On a loss of control

Think Progress reports on yet another shady side of the softwood lumber deal, as the money to be spent on jointly-agreed "meritorious initiatives" may find itself turned into a Bushco slush fund:

ThinkProgress spoke with a lawyer familiar with the case, who said the following about the agreement:
– The United States is requesting $480 million for “meritorious initiatives” and just $20 million of the joint initiative benefiting the North American Lumber market.
– The agreement contains a complicated escrow system that may allow the $480 million to be funneled from the Treasury Department to the White House.
– It is the position of U.S. negotiators that Congress does not need to have any involvement in the deal.

Now, I'm far from agreeing with Think Progress' take - both in its characterization of the settlement as "obscure", and its focus primarily on internal U.S. controls. From a Canadian perspective, it's hard to share the concern as to any lack of Congressional oversight when the intention of the fund was to allow for jointly agreed initiatives between the U.S. and Canada.

But the flip side is that Canada should have at least some meaningful ability to determine the eventual use of the money to be used for joint purposes. From the sound of things, the deal as structured will give Bushco total control over how the money is spent, and won't likely wind up benefitting the lumber market to any meaningful degree...presumably leaving Harper to beg for some input as to how the money is used, and then to claim victory if Bush so much as listens to Canada's suggestions.

Updates on the softwood lumber talks: the U.S. Commerce Department, apparently not having been told enough times that its tariffs are illegal, has issued a preliminary decision which could boost the tariff to 14% starting in December. Meanwhile, negotiations may soon break off now that the Cons have missed their own needless deadline.

On gestures

Two Con parliamentary secretaries have lowered the bar once again on parliamentary behaviour:

The opposition is complaining that two Conservative MPs who act as parliamentary secretaries to ministers made obscene arm gestures across the floor of the House of Commons.

Daniel Gourde and Pierre Poilievre made the gestures moments apart as MPs voted on a farm bill Tuesday evening...

Gourde is parliamentary secretary to Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl, and Poilievre is parliamentary secretary to Treasury Board President John Baird.

The arm gesture involves two arms crossed at the elbow, one moving upward.

I've discussed before how the Cons seem to interpret maturity when it comes to foreign policy. But at home, the Cons' plan to be "mature" must have a different meaning, referring to an effort to ensure that the political process is unfit for the eyes and ears of children. And with Poilievre as the point man, the Cons appear well on their way to winning a parental advisory for parliamentary proceedings on CPAC.

Minority support

The results from the Nova Scotia election have been well-reported so far, and I don't have a ton to add to some of the other commentary. But it's worth noting that the voters of Nova Scotia are proving wrong the conventional wisdom that a minority situation inevitably means legislative chaos which naturally leads in turn to a majority government. And if Nova Scotia's minority continues to produce good results for the province, then there'll be a strong counterexample to Harper's inevitable claims that he needs a majority federally in order to accomplish anything.

On needless giveaways

Predictably, the Cons are far more committed to rewarding supporters than to taking a sound environmental step, as Jim Flaherty has flatly rejected the idea of eliminating tax breaks to the oil industry:

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has rejected a request from environmental groups to end an estimated $1.4 billion in annual tax breaks to the booming oil industry.

In a seven-page response to the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, Flaherty defends special tax treatment for the resource sector noting its importance as a source of investment and jobs...

Albert Koehl of the Sierra Legal Defence Fund said the oil and gas sector - a major source of greenhouse emissions - is making record multibillion-dollar profits and should not be getting any subsidies at all.

"Subsidies are for industries in transition," he said. "This is an industry no longer in transition and it has gotten over the last three decades about $40 billion from the federal government."

So how vital is the preferential tax treatment for the industry?

Greg Stringham of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers denied the $1.4 billion tax-break estimate, which is based on research by the Alberta-based Pembina Institute.

He said the estimate is based on outdated information but couldn't provide a current estimate. The industry made $27 billion after taxes last year, he said, a return of 14 per cent.

One would think that returns of 14% would be incentive enough for future investment in the oil patch - particularly when the most recent estimates suggest that the current tax breaks represent roughly 5% of the total after-tax profits of the industry. But while the Cons have happily scrapped environmental programs pending an evaluation of their efficiency, today's announcement demonstrates their complete lack of interest in ensuring that corporate tax giveaways are serving any useful purpose. Which, I suppose, probably will ensure that all the more investors find their way into the sector to benefit from the Cons' continuing largesse.

On playing by the rules

NDP MP Pat Martin is calling for an investigation into the possibility that concerted political contributions by top executives of TD Bank may violate the Canada Elections Act. We'll find out soon whether any Libs and Cons are committed enough to electoral rules to join the call...or whether both will be perfectly happy with possible violations as long as they each benefit.

Update: Not surprisingly, the answer from the Cons so far is to change the subject.

The power to shift costs

Dalton McGuinty insists that nuclear power is the only way to add enough capacity to keep Ontario running. But at the same time, McGuinty's government is going out of its way to offload the costs and risks of any new plants:

In unveiling today its long-awaited plan to address the province's looming electricity crisis, Ontario will include measures to protect consumers from cost overruns associated with building new reactors.

As part of that plan, government officials have been in talks with the federal government about having AECL build the reactors for a fixed price and by a fixed date, government and industry sources said. The contract would include penalties for not meeting these performance guarantees.

The federal government has been involved in the talks because it would ultimately be on the hook for providing the guarantees as the sole shareholder of AECL, the government sources said.

Now, I recognize the value of government guarantees when it comes to minimizing unknown risks to create an incentive for new developments. But the nuclear industry should surely be well-enough developed by now for all parties to know the costs and risks involved. And it speaks volumes that the same premier who insists that there's no other option refuses to be stuck with the downside of nuclear development.

Ultimately, McGuinty's request begs the question of why the federal government would be willing to provide substantially more support for nuclear power than for any other type of power generation. And if the only way nuclear power can be cost-effective is for Ontario to offload a chunk of the costs, then surely it's worth seeing whether or not other forms of energy can do the job given the same level of support.

Negotiations with a two-by-four

Apparently Harper and company are still trying to keep relatively straight faces while claiming that the softwood lumber cave-in is really a great deal for Canada. But if it was, would the U.S. be making demands like the ones reported by the Globe and Mail?

First, there's the clause designed to ensure that future trade disputes are no more easily or successfully resolved than this one:

Ontario officials said Americans seek to set up a process for tackling future softwood battles that wouldn't return duties collected before those disputes are settled.

“That's a deal breaker as far as we are concerned,” Mr. Ramsay said.

And rightly so, given that the entire reason why Canada is now signing away its right to make forestry policy is the U.S.' insistence that it hold onto the proceeds of its theft. But apparently Harper has shown his cards around the table enough that the U.S. isn't the least bit embarrassed asking for Canada to consent to going through the same mess again in the future.

One would think it couldn't get worse. But then...

Ontario's second major concern is that the United States is pushing to divide Canada's export quota into monthly allotments, Mr. Ramsay said. If companies don't meet their monthly share of the cap, they would lose the unused quota room, unable to carry it forward.

So having successfully capped Canada's share of the U.S. market isn't enough: now the U.S. also wants to set caps within the cap, and ensure that Canadian producers can't make up for slow months or take advantage of positive market conditions. (Speaking of comical attempts at a straight face, keep an eye out for Bush's next admonition that the U.S. is trying to lead the way toward free markets.)

Mind you, the worst of the demands might well be only a way of making Canada's ultimate additional concessions look small by comparison. But the direction in which the final negotiations have gone should remove any remaining doubt about who's been pushing who around at the bargaining table.

Shirking responsibility

It's a plus to see the federal government finally doing something about payday lenders. But it would be all the better if the Cons were willing to do anything more than punt the issue to the provinces:

The Conservative government is preparing to introduce legislation that would finally rein in Canada's mushrooming payday loan industry, delegating power to the provinces to regulate the business and protect consumers...

Rather than tinker with the interest rate in the Criminal Code, the government will make an exemption from the law for provinces that come up with their own consumer protection legislation and interest rates.

Hopefully most of the provinces will follow Manitoba's lead quickly to try address the issue. But the need for a series of provincial actions could have been avoided if Harper was willing to confront a national issue (and one properly under federal jurisdiction, for those determined to draw the lines) rather than passing the buck.

