Limited benefits

CanWest reports that both Stephane Dion and top Greens have ruled out any further cooperation beyond this week's much-criticized deal in the leaders' home ridings. And the announcement makes it clear that the deal was aimed solely at helping Dion and May personally, rather than any positive change for Canada as a whole:

Stephane Dion is ruling out any extra measures to help the Green Party beyond his controversial deal with Elizabeth May.

Dion described Saturday his decision not to run a Liberal in Central Nova where May, the Green leader, is seeking a seat as "an agreement between two leaders," suggesting he was not planning further aid...

Adriane Carr, deputy leader of the Green Party, said she was pleased the deal goes no further than the announced plan.

"This decision to provide 'leaders courtesy' is a refreshing move to infuse move civility and respect into Canadian politics," Carr, the former leader of the Green Party of B.C., said in a statement.

"I am also happy to say the reciprocation goes no further. The Green Party intends to run a full slate of candidates-minus one."

What's noteworthy in today's statements is that neither party has any apparent intention to make a deal which would meaningfully reduce the likelihood of a Harper majority. Instead, the agreement was intended to serve as nothing but an image boost for the leaders involved - to be justified by a bizarre claim that certain leaders should be entitled to a different form of democracy than the rest of their parties in the name of "civility".

Fortunately, there are other options out there. And the NDP has rightly started using the spotlight on Central Nova to emphasize its own position and candidate in the riding:

Layton said he's bullish on the prospects of Louise Lorefice, the sole candidate for the NDP nomination in Central Nova, who is to be acclaimed today.

"She is well-known teacher with deep roots in the community over many decades," said Layton, noting the NDP ran second in the riding in 2004 and the (sic) 2006.

"We'll be putting forward a very strong candidate with deep roots in the community."

While it's a bit disappointing that Alexis MacDonald won't continue to build her support in the riding, it's still a plus for the NDP to earn national attention for another strong candidate. And with the Libs and Greens showing that their agreement to deprive Lib and Green voters of their preferred choice is nothing more than a cynical political game, both Lorefice in particular and the NDP in general figure to gain from voters' justified frustrations.

No marginal victory

Greg at democraticSPACE reports that the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform has voted overwhelmingly (84%-16%) to endorse a MMP PR system over the status quo.

In principle, this should be a strong enough showing to keep the proposal moving the right direction. But the big question as to the proposal's ultimate success remains whether or not Ontario's Libs and Cons will launch an all-out fight against what this sampling of citizens clearly saw as a major improvement for the province.

The right prescription

One more from the "stories which deserved more attention this week" file, as the NDP called on the Cons to both publicly acknowledge a report on how to make prescription drugs affordable across Canada, and work toward making that plan a reality:

“Canadians are getting sick and can’t afford to get better,” said Layton. “They are left with the choice of staying sick or going broke. Today’s families expect reliable health care for everyone, not just those who can afford to buy it.”

Layton says he hears about the prescription problem in every single province he visits. Between 1992 and 2002, household spending on prescription drugs jumped by more than 70%. Over the same period, spending on food, clothing and shelter increased by only 11%.

Layton said nearly 20% of Canadians do not have adequate drug coverage and if they find themselves in a situation where they cannot afford the medication they need, they would be forced to choose between medications or mortgage payments. Layton says access to medication should be based on need and that it should not depend on where you live or how much money you make.

“No family should face the burden of overwhelming drug costs alone,” said Layton. “Canada must provide working families with assurances that financial hardship won’t be a barrier to getting the prescription drugs they need. Canadians want to know that if they get sick and can’t afford the drugs they need to survive – the federal government will step in to help.”

“This isn't the universal health care Canadians expect from the system they cherish,” said NDP Health Critic Penny Priddy. “Health care in Canada shouldn't cost this much.”...

The Conservatives have been sitting on a report for months that outlines a federal / provincial agreement for a national pharmaceutical plan that recommends a limit that Canadians should have to pay out of pocket for drugs. “We cannot wait any longer for the Conservatives to act. We need leadership on this issue now,” concluded Layton.

The message makes for an effective counter to the Cons on two fronts. Not only does it remind Canadians about the Cons' continued habit of suppressing anything that doesn't suit their political purposes, but it more importantly also highlights an example of the type of necessary (and likely popular) social program which could easily be put into place if the Cons weren't so obsessed with arbitrary tax credits and vote-buying instead. And it shouldn't be hard to make the case that the cost of making prescriptions affordable will be more than recouped in better health outcomes.

