Monday, July 03, 2006
Leaks and spills
Far and Wide catches the Ottawa Citizen's report that water exports from Canada to the U.S. may form part of the discussion at next week's meeting between Harper and Bush. Knowing Harper's history of dealing with Bush, now may be a good time for Canadians to stock up, as our currently-vast reserves may not be around for long.
By reader request
I'd initially planned on merely adding a snarky postscript to this post about how hilarious it is to see the same Lib blogger now trumpeting a column by the ever-schizophrenic Larry Zolf as a meaningful critique of the NDP. But by popular request (and since Idealistic Pragmatist beat me to the punch on the postscript), let's take a look in detail at the obvious problems with Zolf's column.
On a broad level, Zolf bases his argument on much of the same language used by Cook: "invisible", "silent", "absent", and the like. In doing so, Zolf appears to take the view that since he hasn't seen much of the NDP in whatever media he chooses to watch, the party must be to blame. Which is of course a convenient way of letting the media off the hook for covering personalities, publicity and pork far more than meaningful policy offerings.
I'll note also as a preface that in his typical stream-of-unconsciousness style, Zolf doesn't seem to have a clue what he wants to see from the NDP, turning on a dime from criticizing Layton and company for not being cozy enough with labour (in the form of refusing to go along unquestioningly with Buzz Hargrove's every whim), to criticizing the NDP for being too cozy with labour (for not provoking a war with CUPE Ontario over its Israel boycott). So take Zolf's argument with a heavy coating of salt.
Those preliminary matters aside, let's take a quick look at how the NDP has, in the current session of Parliament, come out with guns blazing against the Cons on the issues where Zolf has managed to avoid hearing anything from the party.
Kyoto: Not only has the NDP rightly criticized the Cons' effective withdrawal from Kyoto at every opportunity and held Ambrose directly accountable for her failings, it's also presented a cost-neutral plan to meet Canada's commitment both to the public and in Parliament. Frankly, this one alone should be enough to put an end to any attempt to take Zolf seriously.
Same-sex marriage: At last notice this one was dealt with in the previous session of Parliament, with the NDP making the strongest push to keep the issue moving forward. But while making clear its commitment to keeping the ground already won, the NDP is also showing the way forward by pushing for equality for transgendered Canadians, while also dealing with human rights more generally.
Aboriginal rights: The NDP has hammered the Cons for backing out of the Kelowna accord, demanded action on the issues pointed out the Auditor General's report, blasted the Cons' continued neglect on several local First Nations issues, fought to ensure that the Cons acknowledge their responsibility for land-claims issues, and rightly slammed the Cons for opposing the U.N.'s Declaration on Indigenous Peoples Rights.
Labour rights: The NDP introduced bills to protect wages from employer bankrupcty, improve EI availability and bar scab workers in areas of federal jurisdiction, in addition to calling attention to the exploitation of temporary foreign workers.
Untrammelled free enterprise: Judging from his later comments Zolf may well be expecting the NDP to demand forcible seizure of the means of production, in which case he would indeed have reason for disappointment. But the NDP has pushed consistently to ensure that any nickel-mining merger takes into account the needs of labour as well as the affected communities, as well as to ensure that banking reforms are accompanied by consumer protection. Moreover, the NDP as usual has led the way in highlighting the need to act against poverty and income equality in Canada and abroad, as well as calling for action on Canada's housing shortage.
Decentralization: The Cons largely succeeded in kicking the can down the road on this one due to the Bloc's support for the budget, but it was only over the NDP's protestations. The NDP criticized the Cons and Bloc for refusing to support a revitalization of the Canada Social Transfer, and slammed the Cons for pretending that tax credits could be equated with federal vision.
Afghanistan: Needless to say, this one's been dealt with already. Note that Zolf goes a step beyond Cook in claiming that the NDP "has (not) called for an end to the combat role for Canadian troops in Afghanistan", in the face of the same evidence to the contrary.
With those out of the way, we're down to two issues left - and they're ones where Zolf simply makes false assumptions about what the NDP's role should be. Zolf complains that Layton "has said nothing about the billions of dollars Harper is spending on defence" - which reflects a wrong-headed view that the NDP can't value Canada's peace-keeping capability and sovereignty enough to support investments in Canada's military. And finally there's a general conclusion that the NDP should "speak out loud and clear for the socialist ideals the NDP presumably embraces". (But far be it from Zolf to actually define what ideals those should be, aside from the ones on which he's already ignored the NDP's contribution.)
In sum, Zolf's assumptions about the NDP are even more obviously flawed than Cook's. Which means that while Layton and company may have some work to do in making sure that such a poor excuse for commentary doesn't gain any undeserved credence, it's surely not to the Libs' credit that their few arguments against the NDP are based on nothing more than increasing amounts of misinformation.
On a broad level, Zolf bases his argument on much of the same language used by Cook: "invisible", "silent", "absent", and the like. In doing so, Zolf appears to take the view that since he hasn't seen much of the NDP in whatever media he chooses to watch, the party must be to blame. Which is of course a convenient way of letting the media off the hook for covering personalities, publicity and pork far more than meaningful policy offerings.
I'll note also as a preface that in his typical stream-of-unconsciousness style, Zolf doesn't seem to have a clue what he wants to see from the NDP, turning on a dime from criticizing Layton and company for not being cozy enough with labour (in the form of refusing to go along unquestioningly with Buzz Hargrove's every whim), to criticizing the NDP for being too cozy with labour (for not provoking a war with CUPE Ontario over its Israel boycott). So take Zolf's argument with a heavy coating of salt.
Those preliminary matters aside, let's take a quick look at how the NDP has, in the current session of Parliament, come out with guns blazing against the Cons on the issues where Zolf has managed to avoid hearing anything from the party.
Kyoto: Not only has the NDP rightly criticized the Cons' effective withdrawal from Kyoto at every opportunity and held Ambrose directly accountable for her failings, it's also presented a cost-neutral plan to meet Canada's commitment both to the public and in Parliament. Frankly, this one alone should be enough to put an end to any attempt to take Zolf seriously.
Same-sex marriage: At last notice this one was dealt with in the previous session of Parliament, with the NDP making the strongest push to keep the issue moving forward. But while making clear its commitment to keeping the ground already won, the NDP is also showing the way forward by pushing for equality for transgendered Canadians, while also dealing with human rights more generally.
Aboriginal rights: The NDP has hammered the Cons for backing out of the Kelowna accord, demanded action on the issues pointed out the Auditor General's report, blasted the Cons' continued neglect on several local First Nations issues, fought to ensure that the Cons acknowledge their responsibility for land-claims issues, and rightly slammed the Cons for opposing the U.N.'s Declaration on Indigenous Peoples Rights.
Labour rights: The NDP introduced bills to protect wages from employer bankrupcty, improve EI availability and bar scab workers in areas of federal jurisdiction, in addition to calling attention to the exploitation of temporary foreign workers.
Untrammelled free enterprise: Judging from his later comments Zolf may well be expecting the NDP to demand forcible seizure of the means of production, in which case he would indeed have reason for disappointment. But the NDP has pushed consistently to ensure that any nickel-mining merger takes into account the needs of labour as well as the affected communities, as well as to ensure that banking reforms are accompanied by consumer protection. Moreover, the NDP as usual has led the way in highlighting the need to act against poverty and income equality in Canada and abroad, as well as calling for action on Canada's housing shortage.
Decentralization: The Cons largely succeeded in kicking the can down the road on this one due to the Bloc's support for the budget, but it was only over the NDP's protestations. The NDP criticized the Cons and Bloc for refusing to support a revitalization of the Canada Social Transfer, and slammed the Cons for pretending that tax credits could be equated with federal vision.
Afghanistan: Needless to say, this one's been dealt with already. Note that Zolf goes a step beyond Cook in claiming that the NDP "has (not) called for an end to the combat role for Canadian troops in Afghanistan", in the face of the same evidence to the contrary.
With those out of the way, we're down to two issues left - and they're ones where Zolf simply makes false assumptions about what the NDP's role should be. Zolf complains that Layton "has said nothing about the billions of dollars Harper is spending on defence" - which reflects a wrong-headed view that the NDP can't value Canada's peace-keeping capability and sovereignty enough to support investments in Canada's military. And finally there's a general conclusion that the NDP should "speak out loud and clear for the socialist ideals the NDP presumably embraces". (But far be it from Zolf to actually define what ideals those should be, aside from the ones on which he's already ignored the NDP's contribution.)
In sum, Zolf's assumptions about the NDP are even more obviously flawed than Cook's. Which means that while Layton and company may have some work to do in making sure that such a poor excuse for commentary doesn't gain any undeserved credence, it's surely not to the Libs' credit that their few arguments against the NDP are based on nothing more than increasing amounts of misinformation.
Where credit is due
In what may be the first praise-worthy move of Rona Ambrose's tenure as Environment Minister, the Cons have announced that two all-too-common but dangerous chemicals have been added to the list of regulated toxic substances:
To rare kudos from a leading environmental group, the Conservative government quietly unveiled its plans regarding the two substances perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and polygrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in the July 1 edition of the Canada Gazette, the official record of regulatory announcements.It remains to be seen just what type of regulations will be passed, as adding the substances to the list without following up would be an entirely empty step. And for the future, there's still a desperate need for Canada to start taking the lead in dealing with other similar substances. But nonetheless, it's a plus to see a necessary first step taken towarding dealing with a problem which has gone unaddressed for far too long.
Health Minister Tony Clement and Environment Minister Rona Ambrose were expected to formally announce the move today.
By declaring the chemicals toxic substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the government will be able to begin making formal regulations to restrict, and in specified cases, eliminate the use of the chemicals. Asbestos, lead and mercury are among other substances on the list of toxic substances.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
On misplaced criticism
With the past week's news largely dominated by the Cons' convention funding scandal, I've put my planned response to the Libs' sniping at the NDP on the back burner. But let's take a look back at some of what's been said about the NDP recently...and just how far detached it is from reality.
Plenty of attention has been paid to this piece from PEJ as some evidence that the NDP might be losing popular support. Unfortunately, while phrased as an "open invitation", the piece isn't so much an invitation to anything as an admission that author C.L. Cook is paying no attention to what's actually happened during the course of this spring's session of Parliament.
