No independent voice

Robert suggests snarkily that Dippers join the effort to bring Elizabeth May into the leaders' debates to show just how right-wing the Greens actually are. While I agree with May's inclusion on principle, it's worth offering a counterpoint solely from the Dippers' strategic perspective: do we really want to add yet another voice which seems devoted to misleading Canadians about the NDP?

Though she said Layton understood the urgency of climate change, she condemned him for co-operating with the Tories to get the Clean Air Act into a Commons committee for consideration. The bill, widely condemned by environment groups and the Bloc Québécois and Liberals, was effectively dead before the NDP came to Harper's aid.

"The likelihood is that Mr. Layton has given Mr. Harper an early Christmas present by rescuing the Clean Air Act," she said.

Now, I presume May is paying enough attention to know how and why the Clean Air Act actually ended up in committee:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has agreed to an NDP demand to put his Clean Air Act before a Commons committee, where the opposition will try to change it radically.

NDP Leader Jack Layton made the demand during a meeting with Harper late Tuesday, saying the minority Conservative bill was "dead in the water" because the opposition parties would vote it down...

The bill will now go through the unusual step of being reviewed by an all-party committee before second reading, where it's expected to be overhauled by critics who say it doesn't do enough to slow global warming.

In other words, the NDP did nothing to "rescue" the Cons' actual plan - and the purpose and effect of the move wasn't to lend any credence to the Cons' work, as indicated by the NDP's strong responses to the initial draft. Rather, the effect was to make use of an existing statutory vehicle to enable the opposition parties to put together legislation which would actually result in sound environmental action - a move which drew the support of Environmental Defence Canada among others.

Of course, that plan hinged on the other opposition parties caring enough about the environment to seek to change the bill for the better, rather than preferring to do nothing. Unfortunately, with the Libs determined to claim nothing can get done until they take back power rather than accomplishing anything under a Con government, there may not be much chance of the hoped-for amendments happening in the near future. But surely the Libs' refusal to work toward a positive result speaks poorly of their own actions, not of the NDP's.

(It's also worth noting as an aside that if some agreement can't be reached to improve the Clean Air Act for the better, then the Cons' bill as drafted is just as thoroughly dead in the water as it was when first presented.)

Sadly, May's love-in with the Libs seems to have led her to mislead Canadians about what the NDP has done (and is doing) to improve matters on what's supposed to be her core issue. And her current parroting of Lib spin shows all too clearly that voters seeking a fresh perspective, honesty and principle from their politicians had best look elsewhere - and ensures that even if the Greens are given a spot in any debate, it all too likely won't result in any new voice being added.

On one-sided relations

As a prime example of just how ineffective the Cons have been in dealing with the U.S., Ambassador David Wilkins has confirmed that Maher Arar remains on the U.S.' border lookout system despite Arar's complete exoneration. And not only has the Cons' supposedly closer relationship given them absolutely no influence over U.S. decision-making, it didn't even earn them the ability to find the facts out for themselves:

Despite being exonerated by a federal inquiry, Maher Arar remains on a U.S. government watch list, says the U.S. ambassador to Canada.

In an interview with CBC Radio's The House, Ambassador David Wilkins confirmed Arar remains on the American border lookout system...

Late last week, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said he didn't know whether Arar was still on the American watch list, telling a Commons committee he had recently posed the question to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

"Their response was — I'm not saying I was totally satisfied with it — that because it was a matter of privacy that if Mr. Arar or perhaps his lawyers would contact the State Department, they can find that out," said Day.

Now, it's at least a plus that the CBC is able to find out the facts which neither Day nor anyone else associated with the government was apparently able to learn. (Though that capacity too seems unlikely to last through much more Con government.)

But there should be no doubt that the Cons' strategy for dealing with the U.S. has been an utter failure for Canada. And with the Cons neither friendly enough with the U.S. to win their trust, nor willing to push for either answers or results, it's plain that it'll take a new party in charge to properly defend Canada's interests.

Update: Layton takes the lead on the Arar situation:

Layton says Canadians have been outraged by the injustices inflicted on Arar, and he says the fact he remains on the terror watch list is evidence those injustices persist.

"This is simply not right," Layton told a news conference.

"There is no evidence that Mr. Arar's name should be on such a list. We held a whole inquiry here in Canada on this question.

"The prime minister must do everything he possibly can to correct this situation because otherwise it sends out the message that the Canadian government does not stand behind its own citizens."

Finally made public

B.C.'s NDP reports that the Campbell government is reimbursing 1100 residents for private MRI fees. While the only really surprising part of the story is the fact that the Libs admitted any wrongdoing, it's still striking just how much wilful damage to the system has been deliberately left out of Campbell's "conversation" - and how much more willing B.C.'s current regime is to put money into rewarding privately-funded health care than to properly fund the public system. And it'll take a strong spotlight on the Libs' lack of credibility to ensure that the new admission doesn't get spun into yet another excuse for more privatization.

(h/t to LeftCoast Rant.)

Head in the sand

The Cons can claim a direct hit in their war on effective government, as Maxime Bernier has managed to contribute to the decay of Canadian research and development, surrender a hard-won market niche, and alienate a wide range of international allies in a single bone-headed move:

The federal government has turned down a request by Canada's space industry to support a contract that would have allowed the companies to build the European Space Agency's Mars surface rover, CBC News has learned.

The decision stunned the companies and has left the ESA scrambling to find a new partner, as no European firm is adequately prepared to match the technical abilities of Canadian firms to build its ExoMars rover...

The project required no additional funding from Ottawa, but was contingent upon $100 million over 10 years from the existing CSA budget being redirected to the program by restructuring priorities and cancelling or postponing other projects, according to documents obtained by the CBC.

But just a few short weeks after the presentation, Industry Minister Maxime Bernier told the companies the government hadn't made up its mind about the future of Canada's space role and didn't want to go forward with the project.

The project had the approval of the United States, which also wanted Canada to continue its robotics role and had signed off on Canadian firms to design at least the robotics component on equipment and vehicles used on its planned mission to the moon in 2020.

Canada has never failed with any project it has handled for NASA, which has earned it the trust of the U.S. as it gathers international support for its space programs.

It's hard to see who stands to gain anything from the refusal to participate, as even the CSA whose budget is affected would presumably prefer to continue to be a reliable international partner rather than having its role cast into so much doubt. But then, there is one exception: namely, any Con who wants to repeat the 1950s so desperately as to be happy to re-enact Canada's worst mistakes from that era:

The rover decision has the companies threatening to take their operations south of the border, which observers fear could lead to a brain drain of Canadian designers and scientists similar to the one suffered in the wake of the abrupt cancellation of the Avro Arrow fighter-interceptor program in 1959.

After the Diefenbaker government axed the Arrow, many of the Avro Canada engineering and technical staff left Canada for the U.S. to become lead engineers, program managers and heads of engineering in NASA's manned space programs Mercury to Apollo, which led to the first man on the moon in 1969.

We'll have to hope that history doesn't repeat itself entirely. But with Canada's So-Called Government apparently willing to let high-tech industry atrophy while continuing to give needless handouts to resource extraction, it's clear that it'll take a quick change in political leadership to avoid an entirely preventable loss of talent and economic development.

Update: Just to highlight how unnecessary the loss of the project was, note as well that even if the Cons didn't want to divert other CSA funding, they could have funded the whole project by simply paying what the military's new aircraft are worth rather than paying more than double the going rate.

Edit: Might as well use PMS' own terminology to describe the Cons' regime.

A renewal opportunity

As I noted yesterday, Stephane Dion has ensured that sitting Lib MPs can't face a nomination challenge for any reason - including their demonstrated disdain for his much-touted "social justice" pillar in the form of a vote against same-sex marriage. But even if these MPs can't face any internal challenge, those who want to see renewal in their riding can accomplish the same thing by voting in a candidate who doesn't want to turn back the clock on SSM. So let's take a quick look at the current vote counts of the ridings involved:

Jim Karygiannis - Scarborough-Agincourt - 28,099 votes, to 10,634 for Con Bill Redwood and 4,943 for Dipper David Robertson.

Derek Lee - Scarborough-Rouge River - 30,281 votes, to 9,426 for Con Jerry Bance and 4,973 to Dipper Andrew Brett.

Gerry Byrne - Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte - 17,208 votes, to 10,137 for Con Cyril Pelley, Jr. and 4,847 for Dipper Holly Pike.