On public will

One of Harper's more amusing actions after taking office was his call for people to write letters to MPs in support of the Con platform. Today, CanWest reports that at least based the comments received in response to the Cons' budget plan, Harper's request was something less than a smashing success:

A majority of citizens urged the new Tory government to abandon plans for a GST cut, in the first-ever Web-based consultations carried out before a federal budget.

More than 500 people -- responding to the Finance Department's call for submissions -- sent the minister e-mails commenting directly on Goods and Services Tax policy, documents obtained under the Access to Information Act show.

Of those, 239 people opposed cuts to the GST promised by the Tories during the last election campaign, while 209 said they supported them.

Another 72 people offered other suggestions, such as using GST revenue for highway improvements...

Finance Canada did not specifically ask for suggestions on spending increases, but people offered them anyway. Ignoring obvious write-in campaigns, only one area stood out clearly: the environment.

"If one discounts write-in campaigns, more Canadians supported increased funding for the environment than any other single priority," says one document.

Note that the listed results doesn't include orchestrated letter-writing campaigns (as identified by the reporter in any event). Which means that despite Harper's call for all the public support he could muster, the citizens who took the time to write in with their own views lined up generally against the Cons - particularly in the citizens' demand for action on the environment.

Not that Harper could be bothered to listen when it came time to put the budget together. But there should be all the less doubt that the Cons' priorities are far from reflecting those of Canadians generally. And contrary to Harper's presumed plan, the lesson to opposition MPs is that the public doesn't want to be subject to any more of Harper's budgetary choices than it can avoid.

Of like mind

Was there ever a chance that Ujjal Dosanjh wouldn't endorse Bob Rae for the federal Lib leadership? And could anything do more to help the NDP move past its also-ran status than to have the symbols of its two worst provincial electoral disasters now sublimated in the same Lib effort - whether or not it succeeds in winning the leadership?

On self-reinforcing bias

Robert commented a couple of days ago about the near-complete lack of media coverage of the NDP's Greener Homes Strategy. It's certainly outrageous that the plan received as little attention as it did, but put in context the media blackout looks even worse than at first glance.

After all, based solely on the lack of coverage of the article one could always argue that the NDP hadn't put the media on notice or highlighted the issue...if not for, well, the fact that such a view would be dead wrong. The NDP mentioned its impending series of proposals several days in advance, and followed up the release of the strategy with further measures to keep the party's proposal in the public eye.

But it gets worse. At the same time the media was happily ignoring or spinning the NDP's major policy announcement, the Ottawa Citizen's Susan Riley was complaining about a supposed lack of opposition in Ottawa, particularly based on the "fitful" work by the NDP and the Bloc on Kyoto. For those keeping track at home, the NDP's allegedly fitful work included
asking multiple questions about Kyoto during the week's Question Periods and commenting on both National Clean Air Day and World Environment Day, in addition to unveiling and following up on its own plan.

In other words, not only is the media utterly failing to pay attention to meaningful policy suggestions, but it's also blaming the NDP for that failure. And with that apparently happening at the same time as editors swallow without question Stephen Harper's editorial suggestions and the Libs receive daily attention for their leadership race, there shouldn't be any doubt which federal party is getting the short end of the stick.

More patriotism than brains

The Ottawa Sun reports on Con MP Guy Lauzon's warped sense of priorities:

Conservative Guy Lauzon hopes Stormont-Dundas-South Glengarry will leap into prominence as the federal riding which displays the most flags on Canada Day. If earned, the record would be for "most patriotic area in the world."...

Chairman of Cornwall's Canada Day celebrations for several years running, the second-term MP sees his flag effort as a way of building U.S.-style national pride and counteracting the recent wave of bad news in the riding, most of it surrounding job losses.

Among employers to bite the dust are Nestle Canada at Chesterville and Domtar of Cornwall, tossing hundreds of residents out of work. It's time to refocus with a dose of patriotism, the MP said.

It would seem fairly obvious that the top priority of an MP whose riding is losing jobs should be to try to actually turn the economic situation around. And it's not as if a government-party MP lacks the means to try to make that happen - whether that's through changes in general public policy to improve the competitive advantage of Canadian employers through improved health care and meaningful child care, or through more specific efforts to talk with potential employers and encourage them to set up shop in one's region.

But for Lauzon, the primary goal is to create some piece of good news on the assumption that it'll cancel out the economic problems. Which means that the MP is asking Cornwall's newly-unemployed residents to spend part of whatever resources they have left on a Canadian flag in order to prove their patriotism and help feed his ego.

Needless to say, Cornwall residents shouldn't be the least bit happy to be pawns in their MP's attempt to win attention. And that should lead them to push for a new MP who's willing to work to improve the lives of the riding's citizens, rather than using his pulpit to try to divert attention from the issues which ultimately matter to his constituents.

The stenography begins

It's tough to take Christina Blizzard's introduction entirely seriously in light of the rest of the column. But if Blizzard is right in suggesting that editors are telling columnists not to write about equalization because "no one cares", then it sounds like at least part of the media has gladly and unquestioningly accepted Harper's spin on the topic.

Important steps

CBC reports that Russia will write off $700 million in third-world debt. While reducing the debt load alone is only one element in what's needed to improve third-world living conditions, it's certainly a necessary part of the solution. Kudos to Russia for joining the other G8 states in the effort.

Meet the new ethical standard, just like the old ethical standard

Joe Volpe hands all the non-Lib parties an early Xmas gift with his response to calls that he drop out of the leadership race:

As he prepared for the latest Liberal leadership forum in Winnipeg Saturday, Volpe said he's setting a new ethical standard that others should meet "or bow out of the race."...

On Friday fellow candidate Michael Ignatieff came close to calling on Volpe to bow out of the leadership contest, saying he has hurt the party's reputation. Volpe responded, saying he doesn't need to take lessons from anyone on how to serve the Liberal party.

Now, there's certainly reason to doubt that some of the other remaining candidates are also above criticism for their fund-raising and staffing so far. But the longer Volpe continues the Libs' tradition of dealing with dubious situations only grudgingly, after the fact and without admission that anything should even have been questioned, the less likely any eventual winner in the leadership race will be able to overcome the Libs' reputation once a general election rolls around.

Rank decisions

The Cons' full flag-lowering protocol has now gone public, and it's interesting to note just how much the Cons appear to think the Canadian public will value the lives of different people:

"Given that such flags are recognized as paramount symbols of their nations, the act of half-masting is a dramatic visual statement that speaks to the sense of loss that is shared by all their citizens," state the new rules...

The new protocol effectively limits full half-masting honours to the Queen, her immediate family and her representatives in Canada, sitting and former prime ministers, sitting cabinet ministers and the chief justice of the Supreme Court.

Privy councillors, sitting MPs, sitting senators and top foreign diplomats get the Peace Tower flag lowered only on the day of their funeral, rather than from the time of notification of death until the service...

The Canadian Heritage website noted that the Peace Tower flag was lowered to half-mast on Monday morning, from 9 a.m. to noon, "to honour former parliamentarians who passed away in the last year."

There are also special days honouring workers killed on the job, police and peace officers killed on duty, Remembrance Day, violence against women and Vimy Ridge day.

The prime minister maintains broad discretionary power to have the Peace Tower flag lowered "in exceptional circumstances," say the new rules, including the deaths of foreign leaders, prominent citizens at home or abroad, and federal employees.

In other words, the Cons apparently consider the loss to Canadians as follows. If Bev Oda has a fatal allergic reaction to caviar at a CRIA fund-raising dinner, the protocol will reflect a greater loss than if every MP in Parliament aside from the current Cabinet and ex-PMPM were to perish at once. And if Maurice Vellacott chokes on his own bile, the Cons figure the country should mourn that event more personally than if Canada's entire military contingent in Afghanistan is wiped out by a surprise attack.

Of course, there's always the PM's discretion. But then, we know that the Cons have no tolerance for ad hoc decisions. So if you want to hold your breath waiting for the PM to take such an action, at least do so at work so you can share in one of the days seen as worthy of mourning.

On failed plans

The theory once went that the Cons' plan to win a majority was to be seen as an effective government that could be trusted to keep its promises. Needless to say, if that was the Cons' theory, they're headed in the wrong direction due to Harper's newfound contempt for his party's commitments on equalization:

During the last election, Harper promised to remove non-renewable resource money from the equalization formula, a change that would have added hundreds of millions of federal dollars to Saskatchewan's coffers.

