defend PMPM's record in anticipation of retaking power, rather than to try to hold Harper's government accountable.

If Murphy and his ilk were more willing to challenge Harper on his strategy of focusing attention everywhere but on himself, then Harper would properly be facing public backlash against the differences between his campaign message and his actions in power...and the opposition Libs would likely have to make a similar move. Unfortunately, though, the one instinct of Harper's which appears to be correct so far is the view that the media will let him get away with it. And if that proves to be the case, then Murphy and company will only have themselves to blame.

On planned inefficiency

Remember the Cons' plan to rein in government spending by ensuring that resources are used on programs that are "efficient and effective"? Apparently, the Cons are applying a rather unusual definition of those terms:

The new Conservative government has decided to slash spending on Environment Canada programs designed to fight global warming by 80 per cent, and wants cuts of 40 per cent in the budgets devoted to climate change at other ministries, according to cabinet documents obtained by The Globe and Mail...

The documents said that while the Tories are trying to save money by cutting the programs designed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, they won't cut government staff positions, so most of the money earmarked for climate change will be going to salaries for bureaucrats.

"Only $375-million was approved for climate spending, with most of the dollars covering staff salaries until the new government determines next steps.

"What is clear is that staff will have little to do and that they will have no budgets to spend over the next year and that more cuts are coming."...

The global-warming programs are being eliminated even though a Treasury Board review of government spending found that the vast majority of 166 such programs run by Ottawa were considered cost effective.

Obviously the fact that the Cons are slashing environmental funding is bad enough. But it's doubly so when money is explicitly being put toward bureaucracy whose role has effectively been eliminated due to a complete lack of program funding. And whether the current step is merely an excuse to then eliminate the bureaucracy as well (since in the absence of supported programs it can easily be classified as "wasteful spending"), or reflective of a Con intention to generally ensure that funds are kept away from any useful purpose, it's hard to see how any good can come of the strategy.

Of course, that'll leave a high-profile Environment Minister with plenty of explaining to do. I'll be interested to hear Ambrose try to argue how maintaining a bureaucracy while cutting all program funding can possibly be an "efficient and effective" use of government funds. And if the response is as weak as expected, then Canadians who may have expected something positive based on Ambrose's first few days in the role may not be any more patient with her than the Cons have been with the existing climate change programs.

Kerrying the burden

I don't often indulge my sports fanaticism on this blog, but I can't let the Riders' acquisition of Kerry Joseph (with a side of Jason Armstead) go without comment.

From a talent perspective, the move is sheer genius. Joseph's upside is second to that of no other quarterback in the CFL, Holmes' value will never be higher (and his main contribution, the special-teams ability, is more than replaced by Armstead), and Gordon and an uncertain draft pick are acceptable losses in exchange for that much of a skill upgrade.

But by trading the Riders' most popular player, Shivers has essentially punched his (and Barrett's) ticket away from Regina if the team is anything short of dominant this season - regardless of whether that's due to a rash of injuries like the one that hit last year. And even a year in the 12-6 range - which by all accounts should be a success - might not satisfy the fans if it isn't accompanied by playoff success...particularly if there's any sense that Joseph hasn't fulfilled his potential (or that Holmes could have helped the team do better).

The Riders are now better positioned to win in 2006 than they have been in ages. But if they don't, the architects of their current team will probably be run out of town, and the team could be headed for some serious lean years ahead.

On the need for a third party

Blevkog rightly criticizes Bernard Lord's apparent willingness to put public resources toward ensuring that independent MLA Frank Branch isn't around to vote down his government. But let's not pretend the NB Libs are free of responsibility in the matter either. From the CBC story:

The Liberals have refused to negotiate a pairing agreement that would allow members of Lord's government, particularly cabinet ministers, to leave the legislature in order to conduct public business without fear of the government being voted down.

Now, New Brunswick residents should certainly be concerned about the apparent benefits to both Tanker Malley and to Branch in exchange for their refusal to vote down the government. But the current goings-on also reflect the lack of a reasonable opposition party to ensure that the assembly can function. And when both the Libs and Cons go to the voters demanding a majority next time out, voters should respond by asking why neither is willing to bring even a minimal standard of civility or decorum to the table.

On fiery leadership

Stephen Harper hasn't left much doubt that metaphorically speaking, he wouldn't complain if much of the Canadian media went up in flames - its contribution to his electoral success notwithstanding. But even I didn't think he'd start actively taking steps to cause that to happen:

Officials in the prime minister's office have been picking who asks questions at news conferences since he was sworn in Feb. 6. Reporters advised prime ministerial aides before the news conference that they would refuse to play by Harper's rules...

