Internal conflict

I'd figured that thanks to Harper's famous micromanagement and message control, the Cons would at least hold out as long as possible before putting forward a "blame the underlings" defence to the questions surrounding their 2005 convention. So much for that expectation, as the party's executive director has come out firing at riding associations who engaged in cheque-swapping:

"The national party has no knowledge that this practice ever happened," Mike Donison, the party's executive-director, wrote in an e-mail to the Vancouver Sun Monday.

"The party certainly would not have ever approved or condoned this practice."...

In a letter to The Hill Times in Ottawa, which published a story on the issue Monday, Donison noted that Toews was not a party employee but didn't say what status she may have had as a volunteer with the party.

Donison indicated that party officials aren't necessarily aware of how riding associations handle tax receipt matters.

Of course, part of Donison's motivation is presumably to suggest that the matter should be dealt with internally rather than investigated by Elections Canada. But it's glaringly clear by now that the investigation isn't about to stop. It only remains to be seen who ends up taking the full force of the backlash...and now that riding associations have been tossed under the bus, it'll be interesting to find out whether they'll fight back with further evidence to the effect that the practice was known by all concerned.

Summer plans

The CP reports that the opposition parties have teamed to to make sure that the softwood lumber capitulation gets addressed in committee before the Cons have too much time to twist arms in the industry.

We'll see whether David Emerson accepts the committee's invitation (I wouldn't be surprised if he prefers taking up time with his own talking points rather than allowing the deal's opponents to completely dominate the discussion), but either way the push for a real defence of Canadian interests is on. And if the story gets a chance to build momentum during the otherwise quiet summer, it may not be long before the voices silenced by Harper during the negotiations help to end the Cons' (however unimpressive) honeymoon in the polls.

Rebalancing

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives wades into the fiscal imbalance issue once again, leaving few current assumptions standing.

First, the report takes on the claim that provincial deficits are of the federal government's making:

"The real force behind the fiscal pressures currently faced by provincial governments is competitive tax cutting by provincial governments intent on getting ahead in the race to the bottom," concludes the report, compiled by economist Hugh Mackenzie for the left-leaning think tank.

The tax cutting binge was started by Ontario but was quickly matched, to varying degrees, by other provinces, particularly in the West.

"Fiscal imbalance . . . is largely a problem inflicted by the provinces on themselves through tax competition," Mackenzie says.

Provincial officials pinpoint the 1995 federal budget, which slashed billions from federal transfers to the provinces, as the start of the current fiscal squeeze.

But Mackenzie maintains the provinces "insulated" themselves from those cuts by reducing their own transfer payments to municipalities by an equal amount.

Moreover, while the federal government has begun restoring transfers to the provinces in recent years, he says the provinces have not done the same for municipalities.

"In fact, the data demonstrate that the real fiscal imbalance involves local governments, not provincial governments," he says.

Sounds about right so far...but also sounds like what Jim Flaherty would say before daring individual provinces to start raising their own taxes. Fortunately, the report goes on to deal with that position as well:

Mackenzie says provinces are under intense pressure to keep their tax rates competitive with one another. With highly mobile companies and individuals prepared to move to the lowest-tax jurisdiction, no province wants to be the first to raise taxes.

"Provincial governments are caught in a kind of political/fiscal prisoners' dilemma in which no individual province has an incentive to take action - protecting revenue - which would benefit all provinces if they all did it."...

Mackenzie advocates a role for the federal government in defending provincial tax bases against competitive pressures. That could be done either through:

-An inter-provincial tax treaty that would set a floor beyond which provinces could not lower taxes, or

-The creation of federal "umbrella taxes" that would be applied uniformly across the country and from which pre-determined levels of provincial taxes would be deducted.

As well, Mackenzie sees a role for Ottawa in helping to alleviate the real imbalance between municipalities and provinces. He urges the federal government to invest in "national projects," such as funding to refurbish and build vital infrastructure.

Furthermore, Mackenzie says equalization should be overhauled so that it is based on the actual cost of providing an acceptable standard of social services in poor provinces, rather than average provincial revenue-raising capacity.

Particularly at a time when movements toward regulatory harmonization are winning favour both from provincial governments and from the federal finance minister, it only makes sense to add some form of tax harmonization to the mix as well.