However, during an interview with Calgary radio host Dave Rutherford on Friday, Harper described his election pledge as a "preference."...

Harper also disputed the notion that Conservative MPs were elected on the promise to take non-renewable resources out of the formula.

"I think what MPs have been elected on in places like Saskatchewan is to improve the functioning of equalization and of the federal government for the province of Saskatchewan," Harper said...

A number of Saskatchewan Conservatives talked about changing the equalization program during the federal election campaign earlier this year, including Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre MP Tom Lukiwski.

"If we are elected into government, we will be revising the equalization formula, remove the non-renewable natural resources, which would result, of course, in Saskatchewan retaining 100 per cent of its oil and gas revenues," Lukiwski said Jan. 6.

It's hard to say which is a worse excuse: to say that the promise is irrelevant because Harper is entitled to tell voters they shouldn't care about it, or to blatantly ignore the facts as to what was promised in the first place. But neither one is anything close to a reasonable backing for the Cons' new stand.

Interestingly enough, now that King Steve has taken his current stance, I'm not sure that it matters at all if Harper eventually decides to turn around and remove non-renewable resource revenue from the equalization formula after all. It's now glaringly clear that what the Cons have promised directly can be reclassified as a "preference" or as completely irrelevant based on Harper's whims. And knowing that the Cons couldn't make it through a single session of a minority Parliament without pretending never to have promised what they promised, voters have plenty of reason to make sure Harper never gets a longer leash in the future.

Making a bad deal worse

The Globe and Mail has an update on the Cons' softwood lumber capitulation, featuring two new details. First, Canada's concessions apply to some productions which were never subject to an export duty even when the U.S.' illegal tariffs were at their worst:

(L)umber remanufacturing companies who make everything from siding to flooring are upset that some of the products previously exempt from duties are now captured by the agreement.

“This deal is a terrible deal,” said Michael Wiggin, who operates century-old Wynndel Box and Lumber Co., a family-run sawmill and remanufacturing operation in the southern B.C., Interior.

“There has been virtually zero meaningful consultation with industry. They're hanging the remaners out.”

Second, having already sold out once, the Cons are now trying to push to impose another artificial deadline this Sunday which should lay the groundwork for even more concessions:

Sources say Ottawa has told the U.S. government it wants the text in hand by Sunday because it needs to pass legislation enabling it to impose a border tax on lumber exports destined for the American markets before the House rises June 23...

One source said the Canadian timetable plays into U.S. hands, allowing American negotiators to hold out until Sunday, then make some last-minute concessions on marginal issues so Canada can argue it got the best deal it could.

To the extent that the Cons are using the end of the legislative session as such a deadline, it's not hard at all to call BS for a couple of reasons: first it surely shouldn't be much tougher to pass a bill enabling the government to set any relevant terms through regulation later on rather than having to pass the specifics immediately, and second because it shouldn't be the end of the world to extent the Parliamentary sitting long enough to avoid any additional giveaways.

But then, it's been clear all along that the Cons are more interested in being able to claim they've brokered a deal than in getting a reasonable outcome for Canada. And it shouldn't be much surprise that the excuses are no better now than they were than when the first agreements were reached.

Great stuff

For those not yet acquainted, Alison at Creekside is perfecting the art of snark.

A continuing culture

So much for the Libs trying to clean up the party after the sponsorship scandal, as the CP reports that multiple Lib leadership candidates are using their publicly-funded MP offices for the leadership race:

Supporters of at least eight of the 11 leadership candidates have used MPs' offices on Parliament Hill to distribute partisan campaign material, according to e-mails obtained by The Canadian Press.

During parliamentary business hours, offices have churned out invitations on campaign letterhead to meet candidates, attend leadership launches, or get together with campaign staff.

One Liberal MP called the practice unethical and said it runs deeper than just e-mails.

"This is the tip of the iceberg," he said. "There are interns being used to do (campaign) work, there's the odd phone call to twist a colleague's arm.

"But that's not traceable."...

A spokeswoman for Elections Canada said MPs' staffers are ineligible to work on campaigns while being paid for their time from the public purse...

"If a member of an MP's staff engages in leadership campaign work for the MP or for any other leadership contestants during normal working hours, then a proportionate share of that person's salary . . . must be included as a leadership campaign expense," she said.

"The same applies to the use of the member's office facilities or supplies."

In fairness, an MP could theoretically comply with the Elections Canada requirements by tracking all use of the office and reimbursing the public purse for the difference. But given last week's report that leadership candidates appear to be anticipating that Elections Canada won't enforce provisions requiring repayment of candidate loans, it seems all too likely that the same type of attitude will prevail when it comes to the use of MP offices for the leadership race. And even if the plan is to try to fix matters later, it's hard to see how any advantages to using public resources outweigh the damaging perception that the Libs haven't changed a bit.

Whatever the reason

John at Dymaxion World points out the bad news that Canadians as a whole have a poor understanding of Canada's fuel situation. But the good news is that whatever the public's knowledge level, Canadians consumed less fuel last year than the previous one:

Canadian gasoline sales decreased last year for only the second time since 1994, likely thanks to surging pump prices, Statistics Canada reported Thursday.

Canadian drivers purchased 39.8 billion litres of gasoline in 2005, down 1.4 per cent from 2004, according to preliminary data.

It was the first decline since 1994, except for a marginal 0.1 per cent reduction in 2001 when terrorist attacks on the United States disrupted the transportation industry.

It remains to be seen whether the drop will be a permanent effect, or simply a one-time reaction to higher-than-usual prices. But it's still a plus to note that consumption levels at least started heading in the right direction last year...whether or not the drop is based on a full appreciation of where Canadians gas comes from and what we pay compared to the rest of the world.

Just wondering...

Due credit to those in Iraq who managed to hunt down Al-Zarqawi. But does this mean we'll never find out who his top lieutenants really were?

A strong debut

While the CMA continues to insist on health-care privatization, the newly-formed Canadian Doctors for Medicare points out just how far off base the CMA is:

(W)e face challenges similar to those in many, if not all, developed countries, whatever their mix of public and private health care. Most of these countries are struggling to ensure that their citizens have better access to primary and preventative care (including a family doctor), and to improve wait times for diagnostic tests and treatment.

Vocal advocates of privatization use these challenges to advance their views that private insurance will somehow make things better. That couldn't be further from the truth...

Health care is expensive, and it's going to get more expensive. But if we follow the private insurance road, we'll end up losing the efficiencies that make our single-tier system more cost effective than the two-tiered alternative, not to mention the higher quality and accessibility of our single-tier model.

It remains to be seen whether the new group will be able to cultivate as high a public profile in the debate as CMA has received. But if nothing else, it's a boost to all Canadians who want to see a universally-accessible system to know that a movement of doctors shares their view. And if the CDM is able to help sway the debate, then maybe we can get past the "gridlock" of perpetual talk of privatization in order to shift the discussion to policies which actually help the health-care system.

On ill-fated plans

Michael Wilson apparently has some time to kill as he waits for the U.S. to get back to him on border security. And after his suggestion that top Canadian officials go on a "myth-busting" tour through the States, I'll suggest that he spend at least a bit of that time studying the American political scene enough to know just what kind of treatment any dose of reality tends to receive.

On bad investments

Let's check in on how the Cons' closer ties with the U.S. are working out these days:

The American government wants anyone crossing its border to carry a secure piece of identification by the end of next year, but Canada's ambassador in Washington says he still doesn't know what that means.

Michael Wilson told a Senate committee Wednesday that despite the looming deadline, there is no information about what Washington wants when it comes to identification.

"There is a sense of frustration at not being able to find out information," Wilson said. "We don't know how much has been done. Some of the questions might have moved past what we think the answers are."...

Wilson repeatedly had to tell senators with questions about the law that he didn't have any answers.

In other words, the Cons' plan to put Canada/U.S. relations on "a more mature wavelength has predictably resulted in nothing more than static headed Canada's way, despite our modest billion-dollar investment in the U.S. softwood lumber industry. And it appears the Cons' current idea of maturity is simply to grin and bear a complete lack of cooperation from Harper's ideological allies, even as other American politicians (largely made up of Bush's opponents) are also doing their best to deal with the border.

