A little less conversation

B.C.'s Health Minister is now at least going through the motions of cracking down on the province's soon-to-be-opened private emergency room:

A showdown over the future of medicare is expected to unfold in Vancouver today as the B.C. government threatens to shut down a private clinic that may start charging patients for services that should be free under the health care system.

"We need to ensure universal access to health care is maintained in this province," B.C. Health Minister George Abbott said Thursday.

In what Abbott called "an extraordinary move," the B.C. government pushed through a cabinet order Thursday that will empower government auditors to enter the premises of the Urgent Care Centre that has promised to open its doors today in Vancouver.

But while that first step is certainly better than nothing, it's worth noting that the rushed cabinet order would never have been necessary (and indeed the clinic might never have opened) if Abbott had paid attention when the clinic's director made his intentions known months ago. Which leads one to suspect that the Campbell government is looking for a fight where the odds are stacked against a single-payer health care system.

Of course, it could be that the original lack of action was a mere oversight. But given the Campbell government's track record of doing absolutely nothing when it comes to other private health care providers, it still looks like there's plenty of need to keep the heat on Abbott's department to make sure that the False Creek clinic doesn't wedge the door open for further private expansion.

(Edit: typo.)

On one-way relationships

A senior U.S. State Department analyst confirms what anybody who's been paying attention knew all along: that Tony Blair's inexplicably loyal stint as George Bush's lapdog hasn't allowed him to influence U.S. policy one iota:

British Prime Minister Tony Blair's close relationship with President George W. Bush is "totally one-sided" and has given Britain no leverage over U.S. foreign policy, a U.S. State Department official said in a British newspaper report.

The Times of London said Thursday that Kendall Myers told an audience in Washington that Britain's role as a bridge between the United States and Europe is "disappearing before our eyes."...

Myers said the transatlantic relationship "was a one-sided relationship that was entered into with open eyes...There was nothing."

"There was no payback, no sense of reciprocity."

Not that Blair and his inner circle appear willing to confront the truth even when it's put forward this starkly - after all, it isn't just Bush himself who's been forced into a deep cycle of denial to justify the unjustifiable. But while it may be too much to ask either the past lapdog or Canada's would-be successor at the foot of the bed to acknowledge reality, the lesson is one that any realistic evaluation of our own foreign policy should keep in mind.

Update: John at Dymaxion World has more.

On dismissals

CBC reports that while Chuck Strahl may be musing about allowing farmers the courtesy of a vote over the future of the Wheat Board, he appears set on undermining the Board in other ways in the meantime - now by throwing the Board's CEO to the curb:

Federal Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl has indicated his intentions to fire Canadian Wheat Board president and CEO Adrian Measner within weeks.

Measner has been a critic of the federal government's plan to dismantle the grain marketing agency's monopoly on wheat and barley.

In a letter to Measner received Wednesday and obtained by CBC News, Strahl wrote, "I am informing you that I am contemplating recommending a change to the membership appointed by the Governor-in-Council to the Canadian Wheat Board, notably a recommendation that your appointment as President be terminated."...

Deanna Allen, the wheat board's vice-president of farmer relations and public affairs, said the news of Meanser's firing has thrown the organization into turmoil.

"It's a very unsettling time for all staff, and you know, Adrian has had a career here that spanned 32 years," Allen said Thursday.

Allen described Meanser as "a man of tremendous integrity and a guy who's given service to the company, service to farmers for just so many years. And I think it's a hard thing to come to grips with."

Of course, it isn't the least bit surprising for the Cons to once again value ideological fealty over competence and experience. But if Strahl's plan is to try to bolster the anti-Board side by throwing the Board itself into chaos, he may want to keep in mind the possibility that farmers will recognize the problem isn't of the Board's making - and vote out the real responsible party instead.

Rejecting renewal

While the NDP offers a guided tour of the Libs' sordid past, the Tyee's Bill Tieleman points out that it isn't just the sights that are familiar, as the B.C. back-roomers involved in the leadership race include the leading figures associated with such proud Lib events as the Chretien/Martin feud and the alleged bribery scandal surrounding the privatization of B.C. Rail. Which suggests that there may be a reason why the top Lib leadership candidates don't seem to want to improve the Libs' past record on ethics...and that the Libs' decaying party structure isn't likely to improve no matter who's installed as the new head.

A Reactionary Heritage Moment

Bev Oda has an interesting excuse as to why Canadian women shouldn't suffer from the closure of 3/4 of Status of Women Canada's offices:

(Oda) also said women in regions will be able to get service from office of the Canadian Heritage Department.

Now, a plan to make the advancement of women's issues a subcategory of "heritage" rather than an ongoing concern is perhaps an entirely appropriate conclusion for the Cons given their apparent plan to relegate SWC and its mandate to the dustbin of history. But for those who don't think that the concept of equality should be left in the past, the move only highlights just how much contempt the Cons have for the actual needs of Canadian women. And that will give voters plenty of reason to make sure the Cons' stay in power is itself put behind us before too long.