Tom Wappel - Scarborough Southwest - 19,930 votes, to 10,017 for Con Vincent Veerasuntharam and 9,626 for Dipper Dan Harris.

Roy Cullen – Etobicoke North - 22,195 votes, to 8,049 for Con Amanjit Khroad and 3,820 for Dipper Ali Naqvi.

Ray Bonin - Nickel Belt - 19,775 votes, to 17,668 for Dipper Claude Gravelle and 5,822 for Con Margaret Schwartzentruber.

Dan McTeague - Pickering-Scarborough East - 27,720 votes, to 16,686 for Con Tim Dobson and 6,083 for Dipper Gary Dale.

John McKay - Scarborough-Guildwood - 21,875 votes, to 11,790 for Con Pauline Browes and 5,847 for Dipper Peter Cambell.

Gurbax Malhi - Bramalea-Gore-Malton - 25,349 votes, to 16,310 for Con John Sprovieri and 6,400 for Dipper Cesar Martello.

Paul Steckle - Huron-Bruce - 21,620 votes, to 20,289 for Con Ben Lobb and 8,696 for Dipper Grant Robertson.

Alan Tonks - York South-Weston - 22,871 votes, to 8,525 for Dipper Paul Ferreira and 6,991 for Con Stephen Halicki.

Wajid Khan - Mississauga-Streetsville - 23,913 votes, to 18,121 for Con Raminder Gill and 6,929 for Dipper James Caron.

Francis Scarpaleggia - Lac-Saint-Louis - 25,588 votes, to 14,164 for Con Andrea Paine and 5,702 for Dipper Daniel Quinn.

In each riding, the Libs, Cons and NDP were the top three in vote count; I've omitted the lower-ranking parties since this post discusses what would amount to a strategic vote.

On a quick review, I'd classify three of the above as particularly close ridings: Huron-Bruce and Mississauga-Streetsville where Cons ran second, and Nickel Belt where the NDP is already within striking distance. Which means that fear of a Con pickup simply isn't a real concern in the vast majority of the ridings where paleo-Lib MPs currently reside.

And in every single one of the above ridings except Huron-Bruce, if the Lib vote were to split exactly in half between the Lib candidate and the Dipper candidate (to allow for the worst-case vote-splitting scenario), the result would be an NDP win. Which would mean both a more progressive MP now for those ridings, and a chance to replace a paleo-Lib with a new nominee for the following federal election. (And remember, a loss in a future general election is the only way a current Lib MP need ever face a nomination challenge - meaning the alternative is to be stuck with an anti-SSM incumbent in perpetuity.)

In the end, it seems plain that Lib supporters disgusted with their current anti-SSM MPs have a readily-available strategy to ensure more progressive representation both following the next election, and in the longer term. The only question is whether they'll actually take an obvious path toward that end.

Mutually assured inaction

I'm not sure we needed any more reasons to be suspicious of the TILMA. But the CP points out yet another one, as Jim Flaherty appears set to try to impose it on the provinces as the price for a slightly larger equalization payment:

Flaherty also indicated that his negotiations with the provinces will be a two-way street. They want more money from the federal government but he wants agreement on a common securities regulator, removal of interprovincial trade and labour mobility barriers and harmonization of provincial sales taxes with the federal GST.

"So, this isn't just a discussion about money flowing from Ottawa to the provinces. It's also a discussion about our obligation together to create a strong economic union in Canada."

As an inducement, Flaherty has promised to drastically limit the use of the federal spending power to intrude on areas of provincial jurisdiction. He brushed off reports that Harper is willing to enshrine such limits in the Constitution.

Now, it's possible that other, less harmful agreements (such as the labour mobility agreement already in the works) could also meet Flaherty's terms. But if Flaherty plans to impose the elimination of barriers as a precondition to funding which is expected to flow by February, then it doesn't seem likely that all provinces would be able to agree on a different structure in time - leading to the danger that the Cons could make TILMA their standard out of convenience rather than on merit.

Which would presumably be a rather happy result for Flaherty, who seems eager to make sure that other levels of government are just as unresponsive as his own. But even if many provinces want to see the federal government avoid their jurisdiction entirely (which itself seems a dubious claim given that many of the "intrusions" involved a province's agreement), it's doubtful that any of them who haven't yet signed onto the TILMA want to see the federal government tell them to avoid exercising their own jurisdiction. And it doesn't appear the least bit unlikely that some provinces, and indeed many Canadians, would ultimately reject what looks to be an ever-decreasing equalization fix, preferring a small fiscal imbalance to a Con-imposed power vacuum.

Lessons unlearned

It's bad enough that the Libs have done so much to try to prevent their leaders and MPs from facing any internal review mechanisms. But it's a new low that they now seem downright proud of it:

With another federal election campaign on the horizon, the Liberal caucus must focus its efforts in serving the needs of constituents and exposing the shortcomings of this minority Conservative government, said Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion.

"During the next election campaign, Liberals will provide Canadians with a framework for building a more prosperous, just and environmentally sustainable Canada," said Mr. Dion. "To succeed in defeating the Conservatives' narrow-minded vision of Canada, we need a Liberal team that is focused on election preparedness - not on fighting nomination battles back in their ridings."

The Liberal policy of securing nominations for Liberal incumbents was introduced during the minority government of former Prime Minister Paul Martin in an effort to allow MPs to better serve their constituents as Parliamentarians instead of continuously campaigning at the riding level.

Under the leadership of Mr. Dion, incumbent MPs will continue to hold secure nominations while talented new candidates will be selected for unheld seats and ridings where the incumbent Liberal candidate does not seek re-election.

Needless to say, that poses rather a large problem for those who have valid reasons to want to see some incumbents challenged. But then, the Libs' message makes clear that for all their talk of renewal, they're still more than willing to cut corners on internal accountability if they see a short-term electoral benefit to doing so. Which means that those interested in any genuine grassroots input still don't have a place in the Liberal Party - and that Canadian voters who recognize that a progressive message doesn't need to be combined with a callous hunger for power have yet one more reason to cast their vote elsewhere.

(h/t to Jim.)

Wilful blindness

Shorter Don Martin: The real tragedy in the torture of Maher Arar and others is that something's being done in response.

Partially on topic, does anybody else have a nagging feeling that the reason Day has ordered a new inquiry is to give a fact-finder a chance to say (a) that one or more of the deportees actually did have terrorist connections, and/or (b) that any torture managed to happen without any wrongdoing on the part of Canadian officials?

Alternate strategies

Duncan Cameron suggests that the NDP put its focus on pocketbook issues going into the next federal election campaign:

The NDP needs to become election ready by building on its strengths in urban centres where people see the deterioration of the social fabric. Homelessness and begging are not just accidental occurrences; they emerge from a low wage economy where the social safety net is no guarantee of minimal subsistence. CLC economist Andrew Jackson has shown how precarious employment, stagnant wages and regional differences characterize the jobs market, despite lower unemployment.

Corporate earnings have outpaced salaries. Incomes, including the social wage (pensions, student loans, welfare, employment insurance), and jobs are the top concerns of most Canadians. The NDP must campaign on these economic security and social cohesion issues. Its ability to represent those Canadians who have issues with the way Canada has been governed for decades is how the party will be judged at the polls.

For the NDP caucus, leader Jack Layton, and party supporters across the country, the arrival of Stéphane Dion announces a new challenge. But for the Liberal leader the issue of economic justice presents a challenge as well. The Liberals have governed from the right for long enough that they have limited ability to mount a credible campaign addressing workplace, and pay-cheque issues. Stéphane Dion has no record in economic debate, or in backing working people. It will be revealing to see where he and his party stand when the House of Commons votes on anti-scab legislation.

The NDP pre-campaign should set out the economic and social issues facing most Canadians, and offer solutions. Caucus positions on setting a federal minimum wage at $10 an hour, and denouncing bank charges are a good start. In a likely minority situation, Canadians need to be able to choose something more than tax cuts or debt repayment when they vote.

Now, there are certainly some possible problems with taking Cameron's plan too far: I'd want to see some balance lest other issues such as the environment (which itself can be pointed out as the ultimate long-term pocketbook issue) get pushed too far from centre stage, and would want to see a lot more policies ready to go than the ones mentioned by Cameron. But from a contrasting perspective, it's never a bad thing to mention that the Cons seem determined only to make inequality worse, while the Libs don't seem to have any shame about the increase in wealth inequality on their watch. And if the NDP can usurp the Cons' focus on pocketbook issues by presenting ones which will actually have more of an impact on the majority of Canadian voters, then it should be in an excellent position next time Canadians go to the polls.