Ever changing

At least a few MPs have an excuse for not being particularly focused on the budget, as the CP goes into more detail about the number of possible amendments to the Accountability Act:

A special legislative committee is embarking on a virtual rewrite of the Conservative government's centrepiece Federal Accountability Act today with plans for more than 100 amendments to the bill.

By the end of a line-by-line review of Bill C-2, almost one in three of its 370 clauses are expected to be altered by an ad hoc committee dominated by the opposition parties.

Major amendments expected from the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois include the elimination of a proposed $1,000 reward for whistleblowers, stricter limits on political donations from minors, a ban on corporate loans for candidates, a floor-crossing law allowing for the recall of politicians and even altering the French title of the proposed law.

It doesn't look like the bulk of the proposed amendments should be overly controversial. But I still wonder whether the Cons will follow through on passing an opposition-influenced Accountability Act and which can be seen to embarrass at least a couple of high-profile Cons, rather than using the number of amendments as an excuse not to do anything without a majority in Parliament.

On unintended consequences

The CP reports on the latest machinations surrounding the Accountability Act. Most of the changes seem relatively minor: the floor-crossing provision sounds sufficiently watered-down not to have too much effect (though it is news to have the Libs onside), and the NDP's call to combine contribution limits between parents and children doesn't seem likely to have too strong an effect on anybody besides Joe Volpe. But a much larger potential amendment is buried at the bottom of the coverage:

One element of the act requires anybody who lobbies the federal government to file reports every time they meet with public office holders. The Canadian Society of Association Executives has called on the government to exempt charities and non-profits from the requirement.

"We are also concerned that increasing this compliance requirement will prove to be a more onerous, time-consuming burden that will result in a loss of productivity for many not-for-profit organizations currently facing resource constraints," the society said in its submission to the Commons committee.

On the surface, this would seem to be a reasonable suggestion - and certainly it's tough for any party to be seen taking a stand against non-profits and charities.

The only problem is the small matter of what would happen if such a rule were to pass. It's not hard to see that the exemption of charities and non-profits from lobbying rules would offer a ready opening for astroturf groups to lobby on behalf of anybody based on a single step worth of separation. Not only would that utterly undermine the purpose of imposing greater transparency on lobbyists, but it could also easily result in the newly-formed astroturf groups using their organizational resources to shape the political playing field when they're not busy lobbying.

The article doesn't indicate which parties (if any) are looking to include the exemption. But hopefully enough MPs will recognize the dangers behind the seemingly innocuous suggestion, and ensure that an act which is supposed to improve transparency doesn't instead spur the promulgation of artificial interest groups.

On mistakes

Needless to say, this is an embarrassment for the opposition parties.

Assuming a Con would bother showing up when scheduled to speak? What could they have been thinking?

A credit-worthy idea

The Daily Bread Food Bank has made its suggestions on how to put an end to hunger in Toronto and elsewhere:

The plan, which was outlined in the agency's annual profile of hunger in the GTA, recommends the creation of a new Ontario Child Benefit up to $92 per child per month for low-income families. It also suggests Ottawa establish a new refundable tax credit for the working poor and low-income earners.

That federal credit would consist of two parts – a working income benefit of up to $2,400 a year or $200 a month for the working poor and a basic refundable tax credit of $1,800 a year or $150 a month for all low-income earners including the working poor...

Other highlights of the action plan include: a request that all levels of government to continue to invest in affordable housing and rent supplement programs and the federal government reverse its decision to end the national learning and child care program.

The report provides a stark snapshot of poverty in the GTA. Thirty-eight per cent of people relying on food banks are children. A total of 894,017 people used food banks in the last year. That’s up only slightly — 1.3 per cent — from the previous year, but up a whopping 79 per cent since 1995.

The annual report also found that 22 per cent of children go hungry at least once a week while 45 per cent of adults say they go hungry at least once a week. And 24 per cent of households using food banks have at least one person working. The median income of food bank households is $954 a month. The net income of the average size family is $11,448 a year.

While the suggestions on housing and child care don't appear likely to be positively received by the federal government, it's worth seeing whether Harper will consider extending his favoured tax-credit idea to the task of helping Canada's poorest workers. Such an idea could be a winner from both a political and a policy standpoint, likely softening up the current and well-deserved perception that Harper isn't interested in helping Canada's worst off while helping to alleviate poverty in a cost-effective way.

But if (as seems all too likely) Harper isn't interested, then it'll remove all doubt that his concern isn't so much with relieving harmful tax burdens as with buying votes. And even those who are currently benefitting from the Cons' largesse shouldn't have much trouble seeing the longer-term problems with that type of mindset.

On growing recognition

An AP/Ipsos poll suggests that despite apparent crackdowns against immigrants (accompanied by inevitable anti-immigrant rhetoric) in the U.S., Canada and elsewhere, public acknowledgement of the contributions of immigrants has in fact improved over the past two years. And Canada leads the way in its enthusiasm for immigration:

Public acceptance of immigrants has grown in Canada, the United States and several European countries over the last few years despite outbreaks in some countries of immigrant riots and heated debates aimed at limiting migration.

AP-Ipsos polling found more tolerance for immigrants now than two years ago in the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain.

In the U.S. and Australia, just over half said immigrants are good for their country. In Canada - where immigrants are actively recruited - three-fourths said immigrants are a good influence.

Of course, the nearly-even splits in most of the countries aside from Canada suggest that there's still a lot of nationalist sentiment in play. But the wider trend is at least headed in the direction of recognizing the important roles immigrants play in any country's well-being...and Canada should be proud to be leading the way.

Winning policy, winning strategy

As promised, I'll take a few minutes to discuss the NDP's plan to release a greenhouse-gas reduction plan this week:

Opposition parties will step up their attacks this week on the Conservative government's increasingly unpopular environmental position, with the pro-Kyoto New Democrats going so far as to release daily elements of a plan for the government to tackle climate change.

NDP Leader Jack Layton said this weekend his party will roll out "key elements" of that plan "virtually every day" this week...

"We can at least show that there are things that the government could be doing now as we head into smog season," Layton said at a conference of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in Montreal. "Are we just simply going to twiddle our thumbs for six months and reneg (sic) on commitments we've made to the rest of the world? It's not where Canadians want to go."

From a policy standpoint, obviously it's a plus to try to highlight the options available to address global warming, particularly at a time when the Cons are supposedly collecting ideas for their plan this fall. But the political reasons for the NDP move strike me as ultimately more important than the likelihood of any action being taken, or even the content of the plan.

After all, the NDP has had a thorough Kyoto strategy available for public viewing for ages already. It doesn't seem all that likely that the NDP's philosophy has changed too much since the existing plan was drafted, though a few new ideas may work their way into the mix. And while I'd like to think the current wave of Kyoto support will force the Cons into action, there still isn't much chance that a government determined to undermine Kyoto will adopt much of a platform explicitly aimed at meeting the Kyoto targets.

But as things stand now in Parliament, the NDP is making the right move in differentiating itself by promoting policy first, particularly in an area which has often been in the public eye. The Cons have the machinery of government to keep themselves in the news, hampered only by their ideological bent against government getting anything done; the Libs can count on their leadership race to draw media attention to at least the party's personalities. That leaves an all-too-typical void in the department of presenting innovative policy options, and it only makes sense for the NDP to fill in the gap.

Mind you, that always leaves the danger that the NDP may be seen as overly interested in developing policies for other parties to co-opt. But in the wake of the last election, there's a rare opening for policy to be seen as more of a strength than a liability. After all, much of the media narrative from the past election suggests that the Cons succeeded by putting their policies in the public eye early and often. And with that mindset dominating the current political CW, it can only help the NDP in the eyes of the punditocracy to get the jump in the midst of the perpetual campaign that is a minority government.

On external causes

Michael Byers theorizes that foreign policy will prove to be Harper's downfall in the next federal election:

It is a basic tenet of Canadian political science that foreign policy doesn't matter in elections. In fact, it hasn't mattered since 1988 when Brian Mulroney used the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement to drive a wedge between his Progressive Conservatives, on the one side, and the Liberals and NDP on the other. Foreign policy issues are usually too complex, under-reported or distant in their implications to register with most Canadians.