Cook claims that the NDP bears responsibility for the Cons' right-wing agenda, and asks why the NDP hasn't fought the Cons on a number of issues. The problem is that on each issue specifically cited by Cook, the NDP has been the federalist party in favour of progressive principles already. But don't take my word for it, let's take a quick look through the record and see just how the NDP has been the sole party speaking up for exactly the issues Cook wants to see dealt with.
When it comes to Canada's role in Afghanistan, the NDP was the sole federalist party to present a united stance against Harper's demand for absolute power and to point out the importance of preserving Canada's role as a peacekeeper rather than a warmaker. A few choice quotes from the May 17 Afghanistan debate alone, first from Layton himself:
On the issue of Haiti, this spring was thankfully marked by progress in the country in the form of an election, such that there's been less need to hold the government's feet to the fire as the NDP did previously. But the NDP has consistently supported the democratic will of the Haitian people rather than claiming the country's future should lie in the hands of U.S. puppets. Compare again to the Libs, who were responsible for Canada's anti-democratic stance in Haiti prior to Preval's election.
I'd deal with more issues...but Cook doesn't bother specifically naming any more than that, preferring instead to claim that the NDP has refused to speak out against "death and destruction policies" and a "fascist" future. I won't bother going through the record to show how consistently Layton and company have in fact spoken out on issues which could be classified that way.
Instead, suffice it to say that Cook apparently isn't interested in bothering with such petty things as facts. Far easier instead to make a baseless claim that the NDP is "cowardly" and has done nothing, and then use Cook's own refusal to look into the issues as support for the claim.
Of course, Cook doesn't have anything friendly to say about the Libs or Cons either. But that hasn't stopped some Libs from trying to cite the article (see also a comment to this post) as an example of far-left discontent with Layton - which is then somehow supposed to translate into increased swing support for the same Lib party which Cook blames primarily for Harper's policies. Which means that the Libs, not satisfied with propagating an anti-Layton article which is based on pure conjecture, apparently need to spin that conjecture beyond recognition in order to try to find some upside for themselves.
In the end, it seems to me a reflection of the NDP's stance as the party best in touch with progressive Canadians that the Libs are grasping at such thin straws in trying to find some reason to think the NDP is in danger of losing some of the votes it won in the last federal election. And while any party is bound to potentially face fire from both sides of the political spectrum, the NDP doesn't have much to fear from commentary this far off the mark.
Plenty of attention has been paid to this piece from PEJ as some evidence that the NDP might be losing popular support. Unfortunately, while phrased as an "open invitation", the piece isn't so much an invitation to anything as an admission that author C.L. Cook is paying no attention to what's actually happened during the course of this spring's session of Parliament.
Cook claims that the NDP bears responsibility for the Cons' right-wing agenda, and asks why the NDP hasn't fought the Cons on a number of issues. The problem is that on each issue specifically cited by Cook, the NDP has been the federalist party in favour of progressive principles already. But don't take my word for it, let's take a quick look through the record and see just how the NDP has been the sole party speaking up for exactly the issues Cook wants to see dealt with.
When it comes to Canada's role in Afghanistan, the NDP was the sole federalist party to present a united stance against Harper's demand for absolute power and to point out the importance of preserving Canada's role as a peacekeeper rather than a warmaker. A few choice quotes from the May 17 Afghanistan debate alone, first from Layton himself:
Our foreign policy must reflect the reality that we are a country renowned for our pursuit of peace. We are a nation of facilitators, not occupiers. We are a people committed to the ideals of building bridges, not burning them. We must not allow that legacy of good work to falter in the growing shadow of the Bush administration's Operation Enduring Freedom.From Dawn Black:
After four months of total immersion in Canadian defence policy, I am more convinced than ever that military force must be used only as a last resort.From Bill Siksay:
Military force is a blunt, dangerous and expensive instrument. It has profound, often negative consequences for the lives of individual human beings. Those individuals include the soldiers we send into harm's way, their husbands, their wives, their sons, their daughters, and yes, their mothers and fathers, as well as their grandmothers and grandfathers.
Never let us forget the grave responsibility we carry anytime we put the lives of young Canadians on the line.
Mr. Speaker, many Canadians are not supportive of Canada's military effort in Afghanistan. Many Canadians want to see a withdrawal of the Canadian Forces from Afghanistan. In fact, I am one of those Canadians. I oppose a new mission in Afghanistan, but I would also like to see a safe and immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan, starting now...And Peggy Nash:
How does the member for Vancouver Quadra respond to the many people in his constituency and in my constituency in British Columbia and across Canada who think that Canada should not be there now and that we should begin a safe and measured withdrawal from Afghanistan immediately?
Afghanistan, no doubt, is a country that needs assistance and I strongly support helping the people of Afghanistan. However, Canada is in Afghanistan, thanks to the previous government, in a combat role, a counter-insurgency role under U.S. command as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.It's downright remarkable that Cook construes all of the above (to say nothing of the NDP's consistent message before and after that debate as well) as silence and/or "complicity". Meanwhile, note that the Libs contributed the extra votes to grant Harper a blank cheque. (Cook presumably wouldn't deny this fact, but it'll become relevant when we get to how Cook's article has since been portrayed by others.)
Many Afghans, including the Afghan Women's Organization, do not support Canada's combat role because it interferes with peace, security and rebuilding. I will vote against the motion tonight.
Why is the government ignoring the wishes of so many Afghan people and the majority of Canadians who want to return to security and peace building but not a counter-insurgency mission?
On the issue of Haiti, this spring was thankfully marked by progress in the country in the form of an election, such that there's been less need to hold the government's feet to the fire as the NDP did previously. But the NDP has consistently supported the democratic will of the Haitian people rather than claiming the country's future should lie in the hands of U.S. puppets. Compare again to the Libs, who were responsible for Canada's anti-democratic stance in Haiti prior to Preval's election.
I'd deal with more issues...but Cook doesn't bother specifically naming any more than that, preferring instead to claim that the NDP has refused to speak out against "death and destruction policies" and a "fascist" future. I won't bother going through the record to show how consistently Layton and company have in fact spoken out on issues which could be classified that way.
Instead, suffice it to say that Cook apparently isn't interested in bothering with such petty things as facts. Far easier instead to make a baseless claim that the NDP is "cowardly" and has done nothing, and then use Cook's own refusal to look into the issues as support for the claim.
Of course, Cook doesn't have anything friendly to say about the Libs or Cons either. But that hasn't stopped some Libs from trying to cite the article (see also a comment to this post) as an example of far-left discontent with Layton - which is then somehow supposed to translate into increased swing support for the same Lib party which Cook blames primarily for Harper's policies. Which means that the Libs, not satisfied with propagating an anti-Layton article which is based on pure conjecture, apparently need to spin that conjecture beyond recognition in order to try to find some upside for themselves.
In the end, it seems to me a reflection of the NDP's stance as the party best in touch with progressive Canadians that the Libs are grasping at such thin straws in trying to find some reason to think the NDP is in danger of losing some of the votes it won in the last federal election. And while any party is bound to potentially face fire from both sides of the political spectrum, the NDP doesn't have much to fear from commentary this far off the mark.
On failing to support the troops
The CP reports that it wasn't just families of military personnel who were concerned with the Cons' media blackout on the repatriation of soldiers killed in Afghanistan, as officials within the Department of National Defence itself argued against the change:
Senior military officials opposed the Conservative government's controversial ban on media coverage of homecoming ceremonies for soldiers killed in Afghanistan, documents obtained under the Access to Information Act suggest...Today's revelation only makes it all the more clear that the Cons' decision was purely political, and imposed contrary to the wishes of effectively all the stakeholders in the repatriation ceremonies. And the Cons' determination to override the wishes of Canada's military on this point among others seems to be a far more accurate indication of their true attitude toward Canada's soldiers abroad than their willingness to throw money at Gordon O'Connor's old buddies.
The department gathered pictures of journalists standing by the highway outside the Trenton, Ont., military base during the April 25 repatriation of four fallen soldiers...
"This may cause safety issues and generate even more frustration, particularly in winter," Lt.-Col. Richard Lavoie, a departmental public-affairs director, wrote in an e-mail in which he forwarded the photos to several colleagues.
Military officials found other ways to express their displeasure: they cleared equipment from the airport tarmac so the news media outside the base could have an unobstructed view of the ceremony.
Revisionism indeed
Should it come as any surprise that CanWest is eager to dredge up an issue closed two decades ago in the name of tradition and continuity?
Saturday, July 01, 2006
One Big Loophole
The CP reports on the current financial status of Canadian political parties based on their recent filings with Elections Canada. There isn't much new or unexpected from most of the parties. But it looks like the main influence of Paul Hellyer and the Canadian Action Party may be to set a precedent which leads directly to campaign funding abuses:
Keep in mind that the Lib leadership race is largely being funded by loans, primarily from personal supporters rather than financial institutions. And remember also that the other parties blocked the NDP's efforts to include a restriction on private loans to political parties within the Accountability Act. Add those factors up, and there are clear indications that some parties both want to leave the door open to leave the door wide open to private loans, and are already taking full advantage of their apparent present ability to do so.
Of course, the forgiveness of a large personal loan is a step beyond what the major parties seem to be involved in at the moment. But if a donor to the CAP is able to forgive a huge loan without being affected by personal donation caps, there doesn't seem to be any principled reason why the same wouldn't apply to donors to (or creditors of) the other parties as well.
In sum, if the CAP is able to receive what ultimately amounts to a massive personal donation simply by including a loan as a step in the process, it's hard to believe it'll take long for other parties to follow suit. Which means that if some action isn't taken to investigate the legitimacy of the forgiven loan (or provide an explanation which would ensure that other parties can't follow suit), the effect may be to completely undermine Canada's campaign financing laws.
The Canadian Action Party showed a surplus of $19,444 after party founder Paul Hellyer forgave a stunning $829,296 loan to the organization. The party received $131,969 from Canadian donations.Now, as long as it's only the CAP receiving such a large windfall through what was supposed to be a loan originally, it's easy to conclude that Hellyer's money hasn't had a ton of influence yet. But the problem comes if other parties follow the CAP's lead.
Keep in mind that the Lib leadership race is largely being funded by loans, primarily from personal supporters rather than financial institutions. And remember also that the other parties blocked the NDP's efforts to include a restriction on private loans to political parties within the Accountability Act. Add those factors up, and there are clear indications that some parties both want to leave the door open to leave the door wide open to private loans, and are already taking full advantage of their apparent present ability to do so.
