Another bluff called

PMS has refused the NDP's offer to pair an MP to allow him to attend a climate change summit with EU leaders without affecting the Cons' standing in Parliament. But with his false excuse for declining to attend now laid bare, one has to figure PMS will end up wishing he'd travelled as far away as possible from the House of Commons.

(Edit: typo.)

Not to be trusted

Having missed the announcement last week, I'll take a moment to comment on the Cons' move to tax income trusts. It's certainly a pleasant surprise to see a glaring tax loophole closed, and Flaherty deserves due credit for that. But then, with the Cons there are few unmixed blessings...and it's not hard to see how the income trust announcement could be twisted later on to suit the Cons' purposes in dealing with other governments.

Domestically, it's been noted that the income trust move will also result in increased tax collection by the provinces. In and of itself, this would be a plus. But with a resolution to federal/provincial funding among the next items on the Cons' agenda, it seems entirely likely that the move will be twisted to avoid increased funding for the lower levels of government, as the Cons attempt to credit the increased provincial revenue as a contribution to resolving the fiscal imbalance while ignoring the greater boost to federal coffers. Which would leave more money in Flaherty's pocket to be contributed to the Cons' vote-buying efforts, and potentially undermine any good that could come from interjurisdictional rebalancing.

Mind you, a united provincial effort would be able to counter such a claim very easily. But since the provinces haven't yet shown any sign of being able to come to any consensus, the Cons could well manage to toss a coat of paint on equalization, claim to have added taxing power to the provinces, and declare the fiscal imbalance to be over and done with.

And that's just the potential domestic fallout. While the income trust move was a necessary one to avoid creating incentives toward tax loopholes generally, it undoubtedly caused some negative short-term economic effects. Hopefully the apparent rebound will continue - but if not, then the Cons may be able to use any ongoing decline as an excuse to claim that further integration with the U.S. is needed to try to boost Canada's economic fortunes.

Which, conveniently enough, would be a lot easier for the Cons to work out following the elimination of a gaping loophole which the IRS had long since rejected south of the border.

In fairness, the above concerns are largely speculative, in contrast to the immediate good of Flaherty's announcement. But it's still worth keeping an eye out to ensure that the Cons aren't able to use a single sensible tax policy as an opening to make matters worse on other fronts. And based on the Cons' stay in power so far, there's little apparent reason to believe that they have any other intention.

Hiatus

I'll be out of town - and likely away from the blog - until next Sunday. Enjoy the meantime, and I'll be back before long.

Hypocrisy takes flight

The CP reports that PMS is making plenty of use of citizen-funded Challenger jets for personal purposes without reimbursing anything close to the actual cost of the planes:

The Prime Minister's Office says it has reimbursed the public treasury $9,600 for Stephen Harper's use of government jets for two trips that were partisan business or private pleasure.

But considering past Conservative assertions that the executive jets cost $11,000 an hour to operate - and even using more modest cost projections for the Challengers supplied by the Defence Department - it appears taxpayers are heavily subsidizing the personal travel of Harper and his officials...

Harper used the executive jet to fly to Halifax on Feb. 10 to attend a provincial Progressive Conservative convention and retirement celebration for Nova Scotia premier John Hamm.

Buckler said Friday the Conservative party paid $6,630.90 for Harper and six officials, who she listed, to fly on the Challenger from Ottawa to Halifax and back.

Harper, his son Ben and five PMO officials also flew to Toronto from Ottawa for a Maple Leafs-Senators NHL game on Oct. 4. The Conservative party reimbursed $2,993.13 for that trip, said Buckler.

Of course, it would be nice to know exactly what difference in cost is being eaten by less-privileged Canadians to allow PMS to save travel time on his way to a hockey game - whether it's the $2200 per hour estimated by the Defence Department (which would still leave the Cons underpaying for the planes), or the $11,000 per hour cited by multiple Cons in Parliament and on the campaign trail. But in the Cons' usual spirit of accountability-for-everyone-but-themselves, the officials with the ability to disclose those numbers are under a gag order:

A Defence Department spokeswoman said Friday the fleet of six Challenger executive jets costs $12 million a year to maintain. Flying costs are pegged at $2,233 an hour, plus between $800 and $1,000 a day in duty costs for flight crews sitting on the tarmac, plus ramp charges which are typically around $50.

Asked to break down the numbers into the true cost of the prime minister's February junket to Halifax, Lt. Carole Brown came back empty-handed.

"The word came back from the powers that be," Brown told The Canadian Press. "We were shut down on this one."

In sum, the party which is supposedly for accountability and against waste is once again going out of its way to reverse those principles when it comes to the whims of PMS. And when voters who may have honestly believed the Cons' claims to those principles get a chance to respond, Harper may get to rediscover the joys of flying commercial instead.

A strong start

It's certainly a disappointment that Stephen Maynard dropped out of the NDP's London North Centre nomination race after his solid showing in the last federal election. But the resulting nominee, Megan Walker, left little doubt that she's pulling no punches in the by-election:

"I'm asking you to send the anti-women, anti-gay, anti-environment, anti-equality but pro-George Bush Dianne Haskett a message," Walker said to loud applause from the more than 200 people at the Central Library's Wolf Performance Hall.

"London-North-Centre isn't the London parachute club. (The riding) is not here for you to drop in when you need a job.

"Dianne, I hope the new lease you signed on your apartment has a one-month expiry date, because you're going to need it."...

"To Elizabeth May, London-North-Centre is not rent-a-riding to be used and discarded. Real people with real problems live here," she said, calling the NDP the greenest party in the country.

A Liberal nomination meeting is scheduled for Sunday.

"The Liberals just don't know who will lead them, or who they will follow. Well, London-North-Centre deserves a hell of a lot better than that," Walker said.

Among the issues Walker said will stand out in this by-election are health care, education, equality, the environment, housing and the war in Afghanistan.

Walker's forceful entry into the race should make it clear that while May won't lack for media profile in the race, she'll quite properly have to earn the trust of voters rather than having anything handed to her. And the end result should be a genuine contest of progressive values.

Of course, it would be all the better if the contest was going to be a battle of all the candidates' principles and ideas. But since that would require Haskett to wriggle her way out of PMS' duct tape, London North Centre will apparently have to settle for a choice between three candidates and a mannequin. And of those three real candidates, Walker's experience and strong message look to have her well positioned to win the seat for the NDP.

(h/t to Cerberus.)

On urgency

CanWest reports that the Northwest Passage (or whatever it's now being called), which as recently as seven years ago was virtually impossible to get through even with an icebreaker, has been navigable for the past couple of months:

Arctic straits that are typically choked solid with ice this time of year remain completely open to shipping traffic late in October, raising profound issues for Canada as it struggles to maintain its grasp on the Arctic.

For the past week, the Canadian Coast Guard scientific icebreaker Amundsen has sailed east from the Nunavut hamlet of Kugluktuk, encountering virtually no resistance through straits that have for centuries been nearly impossible to traverse, even in summer.

"We actually went through Bellot Strait and Fury and Hecla Strait, which nobody has ever done this time of year," said Fisheries and Oceans researcher Gary Stern, who is serving as chief scientist aboard the Amundsen. "There was absolutely no ice."

In 1822, when Fury and Hecla Strait was discovered by explorer William Edward Parry, its ice remained so thick at the height of summer that he was forced to anchor his boats and cross by foot. As recently as 1999, Canada's most powerful icebreaker, the CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent, encountered so much ice during an August journey through the strait that she sustained damage to her propellers and could not move faster than 200 metres per hour.

Needless to say, the trend doesn't seem likely to stop anytime soon given the lack of action on global warming (both in Canada and around the world). Which means that Canada can't afford any more delay in determining how to monitor the region and maintain control as to which vessels take advantage of the newly-melted areas - under penalty of forever losing any ability to enforce environmental standards or otherwise exercise sovereignty over the passage.

On track records

David Wilkins is indignant at the prospect that Canada would expect the U.S. to make use of the full length of the reprieve granted to land and sea border crossings. But even recognizing that there's no statutory reason why an ID card scheme couldn't be implemented earlier if anybody got around to studying and designing it, shouldn't Wilkins be familiar with the Department of Homeland Security's history of implementing the worst-case scenario at the last minute for lack of any advance planning?

On shutdowns

I suppose there was a third option surrounding the outcome of the Accountability Act aside from either the legislation passing, or the Cons having a winning election issue out of Lib obstinance. But surely the Cons wouldn't be dumb enough to launch their own filibuster in a minority Parliament, and thereby forfeit any ability to complain about opposition obstruction. Right?

