The return of non-responsiveness

Through most of their time in office, the Cons have at least paid lip service to the environment while working to ensure that no programs which actually accomplish anything are left standing. But now the Cons are apparently back to old tricks from the campaign, deciding that when it comes to the environment, it's not worth their time to show up:

The federal government is turning a blind eye to a major oilsands development project near Fort McMurray by ducking out of assessment hearings being conducted by Alberta, a coalition of provincial environmental groups said on Thursday.

The expansion plan by Suncor Energy Inc. could see its greenhouse gas emissions rise by about nine megatonnes over the coming years an increase equivalent to adding nearly two million cars to the road over a year.

Despite the magnitude of the project, federal officials have decided not to question the project developers about their plans at the hearings.

"Just when Canada and the Canadian public are starting to really realize the consequences of developing the oilsands, it seems like a really strange time for the federal government to take a pass at one of these hearings," said Chris Severson-Baker, director of the energy watch program at the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based not-for-profit environmental policy research and education organization.

Severson-Baker said federal experts from various departments have traditionally played a crucial role in hearings through cross-examination of project developers.

Of course, it shouldn't be any surprise to see the Cons valuing oil-sands profits far more than any possible environmental effects. But one would think the federal government would at least make a cursory effort to ensure that the benefits of the Suncor project outweigh the costs.

Conservative philosophy summed up

Duncan Cameron's latest column doesn't add tons that we don't already know about the Harper government. But one quote from a Con party official perfectly encapsulates the Cons' view of government in general...and it isn't one that Canadians likely want to see in power:

(T)he Conservatives are out recruiting members in Quebec. The party already has doubled its membership, from about 10, 000 to over 20,000. The goal is to add 500 members to each riding association. A party official explained that it was difficult to sell a commercial product without advertising, and a Conservative government was the advertising needed to build the party in Quebec.

While there are plenty of areas of disagreement between the NDP, the Libs and the other national parties fighting for seats, there can't be too much doubt that all of them operate to at least some extent from a view that government is capable of being a force for good within society generally, not just a means to achieve greater glory and power for a given political party. (And much of the current dissatifaction with the Libs can be seen to arise out of precisely their drift from that core assumption.)

But for the Cons, the party official's quote says it all. Government ultimately means nothing more than access to a PR machine, to be used to market the Conservative Party above all else regardless of what's best for Canadians generally.

Of course, it's not hard to extrapolate from the Cons' impression of a minority government to see how a future majority would be wielded to benefit the party at the expense of all else. The task now for the opposition parties is to ensure that Canadians recognize that such a product isn't one they want to be buying when the next election rolls around.

Whitewashing

CBC reports on Democracy Watch's call for an investigation into the large charter flight expenses being racked up by Con MP Greg Thompson. But if you're looking for Thompson's party affiliation in the article, you're looking in the wrong place: the article lists him as "a New Brunswick MP" and "Veteran Affairs Minister", but even in acknowledging that he's in Cabinet it fails to even mention the Conservative Party.

Now where have we heard this before?

Priorities

There's been lots of talk, and for good reason, about Paul Wells' column catching Stephen Harper playing bait and switch with his five priorities. But I'm not sure that I share my fellow bloggers' view that this is anything approaching either a mistake, or an attempt to make the change without anybody noticing.

I'll start from the premise that however insulated Harper's bubble is, it's not quite so detached from reality that he'd believe that nobody would notice the sudden disappearance of one of the main talking points spouted steadily by him, his cabinet, and the bulk of his party since the start of the 2005 campaign. (I know, I shouldn't give him that much credit. But bear with me.) With that as a starting point, why would Harper make a move to change his priorities when the change would almost certainly be caught?

I can see two possible angles on it. One is that Harper genuinely wants to see the wait times issue dealt with, and recognizes that so far the initiative has been met with rightful disdain from provinces who aren't about to tie themselves down to a guarantee for nothing in return. By selectively omitting the issue from his own priorities, Harper is getting more people to talk about it than have over the past few months...with the prospect that he'll then be able to turn that attention into an argument in favour of action later on.

In other words, the current shift could be a misdirection ploy. Rather than going out and trying to sell the issue knowing that he's bound to meet opposition in doing so, he could be counting on people opposing his choice to drop the issue, and thereby seeking a mandate to push it later on.

The other possible angle would involve Harper's wanting to buy ever so slightly into the "natural governing party" role. No, he wouldn't want to open himself up to the accusations of utter aimlessness that dogged XPMPM, but maybe Harper could see potential to seem somewhat more flexible and centrist by being willing to abandon one priority which has received little public support and lots of provincial outcry. At the same time, he'd still be carrying out the quintessential governmental role of claiming to have accomplished everything he wanted to in the process, and avoiding the show of weakness that comes from outright admitting defeat.