Vote this down

Now this is Stephen Harper's kind of democracy: a Senate plan which would set up a federally-run "consultation" vote while allowing him to ignore any results that he doesn't like. But if PMS really wants to try to use the machinery set out for a referendum to run Senate election, it's worth noting just how much of a departure that is from current law on referenda.

After all, the Referendum Act is very clear as to what types of questions can be put to voters:

5(3) A referendum question shall be so worded that each elector may express an opinion on the question by making a cross or other mark after the word “yes” or “no” on the ballot paper.

Needless to say, that type of structure couldn't be much worse suited for a choice among candidates (whether in a single-choice ballot or even a preferential one). About the only way to try to adapt it would be either to create a highly forced wording (e.g. "Do you support the appointment of X to the Senate?" for each candidate on a ballot, with no relation between a voter's answer for different candidates), or to completely rework the current Act where other procedures are likely adapted for the "yes/no" structure.

Which signals the reality that Canada's referendum legislation simply isn't intended to be used for Harper's intended purpose. And while it's possible to set up yet another federal voting format to accompany our current legislation on referenda and elections, that seems a highly artificial creation - particularly when the apparent intent is to avoid the binding outcome of an election.

Having figured out that the provinces aren't interested in funding his exercise in selective democracy, PMS has apparently decided to try to impose his will federally instead. But there's no reason to think either that such a change is desired by Canadians, or that it's the least bit logical within our current legislative structure.

(Edit: typo.)

On getting things done

Macleans discusses former Canadian ambassador to the U.S.A. Allan Gotleib and his eminently sensible strategy on how to actually get things done in the States:

Gotlieb also pressed for using U.S. business groups to lobby lawmakers, a practice that has been crucial to managing the border issue: "No one cares a farthing if a foreign country comes whining at the door," he says. "They do worry, however, if their own special interests whine. So to fight uranium import controls, alert the power utilities who will have to pay higher prices and urge them to lobby. To fight duties on subway cars, get the municipalities to squeal. To fight gas import controls, get the consumers to complain. They are worth 10 ambassadorial calls."

Needless to say, Gotleib's strategy couldn't be any further from that adopted by the Cons on the two key issues with the U.S. to date. Instead, PMS' desire to cede control to nobody besides Bush himself has led Harper to ignore the possibilities for cooperation on softwood lumber and border security - in the latter case even with a ready-made coalition seeking the same result.

Fortunately, Canada will soon have a chance to match the U.S.' recent decision to put the relative grown-ups in charge. Which should signal a return to U.S. relations based on interests shared on both sides of the border, rather than Harper's determination to go it alone.

(Edit: typo.)

Beyond belief

Rona Ambrose was rightly slammed when she claimed Canada would meet all its Kyoto commitments except the emissions targets which form the central part of the agreement. But apparently even that was too much for the Cons to abide, as Ambrose has now decided to declare that Canada's financial commitments under the Kyoto process also don't count rather than admitting an obvious error.

Mind you, even if one were to buy today's explanation, it wouldn't actually explain Ambrose's testimony yesterday in any event. After all, there's a difference between stating that money has actually been paid as Ambrose apparently did yesterday, and claiming that no money was ever owed to begin with. But then, Ambrose has shown quite clearly just how credible her public statements tend to be - leaving only the question of whether the Libs still want to see just how much more damage she can do.

A problematic sales pitch

CTV reports on Martha Hall Findlay's plan to sell her Big Red Bus on eBay. But in doing so, one of the reformist Lib leadership candidates is sending out some worrisome signals:

Martha Hall Findlay, the first Liberal leadership candidate knocked out of voting at the recent convention, is selling her tour bus on eBay.

"The bus has done a great job, so we do it with heavy heart," Hall Findlay told CTV's Mike Duffy Live. "But financially, it's served its purpose and now we need to say goodbye to it."

Hall Findlay has yet to figure out an appropriate opening bid for the "Big Red Bus," but said it cost her roughly $100,000...

A Globe and Mail report suggested that by early November, Hall Findlay had a debt of about $130,000.

"It was in fact frugality that gave us the reason for the bus in the first place," she said.

"It was an incredibly efficient way to travel across the country, a great way to travel, and it allowed us to visit communities we simply wouldn't be able to visit by jet. But it was the frugal aspect that was really important. You can't lease these. So we actually had to buy the bus and finance it, and that's why we need to sell it. If we can sell it for a bit more than we paid for ... and raise the money for the campaign debt, then that would be fantastic."

It's certainly understandable that Hall Findlay would hope to recoup her investment to the greatest extent possible, and perhaps put a dent in the remaining debt. But assuming that she paid fair market value for the bus to begin with, any additional price fetched now beyond what Hall Findlay paid initially would seem to be little more than a donation from the purchaser to Hall Findlay. Which is particularly problematic when Hall Findlay appears to expect to pay off debt in an amount seven times the individual donation limit beyond the value of the bus itself.

Now, the above isn't to say that Hall Findlay has anything but the best of intentions, particularly in using a public process to sell the bus. But a loophole allowing parties or candidates to raise large sums of money through the purchase and sale of capital assets could entirely undermine Canada's election-financing laws - no matter how much (or how little) of a gain Hall Findlay actually stands to make with the sale of her bus. And given such a readily foreseeable problem, we can only hope Hall Findlay will avoid setting that precedent.

Stockboy Writes a Letter

And to think this is Stockwell Day with PMS' muzzle on:

Maybe all my constituents living high up on the West Bench, or Lakeview Heights, or the hills of Logan Lake will soon be sitting on lakeside property as one of the many benefits of global warming...

I guess what the treaty signers should have done was to stage a fist fight at the signing ceremony. At least they would have got a headline for all their labours...

Mexico’s democracy is really just coming of age since they have been ruled for almost 70 years by a pseudo-democratic regime.

As with any loss of position the previous power brokers have been furiously trying to whip up mass protests in the streets to topple the new government.

Toss in Day's complete lack of an eye for even the most basic of details (unless Steven Harper really did meet with Felipe Calderone), and it's plain just what intellect and insight we can expect from our Minister of Public Safety. But if there's any plus side, it's the possibility that maybe Day will dedicate himself full-time to a rambling letter-writing campaign rather than inflicting his lack of knowledge on Ottawa any longer.

Update: The CP details just how wrong Day was in his passage about Mexican politics.

Update II: And for those wondering whether Day has any more of a clue it comes to matters at the core of his ministerial responsibilities, the answer is "no".

Misplaced non-confidence

Based on Stephane Dion's reaction, it doesn't look like the Bloc's plan for a non-confidence motion on Afghanistan will manage to pass in any event. But given that the Cons not only didn't treat the last major vote on Afghanistan as a confidence vote but stated their intention to extend the combat mission regardless of the result, is there any reason to think they'd be willing to accept a confidence motion on the mission now?

On work environments

In case there was any doubt which set of parties would make for the more likely deal on the environment, Rona Ambrose has now declared that she's more interested in having the Auditor General take some cuts at the Libs' previous plans than in coming up with better ones:

Environment Minister Rona Ambrose wants the auditor general to review all federal climate programs to determine whether the public is getting value for its money - but it's not clear whether that audit will include the Conservatives' own programs...

Liberal environment critic John Godfrey said the timing of the audit is absurd, since most of the climate programs of the previous government have already been cancelled.

"To audit willy-nilly, after cancelling climate programs that you already cancelled without an audit...seems crazy," said Godfrey...

NDP environment critic Nathan Cullen said any audit should include the Conservatives' own initiatives in the name of climate change, such as making transit passes tax deductible.

"The first program they rolled out is the transit pass, which has got to be one of the most expensive ways to reduce any emissions. I hope she's going to audit her own plans."

While the article also hints at some new willingness on Ambrose's part to consider funding emissions cuts globally, it seems to indicate that the Cons are still more interested in trying to fight past battles than in cooperating toward real progress. Which should provide plenty of incentive for the Libs to actually work with the other opposition parties on a common environmental strategy - both to highlight the Cons' disinterest in getting anything done, and to move the debate past their previous record.

Update: Darren points out another fun tidbit from the extended story:

Ambrose ran into trouble when asked whether Canada has paid $1.5 million pledged last year in support of the Clean Development Mechanism, a key feature of the Kyoto Protocol.