Of course, it's anybody's guess whether the other self-proclaimed progressive parties are interested in helping to make that argument. But there's at least one party still working to point out the value of a socially-responsible government - and the NDP's emphasis on policy figures to look better and better if that remains in stark contrast to their competitors.

On weak points

Let's add one more item to the list of problems with the widely-panned Lib/Green sideshow, as it's taken attention away from issues which highlight the Cons' continued lack of fitness for office. But with only one national opposition party playing its role, James Travers steps into the breach by discussing the continued embarrassment that is Gordon O'Connor:

An awful week for Canadians in Afghanistan and a few bizarre days in federal politics are positioning Gordon O'Connor as a greater potential threat to Stephen Harper than Stéphane Dion.

Truth is being made stranger than fiction here by a confluence of curious events. At their centre is a defence minister with the unerring ability to target Conservative weaknesses the Liberal leader misses.

At a time when the country is mourning new Kandahar losses and beginning to consider the implications of changing Taliban tactics, O'Connor is raising fresh concerns about the war, defence strategy and this "new" government's accountability. Between mid-week and weekend, a minister considered among the Prime Minister's most accident-prone made Afghanistan sound like Iraq, reversed without public debate a three-year-old defence policy by buying 100 surplus battle tanks, and awarded a $30-million contract to a firm that once hired him to lobby...

Remarkably, O'Connor's most hazardous error is drawing little notice. In searching for light at the end of the Kandahar tunnel, he imprudently raised the spectre the Harper government fears most by attaching the Bush administration's empty Iraq promises to Afghanistan.

For those who missed it, O'Connor suggested Canadian troops could be home in 2010 – more than a year after the current commitment ends – as long as Afghanistan's army and police meet international standards set in London last year. That makes superficial sense in that it accepts NATO isn't willing to stay forever and recognizes that ultimate responsibility for security rests in Kabul.

But closer examination reveals the plan is as flawed as the one now failing in Iraq. Current security and infrastructure investments fall far short of the accepted international thresholds for rescuing failed states and there's no reason to suspect that the weak and notoriously corrupt Hamid Karzai regime will gain legitimacy, or control the country, anytime soon...

Protecting lives is a self-evident procurement priority. But having a tank booster and former lobbyist promoting the purchase is awkward for a government still attacking Liberal ethics and accountability.

Remarkably, on the same day Conservatives unveiled another probe centred on the former government's contracting and just one before the tank announcement, O'Connor handed General Dynamics the multi-million dollar deal for new equipment to detect biological threats. As the late, great U.S. writer Molly Ivins liked to say, you can't make this stuff up.

War is always a bad time to have a weak defence minister. Fighting both a war and an election with one is a pratfall waiting to happen.

What's more, Travers misses another (albeit subtle) example of the current disorganization within O'Connor's department. Faced with a deadline this week to respond to a lawsuit surrounding Canadian treatment of Afghan detainees, Defence apparently didn't bother to do anything - when it would have had options to either file a response on time, or at least seek consent in advance rather than risking refusal. Which now leaves it in the entirely unnecessary position of having to seek an extension at a time when it's already failed to comply with the rules - making its claim that "the rough terrain of Afghanistan ate my documents" seem a poor attempt to cover up after the fact.

Needless to say, it would be for the best if this kind of incompetence were a far greater story than it's been to date. Indeed, the surest way to ensure that Harper doesn't remain in government for long is to draw plenty of attention to precisely what he and his party have done behind the photo-ops and public announcements. And with O'Connor still inexplicably holding Harper's confidence, there should be plenty more worth questioning as long as the Cons remain in power.

On rotten tomatoes

Let's take a quick sampling of reviews of the Lib-Green deal - and all from Libs no less. (Though the punctuation is slightly modified for added fun.)

From the CP:

"Colossally stupid!"
"It certainly hurts our voter base."
"Desperate and manipulative!"

And from the Globe and Mail:

"Goofy!" "Dumb!" "Crazy!"
"Very bad for democracy!"

And finally, my personal favourite:

"In Monty Python lexicon — we are the silly party!"

At this rate, about the best the Libs can hope for is for the picture to be quickly forgotten. But even if they're eager to move on, there's not much reason for others to stop laughing at a party which has publicly proclaimed itself a punchline.

