Uncritical analysis

If there's anything more painful to read than Larry Zolf at his worst (or anywhere near it), it's a columnist who should seemingly know better repeating Zolf's blatherings without considering the lack of logic. Which brings us to Martin O'Malley:

Harper and his Conservatives are expected to call a federal election next year, probably in the spring if the political breezes are right. Harper should win at least another minority government and remain prime minister another two or three years. If he parlays this into a majority, Harper could be prime minister another six or seven years, at which time Ignatieff and Rae will be senior citizens, pushing 70.

As Larry Zolf said here a week ago, Harper is looking good, even after breaking a major campaign promise not to impose a tax on income trusts. As Zolf explained, "despite the controversy, the Tories will retain their social conservative base. The Christian evangelicals have nowhere else to go. They know the oil and gas will keep on flowing in Alberta. They know that many in the oil patch will continue to support their views on gay marriage and abortion."

So the logic is apparently that by keeping the socon base, PMS will somehow manage to win another minority government, or maybe even a majority a couple of years hence. Which is a nice little theory, with just one glaring hole.

After all, the socon vote has been fairly thoroughly unified behind Reform, the Alliance and the Cons for the past decade and a half, with nothing even vaguely resembling a majority government resulting. Instead, 2006 was the first time the Cons have managed to couple the hard-right vote with enough more moderate support to win even a historically tenuous minority. And it's precisely that moderate support (based largely on discontent with the Libs) which has virtually no reason to stay with the Cons now - and indeed has been bleeding back even before the Libs figure out who's going to be leading them.

Now, I'm sure Harper's plans weren't for things to work out that way. But surely O'Malley has been paying enough attention to know that the Cons have tried to govern from the far right in a hostile Parliament for the very purpose of securing their base...and that the result has been a distinct failure to win over more than a handful of Canadians who haven't already cast a ballot for the Cons (and indeed a precipitous drop in Quebec which all but rules out a Con majority on its own).

Which means that barring a surprising turnaround (which would seem to demand a shift in strategy which the Cons have shown no indication of implementing) or complete implosions by both the Libs and the NDP, the Cons can't realistically hope for more than a minority government anytime in the foreseeable future. And no matter what line Zolf and O'Malley seem to want to push, it'll take a lot more than the socon base to move them in that direction.

No value added

A day after declaring that he couldn't discuss in detail his one-on-one talks with foreign leaders at the APEC conference, PMS is now bragging about those sessions:

(T)he Prime Minister said the "most valuable" work was done on the sidelines in one-on-one meetings, including a very brief encounter he had with Chinese President Hu Jintao.

Harper said his meetings "advanced Canadian interests" and said he did raise the case of Huseyin Celil, a Canadian citizen jailed in China.

Now, at best this would seem to be a ridiculously self-serving statement from PMS. But fortunately, when it comes to at least one of the one-on-one sessions, we can measure Harper's opinion of whether he did "valuable" work against the view of the other side. And the plain indication is that PMS accomplished absolutely nothing new or useful:

China disagreed that human rights were raised, and was unbowed by what Harper described as his "very frank" intervention that China clearly wasn't "used to" hearing from previous Canadian governments.

Liu Jianchao, a spokesman for China's foreign ministry, said the subject of Celil was "touched upon" and both sides reiterated their positions.

China's view of Celil is clear, said Liu. "We call him ... (by his) Chinese name, and we think that he is a Chinese national." As such, Beijing regards the matter as an internal criminal case, plain and simple.

Asked later about the Chinese version of what was discussed, Harper replied, "I think that depends on the definition of human rights. From time to time China doesn't consider certain issues human rights issues."

In other words, PMS' definition of "valuable" discussion is to make a position statement which the recipient has heard before (contrary to PMS' claim that no previous Canadian government would ever have raised such issues), and which utterly fails to result in any agreement or movement on either side. And if one accepts PMS' assessment, the joint work done at the conference somehow managed to be even less valuable than the one-on-one reiteration of entrenched positions.

Needless to say, the actual outcome of the summit should properly be seen as a failure for Canada. And while PMS may indeed be convinced that anything is "valuable" as long as it comes from him, there's enough public evidence to the contrary to make Canadian voters take a much closer look at whether they want Harper's voice of self-promotion speaking for them abroad.

Update: According to the CP, Peter MacKay is now saying that China has agreed not to pursue the death penalty in the Celil case. Which, in fairness, would be a valuable concession if true and secured by PMS - but is there any good reason why Harper would cover it up until after the conference?