The Conservatives' weakening grip on the minority Parliament was laid bare Thursday as they resorted to opposition-style stall tactics to stop their foes from setting the country's legislative agenda...

The government tried slowing them down Thursday with an unusual filibuster at the environment committee.

A Tory MP delivered a two-hour monologue on arcane parliamentary procedure to keep the committee from pushing ahead with a Liberal-sponsored bill that would force the government to respect the Kyoto climate-change accord.

The Tories have used similar tactics at several other committees.

I can only presume PMS somehow calculated that the Cons are on the verge of a precipice now, such that they can better afford a large blow later than a relatively minor embarrassment for the moment. But as the article notes, it's a massive sign of weakness for any governing party to have to resort to trying to shut down the functioning of government in order to avoid the will of the majority. And that's doubly so for a government completely centred on the supposed authority of Big Daddy.

Which means that while the Cons may be doing their best to appear to be in control, that pretence is being disproven by the day. And now that the Cons have legitimized opposition delay tactics by resorting to them themselves, the question is only a matter of when the Cons get to practice those maneuvers again from the more usual side of the House.

An ominous prediction

Pat Martin predicts that wrangling between the House and Senate will keep the Accountability Act from becoming law before an election next year. We can only hope that he's wrong in his calculations, as any failure to pass the bill due to Senate delay would offer PMS the opening he surely wants to make the Libs the main issue again rather than his own failures in power. But it remains to be seen whether the Senate's Libs will realize that before it's too late.

On turnarounds

It's interesting to find out that it apparently takes a Lib party relegated to opposition to finally support anti-scab legislation sufficiently to move a bill forward. But while they deserve credit for (largely) seeing the light this time around, it's hard to see why any voters would be gullible to want to put them back in government where they apparently feel safe ignoring labour concerns.

One for the history books

Chalk up another mark in the column of "Cons disrespecting the democratic will of Parliament", as an opposition motion to restore funding to Canada's museums has passed to resounding silence from Canada's Ignorant New Government.

Like previous votes on Kelowna and Kyoto, the motion seems far too likely to be discarded by the Cons. But the Cons' current image of an arrogant government breaking its own promises in order to ignore both the public interest in museum funding and a majority vote in Parliament can't be one the Cons want to leave with Canadian voters - and will likely help lead to their just reward if it does go unheeded.

A convenient coincidence

The CP reports that in a supposed coincidence, three top-ranking public servants from different departments all cancelled their scheduled appearances before the Finance Committee yesterday without explanation. But James Moore thinks he has the answer to the Cons' unwillingness to allow the people who may know their departments best to speak publicly:

The Tories said the appearance of several ministers at the committee proves there has been no clampdown on free speech.

"Nobody has been muzzled," said Tory MP James Moore. "The minister of public works will be at committee. . .

"The President of the Treasury Board (John Baird) has been there. Other ministers are going to be there."

In sum, Moore can't figure out why anyone would want to hear from an official who knows anything when they can instead listen to PMS' talking points ad nauseum. After all, if trained seals are good enough for PMS, surely they must be good enough to satisfy everybody else in the country.

In fairness, John Baird notes as well that some deputy ministers and other official have also appeared. But it should be obvious that a proper parliamentary hearing involves input from a broad range of people who have knowledge of the issues - not only those who the Cons think will most strongly support their position. And if the Cons won't be held accountable in that sense, then there's every reason for the public to hold them accountable for their apparent determination to stifle any review of their actions.

"I'm Stephen Harper, and I approved these bills."

To follow up on this post, let's take a look at some of the private members' bills from Con MPs which have apparently received the Harper Seal of Approval.

They may take our lives, but they'll never take...our collection of garden gnomes without speedy compensation!

When it comes to Con extremism, there's never a better place to start than Garry Breitkreuz. And while PMS himself has mused about the dangerous step of tossing private property rights into the Charter, Breitkreuz' Bill C-223 goes several steps further over the edge.

Note as a starting point that under the Canadian Bill of Rights, property receives equal protection to "life, liberty and security of the person". For Breitkreuz, this formulation apparently falls short of the degree of necessary property-worship. Accordingly, his bill would remove property rights from the above list and place them in a separate category featuring two key twists.

First, Breitkreuz would make any infringement on the newly-detached property right subject to a more stringent standard for due process consisting of fundamental justice, an impartial decider and a reasonable time for decision - none of which exist for protection of life under the same legislation.

Second, Breitkreuz would establish a super-notwithstanding clause which would allow for infringement on property rights only with a 2/3 majority of Parliament. In contrast, remember that the notwithstanding clause in both the Charter and the current Bill of Rights requires only a 50%+1 vote in Parliament. Add it all up, and it's clear that Breitkreuz' bill would turn property rights into the be-all and end-all above all other considerations.

Now, the longer-term intent is presumably to provide a basis to undermine taxation and government involvement in the economy. But in the shorter term, it's not hard to see what laws would likely come under the most immediate scrutiny: those related to proceeds of crime and terrorist financing, which currently provide for seizure of property with relatively low onuses on the government. Meaning that in his zeal to undermine the social role of government, Breitkreuz may be willing to hand a gift to organized crime and terrorist organizations.

And this plan has been vetted and approved by the PMO.

Throw away the key

But while the Cons may not have a problem with proceeds of crime staying in criminals' hands for the greater goal of materiality, they certainly want to get tougher on some offenders. Take for example Jay Hill's Bill C-235, which would eliminate conditional sentences as an option for a wide array of crimes. For some, there's a reasonable argument for taking away the option (though I'd argue that flexibility in sentencing is still needed to take into account exceptional cases). But on even the most generous interpretation, some of the crimes on Hill's list have no business being removed from the conditional sentencing regime.

Consider "criminal negligence causing bodily harm", which by definition has little to do with the offender's state of mind and doesn't appear likely to be a repeat offence. Likewise "unlawfully causing bodily harm", which appears to require only a very small amount of unlawful intent along with potentially relatively minor consequences.

Of course, conditional sentences won't be appropriate for all examples of these offences - which is why the current regime allows for flexibility based on the nature of the crime and the offender. But it can't reasonably be said that absolutely every crime fitting these descriptions is unsuitable for anything but a jail sentence.

And the PMO has apparently vetted and approved a bill which says just that.

Tax evaders' rights

Then there's Joy Smith's Bill C-266, which does include at least a few reasonable ideas such as setting up a Chief Advocate's office to facilitate citizen interaction with tax authorities.

But there's absolutely no need to pair that sensible idea with measures to deliberately make tax enforcement more difficult. And that's exactly what Smith's bill would do, allowing those owing money to delay any audit process while holding Canada Revenue to strict timelines, ensuring that unpaid taxes effectively amount to interest-free loans to the delinquent taxpayer unless the Crown can prove deliberate non-payment, and opening up a loophole which sets a higher standard for prosecution against any taxpayer with creative enough tax lawyers to find a "reasonable explanation" for non-payment.

Any government should know better than to incentivize tax evasion by undermining its own ability to collect and making any delay interest-free to the party who refuses to pay what it owes. But having vetted and approved the idea, Harper's office apparently has no problem at all with it.

(Edit: cleaned up wording.)

Posted without approval

A couple of quick updates on Garth Turner's revelations about the Cons yesterday.

First, Turner adds one more item to the types of information which have to go through PMS' approval process:

I arranged to make statements in the House regularly on issues that need to be addressed. As a Conservative MP, any rare statement had to receive both advance permission and approval of the script.

Not that this comes as much surprise. But now that it's confirmed that every word coming out the mouth of a Con can be taken to have PMS' approval, there should be no lack of material from which to point out how far out of touch PMS is with Canadians generally. (I'll start later tonight with a review of some of the crazier private members' bills which made it through the Cons' vetting process.)

Second, the NDP points out that concerns about the politicization of committees are hardly new - but that last time they were brought up, it was the Cons complaining about the Libs using the same strategy which they're now copying. Which nicely highlights both the Cons' hypocrisy, and the fact that a change back to the Libs wouldn't be a change for the better in the accountability department.

A brief time-out

The concept behind Take Back Your Time Day is certainly worth supporting. But might it not have worked better to plan the day for some time other than the middle of municipal campaign season?