Of course, the forgiveness of a large personal loan is a step beyond what the major parties seem to be involved in at the moment. But if a donor to the CAP is able to forgive a huge loan without being affected by personal donation caps, there doesn't seem to be any principled reason why the same wouldn't apply to donors to (or creditors of) the other parties as well.
In sum, if the CAP is able to receive what ultimately amounts to a massive personal donation simply by including a loan as a step in the process, it's hard to believe it'll take long for other parties to follow suit. Which means that if some action isn't taken to investigate the legitimacy of the forgiven loan (or provide an explanation which would ensure that other parties can't follow suit), the effect may be to completely undermine Canada's campaign financing laws.
Well said
Jim Elve takes Dalton McGuinty's government to task for its insistence in investing massive amounts of money in nuclear reactors. While I'm less opposed to uranium mining and processing than some (and indeed the same rising price of uranium which in part makes the reactors a poor investment may also help fund better safety measures at mine sites), it seems glaringly clear that Ontario's plan has been fatally flawed from the start...and Jim nicely sets out the problems.
Making a difference
Sure, the Cons' child-care plan may not be creating any more child-care spaces. But lest anybody think the Cons haven't had some impact on the availability of care, they can at least take pride in having made existing spaces more expensive.
Time to celebrate
Friday, June 30, 2006
More fabrications
Two days after the Cons' convention funding scandal went public, Harper and company aren't getting any more plausible in their excuses, relying now on a patently false "everybody does it" defence:
Update: Somena Media has more about the Cons' deflection tactics.
The Conservative party's legal counsel, Paul Lepsoe, said that since "time immemorial" delegate fees have only been considered donations when a convention turns a profit.So who does "everybody" include? Well, none of the national parties besides the Cons which have won seats in Parliament since something reasonably approximating time immemorial:
"If there is a portion that is a contribution, in other words that exceeds the cost of the event, that portion constitutes a political contribution for which a receipt should be issued," he told The Canadian Press earlier this week.
"That's longstanding practice that everyone follows, including the Conservative party."
But it wasn't a longstanding practice for the NDP, Liberals or the predecessors of the Conservative party...Suffice it today that today's batch of lies isn't any more believable than yesterday's. Apparently the Cons' new idea of transparent government is to try to use transparently obvious lies to defend their questionable practices. But it shouldn't take long for voters to let Harper and company know that's not quite what they had in mind when they voted for what was supposed to be a cleaner government.
(F)ormer officials from both the Progressive Conservative party and the Canadian Alliance, the parties that created the Conservative party, said the common practice they followed was to disclose convention fees paid by their members as political donations.
"I'm absolutely positive we always gave out political receipts, minus the amount paid for meals, but everything else was always treated as a political donation," said Bruck Easton, former president of the Progressive Conservative party who later ran unsuccessfully as a Liberal. "That was quite frankly an important part of getting people to our convention."
His account is backed by financial records submitted to Elections Canada.
Rick Anderson, a top organizer and executive member of both the Reform Party and its successor, the Canadian Alliance, said his recollection is that both parties followed the same practice as the Liberals and NDP.
"My memory is that everybody one way or another wrote a cheque out to the party and got a receipt for it," Anderson said.
Update: Somena Media has more about the Cons' deflection tactics.
Principle notwithstanding
There's been some discussion of Peter Wrightwater's theory that the next federal election could be precipitated by Harper seeking a mandate to use the notwithstanding clause to reinstate security certificate legislation. I'm far from sure that the issues involved are particularly strong ones for the Cons in any event. But the least likely part of the scenario to me is Peter's assumption that the Libs would be willing to let an election happen over the issue if he's correct that it would be a strong one for the Cons.
After all, Harper surely couldn't go to the voters to demand such a mandate if he enjoyed enough support in the existing Parliament for the action. The Libs have some vested interest in defending the security certificate process which they themselves originated. And based on the Afghanistan vote, it's clear both that some of the more hawkish Libs are more than willing to support Harper's claims on national security issues, and that the Libs will hold enough members back to avoid defeating a Harper action when it would hurt the party's interests.
But what about ex-PMPM's talk about never using the notwithstanding clause? That shouldn't be a tough one to get around - whether by chalking it up as a "promise in an unsuccessful election" that is then deemed to be discarded after election day, as a desperate shot in the dark by a former leader who resigned his post for a reason, or simply as a principle which has to give way to national security concerns when the PM cries "terra!" often enough.
None of this is to say that use of the notwithstanding clause would actually be justified in the circumstances. But if the Libs don't want to fight an election over security certificates, it'll be easy for them to send signals that they're willing to play along rather than forcing Harper to go to the voters.
After all, Harper surely couldn't go to the voters to demand such a mandate if he enjoyed enough support in the existing Parliament for the action. The Libs have some vested interest in defending the security certificate process which they themselves originated. And based on the Afghanistan vote, it's clear both that some of the more hawkish Libs are more than willing to support Harper's claims on national security issues, and that the Libs will hold enough members back to avoid defeating a Harper action when it would hurt the party's interests.
But what about ex-PMPM's talk about never using the notwithstanding clause? That shouldn't be a tough one to get around - whether by chalking it up as a "promise in an unsuccessful election" that is then deemed to be discarded after election day, as a desperate shot in the dark by a former leader who resigned his post for a reason, or simply as a principle which has to give way to national security concerns when the PM cries "terra!" often enough.
None of this is to say that use of the notwithstanding clause would actually be justified in the circumstances. But if the Libs don't want to fight an election over security certificates, it'll be easy for them to send signals that they're willing to play along rather than forcing Harper to go to the voters.
Short-term pain for long-term...nothing
CanWest reports that as part of the details now being hammered out, the supposed "long-term" resolution of the softwood lumber dispute is set to become anything but:
Meanwhile, the Cons don't seem to be the least bit interested in adding any clarifying provisions which work to Canada's advantage, and they're putting up at best a half-hearted effort to minimize the effect of the U.S.' demands. And while I suppose one could make the argument that Canadians may want to see a deal sooner if continued time at the bargaining table means nothing but more concessions from our side, surely there can't be much doubt that we'll be better off walking away from the table and starting over than pretending that a one-year band-aid resolves the issue for anybody.
Update: As Greg notes, the final result was effectively a two-year truce. Only in Harper's world could this be considered "long term". But what makes that timing interesting is that if Harper does stick to his supposed plan to keep governing as long as possible in the current minority, it could potentially pop up again before Canada next goes to the polls.
U.S. negotiators in round-the-clock softwood lumber talks are seeking an opt-out clause that could see the long-standing dispute back on the table in little more than a year, CanWest News Service has learned...Given Harper's strategy of selling out as many Canadian interests as necessary in order to get some kind of deal done, it shouldn't be much surprise that the negotiations are now down to determining just how long Canada's protection payments to the U.S. will be effective. But it's striking that once again, the U.S. continues to bring large new demands to the table long after the agreement-in-principle was reached.
(A) controversial "termination clause" which was introduced by the Americans in negotiations in the last week is becoming a source of much consternation north of the border. The clause would allow either side to opt out of the agreement after one year so long as it give 30-days notice, meaning a possible return to lawsuits, import duties and political wrangling.
"That would be an extremely expensive deal for Canada and for the industry, keeping in mind that we're leaving a billion dollars behind," said Carl Grenier, head of the Free Trade Lumber Council.
"We were told that the government used that part of our money to get peace and stability for seven or nine years. Now we're down to, in the U.S. version, 13 months, and in the Canadian version, 3 1/2 years, which is not satisfactory either."
Meanwhile, the Cons don't seem to be the least bit interested in adding any clarifying provisions which work to Canada's advantage, and they're putting up at best a half-hearted effort to minimize the effect of the U.S.' demands. And while I suppose one could make the argument that Canadians may want to see a deal sooner if continued time at the bargaining table means nothing but more concessions from our side, surely there can't be much doubt that we'll be better off walking away from the table and starting over than pretending that a one-year band-aid resolves the issue for anybody.
Update: As Greg notes, the final result was effectively a two-year truce. Only in Harper's world could this be considered "long term". But what makes that timing interesting is that if Harper does stick to his supposed plan to keep governing as long as possible in the current minority, it could potentially pop up again before Canada next goes to the polls.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Uncooperative
Whatever the merits of the Cons' possible defences to charges under the Canada Elections Act, there can be no doubt now that the party is doing its best to obfuscate and lie its way out of the current reports:
"The public has a right to know exactly what happened in this case," chief electoral officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley said in a release late Thursday.If the Cons were really interested in being an open and accountable government, it would be a simple enough matter to offer their cooperation in Kingsley's investigation and avoid pretending the matter wasn't settled. But from Harper right on down, the Cons appear to be taking the exact opposite position for the moment. And the more the Cons try to spin their way out of it now, the less credibility they'll have when it comes time for a judge to decide whether to buy their defences.
"The chief electoral officer requests the Conservative Party of Canada to provide him with the necessary documents and supporting information to allow the public to know the law has been respected."...
After Kingsley's statement, a spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper would only say they were "puzzled" by the Elections Canada statement...
Political opponents said that appeared to contravene Canada's political financing laws.
The Tories said there is no such rule and claimed that Elections Canada had already audited the 2005 convention in Montreal.
"Elections Canada has not audited the books of the Conservative Party regarding this convention," said the release from Kingsley, adding Elections Canada has no legal authority to compel such an audit.
Off the mark
The Tyee's Donald Gutstein points out that the much-discussed Senate report from last week which centred on the CBC was supposed to have a different focus entirely:
While the Senate committee was far too willing to get sidetracked from its core mandate, it's not too late to start discussion of what needs to be done to ensure some semblance of media diversity. But as Gutstein points out, that could easily change...and judging from the lack of any major media attention to the committee's real purpose, the point of no return may not be too far away.
In February 2005, the Senate Committee on Transport and Communications visited Vancouver as part of its cross-country study of the Canadian news media. It heard nearly a dozen presentations bemoaning the fact that one company -- CanWest Global Communications -- has a near stranglehold on Vancouver news media. And it heard nearly a dozen complaints that this unprecedented concentration limits the diversity of sources and opinions available to Vancouver news consumers. "Frighteningly powerful" and "debilitating for voices" were how two presenters framed the situation...I'll grant that the CBC issues were important ones as well, and certainly worth the time spent commenting on them by the committe and others. But tinkering with the funding structure or programming goals of Canada's public broadcaster is bound to have far less impact on the country's media scene than the continuing expansion of an already-powerful media empire which already controls huge swaths of the market, and which is increasingly willing to avoid any semblance of fair coverage.
