Out of sync with reality

CanWest serves up some undiluted Harper spin in reporting on a new gun-registry poll. The national results:

Overall, the survey results show that 48 per cent of Canadians want the government to maintain a hand gun registry, but support plans to end the long-gun registry, while 47 per cent want to keep both the hand gun and long-gun registries, according to the survey.

Now, this would seem to be a fairly appropriate time for a headline along the lines of, say, "Country split on (gun registry)...". But then, that wouldn't do much to help the cause of forcing a change which would undo the current work put into the registry. So instead, CanWest ignores the general balance to try to make it sound like the provinces with a majority in favour of keeping the long-gun registry are a rare exception to a national consensus.

The most egregious spin is in the headline ("Ont., Que. out of sync on gun registry"), but the article itself also spends more time discussing the provincial divide than noting that there's nothing even remotely approaching a national consensus either for or against the registry.

Another interesting tidbit: take a look at the second question in the poll:

The survey also found there's widespread support for the idea of dismantling at least part of the gun registry and funnelling more money into hiring more police officers.

Nearly half, or 49 per cent, of those surveyed said they want the government to maintain the hand gun and long-gun registries and put more money toward hiring police, while 45 per cent said they want the long-gun registry dismantled and greater funds put toward hiring more police officers.

It's not entirely clear how the two issues are supposed to relate to each other, as it should be obvious that maintaining the gun registry and funding police officers aren't mutually exclusive. Indeed, the only people who seem interested in trying to conflate the two are the Cons. But despite the Cons' effort to link the two, when police funding is brought into the picture, public support for Harper's position actually drops.

Based on that result, it seems that hiring more police officers is a higher priority for most Canadians than scrapping the registry: when it's recognized that it's possible to fund both police officers and the long-gun registry, that position wins more support than either of the options involving the registry alone. With that prioritization in mind, a fair poll surrounding the Cons' plan should also consider whether Canadians want to see RCMP resources used up running a revamped registry. And it seems highly likely that presented with an accurate portrayal of the Cons' plan as opposed to the status quo, a majority of Canadians would support the latter.

A rush to judgment

CTV reports on the latest attempt by the Cons to pick a fight with Canada's judges:

Canadian judges will not be getting the 11 per cent pay hike an independent commission recommended two years ago, CTV News has learned.

Justice Minister Vic Toews will ignore the recommendation -- something he attacked back in December 2004...

Constitutionally, judges aren't allowed to negotiate their salaries, which is why the commission was set up in the first place...

Since the commission reported, the judges have been waiting for the federal government to act.

On this file like so many, some responsibility clearly lies with the Libs for sitting on their hands for a year after the commission reported back. But it apparently isn't taking Toews long to take ownership of the problem by permanently junking the recommended result.

It doesn't seem likely that such a decision will go unchallenged: even if judges themselves would prefer not to see the issue brought into court, a previous set of disputes over judicial compensation led to a wave of applications to have criminal prosecutions dismissed on the basis of compromised independence. In that regard, it's worth noting that the article seems to imply a standard different from the one set out by the Supreme Court of Canada (emphasis added):

25 The government can reject or vary the commission’s recommendations, provided that legitimate reasons are given. Reasons that are complete and that deal with the commission’s recommendations in a meaningful way will meet the standard of rationality. Legitimate reasons must be compatible with the common law and the Constitution. The government must deal with the issues at stake in good faith. Bald expressions of rejection or disapproval are inadequate. Instead, the reasons must show that the commission’s recommendations have been taken into account and must be based on facts and sound reasoning.

The test for judicial review of the government's decision is then as follows (see para. 31 of the linked case, emphasis again added):

(1) Has the government articulated a legitimate reason for departing from the commission’s recommendations?
(2) Do the government’s reasons rely upon a reasonable factual foundation? and
(3) Viewed globally, has the commission process been respected and have the purposes of the commission — preserving judicial independence and depoliticizing the setting of judicial remuneration — been achieved?

It remains to be seen what public justification will be advanced for the Cons' decision to scrap the Commission's recommendations. But based on Toews' comments at the time the commission first reported, it doesn't seem out of the question that the decision could face a serious challenge even on the question of whether his reaction to the recommendation fails as a "bald expression of rejection". And even if the Cons can clear that hurdle, given the well-known antipathy that Harper and his inner circle seem to have for the judiciary, it seems highly likely that the Cons could lose out on the question of whether the process has been unduly politicized.

Of course, it's not hard to see how the issue might appear to be a political winner for the Cons. At the very least, it will presumably help to stir up some parts of the rural base. And it may well succeed in picking a fight which could harm the judiciary more than the Cons. After all, most Canadians won't have considered the inputs before the commission which led to its recommendations. As a result, it may sound to a lot of people as if judges are unfairly demanding a pay hike, when in fact their sole role in the process is in ruling on whether the federal government has met its obligation to be reasonable in rejecting the commission's report.

But then, there's a difference between an issue with political benefits and one worth pursuing in the interests of the country. The Cons' apparent willingness to undermine one of the fundamental pillars of a democratic society for their own personal gain only helps to highlight their disinterest in governing in the best interest of Canadians. And in time, the Cons too will face judgment for that kind of mismanagement.

Question and non-answer

Even by Question Period standards, Rob Moore has set the bar for sheer lack of content - and on a question where one would expect at least some type of prepared answer:

Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on Monday the United Nations will release a report on Canada's human rights record. In recent years Canada has done more to ignore its human rights commitments than it has done to honour them. It is time to end the Liberal legacy of inaction and start complying.

What has the government done to conform with the recommendations that will be made on Monday and what measures has it put in place to ensure an open, transparent and publicly accountable process for coordinating the implementation and compliance of human rights in Canada?

Mr. Rob Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this party and this government support human rights. We support human rights in Canada and we support human rights throughout the world.

It's certainly reassuring to see the Cons taking such a strong stand in favour of the right to say absolutely nothing. But it has to be a concern that they haven't apparently shown enough interest in either the U.N. report or anything else to do with human rights to be able to name a single positive initiative. And as poor as the U.N. report promises to be, matters can only get worse with a government in power so unwilling to pay attention to the problem.

All for show

In case anybody is still under the illusion that John McCain would represent a meaningful upgrade over Bushco's utter contempt for human rights, his comments on Guantanamo should put that to rest:

Senator John McCain agreed that the U.S. should ensure that no prisoner at Guantanamo is subjected to torture. But, he said, closing the prison is premature without a legal resolution to the prisoners' cases.

"I don't think they deserve a fair jury trial, but there should be some sort of adjudication" to decide whether detainees are held for life, executed or released rather than held indefinitely, Mr. McCain said.

In other words, McCain seems to think that a good old-fashioned kangaroo court, with no need to be "fair" to the accused, should resolve all concerns about the way the Guantanamo prisoners have been treated. And moreover, by virtue of having fallen on the wrong side of Bushco, the detainees apparently can't "deserve" anything better.

Sadly, the suggestion is all too likely to eventually find its way into practice, as it would provide a convenient way to deflect some responsibility away from Bush himself while still assuring that the status quo wouldn't change. But for those who think the U.S. should respect the rule of law sufficiently to avoid show trials, it's clear that McCain holds his country to a significantly lower standard.

On just choices

The Edmonton Journal reports on a criminal justice program that's working wonders for the Alexis First Nation. And not surprisingly, it's flexibility and rehabilitation, not blanket sentencing, that's getting the job done:

When an offender comes before the court in Alexis, (Judge Peter) Ayotte and the other three provincial court judges will usually refer the offender to a justice committee, made up of 12 to 16 Alexis community leaders.

If the offender is willing to admit his crime and wants to change his life, the justice committee will set up a rehab program.

The offender will then face the judge again, who will put the offender on probation, rather than send him to jail. Only in the most serious and violent cases do the judges send an offender to jail without input from the justice committee...

"We give people this opportunity, and we are prepared to be as flexible as possible, but (offenders) know, and I say it on the record all the time, 'If you don't comply with the direction of the court that has given you a break, I will ask for jail, and it won't be 14 days, it will be a real jail sentence.' And we do that."

The process has transformed many lives and led to fewer criminal cases at Alexis, (prosecutor Wes) Dunfield says. Court days are not nearly as long as they used to be.

The article notes that similar systems are now being contemplated by several other First Nations reserves. What's less clear, though, is why a similar model couldn't be applied on a much wider basis.