On causation

As a follow-up to yesterday's post on the Cons' micromanagement of committee questions and private members' bills, let's look in a bit more detail at how the policy could already have resulted in a violation of the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

I've noted before my disagreement with the view (seemingly held by many Wheat Board supporters) that any move to eliminate the Board's monopoly over wheat would violate the current s. 47.1 - which I'll reproduce again for convenience:

47.1 The Minister shall not cause to be introduced in Parliament a bill that would exclude any kind, type, class or grade of wheat or barley, or wheat or barley produced in any area in Canada, from the provisions of Part IV, either in whole or in part, or generally, or for any period, or that would extend the application of Part III or Part IV or both Parts III and IV to any other grain, unless

(a) the Minister has consulted with the board about the exclusion or extension; and

(b) the producers of the grain have voted in favour of the exclusion or extension, the voting process having been determined by the Minister.

On my reading, this section clearly refers only to legislative action (a "bill") rather than regulatory action, and even limits the introduction of a bill only to the extent that the Minister of Agriculture has "cause(d) (it) to be introduced". Which means that either regulatory action or an independent private members' bill (i.e. one introduced without any participation of the Minister) could result in the Board losing its monopoly without violating s. 47.1.

So much for what the Cons could have done. But thanks to Garth Turner, we now know that all Con private members' bills "have to be approved and vetted by ministers and the PMO" - which wouldn't make any sense unless it happened before bills are introduced. Which means that Chuck Strahl's approval appears to be a direct cause of the introduction of Bill C-300 - and that Strahl could thus have violated the Act by granting his approval.

Now, this interpretation is far from bulletproof; there's certainly an argument to be made that normally the only MP who "causes" a bill to be introduced is the one who actually introduces it. But if Turner is correct in saying that the Cons are keeping the lid on private members' bills, then the approval does appear to be a necessary causal factor in the introduction of C-300. And it seems to me that there has to be some scope for indirect causation to be included under s. 47.1 - after all, why else would the words "cause to be introduced" be used in the Act rather than "introduce" alone?

In turn, any violation of s. 47.1 would also be an offence under s. 68(2)(c):

(2) Every person is guilty of an offence who:...

(c) contravenes or omits to comply with this Act or any regulation or order.

It's unlikely that any prosecution would take place given the relatively technical nature of any breach which may have occurred, as well as the arguable difference in the interpretation of s. 47.1. But it's still worth highlighting this as an example of the Cons prioritizing their ability to micromanage over compliance with the law. And that should make us doubly concerned as to what other legal corners are being cut by PMS and company in their drive for power.

Deep denial of deep integration

Odiyya at The Conscious Earth took the time to ask nine separate nominally progressive candidates, MPs and parties, as well as five media outlets, about their views on deep integration with the U.S. - and received a grand total of one and a half responses. But the disinterest divides fairly clearly along party lines, consisting of one full response from one request to the NDP, one half of an answer from seven requests to Libs, and nothing at all from one request to the Greens or five to the media.

It's been awhile since we've had an election fought over how we should deal with the U.S. - and it looks like plenty of people are doing their best to avoid another one. But for voters concerned about secretive and undemocratic integration, there can be no doubt which party both shares their concerns and is willing to speak up about them.

Going public

I'm not sure if the Cons thought that Garth Turner would be cowed enough by his expulsion from caucus to avoid discussing anything more about the party's "confidental" information. But rather than going quiet, Turner has been letting out some rather interesting (if less than surprising) tidbits about the Cons' current operations.

First, Turner notes that the Cons have been systematically trying to convert parliamentary committees from sites where issues are actually discussed, to yet another purely partisan arena where MPs repeat talking points from the top:

House of Commons committees are intended to be all-party affairs, and one of the only places where MPs from all political backgrounds get together to try and do constructive things. The fact I have been removed (from the Finance Committee) – the only MP on one side of the table with a financial and economic background, government experience and cabinet experience (facing two hugely experienced former Liberal cabmins and a very able colleague, plus a Bloc economist and an impressive NDP expert) – hints at the Harper Administration agenda.

This government has actually had a PMO senior staffer in national caucus recently instructing MPs on how to politicize the committees and turn them into instruments of government policy. Tory MPs are instructed to meet before committee meetings to plan strategy to help ministers, and to be assigned questions to ask witnesses.

Turner also notes that even private members' bills, which by their nature should reflect on individual MPs more than the the party generally absent some direct party endorsement, are being vetted and approved by Steve and Sandra:

I have lots of initiatives on the go, and much work to do - in fact, a lot more now that I am an indie, and can actually table private member’s bills (as a member of the Tory caucus, all initiatives like that have to be approved and vetted by ministers and the PMO - so they hardly exist).

I'll follow up later with a review of some of the bills which, by this logic, PMS can be taken to have personally approved. (As a preview, I'll note that any ministerial vetting of the private members' bill to demolish the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly might well violate the Canadian Wheat Board Act even if regulatory changes - or an independent private members' bill - wouldn't.)

Whatever private members' bills and loaded committee questions can now be tagged on PMS personally, it's glaringly clear that the Cons' rhetoric about open and accountable government died the moment they took office. And now that Turner has absolutely no incentive or need to appease anybody within the Con caucus, the Canadian voters actually will be able to hold PMS accountable for that turnaround.

The importance of competition

With Elizabeth May announcing her intention to run in the upcoming London North Centre byelection, there's been some suggestion that the NDP and the Libs should step aside to allow May to win the seat - whether based on the on-again, off-again practice of generally allowing leaders to win a seat in the House, or based on a general strategic argument of what that would mean to the Cons.

It's worth noting first that there's far from unanimous agreement that the practice of leaving leaders uncontested should be followed. When PMS ran in a Calgary Southwest byelection in 2002, the Libs and PCs didn't contest the seat, but the NDP did run a candidate against Harper. Likewise a couple of parties, but not all of them, stepped aside when Andre Boisclair recently won his provincial seat in Quebec.

In other words, it's far from clear that the practice is followed universally - and even more uncertain that it ought to be. After all, nothing about a candidate's nature as a party leader makes them inherently more effective as an MP. And the dubious merit of anointing a party leader is particularly obvious when the leader in question plans to pack up for a Nova Scotia riding within a few months, rather than sticking around to represent the riding in question.

As for the wider strategic issues, it's highly unlikely that the Cons will pick up the seat no matter who runs (or doesn't run) from the NDP or Libs. And in any event, there's no apparent reason why the two parties who are competing to be the effective national alternative to the Cons would simply let somebody else lay claim to part of that title.

It would be one thing if the question were one of an institutionalized practice where only the Greens were left out. But faced with a sketchy and inconsistent practice which seems to generally be more a strategic decision to avoid difficult ridings rather than a principled rule, there's no reason for the Dippers or Libs to simply concede London North Centre to the Greens. And if May manages to win the riding on merit rather than based on other parties holding their fire (which strikes me as at least a relatively plausible possibility if the Greens throw everything they can into the riding), then she'll be able to legitimately claim to represent the constituency - which would do far more for the Greens in the long run.

(Edit: typo.)

One step forward, fifteen steps back

The Cons' recent health moves offer a nice summary of their general governing principles: $120 million per year in little-discussed giveaways to big pharma to be paid for by both provinces and citizens directly, followed by $8 million in highly-publicized federal funding for a vaguely defined "heart health strategy".

While the strategy would be a worthwhile idea on its own, it only makes up for a tiny amount of the damage the Cons have already inflicted on the health-care system - let alone that which looms ahead if a wait-times guarantee is imposed without funding. And it'll take a quick change in government to make sure that the silent cuts don't cause irreparable harm to the system long before the crumbs of added funding have any effect.

A simple solution

There's been plenty of focus on Peter MacKay's all-too-vivid example of inappropriate comments in the House of Commons. But much less time seems to have been put into any efforts to actually improve the decorum of Parliament generally, despite the unanimous concerns of the MPs who discussed the issue on today's Question Period:

While members of Parliament may disagree on the exact nature of some contentious comments allegedly made in the House of Commons last week, they agree it's time to crack down on questionable behaviour on Parliament Hill...

"I've been in politics for 20 years, I've never seen it so bad," said Wasylycia-Leis. "It's always been a bit of a persistent problem, this lack of decorum, the heckling, the name calling, the noise, the palpable anger, but it's getting worse."

She has called for a code of conduct or a sexual harassment policy for MPs.

If everything that is said in the House was recorded by the Hansard, the official transcript of Parliament, "it would make all of us blush because it's that horrific," Wasylycia-Leis said...

(Con MP Helena Guergis) did acknowledge the situation in the House of Commons needs to change, saying "decorum had been shot in the House long before I arrived in 2004."...