Stephen Harper adheres to the view that foreign policy lacks electoral significance and, for this reason, feels safe following the Bush administration's lead. He made a lousy deal on softwood lumber, allowing U.S. forest companies to keep $1 billion in illegal gains. He agreed to share surveillance information from the Northwest Passage with the Pentagon without receiving recognition of Canada's sovereignty claim in return. He has moved towards participation in missile defence, taken sides in the Israel-Palestine conflict, and failed to protect Afghan detainees from torture. But how many people know this? And how many really care?

Still, three foreign policy issues could soon achieve unusual degrees of prominence. When the "new" Stephen Harper lets the mask slip on these issues, exposing his neo-conservatism, Canadians will notice -- and they likely will care.

I don't share Byers' view that Afghanistan is likely to be one of the defining issues of the next campaign - with the most recent vote in Parliament there doesn't seem to be much prospect of Canada's role ending or changing anytime soon. But there seems to be at least a reasonable chance that global warming will be kept in the news enough to grow in importance and take a bite out of the Cons' support. And if the U.S. does decide to provoke a war with Iran, that could prove to be a back-breaking blow for Harper's government whether or not it actually declares public support for such a war (since the opposition parties will be able to easily point out the danger of an even more pro-Bush policy if Harper were to win a majority).

Mind you, the last time an election was decided primarily on a foreign-policy issue, it was a split vote that allowed Mulroney to remain in power. And depending on who becomes the next Lib leader (and whether the Canadian public decides to forget about the Libs' woeful record on global warming), a similar split might at least dampen the effect of the key foreign-policy issues next time out.

But it does appear clear that factors bigger than the usual domestic issues may have a huge impact on the next federal election. And Harper's attempts to micromanage everything taking place within Canada aren't going to help him in the least when it comes to what's going on outside our borders.

Heh

I'm curious to see whether Anonymous Law Firm LLP is funny only to lawyers, or to people generally. But for this lawyer at least, it's a classic.

Monitoring the revolving door

The issue certainly hasn't gone without discussion in the past. But the CP reminds us about Harper's about-face on lobbyists since he took power:

As the much-vaunted Accountability Act gets closer to passing the House of Commons, critics say Harper's disdain for lobbyists is really nothing more than an elaborate media line...

Indeed, lobbyists represent an important component of the Conservative political machine.

Consider a recent memo sent out directly from the Prime Minister's Office concerning the ongoing battle with the national media. It was sent to top party strategists, including members of the lobbying world who appear on talk shows, suggesting they portray the media as lazy when asked about the spat.

So clearly Harper is comfortable having lobbyists speak for his party - perhaps more so than some of his own MPs.

Meanwhile, in case there was any thought that Harper was doing all he can without a majority in Parliament, think again:

Harper has also repeatedly decried the "revolving door" between government and government consultants, promising during the last election to slam it shut. The Accountability Act proposes that public office holders be barred from lobbying government for five years after they leave office...

But that principle didn't seem to stand for Elizabeth Roscoe, a member of Harper's transition team following the election. She went on to become a vice-president of public affairs at the Canadian Association of Broadcasters.

Conacher said Harper could have prevented this by amending the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders, a set of rules that is under the immediate control of the prime minister and would have come into effect right away.

Again, none of this should come as too much surprise. But it's worth highlighting one more example of how Harper's message is directly contrary to his own actions. And I'll look forward to more members of the media proving Harper's talking point wrong by checking such hypocrisy at every turn.

On obstacles

I won't pretend to know exactly how to solve Canada's military recruiting woes. But I think we can safely assume that more intense fighting in Afghanistan won't do much to help matters.

A growing movement

Another influential group has thrown its weight behind the need for Canada to follow through on its Kyoto commitments and more, as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has committed to reductions far beyond those set out in Kyoto:

At its annual meeting in Montreal Saturday, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, representing 1,400 municipal leaders across Canada, adopted a policy statement supporting Canada's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

"Municipal governments commit themselves...to implementing policies and operational changes that will achieve a global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 30 per cent by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050, based on 1990 levels," the statement reads...

Lloyd Hines, chair of the FCM's standing committee on environmental issues, said the FCM hopes to be consulted on Harper's climate change plan, promised for this fall. He said FCM members are concerned about the environmental message the Harper government has sent so far.

"They are concerned that there may be some lessening of commitment on Kyoto and other environmental issues," Hines said.

For those wondering whether the mayors in fact receive the chance to make their concerns known to the federal government, rest assured that they'll get just as much direct interaction as most groups who inconveniently disagree with a Con position:

Environment Minister Rona Ambrose was to address the FCM's meeting today but has cancelled, citing a schedule conflict.

But even with the Cons trying their best to pretend that no meaningful action needs to be taken, the combined force of the FCM, the provinces who plan to meet or exceed their Kyoto reduction levels, and Canadians generally who recognize the need for action is something that the Cons will have trouble ignoring. Kudos to the FCM for keeping the momentum going.

Update: I'll deal with the substance of this article later, but take a look at the laughable excuse for Ambrose's cancellation:

Officials with Ambrose and in the Prime Minister's Office said her appearance was unnecessary after Prime Minister Stephen Harper decided to open the conference with a speech last Friday. They could not, however, explain why the official agenda had the two federal politicians speaking at different times.

Now, given Harper's commitment to stifling his cabinet ministers, it may well be true that Ambrose would have said absolutely nothing that Harper hadn't covered in his address. But even conceding that Ambrose had nothing useful to say, it would have made a lot more sense to plan for the consequences of a "one Con only" policy, rather than to leave the conference to deal with a last-minute cancellation.

On security needs

I don't have too much to add about the successful raid on an apparent terrorist cell that hasn't been discussed already. But it's worth noting that the issue had nothing at all to do with the immigration issues that CSIS is currently trying to push; and contrary to government plans last fall, it didn't require massive instrusions into Canadians' communications in order to enable CSIS to find and neutralize any threat.

Update: See Rusty Idols and My Blahg for more discussion of how the operation represents a victory for law enforcement rather than extralegal intrusions into the lives of Canadians.

On favours

From Jean Charest's comments yesterday, it would appear that he's turned against the Harper federal government completely. But I have to wonder whether he's ultimately trying to force an election now for the federal Cons' benefit:

Quebec Premier Jean Charest challenged Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe on Friday to bring down the minority federal government over its refusal to pay its share of a made-in-Quebec program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Charest said if Duceppe is serious about defending Quebec's interests, the Bloc will vote against the federal budget.

"If Gilles Duceppe wants to ... criticize the premier of Quebec, I invite him to do what people have mandated him to do in respect to his responsibilities," a combative Charest told reporters after signing a series of new agreements with Ontario.

"He represents Quebecers in the House of Commons. If he believes in what he is saying, unless it is empty rhetoric, well then he will vote against the budget in the House of Commons. So we'll see who has backbone."

Now, I'll readily agree with Charest that the budget isn't one that Duceppe should be supporting without some serious changes. But considering the frequency with which Charest and Harper are allied on particular issues (not to mention Charest's need to secure federal support to try to stay in power), it would be surprising to see Charest calling for the federal government's head already without at least some implicit approval from the federal Cons. Which makes it seem rather likely that Charest's call is simply a first step in a movement by the Cons to try to force an election before the Libs can sort out their leadership mess.

On gift horses

I can understand the inclination to see an article on health reform in Alberta, and assume that something dubious must be afoot. But I can't see why there'd be too much concern about the province's decision to allow pharmacists to prescribe certain types of drugs:

Starting this fall, pharmacists who complete a training program will be able to give and refill prescriptions without a doctor's authorization for a wide range of chronic illnesses, such as high blood pressure and asthma.

They will also be able to administer vaccines.

Certain addictive drugs, such as narcotics, will still require a doctor's approval for prescription refills.

Now, I can understand the need to ensure that pharmacists don't start making difficult judgment calls where a doctor is better qualified to do so, and I presume the program will be monitored to that effect. But when it comes to repeated and/or routine prescriptions, the change looks to me like a win-win situation for patients. Those who only want to receive their usual refill will save possibly a trip to the doctor and at least some administrative wrangling in doing so, while still seeing a trained professional who can refer the patient to a physician if there's a need to do so. Meanwhile, those who genuinely need to see a doctor will have more opportunity to do so thanks to an incremental reduction in the doctor's workload.