Further update: Or maybe MacKay was only making things up, and Harper really did accomplish absolutely nothing. With this bunch, you just can't tell where the incompetence ends and the lying begins.

On those left out

The CCPA discusses the consequences of our spend first, ask questions later culture, as despite reported economic growth nearly half of Canadians see themselves as within a couple of paycheques of poverty:

"These are the good days, man, they're as good as it gets, and to have half of Canadians say they were one or two pay cheques away from poverty, that was an astonishing number," said Armine Yalnizyan, an economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

"To put it in context, we've had 10 years of the hottest economy in the G8, we've had the lowest interest rates of 40 years and the lowest unemployment rate for about 35 years."

The polling firm Environics conducted the telephone poll of 2,021 Canadians for the policy alternatives centre, a left-leaning think tank. The survey is to be released today but an advance copy was given to CanWest News Service.

The survey, which reports that 49 per cent of Canadians either strongly or somewhat believe they'd be poverty stricken if they missed one or two pay cheques, underscores past studies showing that Canada has gone from a nation of savers to spenders, with a record level of personal and household debt, said Yalnizyan.

Adding to the insecurity is that there has been an enormous growth in contract and casual workers who do not have permanent jobs, she said.

Sixty-five per cent of those surveyed also said that most of the benefit from the country's recent economic growth has gone to the well-off rather than average Canadians.

Of course, growing inequality and a precarious won't stop Canada's leading right-wing ideologues from trying to dismantle our social supports entirely.

But from the CCPA's survey, there can be no doubt that a large number of Canadians see themselves as left out of the reported economic boom. And if any substantial number from that group actually winds up facing the anticipated effects of a downturn, then there may be a stronger public outcry in favour of reasonable redistribution of wealth than Canada has seen for a long time.

Pushing for progress

The movement toward real action on global warming is winning praise from highly unexpected sources, as even Shell Canada is hinting that it would like to see greenhouse gas emission limits to create an incentive toward the development of carbon capture technology. It's still not clear whether the Cons are really listening to anybody when it comes to the environment, or just adopting the pretense as an excuse for further inaction. But when even the oil patch is warning about the dangers of missing opportunities by consulting the issue to death, one has to figure even the least receptive government would have to take notice...and maybe even see the need to take action.

On healthier legislation

Jack Layton has unveiled the NDP's plan to turn the Cons' Clean Air Act into legislation which actually improves air quality and fights climate change. Which will allow us to find out just where the other parties stand when it comes to real action on the environment:

The NDP-proposed amendments include the following:
- To rename the act the Healthy Air and Climate Act, indicating that Kyoto Protocol targets, which were absent from the original bill, would become a key priority of the revised act;
- To set targets that Canada must meet, such as the Kyoto Protocol 2008 to 2012 targets, an (sic) 80 per cent reduction in emissions below 1990 levels, by 2050;
- To set interim targets at five year intervals between 2015 and 2050;
- To give new authority to the environment minister that would allow him or her to designate significant areas under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act;
- And a "just-transition fund" to help the automobile (industry) move from voluntary to mandatory targets...

"Industries need to know that if they pollute a lot they're going to pay, but if they clean up their act and bring in more energy efficiency and renewable energy, and then there will be financial help. And that's what the carbon trading system is all about and we want to legislate that so that we get going and follow the path that's been set out by Europe where they're meeting their targets and in some cases exceeding them," he said.

"It's time to get Canada on track on this whole question of cleaner air and climate change and that's what our amendments propose to do while helping industry to make that transition."

Layton said he hopes the Conservatives will closely consider the amendments the NDP has put forward, and said Canadians want action, and "they're going to call on all members of parliament from all parties to get moving."

The article speculates as to whether or not the Cons will back the amendments as a trade-off for getting legislation passed. But that seems to be about the least likely possible scenario: it would force the Cons to admit their own failures as a government and implicitly accept Layton's criticisms of the existing legislation as "not honest", which doesn't seem a likely reaction from a party so obsessed with appearances. Instead, the Cons will presumably only vote for the amendments and/or the amended bill if all other parties are onside, such that they could otherwise face the danger of being the only party opposed to their own putative legislation (and the resulting environmental benefits).