Scandalous

While coverage of Sheila Fraser's latest report has focused mostly on alleged spending abuses by Ron Stewart, a far more important failing has received only a cursory mention:

Health Canada programs designed to regulate the safety of everything from cribs to prescription drugs may not be meeting their own regulatory responsibilities, Fraser found. Her report cites a drop in funding for core regulatory activities last year and says the department doesn't have the resources to tell whether it can meet its responsibilities as the regulator of drug products, medical devices and product safety.

And the discovery only looks worse when examined in more detail:

The Product Safety program has requested additional funding, but it received very little funds for special initiatives in 2005–06 to address the shortfalls presented above. Program managers indicated that their inability to carry out these responsibilities could have consequences for the health and safety of Canadians, such as exposure by consumers to non-compliant hazardous products. There is also a risk of liability to the Crown...

Drug Products and Medical Devices programs were successful in getting some additional funding for special initiatives. According to program managers, this allowed them to eliminate the backlog of submissions made by manufacturers seeking review and authorization to market a product. However, they considered the additional funding to be insufficient to address all the shortfalls identified...According to program managers, failure to carry out these responsibilities could have consequences for the health and safety of Canadians, such as exposure to unsafe, ineffective, or dangerous therapeutic products. There is also an increased risk of liability to the Crown.

It's noteworthy that for all the oft-trumpeted increases in government spending over the past few years, the federal agency responsible for ensuring the safety of such a wide variety of products apparently hasn't received an extra dime despite an increasing workload. And it may only be by luck that the result hasn't (to anybody's knowledge) been disastrous both for Canadian citizens who rely on Health Canada to properly evaluate products, and for the government which would have to pick up the bill for any failure.

If there's any plus to the story, it's that Health Canada agrees with the recommendations and has a process in place to try to improve matters. But it can't be much comfort to know that it'll be another year and a half before Health Canada even sets baselines by which to evaluate whether it's able to fulfill its mandate. And the combination of stagnant funding and incomplete reporting in an agency so closely linked to the safety of Canadians should be a far more important impetus for change than the disgrace of a single former athlete.

On infighting

After Michael Chong first resigned from the federal cabinet, I'd assumed the story would fade away fairly quickly since nobody seemed to have any reason to want to keep it in the press. But apparently the Cons' inner circle isn't going to let the matter drop without a public fight:

Publicly, Chong said he disagreed profoundly with the resolution Harper brought forward because it embraced an "ethnic nationalism" he couldn't support. He said he reflected for five days upon his course of action after Harper sprang the resolution on his caucus in response to a Bloc Québécois motion that the Québécois "form a nation" plain and simple...

And while he didn't cite it as a reason for quitting, Chong made clear he had not been consulted by Harper in the crafting of the "nation" resolution.

An insider called that complete nonsense. "He and the PM discussed this over the course of the summer on at least two occasions if not more. And the PM did not make the decision about proceeding with this until he had the caucus discussion last Wednesday."

Chong declined an interview.

Harper's circle feels Chong did not convey his deep-seated uneasiness to the Prime Minister and should have.

In fact, the insider says, Chong's concerns were "not unique in the party in that regard, but the idea that he might throw up a principled objection to the point of resigning? No, that was never in discussion."...

Inside the Harper government, the view is that Chong, first elected in 2004, has made a career-ending move.

Needless to say, it's unlikely that Chong would agree with the assessment that his political career is over. And while it may be clear that he won't have any more advancement opportunities in a party with PMS at the helm, he'll have plenty of options to build his own future at the expense of Harper's - whether by jumping ship, by publicly telling his side of the story and letting the Cons boot him for "breaching confidence" in doing so, or by building a competing faction within the Cons (where at least some MPs appear to both agree with Chong on the merits of the nation issue, and see him as having handled his resignation reasonably.)

But barring a quick retraction from the "insiders" in question, the one option which seemingly must be off the table for Chong is that of going quietly to the back benches - as he surely can't afford to contest an election while publicly under the thumb of a party apparatus which has decided that he has no future. And whichever way Chong chooses to fight back, it's likely that the Cons as a whole will end up weaker for the battle.

Off schedule

Nine months into her tenure as Environment Minister, Rona Ambrose still hasn't figured out the fine arts of showing up for her appointments and avoiding double-booking. I'm only amazed that PMS' micromanagement hasn't yet extended to ensuring that each of his cabinet ministers at least has a day-timer on hand.

Keeping visible

While the NDP may have seen disappointing results in the by-elections, it certainly hasn't taken long to shift gears with a creative response to the Lib leadership campaign. The reviews so far have been mixed, but the drive should make sure that the NDP doesn't get lost in the shuffle - and that Layton has a platform to challenge the Libs' new boss as the leading progressive alternative to PMS.

Bye, elections

Now that the by-elections in London North Centre and Repentigny are done with, there's plenty for each of the four top cross-Canada parties both to draw on for the future, and to worry about for the present.