So far the program appears to have reduced both costs and crime, which should surely be positive signs for the system as a whole. And if the program is predicated on close connections between prosecutors, police officers and the community, then that should be a reason to try to build a more community-based model where it doesn't exist now - not a reason to assume that similar initiatives can't be undertaken elsewhere. Indeed, at least some commentators have already suggested wider application of a similar principle.

Of course, the Cons almost certainly won't be interested in a criminal justice system that defines justice in terms of positive post-offence outcomes rather than anger and vengeance. But it'll be worth watching how the Cons' plan for stricter sentencing compares to the Alexis principle of giving a second chance combined with an assurance that any non-compliance will be caught. And based on the results so far, there's every reason to think the Alexis model will come out ahead.

A show of weakness

Robert at My Blahg has pointed out the Cons' removal of information about climate change in general, and the Kyoto Protocol in particular, from Government of Canada websites. While Robert rightly notes the dangers associated with a deliberate attempt to purge the website, it's worth noting that in some sense the effort can only be an acknowledgement of just how indefensible the Cons' climate-change position is.

After all, if the Cons had any reasonable argument against the need to deal with global warming, surely they'd simply rebut the previous position rather than trying to pretend it never existed. Instead, they understandably fear that public access to accurate information poses a serious risk to their plan (or lack thereof). And if that kind of weakness in Harper's government receives the attention it deserves, then the Cons shouldn't remain in a position to dictate content of any kind for much longer.

On effective negativity

CanWest covers a study of the forces which tend to lead to friendships, with some all-too-predictable political ramifications:

(G)ossip often "has nothing to do with the person that you're gossiping about. It has more to do with the person you're gossiping with -- and what you're communicating to them," Bosson says.

In research published in the current issue of the journal Personal Relationships, Bosson and her colleagues first asked two groups of volunteers -- college undergraduates who were taking an introductory psychology class -- to think of their current, closest friend, and then to list as many likes and dislikes they discovered they shared while they were first getting to know each other, and then later in their friendships. Both groups remembered sharing more negative than positive attitudes about other people.

It's not hard to see the political equivalent: that it's often easier to build political connections based more on mutual dislikes than based on a shared positive vision. (And I certainly can't claim to be immune from the tendency to criticize.)

It seems to me to be worth wondering whether that status quo can be changed, either in the personal or in the political spheres, based on a concerted effort to identify positive perceptions rather than negative ones. But as long as negativity seems to be the easier way to win friends and influence people, it's hard to see a change happening anytime soon - no matter how many long-term gains could be made by eliminating the tendency to divide people.

Just wondering...

It's now well-known that Stephen Harper was proud to join the militarist hordes ready to accept an easily-debunked story in order to equate Iran with Nazi Germany. But I haven't yet seen any discussion of who asked the question to begin with - and how it ties into Harper's media policy.

After all, it's been often discussed that Harper's office is insisting on deciding who asks questions at the PM's press conferences. With one of Harper's fellow hawks on hand, it's not hard to suspect that Harper was looking for a chance to talk tough - and that any "canvas" of reporters by the PMO could have included some screening of the topics to be discussed.

So, a few questions that I'd like to see answered. Was the questioner in this case hand-picked by the PMO? Was the topic screened? If so, did anybody in the PMO attempt to determine whether the story was true? And would the questioner have received the same priority under the Press Gallery's system?

Needless to say, these aren't rhetorical questions. It could well be that the topics are generally out of the hands of the PMO, or even that a different system than the usual PMO-generated list was used due to Howard's presence. (For that matter, it wouldn't be entirely surprising if the PMO moved to restrict the types of questions asked in the future due to the eventual embarrassment.)

But after yesterday, there can be little doubt just how much impact a single question can have. And that makes it worth asking all the more whether we want the PMO to dictate who gets to ask what.

Fool them twice...

For reasons not apparent, U.S. Democratic Senators are asking the Bush administration to serve up a new batch of thoroughly-cooked intelligence on Iran:

Five Democrats, headed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, wrote to Bush requesting a new National Intelligence Estimate, or NIE, while the United States is involved in an international diplomatic effort to get Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions.

The Democrats want an NIE, the intelligence community's most authoritative written judgment, to address several points including Iran's nuclear program and its military and defense capabilities.

Now, an NIE would surely be a rather useful tool if there was any reason to think it would be even remotely believable. But based on the indications that Bush has done nothing but further politicize U.S. intelligence in the time since the Iraq intelligence fiasco, there's no reason to think that a new NIE will be worth the paper it's printed on. And by suggesting the process, Reid and company are simply inviting Bushco to strongarm the U.S. into yet another ill-founded war.

Still not getting it

CBC reports that the Arctic is melting at record levels this spring. Yet in Harper's world, climate change still doesn't represent enough of a problem to justify a single enforceable target.

On cooperation

The NDP sets the record straight as to whether or not Harper needs a majority in order to pass a full accountability package:

“The issue of patronage in Ottawa is too important just to drop at the first opportunity,” said Dewar. “To Mr. Harper I say: ‘you don’t need a majority to fight patronage and corruption – you simply need to work with us.’”

The NDP has been working alongside the Conservatives at the Legislative Committee on C-2, agreeing to meet extended hours and limiting MPs’ time for questions so that the committee could hear from more witnesses. These motions passed despite objections from the Liberal and Bloc members of the committee.

“We have shown our good-faith all along the way on the Accountability Act,” said Martin. “We will continue to bring constructive amendments forward to strengthen the bill and are willing to meet around the clock to get this bill done.”

Unfortunately, it looks like Harper is working around the clock toward rather different goals than true accountability. But at least with the public stand from the NDP, there should be even less doubt that it's Harper's insistence on a patronage appointment - not any problem with a minority government - that's slowed down the process so far.

On poor prescriptions

Just last week, I discussed the CIHI's call for a national pharmacare program, with the note that such a program would offer a great opportunity for the Cons to present themselves as a government capable of strengthening health care in Canada. But sadly if predictably, leadership isn't in the cards on this one...at least judging from the Cons' response to a smaller-scale effort in Ontario:

(T)he Conservative government in Ottawa is keeping its distance from the opposition to Smitherman's plan...

Industry Minister Maxime Bernier's office would not comment on the matter, saying the Tory government wants to respect the jurisdiction of the provincial governments and the matter is clearly in provincial jurisdiction.

As I'd mentioned in the previous post, Canada's premiers have already agreed to work toward a pharmacare program in the future...meaning that the jurisdictional excuse is even less reasonable than usual. But unfortunately, the Cons seem all too happy to use any excuse imaginable to avoid accomplishing anything positive. And both individual Canadians and the health-care system will continue to face needlessly high drug costs as a result.

Not showing at the Gallery

CTV reports that Harper is planning to snub this fall's Parliamentary Press Gallery dinner. The current operative reason is that Harper wants to punish the press for having the nerve not to want the PMO to pick and choose who gets to ask questions at press conferences. But I have to wonder whether he just doesn't want to be caught on camera responding to a Canadian equivalent of this.

Undue credit

Tim Harper credits "Ottawa" (in a headline) and "Canada" (in the article) with two major advances in the fight to keep the U.S. border as open as possible for as long as possible. But there's no indication what the Harper government (which would naturally be the largest beneficiary of giving credit to either "Ottawa" or "Canada") had to do with either of the positive steps.

The first change mentioned is the U.S. Senate's vote to extend the current legislative deadline for a passport scheme. And I'd be more than willing to give credit to the extent that Canada's representatives influenced that vote. But as I pointed out yesterday, there's no indication that Canada's ambassador to the U.S. had a clue what was going on - making it look very likely that the vote was a result of internal U.S. decisions, not any substantial Canadian influence.

Then there's the plan for a major summit to discuss border issues. But who's the driving force behind that?

(The summit) will take place on May 31, at the end of the Western premiers' gathering and will see most of Canada's top political leaders converging on Gimli...

Premier Gary Doer, host of this year's premiers' meeting, has expanded the invitation list, his aides say, because recent controversies over softwood lumber and the passport issue have convinced him that premiers and governors have to be part of Canada-U.S. discussions, too.

Note that Doer's strategy of bringing a wide range of friendly stakeholders to the table is one that Harper deliberately rejected when it came to softwood lumber. As a result, there isn't even a plausible argument to the effect that the summit reflects Harper's general means of solving problems.