The media tried short-circuiting Harper's strategy Tuesday. They prepared to install their own set of microphones in the foyer outside the House of Commons — which is standard practice when events are held there.

Harper's office responded quickly upon learning of the plan. Officials switched the event location to a tiny, cramped room down the hall.

Their chosen venue had no stand-up microphones. House of Commons officials were investigating Tuesday afternoon whether the move created a fire hazard.

In fairness, the risk wasn't entirely with the media: from the sound of it, Harper may well have been putting his own well-being at risk as well in order to exercise control over the questioning process. But there's no apparent reason why Harper's ability to micromanage the media at all times should be a higher priority than his safety or the reporters'.

At the very least, one would think that if the Cons were determined to fight the media tooth and nail, they'd have thought ahead somewhat, taking into account all the possible upsides and downsides in contingency plans for dealing with reporters. Instead, officials apparently came up with a plan on the spot, then were left scrambling to figure out after the fact whether they'd put anybody in danger. Which can't inspire much confidence in all those Canadians whose lives are in Harper's hands in one way or another.

It's clear that the Cons don't have much of a plan to try to keep a lid on the media, but that they're not afraid to put people at risk in order to improvise. And that combination of obsessive control, warped priorities and poor planning isn't going to do anything to win the media back to Harper's side.

Update: See Far and Wide, Maple Leaf Politics and 1337hax0r for more on the substance of Harper's insistence on choosing his questioners.

On selective rule-making

As if we needed yet another example of the Cons seeing rules as something to be wielded against others rather than something of any real value, the Cons are apparently arguing against their own campaign platform in order to avoid added scrutiny on Harper's cabinet:

In their campaign platform, the Conservatives promised to implement Information Commissioner John Reid's recommendations for reforming the 23-year-old access law.

The Federal Accountability Act tabled Tuesday would expand the scope of the access law to cover three foundations, several agents of Parliament and seven additional Crown corporations - including Canada Post, the CBC and Via Rail.

But the legislation does not include Reid's proposals to make cabinet documents more accessible and limit the scope for withholding sensitive information from release...

Instead of including Reid's full slate of recommendations in the Accountability Act, the government bundled them into a "draft bill" for consideration by a parliamentary committee.

The Tories also issued a discussion paper that raises questions about a number of Reid's proposals. The document says several elements of access reform are "extremely complex and require further analysis, discussion and debate."

In other words, added oversight is just fine for Crown corporations (which the Cons are presumably happy to put to added expense given the opportunity). But when it comes to extending accountable government to those who actually govern, Harper seems to want to delay and distract rather than making the changes promised during the campaign.

Of course, with the Cons holding a minority, the other parties can presumably team up to make sure that Harper can't set more stringent rules for everybody but himself. And hopefully they'll be able to work together to at least that extent, so as to make sure that Harper can't further insulate his cabinet from any public access or attention.

One question answered

While the Cons' show of false outrage prevented any meaningful questions from being answered in last night's take-note debate, the afternoon's Question Period revealed the answer to at least one of Gordon O'Connor's questions from last year:

While Harper has previously vowed that Canada is in for the long haul, yesterday's comments mark a more definitive time frame from the new Conservative government.

"Our troops are already deployed in Afghanistan, have been deployed for some time and as we know, will be there in some form in the next few years," Harper told the Commons during the afternoon question period.

Canada now has 2,200 troops in Kandahar, a commitment that ends in February. Harper said a decision on the next deployment would be made in the "very near" future but left little doubt that more troops would be deployed.

In other words, there is no exit strategy to speak of. Instead, Harper's plan is for a continuation strategy: the Cons will feel free to make additional commitments of troops without further consultation, regardless of whether any answer exists for the rest of the questions surrounding the mission. And that can't be a positive answer for those troops who can now foresee being put in harm's way for the "long term" even as two governments have now refused to so much as define the scope of their mission.

Cynicism vs. action

Last week, Stephen Harper went of his way to claim that no political party is capable of being principled when power is at stake. This week, Manitoba's NDP government is proving him wrong:

Manitoba's NDP government has tabled legislation that would ban members of the legislature from crossing the floor.

Under the proposed Manitoba Elections Reform Act, a politician who wanted to change parties would have to sit as an independent or resign their seat and run for their new party in a byelection.

Doer says a ballot is a sacred trust between the voter, the candidate and the party that receives their support.

Harper and others may well honestly believe that the only definition of a good political system is one that keeps them in power. But Doer is making clear that for the NDP, that definition isn't good enough. And voters across the country may soon decide to put democratic reform in the hands of the one party which truly believes in creating a better system for all parties rather than in manipulating the system for personal gain.