Granted, the proposal may be a tough sell for provinces who are counting on keeping their current advantages by cutting taxes to levels which their neighbours can't match. But if enough other actors within the country take up the call, it should be possible to show that the national benefits of a relatively equal structure (both in lesser obstacles to trade throughout the country, and in a lessened need to support other provinces through equalization) outweigh the supposed costs of the measure.

Your boss knows you're reading this

CBC reports on a new study on workplace privacy, suggesting not only that violations taking place, but that managers responsible for employee privacy often aren't even aware of those violations:

Canadian employers in a wide range of industries conduct surveillance of employees at work, suggests a report to be released on Monday...

Employers view closed-circuit television cameras, listen to recorded phone calls, monitor e-mails and scan magnetic information from security passes, said lead author Avner Levin...

Human resources executives responsible for workplace privacy often have little knowledge of the potential intrusiveness of technologies at work in their own companies, he said.

They rarely know what information is being collected by colleagues running company computer systems, he said.

"The executives that are responsible for privacy in the workplace are not fully aware of the extent of ... the surveillance activity that is conducted," he said.

It doesn't come as too much surprise to know that some workplace surveillance takes place. But given an employee's right to at least know what kind of information is collected and why, it's a serious problem if the managers appointed to deal with privacy issues are themselves being kept in the dark.

The study will hopefully spur a few more employers to direct attention to their responsibility to respect employee privacy. But in the longer term, increased attention can only go so far, and a privacy law with more teeth than the current one may be needed in order to protect both employees and customers alike.

An odd request

I can't claim to be overly familiar with the Newfoundland and Labrador constituency expenditure scandal, other than that it clearly seems to cut across party lines. But is there any apparent reason why Newfoundland and Labrador MHAs would be advised not to disclose their constituency allowance spending?

After all, it's not as if the contents of the MHA's books should be changing at all between any present disclosure and the final outcome of the investigation. And the main potential effect of general non-disclosure seems to be to leave the entire House of Assembly under a cloud of suspicion, as even a politician with an entirely clean set of books is pressured not to make that public where the effect could be to create any distance from the scandal.

While it's hard to dispute that MHAs are technically entitled to keep the books private, the Speaker's advice seems to have the effect of pushing Newfoundland and Labrador's politicians to close ranks against public scrutiny. And particularly in the midst of what appears to be a far-reaching scandal, it's hard to see how that attitude can do anything but make the institution look all the worse for the remainder of the investigation.

Electoral equalization

The CP follows up on the question of whether Paul Hellyer's forgiven loan to the Canadian Action Party may have already ushered in a strategy where political parties and candidates can take out loans with little to no intention of repaying them:

Hellyer calls it a bad loan, but critics say what happened is proof that what can start off as a loan to a party can end up being tantamount to a contribution, despite the fact the limit on individual donations will soon be only $1,000.

Several candidates for the leadership of the Liberal party are receiving loans from wealthy individuals.

Political financing rules enforced by Elections Canada require loans to be paid back within 18 months, with a commercial rate of interest applied. Extensions can be added indefinitely in order for candidates or parties to repay the money. But at some point, a creditor can simply declare the loan uncollectable after going through all possible avenues to recoup the cash.

NDP MP Pat Martin has been an energetic critic of the loans. He pushed unsuccessfully for the other parties to ban personal loans while reviewing the Conservative government's new Accountability Act.

"For all the world to see, it's candidates trying to circumvent the donation limits of the Elections Act with these de facto loans that aren't really loans if they can be written off and forgiven," Martin said.

"The whole process brings discredit to the electoral system because you've got big money buying undue influence in the campaign."

I'll note that I agree with the concerns of smaller parties that the current financing scheme fails to give them a fair shake when it comes to public funding. But that doesn't justify any party (or donor) in actions that could only open the door to even bigger long-term advantages for the larger parties. Hopefully the current public attention will lead to efforts to make sure that smaller parties are able to get needed funding through the same means properly available to the larger parties - and not in ways which already seem to have led to loopholes being adopted by the larger parties as well.

Refusing responsibility

David Emerson shows the Cons' idea of personal responsibility, claiming that it can't possibly be his fault if the softwood lumber deal is bad enough that producers prefer to keep pushing their winning streak in court. With Emerson refusing to seek any improvement to the deal, it will indeed be up to the industry to decide what's best for it - but it seems highly likely that "a federal government which can negotiate its way out of a paper bag" will be near the top of the list.