The more obvious question for the moment is that of how the other two opposition parties will handle the proposed amendments. From the Bloc's standpoint, it seems like a slam dunk to support the amendments: they would help bolster the party's self-image as one in favour of environmental progress, and would provide a strong wedge issue if the Libs and/or Cons fail to do the same. And it doesn't look like anything in the amendments would interfere in provincial affairs, meaning the Bloc's usual excuse when it rejects progressive stances won't come into play.

And then there's the Libs, whose decision looks to be the most interesting of all. There would certainly be some costs in supporting the amendment: it would serve as a tacit acknowledgement that the Libs didn't do all they could and should have while in government, and would likely constrain the actions of any future Lib government (which the party already appears to be planning for).

But then, the costs of opposing the amendments appear to be far higher. Instead of having to level the bulk of its criticism at a previous government which is receding from the public's memory, the NDP (and Bloc as well) would be able to slam the current Lib caucus as having taken a concrete stand against environmental action. Meanwhile, there wouldn't likely be any concurrent benefit to the Libs on their right flank, since the Cons would almost certainly feel free to oppose the amendments as well.

Naturally, the best result (both for the NDP and from a policy standpoint) would be all-party agreement that the NDP's amendments be adopted, or at least form the basis for a consensus plan for healthier air. Whatever the outcome, though, the NDP's planned amendments can only ensure that both the environment as an issue and the NDP as a party receive their due attention in the campaign-within-a-minority-Parliament set to begin in earnest next weekend.

Update: More details about the plan from the NDP's website.

Accountability at work

The PM elected on a platform of accountability has issued his most direct statement yet to the effect that he not only doesn't see that principle applying to him, but is proud to be less accessible than most APEC leaders:

It was the Korean government that told Canadian reporters about the visit of a Canadian diplomat to North Korea.

And the news of his discussion with the Chinese president came by e-mail to reporters travelling with him 14 hours after the fact. It was the Chinese foreign ministry official who gave the Canadian media the first substantive description of the meeting.

Mr. Harper's staff also blocked Canadian journalists from attending all but the first of Mr. Harper's public activities, even while foreign media were present or invited.

“I think if you're going to have frank discussions with other leaders, then you know, except obviously for the broad objectives you're trying to pursue, I think the details of those discussions have to be private,” Mr. Harper said. “If you run out of private discussions every 10 minutes and give a play-by-play of everything that was said, nobody will have a frank discussion with you.”

Or, to be more concise: "If the public knows what I'm doing most of the time, they won't let me get away with it. So they shouldn't know anything. No more questions."

Mind you, it's clear that other countries and their media delegations aren't playing by such restricted rules. In fact, even China's government is showing more openness to the media than Canada's - which must surely serve to both embarrass PMS and deflate his argument when he tries to lecture Chinese leaders on the closed elements of their own society.

Unfortunately, PMS is probably only being encouraged by the continuing presence of reporters who should know better than to waste their time looking for any substantial comment from Canada's Secretive New Government. Which means that it's long past time for the media to take the Cons' hint and start spending more time looking for what's being hidden, rather than trying to press for official word from a PM who isn't interested in providing it.

Foreseeable possibilities

The CP follows up on the Cons' consultation-free plan to add a police representative to Judicial Advisory Committees, including discussion of a couple of ways how the plan could backfire against Vic Toews' presumptive goal of stacking the bench with right-wing ideologues.

First, Joe Comartin points out that police representatives themselves may not share Toews' reactionary point of view:

NDP justice critic Joe Comartin says he has no doubt the Tories want to reshape the judiciary. But he also thinks Canadian cops may have a more sophisticated view than the justice minister of what makes a good judge.

"There are any number of senior police officers and chiefs who don't fall into the mind-set that he's got," says Comartin.

"Toews will be looking for people who are completely ideologically driven. I think he's going to have a hard time finding enough of them."

Which may not so much be a danger of the Cons' plan as a reason to think it'll have little effect in the end. But much more significant effects could come in the longer term - as Patrick Monahan notes:

Patrick Monahan, dean of Osgoode Hall law school in Toronto...believes that letting police play a role in vetting judges could put the government on a slippery slope.

Monahan predicts it wouldn't be long before other groups - victims of crime, prisoners' rights advocates, feminists, aboriginals - all demanded to play a part in the process.

"It's the first step toward politicization," says Monahan. "Then the exercise becomes one of trying to balance all these different perspectives...I think the minister is asking for more trouble than he wants."