Make or break

The most interesting part of today's developments in the agreement between the Libs and Greens is one which has received surprisingly little attention. For all the discussion of the leaders' ridings and possible cooperation on the environment, it's the prospect of action on electoral reform which will prove to be either May's crowning achievement in the alliance, or a severe disappointment in the making for progressives in both parties. And right now, the latter unfortunately looks far more likely.

Let's look first at what's been said about electoral reform by the respective parties today. From Dion and May's joint statement as posted by Saskboy:

Another issue where we believe progress could be made is in the potential for electoral reform.

Sadly, this falls short of any commitment to act in any way, and indeed two separate weasel phrases ("progress could be made" and "potential") allow for virtually unlimited deniability against any argument that either party has committed toward any change. (Let's leave aside for the rest of this post the possibility that "electoral reform" itself could be interpreted to mean many different things.)

In May's individual statement, that wording gets turned into this:

(I)n addition to not running against me in Central Nova, he has signaled a willingness to reform our electoral system.

Not surprisingly, this appears to take the joint statement up a level: there's a big difference between identifying a possible area of future change, and demonstrating any real willingness or commitment to make changes in that area given the chance.

By contrast, the Libs don't include anything about electoral reform in their press release - unless one counts a change in government as "electoral reform":

“The planet has reached its limit. The human-caused damage to our natural environment is devastating,” (Dion) said. “Currently, our two parties agree that urgent action is needed. So, too, do the vast majority of Canadians. Yet our electoral system could return to government the only political party that does not believe action is required urgently.”

Somehow this doesn't sound like the words of anybody who'll be joining Fair Vote Canada anytime soon.

Just for fun, let's go one step further to Saskboy's spin on the above passages:

May has an agreement from the Dion Liberals to make meaningful electoral reforms when he goes to power...

Do we need to go through this again?

Getting back to the substance of the matter, it seems glaringly clear that Dion hasn't actually committed to anything approaching electoral reform. But will that necessarily remain true going forward?

Unfortunately, Dion himself has demonstrated at best a tepid interest in electoral reform. Remember this from the Lib leadership campaign:

I had read previously in Miles Lunn's blog that Dion had been positive about the German Mixed-Member Proportional voting system (which combines our current system with compensatory seats that would come from some sort of party list, making the result proportional), so I began there. He confirmed that yes, he is personally in favour of a reform toward a system that would involve two-thirds of the seats being elected as they are now and a further one-third through "compensatory proportional representation," adding that he would want a "five percent threshhold in every province" (meaning that a party would have to attain at least 5% of the vote in any given province in order to gain seats there). In fact, he says that he once wrote a book chapter with University of Saskatchewan professor and electoral systems expert John Courtney, outlining the details of the proposal he favoured. All this was delightful to hear, especially after my disappointing encounter with Gerard Kennedy, who didn't even seem to know what proportional representation was. Also, the reason Dion gave for his support for this reform is one of my own main reasons for favouring proportional representation: he wants to "guarantee that each region of our country is not marginalized," i.e., to make it possible for, say, a Liberal government to have MPs elected in areas where they tend to be weaker, so that one region of a country doesn't dominate another.

For all this positive talk about electoral reform, though, he's clearly not willing to push it himself. "That is a debate that I cannot impose as a candidate in this race," he said, because "it's something that we will need to have a parliamentary review to look at." All he is willing to commit to as prime minister is "an open debate with the people discussing it and coming with their solutions and their suggestions and we'll see if a consensus may come from it." This is similar to what Paul Martin promised but didn't deliver on, and it falls far short of a real federal-level citizens' assembly on electoral reform similar to the ones they had in B.C. and currently have in Ontario, followed by a cross-country referendum. To me, this suggests that Dion wouldn't be willing to give the voters the power to make real decisions on their electoral system, which worries me.

Much more of a concern, though, is the fact that he doesn't seem to have thought beyond the theoretical details of his favoured reform to the changes that it would necessarily make in our political culture. When asked about what he would do if his party attained a minority of seats under his leadership, he said "I'm confident that we can win a majority" in three different ways. In fact, he regards the fact that a his favoured system would produce few, if any, single-party majority governments as "a problem of the reform." When asked directly about his openness to forming a coalition with another party, he ignored the question entirely, and when I later pointed out that the electoral system he favours has almost always tended to produce coalitions in other countries, he said that "Canada is not accustomed to having coalitions, and I'm not sure that Canadians are ready for that."