Sure, it doesn't fit with the "honest" image that the Cons tried to pitch last time out. But maybe Harper recognizes that such a label is going to be awfully tough to maintain anyway now that he's in power, and is instead planning to try to claim to be the pragmatic choice.

As an added bonus alongside either of the above strategies, the story should help to focus attention back on the other four past priorities long after they'd have otherwise been forgotten by everyone but the Cons' PR team. And if that means less attention for the softwood debacle which the Cons now can't avoid as an ongoing issue, then all the better for Harper's reputation as a manager.

Granted, I wouldn't see any of the above angles as the best possible political maneuver for Harper. But they all make far more sense to me than an assumption that he's clueless enough to think he could change his signature priorities without anybody noticing.

Update: If Harper's goal is indeed to win undue praise for backing off his party's original bad idea, he's picked some up already.

On positive movement

The Standing Committee on International Trade is off to a good start on the softwood lumber deal, passing two key motions including one which could well resolve the dispute faster than the negotiation process if the Cons were willing to follow it:

At today's emergency meeting of the Standing Committee on International trade, NDP Trade Critic Peter Julian (Burnaby-New Westminster) secured majority support for a plan to review the flawed US-Canada softwood agreement.

“The Harper government would drive our softwood industry over the cliff, but resistance is coalescing," said Julian. "By passing key motions today, a majority of committee members decided to work in the best interest of Canadian producers and communities.”...

Julian's first motion calls on the committee to conduct full-day hearings on July 31 and August 21 to scrutinize the softwood document that Trade Minister David Emerson initialled on July 1 without Parliament’s approval.

His second motion calls on the government to act in Canada’s interests by unsuspending the legal process under NAFTA, which would swiftly eliminate the $40-million in illegal tariffs that the US continues to collect each month.

Julian’s motions were passed with full support from the committee's Liberal and Bloc Québécois members.

At this point, it wouldn't be surprising if a restarted legal process would resolve the issue faster than Harper's plan to shove a deal down the throats of Canadian producers. (And of course it goes without saying that in addition to potentially being faster, that result would be a far more positive outcome for Canada.)

Of course, it seems highly likely that the Cons will ignore the committee's motion...which may only serve to necessitate a full Parliamentary debate on the deal as soon as possible. But at the very least, there's no doubt that opposition to the deal will be in the public eye for quite some time to come, meaning that the Cons' chances of quietly pushing the deal on the industry behind the scenes are slim to none.

Journeys

King Steve is venturing forth to see the world. But will be bother listening to it?

Same old story, Chapter 37

For all the indications that the Cons have repeatedly ignored important advice since they took office, CanWest reminds us that the Lib government may not have been any better when it came to ignoring and suppressing information:

Canada should launch a constellation of low-cost miniature satellites to conduct surveillance on the Arctic and other parts of the country, a group of Defence Department advisers has concluded.

The micro satellites, which cost about $10 million each compared to hundreds of millions of dollars for a full-size satellite, could be key in helping support Canada's claim of ownership over its northern territories, according to the report obtained by the Ottawa Citizen...

Defence officials were not keen, however, for the science advisory report to be made public. The May 2005 study was withheld by the Defence Department's Access to Information branch for almost a year and was only released after information commissioner John Reid conducted an investigation into the issue. Specific parts of the report have been censored for security reasons.

And lest there be any doubt who was in charge of the Defence Department at the time it chose to try to bury the report, that would be Bill Graham - who not coincidentally has been claiming that Arctic defence shouldn't be a priority:

Interim Liberal leader Bill Graham has criticized the Conservative government's plans to beef up Canada's military presence in North, saying there aren't any immediate threats to sovereignty...

"The challenges in the North are not really military at this time," said Graham, who is heading the Liberal party until a December leadership convention to chose Paul Martin's successor.

Of course, more thorough information about the Arctic would work wonders to ensure that Canada knows exactly what challenges it faces in the North. But apparently Graham and his department were perfectly happy with the view that what Canadians don't know about what they don't know won't hurt them.

Hopefully the public release of the report will both lead to some action toward a microsatellite system, and offer officials an example of how pointless it is to suppress information which isn't properly withheld. But it seems like both of Canada's largest political parties have an awful lot to learn on the latter front.

Pretending to be powerless

The headline and opening paragraph to the CP's article on a new study on energy consumption sound ominous. But once one gets into the meat of the article, it's clear that the study's supposed conclusion that electricity use can't be reduced much through conservation is based purely on a set of assumptions designed to reach that end:

Government efforts to promote conservation could cut energy demand by only about 10 per cent by 2025 compared with business as usual, says the study commissioned by the Canadian Electricity Association and the Canadian Gas Association. That is far less than projected by environmentalists who see energy efficiency as a key strategy for cutting greenhouse emissions and smog...