A policy of ignorance

While there's been plenty of reason for concern about the Cons' complete unwillingness to address anything that doesn't fit into their ideological viewpoint, it's all the worse that the Cons have continued to do so now that they're at the helm of a large civil service whose main purposes include ensuring that a government can operate with the best information possible. And with a couple more particularly egregious examples this week, it's time to start documenting just how much research and/or advice has been blatantly ignored.

The most problematic recent incident came in the stark difference between Vic Toews' public stance on minimum sentences, and the advice Toews actually received:

The new Conservative government, within days of taking office, was warned by senior federal bureaucrats a central election pledge to impose new automatic prison terms won't deter crime nor protect the public, internal documents obtained by CanWest News Service reveal...

"Research into the effectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences has established that they do not have any obvious special deterrent or educative effect and are no more effective than less serious sanctions in preventing crime," said the briefing book...

Toews, in introducing the legislation in May, publicly denounced claims minimum sentences do not deter crime.

"I'd like to see some of these statistics to say it doesn't work," he said. "People repeat statements that just aren't accurate. Mandatory minimum prison sentences, in fact, do work. All all (sic) the evidence in fact suggests that they mean a significant reduction in crime."

In other words, rather than dealing with the evidence actually presented to him, Toews either didn't even bother reading what his department provided him, or publicly lied and pretended it didn't exist. But whether the problem was one of complete incuriosity or simply a poor excuse for a cover-up, it's bound to make Toews all the less believable in the future.

Tony Clement's apparent response was only marginally better upon receipt of a study by the government's wait-times adviser pointing out the obvious fact that a myopic focus on a few "guaranteed" medical procedures could undermine the broader health care system. The department chose to make the study public, but apparently with the intent of hiding it as best possible:

In his final report released Friday, Postl says wait-time benchmarks should be developed across the board, not just in five areas named by first ministers in the 2004 health accord - joint replacement, cardiac care, cancer, sight restoration and diagnostic imaging...

"The fear is, and the danger is, that the five conditions that figured prominently in the (first ministers') agreements will starve out all other for attention, resources and technology. It is not appropriate for our health care systems to be so focused on limited areas that we neglect others."

Postl suggests the system is not ready to deliver "care guarantees." Those guarantees would fund costs for patients to travel to another province or abroad if they can't get timely care at home. Care guarantees are one of the Conservatives' major election promises...

The report was released late Friday before a long weekend, the traditional timing for release of information that governments do not wish to highlight.

Toss in Rona Ambrose's complete disregard for her department's advice regarding since-terminated emissions-reductions programs, the Harper/O'Connor choice to impose a no-media policy against the wishes of the Department of National Defence, and the Cons' ignorance of the advice of counsel to the House of Commons on the constitutionality of the Accountability Act, and there can be little doubt that the bulk of the Cons' current direction (including the majority of party's current "priorities") is based on nothing more than wilful ignorance of what the government's most knowledgeable advisors have had to say. And whatever one's ideology, it can't be anything but a bad sign when a government ascribes absolutely no value to any input which doesn't fit its worldview.

(For those with more examples to include, please feel free to add a comment.)

Continued disinterest

Yet another provincial government, this time the Con minority in Nova Scotia, is indicating its interest in privatizing health care first and asking questions later. And once again the Harper government apparently isn't interested enough to even take notice, let alone deliver a warning as it did to Ralph Klein. Which only seems to confirm both the threat to health care posed by Con governments nationally, and the federal Cons' determination to do as little as possible to defend health care nationally.

On information gaps

U.S. Ambassador Michael Wilson's consistent position on the U.S.' planned border restrictions has been to point out the need for full information as to the effects before any plan is put in place - which while somewhat short of the best possible strategy is at least a reasonable start toward public discussion of the issue. But word comes out now that what information Canada does possess is being suppressed by the Privy Council Office rather than made available for public scrutiny:

A U.S. law that will require American and Canadian citizens to present a passport to enter the country is expected to have widespread economic impact, but don't bother asking how much.

Internal government assessments of the economic impact of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), requested by CanWest News Service under the Access to Information Act, have been almost completely censored by Privy Council Office bureaucrats, denying taxpayers the right to see how much the plan is expected to affect tourism and cross-border trade...

Of the 26 pages identified as relevant to the request, only a handful of heavily censored pages were released.