The committee wrote that the "core" of its work concerns the "influence on news and information of media ownership in Canada." The senators began looking at the industry after CanWest acquired most of Canada's major dailies and Bell Globemedia took control of the CTV television network and the Globe and Mail.
But the study's release was framed around the alleged failings of Canada's public broadcaster.
The senators did a classic bait-and-switch ploy: say you're going to do one thing and then do something else to take attention away from your original goal. And in this case, their original goal was to examine media concentration...
Volume Two of the report contains 135 pages of testimony from witnesses and additional studies prepared by the committee. About 10 pages are devoted to CanWest's hold on the Vancouver market. Yet not one word of this background made it into Volume One, which contains the report's essential analysis and recommendations. CanWest gets off scot-free.
Instead, the report talks about future mergers and take-overs. It recommends a review of a proposed merger if one company reaches 35 per cent of a particular audience. There are precedents for this figure. It is a limit used by Canada's Competition Bureau in triggering a review of a merger or acquisition. It is also a cap imposed by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission.
Canadian Press estimates CanWest's control of the Vancouver market at 70 percent, twice the proposed limit. But the Senate Committee suggests no remedy for the long-suffering Vancouver audience. It merely documents the history of how this sad state of affairs came to pass.
While the Senate committee was far too willing to get sidetracked from its core mandate, it's not too late to start discussion of what needs to be done to ensure some semblance of media diversity. But as Gutstein points out, that could easily change...and judging from the lack of any major media attention to the committee's real purpose, the point of no return may not be too far away.
Continued progress
The Saskatchewan Surgical Care Network has released its statistics for 2005-06...and while there's still work to be done in reducing waitlists, there's no doubt that reinvestment in the public health-care system is leading to substantially improved results:
The Department of Health entity that monitors wait times released numbers Wednesday on its Web site (www.sasksurgery.ca) revealing that Regina Qu'Appelle and Saskatoon Health Regions combined to complete about 2,000 more surgeries in 2005-06 than the previous year.Of course there's still a need to keep an eye out for ways to further improve care management...and of course the current management is still working its way through the existing waitlists. But there can be no doubt that the current strategy is making huge strides in the right direction. Which makes now the time to keep going in that direction - not to assume that the public sector can't take health care any further than it has.
The statistics also showed a 1,600-patient reduction on those waiting for surgeries...
The median wait time for all surgeries in the seven major districts is 4.4 weeks, although it's 12.9 weeks for some procedures like ophthalmology. However, for non-emergency surgeries it's 7.4 weeks with orthopedic surgeries still taking an average 18 weeks.
Weiler said in an interview that the success story in the numbers is the new tools that are helping fine-tune the management of Saskatchewan's surgical care system so that less people have to wait for so long.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Cleaning up nothing
Robert got to the story about the Cons' apparent mass violation of the Canada Elections Act before I could, but let's add a couple of elements to what's contained in the CP's coverage so far.
First, remember that the Cons' faulty analysis continued well into this spring, as the Cons apparently didn't know that their own Accountability Act would affect the Lib leadership convention:
Second, here's a quick look at the consequences of the Cons' ignorance under the Canada Elections Act. Among the provisions which it appears may have been violated are the following. First, for individuals whose delegate fee took them over the yearly contribution limit:
In sum, while the key events may have happened before the Cons took office, this looks like the first major scandal of Harper's reign in government. And this could be a fatal blow to the majority hopes of a party which campaigned on cleaning up politics and listed its Accountability Act as the main accomplishment of its first session in Parliament.
First, remember that the Cons' faulty analysis continued well into this spring, as the Cons apparently didn't know that their own Accountability Act would affect the Lib leadership convention:
A spokesperson for Conservative House Leader Rob Nicholson, who is shepherding the act through the Commons, dismissed the Liberals' fears of the bill's impact on their convention.Rather than re-examining that conclusion for themselves even when there was substantial public debate about the effect of their policy, the Cons didn't bother questioning their wrongful assumption while the Accountability Act was still up for discussion in the House of Commons. Which could give the Senate a serious excuse not to go along with the bill, and certainly makes the Cons look like something less than a competent governing party.
Genevieve Breton said delegate fees are meant to cover the actual costs of staging a convention. Thus, they are not considered a donation and are not subject to the donation limit.
"Basically, they were just wrong in what they thought," she said of the Liberals.
But Elections Canada, which implements and enforces political financing rules, backed up the Liberals' interpretation.
Second, here's a quick look at the consequences of the Cons' ignorance under the Canada Elections Act. Among the provisions which it appears may have been violated are the following. First, for individuals whose delegate fee took them over the yearly contribution limit:
405. (1) No individual shall make contributions that exceedSecond, for the Conservative Party and its agents:
(a) $5,000 in total in any calendar year to a particular registered party and its registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates;...
405.2(3) No person who is permitted to accept contributions under this Act shall knowingly accept a contribution that exceeds a limit under this Act...Emphasis added to show that a lack of knowledge isn't necessarily an excuse if the Cons have submitted inaccurate records without a reasonable explanation. And then the punchline, the applicable offence provisions:
405.4 If a registered party, a registered association, a candidate, a leadership contestant or a nomination contestant receives a contribution made in contravention of subsection 405(1), 405.2(4) or 405.3(1), the chief agent of the registered party, the financial agent of the registered association, the official agent of the candidate or the financial agent of the leadership contestant or nomination contestant, as the case may be, shall, within 30 days of becoming aware of the contravention, return the contribution unused to the contributor, or, if that is not possible, pay the amount of it or, in the case of a non-monetary contribution, an amount of money equal to its commercial value, to the Chief Electoral Officer who shall forward that amount to the Receiver General...
427. No chief agent of a registered party shall provide the Chief Electoral Officer with a financial transactions return that
(a) the chief agent knows or ought reasonably to know contains a materially false or misleading statement
497(1) Every person is guilty of an offence who...In other words, there are potentially serious violations at play for the Conservative Party, for its chief agent, and for many of those who attended its convention. And that's sticking to formal legal charges, rather than what should be plenty of public outrage at the possibility that money wrongly collected by the Cons may have helped to put them over the top in a close election.
(i.7) being a person authorized under this Act to accept contributions, contravenes section 405.4 (failure to return or pay amount of contribution);...
(3) Every person is guilty of an offence who...
(f.13) being an individual, wilfully contravenes subsection 405(1) (exceeding contribution limit);
(f.16) being a person entitled to accept contributions under this Act, contravenes subsection 405.2(3) (knowingly accepting excessive contribution);
(f.19) being a person authorized under this Act to accept contributions, wilfully contravenes section 405.4 (failure to return or pay amount of contribution);
(k) being a chief agent, contravenes paragraph 427( a) (providing financial transactions return containing false or misleading statement);...
500. (1) Every person who is guilty of an offence under any of (subsection)...497(1)...is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three months, or to both.
(5) Every person who is guilty of an offence under (subsection)...497(3)...is liable
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or to both; or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not more than $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years, or to both.
In sum, while the key events may have happened before the Cons took office, this looks like the first major scandal of Harper's reign in government. And this could be a fatal blow to the majority hopes of a party which campaigned on cleaning up politics and listed its Accountability Act as the main accomplishment of its first session in Parliament.
Unquestionable
I'll post in more detail later about just how far some Lib supporters have drifted from reality in trying to blame Jack Layton for their own failures both in the last election, and in the spring session of Parliament. In the meantime, take a look at Babble poster Vansterdam Kid's analysis of the NDP's targets in Question Period to see just who the NDP has been opposing.
Encouraging disclosure
Ontario's privacy commissioner has called for a first step in ensuring that citizens are informed when their personal information may be at risk:
Moreover, it may well be that the proposed law could turn out to be a plus for the affected organizations as well. While there might be some cost (both in reputation and in resources) to informing customers of any breaches, that downside would surely be outweighed by the danger that an attempted cover-up would leave an organization liable for negligent management of its data, with the potential for greater damages where individuals don't receive the opportunity to protect against the effects. But it may take a statute to highlight the dangers of trying to suppress any breaches.
In sum, the proposed law would only spur organizations toward a sound policy. Hopefully the Ontario government will shift from its current lack of responsiveness, and other provinces will also take a small step to ensure that data breaches have as few harmful consequences as possible.
To fight identity theft, Ontario should pass a law forcing companies and organizations to inform customers if their personal information has been compromised, says the provincial privacy commissioner.If anything, the "embarrassment" idea seems to me to overstate the case. But it should be clear that individuals need the opportunity to themselves take precautions when their personal data has been compromised - and when organizations are able to cover up breaches, that option isn't available.
"Right now, if there's a breach in Ontario, nobody has to be notified unless it's health information," Ann Cavoukian said yesterday after releasing her latest annual report.
California has such a law, which requires immediate notification of privacy breaches so consumers can be on guard for signs their identities have been stolen, such as credit cards issued in their names to strangers...
Advocates say so-called "breach notification" laws make it impossible for companies, embarrassed by leaks of confidential information, to deal with them quietly, leaving customers at the mercy of unscrupulous identity thieves.
Moreover, it may well be that the proposed law could turn out to be a plus for the affected organizations as well. While there might be some cost (both in reputation and in resources) to informing customers of any breaches, that downside would surely be outweighed by the danger that an attempted cover-up would leave an organization liable for negligent management of its data, with the potential for greater damages where individuals don't receive the opportunity to protect against the effects. But it may take a statute to highlight the dangers of trying to suppress any breaches.
In sum, the proposed law would only spur organizations toward a sound policy. Hopefully the Ontario government will shift from its current lack of responsiveness, and other provinces will also take a small step to ensure that data breaches have as few harmful consequences as possible.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Still not showing up
Apparently the Libs' reaction to having their poor Parliamentary attendance record pointed out last week was to continue the weak record at a fairly conspicuous time:
A Richmond, B.C., man says he feels slighted that many Liberal MPs left the House of Commons last week before the prime minister formally apologized for the Chinese head tax.It would have been problematic in any event for a large number of Libs to skip town just in time for the apology. But it's all the worse for it to happen at a time when the Libs were obviously aware that their erratic presence in Parliament hadn't gone unnoticed. And the end result is that even Lib members are left embarrassed by the party's MPs' disinterest in showing up to their elected seats.