In sum, the Star's article seems to have gone out its way to give implicit credit to one of the few parties which hasn't noticeably contributed to any of the good results. And while the larger issue is obviously that of whether or not the progress continues, it surely can't help the cause for the media to be lavishing praise on the Con government for its lack of action.

On possibilities

Duncan Cameron kicks around the idea than an Elizabeth May-led Green Party would be ripe for a merger with the NDP. It's certainly an idea worth contemplating, but in casting May as the left's Peter MacKay Cameron doesn't appear to take into account the degree to which former PCs abandoned MacKay following the merger.

If there's a meaningful chance to actually bring together a substantial majority of both parties, then the cause might well be worth pursuing. But assuming that the Harrisites within the Green Party would prefer to move elsewhere, it's far from clear that either party would gain influence from a merger...and it seems likely that each party's efforts would be better placed trying to build on existing support.

And it's done

By a four-vote margin, enough Libs (including the current leader and one of the main leadership contenders) voted to give Stephen Harper carte blanche, even after being informed that a "no" vote wouldn't end the Afghanistan mission. It's hard to see the Libs' decision to hold a free vote turning out much worse for the party: just enough Libs supported Harper's power grab to saddle the party's relative anti-war crowd (not to mention the country as a whole) with a complete lack of oversight over Harper's adventures in Afghanistan, while none of the hawks can be happy with a general party sentiment against biting on Harper's terms.

Update: For example, see liberal catnip's well-justified take on the Libs' vote.

Out of the loop

So much for Harper's closer relationship with Bush leading to Canada having a better idea what's going on in the U.S. On the same day that the U.S. Senate voted to extend by a year and a half the legislative deadline for a new border-crossing procedure, Wilson could only speculate that the existing deadline is "still not certain" - while claiming fairly comically that we'll to figure out what documents will be involved in order to set any new timetable.

Granted, Wilson's recognition that the deadline can change is a step up from Stockwell Day's apparent unquestioning acceptance of the original deadline. But there's still no reason to be optimistic our representative to the U.S. is the slightest bit in tune with what's actually going on - no matter how much the U.S. prefers the Cons' overtures to the Libs' confrontation.

A focus on the positive

For all the entirely justified criticisms of the Cons, one can't deny that they've largely set the agenda so far this Parliament. But the NDP has taken a big step to change that by introducing its promised Early Learning and Child Care Act. The proposed bill isn't yet up at LegisInfo, but from the introduction it should largely mirror the Canada Health Act:

The Early Learning and Child Care Act will be introduced in the House of Commons by Denise Savoie, MP for Victoria, and seconded by NDP Child Care Critic Olivia Chow (Trinity–Spadina). Savoie says that the goal is to protect child care by enshrining it in legislation...

(Said Chow,) “This NDP legislation is based on the principles of quality, universality, accessibility, accountability, educational development and inclusiveness. It is essential to ensure that public money goes to not-for profit centres, not to big box child care corporations which cut corners.

“We must not compromise on quality – parents deserve better, and so do children. And so does our country. Canadians want their tax dollars to serve children, not the executives of some big corporations; to serve the public interest, not private interests.”

The bill will presumably face an uphill battle for now, as it's anybody's guess as to whether the Libs will want to cooperate, and the federal standards might not go over well with the Bloc. But at the very least it's good to know that some positive measures are being brought forward in Parliament...and with enough continuing arrogance by Harper, increased cooperation among the opposition parties may start looking better by the day.

On important missions

With the House of Commons vote on a sudden Afghanistan extension set for later today, the question now is whether all of the opposition parties will vote responsibly - or whether one of them will go against all good judgment by propping up Harper's foreign policy. My hope is that this will be one more moment where Harper gets reminded both that he doesn't have a majority government, and that Parliament isn't going to give up on its oversight function in any event. But with the NDP already taking the right stance, it'll be up to the Bloc and the Libs to join in on the effort to keep Harper accountable.

Before looking at the party-by-party situation, I'll note first that the vote isn't a substantive one:

The issue will be debated for six hours this afternoon and put to a vote tonight. The vote is not binding...

Granted, Harper has a very recent track record of angry overreactions to non-binding motions. And there's not much doubt that similar histrionics would follow a defeat in the Afghanistan vote, presumably involving much gnashing and wailing about how Canada's involvement now can't continue past 2007.

But then, that isn't the question the Cons have put before the House. The question is whether or not any further involvement in Afghanistan will be left entirely to executive discretion, with at least symbolic approval of whatever measures (both military and civilian) Harper has cooked up or may cook up between now and 2009. And in deciding whether or not to accept Harper's future terms without notice, the opposition parties should keep in mind how far Harper's ideological ally to the south has gone in claiming substantive power based on symbolic language.

Moreover, all indications are that the Cons are doing their best to suppress current information. While the Globe and Mail notes that the apparent reason for the extension is to allow Canada to commit to lead the mission beginning in 2008, the Cons didn't even bother to make that possibility known while putting the motion forward. And by approving Harper's actions based on obviously-limited information, any opposition party supporting the motion would be taken to endorse similar tactics in the future.

In sum, the downside of voting against the motion should be nil: it would force Harper to actually answer a few of the questions his defence minister once posed about the mission, or perhaps to move another motion more limited in time and scope, but it wouldn't prevent another vote on the mission once some of the unknowns are brought into the open. A "yes" vote, on the other hand, will be taken by Harper to foreclose any further Parliamentary debate or oversight on Afghanistan, and will set a precedent that Harper can ignore the seat allocation in Parliament and play the Big Daddy role that he seems to long for.

So what will the opposition parties do? Thus far, only the NDP has stated its position:

The 29-member NDP will not support the government's motion to extend the Canadian involvement in Afghanistan, Leader Jack Layton said after the meeting.

"We've looked at the proposition that the Conservatives are bringing forward and we're troubled by it," Mr. Layton said. "We don't think there's a fully developed plan."

The Bloc apparently hasn't shown its cards yet...but given that it's apparently stuck supporting the Cons on confidence motions for the next little while, I have to think Duceppe will recognize the need to keep his party relevant by doing more than just rubber-stamping Harper's public message.

And that leaves the Libs. So far the commentary suggests the Libs are "divided" on the issue...presumably because some still associate the mission with what the Libs entered into, and don't want to see Harper receiving credit for past Lib decisions. But that calculation ignores both the political reality that Harper's government has gone out of its way to be associated with the mission, and the fact that good government (i.e. one based on reasonable defences of policy rather than on political games) should trump politics in any event.

As for the view that the motion should be supported based on agreement with the general mission, I'd argue again that the mere view that the Afghanistan mission is worthwhile doesn't justify voting for the motion. If the mission can be defended based on full information including a realistic scope, then let Harper make that case prior to a vote on a future motion. But all indications are now that the Cons want zero accountability and oversight over an extended timeframe. And the mere fact that the Libs have fond memories of similarly keeping the opposition in the dark doesn't offer any good reason to support Harper's efforts.

The question for the Bloc and the Libs now is whether Harper's administration should be handed a blank cheque, or a reality check. The choice should be obvious: Canada's citizens didn't see fit to hand Harper power to do as he pleases either domestically or abroad, and it would be an utter abdication of an opposition party's role to fold in the face of Harper's current jingoistic bluff. We can only hope that the Libs can swallow enough pride about their own actions in government to start holding the current government accountable.

Update: In addition to the CPA piece pointed out in the comments, note also that the Polaris Institute has pegged the cost of the mission at over $4 billion and counting.

Meanwhile, the Bloc has also announced its intention to oppose the motion. According to the same article, the Libs will treat the issue as a free vote...meaning that in the absence of any apparent agreement within the party, individual Lib MPs will get to determine to what extent they trust Harper with the keys to Canada's military.

(Edit: typos.)

Unsatisfactory

In case there was any doubt that the Cons are purely interested in political machinations rather than good governance, let's see how much time they spend dealing with the actual "unsatisfactory" issues from Sheila Fraser's report - particularly the $18 billion in back taxes owing - as compared to one of the programs that's now working well in Fraser's judgment.

Words of wisdom

It doesn't seem particularly likely that Harper will bother following Sheila Fraser's advice (as opposed to wielding her report against the Libs and claiming that as reason to do whatever he feels like). But just in case the Cons actually want to clean up government, Fraser has an eminently sensible suggestion:

(D)espite her critique, Fraser prefaced Tuesday's 200-plus-page report with a word of caution for a Tory government whose first piece of legislation was the massive Accountability Act.