In sum, while Dion might be seen as sympathizing with the value of electoral reform, he's had no qualms about saying that he refuses to try to push any change within his own party. And it seems fairly obvious that a Lib party structure built on an expectation of majority government is going to need an awful lot of persuading to accept a system which will make that outcome far less likely.

So there's plenty of reason to be skeptical about Dion's personal interest in electoral reform. And today's announcement doesn't do anything to suggest that the Greens have managed to change that fact.

Which isn't to say that today's announcement can't be the start of a genuine sea change. But the next necessary step is for Dion to prove to Canadians that he actually values the possibility of electoral reform - by speaking out about it personally, making sure it receives prominent placement in the Libs' next party platform, and taking on the inertia within his party head-on. And if that doesn't happen, then today's words can only be seen an attempt to fool the Greens' base, rather than the first step toward anything positive.

In contrast, if Dion defies my expectations by following through, that would be the time for the NDP to start serious talks with both the Libs and Greens. And I'd be the first to criticize them if they refused to work with two parties who were clearly headed in the right direction on electoral reform. But even then it's worth noting that based on the Libs' track record for delaying or ignoring promises, there would be a serious need for safeguards in any electoral coalition.

Sadly, though, the issue doesn't seem likely to get down to that level of detail. After all, the logical place for Dion to start the discussion would be the announcement of the deal - yet as noted above, the issue of electoral reform didn't even get mentioned by the Libs. Which appears to signal that Dion's putative interest in electoral reform will go no further than today's joint statement...and that Green supporters have just one more reason to disbelieve their own leader in claiming to have accomplished anything.

(Edit: fixed typo.)

Choosing one's advice

The CP reports on what appears to have caused the Cons' partial turnaround on child care, as even an advisory group hand-picked by the Cons to push child care further into the private sector concluded that the party's tax-credit plan was doomed to fail:

The federal government needs a system for assessing the availability of child-care spaces in Canada as a basis for future policies on the problem, says a report commissioned by the Tories.

That recommendation, and a series of others from the ministerial advisory committee in January, did not make their way into the federal budget last month.

Still, the government seems to have agreed with the report's conclusion that Canadian businesses aren't keen on opening day-care spaces themselves. It recently abandoned a $250-million plan to give funding to firms with on-site centres...

The advisory committee, meanwhile, underlined that the demand for spaces outstrips supply in Canada.

"Parental demand for child care is increasing but demand is also increasing from employers who are struggling to fill jobs that are vacant due to the increasing competition for skilled labour and the growing labour shortage."...

The committee's report was released this week following access to information requests by the NDP and media outlets.

New Democrat MP Olivia Chow said the report supports her party's view that the government needs an early learning and child care act to enshrine certain principles about quality and accessibility into law.

"It said that there needs to be evaluation and accountability, the number of spaces needs to be measured," Chow said in an interview. "You can't do that unless there's a legislative framework."

Based on the committee's terms of reference, its conclusions were bound to be biased toward the Cons' intended solutions. And indeed the article cites a list of the report's suggestions to try to accomplish something based on the Cons' original framework.

Yet even from that starting point, the committee managed to come up with ideas far more sensible than those the Cons have shown any willingness to support. And it can only be to the Cons' discredit that such concepts as "gathering baseline data" and "measuring outcomes" would make for a radical change to how they currently operate.

Of course, the even bigger issue is the report's correct conclusion that the way forward for the federal government should involve a real expansion in child-care availability - not merely a fraction of the funding which was already producing little progress under the Libs. But unfortunately (if not surprisingly), the Cons are apparently content to ignore their own advisory committee when it reports on the need for that kind of action. And that can only signal how little commitment the Cons have to increasing - or even preserving - access to child care and other services in the future.

On bad deals

It's official: the Libs and Greens have cut a deal under which neither party will run a candidate in the other's leader's riding. And it's hard to see how the end result could be much more disastrous for either party.