Now, Toews stands out even among the Cons' cabinet ministers in failing to recognize the consequences of his proposed policies, which may allow him to ignore these possibilities for the short term. And it could well be that the Cons could avoid them as long as they're in office - the first by choosing a particularly partisan way of selecting police representatives, and the second by simply ignoring anybody who disagrees with them as the Cons are wont to do.

But in the longer term, the Cons' latest needless fight with the judiciary may well have little impact at all...or even open the door to more progressive respresentation on politicized JACs in the future. And if that comes to pass, Toews will likely be left wishing he'd thought to look ahead.

Heh

Well put.

Bring it on indeed

Steve V at Far and Wide wants to see the next federal election precipitated by another opposition motion to remove Rona Ambrose as environment minister. To which I can only say, it's about time for the Libs to get the message that Ambrose needs to go. But in case anybody needs a reminder why the last such motion failed:

Liberals on the Commons environment committee abstained from the vote to unseat Ambrose...

"We would rather leave Ms. Ambrose in place because she represents the total incompetence of the government,'' he said. "We would rather let that fruit ripen, if I may put it that way."

Godfrey also denied that the decision by the Liberals -- currently in the middle of a leadership race -- stems from fear over an early election. But he did admit to agreeing with the NDP's view that the minister is incompetent.

From this Dipper's standpoint, it's hard to imagine a better means of precipitating the next election. If a new motion regarding Ambrose is passed leading to the fall of the Cons, then the Libs will have to take full responsibility for Cons' fall session in power - after all, it was their previous failure to vote on precisely the same issue of removing an "incompetent" Ambrose (and government) from office which kept the Cons in charge for that time. And contrary to the blame the Libs so seem to enjoy trying to lay on the NDP, this one actually can be placed solely on the Libs' shoulders, since they alone among the opposition parties failed to vote for the motion.

Mind you, Godfrey also said in June that he didn't consider the committee to be an appropriate place for such a vote - meaning that there's no reason to think the Libs actually would support another similar motion now. And indeed the Cons could reverse their own course in the face of a successful motion and decline to consider it a matter of confidence. Which means that the chances of actually getting to an election this way are remote at best.

But if we're going to head into an election with the Libs and the NDP competing to be the progressive alternative to more of PMS, then I for one would have no problem with the Libs having to explain their past refusal to oppose Harper on the very issue which eventually brings down the government. And if the Libs are getting cocky enough not to see a problem with that, then so much the better.

On mimicry

After years of indignation over both the merits of the Kyoto Protocol and the Libs' usual gap between words and actions, the Cons have apparently adopted both for themselves in one fell swoop:

As the annual United Nations climate change conference wrapped up late Friday, Ambrose admitted her government was forced to use the past nine months to learn about the climate change treaty so it could be genuine on the international stage about Canada's intentions and its record.

"When I was appointed as environment minister, we were faced with a very difficult challenge, and at that time, I was very hesitant about saying that we would participate in this protocol in the way that we hoped we could," she said.

"We've made a lot of progress in the last nine months to make sure that we can align our domestic policy with what we'd like to do internationally - with our international obligations - and so now we can say that."...

Although Ambrose has criticized Kyoto in the past for not setting binding targets on developing countries, she's comfortable with a decision at the conference to allow this practice to continue.

"It's an evolving protocol, it's still fairly young," she said. "Every step we take to show that the protocol is a success, lays the foundation for opportunities for other countries to consider joining."

It's a small plus for the Cons to have abandoned their previous position that they'd take action on greenhouse gases just as soon as everybody else in the world did first, and then only with the approval of the oil patch. But even with anti-Kyoto rhetoric apparently off the table, there's still an awfully long way to go to actually get anything done.

After all, Ambrose's current position still doesn't include any means of actually reaching the obligations, and indeed Canada's continued failure to meet its commitments can only "lay the foundation" for other countries to follow suit. And if the Cons have indeed simply taken up the Libs' habit of buying time by approving of goals with no plan to meet them, then it's well past time to accord them the same rude awakening that the Libs received from Canadian voters.

Chamber music

Having lost any claim to the government-accountability vote, PMS and company have apparently also blown any chance of winning the approval of big business, coming under fire from the Canadian and Ontario Chambers of Commerce in the same day over different issues. Which, if it reflects anything resembling the views of the Chambers' members, seems likely to signal an end to the prospect of a Con majority.