Mike Cleland, president of the Canadian Gas Association, said the study is based on measures considered to be politically feasible, but admitted they do not include such proposals as charging the true cost of electricity...

If governments were to take all the measures that are technically possible the savings could be 50 per cent, he said. But those measures would be highly unpopular.

In other words, the conclusion that electricity consumption can't be reduced is based only on the premise that people don't care enough about the issue to permit anything approaching a full range of actions. But while that may offer a convenient excuse for inaction as long as citizens are willing to buy the argument that massive nuclear or coal investments are more "feasible", it does nothing to demonstrate that contined growth in consumption is either necessary or a positive policy choice.

Dehumanizing the troops

A couple of articles today discuss the death of Canadian reservist Tony Boneca and his family's resulting reaction. But underlying both is an utterly unwarranted, if perhaps not unexpected, attitude that any Canadian soldier who dares to question his or her mission must be a failure for doing so.

Let's start with CanWest's coverage, which starts off with a view in the headline that Boneca's father was "defending" his son in suggesting that Boneca had no problem with the Afghanistan mission. And lest that be put solely at the feet of the headline writer, the article isn't much better:

In a statement drafted with the help of military officials, the father of Canada's latest war casualty Tuesday took aim at recent portrayals of his son as a poorly trained reservist who was bitterly unhappy in Afghanistan and who questioned Canada's role in that country...

"My son volunteered to go to Afghanistan," Boneca said in the five-paragraph statement issued on military letterhead. "Certainly, Anthony wanted to come home, but I ask what soldier wouldn't in that situation?"

In recent days, people close to Boneca have said the reservist from Thunder Bay, Ont., hated his work in Afghanistan and questioned the military's preparedness for the mission. One friend, Dylan Bulloch, said the young man known for his boundless energy had lately complained of being overworked, telling him "no one wants to be there and no one knows exactly why they're there."...

"In all my conversations with my son, there was never any mention of him not being well enough or fit enough to carry out his military duties," he wrote.

"Anthony knew he was part of a group that stuck together to do what they were sent to do. He said it was difficult to cope with the weather, the sand, and the situation the young children (in Afghanistan) endured. He was proud to make a difference in their lives ..."

Note that the problem doesn't appear to lie in Antonio Boneca's letter, which doesn't dispute for a second that Tony Boneca had concerns about the mission. Indeed, the letter notes that it's only natural for a soldier to want to come home "in that situation" (which itself could indicate some agreement as to some problems surrounding the mission), while at the same time viewing the mission as having some positive impact.

But rather than recognizing the legitimate concern (whether presented by Tony or by Antonio), the article and headline both suggest that any implication that Tony Boneca had doubts about the mission must be an attack on him personally. In turn, the consequent "defence" involves unquestioning acceptance of all aspects of the Afghanistan mission.

While that assumption is unstated in the CanWest article, it's far less so in Lorrie Goldstein's column, which begins with the "ethical" question of whether a soldier who has questioned his mission deserves as much respect as one who hasn't:

(H)ow should we treat the combat death of Cpl. Anthony Boneca, 21, compared to the other 16 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat who have died there, and who have all been portrayed as doing what they loved?

The ethical answer is that while Boneca's death raises legitimate concerns about whether our soldiers, particularly reservists, understand what it means to volunteer for the military today, Boneca merits all the respect accorded his fallen comrades.

Granted, Goldstein reaches the right answer to the question. But it hardly needs to be pointed out that none of the previous deaths in Afghanistan gave rise to similar questions as to whether the latest casualty should be valued as highly as the previous ones. And it can only be taken as an act of disrespect to the intelligence of Canada's soliders that the mere act of wondering about one's mission should be considered a reasonable basis for drawing that kind of distinction.

Goldstein closes by posing what are indeed important questions:

Do young people signing up for our military today fully understand what the changed role of our armed forces from being "peacekeepers" to peacemakers means for them? Will we in the media, wherever we stand on Afghanistan, examine these issues in a way that respects our fallen soldiers and all who serve?

I hope so. But I wouldn't count on it.

It would indeed be for the best if the current media coverage recognized and respected the humanity of our troops: as with participants in any job or career, some will doubt the mission at times, and some will look forward to that mission coming to an end. But in light of the current conventional wisdom that any doubt about a controversial mission should be taken as a basis for criticism and devaluation, it doesn't seem likely that any due respect is going to become commonplace in the future.

On divides

The Star reports that the Conference Board of Canada has taken up the call for increased funding for Canada's cities. While it's disappointing to see the request explicitly made at the expense of smaller communities when there's a fairly plain need for restored funding to municipalities generally, the Conference Board's call is bound to make the cities issue all the tougher for the federal government to ignore in trying to rework the federal/provincial framework this fall.