First, let's look at the implications for the Libs. The first problem, as has already been noted, is the party's unexplained retreat from its 308-riding strategy (and indeed track record of running a candidate in each riding). While the most significant loss for the Libs will be in Central Nova itself - as the riding association has no reason to stay interested through the next election cycle - the message will presumably be heard loud and clear in other ridings as well: any riding association can find its work entirely unraveled at the whim of Dion and his handlers if it's seen as making the road easier for the Lib's leader. And that can only drain whatever enthusiasm may have remained among grassroots Libs who may have wanted to build their party up where it isn't currently competitive.

But the problems go far deeper than that. Today's deal can only create new fissures among the party's loyal supporters: while some Libs try to get at least an explanation or point out the reasons for not following through, others will take up the call to clap louder in hopes of papering over yet another avoidable trouble spot within the party. And Dion himself comes off looking both heavy-handed (in imposing his will on the riding association), and ineffective (in starting yet another internal fire of the kind that he's shown no ability to put out).

So what do the Libs get in exchange for all those costs? Dion didn't figure to be challenged in his own seat anyway, so the Greens' willingness not to run there doesn't make any positive difference. And it's hard to see how Elizabeth May had much choice but to remain at least somewhat positive about Dion given her constant gushing over the past few months - so slightly cementing that support seems like an awfully small gain in exchange for the wounds opened up by the move.

Amazingly, though, the Greens may end up even worse off than the Libs. By explicitly endorsing Dion for PM, May has effectively taken on every bit of Lib baggage in exchange for a slightly improved chance at a single seat. And even her own chances of getting into Parliament may be lessened if Central Nova voters see themselves as having been manipulated due to the Libs' choice to pack it in entirely rather than running even a weak candidate.

Then there's the Greens' choice to echo the Think Twice (But Don't Think Deeply) Coalition's rhetoric. This would be a bizarre choice at the best of times, but it's all the more so given the party's current supporters' actual preference among possible PMs.

That's right: as the lone party leader who already holds the dubious honour of being her own party's supporters' second choice for PM, May is throwing her support to their fourth choice (or sixth if one counts "none of the above" and "unsure") in an attempt to stop their first choice. Which only seems likely to alienate both a good chunk of current Green supporters, and anybody who might otherwise have flipped from supporting the Cons.

Now, I'm not one to suggest that parties should never seek to work together, and indeed I wouldn't mind seeing a genuine concerted effort at an electoral coalition which actually had the effect of reducing the likelihood of a Harper majority. In that vein, one could make a relatively plausible argument that the above costs to the Libs and Greens could potentially have been worth it for both parties if the result had been a national cooperative effort that actually led to significant strategic advantages.

But instead, the Libs and Greens have unleashed every possible negative about running a fully coordinated campaign...while still having to compete against each other in 306 ridings as well. That is, unless they each separately decide to abandon other ridings in addition to the two included in the agreement - or decide they have no choice but to expand the deal, which if done later would serve as evidence that neither party really thought through the consequences of today's announcement.

In a sense, the closest recent political comparator to today's deal may be Jean Charest's decision to campaign on a small tuition hike in the recent Quebec election - thereby enraging Quebec's students while not doing much to win support from any group. But then, the Lib/Green deal still manages to top that by including equally damaging results for two different parties, rather than simply reflecting a one-sided miscalculation.

Of course, another difference is that Charest's announcement came at the start of a campaign where the aftereffects couldn't be avoided. For now, the best chance for the Libs and Greens is probably a delayed election to allow them to get their respective acts together to avoid the immediate fallout. But I can't help but to suspect that if Harper wasn't previously planning on an election this year, he'll now be taking a much closer look at the possibility. And we'll have to hope the NDP is ready for a battle the likes of which it's never fought before, as the Libs under Dion haven't given any reason to think they have either the unity or the competence to keep Harper short of a majority.

Suppressing the facts

Charlie Angus notes that the programs gratuitously axed by the Cons last year included volunteering initiatives which have been found by an independent evaluation to be an effective use of public money. But due to the Cons' suppression of the audit which reached that conclusion, it's just now that Canadians are able to see just how harmful the Cons' move was:

Heritage Minister Bev Oda is refusing to release a positive audit report on important volunteer programs that were axed last fall under her watch. The Summative Evaluation, obtained by NDP MP Charlie Angus (Timmins-James Bay), clearly shows that the Community Participation Programs (CPP) including the Canada Volunteerism Initiative (CVI) were necessary, useful, and cost-effective.