She replied emphatically that the money had been paid.

But when she turned to her officials to verify this, Assistant Deputy Minister David McGovern said it had not.

"The department has prepared a proposal for the minister but it's still under consideration, it haven't actually reached the minister's desk yet," he said.

No wonder Ambrose wants as little attention as possible to be paid to what she's doing. But this brings up yet another problem with the NDP trying to pursue a deal with the Cons: would anybody trust Ambrose not to mistakenly pass her latest press release instead of an agreed bill?

Voted down

Others have already discussed the recent Canadian Wheat Board director elections as a reflection. But the most significant sign that the Cons are in danger of losing their rural base may be the fact that even the one anti-monopoly director who Strahl managed to place on the board doesn't appreciate the Cons' tactics:

In District 1, Henry Vos, who farms near Fairview, Alta., unseated incumbent Arthur Macklin by roughly 200 votes. But Macklin, who supports the board's monopoly, said the vote result may have been tainted by an unexpected change to the voting rules.

Macklin said Strahl decided during the election period to change the eligibility for voting, excluding farmers who had not delivered grain to the wheat board in the previous 15 months. The defeated director says that eliminated nearly half the votes in his district.

"I guess he felt that if those voters were eliminated from the list, it would maybe make a difference in the results of the election," Macklin said Sunday in an interview. "In fact, he misled the House of Commons and misled the public in terms of the wheat board supporting this change when it didn't."

Vos also said he's not happy with the way the federal minister intervened during the election campaign, although he'd like to see changes in the board's marketing policies.

"It really took attention away from what I thought the issues should be," Vos said in a telephone interview. "It kept focusing (the campaign) on the agenda of the federal government, which was quite a distraction."

Again, with another district actually flipping toward a pro-CWB director, Strahl's attempts to alter the election process didn't manage to undo the pro-CWB majority. And with Strahl's meddling apparently earning him only varying degrees of enmity from the new directors rather than any new friends, it looks more and more likely that the Cons are only sealing their own electoral fate by trying to manipulate the CWB's internal workings.

Battles best not fought

Greg Weston points out that after promising to end the Libs' record of delaying any compensation for past military exposure to Agent Orange, the Cons have instead followed the existing pattern of neglect:

After more than 40 years of government lying and coverups, most of the sad parade of witnesses who gathered in the Commons hearing room last year simply could not believe the Liberal scheme was anything more than another stalling tactic, another attempt to avoid compensating victims until they are all dead.

One of the more vocal skeptics in the room was Conservative MP Greg Thompson from New Brunswick, now the minister of veterans affairs responsible for the Agent Orange file.

“I am absolutely convinced (the study) is nothing more than a public relations exercise for the Government of Canada,” he said last year while still in his opposition days. “There will never be compensation.”

Two months after that, in the midst of the last federal election, Stephen Harper promised to do better, vowing his Conservative government would “stand up for full compensation for persons exposed to defoliant spraying from 1956 to 1984.”

But first there would be more studies.

Indeed, it has now been almost a year since Harper made his promise, and nothing much has changed but the party in power, and the death toll of Gagetown grads...

New Zealand joins the U.S. and Australia as governments that have finally come to their senses and taken the only responsible and humane decision to help the victims of this horrible health tragedy.

All three countries realized they could go on forever studying the effects of Agent Orange, and forcing sick vets and their families to try to prove the impossible — namely, that their medical condition today was caused by chemical spraying 40 years ago.

Instead, they recognized a tragedy and offered compensation to all vets exposed to the deadly herbicides...

At last year’s Commons committee hearing, the now Veterans Affairs Minister Thompson claimed the Liberals’ study of the Agent Orange issue was “simply an exercise to get the government through to the next election without offering these people compensation.”

It still is.

Unfortunately, this government predictably hasn't proven any more willing than the last one to offer any reprieve to the bulk of veterans exposed to toxic chemicals by their own country. And the Cons' inaction not only makes matters yet more difficult for the survivors of Agent Orange, but also hints at a future unwillingness to acknowledge any harms being inflicted on Canada's current troops. Which should leave even less doubt as to whether or not the Cons are interested in supporting Canada's troops when it counts.

The path forward

The latest poll numbers have to be disappointing for the NDP. But while Stephane Dion's ascent to the Lib leadership may have caused some poor results in the short term, it also offers an opportunity for the NDP to improve its standing by taking the lead on an issue where it has long pointed in the direction now travelled by the Libs.

After all, Dion staked his leadership campaign on the importance of the environment. But his plan at the moment is apparently to complain about the Cons' actions in the short term while waiting until after some future election to make any changes. Which seems to be rather a waste of time when a majority of MPs in the House of Commons appear to agree on the need for added environmental action.

Under those circumstances, it only makes sense for the NDP to centre its core message in the next few weeks around a public call to the Libs (as well as the Bloc, the Greens and environmental groups, not to mention the Cons if they wanted to participate) to agree on, and then team up to pass, a package of legislative changes on greenhouse gas emissions (and other agreed environmental issues). Obviously the NDP's own Kyoto plan would be a great place to start, but the call should include a willingness to listen to and incorporate any other idea which would help toward the end goal.

It's worth noting that such a plan likely wouldn't leave any party without a means of campaigning on the environment. Since the opposition parties wouldn't be able to pass a money bill, all spending measures would have to receive the assent of a willing government - likely leaving Dion with his prized incentives policy as a campaign issue for the next federal election. And if by some chance the Cons were willing to sign on to a full package, surely any environmentally responsible politician would prefer that outcome to waiting until a future trip to the polls.

Of course, it's always possible that the Libs would scuttle the possibility by refusing to join in. But if so, that would only cast doubt on the reputation for putting principle over power that Dion has managed to cultivate. Which, contrasted against the NDP's continued willingness to cooperate, would at least seem likely to pull a good chunk of the centre-left swing vote back toward the NDP.

It's within the reach of Canada's opposition parties to pass a set of statutory emissions targets as well as other positive environmental legislation. And the NDP can only help both its own standing and Canada's environmental policy by putting forward a public push toward that end.

Update: Chantal Hebert speculates that it may instead be the NDP and Cons alone who manage to work out a deal. Which could also lead to good results, assuming the Cons are willing to actually make a push to reach Canada's Kyoto commitment rather than preserving their own strategy of delaying any real targets. But there's still no benefit to leaving the other parties out of the discussions to start with.

Disappearances

The Cons' proud legacy of evading questions continued this week, with two key officials refusing to appear before the Public Safety Committee based on a lack of time. One has to wonder whether the Cons will be sure to assign a yet-larger workload to the officials involved before the next set of committee meetings, or merely decide to create some convenient scheduling conflicts.

Deflating the hype

Erin points out that while the oft-discussed costs of the B.C./Alberta TILMA could be potentially huge, any benefits are likely to be slight - in contrast to the implausible claims of the governments involved:

(T)he Government of BC claims that TILMA could add $4.8 billion to provincial GDP. A Government of Quebec report, updated last month, indicates that BC’s gross exports to Alberta (goods and services) were $8.8 billion in 2002. Since BC’s total inter-provincial exports grew by 22% between then and 2005, its gross exports to Alberta might have increased to somewhere around $10.7 billion. It seems wildly optimistic to imagine an Alberta-BC free-trade agreement raising BC’s GDP by an amount equal to about 45% of its current exports to Alberta, especially since gross figures significantly overstate the contribution of exports to GDP.

It's hard to say what trade benefits (if any) would actually appear as a result of the TILMA. But with both parties involved going so far out of their way to pretend the agreement is something that it's not, there's ever less reason to think that the truth about it would earn a positive reception. And that should serve as a warning flag for any other province wondering whether to sign on.

Out of curiosity

Since I first saw Stephane Dion's Wikipedia entry shortly after his selection as leader of the Libs, I've been curious about the implications of the following passage:

Dion has often been described as a Trudeau centralist due to his strong defence of Canadian federalism, most particularly in his "open letters" to former premier of Quebec Lucien Bouchard. However, his position on federalism is far more nuanced. It would be most accurate to describe him as a federal autonomist. While Dion supports cooperation, flexibility, and interdependence in the Canadian federation, he unequivocally argues against jurisdictional intrusion by stating that "the Constitution must be respected. We must do away with the all-too-convenient excuse that a given governmental initiative responds to a need that is too urgent to be stymied by issues of 'jurisdiction.' Infringement of jurisdiction creates confusion which damages the quality of public policy." Dion's position on provincial rights is not only the result of respect for the Constitution of Canada, but also to prevent the "joint decision trap" in which the capacity of a government's ability to act is restricted by the need for approval from the other constituent governments.