Howe Chan, whose father paid $500 to come to Canada, says he had taken his seat in the visitors' gallery, looking forward to hearing Stephen Harper's historic speech.
But Chan told CBC News his "eyes filled with tears" when he saw the empty Liberal seats as Harper made his speech...
(Liberal whip Karen) Redman says many Liberal members were not on house duty that day, and were already back in their ridings...
Chan says the ceremony itself was meaningful, but he remains embarrased by the lack of Liberals, especially since he's a member of the party.
Internal pressure
It isn't only the opposition calling for the Cons to follow through on extending access to information to include government itself, as several Con caucus members have called on the Cons to keep their promise:
In a letter obtained by Sun Media, Burlington MP Mike Wallace wrote to Justice Minister Vic Toews late last week asking he draft an update to Canada’s Access to Information Act. The request came as the Conservative government’s centrepiece accountability legislation was passed on to the Senate for its scrutiny before it’s expected to become law this fall.While Harper seems happy to ignore dissenting views most of the time, he'll now have to answer the question of whether he's prepared to argue against both his caucus and his campaign promises in order to preserve an accountability-free cabinet. And even if Harper won't play along, the opposition parties and the Con backbenchers between them will have more than enough numbers to push through a change if he and Toews continue to try to avoid the access-to-information issue.
In his letter, Wallace said he consulted his fellow government members of the Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics Committee (including Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s parliamentary secretary Jason Kenney) and would like to see a new bill that could be sent to the House of Commons...
Toews left opposition members frustrated last week when he appeared before the committee with a discussion paper around access to information reform rather than a proposed bill. Among the important issues left out of the Federal Accountability Act is a provision requiring government officials keep a paper trail of decisions.
Good advice that they just didn't take
In case anybody was under the delusion that the Cons' moves to scrap existing environmental programs were based on a sound review of the programs' effect, word comes out that they ignored the good advice of the Environment Department when they gutted the One Tonne Challenge and Energuide programs:
The briefing book for (Rona Ambrose), prepared by departmental officials and obtained by CanWest News Service, contains strong warnings against reversing a number of key decisions taken by the previous Liberal government. In many cases, Rona Ambrose ignored the advice and has faced criticism from environmental organizations and opposition politicians.But faced with that advice among other departmental information that didn't fit with the Cons' plans, Harper appears to have drawn on an oft-repeated tactic from his ideological soulmate to the south:
Those decisions include scrapping the high-profile One-Tonne Challenge and the federal government's EnerGuide program, both of which are aimed at getting individuals to cut their emissions output in the home...
Departmental officials advising Ambrose described the two high-profile programs as "the cornerstones for engaging consumers."
"The day-to-day decisions of Canadians affect 28 per cent of Canada's emissions," the briefing books says, adding that each Canadian generates more than five tonnes of GHG's each year.
"The engagement of Canadian citizens is as much a fundamental component of addressing climate change for the long-term as engagement of industry."
On May 5, three months into the Conservative government's term, Harper officially relieved Samy Watson of his role as deputy environment minister, the top departmental bureaucrat.While it may be helpful from Harper's standpoint to be culling departmental employees who won't buy into the Cons' misinformation, it's undoubtedly a problem for those of us who want to see policy aimed at addressing problems rather than sheer political calculation. And if the Cons won't accept dissenting (though correct) views from within the departments under their control, it'll fall to outside pressure to point out when the Cons are headed for future missteps.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Good to know
Thanks to an extra push offered by the Bush-appointed judges, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it official: in the States, "when in doubt, kill" is a legitimate policy choice.
Contrasting coverage
About the only even vaguely plausible justification for the near-total lack of media attention to the NDP's environmental plan was the argument that the coverage would likely come once the plan had come together, rather than during the release of each component. Sadly, the full NDP plan to meet Canada's Kyoto obligations on a cost-neutral basis came and went with little notice besides some blog attention.
But now that it's time for the Cons to hand out military pork (some of which was already in the works before Harper took power), suddenly both the overall scheme and each daily announcement are being treated as top-headline news.
Update: In the comments, Pete points out another blog post on the NDP's plan. While I certainly don't agree entirely with Andrew's analysis, full credit to him for evaluating the NDP's plan on his view of the merits. Meanwhile, full discredit to CBC and CTV for giving top billing to the Cons' second daily announcement. (Interestingly, neither the Globe and Mail, the National Post nor the Star has yet followed suit with a story on the truck announcement.)
(Edit: typo and wording.)
But now that it's time for the Cons to hand out military pork (some of which was already in the works before Harper took power), suddenly both the overall scheme and each daily announcement are being treated as top-headline news.
Update: In the comments, Pete points out another blog post on the NDP's plan. While I certainly don't agree entirely with Andrew's analysis, full credit to him for evaluating the NDP's plan on his view of the merits. Meanwhile, full discredit to CBC and CTV for giving top billing to the Cons' second daily announcement. (Interestingly, neither the Globe and Mail, the National Post nor the Star has yet followed suit with a story on the truck announcement.)
(Edit: typo and wording.)
On poor representation
Remember back when Harper claimed that he had appointed David Emerson and Michael Fortier to cabinet in order to ensure that larger cities were represented within his inner circle? It turns out that "representation" apparently means nothing more than the opportunity to get in on the Cons' cabinet photo ops, as Harper still lacks any clue about the problems facing Canada's urban areas.
Sunday, June 25, 2006
On shaping memories
The White House appears to be trying to make the lame Bush impersonation act into the better-remembered part of this year's White House Correspondents' Dinner. Enjoy a laugh again from Stephen Colbert, who oddly enough doesn't seem to have been invited to join Bush again.
On maintaining links
The CP reports that the Canadian government is determining whether or not to allow Canadian residents to run in foreign elections. As best I can tell, to the extent that another country allows its citizens living abroad to vote or run for office while living abroad, it would be a far greater interference in that country's politics for Canada to try to restrict participation than to stay out of the way...to say nothing of the impact on an individual whose candidacy might be affected by Canada's refusal to cooperate. But it remains to be seen whether those interests will win out over what appear to be suspicions about foreign political divides replicating themselves in Canada.
The dangers of lowered expectations
In the aftermath of the spring session of Parliament, much of the commentary has focused on the view that the Harper government has boosted its reputation by keeping promises and exceeding expectations. Now, I don't agree that the Harper government has managed to do either. But I can see why there's at least some plausibility to such opinions...and it'll take a reshaped opposition, either in the Libs' strategy or in the voting choices of Canadians, to avoid continuing such a low standard that the Cons can barely help but to exceed it.
The problem seems to lie largely in the "fear Harper" message which has dominated the last couple of Lib campaigns, and in turn plenty of media coverage in the meantime. With the previous government having done its best to paint the Cons as a horrifying dictatorship-in-waiting, it hasn't been hard at all for Harper to exceed the anticipated level of competence and honesty in government - even while the Cons have broken promises from day one, and gutted several programs which deserved at least some continued evaluation before hitting the chopping block. "Hidden agenda" talk is a great way to play to fears during a campaign, but it also means that once in power, any action by the party subject to that accusation which falls short of a voter's deepest fears becomes somewhat of a pleasant surprise. And that in turn helps that party to boost its support enough to make the public's worst fears come true.
Consider instead how the Cons' parliamentary session would have looked based the NDP's implied standard of "wrong on the issues but (relatively) honest". Once the expectation of some bare minimum of honesty is added to the mix, the Emerson, Fortier and Clement fiascoes become serious problems rather than a continuation of politics as usual. And given their all-out assault on child care and the environment, the Cons certainly can't be seen to have exceeded expectations on the "wrong on the issues" front. Meaning that if the NDP's campaign message about the Cons had been set as the public's expectation all along, Harper would be on the defensive, trying to cling to power as long as he could rather than in a position to make a run at a majority.
In sum, Harper's first session in power should have been seen as a negative one by any reasonable standard. If the Cons are being held to such a low standard that poor policy and dishonest government are seen as better than expected, Canadian voters should ask themselves both who's set such a low bar for those holding public office...and whether they're more likely to get rid of Harper in the long run by setting reasonable expectations that the Cons will probably fall short of, or by shrieking that the end is nigh in hopes that it'll come true.
(Edit: typos.)
The problem seems to lie largely in the "fear Harper" message which has dominated the last couple of Lib campaigns, and in turn plenty of media coverage in the meantime. With the previous government having done its best to paint the Cons as a horrifying dictatorship-in-waiting, it hasn't been hard at all for Harper to exceed the anticipated level of competence and honesty in government - even while the Cons have broken promises from day one, and gutted several programs which deserved at least some continued evaluation before hitting the chopping block. "Hidden agenda" talk is a great way to play to fears during a campaign, but it also means that once in power, any action by the party subject to that accusation which falls short of a voter's deepest fears becomes somewhat of a pleasant surprise. And that in turn helps that party to boost its support enough to make the public's worst fears come true.
Consider instead how the Cons' parliamentary session would have looked based the NDP's implied standard of "wrong on the issues but (relatively) honest". Once the expectation of some bare minimum of honesty is added to the mix, the Emerson, Fortier and Clement fiascoes become serious problems rather than a continuation of politics as usual. And given their all-out assault on child care and the environment, the Cons certainly can't be seen to have exceeded expectations on the "wrong on the issues" front. Meaning that if the NDP's campaign message about the Cons had been set as the public's expectation all along, Harper would be on the defensive, trying to cling to power as long as he could rather than in a position to make a run at a majority.
In sum, Harper's first session in power should have been seen as a negative one by any reasonable standard. If the Cons are being held to such a low standard that poor policy and dishonest government are seen as better than expected, Canadian voters should ask themselves both who's set such a low bar for those holding public office...and whether they're more likely to get rid of Harper in the long run by setting reasonable expectations that the Cons will probably fall short of, or by shrieking that the end is nigh in hopes that it'll come true.
(Edit: typos.)
Lacking the ring of truth
Dalton McGuinty is trying to soften opposition to his government's plan to invest massive amounts of money in new nuclear power facilities, claiming that while he himself isn't a fan of nuclear energy, he doesn't have any choice in the matter. Now where have we heard that kind of message before?
Saturday, June 24, 2006
On welcoming policies
It seems highly unlikely that Maurizio Bevilacqua (or anybody else) will pay any attention to his suggested increases in immigration (including more family members of current immigrants) past his inevitable elimination from the leadership race. Which is a shame, since while the proposal would likely become a political liability in a general election, as a policy it could not only improve the lives of the immigrants already accepted, and to help strengthen Canada's global influence.
