On transparency

The Cons take their regime of secrecy to yet another new low, placing a gag order on media attending a public conference on global corporate responsibility:

A government-sponsored roundtable concerning corporate responsibility of Canadian mining companies operating in developing countries was subject to media restrictions Tuesday, even as industry and watchdog groups urged "transparency and truth."

Reporters could enter sessions open to the general public during which seven-minute presentations were made by interested parties but were "not welcome to report what is seen or heard," a Foreign Affairs spokeswoman said as the Montreal roundtable opened.

And in case there was any doubt whether this was based on need or on animosity toward the press:

Pierre Gratton, spokesman for the Mining Association of Canada, said a subcommittee of panel members considered media restrictions.

"What we got from government was that 'public' in their minds did not include media," he said.

Not that it's a surprise for the Cons' idea of "public involvement" to be limited to what they want to report from a session. But given that no harm was apparently done by public access, there's absolutely no reason why a press gag order would serve any purpose other than to keep the actual subject matter of the conference from wider discussion. And indeed, the worst possible outcomes mooted as other possible reasons for the gag (particularly reprisals against speakers) appear to be precisely the ones which would involve people motivated enough to find an individual to attend and report back, rather than relying on media reports.

Which leaves only the combined desire of the Cons and the businesses involved to avoid public knowledge of their actions and policies to the greatest extent possible. And if there's any lesson we should have learned by now, it's that where there's that kind of concerted effort to hide away from the wider public, it usually reflects a need for as much scrutiny as can possibly be applied.

On influences

Given the extent to which the Cons' electoral strategy is supposedly based on the model followed by John Howard in Australia, it's worth wondering whether Howard's sudden turnaround on carbon emissions trading will lead PMS to reevaluate the Cons' repudiation of the Kyoto Protocol. But it seems all too likely that the Cons will gravitate toward Australia's current position, rather than recognizing and following the trend toward action on global warming.

Same old story

There's rightly been plenty of talk today about the appalling content found on the blog of one of Lib candidate Glen Pearson's core campaign staffers. But a couple of points seem to have been largely missed in all the discussion (or at least in the main posts on the issue).

First, it's worth pointing out that a trip to opposition doesn't seem to have put an end to the Libs' usual assumption of insider privilege - and indeed Pearson has taken that to a new level in assuming that another party's candidate should be willing to clam up for the good of the Libs. As noted by Robert, that action doesn't speak highly at all of Pearson's intelligence - but it looks likely that the problem relates at least as much to the sense of entitlement that still forms the main guiding principle for the Libs.

Second, the Burghardt fiasco only highlights similarities between the Libs and Cons that both parties presumably want to avoid. Burghardt's hateful attitudes apparently didn't stop him from fitting into either party, and both parties have now shown that they think little enough of voters to figure they can get away with hiding information about themselves (though only the Cons have apparently succeeded in that effort). Which makes it all the more sad that both appear to be operating under the assumption that they're the voters' only two real choices - and all the more important for the voters of London North Centre to remind them otherwise.

I'll grant that there is one problematic aspect to how the NDP dealt with the issue: there's no apparent reason why the NDP should have considered passing the matter to the Cons rather than revealing the truth for itself. But at worst, the NDP can only be questioned over its means of making facts public.

In contrast, the real embarrassment lies in both Burghardt's initial remarks, and the Libs' attempt to put together an interparty backroom deal to suppress the truth. Which is particularly rich given Pearson's own efforts to call out Haskett earlier in the campaign for her refusal to reveal herself to the press.

The NDP should properly be credited, not blamed, for releasing important information about one of its competitors rather than acquiescing in Pearson's request (whether direct or not) for a joint cover-up - even if that won't stop some Lib hacks from trying to argue the contrary. And in addition to highlighting the discriminatory attitudes and contempt for the voters that still pervade a significant part of Canadian politics, the incident should also make it clear that neither the Libs nor the Cons can credibly claim to be part of any solution.

On court challenges

Back when the Cons first decided to give away additional patent protection to brand-name drug companies at the expense of Canadian citizens, the NDP's rightful concerns went largely unheeded. But now that the generic drug industry is going to court to have the change overturned, the change appears likely to come under the public scrutiny it deserves:

Canada's generic drug industry is set to launch a major court challenge today of new rules that extend the "monopoly" over brand-name medicines, saying the regulations are illegal and will cost the health care system $100-million a year.

The Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association will ask the Federal Court to quash rules that give brand-name drug firms an additional three years of "data protection" -- from five years to eight -- before generics can sell cheaper copies of their products.

Provincial governments, insurance companies and individuals will be forced to buy more expensive brand-name medication in each of those extra years of protection, the lawsuit warns...

Federal legislation stipulates Canada must align its intellectual-property rules with the requirements of the North American Free Trade Agreement and other trade deals.