The audit, undertaken as a routine procedure for programs of this nature, would normally be made public. However, the positive review stands in stark contrast to Conservative rhetoric from last fall that claimed their funding cuts were targeted at programs that were “wasteful”, “inefficient” and “out of touch with average Canadians.” Therefore the report was only discovered as the result of an access to information request.

Angus, the NDP’s Heritage Critic, says Oda needs to explain the gap between the reality presented in the report and Conservative spin with respect to the CVI. “This report vindicates volunteer organizations from across Canada who were singled out by the Conservatives as wasteful and out of touch. Bev Oda stood by and did nothing to defend a Heritage Department success story. It’s time she came clean with the volunteer sector and told them why she walked away from them when they needed her most,” said Angus.

Angus concludes by demanding that the Cons restore full funding to the programs they cut. And that would certainly help to undo the damage in this case - though it would be expected that the programs would need some time to recover from having their funding wiped out.

That said, the bigger issue is the Cons' propensity for both evaluating programs on criteria which have nothing to do with their effectiveness, and systematically covering up any information which shows how their spin conflicts with reality. And based on the Cons' consistent track record since they took power, the only way to fix that problem is to replace Harper's gang of merry fabricators with a new government.

On thinning competition

Just in case the door to NDP electoral gains in Quebec (and elsewhere) wasn't open wide enough, word comes out today that some influential Libs want their party to crash and burn in the next election to precipitate a new leadership race, while there's a movement afoot among Parti Quebecois members to disband the Bloc. Which means that the NDP may already be the default alternative to the Cons as the next-largest party which isn't actively imploding.

On departures

I'll take a moment to chime in on Belinda Stronach's departure from politics by noting how the decision fits into her wider career path. Keep in mind that Stronach jumped right into the Con leadership race after working to pull the PCs and Alliance together, then similarly ascended immediately into Cabinet on crossing the floor. And even as she chose not to run for the Lib leadership, she kept nearly as a high a profile as those who were in the race with both the Spread the Net campaign and her public calls for internal party reform.

In sum, Stronach's political career to date was marked by a concerted attempt to acquire as much power as possible as soon as possible - and she was more successful than most in achieving that.

Based on this background, it seem entirely likely that her departure can only be explained by a conclusion that she'll effectively have more power at Magna than can be offered to her by the Libs - even after she didn't apparently have a problem spending some time on the Cons' opposition benches until she was offered the chance to cross the floor. And however fallible Stronach's political instincts may have been to date, the perception that the Libs aren't likely to win any power to offer Stronach can do nothing but hurt a party whose previous departures could all be explained based on either retirement-age MPs or personal loyalties rather than such strategic considerations.

Not encouraging

In case anybody was wondering whether Jim Flaherty had given up on his well-established pattern of speaking softly and carrying no stick in dealing with banks on ATM fees, have no fear, as he made another media appearance today to prove that he's being just as ineffective as ever:

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says he's “encouraged” after talking with the major banks about bank machine fees.

The finance minister says he expects more announcements concerning banks and the fees they charge for automatic bank machines will come within days.

Mr. Flaherty didn't elaborate about what those announcements might be at a speech in Mississauga, west of Toronto.

Needless to say, the smart money is on any upcoming announcements consisting of still more media appearances where Flaherty publicly blusters about how progress is just around the corner. Though if there's any good news, it's that Flaherty's proven ability to declare optimism in the face of planned failure makes him a natural favourite to be the U.S.' new war czar.

Room on the left

Stephane Dion presents an interesting twist in the battle for Quebec votes in the contrast he draws between the Libs and the Cons:

The Bloc Quebecois is losing its relevance as Quebecers grow increasingly tired of protest politics, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said Wednesday.

"Quebecers now have the taste for an action vote rather than a protest vote," Dion said after a meeting with local party organizers in Levis, Que., just south of Quebec City.

"In the next election, we'll ask who can form the better government," Dion said. "In this debate, between the right-wing politics of Mr. Harper and the centrist politics that we propose, the Bloc will no longer be relevant."

The corollary to Dion's attempt to claim a "centrist" mantle would seem to be that neither the Libs nor the Cons can plausibly speak for the left in Quebec. And while that may be entirely true, it's not an admission that I'd have expected to hear from the Libs anytime soon.