On political surveillance
The CP reports on some of the information-gathering currently undertaken by Canada's main political parties, leading naturally to questions about how political actors should be able to mine and apply data about voters:
Now, it's easy enough to argue that the data merely helps parties to create platforms which best reflect the desires of the targeted voters...making it little more than a more thorough form of canvassing voters for their views, which surely can't be considered a bad thing.
But then there's the problem that no matter how a platform or personalized message is phrased, it may bear little resemblance to the substance of how a party performs in government. And if intensive data mining enables a party to win votes by parroting narrowly-targeted issues and messages rather than by genuinely sharing and applying the same view of government held by constituents, it seems to be a potentially harmful influence on the electoral process.
For better or worse, there doesn't seem to be much prospect of changing the current law, since the current government seems to be ahead in data-mining strategies and since each party in Parliament is presumably leery of giving up information that it's been able to collect and use in the past. Which leads into the question of whether it'll be possible to move away from the demographic targeting model only by making laws to limit its application, or whether there's a real opening for a party to undermine the premise of the model by engaging in a less self-interested policy-making process.
Given what appears to be a great deal of (well-justified) public cynicism about the current system, one would think that the prospect of a party based more on substance than on gloss would hold a significant amount of appeal. But then there's no way to differentiate between the two types of policy based solely on the content of a platform...and any party which spends too much time boasting about its lack of message targeting might well come off as both implausible and naive.
For now, suffice it to say that while it's clear that some targeting is probably inevitable, it's hard to say whether the degree of targeting now taking place (along with any future expansion) is a positive either for the political system generally, or for the parties engaged in it. And since the parties are likely to hold the details and effects of their own strategies rather close to the vest, there doesn't seem to be much prospect of discovering the precise effects unless the targeted voters consider it worth their while to start analyzing political parties as closely as they're being analyzed personally.
Update: Note that the current talk about a voter ID plan could introduce another source of individual information into the mix.
(Conservative) Party sources say they are making personalized appeals to thousands of undecided voters in more than 40 ridings they hope to win. They're sending them letters, calling them, and setting up meetings with elected officials from nearby ridings.It's certainly not surprising that the parties are gathering as much information as possible in order to plot their strategies for upcoming campaigns. But it's worth wondering whether the political system is better or worse off for the strategy - and whether Canada's election rules should be changed to limit the ability of political parties to engage in the current degree of data collection.
It's all part of a data-gathering project that could be the most sophisticated of its kind in Canadian political history. The party has already compiled two million names in an electronic database that records the concerns and political opinions of voters...
Conservatives and opposition parties say they don't buy corporate information on individuals, which would be illegal under the federal Privacy Act. But they identify key neighbourhoods from public-opinion surveys and past election results from individual polling stations within a riding.
Then they can compile information for a single street by using publicly obtained and privately purchased information. Even people's Air Miles cards are used by ad companies and political parties to track their purchasing patterns and demographic data.
Now, it's easy enough to argue that the data merely helps parties to create platforms which best reflect the desires of the targeted voters...making it little more than a more thorough form of canvassing voters for their views, which surely can't be considered a bad thing.
But then there's the problem that no matter how a platform or personalized message is phrased, it may bear little resemblance to the substance of how a party performs in government. And if intensive data mining enables a party to win votes by parroting narrowly-targeted issues and messages rather than by genuinely sharing and applying the same view of government held by constituents, it seems to be a potentially harmful influence on the electoral process.
For better or worse, there doesn't seem to be much prospect of changing the current law, since the current government seems to be ahead in data-mining strategies and since each party in Parliament is presumably leery of giving up information that it's been able to collect and use in the past. Which leads into the question of whether it'll be possible to move away from the demographic targeting model only by making laws to limit its application, or whether there's a real opening for a party to undermine the premise of the model by engaging in a less self-interested policy-making process.
Given what appears to be a great deal of (well-justified) public cynicism about the current system, one would think that the prospect of a party based more on substance than on gloss would hold a significant amount of appeal. But then there's no way to differentiate between the two types of policy based solely on the content of a platform...and any party which spends too much time boasting about its lack of message targeting might well come off as both implausible and naive.
For now, suffice it to say that while it's clear that some targeting is probably inevitable, it's hard to say whether the degree of targeting now taking place (along with any future expansion) is a positive either for the political system generally, or for the parties engaged in it. And since the parties are likely to hold the details and effects of their own strategies rather close to the vest, there doesn't seem to be much prospect of discovering the precise effects unless the targeted voters consider it worth their while to start analyzing political parties as closely as they're being analyzed personally.
Update: Note that the current talk about a voter ID plan could introduce another source of individual information into the mix.
An odd target
The Cons have done plenty that's worthy of criticism since taking power. But it's beyond me how Kevin Baker concludes that "encouraging constituents to stay healthy" ranks anywhere but the very bottom of the list.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Good times
The happiest day of the year offered plenty of good news for Saskatchewan. Not only is the economy projected to keep rolling for the foreseeable future, but the political scene is set to take a turn for the better.
Just wondering...
...but would Liberal leader Bill Graham bother responding seriously to the possibility of the NDP overtaking the Libs if there wasn't a real chance of it happening?
Pointless-3s
A couple of good articles on P3s in B.C. turned up today. First, from the CCPA:
There's probably no changing the minds of Campbell and his ilk who insist on putting an end to public ownership of public works. But it's still a plus to know that the P3 movement is on the wrong side of both the weight of the evidence, and enough of the public's opinion to keep municipalities honest. And that should only encourage citizens to make sure that their interests, not those of potential P3 contractors, come first when governments decide how to provide needed services.
Value for Money? Cautionary Lessons About P3s from British Columbia...examines how P3s have been used for public infrastructure projects such as roads, transit and hospitals in BC and internationally. It finds that:Meanwhile, the Tyee reports that at least one recent attempt by the Campbell government to strong-arm a municipality into a P3 has succumbed to local resistance:
- P3s are being aggressively pursued in BC in spite of a lack of evidence that they are a superior option.
- P3s are less cost-effective, timely and transparent than traditional government procurement.
- Partnerships BC, whose mandate is both to promote P3s and evaluate whether they are appropriate for use on specific projects, cannot adequately protect the public interest.
- Decision-making about infrastructure projects is being guided by “Value For Money” assessments produced by Partnerships BC that are so subjective, so complicated, and so consistently withheld from public scrutiny that they are not of legitimate use.
Stuart Murray, author of the study and the CCPA’s Public Interest Researcher, says “One rationale after another has been put forward by those who favour P3s, but the only rationale that stands up to scrutiny is that they generate profit for industry. That’s not a good enough reason to pay more for something than it’s worth.”
The most recent round of the debate that's been running since 2001 happened on Monday night when Whistler council met to decide whether to take the proposed P3 to a referendum or cancel the project entirely...So where does Campbell fit into the picture?
On Monday night, Whistler Water Watch presented the ballots to council. The mayor, Ken Malamed, said was surprised at the (1800 signatures gathered in opposition to the P3 structure), and suggested council extend the vote by two weeks to give the P3 supporters more time to make their case. In the end, however, in a 4-3 decision, the council voted against the extension and also voted against continuing to a referendum. This effectively killed the P3 project.
At the beginning of the debate about how to proceed, in 2001, Mayor Melamed and council rejected a P3 solution entirely. But on May 30, 2002, the B.C. Liberal government announced the creation of a new policy -- the Capital Asset Management Framework -- which requires that public sector agencies investigate alternatives for capital development, including the P3 option.Fortunately, while Whistler's council was all too easily swayed during the interim, its citizens didn't stand to have a P3 imposed by the province...with the end result that the town should now be free to pursue another publicly-owned treatment plant which produces results as positive as the current one.
So after rejecting the P3 option, the province asked Whistler to revisit its decision. And on January 10, 2005, in a 5-2 decision, Whistler announced its support of the P3 option to "design, build and operate" the upgrade to the existing wastewater treatment plant. If the project were to go ahead, design, construction and daily operation would be handed over to a private company.
There's probably no changing the minds of Campbell and his ilk who insist on putting an end to public ownership of public works. But it's still a plus to know that the P3 movement is on the wrong side of both the weight of the evidence, and enough of the public's opinion to keep municipalities honest. And that should only encourage citizens to make sure that their interests, not those of potential P3 contractors, come first when governments decide how to provide needed services.
Impending delays
The Globe and Mail reports that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security will be forced to delay the first set of passport restrictions on Canadians due to take effect at the end of this year:
There are growing signs that the U.S. government will be forced to delay the Jan. 1, 2007, implementation of the passport requirement for air and sea passengers crossing back from Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean.Needless to say, the expected delays in this part of the U.S.' border scheme should only highlight the need for some more leeway in the current 2008 drop-dead date on land travel. Hopefully the Cons will for once be willing to push the need for a change in timing, rather than continuing to insist that Canada accept the current deadline when the U.S. department responsible is showing no signs of getting its act together in time.
Officials of the Department of Homeland Security insist that their plans are still on track, but a senior Canadian official says federal bureaucrats have been told by their U.S. counterparts that there will be a delay.
The problem is that Homeland Security has still not published its detailed proposed rule, which must then be open for public comment and is subject to other legal delays before a final rule can be imposed by the end of the year.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Poker faces
When the Cons are obviously bluffing, the Libs fold. When the NDP raises the ante, the Cons get scared and leave the table. Now who do you want to bet will still be in at the end of the game?
A loaded invitation
Two Senators are daring Harper to open up the full constitutional can of worms by proposing a modest increase in Senate seats for the Western provinces:
But from a political standpoint, the proposal will put Harper's back to the wall. After all, he spent significant time during the election campaign musing about how he'd like to see the West better represented. The invitation to move in that direction is one that he can only ignore at his own peril - and it'll be interesting to see whether the Cons see more danger in turning their back on increased Western representation, or in facing the full gamut of constitutional demands.
Jack Austin and Lowell Murray served notice Thursday of their intention to introduce a resolution to amend the Constitution to significantly increase the number of western seats, particularly for British Columbia.The proposal doesn't look like one which would leave anybody entirely happy: the West would still be somewhat underrepresented, the other provinces would lose some proportional influence in the Senate, and presumably the talk of opening up the Constitution under the seven-province amendment formula will lead to others presenting their constitutional wish lists.