"Programs that are mired in controls and reporting requirements are not programs that focus most of their efforts and resources on improving the lives of Canadians," wrote Fraser.

"In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied."

Unsustainable

It's no great secret that farmers and the environment have both fared extremely poorly under the Cons so far. But the damage to both is all the more clear in the Cons' refusal to establish the planned emissions-trading scheme:

Players in the new Kyoto-inspired emissions trading industry say they've moved up to $1 billion in Canadian investments and technology out of the country because Ottawa is stalling on a plan to reduce greenhouse gases...

"Our own budget requests have probably been reduced by 90 to 95 per cent because of the uncertainty. We still intend to spend some money in Canada, but it's a small fraction of what we would have otherwise," (said Len Eddy, managing director of AgCert Canada).

AgCert Canada is one of several companies operating in Alberta that were prepared to invest hundreds of millions into Canadian farms to help them reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In turn, the farms could benefit from lower energy and operating costs, while also having the option of generating new revenues by selling credits for emission reductions to large companies.

Another firm, Icecap Limited, was expected to invest up to $500 million in the Canadian economy, but they shut down their Calgary office several weeks ago, and moved back to the United Kingdom.

"You can either keep farming running by paying them subsidies, or you can give them other methods that allow them to do transactions that would make them profitable," said cattle farmer Peter Morrison, who estimates he's losing about $900,000 a year in potential sales on the emissions trading market.

Even looking only at dollars and cents, it would seem fairly obvious that driving substantial investments out of the country for the sake of nothing but inertia must be a fairly poor strategy. But it's all the more so when the effect is to prevent farmers from operating in a more environmentally-friendly manner, and from becoming more profitable in the process.

It could well be that the Cons (as they seem so eager to claim) will do an about-face by this fall. But even if so, the effect of their government would be to delay a positive action which was already in progress, and probably to cast uncertainty over the developing market as well. And surely the image of a ditherer who can't be bothered to ensure progress on a policy with so many obvious positive effects isn't one that Harper should want to take on.

Cooperative efforts

For those wondering how long it would take the opposition parties to start cooperating to force the Cons' hand on progressive issues, it appears that Kyoto has become the first major unifying issue:

The three opposition parties will join forces today to pass a motion aimed at embarrassing the Conservatives over their position on the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

The Liberals and the New Democras intend to support a Bloc Québécois motion calling on the government to have a plan in place by Oct. 15 for Canada to meet its international targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases.

It remains to be seen whether it'll be possible to pass substantive legislation the same way, whether that be with regard to child care or amendments to the Accountability Act. But at the very least, the Cons must now be on notice that they're not about to receive a free ride in Parliament...which should hopefully encourage Harper and company to reconsider just how many regressive changes they want to try to force through.

Way off the mark

In case the Cons' plan to dismantle the long-gun and rifle portion of the existing gun registry wasn't enough of a burden on the police who now use the system, now CTV reports that the Cons are planning to push the responsibility of running the continuing registry onto the RCMP, while the Miramichi workers trained to operate the registry maintain their jobs doing something else (perhaps making ID cards). Which will presumably leave an ID-card firm to take over the RCMP's crime-fighting functions.

Never mind debating whether he's a right-wing ideologue or a power-hungry chameleon, could Harper be a bureaucratic socialist at heart?

Something to learn from

CBC reports that Canadian schools are fund-raising an average of nearly $16,000 per year in order to keep going - and that the fund-raising isn't only to provide for trips and perks:

The results of the first numbers-based study of marketing in the school system found that ad deals with corporations and fundraising campaigns are being used to support schools' basic needs...

Schools raise an estimated $200 million across Canada from ad deals and fundraising, the report said. Money is generated by selling chocolate bars, ads on campus, charging user fees, exclusive contracts with corporations and even by selling curriculum materials, it said...

Money raised by ad deals and fundraising went most often to library books and school trips, the survey found. But Shaker said she heard from one teacher whose school used ad dollars to buy sinks for the bathroom.

"You can argue that a sink isn't necessary, but I'd like to think that running water is something that you can expect in our schools," she said.

The article also notes that the presence of private fund-raising tends to widen the quality gap between wealthier and poorer schools. But the bigger issue is that schools across the board are having to spend so much time and effort seeking private financing rather than being able to rely on public funding to provide functional facilities and basic educational materials. And if that problem isn't fixed now, Canadians as a whole will pay the price for a less well-educated population in the future.

On choosing entry points

CBC reports that Canada's "safe third country" agreement with the U.S. which reduces the scope for legal refugee claims has driven would-be Canadians underground:

Canada's refugee agreement with the United States is forcing more people to try to enter Canada illegally, a study from Harvard says.

The report, entitled Bordering on Failure, says the number of refugee claimants at Canadian border crossings has dropped by more than 50 per cent in the past 18 months, and that more refugees are trying to find other ways into the country, including human smuggling...

Janet Dench, the executive director of the (Canadian Council for Refugees), says the number of refugee claims has dropped to about 4,000 from 9,000 in the year before the agreement was signed. And she says illegal crossings are on the rise.

"We do know that some of them are finding a way of getting into Canada irregularly," Dench said. "This is what we were frightened would happen. They have no recourse but resort to dangerous methods of crossing borders."

There doesn't seem to be much prospect that the Cons will be willing to question the agreement. After all, it's not news that Harper's definition of a mature relationship means not asking questions or holding anybody accountable. And with the Libs having signed the agreement in the first place, there unfortunately doesn't seem to be much chance to make any changes through Parliamentary pressure either.

Which is a shame, because in the long run, both Canada and the U.S. may be less safe if Canada ends up taking in more undocumented refugees due to an inflexible system for legal immigration. And even from the standpoint of continental relations, it's not hard to anticipate Canada's inflow of illegal immigrants today providing the basis for the next set of U.S. demands to close the border in the future.

On poor communications

Sandra Buckler tries to justify Harper's disdain for the media. But her explanation falls somewhat short of fitting the facts:

Buckler's analogy - likening the Tory relationship with the media to a brief, first date with a stranger - was in response to criticism that the government has tried to shut out journalists as they try to cover federal politics.

Reporters have complained that their calls are not returned, that they receive copies of speeches days after they were delivered, and that media availability is too selective.

"Stephen Harper is running a more focused, a disciplined government than prime minister (Jean) Chretien, and certainly more so than prime minister (Paul) Martin," said Buckler in a sometimes confrontational discussion.

Now, it may well be that somewhere there's a performance evaluation of William Stairs to the following effect:

Returns calls immediately. Makes materials available to media simultaneously with public delivery, and sometimes in advance. This lack of focus and discipline cannot be tolerated.

But despite Buckler's best efforts to turn virtues and vices inside out, it seems far more likely that the problem between the Cons and the media is based on a combination of Harper's lack of interest in keeping the media informed, and the Cons' incompetence in what efforts the Cons have deigned to bother with. And having treated his "date" that shoddily, Harper won't have anybody to blame but himself if the media decides it would prefer to see other people running the country.

The costs just keep on coming

Another potential effect of global warming: a need for $1 billion in all-weather roads to replace Northern ice roads which no longer freeze over sufficiently to support traffic. (And as an added bonus, toss in increased transportation costs before those roads are built.)

On selective rights

Shorter Tony Blair: Judges have some nerve concluding that human rights apply to all humans.

On planned obsolescence

Buried in a CP article on a new argument over Canadian content levels is an odd suggestion from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters:

Speaking for private radio, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters says new consumer technologies, from satellite radio to IPods, have created challenges for the old set of rules and it's time for changes...

The CAB says the required (Cancon) level is considerably lower for satellite-delivered pay radio and is proposing several initiatives to help level the playing field.

They include a bonus system of credits to encourage airplay of emerging artists, a reduction of Cancon levels to 25 per cent for so-called "oldies" -- pre-1985 music -- and stricter guidelines on the entry of new stations into the market.

In other words, CAB is arguing that its industry can't keep up with the choices available to listeners through other media. And part of its solution to "level the playing field" against that increased choice is...to more strictly limit listener choice within its own sector.