While Dion of course doesn't mention the main federalist option for Quebec's left, it's worth noting that based on the recent SES leaders poll, Bloc voters already favour Jack Layton as a possible Prime Minister by a three-to-one margin over Dion. Which means that while now is likely an entirely promising time for the three major federal parties to put the squeeze on the Bloc, it also appears possible that both the preferences of Bloc voters and the Libs' own strategy will ensure that the NDP gets a strong share of any votes freed up by a Bloc decline.

Unaccountable

As if we needed more evidence that Harper government sees "accountability" as an excuse to inflict punishment on its political enemies rather than a value that it's even remotely interested in promoting, take a look at today's examples of the Cons' determination to cut any non-partisan sources out of government decision-making:

- The Cons are once again making Canada's laws on the long-gun registry inapplicable by fiat;

- More information has come out about the completely opaque process being used to select a new RCMP commissioner;

- Word comes out that Environment Minister John Baird has entirely avoided meeting with the scientists who know the most about the most central environmental issue now facing Canada; and

- A Con MP has vividly demonstrated his party's values by noting that eating doughnuts is a higher priority than answering for election promises.

But just in case you were worried that nobody was being asked to answer for anything, anybody who was involved in federal government polling more than four years ago will be put under the microscope.

A voice for change

Andrew Coyne has already earned plenty of plaudits for his willingness to call out those who blindly support the Cons. But while that post's appeal may have itself rested largely on a partisan base, his column today on Ontario's Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform looks to have potential appeal across the political spectrum, as it offers a strong mainstream voice in favour of a move to PR:

This weekend, the assembly will decide whether to recommend sticking with the present system, known as "first past the post," or whether, as seems all but certain, to propose adopting a form of proportional representation, the system in use in most of the democratic world. The issue would then be put to the voters in a referendum, to coincide with this fall's provincial election. And if Ontario goes for it, you may be sure the idea will take on new life elsewhere.

By rights, the referendum ought to overshadow the election, a pallid affair between two cautious centrists that will change nothing. Change the electoral system, on the other hand, and you change everything, not least the predominance of cautious centrists: poll-driven, essentially interchangeable brokerage parties who wouldn't know an idea -- or a principle -- if it bit them in the leg. Electoral reform holds the potential, as nothing else does, to transform our politics, from the present squalid auction of state favours to a genuine contest of philosophies.

Which is why the two main parties, Liberals and Conservatives, are already lining up against it. (The NDP is in favour, though for scarcely less self-interested reasons.) Expect to see other interests, heavily invested in the status quo, campaign strenuously to defeat it. The Citizens Assembly? It has the support of a handful of geeks like me. But stay tuned...

Coyne notes some personal concerns with the exact model chosen by the Citizens Assembly, but ultimately concludes that the proposed system is still a significant improvement on the status quo. And if voices like Coyne's are leading the fight publicly, then the odds of Ontario blazing a new Canadian trial on needed electoral reform figure may become much less daunting than they may have seemed.

Update: Greg has more.

The real choice

As a follow-up to this post, let's note that Jake McEwan's TILMA cheerleading job does stand out in one respect. Unlike most arguments for the agreement, it doesn't try to pretend that the TILMA will do anything but obliterate the ability of provinces and municipalities to act for the public good, as McEwan instead tries to paint the effective elimination of provincial autonomy as a plus:

Canadians have been hampered by an inter-provincial distrust of the power of free markets to produce economic and social benefits.

As a result, federalism has evolved into an inefficient system of provincial and municipal enclaves of economic autonomy. Provincial economic independence has created an interprovincial trading system that hampers productivity through barriers that curb the flow of goods and services...

We can continue to have barriers that perpetuate regional divisions and fragment the nation into a series of city-states and regional solitudes, or we can integrate as a whole and create a more productive Canada with free movement of goods, capital and people.

I couldn't disagree much more strongly with McEwan's conclusion or with his false assumptions about the upside of the TILMA. But it's worth highlighting that the choice facing provinces is indeed largely as McEwan describes.

On the one hand, each province can choose to maintain its authority to operate independently, which can easily include efforts to harmonize those rules which can be agreed to without a TILMA-style straitjacket. On the other, each province can throw in its lot with the TILMA in hopes that enough economic benefits result for their citizens and municipalities to not mind the fact that the provincial government (including all municipalities) is effectively unable to respond to their needs.