Under the proposal, B.C.'s Senate seats would double to 12, Alberta would get 10 and Manitoba and Saskatchewan would each get seven.
But from a political standpoint, the proposal will put Harper's back to the wall. After all, he spent significant time during the election campaign musing about how he'd like to see the West better represented. The invitation to move in that direction is one that he can only ignore at his own peril - and it'll be interesting to see whether the Cons see more danger in turning their back on increased Western representation, or in facing the full gamut of constitutional demands.
Globe cool to logical thought, poll analysis suggests
The Globe and Mail seems eager to interpret a new Leger poll as reflecting Canadian disapproval with immigration generally. But the poll itself doesn't support that conclusion at all:
Instead of taking any of the above possibilities into account, the Globe's article (based on Leger's analysis) instead assumes that any lack of satisfaction with immigration has to do with a desire to lower immigration levels, then makes a simplistic comparison to another poll which asked an entirely different question to suggest there's been some sea change in Canadian public opinion.
Fortunately, one isn't limited to speculation to see just how wrong the Globe's conclusion is. There's also evidence within the Leger poll to suggest that any concerns related to immigration don't correlate to a lack of security arising out of immigration levels:
Sadly, both Leger and the Globe write that distinction off rather than drawing the link. But there should be no doubt that the weight of the evidence still shows Canadians recognizing the importance of immigration, even if our current policies can stand to be improved.
While those polled showed substantial support for Canadian security procedures and multicultural policies, they seemed to be cooling to the country's immigration policy.It shouldn't take much examination to see that the two polls cover entirely different issues. While the latter clearly reflects public support for the number of immigrants accepted by Canada, the former can reflect a number of immigration issues which have received public attention. The issue of recognizing foreign credentials was a frequent topic of discussion in the past election campaign; the need for workers in Alberta has led to public debate over the importation of temporary workers; and even Canada's restrictive refugee appeal process could easily cause a person to disapprove of "immigration policy" without wanting to see the level of immigration changed. Moreover, one could just as easily be dissatisified with the level of immigration as being too low rather than too high.
While the margin is slight – 33 per cent saying they were dissatisfied with Canada's immigration policy compared with 29 per cent that were satisfied – what becomes more significant is the decrease in positive attitudes from previous research, said Jack Jedwab, executive director of the ACS.
“My findings in the past have been that attitudes toward immigration have been quite positive,” Mr. Jedwab said, citing a recent Gallop (sic) International poll taken before the arrests that found 58 per cent of Canadians were satisfied with the level of immigration in the country.
Instead of taking any of the above possibilities into account, the Globe's article (based on Leger's analysis) instead assumes that any lack of satisfaction with immigration has to do with a desire to lower immigration levels, then makes a simplistic comparison to another poll which asked an entirely different question to suggest there's been some sea change in Canadian public opinion.
Fortunately, one isn't limited to speculation to see just how wrong the Globe's conclusion is. There's also evidence within the Leger poll to suggest that any concerns related to immigration don't correlate to a lack of security arising out of immigration levels:
More than twice as many people polled said they were satisfied (43 per cent) with Canada's multicultural policy than were dissatisfied (18 per cent)...Now, surely anybody who suddenly considered Canada's level of immigration to be too high based on the Ontario arrests would also flag that as a security issue. Instead, based on the difference between the two poll numbers at least 18% of Canadians are satisfied with the security situation, but unhappy with our immigration system for other reasons.
Roughly the same level of satisfaction came with Canadians attitude toward security – 47 per cent saying they were satisfied with the level of security in the country, compared with 21 per cent who were not.
Sadly, both Leger and the Globe write that distinction off rather than drawing the link. But there should be no doubt that the weight of the evidence still shows Canadians recognizing the importance of immigration, even if our current policies can stand to be improved.
On the importance of showing up
Greg at Sinister Thoughts points out this Politics Watch article, featuring the Libs' poor excuse for the party's chronic absenteeism from Parliament:
But just what is it that the Libs have apparently found to be more important than serving the interests of their constituents in Parliament?
Not that it should be too much of a surprise to see party interests placed ahead of all else in the minds of the Libs. The question now is how long it'll take for people to stop expecting the Libs to present a meaningful opposition, and to recognize that the NDP is already doing so despite its smaller amount of resources.
The NDP fought back on Wednesday when NDP MPs Nathan Cullen and Brian Masse held a press conference on Parliament Hill to unveil a report card on the performance of the Liberals in this Parliament.Sounds about right. Though in fairness it should be noted that even when they show up, the Libs have been doing more to act like Cons themselves than to hold the Cons to account.
The NDP's report card was highly critical of the absenteeism of the Liberals in the House of Commons on a number of votes, and blamed the Liberals for allowing the government motion to extend the mission in Afghanistan to pass by four votes in the House.
"In this session of Parliament, the Liberals have had the worst record of attendance of any caucus," said Masse, noting the Liberals have had an absentee rate of 18 per cent in the 24 votes held so far in this session, including 11 Liberals who were absent for the Afghanistan vote.
"You can't stand up to a full-time Conservative government, with a part-time Liberal Official Opposition . . . We are in a minority Parliament and every single vote counts in the House of Commons and affects people's lives on a daily basis."
But just what is it that the Libs have apparently found to be more important than serving the interests of their constituents in Parliament?
The Liberals suggested it was unfair to target their party for absenteeism when eight caucus members are running leadership campaign and many other MPs are involved as campaign managers or organizers.In other words, a good chunk of the Lib caucus is too busy dealing with internal party politics to bother playing a role in the overall governance of the country, and hasn't apparently made much of an effort to strike any balance between the two. And the Libs' response is to criticize the NDP for pointing that fact out, rather than to admit that MPs should spend enough time in Parliament to represent their constituents.
Not that it should be too much of a surprise to see party interests placed ahead of all else in the minds of the Libs. The question now is how long it'll take for people to stop expecting the Libs to present a meaningful opposition, and to recognize that the NDP is already doing so despite its smaller amount of resources.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Expanding markets
SGI has taken up Ralph Klein's invitation to see how it can compete in Alberta's insurance market. Which will mean one more choice for Alberta consumers (who may well be familiar with how much better SGI's rates are than those of Alberta's private sector), and one more way in which Saskatchewan's provincial investments abroad help to pay for the costs of keeping the province running.
So that's how it works
It's been well documented that the NDP's policy proposals themselves can't break through the media's usual coverage of spin and pablum. But apparently a proposal released on the same day the NDP calls for a minister's resignation is seen as worthy of a mention in passing.
Update: Based on the CP and CTV coverage, even the concurrent release doesn't seem to lead to any mention of the policy. It's worth noting (via the CTV article) that the Libs in opposition seem to have adopted the same kick-the-can-down-the-road approach that helped them to accomplish so little while in government:
Update: Based on the CP and CTV coverage, even the concurrent release doesn't seem to lead to any mention of the policy. It's worth noting (via the CTV article) that the Libs in opposition seem to have adopted the same kick-the-can-down-the-road approach that helped them to accomplish so little while in government:
Godfrey said he agrees with the NDP view that Ambrose is incompetent; but said more time is needed to allow the minister to fully demonstrate her incompetence.
Manufacturing a crisis
The Globe and Mail reports on Harper's plan to import another of Bush's pet policies, taking a first step toward undermining the Canada Pension Plan:
Canadians should rightfully expect that their pension system is self-sustaining, and hopefully won't buy Harper's claim that a temporary bump in take-home pay (in an already-overheating economy) is worth giving up the assurance that they can be secure in planning to receive the CPP upon retirement. It'll fall to public pressure (and to the provinces, who do have some say in the CPP legislation) to force the Cons away from imposing such a damaging tradeoff on Canadians.
Update: See My Blahg and blevkog for more.
New update: The C.D. Howe Institute has come out against any politicization of the CPP.
Sources have told The Globe and Mail that Mr. Harper's efforts to fix the fiscal imbalance will become clear over the autumn months and that the government is looking at ways to reduce CPP contributions from both workers and employers.Needless to say, it almost certainly wouldn't be long after a cut in premiums before the federal government would plead poverty and point out how much money from general revenue was being eaten up by the CPP. Which could in turn be easily followed by cuts in benefits and talk of privatization due to the manufactured lack of public resources to meet the needs of Canadian pensioners...accompanied by assurances that the same businesses who are thriving at the current rates couldn't possibly abide an increase to the same rates in the future.
The government is contemplating pouring some of its federal surplus into the CPP to accomplish this...
The fourth (Con proposal) would be the plan to use money from the annual surplus to top up the CPP. Ottawa hopes that doing so will allow it to cut premiums.
Canadians should rightfully expect that their pension system is self-sustaining, and hopefully won't buy Harper's claim that a temporary bump in take-home pay (in an already-overheating economy) is worth giving up the assurance that they can be secure in planning to receive the CPP upon retirement. It'll fall to public pressure (and to the provinces, who do have some say in the CPP legislation) to force the Cons away from imposing such a damaging tradeoff on Canadians.
Update: See My Blahg and blevkog for more.
New update: The C.D. Howe Institute has come out against any politicization of the CPP.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
On networking
A Senate report recommends that CBC-TV become commercial-free. Of course, the recommendation will almost certainly run into serious opposition from both advertisers who want to continue to make use of the network, and competitors who won't want the CBC to receive the guaranteed funding which would presumably replace the current ad revenue. But the cause is still one worth taking up on the off chance that we could enjoy a national network that doesn't have to cater to commercial concerns.
On choices
There's been lots of talk about today's poll on child-care. But much of the discussion has entirely ignored the fact that the Libs' plan alone wasn't the most popular option:
Update: Based on the comments to blevkog's post, I'm not the only one to notice the omission.
Support for a national child-care system was high across Canada, in urban and rural areas and among families with a stay-at-home parent, said Derek Leebosh, senior associate with Environics.In other words, respondents ultimately didn't buy the Libs' either-or claims any more than the Cons'. The preferred position was instead to recognize the need for increased resources flowing to parents as well as the need for government funding to generate child care spaces. Now if only more attention was paid to the fact that one party has been proposing just that all along...
“It shows that Canadians put a very high value on child care. They think it's important that it be available and accessible.”
A solid majority of those polled questioned why there can't be a family allowance and an improved child-care network, he said.
“A lot of Canadians feel like maybe they're being forced to make a bit of false choice. Why can't we have both? There's huge surpluses. It's not like we're in a deficit.