But those treaties require only five years of protection, says the court application to be filed today by the generic association. So the changes implemented last month give the brand-name manufacturers three more years of "monopoly" than allowed by law, and must be struck down, the legal action argues.

The new Canadian rules also give generic manufacturers in the United States an advantage over their Canadian competitors because the U.S. data-protection period is still only five years, argued Mr. Keon.

On first glance, it doesn't appear likely that the regulatory change would give rise to a particularly strong legal challenge. But the more important battle is likely that in the court of public opinion. And if the suit brings enough attention to the Cons' reckless willingness to give gifts to big pharma out of the public purse, then it may yet be possible to get the amendments reversed in the longer term.

Pointing out the costs

It's been remarkable how little attention the Alberta/B.C. TILMA has received since the first set of highly inaccurate articles which sang its praises. But Murray Dobbin adds one more voice on the issue:

As part of their sales job, Alberta's Gary Mar and B.C.'s Colin Hansen have claimed the agreement will not result in lower provincial standards — just ones that are “appropriate.” In reality, however, the agreement can only lead to deregulation because businesses are only likely to sue governments over regulations they think are too high, not ones that are too weak...

Governments can go on bended knee to trade investment panels and argue that their regulations were “necessary,” but trade dispute panels rarely accept such arguments. Plus, this agreement only recognizes a limited list of regulatory objectives as “legitimate.”

For example, a city's desire to prevent urban blight is not on the list of legitimate objectives, so municipal bans on billboards would likely be a violation.

No wonder Gary Mar could tell a business audience in Richmond that the dispute process is “everything Canadian business asked for.” The pact creates endless potential for litigation against government right down to the school board level, without any demonstrable benefit. A 1998 study done for the B.C. government found that: “efforts to liberalize interprovincial trade will have almost no effect on trade flows. The reality is that interprovincial trade barriers are already very low.”...

When asked about the constitutionality of the agreement, Steven Shrybman, a partner in the law firm of Sack, Goldblatt, and Mitchell, commented that “a basic principle of constitutional law is that a government cannot fetter its own legislative prerogatives by abandoning its authority to govern.”

Sounds like what the Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement is all about.

Sadly, the current governments of either B.C. or Alberta don't apparently see any problem with trading away all chance of effective government for essentially no gain. And indeed it looks like PMS is eager to do the much the same damage on a federal level.

But despite the existence of such clear and present threats to good government at all levels, it's still an open question as to how many (if any) other provinces will throw away their ability to govern by signing onto TILMA. And the more attention we can direct to the real effect of TILMA and any federal equivalent rather than the ridiculous sales pitches of their promoters, the better chance there will be of stopping such indiscriminate anti-government ideology in its tracks.

A growing dissent

The CP reports that Alan Riddell isn't giving in to expulsion by the Cons, bringing a challenge in court to the decision to toss him from the party. And he doesn't appear to be lacking supporters in the fight:

Neil McFadyen, longtime membership secretary for the (Ottawa South) riding association, said he and others on the local executive support Riddell in his showdown with national party headquarters.

“We think what’s happened to him is terrible and unjust,” said McFadyen.

“He’s been the victim of some party bullies who have put their own interests ahead of our riding association...I hope he wins his court case and those guys get fired.”

McFadyen identified the “guys” he’d like to see ousted as Don Plett, the party’s national president, and Doug Finley, the national campaign chairman, both key lieutenants of the prime minister.

Plett refused to comment on the affair on Monday and Finley could not immediately be reached.

It remains to be seen how long it takes for McFadyen and anybody else who speaks out against the central command to join Riddell as ex-Cons. But the list of riding associations who rightly expected better than to be on the end of PMS' leash is growing. And when even Con organizers can see the harm that comes from the party's complete lack of respect for anybody outside its power structure, there's every reason to think that voters won't be far behind.

Update: As noted by Robert, the Cons' executive council could instead (or perhaps in addition) remove the entire riding association. Though sadly, the bylaw setting out the exact process for withdrawing recognition doesn't seem to be among the Cons' "key documents". (So much for trying to earn some extra credit.)

Priorities

While Canadians want to see action on health care, the environment and the quagmire in Afghanistan, Canada's Reactionary New Government is instead focusing its efforts toward a war on innovation. It remains to be seen which other concepts will join equality and innovation in the Cons' dustbin - but it doesn't seem at all unlikely that the resulting list of terms would offer a far better reflection of Canadian values than anything the Cons could plausibly use to describe their own policy slate.

Costs in context

Robert beats me to the punch in contrasting the Cons' modest investment in microcredit to the massive expenses put into the military. While the new investment is certainly better than nothing, it's shameful both that Canada has been so late to react to the effectiveness of microcredit, and that the Cons seem downright proud of such a small commitment to a strategy which can do more than any other to build economies and lives in underdeveloped countries.