Jennings, well known for her own heckling ability, said there is a difference between speaking out in the House when there is a disagreement with what is being said, and levelling hurtful personal insults at other MPs.

She said she has no problem with the first type of heckling, but objects to the second...

Wasylycia-Leis said the lack of decorum discourages women from considering politics as a career, and hurts Canadians' respect for government.

"Do you know how many times you ask a school teacher if they're going to bring their class to the House of Commons to watch democracy in action, and they say 'I wouldn't dare bring my children to that place because they would learn such inappropriate behaviour.'"

While Wasylycia-Leis' suggestions for a code of conduct or harassment policy might help somewhat as well, it seems to me that the obvious solution lies instead in her earlier rhetorical suggestion. After all, every MP's seat in the House of Commons is already equipped with a microphone...and it wouldn't seem to require too much effort to ensure that those microphones were set up to actually pick up what each MP says while other MPs have the floor.

It would be particularly interesting to see a resulting second Hansard consisting solely of what's picked up from MPs not holding the floor at a given moment - though that might not be as viable as simply making the audio public for others to compile.

Granted, more thorough recording wouldn't change the underlying personalities of the MPs who have given rise to the concerns. But it would at least ensure that future incidents would be met with at least as swift and thorough a response as this one, rather than being missed or forgotten for lack of available evidence. And with time, the end result could well be a Parliament where Canadians can observe a civilized debate, rather than a cacophony of insults on all sides.

On patterns

As if it wasn't obvious how the pattern of alleged "security concerns" in Afghanistan was going to play out, yet another Con minister has been allowed to visit Kandahar just days after the Cons bashed a group of Senators for attempting to travel there. Which only continues the Cons' pattern of allowing their own partisans to visit the region while inventing reasons to refuse permission to anybody else - and makes all the more clear that the Cons are far more interested in trying to win political points out of Afghanistan than in trying to improve Canadians' knowledge of what's actually happening there.

A limiting factor

Eugene Plawiuk reminds us of the earlier movement to call for Rona Ambrose's resignation as Environment Minister, and notes that it might be a good time to bring up the question again. But then, that effort can't succeed until we know the answer to one key question: do the Libs still think that Ambrose deserves more time to prove her incompetence?

Medical negligence

I don't imagine there are many multi-billion public programs which operate without any audit process. But thanks to delay by the McGuinty government in implementing a new audit program to replace one that was eliminated in 2004, Ontario's OHIP medical billing program fits that description. And it seems all too likely that if the lack of any control on spending continues for too long, the result will be to create an incentive for unnecessary billing - and to make costs of the public health system look significantly worse than they would if Ontario's Libs had acted when an obvious need was identified.

On dangerous protection

Thomas Walkom points out that last week's decision quashing search warrants against Ottawa Citizen reporter Juliet O'Neill may not have wound up protecting a particularly merit-worthy journalistic source:

Amidst the media self-congratulation over an Ontario Superior Court judge's decision this week to uphold freedom of the press, one fact is rarely mentioned: The substance of the Ottawa Citizen report at the centre of this controversy was inaccurate.

What's more, if an earlier judicial inquiry can be believed, whoever leaked the information — or more properly disinformation — reported in the Citizen was trying to discredit Maher Arar, someone who had already been unjustly maligned, imprisoned and tortured.

Is this really a press victory?...

Most journalists, including this writer, make use of anonymous sources. We try to verify what they say. But ultimately — particularly in areas where hard evidence is difficult to come by — we have to rely on faith that they are telling the truth.

Unfortunately, sometimes they are not. The 2003 Citizen story was one of those cases.

Some of what her anonymous sources provided to O'Neill did turn out to be accurate. Justice Dennis O'Connor's inquiry into the Arar matter concluded that the Canadian computer engineer did indeed come to Mounties' attention when they spotted him talking to someone they had under surveillance.

But O'Connor also concluded there was absolutely no basis in fact to the more sensational allegations repeated in the Citizen piece. He said Arar was never a jihadist, that he was not linked to Al Qaeda, that he had not trained in an Afghan terrorist camp and that he had not "disappeared" from Canada to avoid being interviewed by the RCMP...

When O'Neill's story broke, the RCMP — to their credit — were desperate to discover who was leaking this damaging disinformation. But their subsequent raid on O'Neill's home raised such a storm that the then-Liberal government felt compelled to call the judicial inquiry it had been trying to avoid. (It was that raid that Justice Lynn Ratushny, citing freedom of the press, declared unconstitutional on Thursday).

Of course, in future cases it's quite possible that the decision will wind up assisting sources whose information more thoroughly deserves protection, and helping to strengthen the ability of the press to investigate wrongdoing. And there's no doubt that this is one of the areas where the knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 may have gone too far.

But as pointed out by Walkom, the story is far from one-sided. It's not hard to see the similarities between this story and the U.S. Judith Miller fiasco in which "journalistic integrity" was cited as a reason to avoid outing even sources whose information had been entirely disproven. And if the effect of Ratushny's decision is to strengthen confidentiality between propagandists and the journalists who use their information for easy stories rather than for the sake of actually investigating, it's hard to see who besides the purveyors of misinformation could stand to gain in the long run.

Approaching the wall

The National Post reports on the increase in middle-class bankruptcies in the U.K. and U.S., and notes that Canada may be next in line to see a massive increase in credit card-related bankruptcy:

Recent reports in the United Kingdom and United States indicate that cases of personal bankruptcy among the middle class are on the rise. And with skyrocketing debt-to-income ratios here, Canada could be next.

"The situation has never been so grave," says Laurie Campbell, executive director of Credit Counselling Service of Toronto, Credit Canada, a not-for-profit organization that helps people in financial trouble.

According to statistics released by Britain's Bankruptcy Service, 26,021 people were made insolvent in the second quarter of 2006, a 66% increase over the same period last year. A separate study by a professor at Britain's Kingston University found a staggering 49% of insolvencies to be middle-class people who got into trouble over credit-card debt, compared with 16% of respondents who said they were bankrupt as a result of a business failure.

Similar trends are underway south of the border. A recent U.S. study warns of rising consumer bankruptcy filings in the years ahead -- despite laws passed last year aimed at discouraging them. The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, which took effect last October, aims to curb consumer bankruptcy filings by closing loopholes that allowed for opportunistic filings, serial filings and abuse. The new law also created new responsibilities for those who administer consumer bankruptcies and those who counsel debtors into bankruptcy.

But the study, by a law professor at the University of Illinois, found the law has done little to tackle the problem of growing consumer debt burdens, and suggests that personal bankruptcies will return to levels that existed before it came into place.

In Canada, the number of personal bankruptcies has in fact dropped in recent years, thanks largely to a strong economy and low interest rates. In the second quarter of 2006, for example, the total number of new bankruptcy filings was 9.2% lower than the year before, according to Industry Canada. For 2006 as a whole, filings are down 6.2%.

But those numbers hide a deeper problem. On average, Canadian households owe more than their annual income. In the first quarter of 2006, the debt-to-income ratio reached 120%, the 20th consecutive quarter the indebtedness ratio has risen.

Marvin Zweig, a principal at bankruptcy trustee firm Shiner Kideckel Zweig Inc., warns that as the economy slows and interest rates rise, the number of personal bankruptcies will climb. "The global economy is possibly heading into a soft period. That will include Canada," he says. "You are going to find people who are affected from an income perspective. They will then resort to using their available credit to finance their necessary living expenses. And, it just continues to rise from there."

What's worse, the problem may be even closer at hand than the article suggests, as the economy already appears to be softening. And once the first wave of increased bankruptcies hits, it's all too likely that the effect will be a tightening of credit which in turn restricts the economy even more.

Unfortunately, far too many Canadians have been spending beyond their sustainable means during a boom period...which is bound to lead to problems when the boom comes to an end. And while it may not be too late to change course now, it won't likely be long before individual Canadians and the economy generally run head-first into the current wall of consumer debt.

On developing movements

Both Ontario and Quebec are rightfully pointing out that the Cons' Unclear Air Act falls far short of even the Libs' pitiful actions against global warming by including no funding at all to enable provinces to cut their greenhouse gas emissions:

Canada's two biggest provinces are upset that the Conservative clean air plan doesn't mention multi-million-dollar promises made by the previous Liberal government to help curb air pollution.

Ontario and Quebec say they expect the Tories to pay up. The Clean Air Act released this week contained many promises of consultation and regulation, but there was no word of federal funding to help provinces move to a low-polluting economy...