The biggest winners on the night were the Libs, who fended off three high-profile candidates in the midst of their own leadership race to hold onto London North Centre. But as John has pointed out, the news was nowhere near as good for them in Repentigny, where their candidate dropped all the way to 4th place with 6% of the vote. Which isn't to say that any Canada-wide party is going to be challenging for that riding anytime, but it does indicate that the Libs have some serious damage repair to do in La Belle Province.

For the Cons, the positive spin is that they didn't really lose any ground from the general election. But their attempts to paint Repentigny as a two-way horse race were shown to be utterly laughable, and the London North Centre results pose even bigger problems for the Cons. After all, the race went from one with a high-profile Lib candidate and a relatively unknown Con to just the opposite, without any apparent impact on the proportional results...which suggests either that the Cons don't have any room left to grow, or that PMS needs to seriously rethink the muzzle tactic.

For the NDP, the London North Centre result is naturally a huge disappointment...but it also reflects the party's need to better present its candidates going forward. While there was far more to Megan Walker's candidacy than the dispute over Glen Pearson's dubious communications director, that incident was used to brand Walker as a cold and cynical candidate - which is a fairly deadly perception for any NDP nominee. The good news, however, is that with the Cons failing to gain any ground, it doesn't look like the threat of a Harper majority will be credible enough to cause a Lib surge anytime soon...and of course moving up into third in Repentigny (albeit without increasing the NDP's own percentage) is something to build on as well.

Finally, the Greens have much to be proud of in pulling off a strong second-place finish in London North Centre. But that final outcome also reflects the uphill battle the party will be facing in every riding. Even with the party's efforts focused entirely on exactly the type of vote-splitting riding the Greens figure to be their best chance, and with May receiving tons of positive press (including from the eventual winner), they still weren't able to win a seat in Parliament. And it's hard to see how May will have an easier time in a general election with the party's resources spread across the country.

In sum, the by-election (like the last couple of general elections) ultimately seems to have been more a rejection of all parties to at least some extent than an unmitigated victory for any of them. And it's the parties who generate the best ideas after going back to the drawing board who will ultimately gain the most from the experience.

Update: More post-mortem from Dinner Table Donts and Devin Johnston.

Promise breakers

While Michael Chong's departure from the Cons' cabinet may be making more news today, the bigger problem for PMS may be another prominent Con who's none too happy with Harper's regime:

The premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is warning there could be political consequences for the minority federal government if it doesn't live up to its commitment on equalization.

The province is still smarting from what Premier Danny Williams says is Ottawa's refusal to honour a written commitment that any changes to the equalization formula would not adversely affect provinces.

Newfoundland and Labrador has been reaping energy revenues, which Williams told a business group in Vancouver has somewhat offset the collapse of the cod fishery.

But he says Prime Minister Stephen Harper's refusal to acknowledge his pre-election commitment is a bad sign for what the Tories might do if they ever form a majority government.

Of course, despite his party affiliation Williams' statement is far from reflecting the view of Con loyalists. But the bigger impact of Williams' statement has to do with the Cons' desired public image.

Contrary to PMS' attempts to pretend to be a straight shooter who keeps his promises, premiers from all regions of Canada are speaking out about Harper's broken (or at least breaking) promises on equalization. And when even someone with a relative ideological affinity doesn't want to see Harper win a majority, there's even less reason for more moderate Canadians to risk letting their votes support that end.

Update: Robert points out just one more reason why the "promise-breaker" label deserves to stick on PMS.

Growing suspicions

Buried at the end of the CP's puff piece on Raymond Gravel and Elizabeth May is this interesting note about May's own plans before there was a race in London North Centre:

Before Fontana resigned, the Green Party leader said she had planned to run in Repentigny. Based on parliamentary tradition, May promised to run in the first available byelection.

"I didn't like the feeling of running in Repentigny with an opportunity created by a tragedy. It didn't feel good to me."

One has to assume that if May herself was originally planning to run in Repentigny, then the party itself would have to have been well aware of the riding's nomination process and deadlines. Which only lends credence to Marc-André Gadoury's suspicions as to whether the Greens' failure to process his nomination was intentional...and suggests that Gadoury's alternative choice is the right one for those who don't want to reward a party for stifling its own would-be candidates.

On false economies

CanWest reports on another tidbit buried in last week's fiscal update, as the procurement reform started by the Libs and much touted by the Cons has far less potential for savings than originally projected:

The Harper government said it expects to save significantly less at least $1 billion less than forecasted by overhauling the way it buys goods and services.

Jean-Luc Benoit, spokesman for Public Works Minister Michael Fortier, confirmed the government can't meet the savings target 2.5 billion over five years set by the Liberals. instead it expects to save approximately $1.1 billion.

This marks the latest blow to the Public Works' project to revamp its procurement system. The project, which has been embroiled in controversy, caused a near revolt among suppliers...

Bureaucrats are worried the government will dig even deeper into their budgets to find savings on top of the $2 billion Treasury Board President John Baird vowed to cut from government operations more than two years.

Now, a reasonable government would respond to this reality by recognizing that the same problem is likely to apply to the rest of its arbitrary cuts as well. While there's always some value to looking for genuine efficiencies, a government can't reasonably assume that it can hack away at its own expenses without a serious sacrifice in effectiveness.