Update: And it gets worse, as it turns out that the announced money isn't new at all:

While MacKay told the opening of the conference that the announcement marks an "elevated level of support," the Canadian International Development Agency said spending on such programs won't actually increase.

Over the past five years, CIDA has spent about $32 million a year on microcredit initiatives, representing about one per cent of its spending budget.

Sunday's announcement "will likely fall within that $32 million," said agency spokeswoman Bronwyn Cruden.

Needless to say, that revelation surely won't stop the Cons from taking full credit for the announcement, however meaningless it may be.

(Edit: typo.)

The stenography continues

Joining David Frum on the official "Guantanamo is a Super Happy Fun Land Tour" was Peter Worthington, who shows his own embarrassing lack of ability to look behind the expected facade set up for visitors being led around the facility:

While I can’t speak about what went on in the past, after visiting Guantanamo, I have no hesitation in affirming that nothing resembling torture or cruel or inhumane treatment is going on — unless it’s actions by some of the detainees. In fact, I’d argue the American are being ridiculously considerate, if not soft; their “humane” policy invites the contempt of their wards, more than it does appreciation or respect...

(A)s a visitor there was no chance to talk to detainees — not because Admiral Harris was unwilling, but because Geneva Convention rules forbid it. And Gitmo goes beyond Geneva Conventions, and has annual reviews of inmates to assess changes of attitude and treatment. No photographs, no recorders, no laptops. Just eyes — and notes.

Some could argue — and undoubtedly activists and lawyers will — that on a guided tour, a visitor is susceptible to spin and what those in charge tell him.

True, up to a point, but when the average weight gain among of the 432 detainees (from 24 countries) is 18.4 lbs. — end of argument. Who’s ever heard of victims of prolonged “torture” ever gaining weight? It simply doesn’t happen.

In other words, Worthington is apparently of the view that if Syria had only kept an ample supply of pastries on hand, then Maher Arar would have had absolutely nothing to complain about.

Needless to say, the issue is far more complex than that. There's little basis given for the officials' claim as to weight in the first place; plenty of reason to doubt whether weight gain correlates in any way to proper treatment of prisoners; and indeed some reason to suspect that large-scale, systemic weight gain could reflect a deprivation of access to any physical activity. And any remotely balanced report would take those factors into account, rather than ignoring them entirely or writing off "what went on in the past" as irrelevant.

But then, the U.S. has never had the slightest interest in balance, and is apparently on yet another PR offensive to try to pretend that the Guantanamo detainees are having the time of their lives. And with Worthington and Frum playing along in exchange for being part of the "specially selected" group allowed to visit Gitmo, it looks like the impending Dem investigations into Guantanamo and other issues will have to counteract yet another round of disinformation.

For the sake of consistency

David Frum is apparently of the view that where a larger group of people includes a subset who provide dubious excuses for some of their actions, that lack of credibility provides justification to lock up the whole and throw away the key. I can only wonder whether he'd be willing to apply that logic to a Canadian group with an equal propensity toward patently ridiculous or inconsistent explanations for its actions.

Update: Canadian Cynic has more.

As an added bonus, let's take a look at one of the excuses which Frum finds so implausible:

A former Egyptian army officer acknowledged that he had undergone training in Afghanistan at a camp run by the Kashmiri group, Lashkar-i-Taibi (LiT). However, he said, he had been listening to the BBC in February 2001 and heard an announcer describe LiT as a terrorist organization. After that, he said, he quit the group and had never had anything to do with them again. How had he supported himself in Afghanistan over the following year? He had, he said, relied on charity from his fellow Muslims.

Which seems either to be an indictment of faith-based social programs in general ("he must be lying! surely a person couldn't survive off of religious charity!"), or a slam at Muslims in particular. Your mileage may vary - but either way, this one looks to be worth highlighting.

In remembrance

For Remembrance Day, I don't have much to add that hasn't already been said by Paladiea and Chris. But let's note in addition that the wars which we remember today were fought for freedom as well as for peace - and that we should thus also respect and honour the memory of fallen soldiers past and present by fighting to preserve the liberty which some would forfeit out of fear.

No refuge

The Globe and Mail reports on a new set of controversies surrounding the Immigration and Refugee Board:

The Immigration and Refugee Board will be reopening about two dozen refugee cases following complaints of sexual misconduct against a Toronto board member who is no longer hearing cases or permitted access to its offices...

The investigation of Mr. Fournier — as well as the misconduct of two other board members — has brought more public criticism of the tribunal, which is labouring under a shortage of members and trying to overcome its reputation for patronage appointments and unqualified adjudicators.