Again, it's understandable to be suspicious of any Klein reform in health care. But this one looks like one which simply makes publicly-funded health care more efficient...and those of us committed to preserving a strong public system should be glad to see that kind of progress.

(via liberal catnip.)

Housekeeping

Template changes tonight to include a Progressive Bloggers vote link and Canadian Blog Exchange related topics link at the bottom of each post. Let me know if the new additions cause any problems.

On looking the other way

For those wondering how the Cons' undying trust in the responsibility of others is working out in Afghanistan, the predictable answer is "not well at all":

Canadian soldiers have intervened at least twice to prevent the summary execution of Taliban suspects captured on operations with the Afghan army, highlighting the moral murk confronting troops caught between government policy and the brutality of a still-violent country.

And the local representative of Afghanistan's independent human rights commission suspects that nearly a third of prisoners handed over by Canadians are abused and even tortured in Afghan jails...

Canadian soldiers have intervened at least twice to prevent the summary execution of Taliban suspects captured on operations with the Afghan army, highlighting the moral murk confronting troops caught between government policy and the brutality of a still-violent country.

And the local representative of Afghanistan's independent human rights commission suspects that nearly a third of prisoners handed over by Canadians are abused and even tortured in Afghan jails.

Unfortunately (for the Cons' position at least), international law isn't willing to look the other way to the same extent that Harper is:

Canada is also obliged under international law to ensure detainees are protected against torture and summary execution, even after they are transferred to Afghan custody.

Which means that Canada is at least in part responsible for the already-documented abuse, to say nothing of the potential for future (or undisclosed) escalation of what's known so far. And in the face of public information to the effect that the assurances received so far aren't accomplishing a thing, it's all the more negligent for anybody representing Canada to pretend that it's reasonable to rely on the same assurances in the future.

(Edit: cleaned up wording.)

Big Daddy to kids: "Go ask your mother"

Stephen Harper has declared his plan for helping cities, which consists entirely of making the issue the provinces' problem:

The federal government's commitment to tackle the fiscal imbalance with the provinces will ease the financial burden faced by municipalities, Prime Minister Stephen Harper says...

Harper has vowed to make solving the fiscal imbalance with provinces one of his key priorities. The provinces complain Ottawa retains too many tax dollars, leaving them struggling to provide services.

Harper said municipal and local officials must then work with their respective provinces on new funding deals...

Big city mayors arrived at the meeting armed with a report they issued on Thursday containing a number of recommendations, including (that) (t)he federal government should share revenue that grows with the economy, such as income tax and the federal goods and services tax.

It's questionable already whether whatever money gets handed back to the provinces through equalization increases will make up for funding lost on Kyoto, child care and other programs where planned federal inputs will no longer flow to the provinces. Now, Harper has made clear that the problem of municipal funding will also be left solely to the provinces to address from a pool of money that doesn't yet exist, and has largely already been spent to the extent that provinces follow through on their earlier plans.

Harper is quoted as criticizing the Libs' downloading as the reason why municipalities' debt and infrastructure difficulties. But it seems a rather curious response to the downloading problem to engage in yet another wave of it. And if the responsibilities downloaded exceed the resources provided by as wide a gap as appears likely, it won't be long before provinces recognize that any current imbalance has only become worse.

On reasons for opposition

Both Greg and Berlynn have already chimed in on this morning's report that some parts of the Accountability Act may be unconstitutional. But as far as I can tell, the issues surrounding this particular constitutional question seem to me to be less problematic than has been suggested so far.

From a foundational standpoint, I don't agree entirely with the implication that any statute which is of questionable constitutionality should be dropped by a government rather than pursued further. Prior to past decisions being released, it's been far from clear that current laws on issues ranging from tobacco control to political advertising would ultimately be upheld under the Charter. Similarly, the only reason why we now have a body of jurisprudence on the question of division of powers is the fact that past governments have decided to pass laws which were at least arguably subject to question.

This isn't to say, of course, that a law's constitutionality should be ignored. But in the case of all but the most obviously-unconstitutional legislation (of which a new ban on SSM may well be an example), it's generally worth examining whether the potential benefits of the law outweigh the risks of it being struck down.

With that out of the way, let's take a look at what constitutional issues seemingly raised by the Accountability Act. There appear to be two issues at stake: first, whether or not courts receive some authority to review some actions by cabinet ministers acting in their capacity as MPs, and second, the manner in which Parliament determines its voting procedures.

In each case, it's the affected group itself which will determine whether or not to pass the law in the first place, which eliminates the usual concerns about imposing a law on a group with no ability to fight it. The real issue is the extent to which Parliament has the ability through a majority vote on a bill to modify either the rights of a cross-section of its individual members, or the process by which parts of its internal procedure are determined. Yes, it is a constitutional issue, but more based on fine lines involving division of powers within the same body than on anything approaching important individual rights.

Moreover, future Parliaments will have the ability to restore the status quo ante in the future: obviously this Parliament couldn't bind a future Parliament which chose by a majority to pursue a different path. Needless to say, that ability to reverse the questionable statute isn't present for most people on the wrong end of a possible constitutional violation.

I'll grant that there's a serious need to look at the issues raised by Walsh (as well as other issues related to the Accountability Act) to determine whether the rewards do outweigh the risks, and in that regard the memos should be made available for review. But the presence of some advice to the effect that the legislation may violate traditional Parliamentary rights should be a much smaller issue than the substantive contents of the Accountability Act - both in terms of what the Cons have put in, and what they've omitted or planned to cut out. And if the Accountability Act does get shot down based to any substantial degree on arcane issues of Parliamentary privilege, that seems likely only to play into the Cons' hands when they claim that opposition obstruction is more of a problem than the potential for a Con majority.

(Edit: typo.)

A small step to nowhere

CanWest discusses the Cons' senate reform plan in a bit more detail. And it's worth noting that even the seemingly modest starting point is one which may not pass constitutional muster:

Several Liberal senators challenged the government's interpretation that the proposed constitutional amendment required to make the change does not require the approval of at least seven provinces, representing 50 per cent of the population.

Liberal Senator Percy Downe recalled that during his time working in the Prime Minister's Office under Jean Chretien, the Justice Department advised on more than one occasion that such an amendment would require so-called "seven-50" approval in order to be constitutional...

Liberal Senator Sharon Carstairs, whose father was also a senator, argued that eight-year terms should be considered a "fundamental change" to the chamber and require the approval of the provinces.

I presume some of the past advice will become public in greater detail as the Harper proposal gets debated; for now there are at least plausible arguments to be made on both sides, and it may well take a judicial challenge of a final bill (or, if Harper is thinking ahead, an SCC reference) to determine just what can and can't be done without provincial approval.

Also of interest is the fact that Marjory LeBreton, Harper's point person on Senate reform, apparently sees it as a selling point that current Senators and others could potentially be elected to the Senate long after the current age-75 limit for appointments. As I argued yesterday, the formal barriers to entry or continuation in the Senate seems like a good place to start, but dealing with the upper age limit alone seems like an odd way of going about it. After all, has Canada really been suffering for lack of Strom Thurmonds in our upper chamber?

On wilful ignorance

Diane Finley has claimed that no child-care spaces were created in her riding even though 100 actually were. Jim Prentice is now claiming that no money went to help rebuild Kashechewan after last year's rebuilding agreement, even though $9 million apparently found its way there. Are the Cons actually paying the slightest bit of attention to how the Libs ran the country (and how to improve on that standard), or are they merely reflexively denying that the federal government did anything but send troops to Afghanistan over the past 13 years?

(Edit: typo.)

On winning allies

Lorne Calvert has won a surprising convert to the cause of removing natural resource revenues from the equalization formula, as Dalton McGuinty has come onside with a position previously pushed only by Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Cons' federal platform:

After meeting with Saskatchewan Premier Lorne Calvert on Thursday, McGuinty said he won't oppose excluding non-renewable resource revenues for the complicated federal revenue-sharing formula.

"I've told Lorne that I certainly will not argue against that," McGuinty told reporters at the Saskatchewan legislature.

"I've come away today with a much better understanding of Saskatchewan's perspective and I also must say that I don't know how the prime minister is going to be able to move away from the commitment he made to exclude non-renewables from the calculations of equalization."