Showing the way

Terilyn Paulgaard nicely summarizes how Klein's Third Way leads in entirely the wrong direction:

PIPs (private insurance providers) won't cover everyone, or do so at great cost. Your grandmother had breast cancer? That would make you "high risk." Such a family history would produce the same effect as a drunk-driving charge: insurance rates so high as to be prohibitive, if you could find someone to cover you at all.

The Third Way assumes these people would remain in the public system for health care. That's when they would discover another interesting detail about the Third Way plan: Many current services are being delisted. The extras that keep a condition at bay – such as insulin for diabetes – are being stripped from the system. For people without private health care, these extras would come out of pocket and could add up to thousands of dollars a month. To counter this, the government would follow Australia's lead and subsidize private-care premiums. So much for the savings of privatization...

For all the havoc Action 13 could potentially cause, the most tragic consideration is that the whole premise behind the Third Way is flawed. Remember, the two main incentives driving it are the assumptions that the current plan is unsustainable and wait times must be shortened.

As The Bottom Line points out, wait times are already being shortened. And PIPs will not shorten wait times, only shift who waits in which line.

Of course, there are certainly some who stand to gain from those shifts...but there's no reason why their financial health should be prioritized ahead of the physical health of Albertans. And hopefully a few more articles like Paulgaard's will make that point clear enough to make Klein reconsider what legacy he wants to leave.

Empty gesture

It's always a plus when Canada takes meaningful action to demonstrate (and give effect to) its sovereignty over its share of the Arctic. It's rather less so to put time and resources into a war of words:

It's one of the most celebrated and mythic areas on the Arctic map, but in the parlance of the Canadian military the Northwest Passage is no more.

"We're calling it the Canadian Internal Waters now," says Lt.-Col. Drew Artus, the chief of staff for Joint Task Force North, whose mandate includes protecting Canadian sovereignty over the vast area north of the 60th parallel.

"That's the guidance that we received. ... Sovereignty and the security of Canada and Canada's lands are important to (the government), and I guess that's part of their mandate to exercise authority, if you will, over what they believe is theirs."...

Several members of the Northern Forces said the direction to omit references to "Northwest Passage" came down their chain of command from Foreign Affairs in January.

However, it's unclear whether the direction came before or after the Conservative victory under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who made Arctic sovereignty an election priority.

Wherever the name change originated, it should be clear that it's not about to have any impact on the underlying debate. As the article points out, the real question is whether Canada can effectively control the region...and rewriting internal documents to imply that we can doesn't help at all in that effort.

On keeping one's deals

A report on the federal government's obligations under the Nunavut Land Claim suggests that Canada can't claim to meet a job requirement without offering training to allow Inuit citizens to fill those jobs - and that the necessary money to provide the training would pay off several times over:

"The schools are failing," wrote (former justice Thomas) Berger. "They are not producing graduates truly competent in Inuktitut; moreover, the Inuit of Nunavut have the lowest rate of literacy in English in the country."

That failure, he calculates, costs some of Canada's poorest people $72 million a year in lost employment - and costs taxpayers up to another $25 million a year in recruiting, training and housing southerners for jobs that could have gone to Inuit...

Berger proposes a system that uses Inuktitut in all 12 grades, with gradually increasing amounts of English throughout...

Kaludjak argued that the $20-million annual price tag for the recommendations can't be seen as another subsidy to the Nunavut government. He says that money is owed to the Inuit under the terms of the land claim.

"It's money earmarked for this claim that was never delivered," he said. "We have a contract here that hasn't been paid for."

The issue is currently under discussion with Jim Prentice - and the claim seems far too likely to fall into the Cons' classification of agreements which they have no desire to continue. But in addition to forming part of what should be a binding agreement, the recommended investment in education seems likely to pay large dividends. And if the Cons recognize that reality, then there'll be a much better chance for Inuit students to gain a relatively even footing compared to their counterparts across the country.

On a failure to hold to account

If you're looking for a remotely critical view of the Cons' selective-accountability legislation, CTV may not be the place for you:

Another key feature of the legislation is a mandatory five-year break before former ministers and other senior public officials can lobby government.

"Someone said this is going to potentially cost us a lot of very good staffers or cost us a lot of very good public officials and perhaps that's true," said Baird.

"But, if people want to come to Ottawa, get involved in the federal government to make a difference for their country that should be the motive, not to look at what they could do to set themselves up later for a lucrative career."

The article doesn't mention the Access to Information provisions promised in the Cons' platform which are apparently being removed from the legislation, nor the unduly limited definition of "staffers" that will allow anybody with Con connections from past Parliaments to lobby as they see fit. Instead, the only doubt implicit in CTV's article is as to whether the Cons may be going too far. And that willingness to present the story through Con-coloured glasses does nothing but undermine any hope that this government will be kept accountable in the least.