Needless to say, that idea should be a non-starter. If traditional radio is to remain viable in competition with other broadcast media, it'll need to offer more choice, not less. And if current radio stations are successful in preserving their market share by preventing their medium from improving, the effect will only be to eliminate public demand for broadcast radio all the faster.

More costs of inaction

So how does Vancouver underwater sound as a trade-off for a refusal to combat climate change now?

On poor excuses

CTV reports that the National Arts Centre Orchestra is trying to get around any application of whistle-blower legislation by requiring its musicians to sign a confidentiality agreement:

The National Arts Centre Orchestra (NACO) is a Crown corporation, so its musicians fall under the proposed legislation.

But in an apparent effort to counter the Accountability Act, the organization asked its employees to swear never to talk about internal problems.

The article speculates that the reason for the confidentiality agreement is to stifle any comment on a series of controversies involving NACO's director. While that may or may not be the case, NACO's alternative explanation is less than compelling:

However, spokeswoman Jayne Watson said NACO is not trying to prevent its musicians from talking about Zukerman.

"Absolutely not. There no intention to stifle any profile or any conversation about Pinchas," she said.

Instead, Watson argued the confidentiality agreement is a practical way to keep sensitive personal information a secret.

"We have credit card information, we have personal data, and the police -- longstanding, first written in 1998 and updated in 2005 -- makes sure employees protect that confidential information," she said.

So what's wrong with that explanation? The whistleblower protection in the Accountability Act (see generally ss. 194-226) is added onto the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. Under that legislation, any disclosure may only be to a public servant's supervisor (s. 12) or the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (s. 13), except in cases of a serious offence or an imminent and substantial health or safety risk (s. 16, which itself may not apply to employee information due to s. 16(1)). And any disclosure is subject to the following:

15.1 In making a disclosure under this Act, a public servant must
(a) provide no more information than is reasonably necessary to make the disclosure...

None of these sections appears to be changed in any relevant way by the Accountability Act. As a result, there doesn't appear to be the slightest basis for concern that NACO employees' personal information could validly be made public: presumably NACO disclosures won't involve the type of urgent situations which could necessitate bypassing the Commissioner, and even then the disclosure (if permitted at all) must be limited to the information reasonably necessary to address the urgent situation...which presumably won't include credit-card information or personal data.

It's anybody's guess as to whether or not there are other reasons for NACO's action. But it appears that the current explanation is based on either a complete misinterpretation of the contents of the planned legislation, or a misrepresentation as to how the legislation could conceivably apply. And either way, NACO's attempt to silence its employees may make it look worse than any likely disclosure could have done.

(Edit: I should note that the above discussion does presume that NACO's confidentiality agreement is in response to the Accountability Act in particular, rather than an unfortunately-timed effort to secure data for other reasons.)

Playing politics

For all the talk of Harper being nothing more than a Bush puppet, let there be no doubt that he's more than willing to oppose policies supported by not only the U.S. but also every other state in the WTO and much of Harper's western base...as long as it helps his chances in Quebec. From Randy Burton:

Last week in Geneva, the 149 countries at the table tried to reach agreement on how to deal with so-called "sensitive products."

These are products that various countries want to maintain tariffs on in order to protect their domestic farmers. For example, Japan wants to protect its beef industry, India wants to protect vegetable oil and the European Union wants to protect pork. Around the world, the most "sensitive product," -- that is, the most protected -- is chilled and frozen meat, which is Canada's second-largest export...

With one notable exception, every country agreed that tariffs (on sensitive products) should be cut and the quota expanded. This was a modest step but at least it amounted to some progress in liberalizing agricultural trade.

Horror of horrors for free traders, Canada refused to go along. Alone among 149 countries, our trade negotiators declared that we want to maintain the over-quota tariff as is...

Canada appears to have sacred cows it wants to protect behind a high tariff wall, namely dairy, poultry and eggs. Those industries do not want any reduction there because they fear increased imports from the U.S.

Angling for a majority government, the last thing Prime Minister Stephen Harper wants to see is anything that might upset his electoral chances in Quebec, which of course is home to the largest concentration of dairy and egg producers in Canada, not to mention the most militant farmers in the country.

But lest there be any doubt, it isn't only interests abroad who will be frustrated by the outcome of the Cons' stubbornness, as much of Harper's rural western base appears to have been counting on greater access to markets around the world:

(If no change is made to the sensitive product rules,) Canadian exporters will be prevented from getting into foreign niche markets. For example, Canadian producers would like to sell wheat and beef to Japan, pork to Europe and a whole range of other products around the world.

Without progress on tariff reduction, most of those markets will remain effectively closed to Canada. In other words, Canada is shooting a lot of its own farmers in the foot. They are demanding answers, but to no avail.

In a sense it's fortunate that the trade issues have become public before Harper passed some of his other "market-based" reforms such as dismantling the Wheat Board. If there was ever any doubt in the minds of western Canadians, it should be all the more obvious that the Cons' plans in government are based strictly on political gain. And if struggling farmers who have formed a large part of the Cons' historical support get tossed under the bus, that's an acceptable loss to Harper in order to win over protectionist votes in Quebec.

Of course, those same farmers will have an opportunity soon to decide whether they want their interests represented by someone so willing to turn his back on them. And with any luck, disillusionment with the realities of Con government will do far more to undermine Harper's quest for a majority than his pandering to Quebec will do to move it forward.

On failures of leadership

The CP reports that with the federal government apparently doing as little as possible to deal with the U.S.' impending passport requirement, Canadian premiers and U.S. governors are once again having to try to bring public attention to the issue:

Premiers from Eastern Canada and governors from New England are urging the United States Congress to delay new border security measures, including mandatory passport use for anyone entering the U.S.

State and provincial officials - worried creating a "hassle factor" for people crossing the border will devastate tourism and trade - passed a resolution at a meeting in Newport, R.I...

The new measures are scheduled to take effect at the end of this year for all air and sea travel, and at the end of 2007 for all land border crossings.

Now, it's somewhat understandable for the Cons not to want to resume their earlier flip-flopping on the possibility of an ID card as the solution. But with the U.S. statutory deadline in place, there's a desperate need for action on the issue before it's too late to make our case. And at the same time, there's also a readily-available opportunity to coordinate Canada's message with that of Americans who share our interests.

Unfortunately, as has already happened on softwood lumber, the Cons don't seem the least bit interested in assembling Canada's allies to try to push for anything better than a worst-case outcome. And come January 1, 2008, both sides of the border stand to pay the price for the Cons' continued ineffectiveness.

Emotion over action

Thomas Walkom explores the less-discussed side of George Smitherman's revelation of past drug use, as Smitherman's personal life seems to have been put in the public eye as a substitute for action on policy issues:

Faithful readers will remember that the last time Smitherman made a personal revelation, back in 2003, was in response to a Star series on the problems of nursing homes.

At the time, a tearful Smitherman said nursing homes would be his top priority. He said his mother faced the prospect of going into a nursing home and that this was what moved him so much...

Indeed, the government did increase regulation in nursing homes. But it didn't give them enough new money to pay for the staff needed to make these reforms work.

As a result, many long-term care residents — particularly those who are bedridden — are now worse off than they were before.

Similarly, in this instance, it might be more useful if Smitherman spent less time on his personal life and more on the current problem of drug addiction in Ontario.

As the Star has reported, the Liberal government is busy closing detox centres in Toronto to save money — even as the minister waxes eloquent about his misspent past.

It's tough to disagree that it would be far more meaningful for Smitherman to ensure proper funding to enable other Ontarians to beat their own addictions, rather than simply to place his own past addiction in the public eye. Unfortunately, it looks like Smitherman's misspent past is merely being matched by a misspent present...only now it's the Ontarians who have seen their services cut, and not Smitherman himself, who are paying the greatest price for his mistakes.

Incredible

If the Cons were so concerned about their credibility under the Kyoto Protocol, wouldn't it be a good idea to avoid undermining Kyoto's core principles?

But it's different when we do it...

Jason Kenney last winter, when there was suspicion that income trust information may have leaked out via the Liberal government:

"So far, Mr. Goodale has been dismissive of these very troubling questions of insider information having been leaked from his office, refusing to answer questions," Kenney told reporters at the hastily-convened press briefing.

He asked Goodale whether anyone in his office knew of the policy change before it was announced, and whether anyone spoke to Bay Street traders. Kenney went on to demand that Goodale ask the RCMP to investigate the matter.