The move is particularly surprising in light of Harper's decision to reclassify the Cons' campaign promise as a "preference". With the Cons' position in doubt, it seems highly likely that a concerted effort from central and eastern Canada could have isolated Saskatchewan and Alberta on the issue. But it's a testament to Calvert that he was able to persuade McGuinty...and the effect is to send the ball back into Harper's court.

With one of the provinces which figured to be a major opponent of the cause now working with Calvert on the issue, Harper will face the choice of keeping his promise after all and losing some face with Charest and Lord, or utterly betraying his party's base solely in order to win favour in Quebec and the Maritimes. And with Ontario not taking a strong position one way or the other, that leaves a strong likelihood that this time Harper's desire to push further into Quebec won't be the deciding factor.

Getting nowhere

Despite Harper's best efforts to fabricate confrontation then stomp his feet while complaining that he can't get anything done in a minority Parliament, and despite the Cons' attempts to muzzle their less sane members, the Canadian public isn't any more eager to see a Con majority now than it was during the 2006 campaign:

Canadians may be willing to re-elect Stephen Harper's Conservatives but they're hesitant about a Tory majority, a new national poll suggests.

The Decima survey put support for the Conservatives at 38 per cent - slightly higher than on election day but lower than other recent polls. Forty-three per cent of respondents said they wanted to see the Conservatives win the next election, but just 30 per cent said they'd like to see Harper form a majority government.

Compare to the numbers from a poll taken December 29-31:

Nationwide, the poll found 52 per cent of respondents considered the prospect of a Liberal majority undesirable, while 25 per cent found it desirable and 23 per cent found it acceptable.

The results were almost identical for a Tory majority: 56 per cent found that prospect undesirable, 25 per cent desirable and 19 per cent acceptable.

In sum, the Cons' honeymoon period has done little to nothing to increase Canadians' confidence in Harper as a majority PM. And based on the Cons' meager record in government, it's hard to see how that confidence could possibly increase heading into the next federal election.

On upper-chamber renovations

A couple of thoughts on the Cons' bill on Senate tenure.

First, the bill scrupulously avoids imposing any new tenure limit on current Senators for now. But for the future, it still seem awfully likely that Harper will end up running into a roadblock of current Lib Senators...and once there's a precedent for setting term limits through legislation, it's not hard to anticipate Harper trying to apply it to existing terms in the future. Which means that it's understandable that the current Senate is being cautious about opening the door at all.

Second, it's interesting also that in making a small step to open up the Senate to institutional change, Harper isn't starting with the formal age- and property-related barriers to Senate appointment in ss. 23(1), (3) and (4) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Indeed, the current bill specifically maintains the application of s. 31 (which provides in part for removal from the Senate where a Senator falls below the initial property ownership requirement) to current Senators.

Of course, the greater potential application of the barriers would be in the case of people elected to a Senate position (whether through existing provincial processes or a future federal one), who could either be on the lower side of 30, or fail to meet the property ownership requirement. So it appears likely that the change would have to be made at some point in any event in order for the Cons to reach their final goal of an elected Senate.

The artificial barriers should be a less controversial point of attack if one wanted to try to make the Senate a more legitimate body than it is now, and it doesn't appear that there would be any more constitutional difficulty in changing them than in adding a future term limit. But instead of starting with the easier target, the Cons have chosen to pursue a reduction in stability for future Senate members without opening the door to anybody who's currently (arbitrarily) ineligible for the Senate. And it'll be interesting to hear their explanation for finding that to be a more worthwhile effort.

That wonderful Con consistency

So let's get this straight. According to Rona Ambrose and other Cons, the Kyoto Protocol is utterly useless because some of the world's largest emitters wouldn't face any restrictions until the second phase of the agreement. But when it comes to a "partnership" where the largest partner refuses to do anything...well, what could be wrong with that?

Nicely played

While the provinces make their case for child care funding, Olivia Chow highlights the taxbacks within the Cons' "child care plan":

At a press conference in Ottawa today, NDP Children and Youth Critic Olivia Chow (Trinity – Spadina), unveiled a giant cheque for $224 million, made out to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. This cheque - presented as a gift in the name of parents and kids who need child care - represents the government's windfall federal tax grab from working families who receive the so-called Universal Child Care Benefit, according to the respected Caledon Institute.

"A lot of families, who have already been left hanging on waiting lists for child care spaces, are in for another rude awakening next year when they see their tax bill,” said Chow. “They’ll be sending big cheques back to Ottawa, the overall total will mean $224 million in federal income tax on the Benefit. And the hardest hit Canadians will be single parents and working families, while the lowest taxes may be paid by the stay-at-home spouses in wealthier families.”

Chow says that rather than giving with one hand and taking with the other, the government should secure child care for those who need it, and transfer this $224 million tax grab to the provinces to create child care spaces.

Unfortunately, the limited request made by the provinces so far may make it difficult to secure an amount toward actual child care comparable to that implied by the NDP's stand. But then, the provinces' suggestion may also start to sound good to Diane Finley when compared even to the amount taxed back under the Cons' plan. It only remains to be seen whether Chow's position receives enough attention and support to force the Cons' hand.

On positions of convenience

With Gordon O'Connor now trying to claim that Canada's mission in Afghanistan doesn't involve a war, and the Cons arguing that the Geneva Convention is thus of no application, it's worth taking a look at whether that's been a consistent position for the Cons. And to nobody's surprise, the answer is...not so much.

For example, here's Stephen Harper a couple of months back:

When it was suggested that people oppose the mission because it's not Canada's war, Harper quickly interjected.

"But it is our war."

And lest this appear to be another difference of perspective between Harper and O'Connor, O'Connor himself has argued that Afghanistan is a "war" for the purposes of the Geneva Conventions:

We are quite satisfied with the agreement. It protects prisoners under the Geneva agreement and all other war agreements.

And for good measure:

I would imagine that we also keep track of the prisoners that we capture, that is, we know whom we captured by name, et cetera, and that there would be a way for us to check on where these prisoners are and how they are treated. Also the Red Cross can be sent in to check on prisoners in war zones.

In other words, in addition to being wrong on their face, the current word games don't reflect anything approaching a consistent Con position either. Which means that if the readily foreseeable results of trying to deny that a war is a war come to pass, the Cons won't even be able to claim to have stuck to any consistent principle other than a desire to maximize their own power.

Update: According to the latest O'Connor spin, the Geneva Convention is being applied in Afghanistan, even though it doesn't technically apply and Canada won't hold anybody to it. I'm sure there's no way that sort of confusion could go wrong.

On stonewalling

While the provinces are doing their best to propose a compromise on child care, so far Diane Finley is too busy ignoring the spaces already created in her own riding to listen:

The provinces and territories were rebuffed by federal Human Resources Minister Diane Finley as they presented a united front asking for the Tories to provide money to the provinces for child-care spaces.

NDP Learning Minister Deb Higgins said the provinces thought the Conservatives might be becoming more flexible on the potential use of the $250-million annually it has pledged for tax breaks and grants to create child-care spaces starting next year.

"The frustration for us was that it really provided no validation for the plans and the work and the experience that comes out of the provinces and the territories," Higgins told reporters at the legislature outside a meeting of the provincial cabinet Tuesday morning. "The big concern is that if they spend $250-million on developing spaces, who pays for the ongoing operations and how is that accommodated for? (Finley) again talked about these spaces being self-sustaining, which is pretty impractical when you're looking at lower or low-income families ... There was a fairly blunt meeting in the afternoon and I have to say a fair bit of frustration coming out of it."

If anything, the provinces' willingness to work with the $250 million as the guiding number for creating spaces is more of a concession than they should have had to make. As I've discussed before, a genuine compromise should involve enough funding going to the provinces to make up for the number of spaces which are planned for under the Con plan.

But even with the provinces asking for less than they could be reasonably seeking, the result so far has been a deaf ear from the Cons. And it's not hard to understand the provinces' frustration under those circumstances.

On vicious cycles

The CP reports that due to another anticipated hot summer, Ontario's government is once again planning to push back its target date to take Ontario's coal-fired power plants out of service. And with the country's largest emissions-reduction initiative once again put on the back burner, Ontarians may have all the more hot summers to look forward to in the future.

On slow progress

The Privacy Commissioner's annual report to Parliament was released today to little fanfare:

In her annual report to Parliament on Tuesday, Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart promised her office will be "more assertive ensuring all businesses are complying" with the five-year-old federal act protecting personal information.