Since nothing I saw on Dion's own website seemed to explicitly confirm or deny such a position, a couple of questions for those more familiar with his views than I. Is the above passage an accurate depiction of Dion's past or present view of federalism? And if so, would Dion support PMS' desire to constitutionally prohibit new federal programs in areas of provincial jurisdiction, or oppose such a measure only based on the politics of opening constitutional issues rather than on its merits?

On choices

Murray Mandryk weighs in on the ever-more-public debate over the Cons' equalization promises. And if indeed Harper has gone back on his plan to remove non-renewal resources from the equation, Mandryk clearly sets out that the price is the Cons' own self-declared reputation for honest government:

You can argue that it was stupid politics for former prime minister Paul Martin to offer Newfoundland and Nova Scotia their own separate deals excluding non-renewable resources and that it was even stupider politics for Harper to promise the same thing.

What you can't argue, however, is that this is exactly what the Tories promised.

Calvert is being purely political -- and, frankly, a bit nasty -- but there's really no reason to believe that his assessment of his meeting with Harper is anything but accurate. In fact, given the duplicitous and mealy-mouthed displays we continue to see from the Saskatchewan Conservative MPs whenever the equalization file comes up, there's every reason to suspect Calvert is completely justified in now playing the political card.

For example, in an interview with James Wood of the Saskatoon StarPhoenix on Friday, Skelton had the audacity to scold Calvert for this poor "negotiation" tactic.

"There are still negotiations going on," Skelton aid. "When you negotiate -- and the premier of all people should realize -- when you negotiate you don't go out babbling to the media. If I was dealing with someone I wouldn't be kicking them in the shins, shall we say."

But Ms. Skelton, you promised the $800 million in the election. There are no negotiations here. Either you're an honest politician who keeps a promise or not. Which is it, Ms. Skelton?

It remains to be seen whether Harper can be shamed into carrying out his commitment to Saskatchewan. But it should be without doubt that a clear promise from a government which has listed federal/provincial funding as a top priority represents Saskatchewan's best chance to secure the deal that other provinces have received. Which indeed means that there's every reason for Saskatchewan's government to directly confront PMS as Calvert has - and just as much reason for Saskatchewan's voters to ensure that any attempt to back out of the promise is thoroughly punished at the polls.

All too true

Any time one can mix Monty Python and politics, it's worth doing - and Cranford at Babble sums up the Libs' place in progressive politics nearly as well as can be done. (I'd only quibble slightly with Cranford's mapping of characters: the Libs seem better placed as Lancelot, with the MSM and non-party groups all too consistently playing the Swamp King role.)

Chemical brothers

Due credit to the Cons for what looks to be a step forward in dealing with toxic chemicals. But is there any doubt that if they had anything more than a tenuous minority government, Harper would take every opportunity to follow Bush's lead in trying to undo past environmental successes?

Losing support

Politics Watch reports that it isn't just the public at large that's had it with PMS, as the Con caucus is more fractured than was publicly known to date:

(A)lready private grumbling about Harper's style has become more and more public in recent weeks. The fortress around what goes on behind the scenes is slowly being penetrated with non-flattering leaks from inside.

PoliticsWatch has learned that regional caucus meetings have become weekly venting sessions for MPs and even cabinet ministers frustrated at the centralized control of Harper's PMO.

One cabinet minister has complained to his colleagues about a two-week delay he faced in delivering a straightforward, positive speech because he had to wait for PMO approval.

Discussion at Alberta caucus is said to be dominated in recent weeks with complaints about the government's income-trust flip-flop.

MPs are more reluctant to voice complaints at national caucus in front of the prime minister. That could be due to past heavy-handed tactics from Harper.

According to sources, when the government announced $1 billion in spending cuts in September, caucus learned about it after the cuts had been made. Harper then told MPs that specific MPs would be designated to speak about the cuts and any MP that publicly voiced criticism about cuts affecting their riding would do so at their own peril.

It won't be the least bit surprising if PMS manages to crack down even more on his caucus in the near future to stem the current public airing of discontent (while trying to spread the Cons' own spin about how the caucus is entirely united on absolutely everything that hasn't gone public). Indeed, if he didn't already have moles in his party's regional caucus meetings and any other current hot spots for venting, I presume he'll make sure to do so from here on in.

But whether or not the details of the current dissent become public before the next election, it's clear that Harper isn't doing much better at keeping together his current base of support than he is at winning the approval of Canadian voters who are turning against him. And one has to figure that the moment his grip loosens (whether or not voluntarily), the result will be for the MPs and other party members who already have complaints about his leadership to go public and end PMS' hold on his party for good.

A simple diagnosis

The Globe and Mail reports that effecive two-tier health care is making inroads across Canada due to the reluctance of provincial plans to add high-cost cancer drugs:

For the first time, cancer patients across Canada will be offered what the public health-care system has been unable to deliver: intravenous drugs not covered by medicare for those who want to prolong their lives or fend off a recurrence -- for a price.

In what could be likened to one-stop shopping, patients can buy cancer medicine not paid for by their provincial governments, and in some cases, receive financial assistance. Medication will be administered by a nurse, under a doctor's supervision, in one of 18 infusion clinics across Canada...

For the first time, cancer patients across Canada will be offered what the public health-care system has been unable to deliver: intravenous drugs not covered by medicare for those who want to prolong their lives or fend off a recurrence -- for a price.

In what could be likened to one-stop shopping, patients can buy cancer medicine not paid for by their provincial governments, and in some cases, receive financial assistance. Medication will be administered by a nurse, under a doctor's supervision, in one of 18 infusion clinics across Canada.

The drugs don't come cheap: Price tags range from $22,000 to $40,000 for a course of therapy, depending on the medicine. A financial-assistance program can mean a discount as long as patients subject themselves to a means test...

The inability of the public system to cover the drugs comes as a surprise to cancer patients, who have long believed Canada's health-care system is based on the principle of equal access. But equality has never been the case when it comes to drugs, a vexing reality that often unfolds in the oncologist's office.

That is creating two types of cancer patients: those who can afford the best treatment and those who cannot -- what many would construe as two-tier care.

While the problem resides largely in a lack of both uniformity and consistent drug evaluation at the provincial level, the most obvious solution plainly lies at the federal level. A national pharmacare plan would both result in improved buying power to drive down the costs of the treatments which provinces now deem too expensive, and ensure that Canadians' access to prescription drugs isn't limited either by where they live, and how much they can afford.

Unfortunately, the Cons have shown absolutely no interest in such a move, even with all provinces onside. And even with the lone direct provincial challenger to equal access to health care removed from his post, it looks all too likely that PMS and the provinces will continue to allow equality to erode rather than taking readily-available steps to improve the situation.

Good news, bad news

Congratulations to the House of Commons as a whole for finally putting the wider issue of same-sex marriage to rest.

But for those wondering whether the Libs will be able to test the riding support (or lack thereof) of their handful of socon MPs before any future attempt at gay-bashing in Parliament, the unfortunate answer is "no".

The next contestant

Rona Ambrose takes another turn on the ever-popular Con game show, "Wheel of Specious Excuses":

Liberal Senator Grant Mitchell asked Ambrose for any studies to support the government’s contention that (the One-Tonne Challenge and Energuide) programs weren’t working...

Ambrose denied that any overall assessment of the climate programs had been done.

“There’s never been a comprehensive audit or review done of the climate-change programs across government, ever.”

Mitchell asked how, if there had been no review, the government could know the programs were ineffective.

Ambrose then said an assessment had in fact been done, “We did a comprehensive review, by PCO (Privy Council Office) of all these programs.”

The meeting ended amid jeers before the apparent contradiction could be resolved.

While the show may have some dark comedic value, that's wearing thin after repeated viewings. Which means that we can only hope that the routine gets put out of its misery before too long.

On misguided requests

I'm sure Ontario Finance Minister Greg Sorbara thinks he's accomplishing something positive in claiming that the federal government should offer Ontario more funding in order to allow him to cut provincial taxes:

Finance Minister Greg Sorbara says underfunding from Ottawa is keeping Ontario from cutting taxes.