After all, one has to figure that the Cons' hopes of improving their current standing rested largely on their using the trappings of power to win solid backing from the business establishment. But with that effort apparently failing and the party's Lib-assisted Quebec support drying up, it's hard to see who's left to even make up for the votes the Cons have already alienated, let alone add to the Cons' 2006 total.

The tables have turned

It was bad enough news for the Cons that Canadians are now focused on less abstract issues than government accountability going into the next election campaign. But the Cons may soon be in much bigger trouble in being stuck on the wrong side of that issue as well:

The Conservative government is proposing to open a loophole in its vaunted accountability act by declaring that party convention fees not be counted as political contributions under the law.

It is also rejecting Liberal amendments that would toughen the legislation...

In a newly posted government order paper, the Conservatives appear to tacitly concede they were wrong when they claimed there was no need to declare the fees.

The government is now proposing that convention fees not count as political contributions, unless the fees exceed the cost of running the convention.

Now, the Cons will surely bleat about how accountability means only what they want it to mean, and therefore it's everybody else's fault for not implementing their bill without question. But between the new Lib amendments, the NDP's focus on the omission of the promised improvements access to information, the Cons' effective admission that they broke existing rules in the absence of the party-covention loophole as of their last convention, and the Cons' own moves to water down their original legislation, it's not hard to see the Cons' most important swing issue from the last campaign turning into a negative for PMS in the next one. And if that happens, then the Cons' current slide in the polls may be just the beginning.

On victor's immunity

Calgary Grit commented a couple of days ago on the Libs' draft constitution which will go before this month's convention. But while some of the reforms look entirely valid, it's remarkable that one new twist hasn't received more attention in its potential for abuse (not to mention actual abuse among the Cons at the moment).

According to Bart:

Interestingly there will only be a leadership review vote after the party loses an election, clearly an implicit condemnation of the Martin tactics of the past decade.

The Libs' planned provision (s. 64(1)) is as follows:

The National Executive, and each EDA President, are responsible to ensure that a ballot (referred to throughout this Constitution as the “Leadership Endorsement Ballot”), in a form approved by the National Executive which permits the voter to indicate whether or not they are in favour of endorsing the Leader, is voted on at the meeting of every EDA held for the purpose of selecting delegates to attend the first biennial convention of the Party held after each general election in which the Leader does not become the Prime Minister.

Now, the Libs would only be following the Cons' lead in deciding that a leader who wins an election becomes entitled to avoid any internal review: see s. 10.6 of the Cons' constitution. But that reality should only offer a cautionary tale as to the effects of such a clause. PMS is currently able to operate without any internal control on his leadership - which can only strengthen the hand of the Cons' insiders as they try to suppress dissent from mere MPs, riding associations or members generally. And that offers one more means by which the Cons' supposed commitment to accountability applies to everybody but the PM himself.

In light of that current reality, it surely speaks poorly for the Libs that their own insiders want to follow the Harper central control model by providing their future leaders with victory-contingent immunity from internal review as well. And while the trade-off may be the potential for more Martin-type shenanigans, that should be a reasonable price to pay to maintain some check on any PM who strays so far from the party's membership as to manage to lose party confidence even after winning an election.

Note that in contrast, the NDP's leadership review process does not change based on election results:

At every convention that is not a leadership convention, a secret ballot vote will be held to determine whether or not a leadership election should be called. If 50% plus one delegates supports the calling of a leadership election, such an election will be held within one year of the convention vote.

On a quick review, the Greens' constitution also allows members to exercise the same review powers regardless of electoral results, though any review is itself only available under the general provision dealing with federal officers: see s. 16.

Which means that regardless of what the Libs wind up passing this month, Canadians do have a choice among parties who believe that electoral success doesn't justify putting a leader above any review by the party's members. And it'll be up to the Lib members to decide whether to endorse and follow PMS' top-down model to concentrate power in any future Lib PMOs, or to recognize that winning power doesn't justify cutting members out of the picture entirely.

Trusting nobody

It's been no secret that Con MPs have been under PMS' thumb ever since the party took power, with only the most reliable parrots of the party line winning a place in cabinet. But the Globe and Mail reports that even cabinet ministers are under the gun from the PMO:

Sandra Buckler, the communications director for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, has asked that staff working for Conservative cabinet ministers secretly provide her with assessments of their bosses' communications skills.

The directive has apparently caused tensions between the staffers and the ministers - and between the ministers and Ms. Buckler, who has often been criticized for her less-than-amicable relationship with the national news media.