Privy Council Office bureaucrats used a section of the act that allows them to block what they consider to be cabinet confidences. It is the only exemption that can't be reviewed by the information commissioner to ensure it is legitimate.

Particularly given how badly the Cons have messed up negotiations with the U.S. even when the underlying facts are public knowledge, there's a desperate need for public disclosure as to the anticipated impact of the border closure to ensure that Harper doesn't sign away a huge chunk of Canada's economic future in exchange for a photo-op. Now if only the Cons were willing to extend their "culture of increased openness and accessibility" to include allowing Canadians access to the best available information in their own hands.

Take a look

For those who haven't yet seen the recent posts at Somena Media exploring the Cons' cheque-swapping scandal, the Cons' surprising lack of reporting polling expenditures in 2005, and what appears to be an epidemic of non-reporting, go read. As Meaghan points out, it's still early stages in getting to the bottom of things...but plenty of credit to her for advancing the cause.

On poor messages

James Curran cites the Toronto Star in speculating about the possibility of an election this fall with Bill Graham at the helm of the Libs. Judging from Graham's garbled message on Canada/U.S. relations today, the parties aside from the Libs don't seem to have much to fear if that happens:

By calling Harper "Steve," Bush might have left the impression that he and the prime minister now share a close, chummy relationship, but that's far from the truth, Graham said. "Suddenly everyone's jumping up and saying this is a much more cordial relationship because the president referred to the prime minister as 'Steve,' " Graham said.

"Well, my recollection is he referred to (former) prime minister Paul Martin as 'Paul,' too."

If anything, people should be leery of the two leaders getting too close and should demand that Harper take a tougher stand on Canadian issues, Graham said.

"A change in attitude which creates a closer, cosier relationship with the American administration has never in the long run been good for Canada," he said.

To sum up, Graham argues that a close, cozy relationship with the U.S. is bad for Canada - and that the Libs' relationship with Bushco was no less close or cozy than the Cons'. Needless to say, the NDP will gladly agree with Graham on both fronts...but it's hard to see how the combination could speak well for the Libs.

Granted, Graham would presumably at least be prepped a bit more thoroughly come campaign time. But his statements on behalf of his party now presumably won't be forgotten if he does end up contesting an election as leader. And given the choice between a leader who's as interested in proving his own party's chumminess with the U.S. as in acknowledging the potential harms of excessive concessions, and one charting a clear path to defend Canadian interests, it won't be surprising to see Canadians preferring the latter at the polls.

A ridiculous request

Having failed to use its own surpluses to keep up with infrastructure needs, Alberta is now demanding extra funding from Ottawa to try to reduce the province's infrastructure deficit. Needless to say, this is one time when a response of "if you want money, raise it yourself" will be welcome.

On entitlements

Hot on the heels of the Cons' convention funding and cheque-swapping scandal, now Con candidate Allan Cutler is apparently blowing the whistle on his new party, claiming that he was promised restoration payments by the Cons if they won the 2006 election.

Time will tell who's telling the truth now: of the two Con MPs alleged to have made promises, John Baird's office has denied Cutler's claim that he was involved, while Pierre Poilievre's office apparently hasn't commented yet.

But now that Cutler has taken his case to the public, there's no way around at least one prominent Con getting utterly discredited. Either the Cons' election poster boy for clean government is inventing promises to try to force a settlement now, or at least one prominent MP offered a financial reward to a potential or actual Con candidate. And it may get all the worse for the Cons if the party's chief spokesman on the Accountability Act gets tied into any impropriety contrary to his office's protestations.

It'll certainly be interesting to see how what seems to be an inevitable war of allegations plays out in the future. But the inescapable conclusion is that there's all the more reason to doubt that the Cons are particularly interested in cleaning up much of anything.

A necessary goal

Kinch Blog notes a long-overdue change in the NDP's message, as Jack Layton is finally speaking about forming government as being the NDP's goal. It's only a first step in shaping public expectations in the midst of the perpetual campaign that is a minority Parliament, and of course there'll be plenty of work to be done in linking the party's past accomplishments to the new image. But the NDP's prospects can only improve now that Layton and company are publicly setting their sights on being far more than just the balance of power.

Now that's leadership

Your Prime Minister: cowering pitifully under the bed so you don't have to.

Update: Though in fairness, Harper does seem to fear Parliament even more than he does a stray missile.