Sorbara told a finance committee that Ontario would like to cut taxes, but needs the federal government to fix the way the province is funded first. Sorbara says Ontario has trouble every year making ends meet, while Ottawa is awash in a surplus.

But then, there's a plain problem with Sorbara's position. Given Flaherty's well-established position that he considers "tax room" to be a sufficient contribution to the provinces' coffers, it should be obvious that at best, the request will be ignored.

And what's worse, Sorbara's message seems all too likely to offer Flaherty political cover for yet more federal tax cuts (with resulting reductions in program funding) - both by raising the idea that more cuts are needed generally, and by allowing him the argument that he'd might as well do at the federal level what the provinces would be doing on their own in any event. Which means that rather than securing needed funding, Sorbara is only amplifying the Cons' anti-government position - and making it tougher for him and other provincial politicians to defend and fund good government in the future.

A misplaced defence

While the NDP can fairly be criticized for its recent tendency to take aim at relatively small deficiencies among the Libs, surely the Greens are going much further toward the opposite extreme by declaring that Stephane Dion's record as environment minister is above reproach:

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May is leaping to the defence of her newly elected counterpart from the federal Liberals, insisting she can work with Stephane Dion to challenge the policies of the Conservative government....

(S)aid May in an interview on Wednesday, "If they try to say (Dion) was anything other than a very strong environment minister, they're making it up."

That would be the same "very strong environment minister" whose Project Green was set to fall well short of Canada's Kyoto commitments while costing far more money than budgeted (see July 27 entry). But the Greens seem entirely focused on winning the Libs' praise, even if it means needlessly accepting failure on what's supposed to be their core issue. And that can only undercut their own credibility in the race to translate Canadians' concern for the environment into votes.

Dual considerations

There's been no lack of talk about Jack Layton's comment in response to Stephane Dion's dual citizenship. But there's a need to both set the record straight about what Layton actually said, and ask some larger questions about the NDP's strategy.

Let's start by contrasting Layton's actual words against some of the more radical comments about them. The quote which caused so much furor was:

"I would prefer that a leader of a party hold only Canadian citizenship, because one represents many Canadians, and for me that means that it's better to remain the citizen of one country," Layton said.

"But for a person that isn't in a position of representing others, holding dual citizenship is fine with us."

Note first what's plainly lacking from the statement (unlike the Exra Levant column that put the issue in the public eye): Layton doesn't try to demean Dion or anybody else based on their country of origin, and doesn't question Dion's loyalty to Canada. Nor does he claim that dual citizens are "second-class citizens" or "less Canadian". Instead, the central question is whether dual citizenship may affect one's position as a civic leader in one of one's countries of citizenship. Which, contrary to so much of the outcry today, is an entirely reasonable position if one takes a closer look at the issue.

In order to see why this is so, let's ask a simple question about citizenship: is it a relative virtue to participate in the civic affairs of the country or countries in which one is a citizen - and thus a relative vice to fail to do so?

I won't get into a full discussion of the answer to the question (for those who must know, I'd answer "yes", with the proviso that such participation or lack thereof is unlikely to trump many other elements of one's character in evaluating a person generally or as a political candidate). But I'd think on any fair analysis one has to at least accept that it can reasonably answered in the affirmative - particularly given how meaningless any definition of "citizen" must be if it's entirely detached from one's civic participation.

Once one reaches a "yes" answer, then one of two things must be true, using Dion's case as an example. Either:
(1) Dion declines to participate as a French citizen, which is a relative vice at the best of times, and can be seen as a particularly problematic example in a person hoping to become the leading political figure in his other country of citizenship, or
(2) Dion does participate as a French citizen, and due to that participation has proportionately less time and attention to devote to Canada's political scene, which again is amplified as an issue for a person facing the demands placed on the leader of a political party.

(Interjecting my own view one more time, every indication seems to be that (1) is true in Dion's case. I'd ultimately take the view that it's probably not an important enough factor to merit substantial mention in Dion's case or that of other past or present Canadian politicians - especially when weighed against the lengths to which Dion in particular has gone to be fully involved in the important political debates facing Canada over the past decade-plus. But it's far from unreasonable for any observer to bring up as a potential concern.)

Of course, Layton's words only hint at this type of breakdown rather than presenting it in detail. Which is to be expected when the view has to be summed up in a soundbite rather than presented in detail. But once one takes a reasonable look at what lies behind the issue, it doesn't seem that Layton's comments should give rise to an overly angry response.

Needless to say, that hasn't stopped commenters from flinging slanders at Layton ranging from xenophobe (twice) to gutless castrato. And all, apparently, in an effort to improve the tenor of Canada's political debate.

So much for Layton's most vehement detractors on the issue. But while the extreme anger at Layton's position isn't anywhere close to being justified, there's also the question of whether this was a fight worth picking for Layton and the NDP. And here, Idealistic Pragmatist says it best (albeit referring to Pat Martin's more dubious comments among other examples, rather than Layton's):

We know you've got a great alternative vision, but right now we can't wait until you go back to presenting it so that we can stop cringing. You look like you're flailing. Quit it already.

It's understandably frustrating for the NDP's strategists knowing that the party's positive substantive message often doesn't make it through the media filter. For example, the Dippers managed to receive virtually no public attention for their Kyoto plan at the same time as pundits bleated about the NDP's alleged lack of comment on the issue. And it might well be that if the NDP had received even reasonable coverage at the time, Dion wouldn't have been able to win the Lib leadership by pretending there was a void that needed filling in the area of federal environmental policy.

Which must certainly make it tempting for the NDP to want to make sure to appear in as much coverage as possible, particularly when there's the political benefit of tossing a (however minor) negative at Dion himself.

But then there's the bigger picture to consider. The NDP's greatest strength is its credibility in presenting progressive policies - in being the party that's most often above the fray while the Cons and Libs throw steady streams of hypocritical accusations at each other. And while there's no avoiding some level of politics when more important considerations are at stake, it can only hurt the party's longer-term efforts if Layton takes on a reputation for being too busy commenting on the fad headline du jour to deal with serious policy issues...even if that image is based on the media seeking playing up only the stories where there isn't much to say.

Ultimately, the more severe criticisms levelled at Layton today can't be seen as reasonable ones. But the federal NDP would benefit from a change in its strategy: rather than seeking any chance to challenge a Con or Lib in the press as seems to be the case, Layton and company would be better off cultivating the Dippers' reputation for keeping their focus on the needs of Canadians. And if the NDP can do that, then both it and Canada's political discourse in general will be better off for it.

Hypothesis confirmed

A new CCPA study compares higher-tax countries to lower-tax ones, and confirms that current higher-tax regimes correlate not only to greater income equality and social justice, but also to greater savings, education, research and development as well. Now if only the Libs and Cons weren't so determined to keep undermining Canada's competitiveness...

It starts at the top

One would figure that Sheila Fraser testifying before the Public Accounts Committee about the Accountability Act would be a huge boon for the Cons. But rather than offering any support for the move to provide statutory whistleblower protection, Fraser rightly points out that the Cons are headed in exactly the wrong direction where it matters most:

Strong, ethical leadership from senior managers will do more to stop mismanagement and wrongdoing in the public service than the Conservatives' much-touted whistleblower legislation, according to Canada's spending watchdog...

She conceded there is no stopping the drive for the law, but questioned whether it will encourage people to come forward with complaints.

"I have always felt that to resort to whistleblower legislation, where people feel they need that kind of protection, is an indication that the system is not healthy and people can't freely bring forward cases of wrongdoing with the confidence that it will be dealt with confidentially and also that appropriate action will be taken."

Fraser's reservations about whistleblower protection came out when repeatedly pressed by Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre on how the government could stop spending abuses without such a law. Poilievre is an outspoken champion of whistleblower legislation, which is the key piece of the Harper government's prized accountability bill.

"Why is it when someone sees abuses, no one sounds the alarms and cries out in the name of taxpayers for something to be done? ... Do you have any idea why you have to be the one who finds the fire that has been burning for years?" asked Poilievre.

Fraser pointed to her recent report into the ethical conduct of the Mounties, border guards and prison guards who overwhelmingly said they would report suspected cases of wrongdoing, but they didn't think their co-workers would and said they wouldn't be respected by their colleagues if they did. A significant number also doubted management would do anything about it...

She said legal protection against reprisals wouldn't ease fears of bureaucrats who fear personal consequences of exposing problems.