Ontario had a $538 million agreement with the federal government to help close the province's dirty coal-fired power plants. Closing the plants would cut greenhouse emissions by 30 megatonnes annually, said Broten.

"We've committed to close coal. That's the single largest greenhouse gas reduction initiative in North America."...

Quebec had been counting on $328 million promised by the government to help finance the provincial climate plan, but unlike Ontario it did not have a formal agreement.

Federal Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon, the political minister for Quebec, has said the promise is off, but Quebec Environment Minister Claude Bechard continues to press the issue.

"We are not giving up," said Bechard's spokesman Pascal D'Astous.

Other provinces were also looking for money from the now-defunct $10-billion fund, and hope the current government has not said the last word on funding for clean air.

It seems far too likely that the last word has indeed been said for as long as the Cons stay in power, as the issue will be left on the back burner for several years of consultation and probably ignored at that point. But then, there's always the option of replacing the Cons with a more sensible government before we reach that point...and with the provinces recognizing just how much worse the fiscal imbalance is becoming as a result of the Cons' all-responsibility, no-funding strategy, that may become a reality all the sooner.

On unnecessary burdens

While Peter MacKay's presence in the news over the last couple of days has been mostly due to several painful bouts of foot-in-mouth disease, CanWest reports that buried beneath the careless talk came another announcement of yet more Canadian troops being sent into combat in Afghanistan:

Members of the newly formed special forces regiment based at CFB Petawawa, Ont., are heading to Afghanistan as Canada continues to bolster its commitment to the war in the southwest Asian country and the NATO allies are urged to assume more of the military burden there...

Canadian Forces spokesman Maj. Doug Allison said the military will not discuss how many members of the special operations regiment are being sent to Afghanistan or when they will leave for that country.

"We anticipate in the near term that the regiment will make a contribution to the Canadian SOF (special operations force) efforts within Afghanistan," said Allison. "They will take part in the full spectrum of special operations contributing to the overall efforts in Afghanistan."

The deployment of more Canadian troops was revealed as Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay told a roomful of NATO ambassadors that Canada can't keep up its efforts in Afghanistan without more help.

Based on the rest of the article, it's clear that the Cons' consistent record of tossing more and more troops into Afghanistan isn't giving Canada any ability to lead other countries to contribute more. Instead, it's placing more and more of the burden on Canada to no gain for the mission generally, as other countries have the good sense to move their special forces or other troops out of the region. And with Canada paying an ever-higher price for an ever-less-realistic mission, it likely won't take long for Canadians to demand that same good sense from their own government.

The wrong prescription

While there's been plenty of well-deserved outrage about the Cons' refusal to do anything to meaningfully improve the environment, there's been far too little over their active steps to make health care worse by making pharmaceuticals more expensive:

Yesterday’s changes to pharmaceutical regulations will hit Canadians right in their pocketbook, says the NDP Critic for Health.

Penny Priddy, MP (Surrey North) was reacting to the Conservatives’ announcement that name-brand drug companies will be now be granted eight years of exclusive selling rights — up from the previous five years.

“The Conservatives have given an early Christmas gift to their friends in the big drug companies,” said Priddy. “These changes mean today’s families will pay higher costs for prescription drugs, and for a longer period of time.”

Priddy quoted the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association’s estimate that the Conservatives’ changes would have added $600-million to drug costs had they been in effect over the past five years.

It's worth noting that while some consumers will feel the pain, a good chunk of the costs will be borne by governments - particularly those provinces which have been forward-thinking enough to provide meaningful drug plans for their citizens. And now that the Cons have deliberately raised prices for no reason but to appease big pharma, there's no longer any reason for hope that they might see the light about the value of trying to reduce costs through a national plan.

We'll have to wait and see how long it takes the party which is working to increase health care costs to then complain that the costs are unsustainable. But it's clear that the Cons are doing their best to undermine affordable health care without attracting public attention - and that they can't be allowed to get away with it.

Clearing the air

The Cons' Unclean Air Act may have been predictably devoid of worthwhile ideas. But fortunately, the same isn't true for the Conservation Voters of B.C., whose plan appears to be the needed first step to getting greenhouse gas emissions (along with so many other problems) under control.

Defending the indefensible

Last time the Cons decided to put on a PR offensive against peace talks in Afghanistan, it took a matter of hours for their claims to be completely and utterly debunked, and only a few weeks before even the U.S. and the U.K. publicly noted just how far off base the Cons were. But apparently Peter MacKay is looking to embarrass himself and his party yet again by pretending that what's already being done (and for good reason) is beyond the realm of possibility:

Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay is accusing the New Democrats of demoralizing Canadian troops in Afghanistan with talk of withdrawing them from combat.

MacKay says in a speech to the Canadian International Centre that calling for peace talks with the Taliban -- a suggestion made by NDP Leader Jack Layton -- only makes insurgents bolder.

Although he doesn't refer to Layton by name, MacKay says there are some who believe they can wave a magic wand and make the insurgency disappear.

That's "naive," he says.

Granted, MacKay didn't name names this time - meaning that he could well be taken to be bashing the U.S. and the U.K. as well as the NDP. But it seems far more likely that he's simply papering over (or wilfully ignoring) the reality that talks are necessary both to limiting the humanitarian damage in the short term, and securing peace in the long run.

Based on their retreat into long-demolished positions, it's more obvious than ever that it's the Cons who are living in a fantasy world. Which can only have Canadians looking forward to giving the reins to a party whose position is based in reality rather than fiction.

One member, seven votes

The National Post reports that Quebec delegate selection in the Lib leadership race was based in many cases on an exceedingly small number of votes, including one riding where two people elected a slate of 14 delegates:

In one northern Quebec riding, just two federal Liberals bothered to vote in recent delegate elections, but their votes sure counted. Together, they elected a slate of 14 delegates to support Bob Rae at the leadership convention in early December.

In other Quebec ridings, the turnout of Liberal members was barely better, according to Liberal sources.

Fewer than 100 members cast ballots in at least seven other ridings in the province, including several in and around Montreal -- the party's last Quebec toehold. But under party rules, each riding sends 14 delegates to the convention, regardless of whether two people or 200 people voted...

Other low turnouts, according to a Liberal source familiar with the results, included the ridings of Repentigny, where 18 people voted, Vercheres-Les Patriotes (21 voters), Beauce (22 voters), Beauharnois-Salaberry (42 voters), Compton-Stanstead (45 voters), Trois-Rivieres (57 voters) and Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine (94 voters).

One would think the Libs would want to open up the process enough both to show some examples of better turnout, and to suggest ways to get people more interested. But sadly, the Libs instead seem to have bought into the Con view that it's better to try to suppress the facts than deal with them:

Party officials in Ottawa have declared that no official numbers will be released on voter turnout during the Liberals' "Super Weekend," on Sept. 29-Oct. 1, to choose convention delegates. But the leadership camps are aware of the tallies and recognize that Quebec turnout was particularly low...

Tait Simpson, a national spokesman for the party, said the party considers the voter turnout an internal matter. "It's none of anybody's business. We don't have to release it and we're not going to," he said.

It's true enough (as argued by another Lib spokesperson) that some aberrations are likely to pop up in any campaign, with the result that the ridings in question shouldn't be seen as a severe distortion of the leadership race generally.

But from an organizational standpoint, it's still remarkable that some ridings seem to have completely escaped both the efforts of the leadership campaigns, and enough individual interest to lead to a reasonable turnout - particularly in ridings which had upwards of 6,000 Lib voters just months ago. And based on that lack of interest, it's far from certain that the Libs are sufficiently organized or motivated to capitalize on the Cons' current free-fall.

Lives lost to politics

CBC reports that while the Cons may have gone over the top with their jingoistic rhetoric on Afghanistan, the initial decision to expand the mission far beyond Canada's realistic capabilities dates back to Jean Chretien:

The former Liberal government led by Jean Chrétien rejected the advice of military commanders by deciding in early 2003 to send 2,000 troops to Afghanistan, CBC News has learned.

In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, Canada had sent several hundred soldiers to assist U.S. troops in tracking down al-Qaeda militants in Afghanistan. When that mission ended, senior military officers recommended that Canada send only 500 soldiers in a very limited role — but Ottawa chose instead to deploy 2,000 troops.

The commander of the army at the time, Lt.-Gen. Mike Jeffrey, said he told the chief of defence staff that his forces weren't ready for a significant mission overseas...

He said the announcement of Canada's plans to send a battle group to Afghanistan — made in the House of Commons on Feb. 12, 2003 — took him completely by surprise...