Jason Kenney now, when it's glaringly clear that information about the gun registry leaked out via the Conservative government:

Conservative MP Jason Kenney says the Tories want to find out if the leak came from the government, and then take any necessary action.

"An internal investigation has been launched to see if this information was leaked from a government source," Kenney told the Commons...

Later outside the Commons, Kenney said he did not believe the leak is a criminal matter.

Making adversaries

Plenty of coverage from the last week has suggested that Harper's current strategy is to isolate Dalton McGuinty as a holdout in equalization talks. But the Leader-Post notes that McGuinty isn't the only premier holding Harper's feet to the fire on his campaign promises, as Lorne Calvert is pushing Harper to get something done for Saskatchewan. First, on equalization and other issues:

Premier Lorne Calvert still has big concerns about Prime Minister Stephen Harper's stance on equalization changes even as another point of contention arose Wednesday between the provincial NDP and the new Conservative federal government.

The province said there was no money in last week's federal budget for the labour market agreement signed by the former Liberal federal government last fall to bring $109-million in federal funding to Saskatchewan over six years...

The provincial NDP isn't happy about the Conservative intent to scrap the child-care agreements signed by the previous government with the province, the cutting of federal funding to the Saskatchewan Forest Centre, the softwood lumber deal with the United States, the scrapping of the deal to sell grain hopper rail cars to a farmer's coalition and ongoing uncertainty over whether future agricultural programs will continue to be split 60:40 per cent between the federal and provincial governments.

It also appears to be losing out on the $109 million from the labour market agreement, money which was to be used primarily for basic education and skills training for aboriginals, immigrants and people who are underemployed.

Harper evidently has some work to do just to make up for the damage on all the above issues. And then if Harper can be pushed to reverse the effects of the Cons' actions so far, there's also the minor matter of the promise of a billion or so dollars per year through the removal of non-renewable resources from the equalization formula.

And if that list of problem areas wasn't enough, Saskatchewan's provincial government is also having to push the Cons to get anything done on biofuels:

(Deputy Premier Clay) Serby and an industry delegation have been lobbying the new Conservative government to establish a national mandate on the use of biofuels made from grains such as wheat and canola in gasoline and diesel blends.

Serby warned that producers are growing desperate and can't wait much longer.

Now, it's possible that Harper will manage to get enough done over the next year to win Calvert as an ally. But for now, Calvert and his party are rightly demanding results from a federal government which was supposed to be better equipped to understand Saskatchewan's needs. And unless Harper can start checking off his positive promises toward Saskatchewan in a hurry, he may find two of Canada's three "have"-province premiers lined up against him in the court of public opinion.

The cost of inaction

The Cons have made much of the supposedly unjustifiable costs of cutting emissions to meet our Kyoto commitments. But what could we end up spending to make up for a failure to deal with climate change? Environment Canada has one possible answer:

Canada's bridges, sewers, roads and buildings are at risk of failure because of climate change over the next 50 years, says a new study by Environment Canada.

Infrastructure worth $5 trillion is designed on the assumption that past extremes will represent future conditions, but this assumption is no longer valid, says the study released Thursday...

"Changing weather extremes and weathering processes...are expected to effectively shorten the lifespan of existing structures in many regions."

The study suggests disasters like the 1998 ice storm may become more frequent in Canada as storm tracks shift northward, producing more freezing-rain events.

The report does note that it's too late to avoid at least some of the effects of climate change, and certainly current conditions would support that conclusion. But knowing that much of the infrastructure currently underlying Canada's strong economy is already at risk due to climate change, it must be all the more irresponsible not to at least make a reasonable effort to prevent matters from getting even worse.

Unfortunately, the Cons are too busy concocting their idea of a doomsday scenario, suggesting that even the once-modest Kyoto goals can't be met except by shutting down the country. And the longer that kind of inaction is the status quo in Ottawa, the more damage will get done to Canada's already-endangered infrastructure in the long run.

On whistleblower enablement

One would expect the current public service integrity officer to have a handle on what needs to be done to ensure accountability within the public sector. Which makes Edward Keyserlingk's comments today a useful guide to what's missing from the Accountability Act...and what doesn't need to be included.

On the Cons' plan to offer small cash rewards to whistleblowers, the response was less than enthusiastic:

Edward Keyserlingk told a parliamentary committee studying the massive bill that cash shouldn't be the main incentive for doing what's right.

"You will hopefully see it as your duty to report wrongdoing rather than doing it because of a reward," he testified Thursday.

"It's a kind of motivation I would hope we don't have to appeal to."

Meanwhile, Keyserlingk did note a need for whistleblower protection in a few areas of the government which could be ripe for abuse:

(Keyserlingk) said his jurisdiction should be extended to include protection for whistleblowers within the Canadian Forces, the Canadian Security and Information Service (CSIS), and the Communications and Security Establishment.

He also would like whistleblowers in the private sector to be protected from reprisals if they expose wrongdoing, specifically those who are on contract with the government or are receiving grants from Ottawa.

Surely any corruption or waste would be even more egregious in the defense and national security sectors than anywhere else in government - and it speaks volumes about the Cons' motives that they didn't see fit to include whistleblower protection for those departments in their initial legislation. But with the issue made public, it'll be all the tougher for the Cons to justify keeping their pet sector for investment immune from the conscience of employees who want to ensure proper management of government money.

A needed prescription

The Canadian Institute for Health Information reports on the costs of prescription drugs in Canada. And for all the complaints about the increasing costs of health care, it's worth noting that the costs are skyrocketing most in an area with relatively little public funding:

Canadian spending on medical drugs rose to almost $25-billion last year, up 11 per cent over the previous year, in a trend that critics say can't be sustained.

Drugs — mainly prescription drugs — continue to be the fastest-growing category of health spending as they have been for years, says the Canadian Institute for Health Information...

Drug spending reached 17.5 per cent of total health spending, double the figure for 1985. But Canada remains below the median of 13 OECD countries in the amount of drug spending covered by governments.

Total per capita spending was estimated at $770 last year, but there were big variations across the country. Public-sector spending on prescribed drugs ranged from $194 per capita in Prince Edward Island to $341 in Quebec.

The article isn't without at least one viable solution to some of the problems in drug costs...though it's anybody's guess as to how long it'll take the Cons to become interested in dealing with the issue:

Manitoba Health Minister Tim Sale is pushing for progress on a national pharmacare program that first ministers promised in their 2004 health accord.

“Part of the whole discussion about fiscal imbalance is compounded by the fact that the feds approve these drugs, and in the case of patented pharmaceuticals, they set the price,” he said in an interview.

“We think they should then have part of the delivery responsibility.”...

Advocates of a national pharmacare program say it would help control costs by uniting the buying power of the provinces and by ensuring that only cost-effective drugs are used.

With the pharmacare idea having already formed part of an agreement among all provinces, there wouldn't be too much concern about intrusion into provincial jurisdiction...and there obviously isn't much of a case for the status quo from the standpoint of cost-effectiveness. But the previous agreement notwithstanding, it'll take some strong leadership from the federal level to get the needed program in place.

That presents an opportunity for the Cons to be seen as a viable government capable of improving Canada's health system....assuming they're willing to take a lead role, and acknowledge the positive contribution a federal government can make to health care. The question now is whether the Cons want to make that kind of improvement a priority.

From bad to no better

I'm not sure when a severe case of foot-in-mouth disease became a job requirement for the chair of the aboriginal affairs committee. But Stephen Harper's second choice after Maurice Vellacott is one of the few MPs who may be even better known for his embarrassing comments, even as a rookie in Parliament:

Rookie Tory MP Colin Mayes, who recently advocated jailing reporters who write stories the government doesn't like, was named as the Conservatives' pick to succeed Vellacott as the committee chairman.

But for those wondering whether anybody more qualified showed interest in being appointed instead, at least Harper can't be faulted on that front:

As for inserting Mayes in the hot seat, Hill said the B.C. MP is the only Tory on the aboriginal affairs committee who wanted the post.

In a sense, it's surprising that Harper hasn't done more to cover his weak spots by ensuring that he'd have at least one relatively well-reputed MP to take the lead on a committee where his party was bound to draw fire. And it of course speaks very poorly for the party's interest in aboriginal issues that nobody else seems to want to take the lead.

But with neither Harper nor his party having put any apparent thought into the committee, it'll at least be amusing to see whether Mayes can manage to talk his way out of the job even faster than Vellacott did.