But then, if the Cons have proven anything, it's that they're always on the lookout for excuses to let ideology trump reason. Which makes it all too likely that the Cons will try to make up for the poor projections by cutting even more from other services instead...while once again both overestimating the benefits and underestimating the costs of those actions.

A far-reaching fracture

The CP speculates about the possibility of Alberta's PCs getting split in two by their leadership race. But the bigger question may be whether the same factional fighting (spurred on by Harper's apparent support for Morton) also works its way into the federal Cons in time to permanently undercut PMS' hopes of holding onto power.

On takeovers

David Olive points out that contrary to the usual protestations about Canada failing to attract investment, we've in fact already been subject to far more foreign takeovers than most of our international competitors would be prepared to allow:

Throughout Europe, the European Commission's burgeoning anti-trust bureaucracy nit-picks not only domestic and cross-border mergers on the Continent, but has twice thwarted planned combinations of American firms that do business in Europe — a form of the dreaded "extra-territoriality" of which the U.S. is more often accused. No amount of lobbying in Brussels by then-CEO Jack Welch could move the EC to approve General Electric Co.'s planned merger with Honeywell International Inc. And it was the EC's blocking of a WorldCom Inc. merger with Sprint Corp. (now Sprint Nextel Corp.) that ultimately exposed WorldCom as an accounting scam, reliant on ever-larger takeovers to maintain the illusion of growth, and triggering WorldCom to file the biggest bankruptcy filing in history.

The United States has its "poison pills" by which domestic firms can thwart hostile takeovers, often in the form of laws passed by the local state legislature. China demands local part-ownership not only of acquisitions of Chinese firms but of newly launched enterprises financed by offshore interests. Remnants of command-economy practice continue to discourage offshore acquisitions of local assets in India and Japan. Takeovers and start-ups financed by foreigners in Russia and developing world countries are routinely subject to expropriation or reneging on contracts on government orders.

By any comparative measure, Canada is an acquisitor's paradise. We have no "industrial policy" worthy of the name, no ambition to create "centres of excellence" in R&D and manufacturing with which proposed takeovers in most European and Asian countries are expected to conform...

As an experiment, it would be interesting to gauge the U.S. reaction to the foreign takeover, in the space of nine months, of U.S. Steel Corp., J.C. Penney Co., Intel Corp., Walt Disney Co., Marriott International Inc., Hilton Hotels Corp. Phelps Dodge Corp. and Limited Brands Inc. (Victoria's Secret) — the rough equivalent of the type and size of Canadian firms that have lost their independence to foreign decision-makers since the beginning of this year. The effect might be just a bit jarring for our U.S. friends. Certainly it would at least raise questions about the logical outcome of such a trend.

Which is not to argue that a proliferation of proud Canadian firms slipping down foreign gullets is a bane to our industrial progress (a subject for a different column). It is to say that Canada, contrary to your local Chamber of Commerce's claptrap about unsupportable tax burdens and stifling bureaucracy, is viewed by outsiders as a great place to do business. And with its relative lack of economic parochialism, it is probably the world's happiest hunting ground for takeover artists.

Of course, that same claptrap also seems to be the main motivating belief for our current Finance Minister. But there should be no doubt that Canada has done plenty already to stimulate foreign investment, with little regard to whether the country is ultimately better off for those takeovers. And given that such an attitude sticks out like a sore thumb among developed states, it's worth wondering whether we should be paying closer attention to the costs and benefits involved in takeovers (on social and economic rather than ideological lines) rather than seeking to hurry up the process even more.

Reaping what they sow

Having apparently decided that the Wheat Board issue isn't doing enough to lose them votes on the Prairies, the Cons' latest set of environmental cuts also pulls the rug out from efforts to turn greenhouse gas efficiencies into profits for Canadian farmers:

Five climate-change programs at Agriculture Canada will be shut down. They include:

A $5-million Model Farms program to develop estimates of how much carbon can be removed from the atmosphere through new farming practices;

A $21-million project called the Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Program for Canadian Agriculture, meant to involve farmers in the government's campaign to reduce greenhouse gases;

A $4-million Shelterbelts Enhancement Program that aims to reduce greenhouse gases by encouraging farmers to line their fields with trees to reduce wind and help control snow piles;

A program dealing with manure management and a fifth program dealing with the role of farmers and “future fuels.”

Given that the Cons are apparently now on side with the idea of emissions trading, it makes all the less sense to want to cut farmers out of the benefits of an emissions market. But for farmers who recognize the potential for environmental improvement to also lead to a stronger bottom line, it should be a very simple step to help take the reins away from the Cons.

A selective selloff

The Cons show that their friendliness toward business runs only along ideological lines, as the Globe and Mail reports that the same party which can't sell off Canada to the U.S. fast enough is willing to look at vetoing any investment in Canada which involves a state-owned investor. In addition to adding further tension to our already-tenuous relationship with China, the move should serve as a warning to scare off actors who might otherwise help to counterbalance U.S. domination of Canada's economy. But apparently for the Cons, any measure which indicates disapproval of government ownership is in the national interest - no matter how much worse off actual Canadians are as a result.