Steve Ellis, 47, a Toronto IRB member, was suspended last month after allegations that he offered to assist a South Korean woman in her refugee claim in return for sexual favours. He has since been charged by the RCMP, and the board has ordered an internal investigation into the incident and the possible reopening of cases he heard.

Yves Bourbonnais, who was with the IRB's appellate division, was sentenced to six years in prison in June for involvement in influence-peddling rings that demanded bribes as much as $15,000 from new immigrants and asylum seekers to guarantee their stay in Canada. He pleaded guilty to 30 charges of conspiracy and obstructing justice...

The federal government has been criticized over the years for failing to implement a merit-based process to select board members. Under the Liberals, many defeated political candidates and party workers were appointed to the $100,000-a-year positions, although in 2004 a merit-based selection process was introduced.

The Conservative government has made few appointments, a cause of concern to Jean-Guy Fleury, the IRB's chairman, who recently told the standing committee on citizenship and immigration that it was unusual to have two members under suspension...

Bill Siksay, NDP MP for the British Columbia riding of Burnaby-Douglas and the party's immigration critic, said the Fournier case highlights the need for a transparent process to deal with complaints against IRB members. “It's life and death for refugees who come before the IRB and we need to ensure this process is beyond reproach. We need codes of conduct that are clear.”

It's certainly a plus that some action has been taken in response to the past cases. But it's still far from certain that the process for refugee claimants is either properly resourced, or free of patronage and corruption. And it'll only be to Canada's detriment in the long run if the effect is both to exclude deserving refugees, and to cast doubt on those who are admitted.

A united front

I'm not quite sure why it took this long for Lorne Calvert and Gary Doer to put together a common position on the future of the Canadian Wheat Board. But the two premiers have come out swinging in demanding a producer vote before any changes to wheat sales:

Saskatchewan Premier Lorne Calvert and Manitoba Premier Gary Doer Friday called upon the federal government to hold an immediate plebiscite on the Canadian Wheat Board's single-desk marketing authority.

"There will be those who support the concept of single-desk marketing, those who do not," said Calvert at a Friday morning news conference in Saskatoon. "But surely we can resolve that; we can all support the democratic right of the producer to choose. I'm expecting the national government will do the right thing."...

Last week, Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl announced a plebiscite on the CWB would take place next year for barley marketing but producers will not be asked, at least for now, if they want to continue the single-desk marketing system for wheat or be allowed to opt out and sell on the open market.

"I hear people that are absolutely supporting the single-desk system that support a vote, and I've heard people that are opposed to it wanting a vote. This is actually one principle of this debate that unites farmers," said Doer.

Particularly after a plebiscite has been announced for barley producers, there's no reason at all why wheat producers should see their marketing board undermined without having an opportunity to vote on the issue. And if the Cons really want to follow through on a plan to undermine wheat farmers without a plebiscite, then those affected will have plenty of opportunity to instead make their point in electoral votes to come.

On tilted playing fields

The London North Centre by-election offers yet another example of the media's efforts to play up a Lib/Con dichotomy, as the Con candidate's media blackout (along with the Lib's resulting criticism) is getting more attention than everything the NDP candidate, the Green leader, and the rest of the contenders have to say. Which is a shame, since if there's anything that can actually pull the Cons into a race where they should be fighting a losing battle for third place, it's that kind of horse-race mentality from both the media and the Libs.

Unintentionally appropriate

Not to take anything away from what Howard Dean has accomplished, and indeed I very much hope the NDP will follow (and is following) a Canadian equivalent of his 50-state strategy. But doesn't it speak volumes that the keynote speaker for the fractured Libs is himself facing an intra-party coup back home?

Sanity Watch

Sometimes, Democracy Watch can be an invaluable source on accountability issues. Other times, however, it can also be something else entirely:

Saying that politicians should have to undergo lie-detector tests during election campaigns, a citizen's watchdog group has filed a complaint with the federal ethics commissioner over taxing income trusts.

The Conservative government clearly broke a campaign promise when it proceeded to tax the lucrative trusts Oct. 31, Duff Conacher, co-ordinator of Democracy Watch, told a news conference today...

There should be some kind of fine for politicians who lie and failing that, Conacher suggested a more basic, if somewhat unrealistic, solution: "In future, we could switch to a lie detector for all political leaders during election campaigns."

Needless to say, Conacher's proposals are based on an unrealistic appraisal of both the campaign process, and the responsibilities of a government. There's no apparent reason why the Cons couldn't have genuinely believed their promise at the time they made it, then acquired a better appreciation of the effect of income trusts in the meantime; surely a government can't be obligated to refuse to accept or act on any new information it acquires after an election is done with. Moreover, neither the Ethics Commissioner nor a lie detector test can be infallible - and the use of either to vet campaign promises would likely drain campaigns even further of content, resulting in every candidate promising only to consider every issue before acting upon it.