Mission indefinite

Based on Peter MacKay's comments today, maybe Gordon O'Connor's "forever" time frame for Canada's involvement in Afghanistan isn't all that far off. And that goes doubly if the mission's goal still isn't any more specific than "(r)estoring democracy and a semblance of normal life".

On bad deals

The story may not get much attention since both the Libs and Cons will surely want to pretend it isn't happening. But Paul Dewar points out how both recent governments are moving Canada toward an appallingly bad deal for the new RCMP headquarters:

The Conservative government is set to ink a botched building deal that will cost taxpayers twenty times its value, according to an NDP MP.

Ottawa MP Paul Dewar said the Public Works department is ready to sign a 10-year lease worth $624 million for a building the last Liberal government could have purchased outright for $30 million.

“It is really is outrageous. The government will spend over $620 million for this property by the time it finally owns it — 20 times more than the original purchase price,” he asked in the House of Commons today. “Is this the minister’s notion of a good deal for taxpayers? If that is the case, he has really spent way too much time in the Senate.”

Naturally, the Cons' response for now is to point the finger at the Libs for failing to purchase the property for its actual value - and certainly some blame lies there as well. But there's no way that a government supposedly committed to reining in federal spending should be signing on to a deal which results in Canada paying many times more than a property is worth. And if the Cons really would prefer to cut costs on the backs of programs which actually accomplish things rather than by eliminating such obvious waste, then it may not take long for Canadians to conclude that the most important cost-cutting measure possible is to remove that attitude from any position of power.

Not giving up

The Cons had to be hoping that their decision not to let farmers take an ownership stake in the rail cars which get their products to market would be taken lying down. But fortunately, the Farmer Rail Car Coalition isn't playing along:

A farmers' group that planned to buy 12,000 rail cars from Ottawa is calling on farmers to contact their MPs about the government's decision to cancel the deal.

Handing control of the cars back to the railways means they will be able "to hold Western farmers to ransom in the future," Sinclair Harrison, president of the Farmer Rail Car Coalition, said Tuesday...

Harrison said (the Cons' plan to reduce current maintenance fees instead is) not a good deal for farmers.

"There might be a small decrease to freight rates in the short term, but significant increases in the future," he told a news conference in Regina.

Harrison urged people to phone or write their MPs. He said it wasn't right that Ottawa made the announcement right when farmers are in the middle of seeding.

Even among those who might support the Cons' decision, it's hard not to agree with Harrison that it's problematic for the decision to have been made at the time when those most affected by it would be too busy to respond. But the Cons' strategy could easily backfire if resentment toward Harper - both among Coalition members themselves, and among Canadians who think our farmers deserve better - has time to build before the next federal election.

Shady business

The Tyee reports on how B.C.'s "open and accountable" right-wing government is working out these days:

Last week, Bill 23 was introduced, which would allow government to keep secret the final reports of public inquiries. Now, we face Bill 30, which could seal information about nearly ANY of government's financial arrangements with the private sector...

As Vancouver Sun columnist Vaughn Palmer noted "(Bill 30) is intended to erect a legislative framework around the Liberal experiments in having private companies assume contractual responsibility for providing government services," that is, the so-called P3s.

The government can designate a "joint solution project" that the added secrecy level is applied to, but one problem is that the term is not defined. It is not clear which projects the government would apply the JSP status to, or why, but it grants itself the complete discretion to do so. Many believe that JSP and another term "procurement project" are so vague they could be applied to nearly ANY financial arrangement with a third party. "The definition leaves it wide open to designation," (Liberal MLA Blair) Lekstrom lamented...

Not only is the bill a great danger to our democratic system to cloak government projects in secrecy, it can also create immense financial consequences for taxpayers. This legislation creates a potential breeding ground for waste, fraud and mismanagement. A B.C. provincial equivalent of the entire Quebec sponsorship program could have been marked as a "joint service project," meaning all information "jointly developed" (such as advertising contracts and plans) could be sealed. It was FOI requests by the media that first exposed the Quebec scandal and led to the Gomery Inquiry - but in B.C., this might not be possible now.

Even with a minority government which can't force legislation through Parliament, Campbell's federal counterpart has been noted to have included provisions to isolate the inner legislative circle from scrutiny. And with Campbell apparently setting the precedent, it isn't hard to see where federal law might go if the Cons were to win a majority. After all, the Bill 30 example would fit nicely with both the Cons' ideological desire to create disincentives to public-sector projects in favour of P3s, and Harper's apparent insistence on personal control over information.

Given that Campbell's party obviously isn't in line on this issue just yet, there may be time to stop the B.C. legislation. But even if the current bill can be stopped, the example of Bill 30 - and the potential for exactly the kind of abuse so often criticized by the Cons - should be kept in mind next time Harper demands the trust of Canadians at the polls.

(Edit: typo.)

Update: Good news for now, as both of the controversial B.C. bills have been "deferred" for this session of the Legislature.

Hypocrisy at its most obvious

The Ottawa Citizen reports that despite years of criticizing the Libs for accepting business perks while in office, the Cons have (to nobody's surprise) continued the practice for their own benefit:

Accepting gifts, including free Ottawa Senators playoff tickets in luxury corporate boxes, continue to be acceptable for Conservative MPs in Stephen Harper's government, despite criticism of the practice when the Tories were in opposition.

The practice means a double standard regarding the acceptance of gifts still exists between politicians, such as government whip Jay Hill who attended last Friday's Senators playoff game, and federal rank-and-file bureaucrats who continue to be prohibited by rules overseeing their conduct...

On the apparent double standard with bureaucrats and her party's critical comments while in opposition, (Harper spokeswoman Sandra) Buckler declined comment, saying she was not familiar enough with the issue since she was not in opposition at the time...

Conservative MP John Williams has been very critical of freebies, saying that attending free hockey games with clients "is influence-peddling at its most obvious" and should be outlawed for "all decision-makers," including politicians. Contacted Monday, Williams said he still feels there is a double standard, but that the new government's Federal Accountability Act is a step in the right direction in placing restrictions on freebies. He said the act will require lobbyists to register any freebies they give out.

It's hard to see what principled reason could exist for holding politicians to a substantially lower standard than public servants. But even if there is a principled argument to be made, the Cons don't seem the least bit interested in bothering to make it.

Instead, the Cons seem satisfied with the conclusion that whatever they do themselves can't be wrong...even if it's precisely the same behaviour which used to inspire fits of rage when done by the Libs. And even those Cons who are still willing to acknowledge a double standard are hiding behind increased obligations on lobbyists (not on MPs themselves) as an excuse for preferential treatment for the Cons now that they hold power.

Once again, the Cons' only problem with the Libs' culture of entitlement seems to have been the fact that it wasn't the Cons who reaped the benefits. Fortunately, though, the opposition parties have the means to use the Accountability Act to force the Cons to live up to their own opposition rhetoric. And hopefully they'll be able to work together long enough to ensure that accountability applies to Harper's inner circle as well as to the rest of Canada's government apparatus.

A wasted opportunity

The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is currently reviewing Canada's human rights record since 1998. And during a time period dominated by a Liberal majority government with relatively few fiscal concerns, the country seems to have conspicuously failed to move in the right direction:

A United Nations watchdog group has harshly criticized Canada for its failure to live up to its commitments under an international treaty that protects people's economic, social and cultural rights.

In a tough assessment, one of the committee's 18 independent experts noted that “some situations (in Canada) had actually got worse” since Canada's record was last scrutinized in 1998...

“Many of the issues our committee raised in 1993 and 1998 are unfortunately still live issues today,” said Ariranga Govindasamy Pillay, an expert from Mauritius. “Years later, the situation appears to be unchanged, and in some respects worse.”

“There is continuing homelessness and reliance on food banks, security of tenure is still not enjoyed by tenants, child tax benefits are still clawed back.”

“The situation of Aboriginal peoples, migrants and people with disabilities doesn't seem to be improving,” Mr. Pillay said.

About the best one can say for federal policy in the meantime is that a few of the problem areas are provincial rather than federal responsibilities...meaning that the blame extends beyond the federal government alone. But a few of the problems were plainly the Libs' responsibility, and were neglected during the time period when Chretien and Martin had the most fiscal flexibility. And based on the U.N.'s review, it's glaringly clear why Canadians shouldn't be satisfied with a repeat of the Libs' record.