Ever diplomatic

Once again Stephen Harper and David Emerson make it clear which side they're on, responding to opposition to the softwood lumber deal by slamming both the industry the deal was supposed to protect and the provinces whose priorities were supposedly met. Needless to say, that type of reaction should only strengthen opposition to the deal...and while it doesn't look like the agreement will receive a particularly friendly reception in Parliament either, it won't matter what MPs decide if the industry concludes it's better off taking its chances in court than accepting Harper's capitulation.

Shocking

So it turns out that in many cases, the Cons' much-ballyhooed GST cut is becoming a windfall for businesses rather than any benefit at all to consumers. I'm only surprised that Jim Flaherty is bothering to feign outrage now given the likelihood of more explicit corporate giveaways to come.

An obvious prescription

I've mentioned before how much of a slam dunk it should be for Harper to try to moderate his image by going along with the provincial consensus on the need for a national prescription drug program. Now, the provincial health ministers are renewing their push...but receiving conspicuously little support from Tony Clement:

Provincial and territorial health ministers are united in their support for a proposed national pharmacare program, but they say they can't do it without money from Ottawa.

The health ministers approved the latest progress report on the long-awaited National Pharmaceuticals Strategy during a meeting in Fredericton on Wednesday, but federal Health Minister Tony Clement was conspicuous by his absence.

Clement dialed into the meeting by telephone, but the health ministers said he did not join them in endorsing the progress report, which sets the stage for a system to make medications equally accessible and affordable across the country.

One would think that the politics alone would make the outcome obvious: the Cons have a choice between working to put a popular new program to their name, or picking an unnecessary fight against a united provincial front which reflects both public opinion and the national interest.

But then, that choice may turn the issue into an excellent litmus test of Harper's government. If the Cons really are so ideologically set against doing anything positive (or so focussed on doing nothing beyond their stated core priorities) as to choose the wrong side of the issue, that disinterest in good government almost certainly won't go unpunished next time Canada goes to the polls.

Just not caring

Apparently the Con cabinet members who were supposed to keep Harper informed about issues for cities have been asleep on the job again, as a new study confirms both that Canada's urban centres need to improve access to child care, and that the federal government needs to be involved in actually creating spaces:

(The study found that) Montreal ranks the highest with enough spaces for just under 45 per cent of children...
Saskatoon has the lowest, at only 6.9 per cent.
Most of the other cities range from about 10 to 16 per cent.

Only increased co-ordination and stable funding can level the playing field, the researchers say.

"The study shows that there is an increasing understanding that collaboration among all governments and community organizations is essential if children's programs are to expand and mover (sic) towards greater coherence in ways that will help both children and parents," the study says...

Inconsistent levels of service will continue across the country if Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative government implement their plan to cancel funds committed by the previous Liberal government to create child-care spaces, the researchers warn...

An analyst with the City of Toronto, which organized the national study, warned that if the Conservatives (sic) the funding agreements, it will result in even more of a squeeze — with 5,000 fewer spaces in Toronto alone.

While there can be no doubt that the need for improved child care was ignored far too long in the first place, the Cons deserve nothing but blame for undercutting the first steps which had been made toward improving matters. And it won't be long before Canadians get the chance to vote again for a plan which includes both the funds to start filling the gaps in availability, and a stable enough structure to make sure that spaces are available for a long time to come.

Well said

Idealistic Pragmatist gives plenty of good advice to Libs interested in trying to win votes from the NDP. My only question is whether they really deserve (or for that matter want) the help...but it's hard to argue with IP's suggestions.

Soft ties

All too often during the softwood lumber dispute, we've heard that David Emerson (regardless of which party he's been involved with at the time) shouldn't be questioned since he knows the industry from his days at Canfor. But now, his old company has joined the chorus against the current draft. And with producers, provinces, and federal parties alike refusing to sign on to the deal that Harper wants to force on Canada, there should be little doubt just who it is that's out of touch with the industry's needs.

Time to listen

Thomas Walkom slams the lack of attention given to programs in Canada which largely match the type of illegal surveillance that's set off a firestorm in the U.S.:

This week, when former Supreme Court chief justice Antonio Lamer hinted that a secretive government snooping agency called the Communications Security Establishment may be breaking the law, he received 630 words on page eight of the Globe, nothing in the Post or Star and 126 words in The Record of Kitchener-Waterloo...