Communications directors in the offices of federal cabinet ministers have told The Globe and Mail that Ms. Buckler asked them to compile reports critiquing their ministers' abilities and send the reports to her without informing the ministers.

One of them, speaking on condition he not be named, said the request put him in a difficult position because he was being asked to be critical of the minister who hired him - and who could also fire him in short order.

Now, there's nothing wrong with having multiple means of reporting in place as long as all parties involved are familiar and comfortable with the system. But it's something else entirely for the PMO to demand that communications directors go behind the backs of their own bosses.

Of course, the cabinet ministers themselves presumably know enough about PMS' controlling tendencies not to risk sticking their necks out by criticizing the scheme. But when the PMO is willing to foster distrust even among his inner circle solely based on his obsession with image, there's all the less reason for anybody else to see Harper as deserving their own trust.

Fundamental injustice

While the U.S.' hand-selected Guantanamo tour groups have done their best to try to defend the complete lack of access to justice for detainees, the truth about the pitiful process made available to detainees is set to come out:

The U.S. military called no witnesses, withheld evidence from prisoners and usually reached a decision within a day as it determined hundreds of men held at Guantanamo Bay were "enemy combatants," a new report said...

The military held Combatant Status Review Tribunals for 558 prisoners at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay in southeastern Cuba between July 2004 and January 2005 and found all but 38 were enemy combatants. Handcuffed prisoners appeared before a panel of three officers with no defence lawyer, only a military "personal representative."

The report noted the representatives said nothing in the hearings 14 per cent of the time and made no "substantive" comments in 30 per cent. In some cases, the representative even appeared to advocate the government's position, the report said...

Twenty-one first-year law students at Seton Hall University in Newark, N.J., analyzed the documents to create a database analyzed by eight second-and third-year students.

Among their findings:

-The government did not produce any witnesses in any hearing.
-The military denied all prisoner requests to inspect the classified evidence against them.
-The military refused all requests for defence witnesses who were not detained at Guantanamo.
-In 74 per cent of the cases, the government denied requests to call witnesses who were detained at the prison.
-In 91 per cent of the hearings, the prisoners did not present any evidence.
-In three cases, the panel found the prisoner was "no longer an enemy combatant" but the military convened new tribunals that later found them to be enemy combatants.

The latter point is particularly laughable given the complete lack of access to any appeal or review procedure for the detainees: while the party whose freedom has been affected has received absolutely no second chances, the captors apparently haven't hesitated to ignore even what few favourable findings could possibly come out of such a flawed process.

Fortunately, the analysis of the process as a whole should put to rest any pretence that the detainees have received anything close to a reasonable opportunity to counter the arbitrary branding imposed on them by Bushco. Or at least, among those commentators who are more interested in addressing the truth of the treatment of Guantanamo's prisoners than in being part of the next super-special tour group.

On party principles

Michael Ignatieff may have set off a firestorm by being unusually blunt about his own personal disdain for true progressives. But lest there be any doubt as to whether his view accurately reflects the Libs' general style of government, the party's largest provincial administration has been slammed by the International Labour Organization for its neglect of basic labour rights:

The International Labour Organization (ILO), an agency of the United Nations, has condemned the Liberal government of Ontario Dalton McGuinty for denying 16,000 part-time community college workers the basic right to form a union and participate in collective bargaining.

The ILO's highly critical report is in response to a formal complaint lodged by the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) in June 2005. It involves the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act (CCBA), which denies most part-time employees employed by any of the 24 public colleges in Ontario the right to join a union and engage in collective bargaining...

The ILO’s Committee on Freedom of Association stated in its ruling:

“While the particular circumstances of the part-time employees concerned here may call for differentiated treatment and adjustments as regards the definition of bargaining units, the rules for certification, etc., as well as specific negotiations taking their status and work requirements into account, the Committee fails to see any reason why the principles on the basic rights of association and collective bargaining afforded to all workers should not also apply to part-time employees.”

“The Committee further recalls that all workers, without distinction whatsoever, whether they are employed in a permanent basis, for a fixed-term or as contract employees, should have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing.”

About the only argument available to mitigate the Libs' neglect is that the exclusion of part-time workers is a historical relic which has subsisted through government terms of three different parties. (Though of course the failings of the NDP premier involved now reflect on the Libs as well.)