On deterrents

Rafe Mair points out what the Cons would do if their goal was really to reduce crime in Canada rather than to be seen as "tough":

Putting more people behind bars for longer terms will have one obvious consequence: we will spend a hell of lot more money, over $80,000 a year per prisoner in federal prisons. And we'll need more capital to build more prisons...

What happens if we take the money the Tories' new policy will cost and make a better parole system? A system which is strictly enforced so that there really will be a deterrent to the parolee who knows that any breach of his parole will see him back behind bars.

This will require a better and thus more expensive parole system, but wouldn't that be a better way to spend our tax dollars than more jails and longer sentences?

Assuming that there's a need to make any massive changes to a system which has already produced a declining crime rate for the past 15 years, the short answer is "yes". But as Mair points out, the Cons aren't the least bit interested in asking the question to begin with.

That said, it's worth noting that even using the language of "deterrence", Mair's plan makes a lot more sense than anything the Cons are proposing. After all, it's not as if any of the crimes included in the Cons' proposed reforms are subject to a low maximum sentence...meaning that resources to improve the "risk of detection" element of deterrence are likely to produce far more bang for the buck than incremental increases in length of sentence. And the potential return on investment is all the larger with respect to parole, given that the nature of parole requirements is to keep offenders moving in the right direction at the very point where they'll have the choice whether to reintegrate, or to continue down the criminal path.

Sadly, it's doubtful that Toews and company are interested in considering the possibility of putting their money toward something more effective. Instead, the Cons' plan is to cultivate public outrage rather than rationally evaluating which action will best prevent crime in the future. And if the of a system which focuses less effort on reintegrating offenders into society is to produce yet more crime for the Cons to be "tough" on in the future, then so much the better.

Vellacott in the act

Both CBC News and the Dan Report have noted the latest nonsense spewing from the mouth of Maurice Vellacott. But a couple of important points seem to have been missed in the discussion.

First, both sources seem to give Vellacott too much credit in his response when called on his inaccuracy:

"As I'm not a member of the cabinet, I obviously do not speak for the government of Canada on these matters," he said in a statement Sunday.

"For my part, I appreciate the important role judges play in our justice system in ruling on the written laws and constitution of Canada. I respect the independence of our judges as a fundamental aspect of a free and democratic society."

CBC's headline considers this to reflect Vellacott "eating crow", while Dan describes it as Vellacott "swallowing his pride". But while the answer clearly reflects Vellacott being put in his place to some extent, it doesn't actually admit any error in the words Vellacott put in Chief Justice McLachlin's mouth. Instead, Vellacott merely tries to change the subject by talking about judges generally rather than about his original claim. And of course, Vellacott also tries to argue that any error on his part shouldn't reflect on his party.

Which leads nicely into the second problem with the coverage. In light of Vellacott's assertion that he doesn't "speak for the government", it's worth keeping in mind that Vellacott was hand-picked by Harper for his committee chairmanship. And having given such direct approval to Vellacott, Harper must also be taken to at least be willing to overlook Vellacott's wilful disregard for reality.

On worthwhile missions

Politicians from all parts of the political spectrum (and both in Canada and internationally) have decried the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. Which will make it difficult for anybody to criticize the NDP's recommendation that Canada make Darfur its top international priority:

The federal NDP says Canada should take a lead role in any UN mission to stop the bloodshed in Darfur, even if that means scaling back its commitment in Afghanistan...

He says an intervention in Sudan's Darfur province, where hundreds of thousands have died and millions are refugees because of a bitter civil war, is more like the traditional peacekeeping mission Canadians support...

NDP defence critic Dawn Black says it's unlikely the armed forces can make the necessary commitment to a Darfur mission and still maintain its forces in Afghanistan at current levels.

She says once Canada fulfils its Afghan commitment in February, it should look at returning to a more traditional peacekeeping role in a place like Darfur.

We'll find out soon whether the Libs and Cons who have claimed to be interested in stopping genocide and securing peace in Darfur care enough about the issue to commit Canada's troops. It seems all too likely that the talk by the other parties isn't intended to turn into action. But thanks to the NDP's willingness to point out how much good can and should be done by Canada's military in Darfur, the other parties will have to answer for any gap between their rhetoric and their ultimate position when the issue gets dealt with in Parliament.

Update: Gordon O'Connor responds to the idea by saying that due to Afghanistan, Canada can't spare troops for any other deployments:

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

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

Left unanswered is the question of whether Canadians want to be locked into the Afghanistan mission "forever", especially if it leaves Canada unable to assist anywhere else in the world.

Your weekend must-read

Idealistic Pragmatist dissects the Libs' arguments to try to blame Jack Layton for all that is wrong with the world.

On poor advice

Shorter Frank Luntz: Never mind governing effectively, the key for the Cons is to keep bashing past Lib administrations.

It'll be interesting to see a couple of the consequences of Harper taking such advice. First, if he does, he'll open himself up all the more to claims that it's Bush's allies that really pull the strings in Harper's administration...which seems likely to turn into a liability which far outweighs any benefits to Harper in continued public anger at a past Lib regime.

Second, Luntz' advice essentially amounts to demanding that Harper resume auditioning for an opposition role. And with the Libs equally entrenched in bashing others rather than proposing solutions, the playing field could open up completely for another party which is willing to act more like a future government.

On defending one's position

There was some discussion earlier this week when word came out that Stephen Harper had offered to fund Bill C-48 in exchange for two years of support from the NDP. But aside from Gen X at 40, none of the commentators seem to have noticed the ultimate result of the offer. And it's worth taking a moment to compare Layton's reaction - and the outcome - to those of the other Canadian leaders in similar circumstances.

From the Star's coverage:

Sources say the NDP had no intention of accepting an offer that could spell political suicide.

Instead, the New Democrats quietly called the groups and governments counting on the cash that could be lost from C-48, such as provinces, municipalities and transit agencies, setting in motion a furious backroom lobbying effort to save the spending program.

"They were all convinced the money was secure and, in fact, it was already in their budgets," said one federal official.

It appears that effort succeeded. Last month, it was revealed the government will set up independent trust funds to distribute about $3.6 billion from C-48.

Rather than trying to win a better deal only by haggling with Harper himself, Layton instead brought other actors into the picture who had an interest in making sure the funding went through. The end result was that Harper went from making a ludicrous demand to caving completely, giving the NDP almost everything that Harper offered originally at absolutely no cost to the NDP. And it's hard not to think that Harper was worried about trying to work out a deal where the NDP gave something up for fear that Layton would keep the pressure up and get all the more for the NDP as a result.

Naturally, this should be compared to Harper's contrasting strategy on softwood lumber. There, Canada seems to have gone in with a relatively strong opening position (presuming that Harper at least brought up the possibility of full repayment and no restrictions before caving). But as I've discussed before, rather than allowing anybody with a common interest to be heard, Harper deliberately left Canadian lumber producers away from the table...and got snookered in the deal as a result. The process seemed bad enough at the time. But now that it's clear that Harper had been on the receiving end of a lesson in how to get results out of a bargaining situation, it's all the more negligent of Harper to have refused to learn from that example.

Needless to say, Harper's apparent all-or-nothing style of negotiating has its downside...as has been proven by Harper's inability to win a deal of any kind with the NDP, or a deal worth signing on softwood. But it does have its uses when dealing with another party which doesn't seem to want to learn from history. And lucky for Harper (if perhaps not for anybody else), Gilles Duceppe seems to have ignored Harper's history of bluffing then caving when it came to the budget. And it's hard to see much reason for that choice other than an aversion to personal responsibility for any results: this way Duceppe can claim (to a point) that the budget was solely Harper's doing, whereas by getting a better deal he would be forced to take more ownership of the outcome.

So much for reviewing the negotiating styles used so far this Parliament. But what can we take from all this? First, it seems rather clear that Harper's negotiating style is one that only succeeds when he's in a position to bully the other side (and/or where the other side isn't playing attention)...which is hardly a position that Canada can count on too often on the international scene. Second, Duceppe would rather be bullied into a mediocre result than be given any responsibility for a negotiated deal.

As a result, only one of the current federal leaders who will lead his party into the next election has a track record of brokering moderately strong positions into good results. And given Layton's record of working his way to solid outcomes from all parties domestically, it's worth wondering just how much more Canada could get done internationally if he got the chance to occupy Canada's seat at the table.