Politics and poverty

While the Libs' leaders look for ways to get Canada's federal government to do less, the Star asks the fair question of why multiple levels of government aren't doing more to deal with poverty:

(I)nstead of action, politicians appear immune to the mounting evidence that we are losing the battle against poverty, despite parts of Canada having enjoyed years of prosperity and personal and corporate wealth.

Just this week, that message was driven home in two major reports on poverty. The first, by the Canadian Institute for Health Information, found people living in neighbourhoods in Toronto and other major cities with higher income and education levels were far more likely to say they are in very good health than those in poorer ones. The second was the annual Campaign 2000 report card, which found the national child poverty rate stands at an unacceptably high level, with 17.7 per cent of all children in this country living in households below the poverty line.

But it was a nationwide poll of 2,000 Canadians conducted by Environics Research for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives that should truly prompt politicians in Ottawa and provincial legislatures to take notice. The survey, released this week, indicated that many Canadians saw the growing rich-poor gap as a symptom of moral breakdown, with people becoming greedier and more obsessed with materialism.

Those findings are surprising, given a decade of solid economic growth, nine straight federal budget surpluses and a relatively low unemployment rate. Indeed, 76 per cent of those surveyed believe the rich-poor gap is growing — not shrinking. "There is a very strong sense this is a Canadian concern," said Armine Yalnizyan, research fellow at the centre. "It is not about winners and losers, it's about where Canadian society is headed. It is seen to be part of the bedrock of our value system."

Regrettably, those deep-rooted concerns do not seem even to be on the radar screen of politicians in Ottawa and at Queen's Park.

For example, in spite of a $7 billion surplus, federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty opted this week to cut taxes and focus on debt reduction, rather than giving back to those in true need through measures such as an income supplement to Canada's 650,000 working poor.

And provincially, the Liberal government of Premier Dalton McGuinty refuses to make up for past damage by the previous Conservative regime by raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour, ensuring hard-working families can rise out of poverty. And it steadfastly refuses to stop clawing back the National Child Benefit Supplement from families on social assistance. Or to increase welfare payments to those same families...

All that is required is the political leadership to do what is right for Canada's poor. For instance, as the Campaign 2000 report card points out, the poverty gap — the amount of money needed to bring all poor families with children up to the low-income cut-off line — is about $5.7 billion, an amount that could have been covered by eliminating the GST tax cut this year. Tax cuts or reducing the poverty gap? That's a political decision.

Based on the CCPA poll, it appears plain that the problem isn't a lack of public recognition that many have been left out of Canada's growth on paper. But with the Libs having drawn the conclusion that the problem is one in need of less discussion rather than more action, it's equally clear that neither the Libs nor Cons are interested in doing anything to ensure that Canada's wealth reaches those who need it most - leaving only one party willing and able to actually deal with the problem of poverty in Canada.

Enemy of the state

Until this morning, it seemed unlikely that any prominent Lib would do more than Michael Ignatieff to hand over the rhetorical playing field to the Cons. But then the National Post got a hold of Tom Axworthy's hatchet job against the very concept of government:

On the eve of the Liberal leadership convention, the man charged with leading the party's renewal process has dropped a bombshell by questioning one of liberalism's key convictions -- that government actually works.

In a hard-hitting policy paper obtained by the National Post, Tom Axworthy, a former top advisor to Pierre Trudeau, says there is an "implementation gap" between what Liberal governments promise and what they deliver.

"Liberalism's dirty secret [and it is not so secret these days] is that government doesn't seem to work well much of the time," he says, citing such examples as the 800,000 potential immigrants waiting for their applications to be processed; massive cost overruns at the gun registry; lengthy procurement delays for military equipment; poor water quality on aboriginal reserves; and the Jean Chretien Pledge to Africa Act, which promised to produce generic drugs to help fight AIDS but has yet to export a single pill.

Now, anybody taking a close look at the issues involved should be able to see just how ludicrous Axworthy's argument is based on the examples involved.

On the immigration processing issue, the obvious problem is a lack of government capacity to handle the applications, not an excess of state involvement. The same goes for military procurement delays. And in both cases, one has to ask the question: is Axworthy seriously suggesting that the function involved (either evaluating potential immigrants or determining how to spend military dollars) is one that could be carried out in the private sector?

With respect to the gun registry, Axworthy seems to be blissfully unaware that the cost overruns happened due to the Libs' choice of private contractors, not due to anything inherent in government involvement. (In fact, a stronger government might have had the capacity to put the project together internally, thus avoiding the problem altogether.) This in turn became a scandal due to the Libs' own suppression of the costs...making the problem plainly one of Lib government specifically, not government generally.

On reserve water quality, the problem is again plainly one of management: in some cases needed investments simply haven't been made, in other equipment purchased by the government wasn't backed up with sufficient staff training to ensure that the equipment is used effectively.