But for the Libs in particular, it's clear that the issue has been brought to their attention as one in need of action - based on both union submissions like the one in the above link, and the ILO complaint itself. And at the same time, the Libs have made amendments to the legislation in question under a process specifically intended to "ensure that hundreds of the province’s laws are up to date". Which suggests that the Libs have consciously classified the exclusion of part-time workers as a matter which doesn't need updating.

Of course, it could be that the ILO's ruling will manage to break the Libs' inertia where the mere voice of Ontario workers couldn't. But one way or the other, it's clear that those Libs still in power aren't changing from the party's usual pattern of ignoring the needs of workers - and there's no reason to believe that any of the federal leadership candidates would change that anytime soon.

On new opportunities

There was plenty of talk last week that the U.S. congressional elections could prove harmful for Canada due to a presumption that the Dems would try to shut the U.S.' borders. But CanWest points out that the Dems may instead be willing to help Canada's cause in keeping a relatively open border for ordinary citizens of both countries:

Michael Kergin, who was Canada's ambassador to the United States from 2000-05, says control of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate by the Democrats offers the hope of compromise on the passport issue.

Kergin told the North Atlantic Treaty Organization parliamentary assembly here that Republicans from the U.S. south, unfamiliar with issues affecting people in northern border regions, pushed the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.

"Most of them (the new Democratic leadership) are from the north of the United States, states such as Michigan and New York, and are more familiar with Canadian realities," Kergin said.

He said American lawmakers are "very determined," about better policing the border.

But the Democrats could be open to a compromise, such as using drivers' licences for identification at border crossings.

Of course, it would help if Canada's current regime was showing any leadership in highlighting the value of a less restricted flow of people between the two countries. And there's a case to be made that the Cons' lack of interest in defending our interests has spread to some of the public affected by the impending rules.

But there's at least some substantial reason to think that the incoming Congress may be willing to actually seek a solution that works for both countries, not merely delay the U.S.' knee-jerk measures. And the sooner we recognize that opportunity and work to take it, the better off both countries will be.

Mocking the vote

Chuck Strahl responds to the Manitoba/Saskatchewan plan for a plebiscite on the future of the Wheat Board by declaring that democracy is a waste of resources:

In Edmonton Wednesday, Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl said plans for provincial plebiscites on the wheat board's future would be a waste of money.

"If they've got that kind of money to throw around ... then they should use it on farm programming or use it on science research, innovation and development or something, rather than hold another plebiscite on an issue that's not in their jurisdiction."

Needless to say, that kind of stand against producer choice is bound to give rise to plenty of concern on the part of farmers who simply want to have a say in their own future. But in fairness, Strahl can't be blamed for inconsistency, as he also appears to be going out of his way to indicate his disinterest in the vote that the Cons have announced for barley producers:

In Calgary Tuesday, Strahl said farmers will have a say on the future of the wheat board's monopoly over barley marketing early next year.

He won't specify which farmers will vote or how the question will be worded and he added that the vote results wouldn't be legally binding.

Now, it's still not clear why the Cons are willing to fund a vote on barley which they'll feel free to ignore, but won't grant the same courtesy to wheat farmers. But it does appear certain that whichever jurisdiction holds a vote on the Wheat Board and however the results turn out, Strahl is already laying the groundwork to ignore the will of the majority. Which means once again that for farmers who want to continue enjoying the benefits of the Wheat Board, the vote which really counts is that in the next federal election.

Amounts owing

The Sun updates the borrowing carried out by the Lib leadership candidates, and notes that it's still an open question as to whether some of the candidates will end up having to hope that both loans and electoral rules aren't enforced:

Big loans and tighter fundraising rules threaten to leave several Liberal leadership candidates at risk of defaulting on their debts and breaking the law, a watchdog is warning.

The most recent fundraising filings by the eight hopefuls to become Grit leader next month show several have borrowed nearly the same amount they have managed to raise since April, totalling $2.3 million...

Democracy Watch co-ordinator Duff Conacher predicts many of the candidates will end up defaulting on the loans, which must be paid back within 18 months of the December leadership vote in Montreal.

It's not clear from the article which candidates will face the biggest crunch, or how much of the money raised has been used to pay back loans rather than applied to campaign purposes. But there's no doubt that the Libs' early-campaign borrowing has only increased as time has gone on. And in the absence of any indication that the candidates' track record of shrugging off Elections Canada rules is about to improve anytime soon, it looks like there'll be a need for a close watch on the candidates as the deadlines pass to ensure that the loans don't ultimately prove a successful means of avoiding federal donation limits.

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.