Jeffrey said there were concerns about Canada's role and the command structure of the international force that was to stabilize Afghanistan.

"I could see Canadian soldiers dying," he said, "because they weren't properly prepared. It wasn't that we weren't prepared at some level to go. It's that the risks were too high."...

"Governments decide where the military goes, the military doesn't decide where it goes," Goldenberg told the CBC.

"Imagine the reaction in Canada and around the world if Canada had refused to be part of an international coalition after September 11th."

As the article notes, it was purely a political calculation that led to the conclusion that more troops should be sent - regardless of whether they were reasonably equipped for the mission. And Goldenberg's justification for the decision is even less reasonable than the Cons' usual rationalizations for expanding the mission, as there's no reason to believe that a deployment which would actually have fit Canada's capabilities would have been taken as a "refusal" to participate.

Of course, the lack of focus and oversight has only gotten worse since the Cons took over the helm. But it's clearer than ever that the Libs were the first to lock Canada into an unnecessarily dangerous mission for no reason other than international peer pressure. And that can only ensure that the Libs lack any credibility in questioning PMS' own willingness to bow down before Bushco and other foreign administrations.

On purges

Back when the Cons first announced their decision to allow nomination challenges to their sitting MPs, I theorized that the party machinery would be more likely to support relatively moderate candidates against the looniest of the right-wing loons than to try to drive out Garth Turner and his ilk. But with Turner's expulsion following the Cons' efforts to protect Rob Anders and company, it's looking more and more likely that the worst fears about the nomination process were true - and that Rahim Jaffer and the Con caucus merely did today what the Cons may have hoped a nomination meeting would do earlier.

Preaching to the unconverted

It may not be quite as exciting as the Cons' decision to expel their own internal whistleblower. But there is more substantive news happening today as well, as a seniors' group and the NDP are calling for a moratorium on income trust conversions until the effects of income trusts are better understood:

Income trusts are costing billions in lost government revenue and are “misleading” senior citizens, said a pensioners' group that is calling for all future conversions to be halted.

The National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation, which says it represents about one million people, is upset because so-called tax leakages mean less federal money will be available for health care and social security. They also believe a federal regulator should be established to monitor trusts more closely.

“A lot of seniors are being taken in on this because they are not getting the yields that they thought they were going to get,” Art Field, the organization's president, said in an interview from Ottawa. “We want regulations to police the income trust area, to police it if people are losing their money. There are regulators for all kind of things, but there don't seem to be any for income trusts.”...

The federation wants a national investor protection agency and an independent accounting standards board established to monitor trusts more closely. Trusts are currently worth $200-billion on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

NDP finance critic Judy Wasylycia-Leis, an MP from Winnipeg, is calling for a moratorium on any further income trust conversions, saying there needs to be a serious study on their impact before any more companies are allowed to proceed...

“The concern is that many income trusts are being overvalued, that there is a gap between what they actually hold and what they are committed to paying out,” she said. “If we tighten the rules up a bit, we could play a role in protecting people.”

Unfortunately, the Cons seem perfectly happy to let the problem spiral even further out of control. And it seems far too unlikely that the Libs will want anything to do with the constructive side of the income trust issue given the phrase's link to their last electoral defeat.

But the reality is that income trusts may currently pose threats to Canada's investors and citizens alike. And if neither the Cons nor the Libs are willing to pay attention to the dangers, at least Canadians will know where to turn for leadership on issues which may affect their retirement plans on many levels.

True colours

Even with the federal Libs in opposition and thus putting on their best left-wing act, Canadians can still observe a prime example of the party's right-wing governing style, as Canada's largest remaining Lib government is pushing to join in on the highly-flawed TILMA:

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty says he wants in on the free-trade agreement signed earlier this year by British Columbia and Alberta.

McGuinty, who met with B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell earlier this week to discuss the deal struck by the two western provinces, said Tuesday that he emerged more enthusiastic than ever about joining the club.

"(The Alberta-B.C. accord) has been very well received by Albertans and British Columbians alike, notwithstanding some of the concerns raised by various groups. For us here in Ontario, undoubtedly there will be some concerns raised by some labour groups for example," McGuinty told reporters.

"(But) the issue is whether or not we think that we're strong enough to compete - whether we can be seen as an attractive jurisdiction for investment and for workers. I think it's a step in the right direction for us to move toward ultimately a state where there is free trade actually within this country."

Now, it's enough of a problem that McGuinty appears willing to take Gordon Campbell's word on anything. But the problems with TILMA from Ontario's standpoint are even more obvious than for most provinces, as the article notes that much of Ontario's successful strategy for attracting auto-sector investment would be outlawed by the deal.

The question isn't whether Ontario or any other province is "strong" enough to compete, or even whether harmonizing standards is a good idea (which indeed it generally is). Instead, the larger issue underlying TILMA is the wilful erosion of government's ability to govern in the interests of a province. And with Canada's most powerful Lib showing the party's true colours by trying to get out of the business of governing, it'll be all the tougher for the federal party to keep pretending that it disagrees with the federal Cons' moves in the same direction.

Battles won and battles yet to come

As noted by Red Tory at babble, there's been awfully little attention to the fact that Canada won another round of softwood lumber litigation last week even as the Cons were trying to fully implement their sellout. But with Gordon Gibson highlighting that fact in the Globe and Mail, Canadians may soon get yet another reminder of just how many gains the Cons were eager to bargain away:

Eat a lot of crow, convince us we should walk away from a billion dollars, or face a dangerous election issue? These are the unattractive choices facing the Harper government after a huge lumber industry victory in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) last Friday.

That court ruled we are entitled to the return of every penny of the $5.3-billion of illegally imposed duties on our softwood exports over the years, as well as free entry of our products. But in the recent "Softwood Sellout Agreement," Ottawa said it would forgo $1-billion of the total duties owed it and agreed to a new border charge as high as 22.5 per cent.

Gibson notes that even if the Bloc continues to inexplicably side with the Cons in the House of Commons, there's always the potential for the Senate to refuse to go along with the Cons' effort to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And unlike the Accountability Act, this is an issue where a Senate standoff would likely further damage the Cons' popularity rather than working to the detriment of the Libs.

Of course, PMS has been far better on politics than policy so far, and may yet be able to rattle enough sabres against the Senate to push the measure through. But it's doubtful that many Canadians will be eager to hand Harper a majority solely for the sake of allowing him to continue giving gifts to his soulmate to the south...meaning that PMS could easily end up on the wrong side of his usual brinksmanship if the Libs in the Senate are paying enough attention.

(Edit: corrected source in first paragraph.)

On united opposition

The Cons may be doing their best to try to silence the Canadian Wheat Board. But with all three opposition parties now lined up against the Cons' attempts to do so, there's no prospect of the interests of farmers going unrepresented no matter how much the Cons try to muzzle the Board itself. And the longer that continues, the more likely it is that the Cons will realize that a minority government may not be the best time to alienate a good chunk of their core supporters.

Predictable results

The Bank of Canada is forecasting that the result of a tax-cutting, program-axing, Buscho-appeasing government will be less economic growth than previously projected. Which should be Jean-Pierre Blackburn's cue to once again search for a way to blame the environment.

On comparisons

The director of the British Antarctic Survey makes the much-needed comparison between global warming and terrorism, noting that despite the disproportionate amount of attention given to the latter, the dangers of climate change are far greater:

Governments need to fight climate change at least as much as they combat terrorism, said the leader of Britain's environmental research in Antarctica, since a warming climate would be more harmful than any terror attack.

"The impact of terrorism affects hundreds or thousands, or maybe...a million" victims, said Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey. He was in London the day of the July 2005, bombings.

"But the product, probability and impact of climate change is greater," he said in a lecture Monday at the National Research Council in Ottawa.

"And yet one doesn't see a government anywhere putting an equivalent amount of effort into protecting its citizens from that."

It's all the more sad that our current federal government doesn't seem interested in making any effort at all in dealing with the more serious issue. But when even those who have been close to the effects of terrorism can appreciate the greater threat posed by the damage we're doing to our own planet, it should be fairly clear what should be the higher priority for any government truly interested in the well-being of its citizens.

On spending priorities

There shouldn't be much doubt left as to whether the Cons were really pushing ahead with further combat in Afghanistan for the sake of assisting reconstruction, or solely in order to appease Bushco. But to put any such doubt to rest, the CP reports that while combat has done nothing but expand since the Cons took power, money earmarked for reconstruction in Afghanistan isn't actually being spent.