And finally, the Pledge to Africa Act has thus far failed due to the failure of private drug manufacturers to either approve of the fabrication of drugs for which they hold patents, or step up to manufacture those drugs. Which makes it rather implausible that pushing government out of the picture entirely would improve matters at all.

Of course, there are some government failings involved in each of these examples. And there's undoubtedly a need for any government to actually focus its attention on areas in which it can do better than the private sector, rather than trying to be everything to everyone while never seeing anything through.

But for each of the examples cited by Axworthy, the problems lay either in the Libs' own mismanagement or in the degree and type of private involvement, not in government involvement in general. And it should be an embarrassment to the Libs that Axworthy is willing to hand ammunition to Jim Flaherty and his anti-government assault squad for use against all future government actions in order to pretend that the opposite is true.

On alternatives

It's still far from clear what exactly happened to the Greens' apparent attempt to nominate Marc-André Gadoury for the Repentigny by-election. But there's no room for doubt who Gadoury himself will support following the Greens' failure to process his nomination:

Le candidat pressenti pour le Parti vert dans l'élection partielle dans Repentigny, Marc-André Gadoury, va appuyer Réjean Bellemare du NPD.

Le Parti vert ne présente pas de candidat dans l'élection partielle dans Repentigny. Le parti, tout en ayant nommé un candidat, n'a pas déposé à temps le bulletin de candidature. M. Gadoury ne cache pas sa frustration envers l'organisation du Parti vert au Québec. Celui-ci affirme que, dans le contexte où il ne peut se présenter, il va voter pour le NPD.

« Le NPD est le parti le plus proche de mes préoccupations. Le NPD défend les valeurs environnementales que j'aurais aimé porter pendant cette élection partielle », a déclaré M. Gadoury.

For the NDP, the endorsement is surely an important one in showing that while there are differences between the two parties, their core values are similar enough that a would-be Green standard-bearer is comfortable publicly supporting the NDP's cause. And with Gadoury himself apparently disillusioned with the Greens over their failure to process his nomination, it seems entirely possible that others concerned about the Greens' current organization will put their votes and efforts behind the NDP in the by-election and beyond.

(For speculation as to just what happened with Gadoury's nomination in the first place, see this thread at Babble. While I'm not sure I buy the theory that May simply wanted to avoid having another Green candidate risking a poor showing to counter her presumptive gains in London North Centre, it definitely seems a bit sketchy that the Greens themselves and one of their blogging loyalists have purged all previous discussion about Gadoury.)

Ulterior motives

On its own, Tony Clement's intention to look into whether Canadians are overcharged for generic drugs would be a good one. But given that it was Clement himself who handed a needless $300 million giveaway to brand-name drug manufacturers just a month ago, it's hard to see the effort as anything but a slap in the face of recognized Lib supporters (as opposed to a genuine effort to make medicine more affordable).

Private calculations

CBC reports that while B.C.'s Campbell government pushes forward with its farce of a health-care "conversation", the government's own silence is enabling for-profit care to keep advancing in the meantime:

Canada's first private emergency room won't be allowed to accept patients from ambulances or let patients stay more than 24 hours when it opens next week.

The False Creek Surgical Centre, which already performs private surgeries for a fee, is slated to do a test run of emergency services on Monday and plans to be open for patients next Friday...

Godley (the centre's medical director) said he doesn't know how the centre falls under the Canada Health Act and he declined to talk about its fee structure.

Godley said the centre wrote to the provincial health minister about its plans several months ago, but received no reply and so decided to proceed.

It's certainly no secret that Campbell and company have been looking for excuses to move toward greater privatization of health care (among other government services). But the lack of any response to Godley's plan demonstrates that the B.C. Libs' commitment to destroying government is matched only by their cowardice: rather than so much as responding privately to the centre's plan, they seem to have tried to ignore the issue themselves in hopes that nobody would notice what was happening.

Sadly, to the extent the Libs' goal may have been to enable privatization by stealth, it appears they've managed to get what they wanted, as the opening of private emergency service is now a fait accompli without any public input. And no matter what the outcome of the "conversation", the real question now is whether privatized care will have spread so far as to be irreversible by the time the Libs' faults get them removed from office.

Update: B.C. Health Minister George Abbott now says it would be difficult see how the emergency room can operate legally. Funny that he couldn't be bothered to say the same when he was asked in time to influence whether it would open or not...

Poor public policy

One of the more dangerous parts of the Cons' economic plan has apparently been largely ignored - and I'd have missed it as well if not for an off-hand remark in CJME's otherwise-woeful coverage. But the Cons are apparently determined to spend public money through public-private partnerships (P3s), despite the track record of inefficiency and secrecy associated with P3s:

Some provinces are implementing P3 projects and have already started to put in place the structures that will allow them to harness the opportunities provided by P3s in helping to renew public infrastructure and improving the delivery of related public services. For example, in recent years public agencies, such as Partnerships British Columbia and L’agence des partenariats public-privé du Québec, were set up to provide expert services to public bodies in evaluating the feasibility of P3 projects and to facilitate the negotiation, conclusion and management of partnership contracts.