In late 2001, Parliament quietly gave (the Communications Security Establishment) Bush-like authority to monitor Canadian telephone and Internet traffic without judicial warrant — as long as one of the parties was outside the country and the minister of defence agreed.

Ottawa also appointed a watchdog, latterly Lamer, to ensure that the agency kept within the law.

In his most recent report, the former Supreme Court judge gives the security agency what can only called a lukewarm endorsement, noting that it is complying with the law "as it is currently interpreted by the Department of Justice."

But he also says that he disagrees with this interpretation (he doesn't explain how) and that, in any case, the agency is not giving him enough information to determine whether its surveillance of Canadians is necessary.

Or, as he puts it, in the mind-numbing language of Canadian bureaucratese: "The lack of clarity in this regard has made it difficult for my staff to assess compliance with certain of the conditions that the legislation requires to be satisfied before a ministerial authorization is given."

Which, simply put, means Canada's electronic snoops may be breaking the law but Lamer doesn't know for sure since no one will tell him.

It's remarkable indeed that the issue hasn't received more attention in Canada - both from Cons who could use the Libs' policy as a basis to pretend that Bush is nothing to be concerned about, and from those of us who don't support warrantless, extralegal surveillance with no oversight. But while the issue may not have received much column space just yet, it isn't too late for Canadians to declare that they aren't any more willing to accept such intrusions when they originate in Canada than when they're imposed by Bushco.

On detachment from reality

Generally, even the worst apologists for wealth inequality have the good sense not to claim that those with money have it worse off than those who don't. But then there's Paul Jackson. I'm only surprised he didn't take his argument to its logical conclusion, "and don't get me started on how lucky they have it in Bangladesh..."

Backsliding

CanWest reports on yet another area where the Cons are actively undoing what little the Libs bothered to do while in office, as Health Canada has pulled back from previously-scheduled actions to require provincial compliance with the Canada Health Act:

A meeting scheduled for March between federal and B.C. officials on longstanding federal concerns at private surgery and diagnostic clinics, which has led to several federal fines imposed against the B.C. government, was cancelled and no new meetings have been scheduled, according to federal and B.C. officials.

Meanwhile, federal Health Minister Tony Clement imposed a freeze shortly after the Jan. 23 election on the previous Liberal government's attempt to force the New Brunswick government into arbitration to settle Health Canada's complaints over that province's refusal to ensure access to abortion...

The documents also indicate that the current Tory government is reluctant to push the Quebec government to crack down on surgery clinics in that province suspected since March 2000, of charging user fees.

While the article notes Harper's response to Klein's "Third Way" proposal, it looks like Harper now believes that one bit of posturing is enough of a defence of public health care to justify ignoring possible ongoing violations of the Canada Health Act. Needless to say, it's time to let Harper know that that kind of assumption won't hold water - and it shouldn't be hard to do so in language he'll understand.

After all, the Cons are always fond of phrasing their message in terms of a "play by the rules" ethic. But such an ethic surely has to apply to the provinces who are currently refusing to do so. And if Harper and Clement are willing to undermine efforts to ensure compliance by the provinces for no apparent reason, that'll do as much damage to the Cons' own message as it does to a health care system which depends on proper enforcement.

On credibility issues

It's great to see the Standing Committee on Public Accounts taking up Sheila Fraser's call for more effective debt collection by the Canada Revenue Agency. But can anybody take Lib MP Shawn Murphy seriously as the point man on the issue when it was his party that, as described in the report, "has known where the weaknesses in its procedures lie and how to fix them for 12 years, yet has not been able to achieve an acceptable level of success"?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

From Bill Siksay:

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...

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?

And Peggy Nash:

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.

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?

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.)

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...

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.

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.

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?

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:

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

Happy Canada Day to all. Check out the sights and sounds of the day, and remember how much we have to be proud of as a country.

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:

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.

"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."

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:

But it wasn't a longstanding practice for the NDP, Liberals or the predecessors of the Conservative party...

(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.

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.

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.

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:

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...

(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."

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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:

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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 exceed
(a) $5,000 in total in any calendar year to a particular registered party and its registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates;...

Second, for the Conservative Party and its agents:

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...

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

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:

497(1) Every person is guilty of an offence who...
(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 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.

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:

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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:

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.

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.)

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.

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.)

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?