Needless to say, the contrast is rather stark against the Cons' plan to ram through sole-source defence spending which won't be of any benefit in Afghanistan. And the only available conclusion is that reconstruction in Afghanistan is merely an excuse to go on pouring money and troops into the country and into the military generally - not a goal which the Cons are remotely serious about pursuing.

Taxing decisions

Apparently Jim Flaherty hasn't made up his mind as to whether he thinks provinces should raise their taxes or cut them: last week it was the former, this week it's the latter. But his mind is absolutely made up that he thinks his own government can do nothing better than to continue arbitrarily hacking away at taxes - which should be ample reason to take the keys away from the do-nothing Cons.

The selloff begins

The Globe and Mail reports that the Cons may look to use jurisdictional excuses as a basis to privatize the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation:

The federal government is quietly testing the waters about privatizing the national housing agency, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. — a move that could bring billions of dollars into Ottawa's coffers but would also upset social-housing advocates and possibly cause upheaval in the bond market...

CMHC, a Crown corporation charged with making housing more affordable and accessible, is making about $1-billion a year in profit and is sitting on a $5-billion reserve of retained profits.

Those reserves are expected to rise to $9.5-billion within four years, according to the agency's corporate plan...

(T)he federal government has signalled it wants out of the housing business altogether, arguing that it's a provincial responsibility.

The solution to these pressures, sources say, could be privatization: selling the commercial parts of the agency to the private sector and keeping the social-housing parts of the corporation within government for now.

“Trial balloons are being floated around” and can be traced back to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's office, one Bay Street source said...

(T)here are several key reasons that privatization of CMHC could well be rejected as a viable option.

For one, capital markets are hooked on the agency's bonds. While proponents of privatization argue that the markets will just have to learn to live with fewer government-backed securities and make do with the ample supply of corporate bonds, there are signs that the Bank of Canada and the federal government wish to keep the government bond market highly liquid.

Plus, there's no guarantee that a sale of CMHC would be as successful as hoped. An auction would have to bring Ottawa a lump sum that more than makes up for CMHC's substantial revenue stream.

Privatizing CMHC would also be politically sensitive. Social-housing advocates fear that government support for affordable housing would get short shrift. “Behind this maze of commercialization, cost-cutting, downloading and competition are some very important questions about social housing,” says Michael Shapcott, a senior fellow at Toronto's Wellesley Institute.

CMHC's president, Karen Kinsley, argues in defence of her agency. About one-third of CMHC's insurance customers are people or organizations that the private-sector — Genworth, for now — won't touch, she said.

It's downright amazing that the current status of the CMHC would be seen as a problem. Surely a Crown corporation which generates profits, offers needed services to more people than would be served by the private sector, and also provides a means to address social issues should be seen as an example to be emulated rather than a flaw to be "fixed" through privatization.

But for the Cons, the prospect of a one-time payout (with its concurrent destruction of a federal government role) is apparently seen as more useful than the ongoing profit stream. And with the profitable side of CMHC thrown out the window and the payout presumably burned on yet more random tax credits, the Cons would be able to cry poverty themselves when needed social housing is brought up as an issue.

It's not clear from the article what type of process would need to be followed to allow for privatization, and it's hard to see why any of the opposition parties would be willing to play along. But if Flaherty is already floating trial balloons even in a minority situation, there can be no doubt that a majority Con government would be quick to sell off the CMHC...and that the next election may be the only chance for Canadians to keep that from happening.

Black thumbs

Another day, another couple of asinine Con comments on the environment. First, there's federal Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn, who doesn't think environmental progress is worth bothering with if a single business can find something to complain about in the effort:

Protecting the environment is important, but it shouldn't come at the cost of Canadian businesses, says federal Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn...

"You have to be pro-environment, but it's also necessary to go ahead in a flexible, measured manner so that businesses don't start an uproar," Blackburn told The Canadian Press.

The minister, who is from Quebec, cited the current crisis in his home province's forestry industry as an example of excessive conservation.

Last week alone, eight Quebec sawmills closed, cutting more than 1,600 jobs.

Blackburn said the industry is suffering from the effects of a 2004 decision by the Quebec government to reduce the size of logging areas, made following a campaign led by Quebec singer Richard Desjardins.

I'm not sure that admonition against ignoring the "log in your own (eye)" has ever been quite this appropriate. But the Cons' contempt for the environment can be readily seen in their willingness to make it a scapegoat for job losses which can be directly traced to their own war against the Canadian lumber industry. (And it's worth noting that the job losses have extended far beyond Quebec, meaning that Jean Charest's forestry policy doesn't do a thing to get the Cons off the hook based on even a cursory look at actual evidence.)

Meanwhile, it's also rather curious that the business uproar against Con strongarming apparently isn't a problem for Blackburn. But then, the appearance of machismo may well be the one thing that trumps even the almighty dollar for PMS.

Also today, Rona Ambrose appeared on Question Period...but it's not quite clear just what question she thought she was answering:

Ambrose revealed few details, but promised (the Cons' Clean Air Act) will contain measures to regulate greenhouse gases for industry and said there is a direct link between GHGs and global warming.

"They're not separate issues. When you attack global warming, you attack greenhouse gases. You can't separate the two of them from each other," Ambrose said.

The problem, of course, is that absolutely nobody with a shred of credibility has suggested otherwise. In fact, the closest thing to such a claim has come from the Cons themselves, who have gone out of their way to answer questions about global warming by changing the subject to smog, Lib inaction, or any other topic they can think of which will distract the listener from the Cons' unwillingness to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Which means that Ambrose's answer is at best an acknowledgement that she's had no idea what she's been talking about ever since taking office. And at worst, it sounds like an attempt to pretend that there's actually some need to argue against the position that global warming should instead be addressed through, say, a deployment of additional troops to Afghanistan - or perhaps another round of interminable consultations.

In sum, even PMS' notoriously-whipped cabinet doesn't seem able to avoid showing its disdain for both the environment in general, and the current state of knowledge about it in particular. And we can only hope that means that the environmentally-conscious Canadian public will vote to put a more responsible party in charge before the Cons manage to go downhill even further.

Zero is a stable number

In trying to excuse their softwood-lumber capitulation to the U.S. (and ensuing bullying of Canadians to accept the deal), the Cons eventually settled on the need for "stability" in the lumber industry. Now, Jean Charest makes clear just what kind of situation has become the "stable" status quo in Quebec:

Quebec Premier Jean Charest said Saturday the provincial government is preparing a plan to deal with the mounting crisis in Quebec's forestry industry, but was unready to provide details.

He did indicate that government action will be focused on assisting the hundreds of industry workers that that saw their jobs disappear in a recent spate of plant closures across Quebec a crisis that Charest calls the worst the industry has faced in the history of the province.

It's still not quite clear just who was clamoring for certain defeat rather than facing the risk of victory in continued litigation. But it's clear now that having seen the "stable" future forced upon them by PMS, Canada's employers have decided that they're sure enough that they can't compete to justify eliminating large chunks of the industry. And the investors, employees and communities alike who are suffering from those decisions can't be blamed if they'd like to give the Cons a nice, stable position far away from the government benches at the first available opportunity.

Let's be charitable

The latest Volpe scandal (involving money and staff obtained through a charitable foundation) looks even worse the previous ones at first glance. But in fairness to the Volpe campaign, doesn't he likely qualify as a charity case in any event?

On balancing agreements

A few months back, I discussed the regulatory harmonization agreement (the TILMA) between Alberta and B.C. based on. It appears that the media reports were less than thorough in assessing the deal, so after running into the actual TILMA text I'll take some time now to point out some of the problems with the deal which didn't appear in the press at the time.

My earlier positive comments were based in large part on the assumption that the deal would result in harmonization to the higher of the respective regulatory standards in Alberta and B.C. However, the deal itself only requires that the provinces "reconcile" their standards, with no mention of which direction that should take. From Article 5:

1. Parties shall mutually recognize or otherwise reconcile their existing standards and regulations that operate to restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility...

5. Parties shall cooperate to minimize differences in standards or regulations adopted or maintained to achieve legitimate measures.

In other words, any obligation to harmonize standards at all is based purely on future negotiation between the provinces. There's no clear language suggesting that the provinces are obligated to work toward the higher possible standard; that seems to be purely a side arrangement which can be ignored as the provinces actually decide how to harmonize.