For its part, Canada’s New Government intends to establish a federal P3 office that will facilitate a broader use of P3s in Canadian infrastructure projects. The Government will also encourage the development and use of P3 best practices by requiring that P3s be given consideration in larger infrastructure investments that receive federal program funding.

I won't repeat for now the extensive set of problems which has already surfaced with respect to P3s in the past. But it's worth pointing out that the one government office which the Cons are happy to set up now (and presumably expand later) is one whose effect is to put the government at the mercy of private actors in delivering essential services, while also inflating costs in the long run. And while that fits well with the Cons' plan of declaring immediate gains with no attention paid to the long term, that's bound to be as much a losing strategy for the federal government as it's already proven to be in B.C. and elsewhere.

On nationhood

Some of the strongest voices against PMS' motion to recognize Quebec as a nation have been Dipper bloggers who aren't happy with the party's willingness to support the declaration. But I'll argue against the grain on this one: in my view the NDP's stance is probably a poor one from the standpoint of maximizing seats, but is nonetheless the right one on principle.

Let's start with why the move is a bad one politically. I've argued for quite some time, and still believe to be true, that the Western populist vote (along with other protest votes in general) forms probably the NDP's greatest chance of expanding its vote to push its way to a top-two position. And with PMS flip-flopping to move the "nation" resolution forward, the NDP could have gone a long way toward winning some of that vote by positioning itself as the only federal party not willing to grant a perceived special status to Quebec.

Sure, there might be some votes to be lost that way as well. But there's probably a lot more potential for the NDP to pick up seats elsewhere than in Quebec...and the usual lack of NDP coverage in the media means the Dippers could have managed to avoid taking much flak from the Ottawa powers that be (which I'd take to be lined up in support of the resolution given the Cons' and Libs' agreement). Which would have made opposing the resolution a relatively low-risk, high-reward action.

In contrast, by supporting the resolution, the NDP does absolutely nothing to distinguish itself from the Libs and the Cons, and indeed makes leading figures in both of those parties appear to be setting the agenda. And in the process it's clearly alienated at least some supporters.

But then, there's the question of principle. And contrary to the concerns that the move does damage to the country and/or the party, the NDP's stance is consistent both with the party's historical position on Quebec, and more importantly its rightful recognition that should-be nations which lack state status either in Canada or abroad shouldn't have their collective status ignored based on that lack of political power. Indeed, it's hard to see how the NDP could seek to improve the real autonomy of First Nations in Canada, or Palestinians in the Middle East, while arguing to deny even a symbolic title in this case.

Which isn't to say that Harper's language couldn't stand to be improved - e.g. by recognizing French-Canadians rather than "Quebecois" as more accurately bearing the sociological definition of "nation". But nonetheless, the NDP's support should be seen as opening the door for proper recognition of underrepresented national groups in general, not merely a one-off step to pander to Quebec. And that should be kept in mind by those tempted to simply lump the NDP in with the other parties whose position is more plainly based on politics.

Update: I'll take a moment to deal also with the criticism of the NDP for supporting the concept of nationhood whether or not it's with Harper's caveat. It's hard to imagine a less logically based critique: if Quebec is indeed a nation, can that possibly be any more or less true based on the status of Canada as a whole?

If anything, it seems to me unreasonable to vote differently between the two competing motions - particularly in the direction planned by the Libs and Cons, since the motion they'll be voting against is effectively included in the motion they'll be voting for. But then, that's based on consistency of reasoning, rather than a desire to form a "united front" regardless of whether that front makes any sense.

On imbalance

Jim Flaherty's long-range economic plan won't disappoint that segment of the Canadian population which wants nothing more than for government to put itself out of business. But for the rest of the country, the plan seems very likely to backfire on the Cons:

In an economic statement delivered to the House of Commons finance committee, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said the government will continue to cut income taxes and will reduce the GST by another percentage point, to five per cent, not later than 2011.

The finance minister said the added tax relief — which he said could amount to $22 billion over the next six years — would be in addition to the $20 billion in personal tax breaks unveiled in his May 2006 budget...

Flaherty also set a goal of eliminating the "total government net debt" by 2021. But that prompted criticism from Liberal finance critic John McCallum, who said it was a term "only a handful of economists in the OECD have ever heard of."

Now, I have to figure Flaherty went with the 15-year projection in order to be able to find some time frame over which he could claim to want to pay off Canada's debt (however dubious the argument that "total government net debt" measures much of anything). But that choice looks like a dangerous one for a minority government - particularly one which has been so one-sided with its focus so far.

The most obvious problem with the long-term framework is its presumptuousness. It's far from clear that the Cons will ever be able to implement a single one of their announcements - let alone hold power for any substantial portion of the longer term projected. But the Cons' apparent desire to write themselves a multi-decade tenancy in power could push anybody who might have been willing to put up with a Con minority into other camps.