"We are considering seeking amendments that would give the privacy commissioner the discretion to visit private sector entities and review their privacy management framework and practices," said the report, adding this power could be used "even when a privacy breach has not become public."...

(T)he privacy commissioner says her office needs stable, longterm funding and an increased budget - as well as more broadly defined powers - to carry out more privacy audits.

While it would certainly be a plus to see those types of changes, what seems more interesting to me in the report itself is that Stoddart appears mostly satisfied with the current enforcement mechanisms, under which the Privacy Commissioner is only able to make recommendations rather than binding orders:

As familiarity with privacy standards increases, so does the expectation that they will be observed. It is no longer acceptable that violations of personal information protection norms do not lead to direct remedial action. In 2005, I began asking organizations that are the subject of well-founded complaints to state the corrective measures they would take. I would then decide whether to seek a remedy for the complainant in Federal Court. To date, in the few situations where I have used this approach, almost all organizations have rapidly committed to providing redress and making systemic changes.

We continue to monitor whether the systemic changes we recommended have occurred in response to complaints made in previous years. Again, the overall compliance rate is high and, once we intervene following a complaint, the level of cooperation by organizations is generally commendable.

It's understandable to some extent that Stoddart's current priority is to secure enough funding and government support for the Privacy Commissioner to be able to exercise the office's current powers. But in the longer term, one has to figure that the current lack of "direct remedial action" will give rise to a need to extend the Commissioner's powers beyond merely making recommendations. And it's a shame that such a goal seems distant enough that Stoddart's current report doesn't make any significant push in that direction.

On appreciating one's benefits

David Himmelstein of Harvard analyzes data from the Joint Canada/U.S. Survey of Health and confirms the obvious: that Canadians pay less than Americans for better health care, but that Americans are for some reason happier with their worse and more expensive care. Funny how actually having access to care tends to lead to higher expectations.

A new voice

For now, health-care issues seem to be largely on the back burner. But next time they come to the forefront, there will be a new group of medical practitioners fighting to strengthen the public system:

"Canadians deserve and expect more," Doctors for Medicare said in a prepared statement, noting the endorsement last summer by a majority of CMA delegates of private health-care insurance for patients who don't get timely treatment through the publicly funded system...

The group cited concern about recent "close calls" with privatization in health-care proposals of Alberta and Quebec. "Both Quebec and Alberta have looked over the precipice and, fortunately, stepped back and made the right choices," said Dr. Tom Noseworthy, a Calgary critical-care specialist who chairs the Western Canada waiting-list project.

"But it's going to happen again and we should focus our energy and our efforts on a publicly funded universal system and stop believing in the myths that a private parallel system will make us better off, because it won't."

It remains to be seen whether the new group will receive as much press as is given to similar groups backing privatization. But it's still a plus to know there's one more organized ally in the fight to preserve a universal and public health-care system.

Opportunity and risk

Having gutted the existing Kyoto policy and pulled funding away from the development of alternatives, surely the Cons should at least be willing to put some money into one of the few environmentally-friendly developments that they're actually willing to publicly support, right? Sadly, not so much, as a Canadian ethanol innovator is looking at building in the U.S. for lack of Canadian government support:

Canada's Iogen Corp. is the best in the world at converting plant fibre into ethanol -- today's hot alternative fuel -- but the biotechnology leader could end up building its first commercial-scale operation in the United States if Ottawa doesn't match support offered by Washington...

(Iogen's) first commercial-scale plant would cost about $260-million (U.S.), and most of this would have to be borrowed if the project seeks private-sector lending.

But private-sector lenders are anxious about lending for a pioneering technology -- and require a government guarantee -- even though Canada and the United States are set to boost consumption of the biofuel. Ottawa and the provinces have agreed on a target to mandate that gasoline and diesel contain 5 per cent biofuel by 2010.

"Lenders are nervous of new technology -- mandate or no mandate. A mandate doesn't create a market for new technology. Somebody has to step up to the plate and share the risk of commercializing new technology with the private sector," Mr. Passmore said.

Note that the requested support isn't direct investment, only a guarantee against a private loan. Which means that at worst, the result could be an investment in a risk worth taking...and at best, a guarantee could wind up costing nothing while ensuring that Canada is home to an important step forward in ethanol production.

The article suggests that Iogen hasn't yet "had a chance" to discuss the matter with Harper's government. But it's hard to see how that would be the case if the Cons were giving serious attention to Iogen's efforts. It may soon be too late to enable Canada to take a lead role on greenhouse gas emissions even by the Cons' unduly narrow terms...and it'll take much more effective action than we've seen from the Con camp so far to get the job done.

On not wanting to know

CBC reports that in addition to cutting actual emissions-reduction programs, the Cons are also pulling funding for feasibility studies on future projects:

A Saskatchewan feasibility study on building a $1-billion "near-zero-emission" coal-fired electricity plant is on hold for now.

Ottawa is reviewing both the proposed study on the coal plant and a second proposal — a feasibility study on a "polygeneration" plant that would use gasified coal to power industry.

It's bad enough that the Cons have hacked away at programs which were going to make some progress in reducing emissions. But at a stage when the Cons are supposed to be developing their own solution, it's all the more inexcusable that they're shutting down research as to which projects will represent the best investment in the long run.

Questionable

The CanWest papers are trumpeting a poll reflecting Canadians' lack of knowledge about Kyoto. But it can't be helping matters that the poll itself seems to have gone out of its way to misinform those polled on the issue:

Guilbeault suggested some of the questions in the poll may have been biased, including one that asked whether people would support Kyoto if it resulted in 200,000 job cuts and $16 billion in economic losses.

"This is such crap," said Guilbeault. "The Quebec industrial sector reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by 9.9 per cent between 1990 and 2003, (and) increased production. So that's 11/2 times Kyoto, and I didn't see them laying people off and losing billions of dollars of money. This is ridiculous."

Funny how any question about whether people would support Kyoto if it prevents Canada's coastal areas from ending up underwater seems to have missed the cut, even though there's at least as strong a causal connection to be drawn to that outcome than to purely speculative job losses.

On divisive choices

Wouldn't it be ironic if the Cons' effort to cozy up to Bush by refusing to seriously challenge the impending border requirement ends up causing people from both countries to stop making the effort to deal with each other?

From bad to worse

While the headline focuses on the Libs' failings, a C.D. Howe Institute report highlights the fact that neither the Libs nor the Cons has anything to be proud of when it comes to dealing with greenhouse gas emissions:

The Liberals' $12-billion plan to implement the Kyoto Protocol over seven years would have been largely ineffective, says an as-yet unpublished report by the C.D. Howe Institute...

(According to the report, Project Green) would have reduced emissions by 175 megatonnes compared with a business-as-usual scenario, far short of the 230 to 300 Mt. reduction required to meet Canada's Kyoto target...

Prime Minister Stephen Harper could use the report to buttress his claims about the ineffectiveness of the Liberal plan, but he probably won't like the alternatives it recommends.

The most effective policy would likely be a gradually rising tax on greenhouse gas emissions, combined with reductions in other taxes to ensure no net tax increase, says the report.

The main Conservative response to climate change so far has been to make transit passes tax deductible, which experts say will have little effect on emissions.

As noted in the article, the most important lesson to take from the report is that voluntary standards are essentially doomed to failure. It'll take decisive action, not mere suggestion, to make any real dent in greenhouse gas emissions. And if neither the past government nor the current one has shown any willingness to consider the possibility, that speaks only to their lack of interest in doing more than giving the appearance of caring about the issue.

On dictating terms

Last night, I discussed Alberta's plan to regulate greenhouse gas emissions using an "intensity" standard rather than one which would actually result in emission reductions. I didn't deal with the curious argument that the standard would be the "toughest" in Canada, a claim which flies in the face of the stated intention of at least two provinces to meet the Kyoto standard. On further reflection, though, I have to wonder whether the claim is an attempt to set the terms of any harmonization of provincial regulations.

After all, I'd noted a few weeks ago that Alberta and B.C. are working toward an agreement which "forces both governments to harmonize rules and regulations to the higher of the two standards". Might Alberta be trying now to claim that its intensity-based standard is "higher" in order to avoid being bound by Kyoto-based regulations in a later expansion of the regulatory accord?