In contrast, the provinces' obligation not to introduce or maintain any "measures" (a term which includes any form of government action) which could possibly affect trade except under the narrow terms of TILMA is far more clearly stated. Article 3 reads as follows:

Each party shall ensure that its measures do not operate to restrict or impair trade between or through the territory of the Parties, or investment or labour mobility between the Parties.

And Article 5 includes a specific commitment not to introduce new regulations or standards:

3. Parties shall not establish new standards or regulations that operate to restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility.

The exception to this obligation to pursue free trade above all else comes in Article 6, but only through a painfully restrictive provision:

A Party may adopt or maintain a measure that is inconsistent with...Articles 3, 4 or 5...provided that the Party can demonstrate that:
a) the purpose of the measure is to achieve a legitimate objective;
b) the measure is not more restrictive to trade, investment or labour mobility than is needed to achieve that legitimate objective; and
c) the measure is not a disguised restriction to trade, investment or labour mobility.

On its face, this provision offers a route through which restrictions on trade can be maintained where justifed. But there are a few major problems with the phrasing which look to make the provision at best shortsighted, and at worst potentially useless when it comes to allowing governments to justify what should be reasonable policy choices.

The first problem in Article 6 lies in the definition of "legitimate objective" (p. 33), which is confined to a closed list of matters. In principle, one can argue that the list probably includes most, if not all, matters which the provinces in question currently regulate (or might plan to regulate). But TILMA also ties down future government action. And while future needs could evolve in any direction, the agreement provides no scope for addressing those needs if they can't be lumped into the existing categories of "legitimate objective". Which makes for a striking contrast between the closed list of "legitimate objectives" or listed exceptions, and the absolutely open-ended commitment not to limit trade for any reason other than those presently-anticipated matters.

Sadly, this lack of foresight is far from the biggest problem with Article 6. That instead comes in (b), which essentially suggests that governments will be forced to prove that all regulations are set to precisely the optimal level "needed" to achieve their stated objective, and will be liable if they exceed that level in the slightest.

By way of comparison, consider that the test to uphold a government measure under s. 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms consists of a "rational connection" standard, and a "minimal impairment" test which at least allows for a government actor to choose from a range of reasonable options. In essence, (b) provides that governments face a significantly higher standard of justification in limiting freedom of trade between B.C. and Alberta than in violating their citizens' Charter rights, requiring them to be perfect in their assessment of what measures are justified rather than reasonable. And that seems far too likely to create an incentive for the provinces to avoid doing anything.

As an added bonus, even meeting the first two criteria isn't enough to defend a governmental action due to (c). This provision implies that a reviewing tribunal should look for reasons to declare that even though a legitimate objective exists and is met to the letter by the government's action, the action should instead be considered a disguised attempt to limit trade.

And to top it all off, the article as a whole places the onus on a province to "demonstrate" the application of each part of the test. In the case of (c), this essentially leaves provinces with the obligation to prove a negative in order to maintain or implement any restrictions on trade.

The rest of the agreement contains additional problematic possibilities. For example:
- Article 7.2 may (depending on the article's interpretation) force each province to seek comments from the other before implementing any future trade restrictions;
- Article 8 provides that provinces may delete agreed exemptions unilaterally but may only add new ones by agreement, meaning that a single right-wing government could singlehandedly destroy a province's entitlement to use exemptions which a previous government had fought for (the same applies to "transitional measures" under Article 9); and
- Article 26 provides NAFTA-style ability for individuals or for-profit corporations to seek damages for any government action which violates any provision of TILMA, including those discussed above. (Note as a point of interest that under the definitions of "enterprise" and "person", this same ability doesn't extend to not-for-profit entities.)

In sum, while I stand by my view that it's perfectly possible for a trade agreement to both expand trade possibilities and appropriately protect governments' freedom to act, on a detailed review there's little reason to believe that TILMA is such an agreement. Which means that rather than looking to sign on to TILMA, Saskatchewan would be best off looking to negotiate a more balanced agreement - whether with Alberta and/or B.C., or with other provinces who aren't so determined to tie their own hands for ideological reasons.

On misplaced trust

The Globe and Mail reports on the continued growth of income trusts in Canada, noting that in the longer term the trust form of organization may continue expanding for reasons beyond its tax implications:

Until this week, in fact, when (BCE CEO Michael) Sabia announced the creation of Canada's largest income trust, the company had argued that the telecom business was changing too rapidly for management to adopt such an inflexible business structure.

But the straitjacket, for many, explains much of the appeal of the almighty trust. What started as a way for small companies to cut their tax bills has become something else — a tool for shareholders to reclaim some of the discretion that once belonged almost exclusively to CEOs and directors, and at the same time address one of their deepest concerns: a lack of faith in corporate executives to spend their excess cash wisely...

Indeed, one of the reasons shareholders have gravitated toward trusts is that they function as a kind of a leash on executives bent on sacrificing upfront, predictable profits in their core business in favour of empire-building or diversification. Because trusts pay out the bulk of their cash to unitholders, they are forced, in essence, to ask permission from investors every time they want to raise money for a large acquisition...

The trust market can be a stern taskmaster, and it expects its cash distributions to be made routinely, with no exceptions. If a regular company has a bad quarter, or makes an acquisition that doesn't pay for itself within a prescribed time, it can typically soldier on. For a trust, however, the problems are more transparent, and one bad deal can force management to cut distributions. When that happens, the punishment is usually swift.

Now, it's understandable that shareholders would seek a way to increase their say over the management of businesses generally. But that can easily be done through better corporate governance processes within corporations themselves - and without the wider downsides of a move toward the income-trust format.

After all, Canada already faces a shortage of savings, which is only exacerbated by the Cons' eagerness to encourage yet more consumption through indiscriminate GST cuts. And it's hard to see how matters can do anything but get worse when the latest business fad sets increased cash payouts as the default, punishes businesses harshly for short-term downturns which may not be reasonably avoidable, and makes longer-term investment the exception rather than something to be expected.

Unfortunately, any increased move toward income trusts only seems destined to make Canada's productivity concerns even worse. And with the Cons apparently planning to do nothing more than "monitor" the situation with no plan for action, it'll take a change in government for anything to be done before the damage is irreversible.

Separate and unequal

Don Martin rightly laments the media's failure to stand up to PMS. But Tim Naumetz reports that the pattern of secrecy and information suppression is only getting worse, as Con ministers have happily bought into a separate computer system to try to keep their own documents from becoming subject to Access to Information requests:

A government briefing note to Treasury Board President John Baird discloses the existence of a confidential computer system designed to keep ministerial documents, including contracts, from the public.

The memorandum sent to Mr. Baird soon after the Conservative government took office last February advised him that even though the Tories promised to make cabinet ministers subject to the Access to Information Act, a "segregated" Internet server could be established to ensure his documents could not be obtained under the act...

"Control for the purposes of the ATIA goes beyond physical possession to encompass records over which there is some sort of legal control or a power to produce," the memo says. "That is why it is important for records of the Minister or exempt (political) staff to be kept separate from departmental employees."

The memo adds that the same considerations applied to contracts concluded by a minister's office.

"Once information on contracts is transmitted from the President's Office to TBS (Treasury Board Secretariat) officials, they fall within the scope of the ATIA and are accessible, subject to the relevant statutory exemptions," says the memo, obtained by Ottawa researcher Ken Rubin under the Access to Information Act.

Mr. Baird's communications director confirmed the minister agreed to the arrangement -- despite a Conservative election campaign promise to open up ministerial records -- but described it as "routine administrative business" that applied to all cabinet ministers.

Communications director Mike Van Soelen said the measure was in place to streamline the system for Access to Information officials, who otherwise would have to "sort through everything" to keep ministerial records from being released through the act...

NDP MP Pat Martin said Mr. Baird's agreement to establish a separate computer server system indicates the Conservatives may have dropped plans to include ministerial records in the Access to Information Act.

"At the very moment they are crafting legislation to expand freedom of information, they were planning to circumvent it," said Mr. Martin.

Of course, the Libs deserve blame for setting up the system as well. But they at least can claim to have been relatively consistent in their contempt for public accessibility - unlike the Cons, whose campaign for transparency has once again been shown to apply to eveybody besides themselves.

The result for now is to ensure that documents in the hands of the office of the Cons' point man on accountability are kept immune from the access to information process regardless of whether or not the documents actually fit within a statutory exemption. Which leaves only the question of whether both media figures and voters will give the Cons a free pass on their broken promise of accountability, or whether they'll recognize the need for a governing party which consistently recognizes the value of genuine transparency.