And the possibility of long-term Con government only looks worse due to the content of Flaherty's announcements today. While tax cuts are understandably popular to a point, Canadians will surely ask themselves whether they want a government which looks for excuses to hack another $20 billion away from its bottom line every time it updates its finances, or one which thinks there may be more to life than tax cuts.

For some, the Cons' pattern (along with Flaherty's track record) will serve as reason to doubt that any debt repayment will ever take place under the Cons; for others, the problem will be with the complete lack of commitment to programs of any non-military kind. But one way or the other, the vast majority of Canadians expect far more balanced decision-making than the Cons seem willing to carry out - particularly over the long term. There are very few Canadians (presumably limited to the membership of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation) who are likely to buy an argument that tax cuts should be prioritized to the exclusion of everything else, and that's the only group which is going to like the Cons' big-picture planning.

In fairness, there are some good ideas in the Cons' plan which hopefully won't get lost in the shuffle. In addition to debt repayment as a general principle, the EI tax cut and the working income tax benefit are certainly worth supporting. But even these reflect the Cons' lack of willingness to solve any problem through anything but a tax cut. And now that the Cons have gladly given that impression, it doesn't seem likely the Cons can successfully present themselves as a party capable of making balanced decisions in the long run.

Update: Relentlessly Progressive Economics has more.

On baseless distinctions

The Cons apparently do have an answer to the criticism that they're using this year's fiscal update for the purpose of electioneering just as Ralph Goodale did with last year's. But it should come as no surprise that the answer is purely a matter of form rather than substance:

The Tory government is poised to unveil its fall fiscal update on Thursday, along with an economic wish-list expected to include much talked-about tax cuts.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's office is adamant the document about to be released isn't a mini-budget.

"It's not the same thing that (former finance minister) Ralph Goodale came out last year with," Flaherty spokesperson Eric Richer told The Canadian Press.

"That was basically a platform to launch the election. We're not doing that."...

Sources told CP that a separate document, known in Finance Department circles as "the plan," will be a Tory blueprint for spending and tax cuts over the next 10 years.

"It's a road map for government policy for the Canadian economy," one official told CP. "The plan will outline the Conservative government's economic priorities for the next 10 years, at least."

In other words, the only difference is that the Cons are using two documents rather than one to release a long-term platform on the same day and in the same forum as the fiscal update. Which could at best offer a minor technical variation from Goodale's all-in-one document last year.

But that irrelevant point of distinction certainly doesn't counter the substantive problem of a minority government loudly trumpeting a long-term plan which it can't reasonably claim to be able to implement in whole or in part. And it may not be long before the Cons' continued eagerness to copy that which they decried in opposition leads to exactly the same fate that befell the Libs.

A narrow focus

Greg Weston discusses an open-ended poll on Canadians' views of the Libs. While the results are interesting (particularly the degree to which concerns about scandal and corruption resonate even with Lib voters), I have to wonder what the results would be for a similar poll about the Cons, NDP and Greens - and whether Sun Media is only feeding into the Libs' own "natural governing party" pose by singling them out for the poll.

On setups

Peter MacKay says that Pakistan and Afghanistan need to do more to control their common border. Which presumably makes it Stephen Harper's turn to make up a story (based on old information) about how Canada has convinced them to do just that.

Same old story, fiscal update edition

November 2005: The Cons criticize the Libs for electioneering in the guise of a mid-year fiscal update which a precarious minority government couldn't possibly implement.

November 2006: To nobody's surprise...

The costs of arrogance

So just how effective was PMS' brand of Big Daddy Knows Best foreign relations? Let's leave it to the recipient of one of his lectures and a Canadian business figure to give the answer:

Beijing's top diplomat in Canada suggested Prime Minister Stephen Harper is taking a condescending tone with China on human rights, "pointing fingers" when he should be keeping the direct lines of communication open.

"Acknowledging (the) diversity of the world we share, and learning from each other with tolerance and respect, will prove far more productive for common progress and prosperity than standing aloof and pointing fingers at each other," Ambassador Lu Shumin told a business luncheon...

The Chinese ambassador had suggested that relations between the two countries had been better under previous Liberal and Progressive Conservative governments, because the lines of communication had been kept open.

That policy of pressure via engagement is what Canadian business leaders are seeking again.

"There is irritation between the two sides, we would have liked from business to see the prime minister visit China on his way to Hanoi, as his predecessors have done before," said Neil Tait of BMO Financial Group.

Needless to say, based on this response it looks ever less likely that anything positive actually came out of PMS' much-touted one-on-one APEC sessions - no matter what fairy tale Peter MacKay is going around telling now.

Which isn't to say that Canada shouldn't be pressuring China and other countries on human rights issues, particularly ones as glaring as those pointed out in the article. But if PMS really believes that he can take that discussion into the media (with his usual self-righteous pose) without suffering a severe loss of cooperation as a consequence, then...well, that would make him just as clueless about the realities of diplomacy as his idol to the south. And since Canada (unlike the U.S.) lacks the global hegemon status needed to force other countries to hold their noses and play along, Canadian voters will rightly have to consider whether they're prepared to pay a massive diplomatic price for Harper's grandstanding.

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.