A simple solution

There can't be much doubt that Nova Scotia's minority Cons are looking to open the door to health-care privatization, given both their stated openness to privatization and their new plan to hand a million dollars to a consultant which has already presented privatization plans that were rejected in the past. But is there any need for the opposition parties to merely call for a change in government action, rather than introducing their own bill to ensure continued public provision of services?

Forced accountability

The CP reminds us that Allan Cutler wasn't the only putative Con candidate in Ottawa South to apparently receive promises from the party prior to the last election, and notes that Harper's chief of staff has failed in an attempt to stonewall against a resulting lawsuit:

Stephen Harper's right-hand man has lost a three-month legal battle to avoid explaining his role in a messy internal dispute that embarrassed the federal Conservatives in the last election.

Ian Brodie, the prime minister's chief of staff, did not attend two dates last spring to give evidence in an action brought by Alan Riddell, a labour relations lawyer who was ousted as the putative Tory candidate in the riding of Ottawa South. But the Ontario Court of Appeal, in a judgment quietly released last week, put an end to Brodie's effort to stave off questioning.

The three-judge panel unanimously ruled he had demonstrated no legal reason why he shouldn't testify...

Riddell claims the Tories reneged on a deal to pay him up to $150,000 in campaign expenses and legal fees run up before he finally agreed, under pressure, to step aside in Ottawa South in November 2005.

And given the context surrounding Riddell's claim, any denial that Cutler received financial inducements sounds all the less plausible:

The Conservatives don't deny they had a financial deal of some kind with Riddell when he stepped down, but say he breached the agreement by going public and isn't owed anything now.

As with Cutler's situation, the final outcome of the litigation matters far less than the context surrounding it. The Cons have once again shown their utter disinterest in clean and open government - both in their willingness to buy out a potential candidate, and the efforts of both the party (through its insistence that any public notice of the deal lets the Cons off the hook) and Harper's chief of staff (through his refusal to testify) to hide the facts as best possible. And now that Brodie has fought tooth and nail against any obligation to tell the truth about any arrangement with Riddell, there'll be all the more public interest in what he eventually has to say.

Wasted efforts

Sun Media shows its partisan and ideological colours in its report on the Cons' decision to scrap an Ottawa orientation for new government employees. (Which principle of journalism is it that demands the use of "black pit for taxpayers" rather than any phrase which could suggest there's any potential upside to the program?)

In contrast, the Tyee's Peter MacLeod offers a reasoned defence of the program:

(F)unding a program where the police have a direct experience of Parliament, where agricultural analysts might visit Ottawa's prized experimental farm and where immigration officers have a chance to meet their department's minister sounds like a reasonable initiation to what used to be considered important, valuable and publicly-useful careers.

MPs, of course, should be the last people to grouse. They'd shout murder if anyone suggested that flying back and forth to their constituencies each week was lavish and unnecessary. And so they should. Crazy as it may seem, those air tickets are a small price to pay for keeping politicians even marginally connected to their communities. In a country as big as Canada, spending a King's ransom on travel should surprise no one.

So the problem isn't that we have too many publicly-funded government travel programs. It's much more likely that we have too few. We need programs that bring civil servants to Ottawa -- especially as the civil service struggles to replace thousands of retiring baby-boomers -- and we certainly need programs that bring Ottawa-based civil servants to spend far more time on the frontline in other parts of the country as well...

(T)here are some corollaries. Join a top-flight consulting firm and you'll be spending a minimum of two weeks at an Ivy League university, boning up on your maths, learning the company lore and all the while staying in a premier hotel. Become a taxpayer-supported academic and it's almost required that you attend a conference or two a year, which usually just happen to include cushy accommodations in comfy climes...

So low have civil servants fallen in the public's mind that even those programs designed to restore a sense of professionalism and reinforce an ethos of public purpose are immediately derided as waste.

This is the real tragedy and the real scandal. That civil servants make an easy target -- well, unfortunately, that's not news at all. The government should continue to spend this money.

Unfortunately, MacLeod proved absolutely right in his concern that the Cons would axe the program without any real consideration of the possible benefits. And in the rush to tie "bureaucrats" and "waste" together, it's gone completely unreported that the program itself was designed to improve ethical awareness among federal employees in response to the Auditor General's concerns arising out of the sponsorship scandal.

Mind you, the change in direction probably suits the Cons well in the long run. Not only will the newly-hired civil servants lose out on the benefits pointed out by MacLeod so as to feed into the Cons' anti-government rhetoric, but a less-informed civil service may also be less able to prevent Harper and company from getting their hands into the cookie jar. But for the rest of us, it would be far better to see a reasonable investment in our public servants now than to sacrifice ethics and training on the altar of anti-government ideology.

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.