Which isn't to say that one can't fairly point out cases of supposed dishonesty. But the electorate, not a machine or a parliamentary official, needs to be the final arbiter of whether a government has justified an apparent switch in policy. And Conacher would do better to focus his concerns on informing Canada's citizens directly of broken promises, rather than seeking to take power out of the hands of the voters.

Injustice in the making

The Globe and Mail reports that the Cons are right back to their efforts to pick fights with the judiciary, this time by changing the judicial appointment process without consultation:

Beverley McLachlin, Canada's Chief Justice, along with a powerful council of the country's top judges issued an unprecedented rebuke yesterday to Justice Minister Vic Toews for hatching a plan to arbitrarily change the way judges are chosen.

The Canadian Judicial Council expressed dismay that Mr. Toews is planning to introduce "significant changes to the composition and functioning of the Judicial Advisory Committees," secret groups which are set up in each region to vet candidates for the 1,100 federal judgeships across the country.

Chief Justice McLachlin, who chairs the council, urged Mr. Toews to include the judiciary and key legal bodies in any discussion of changes to the committee vetting process...

(T)he committees are typically composed of five senior members: one nominated by the federal government; one by the chief justice of the province; one from the provincial bar association or law society; one from the provincial government; and a lay member.

They rank nominees as being very qualified, qualified or not qualified. The federal government is then free to choose from the large pools of judges who have been vetted in each region. They almost always choose someone in the qualified or very qualified category.

Mr. Toews also said the government plans to move to a simple pass or fail rating for judicial nominees. A spokesman for his office could not be reached last night.

"That is a transparent attempt to broaden his discretion and reduce the power of the committees," Mr. Addario of the criminal-lawyers group said last night. "Inevitably, you get more patronage and less qualified appointments."

In principle, the idea of police representation on the advisory committees isn't a bad one...though there's no reason at all why that couldn't be achieved through a consultative process (with due regard for other interests which may need to be represented) rather than by fiat.

But the other planned change doesn't seem to have any reasonable basis. Surely a government looking to appoint the best possible candidates to the bench should want to receive a more specific ranking on each prospective judge, rather than a mere pass or fail rating. Instead, the Cons appear to be headed further down the road toward less information and more patronage. And that can only draw the rightful ire of both the current judiciary, and Canadians in general who want competence rather than partisanship to be the guiding principle in judicial appointments.

On failed polarization

There's been plenty of comment on the CBC/Environics poll showing Canadians' declining support for continued combat in Afghanistan. But while the near-even split in general approval for the mission and strong skepticism about the chances of success show some widespread doubt about the Cons' strategy, the complete failure of PMS' attempt at jingoism lies in the large proportional decline in strong approval for the quagmire:

The number of Canadians who "strongly approve" of military participation in Afghanistan is at its lowest level yet, according to a new CBC News survey.

In a survey of 2,005 Canadians conducted by Environics Research Group from Nov. 2 to Nov. 6, 19 per cent said they strongly approved of Canadian military participation in Afghanistan. The poll is considered accurate within 2.2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

That represented a four percentage point drop from a similar poll in October, and the lowest level of support overall in four years. When the first survey was conducted in 2002, 38 per cent said they strongly approved of Canada's presence in Afghanistan.

In principle, the Cons likely wouldn't be unhappy with an even split for and against the mission if the effect was to motivate their base. But based on the poll, it's clear that PMS and company have failed just as miserably from a narrowcasting standpoint as in an attempt to build a consensus for an extended war.

Meanwhile, the "strongly disapprove" numbers have been relatively consistent since March, suggesting both that the Cons haven't managed to polarize much of anything over the past six months, and that anti-Con voters will be far more motivated by Afghanistan as an issue than Con supporters. Which means that it's bad news for the Cons that Afghanistan is growing in prominence as an election issue - and that despite their best efforts, it's beyond doubt that the Cons will be unable to follow the Republicans' past success (with a heavy emphasis on "past") in building a large majority through warmongering.

A predictable reversal

Instead of listening to both himself and the Canadian public, Jim Flaherty has now done a complete about-face from an argument that he made only yesterday, hinting that another round of random tax cuts is more important to him than health care, education, or any of the other programs that Canadians value. But Flaherty would be well advised to keep in mind that Canadian citizens will get the chance to pass judgment on his long-term plan before long - perhaps before another budget ever passes. And the more Flaherty ignores public demands for strengthened investments in Canada's institutions, the more likely voters will be to make sure that Canada doesn't follow his road map for long.

A popular investment

An Environics poll confirms Jim Flaherty's epiphany that Canadians want to see their government provide effective health care, and are willing to pay more in taxes if it results in better investment in medical research:

In a recent survey by Environics Research Group, 91 per cent of respondents said they want more government funding for health and medical research. The poll was commissioned by Research Canada, an umbrella organization of health researchers and hospitals.