“They don't want to see [the $1,200 cheques] come at the expense of funding of affordable child-care programs.”
Update: Based on the comments to blevkog's post, I'm not the only one to notice the omission.
Levelling the playing field
The Globe and Mail reports that several small Canadian political parties will be in court today arguing that the statutory minimum vote levels for federal campaign funding violate their Charter rights:
Since January, 2004, federal political parties have received $1.75 annually for every vote they received in the most recent election -- money that helps pay for campaign financing and other party expenses. That funding is restricted to parties that obtain at least 2 per cent of the national vote or 5 per cent of the vote in the ridings where they ran candidates...Even the Charter-based challenge may well have some real chance of success. But at the very least the small parties' effort, particularly in the cooperation among parties with such varied political philosophies, should highlight the need for a change in the current election law to encourage a more inclusive political system.
But the small parties that exist today say denying them access to even a small portion of the federal funds given to larger parties is unfair and contravenes voting rights contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
"The Supreme Court has ruled that small parties are equally deserving of respect as large parties and that voters have the right to participate in small parties," said Peter Rosenthal, the Toronto-based lawyer who represents the Marijuana Party of Canada, the Canadian Action Party, the Communist Party of Canada, the Christian Heritage Party of Canada and the Progressive Canadian Party, as well as the Green Party of Canada, which received money this year but was denied after the 2004 vote.
Monday, June 19, 2006
On the advance
The federal NDP continues to cast a wide net, taking on the Bloc for backing the Cons on the budget but not on accountability. It remains to be seen whether the Dippers can catch enough votes in Quebec to get into seat-winning range, but it's certainly a plus to see the party keeping up its efforts to do so...and pointing out how the Bloc has failed to represent progressives in La Belle Province.
Internal accountability
While Stephen Harper's decision to make sitting MPs subject to nomination challenges is certainly worthy of discussion, I have to disagree with Cowboys for Social Responsibility on both the merits and the likely outcomes.
It's a fair question to ask why Cons appear to have gone from being too busy to deal with potential nomination challenges while they were in opposition, to being able to do so once in government. But the problem isn't with the change, but rather with the previous policy which completed insulately MPs from the democratic will of their riding associations. The change may have taken longer than it should have, but that doesn't mean it's a bad one.
I note also that contrary to what's implied from CSR's post, the policy doesn't appear to be limited to backbenchers. As should be the case, each Con MP, whether or not appointed to a privileged position by Harper, looks to be accountable to his or her constituency. Granted, members of cabinet probably won't face particularly strong challenges...but it does appear that the process will apply to all MPs, and not only to the supposedly-expendable backbenchers.
So much for CSR's concern that this means that backbenchers in particular are disposable. But what about the practical effects within the Con party? In CSR's comments, Red Tory points out the possibility that social activists will use their ability to stack a nomination meeting to drive the Cons to the right:
Moreover, it seems likely that in any nomination race, the support of the party structure would tend toward more moderate nominees, providing a strong counterbalance to the possibility of far-right hijacking. Which means that while Red Tory's concern is a valid one, it's far from certain to reflect the end result.
I'll add that there is one more possible concern arising out of the policy. By opening up nominations, Harper may also be able to exercise more control over his sitting MPs by threatening to support an alternate nominee where an MP goes offside. It remains to be whether Harper would apply that type of threat. But any danger associated with increased top-down pressure on MPs would be more a symptom of Harper's own attitude toward his members than a problem with open nominations.
In sum, there are certainly ways in which an open nomination process could seem to go bad, both due to internal riding politics and central management. And those dangers certainly explain why the Cons and Libs apply such a process selectively rather than as a matter of course. But the rewards of a principled stance in favour of internal accountability ultimately outweigh the potential costs. And Harper deserves credit, not blame, for endorsing for once a policy which actually makes his party more accountable rather than less so.
(Edit: typo.)
It's a fair question to ask why Cons appear to have gone from being too busy to deal with potential nomination challenges while they were in opposition, to being able to do so once in government. But the problem isn't with the change, but rather with the previous policy which completed insulately MPs from the democratic will of their riding associations. The change may have taken longer than it should have, but that doesn't mean it's a bad one.
I note also that contrary to what's implied from CSR's post, the policy doesn't appear to be limited to backbenchers. As should be the case, each Con MP, whether or not appointed to a privileged position by Harper, looks to be accountable to his or her constituency. Granted, members of cabinet probably won't face particularly strong challenges...but it does appear that the process will apply to all MPs, and not only to the supposedly-expendable backbenchers.
So much for CSR's concern that this means that backbenchers in particular are disposable. But what about the practical effects within the Con party? In CSR's comments, Red Tory points out the possibility that social activists will use their ability to stack a nomination meeting to drive the Cons to the right:
(T)his opens up sitting MPs to pressure from social activists promoting a far right agenda who threaten to stack the nomination meetings with their supporters. The result is that the MP will either fold under this pressure and allow their views to be influenced (e.g., opposing SSM) or risk being defeated.Of course, social activists aren't the only constituents who could see fit to shape the course of a nomination meeting. It could well be that the result would be instead for moderate challengers to mount successful runs against the Anders- or Vellacott-types who aren't likely to lose to another party anytime soon. And in those ridings where the social activists do outnumber all the groups with an incentive to keep the party moderate, that strikes me as more a necessary cost of an open policy than a large enough concern to justify a "get out of accountability free" card for sitting MPs.
Moreover, it seems likely that in any nomination race, the support of the party structure would tend toward more moderate nominees, providing a strong counterbalance to the possibility of far-right hijacking. Which means that while Red Tory's concern is a valid one, it's far from certain to reflect the end result.
I'll add that there is one more possible concern arising out of the policy. By opening up nominations, Harper may also be able to exercise more control over his sitting MPs by threatening to support an alternate nominee where an MP goes offside. It remains to be whether Harper would apply that type of threat. But any danger associated with increased top-down pressure on MPs would be more a symptom of Harper's own attitude toward his members than a problem with open nominations.
In sum, there are certainly ways in which an open nomination process could seem to go bad, both due to internal riding politics and central management. And those dangers certainly explain why the Cons and Libs apply such a process selectively rather than as a matter of course. But the rewards of a principled stance in favour of internal accountability ultimately outweigh the potential costs. And Harper deserves credit, not blame, for endorsing for once a policy which actually makes his party more accountable rather than less so.
(Edit: typo.)
Crazy 'bout that mercury
The Star reports on yet another negative consequence of Ontario's decision to keep its coal-fired plants open into the next decade, as the decision now appears set to torpedo a national effort to reduce mercury emissions:
Sources say the Liberal government's recent decision to break a 2003 cornerstone campaign promise and keep open the province's pollution-spewing coal-fired generating plants well past 2009 is behind the policy U-turn.For now the end result is expected to be only a delay in the announcement, but Ontario's decision to back away from what was to have been a national commitment will do nothing but offer political cover for other governments who in turn repudiate either the mercury-emissions goal or other agreed environmental standards. And with the most powerful Lib government left in the country refusing to live up to even its existing environmental commitments, it'll be all the tougher for the federal party to plausibly claim interest in the environment as one of its core values, rather than a convenient campaign plank to be ignored after election time.
Canada's federal, provincial and territorial environment ministers were poised last Friday to announce a reduction in the highly toxic mercury emissions by 50 per cent from 2003-04 levels by 2010.
But in a letter to Saskatchewan Environment Minister John Nilson, president of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), Ontario Environment Minister Laurel Broten said the province is unable to keep the commitment.
While Broten claims Ontario is "the champion for mercury and air issues" among the environment ministers' collective, she offers no timetable for when Premier Dalton McGuinty's government could actually abide by standards approved by Ottawa and the other provinces and territories.
Make a note of the date...
...as Harper's honeymoon phase appears to be officially over. Or, to be more accurate, we now know that it ended some time ago:
Furious Canadians bombarded the prime minister with e-mail following controversial spring decisions not to lower Parliament Hill flags for soldiers killed in Afghanistan or allow the public to view their return to Canada, documents obtained by CanWest News Service show.While it shouldn't be surprising that the policies were unpopular, it is telling that the detractors outnumbered the supporters by such a wide margin - particularly over a policy which was supposedly implemented based on the interests of some of the same people who wrote in. And based on the reaction to this among other mistakes and broken promises, it's clear that much of the public long since concluded that Harper doesn't deserve a free pass.
The letters, sent via Stephen Harper's Web site and obtained under the Access to Information Act, provide a glimpse into the public psyche during one of the first major missteps by the new Conservative government...
Of the thousands of e-mails that poured into Harper's office the day after he imposed a press ban on homecoming ceremonies in April, an overwhelming majority were highly critical.
For each positive endorsement of the policies, there were approximately 50 angry notes filled with words such as "disgraceful, shameful and cowardly."
Sunday, June 18, 2006
On battle lines
The Globe and Mail suggests that Quebec's new carbon tax may ultimately win the approval of oil producers since it's relatively easily passed along to consumers. So far, the oil industry is still fighting tooth and nail against anything which could affect its profits rather than admitting to the preference. But if the debate shifts to one between measures which fall primarily on producers and ones that mostly hit consumers, it'll be interesting how the federal Cons choose between their financial base and their voting base.
More wasted space
pogge points out that the Con's announcement of security funding which has received mention in virtually every Canadian media outlet this weekend doesn't reflect a single new dollar. But by virtue of having come from the government, this too is apparently more worthy of widespread coverage than policy ideas which actually deal with widely-acknowledged problems.
On wasted space
The Star does its best to push toward an Ignatieff acclamation, shedding plenty of ink on the utterly unremarkable fact that Lib senator David Smith is supporting Ignatieff's leadership run.
It remains to be seen whether Smith's input in the leadership race will be as successful as it was in some of his prior efforts cited in the article, including his complete failure to bring the Chretien and Martin camps back together in 2004. But whatever Smith's impact on the race, surely some of the column space could have been better spent on a party which is actually introducing new ideas, rather than on the obvious back-room machinations driving the Lib leadership contest.
(Edit: corrected link.)
It remains to be seen whether Smith's input in the leadership race will be as successful as it was in some of his prior efforts cited in the article, including his complete failure to bring the Chretien and Martin camps back together in 2004. But whatever Smith's impact on the race, surely some of the column space could have been better spent on a party which is actually introducing new ideas, rather than on the obvious back-room machinations driving the Lib leadership contest.
(Edit: corrected link.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)