"If there is only legal protection, it takes an awful lot of courage to do that and I think a lot of people would rather say 'this isn't my responsibility, I didn't sign off on those documents, and I am not going to get involved rather than assume the risk of ... (personal) consequences,'" she said.

Now, there can be little doubt that Fraser herself has pointed out many areas where the system is indeed unhealthy, including the Ron Stewart case, such as to create a need for some statutory protection. But the more important message is that a whistleblower law is a poor substitute for a management structure which actually values critical input rather than seeing it as a threat. Which can only serve as a direct slam against a government notorious for expelling, firing and/or ostracizing anybody who dares to question the party line.

As an added bonus, Fraser also agrees with the NDP's criticism of the leaks surrounding her recent reports:

The committee is also considering a motion, initiated by NDP MP David Christopherson, to find out who leaked Fraser's reports. Details of last spring's gun registry report and her latest audit into the huge relocation contract to move 15,000 RCMP, military and bureaucrats were leaked to the media before they were tabled in Parliament.

Fraser said she would welcome a probe by the committee.

"I am annoyed that these things are getting leaked ... and we have gone as far as we can go. Physical control over the documents is one thing ... but the issue is how do you keep people from talking and how will you ever know whom it was?"

While Fraser's effectiveness in rooting out Lib abuses made her a darling of the Cons for a long time, it looks like the tables have turned. Which comes as no surprise when an impartial watchdog for good government comes face to face with with PMS' culture of information abuse - but which could easily be the final nail in the Cons' coffin as the harm done by their management style becomes public.

Invalid criticism

Of all the potshots that Lib supporters have leveled at the NDP, "(conniving) with the instigation of (an RCMP) investigation" has to be one of the more bizarre ones. I can only wonder how long it is before Dana starts directing similarly-misplaced accusations at other organizations who do the same on a regular basis.

On flip-flops

Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn is now criticizing the Libs for seeing the light on anti-scab legislation. Which is particularly amusing coming from someone who has himself reversed course on the issue, only in the opposite direction:

This time, the so-called "anti-scab" legislation has received the support of about a dozen Conservatives and almost unanimous support from the opposition parties, including the Liberals. Ironically, Jean-Pierre Blackburn, the Labour Minister, was one of four Progressive Conservative MPs to vote with the Bloc against Brian Mulroney's government when the legislation was proposed in 1990.

Presumably we'll never get to find out how it is that what's worth voting for under Mulroney is no longer so under Harper, as Blackburn now seems stuck in a rhetorical loop about "balance" without any indication why a slight rebalancing would (in his words) "paralyze" the economy. But as weak as his point would be in any event, it's doubly so when he himself has seen the merit of anti-scab legislation in the past - meaning that it shouldn't sway any Libs as they decide whether or not to keep up their support for the bill.

Manageable costs

The CIHI has released its numbers on Canadian health spending for 2006. And based on the CIHI's data, health-care costs are well under control - though you'd never know it from the CP's coverage:

The Canadian Institute for Health Information says Canadians will spend $148 billion on health care this year, more than $4,500 per person.

The statistics agency says 2006 health spending is expected to exceed inflation and population growth for the 10th straight year. The trend to increased funding began after deep cuts in the 1990s precipitated a crisis throughout the health system.

In fairness, the CP at least recognizes part of the reason for the trend. But on a closer look, its analysis misses entirely one of the stronger themes of the CIHI's findings, which is that this year's growth is levelling off compared to previous years:

Health care spending in Canada is expected to reach $148 billion in 2006, an increase of $8 billion over last year, according to figures released today by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) in its annual report on health care spending. National Health Expenditure Trends, 1975–2006 projects that total health care spending in Canada will increase by 5.8% in 2006 over the previous year. This increase is slightly lower than the estimated annual growth rate of 6.4% in 2005, and lower than the average yearly rate of increase (7.8%) from 2000 to 2004. After adjustment is made for inflation, health expenditures in 2006 are expected to grow by 3.7% or reach $120 billion in constant 1997 dollars.

In other words, a substantial amount of the raw-dollar total is attributable to inflation rather than real spending increases. And once population and economic growth are taken into account in addition to inflation by shifting to a percentage-of-GDP basis, health spending has levelled off almost entirely over the past 3 years:

CIHI’s estimates also reveal that while health care spending as a share of Canada’s gross domestic product (GDP) is expected to stay relatively stable this year, it remains at its highest level in 31 years. Health care spending as a share of GDP is expected to reach 10.3% this year, compared to an estimated 10.2% in 2005 and in 2004. Health care spending as a proportion of GDP was at its lowest (6.8%) in 1979, climbing to a 10.0% peak in 1992, before dipping and rising again to its current high level.

In sum, the story surrounding the CIHI's findings isn't that health-care spending is unmanageable, but rather that it's entirely under control as the deficiencies of the 1990s are worked out of the system. Which means that the real danger to Canadian health care isn't the actual cost of the system, but rather the ideology of those who would take the raw numbers out of context to pretend that our current expenses are unsustainable.

On limited debate

Surely the Cons' anti-SSM crowd which spent years crowing about the need for thorough study and debate about the issue - back when that would have meant putting off same-sex marriage legislation - won't be happy with this. But we'll see whether the groups bother getting as publicly angry as they did when it wasn't their favoured party moving to get the issue dealt with.

Making lemonade

I don't buy Jack Layton's explanation that his slip-up in Question Period today was planned. But am I the only one who suspects that "no more big-ass subsidies" could nicely follow in the NDP's proud tradition of criticizing the Libs and Cons for gratuitous corporate giveaways?

A litmus test

It was only after the Libs were banished to opposition that they suddenly saw the value in federal anti-scab legislation in large enough numbers to help push a bill through two readings. Now, with business groups launching their public attack on the bill, we'll find out whether the Libs are willing to follow through on giving workers in areas of federal jurisdiction a reasonable bargaining position - or whether they've had enough of a whiff of power to revert to their governing ways.

On contributing factors

Duncan Cameron notes that for all the talk about relatively minor influences on the Libs' first-ballot leadership results, Stephane Dion's strength (and arguably his subsequent victory) may be traced in substantial part to another controversial source:

Dion got ahead of Kennedy from the start because he had some secret first ballot support organized by a former Progressive Conservative leadership candidate, the man whose support Peter MacKay betrayed by merging the party with the Reform/Alliance, the legendary anti-free trade campaigner David Orchard.

Though it was little noticed at the time, Dion had introduced Orchard as a supporter last summer. By convention time Orchard claimed 100 delegates elected to back Dion. On the first ballot Dion received 856 votes, a crucial two more than Kennedy. Despite announced support greater than Dion (820 delegates coming into the convention, compared to 753 for Dion) Kennedy turned out to be behind him after the first ballot.

It's debatable whether Orchard had quite as much influence on the balloting as he claims. But it doesn't seem unlikely that Orchard's presence could have been decisive in pushing Dion's campaign forward.

Now, the benefits of having taken on Orchard's machine may not stop at any delegates added to the fold, as Orchard's supporters may provide the most obvious constituency to expand the Libs' vote in Western Canada with Dion at the helm. But it's also worth wondering whether Orchard's presence will force Dion to take on some baggage that he'd probably prefer not to have to deal with...and whether Orchard has imposed any price on his support which will now come due.

For the sake of consistency...

...I wonder whether any Con MPs will get booted out of caucus for releasing details about the party's internal discussion on the Quebec nation motion?

Afterwords

The Tyee's Richard Warnica has a couple of interesting post-mortem posts on this weekend's leadership races.

First, he draws the comparison between the voting procedures at this weekend's leadership races and the FPTP system that still rules general elections - highlighting that in both races, the long-declared frontrunners eventually lost out to popular will (whether of members as a whole in the case of Alberta's Cons, or at least of the delegates at the federal Lib convention) due entirely to the presence of preferential balloting. Which leads naturally to the question of why we're stuck with a single FPTP electoral vote when the parties themselves understandably insist on at least some form of majority approval for their leaders.

Second, he highlights the fact that for all the portrayal of Stephane Dion as an outsider, his campaign was far from an independent movement, and featured more than a few well-known (and in some cases infamous) Lib insiders. And moreover, it's worth wondering as well what promises he made to secure the momentum he won at the convention.

(Edit: completed post.)