Of the 1,000 people surveyed, 69 per cent said they'd even be willing to pay a dollar per week out of their own pocket for increased research.

Jacques Hendlisz, Director-General of Douglas Hospital in Quebec and Director of Research Canada, said the survey confirms that health research must become a government priority.

"The size of the numbers surprised us," he said. "It's clear that Canadians favour (health research), and Canadians don't seem to mind spending money there."

Based on the poll numbers, it looks like a move toward further research would be both good politics and good policy for the Cons to invest more in health research. But it remains to be seen whether Flaherty will have retreated into his usual ideology by budget time rather than recognizing both the need and the support for added research funding.

Liberal, Tory, same old EI abuse

Tom Brodbeck points out that the Cons have predictably done next to nothing to change the Employment Insurance surplus that they complained about for ages:

The Employment Insurance Commission this week announced a small cut to EI premiums effective Jan. 1, 2007.

You'll save a whole seven cents per $100 of insurable earnings come the new year. That means someone earning $30,000 a year will save about $1.75 a month.

If you're an employer, the premiums you pay for your workers will fall 10 cents per $100 of insurable earnings...

What the EIC doesn't tell you, however, is that despite the small premium cut the massive EI surplus -- pegged at $48 billion last year -- is projected to grow by another $1.5 billion this year, even though the federal government claims EI is now operated on a break-even basis.

According to Human Resources Development Canada's own 2005-2006 estimates, the EI surplus is expected to grow to $49.5 billion in 2006...

And if you think the Conservative government in Ottawa is doing anything differently with this fraudulent scheme than their Liberal predecessors, think again. They haven't changed a thing...

They're following the same legislation the Liberals passed and they, too, continue to overcharge workers, including many part-time employees who are forced to pay into EI but are ineligible for benefits.

Naturally, I'd disagree with Brodbeck on a couple of points: the "fraudulent" description goes too far, and contrary to Brodbeck's apparent view there's no reason why a proper fix to EI shouldn't also include some increases in eligibility and benefits (particularly to ensure that part-time workers aren't left out in the cold).

That said, EI premiums are generally about as damaging as a government revenue source can be in specifically targeting both sides of an employment relationship and thereby providing a direct disincentive to employment. Which means that they should be anathema to virtually all shades of the political spectrum to the extent that they're not legitimately used to fund EI itself.

And with the Cons now joining the Libs in putting a convenient source of added money ahead of anything resembling principle, it's clear that new leadership is needed to ensure that EI finally resumes its proper role as an insurance program rather than a cash cow.

Weakness in victory

After last night's massive victory in the House, the Democrats sadly resumed their losing ways today, pulling out the kid gloves within hours of the electorate's sweeping rejection of Bushco:

Democrat Nancy Pelosi, set to become the first woman Speaker of the House of Representatives, pledged to co-operate with Republicans as "the Speaker of the House, not the Speaker of the Democrats."

Talk of impeaching Bush "is off the table," she said. But she urged him "to listen to the voice of the people" on the war.

Now, there are undoubtedly valid reasons not to actually follow through on impeaching Bush. But that doesn't mean there was any reason at all to completely take the option off the table before a single Dem-led committee has conducted a single hearing into Bushco's abuses over the past few years.

Rather than building on the Dems' electoral success, Pelosi has only strengthened Bush's hand by signalling that Bush won't face particularly severe consequences for either past crimes or future obstruction, and by giving the Republicans the ability to claim a Dem flip-flop if Bush predictably tests and exceeds the limits of Pelosi's tolerance. And it's not as if the Dems get anything out of the statement, as Bush hasn't apparently made any matching promises in return (even to avoid vetoing the Dems' 100-hour agenda which would be an entirely legitimate mandate to claim).

The Dems still have a chance to uncover and undo some of Bushco's damage to the U.S. over the next couple of years to set themselves up for 2008. But if Pelosi and company really believe they can afford to play nice with a ruthless political machine, then this year's results may only be a temporary reprieve from a longer-term decline for both the party and the U.S. as a whole.

Update: And as CC points out, it isn't Pelosi alone looking to minimize the victory.

Save this quote

Jim Flaherty surprisingly makes a point which he himself seems determined to neglect in responding to criticism over the planned tax on income trusts:

“I just think most Canadians are realistic people and they realize we have to pay taxes in this country to pay for valuable social services: health care, education and infrastructure,” he said.

Mr. Flaherty said he believes Canadians feel that “if corporations aren't paying their fair share then somebody else is going to pay, and that it's going to be them — and that it's the government's duty to act on that.”

It's hard to see what reasonable person would disagree with the sentiment. But then, Flaherty and his gang of merry government-hackers are usually the first to try to pretend that any tax is an abomination rather than a reasonable price for needed and valuable services. And while it's all too likely that the Cons will return to that position around budget time (if not sooner), now Flaherty will be left arguing against himself in addition to the bulk of Canadians when he reverts to form.

Stifling conversation

In case there was any doubt whether Gordon Campbell and PMS were generally working from the same playbook, NUPGE notes that Campbell's laughable "conversation" on health care will deliberately segregate health-care workers from the main discussion:

The Liberal government of B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell should reverse its plan to exclude health care providers from the 16 regional public forums that are the centerpiece of the $10-million Conversation on Health, say unions representing more than 100,000 B.C. health care workers...

Citizens who register to be one of the 100 participants randomly selected for the 16 regional forums – but identify themselves as health care professionals – will be segregated from the public meetings.

The unions say health care providers should be able to engage in the public forums on the same basis as other citizens who live, work and access health care in their communities. Citizens also have the right to hear from those who deliver health care services directly to their families, they argue.

Reversing the decision as to who's allowed to participate would solve part of the problem. But the larger issue is the obvious predetermination of the final outcome in favour of privatization - which presumably won't be affected no matter how the process is improved. Which should make it all the more clear that the only really important conversation surrounding health care in British Columbia is one as to how to remove Campbell from power.

Lessons unlearned

Apparently Bev Oda and Maxime Bernier are merrily repeating the mistakes that got Sarmite Bulte booted from the House of Commons last election - and Oda is apparently proud that the Accountability Act leaves open loopholes which allow her to accept large-scale fundraising help from the industry she's charged with regulating. Which leaves only the question whether Bernier and Oda will face the same punishment for the same crime against ethical government.

Update: Now after her weak attempt to defend the fund-raiser, it turns out that Oda won't be attending after all - which the CP attempts to link to a pattern of the Cons having "acted quickly in response to accusations of ethical breaches". But surely the more important message is that the Cons seem entirely willing to engage in questionable practices until they're loudly called out on them...meaning that there's no reason at all to believe the Cons' supposed interest in ethics is anything more than a PR exercise.

Inroads and outroads

Politique Vert takes note of the Greens' problems in the Repentigny by-election (and perhaps more importantly with what looks like a cover-up of what may have happened). But with both the Greens and the Libs now sitting out the by-election, the end result in the riding could be tremendously positive both for the NDP in particular, and for those opposed to Harper's Cons generally.

Keep in mind that in the 2006 federal election, Repentigny was one of the ridings where a large number of disaffected Libs appear to have switched their votes to the Cons. This may conceivably have the Cons believing they can mount a by-election challenge to the Bloc, particularly with the Libs out of the picture entirely. But it also means that Repentigny's voters may provide answers for two key questions.

First, there's the question of how the Cons' term in office has affected their public perception in Quebec. This should be fairly easily answered by the Cons' absolute percentage: if they fail to add to their general election percentage of 18% (or better yet manage to lose absolute support) with no challenge from the Libs and with the Bloc having lost a popular MP, then there can be no doubt that the Cons will be in all the more trouble facing the voters when they don't have such advantages on their side.

Second, there's the relative position of the NDP and the Cons - which is where the battle may be particularly interesting. Obviously the Cons will start from a stronger position, with both a 10% lead from the last federal election and the ability to pour money into the riding to try to win votes. But if the NDP can narrow the Cons' advantage (or better yet overtake their total), then not only will the brakes be put on PMS' inroads into Quebec, but the NDP will also pull itself into the thick of the battle to represent Quebec federalists.

Of course, there's only so much that a single by-election can say about the strength of the parties involved. But for a government plainly in decline in Quebec and an opposition party looking to get a toehold, any momentum from Repentigny could have a huge effect on perceived momentum going into the next general election campaign. It only remains to be seen whether the NDP will be able to take advantage of the opportunity, and whether the Cons have any plan to stop their bleeding in Quebec.

On inconsistent messages

There couldn't be much doubt that there are plenty of credibility issues surrounding the Con government at the moment. But it's a new low for even a cabinet minister's own spokesperson to have to argue that the minister's words should be ignored:

The possibility of using emissions trading to cut greenhouse emissions is under study and no decisions have been made, Rob Klager said in an interview Monday.

"The media reports suggesting that our government has confirmed a climate exchange system or where it might be located, are speculation," said Klager.

The speculation came straight from the mouth of the minister.

In an interview published in Montreal's Le Devoir on Monday, Ambrose spoke very favourably about the idea of emissions trading, suggesting that the government was actively working to set up an exchange.

"We need regulation to put in place a market, and that's what we're going to do," she told the newspaper. "We are moving in that direction rapidly."