On expectations

The CP discusses Stephane Dion's plan to play the low-expectations game ala Jean Chretien. Which certainly makes for a nice change for the Libs compared to the hype surrounding ex-PMPM's supposed juggernaut-in-the-making, and probably makes for smart politics in the long term. But if the Libs' lowered immediate expectations manage to intersect with the NDP's growing ones, the door may be opened in the short term for the NDP to put to rest the false Lib/Con dichotomy and turn federal politics into a true three-party race for government.

Flimsy fabrications

More than a few other bloggers have already pointed out the Cons' trickery surrounding the Lib leadership convention. But one part of the story seems to demand more attention, as the Cons are also bragging that they fabricated "internal documents" to be leaked to the media:

One Conservative aide took pride in pointing out that his party fabricated an internal party memo suggesting their troops were most afraid of Michael Ignatieff - and most anxious to face Rae.

The ersatz memo was leaked to a pair of English-and French-language newspapers and ran under headlines that cast it as a behind-the-scenes peek at Tory strategy.

The name of Tory campaign chair Doug Finley, the supposed author of the memo, was stamped on the document as an afterthought.

The Tories then made arrangements to get the memo leaked through a third party to English and French newspapers, Tory sources said.

Not that the tactic is much of a surprise in from the Cons - even if some less canny Libs seem to have been taken in entirely. But if it's expected that the Cons would see fit to lie to the media, their willingness to gloat about it afterward speaks volumes about the Cons' contempt for both the media and the Canadian public. And it would only seem appropriate for the media to take at face value the Cons' proud declaration that they shouldn't be trusted.

Indeed, in light of the Cons' public admission that they've fabricated documents for media consumption, one would think that any responsible journalist would now have to call into question everything emanating from PMS and his party. That added scrutiny could take multiple forms - whether in terms of declining to publish stories in the first place when they're particularly suspect, or simply putting a proviso in each article to alert the public to the Cons' history of fabrication. Which would allow the Cons to still get their message to the public, while at the same time highlighting the obvious need to doubt anything the party has to say publicly.

Granted, the U.S. press has shown no such inclination when faced with years of similar manipulation, and it's possible that the same attitude will spill over into Canada. But Canada's Press Gallery has already shown somewhat more of a spine than any portion of the U.S. media. And given the chance to both put the Cons in their place and give a more accurate picture of each story by noting admitted facts about the Cons' past actions, it would seem an obvious choice to make sure that the Cons' pattern of deception doesn't go unmentioned in future reporting.

Update: Robert has more.

A familiar standard

Throughout (and indeed ever since) the 2006 general election, Jack Layton and the NDP have been pilloried by Lib supporters for allegedly treating PMS with kid gloves. We'll see if that view changes now that the Libs' new leader has taken virtually the exact same line on the Cons:

We do not believe that the Conservatives have bad intentions, we simply believe they lead to bad results...

Needless to say, the statement echoes the NDP's consistent "wrong on the issues" campaign position against the Cons. And this declaration from Dion comes after nearly a year of secrets, scandals, lies and coverups which provide us with far more evidence upon which to doubt the Cons' intentions than existed at the time of the general election.

Of course, Dion will likely end up ramping up the rhetoric in time, and it's entirely possible that the Libs will simply overlook Dion's position rather than spending months demonizing him as they have Layton. But if so, that only shows just how empty the Libs' criticisms of the NDP have been for the past year...and provides plenty of reason to doubt how seriously anybody can take their ongoing anger as well.

(Edit: typo.)

On new leaders

I'll start off by giving due credit to the Libs: against all odds and most predictions, they eventually elected their most deserving contender as party leader. But while Dion isn't without some substantial strengths, his victory also opens up a lot of opportunities for the NDP to continue its growth.

The most interesting question will be how Dion's history in cabinet affects his candidacy. While Dion's focus on the environment has certainly won him plenty of admirers, he'll now face a difficult task in trying to make that his central issue while at the same time justifying his own ineffectiveness as Environment Minister - having contributed to the Libs' legacy of delays, then implemented a plan which by all accounts would have fallen short of Canada's Kyoto targets. And with the NDP and the Greens both able to claim greater interest in the subject while avoiding the taint of past failure, a greater focus on the environment as an issue doesn't seem likely to be a huge vote-winner for the Libs (though it could push them toward government by draining votes from the Cons toward the NDP and Greens).

Similarly, Dion's series of stances on federalism (particularly his shift from trying to undermine a Lib motion on nationhood while supporting the same from PMS) will provide something for everybody to dislike. Meanwhile Jack Layton can now put himself forward as the most prominent federalist who hasn't tried to deny the status of "nation" to Quebec or the Quebecois in one medium or another.

Then there are the plain weaknesses - which only seem likely to exacerbate existing difficulties for the Libs. Others have already pointed out the unlikelihood of a Dion-led party building much support in the West. Which only opens up the door even further for the NDP to win over disaffected Cons and other voters who didn't think that a party which had its roots in Reform would turn out to be a unprincipled as PMS' bunch.

And while Dion himself emerged entirely unscathed from the Libs' antics over the last decade, it'll be difficult for a prominent figure under their previous scandal-ridden regimes to argue that the Libs have moved past those times by electing him. Which will make him a tough sell for voters concerned about the lack of genuine accountability offered by the Cons.

Ultimately, Dion appears likely to prove far more effective at genuinely opposing Harper than any of his competitors would have been. But that also opens the door for the NDP to brandish its own credentials on progressive issues in comparison to the Libs' tepid track record. Which in the long run could (and hopefully will) be as good for the NDP's electoral chances as it is for the country as a whole.

A small victory

Now, B.C. Health Minister George Abbott has reached a compromise with the False Creek Urgent Care Centre. While it's a plus to know that emergency services will only be provided on a publicly-funded basis, it looks like the equally serious questions surrounding the attached private surgical clinic will go unaddressed - leaving open the question of whether this week's moves are the start of any real action to preserve single-payer health care, or simply an example of how much attention is needed to embarrass the Campbell government into doing anything.

(Edit: Typo.)

Still rejecting renewal

While the results aren't yet in as to what the Libs will be voting for at their convention, it's worth pointing out what they've plainly voted against. The Libs had a chance to embrace both a OMOV system which would have put power in the hands of members generally rather than allowing backroom convention deals to determine their future leaders, and to vote for a leadership contender in Gerard Kennedy whose platform (while not explicitly acknowledging ethics in particular as an issue) did involve substantial party renewal and a reduction of executive power - and the story of the convention so far is the cold reception given to both.

Which signals that whoever the Libs wind up voting for in the end, there's little reason to think the party has learned anything from its expulsion from office - and plenty of reason to think that Canadians who want an accountable and progressive government will turn toward the NDP next time the country goes to the polls.

Robbed of all credibility

CanWest's ideological side rears its ugly head in an article on Canada's anticipated economic slowdown:

The economy in the third quarter grew at the slowest pace in three years, and actually shrunk in September, prompting a warning Canadians could be robbed of future tax breaks if the downward trend continues...

If the slump deepens, and carries through into next year, it could rob Canadians of some promised tax relief, one analyst suggested.

Needless to say, it seems highly unlikely that CanWest or any other mainstream media outlet would use such loaded language to describe any other change in government policy. Which includes the Cons' unilateral cancellation of funding arrangements which actually involved multilateral agreement (and thus a much more arguable "right" to the funding) rather than mere political calculations.

And that suspicion is confirmed on a quick search of Google News for the term "robbed", as at least the first 100 current references to the term apply to break-ins and armed robberies, rather than to governmental actions. But for CanWest, there's apparently no problem in taking a term which properly refers to a criminal assault on a person or property, and applying it to a potential reduction in speculative future tax cuts from a government which may not (and indeed should not) be in power long enough to implement them.

And in case there was any doubt whether the language originates from the analyst or from CanWest's own editorialization:

"The implications of this weakness are slightly troublesome for fiscal policy," Global Insight, an economic think-tank, said in an analysis.

The latest reading on the economy, plus the slowdown in the U.S., could result in growth next year below the 2.7 per cent projected in last week's federal budget update, it said. That may mean less money available to implement tax cuts.

Which, left on its own, would be a relatively fair assessment of the actual possible effects of a downturn: a need for some marginal decision-making by the federal government, rather than a personal attack on all Canadians. But for CanWest, such a portrayal apparently doesn't go anywhere near far enough in stirring up anti-tax outrage. Which explains in part how and why Canada is already cutting taxes to the point of reducing its own competitiveness - and also signals the desperate need for an honest depiction of the role of taxation in the future.