Ambrose told Le Devoir that federal officials have had several discussions with the Montreal Exchange, but none with the Toronto Exchange, which is also interested in hosting a carbon market.

"Let's say that they (Montreal) have very good chances," she told Le Devoir.

Klager said this comment should not be construed as confirmation an exchange will be established in Montreal.

"This remains in the consultative stage, and minister Ambrose has merely acknowledged the interest of the Montreal Exchange and confirmed discussions are ongoing."

Needless to say, there's no reasonable explanation for the backtracking. If the Cons really are planning on setting up an exchange in Montreal, then Klager's knee-jerk response will only make him look detached from what's really going on. And if not, then Ambrose will look completely out to lunch for claiming to be moving "rapidly" toward that end - regardless of what Klager does or doesn't say after the fact.

One way or the other, it's obvious that the Cons are once again doing nothing but casting doubt on their own credibility. And it should come as no surprise if Canadian voters pick up the cue by ignoring the Cons' new set of claims come election time.

Profiles in Cowardice

The CP reminds us that the Cons are hardly the only recent federal government to have thrown Canadian interests out the window out of fear of doing anything which could meet with U.S. disapproval:

Fears that the White House would retaliate against the Liberals drove the Chretien government to take on British Columbia over a controversial weapons range, says the author of a new book.

Military historian John Clearwater used documents obtained under the Access to Information Act to trace this and other incidents where Ottawa appeared to bend to Washington's will over weapons testing...

The book alleges that the Chretien government worried that the American response to B.C.'s threatened closure of the Nanoose ocean range in the spring of 1997 could be "out of proportion," and lead to punishing trade sanctions, similar to what New Zealand faced in the 1980s for similar defiance.

"Rumours began to circulate of a covert attempt to undermine the government," Clearwater writes.

Nowhere does Clearwater present evidence the U.S. made direct threats, but he paints a picture of an almost paranoid reaction among Canadian officials and decision-makers.

The book also chronicles the 1970s testing of the U.S. artillery shell that was meant to carry the neutron bomb, as well as tests involving cruise missiles and the B-2 stealth bomber.

It's worth noting that there's no apparent reason to believe the conclusion held any basis in reality. And indeed the New Zealand comparison doesn't appear to have been based on a particularly solid foundation - due to both the difference in U.S. regimes and attitudes toward free trade at the time of the respective disputes, and what would seemingly be a massive difference in the policies involved (surely denying ships access to public harbours has to be considered a far more antagonistic act than merely ending a single lease).

Mind you, Clearwater apparently thinks that the combination of the Libs' fears and John Diefenbaker's legacy of paranoia somehow proves otherwise. But both the Libs (on missile defence) and the Cons (on Arctic disputes) have occasionally shown a spine when it suits them politically - which makes it clear that Canada can afford to do more than merely act as a yes-man to the U.S. And it's long past time for a federal government which doesn't insult both Canadian influence and American rationality by pretending that as a general principle, Canada can't afford to say "no" to our southern neighbour.

Necessary implications

Others have already noted the Cons' attempt to get citizen-funded constituency staff to participate in the ongoing byelections. But let's take a look at the implications if Doug Finley's attempted defence is actually believed:

One of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's most senior political operatives is urging taxpayer-funded staff in the Parliament Hill offices of Conservative MPs to get involved in two federal byelection campaigns....

In the memo, Finley encourages MPs to get involved in the byelections slated for Nov. 27 in the Ontario riding of London-North-Centre and the Quebec constituency of Repentigny by penning letters of endorsement for the local Conservative candidates.

Finley then goes on to tell MPs to "encourage your Hill staff to participate in persuasion calling, which will be co-ordinated by the party's political operations team."...

Finley defended the memo Sunday as "a simple call for volunteers" to help in the byelections.

"There was no need for reminders re Treasury rules," he said in an e-mail to The Canadian Press. "This was addressed to people who already know the rules for staff."

Let's assume for a moment that Finley is right in claiming:
- that constituency staff are well aware of the rules regarding the use of citizen-funded offices and time, and
- that there's no need to include in a message any matters which should be familiar to the recipient.

If one accepts these assumptions as true, then the inescapable conclusion is that in Finley's view, Con MPs are utterly clueless about the existence of the by-elections, and/or the familiar ways in which an MP or any individual can get involved. After all, if the MPs "already knew" what was going on and how to participate, then by Finley's own standard there would have been no need to send out the memo in the first place.

Needless to say, such an explanation almost completely defies belief - even after making necessary allowances for the Cons' well-established policy of demanding neither intelligence nor political knowledge on the part of their candidates. But whether or not Finley's defence is the least bit believable, his memo can only be taken as highlighting corruption and/or stupidity in the Con ranks. And no number of MP endorsements or "persuasion calls" should be able to override that deadly combination on the part of the Con government.

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.