Given how many provinces have rightly been concerned in the past about relatively minor intrusions on their freedom to act when those are created by the federal government, it's hard to see how many (aside from the rabidly right-wing regimes which have already signed on) would have reason to be happy with the latter option merely because it's a self-imposed restraint. And that's doubly so given the lack of anything approaching a reliable indication that the TILMA will actually bring about any substantial economic benefits.

While there's been loads of misinformation about what's actually included in the TILMA, the only honest case for the agreement as drafted is to claim - as McEwan implicitly does - that the very notion of democratic provincial government is quaint and outmoded. The problem for the TILMA's backers is that there's little reason to believe that the public at large shares that view - which will hopefully push the rest of Canada's provinces to avoid signing away their autonomy as Alberta and B.C. already have.

On religious fervour

Shorter Jake McEwan:
If we have the faith to sacrifice our provinces to the Market Gods, a bounteous harvest will be our reward. - Conference Board of Canada, 3:16.

Never mind then

And to think I once worried that personal information in the hands of political parties might not be entirely secure. I should have known that they'd ultimately place a high value on maintaining the public's trust.

End of conversation

As a followup to yesterday's post on the False Creek Medical Centre, the Vancouver Sun reports that not only is the B.C. Lib government not apparently looking to take any action to deal with the new private emergency room, but it's instead taking the clinic's side in arguing against any federal action under the Canada Health Act:

Health Minister George Abbott said he doubts a private urgent care centre which reopened in Vancouver Monday will invite fines to the province by the federal government because a similar facility in Quebec has not garnered any such negative notice.

Abbott said in an interview he will contact Health Canada today to alert officials to the reopening of the Urgent Care Centre at False Creek Surgical Centre.

However, he said he doubts the federal government will regard it as breaching Canada Health Act statutes because such private centres exist unfettered in Quebec. In that province, doctors who work in such facilities are not enrolled in the publicly funded Medical Services Plan because they have opted out...

In his own press conference outside the private centre, NDP health critic Adrian Dix said the Canada Health Act clearly prohibits paying privately for medically necessary care and even if the urgent care centre has found a loophole in provincial statutes, the federal government could still levy a fine against B.C.

"If they respect the law, they have to take steps here; it's not a choice, it's an obligation," Dix said, referring to federal authorities.

It's likely worth pointing out what may be a violation of the Canada Health Act, even if the current Con regime is one which has absolutely no interest in enforcing federal law.

But it's surprising that the debate has shifted there so quickly when just last fall, the Campbell government was supposedly willing to make sure that the same clinic couldn't undermine public health care by operating on a patient-pay basis. It's the Libs who are doing nothing to close an unnecessary loophole which is being used to allow for corporatized health care. And they'll bear the ultimate blame if their negligence (or outright hostility toward a single-payer system) makes the province's "conversation" on health care moot.

See more from Eugene.

On leaders

Another day, another poll, another reason to think the NDP can make inroads in Quebec. This time, it's Jack Layton's 13% "best prime minister" vote in the province. While the number itself isn't terribly impressive (indeed it's Layton's worst regional number), it offers yet another example of the NDP's Quebec numbers being not far off from the Libs', and in this case slightly higher.

Meanwhile, as noted by Jeff, Stephane Dion's numbers have to be a serious concern for the Libs. And it's worth highlighting the most striking one of all: Dion's anemic 10% Quebec showing comes in the province which knows Dion best, and which he was chosen in large part for his ability to win.

Instead, all indications are that Dion is fighting a losing battle with the NDP for third place, rather than pushing the Libs toward dominance in Quebec. And if Layton can continue that pattern in Quebec, it may not be long before the rest of the country follows in seeing the NDP as the strongest national opponent to the Cons.

Insider trading

David Olive discusses suspicious trading of stock in Canada and abroad, noting that while Canada stands out with "aberrant trading patterns" preceding nearly 2/3 of large mergers, a substantial number of major transactions in the U.S. and U.K. have similarly followed dubious increases in trading. And somewhere, a free marketeer claims there's no reason to think the market will operate anything but fairly on its own.

False promises

Last fall, it was reported that B.C. Health Minister George Abbott had reached a "compromise" under which the False Creek Surgical Centre would operate as a publicly-funded facility rather than opening the door to private emergency rooms. But today, word comes out that the clinic in fact never operated that way, and is brazenly implementing a fully patient-funded model now that the initial outcry has died down:

A private Vancouver emergency clinic is reopening for British Columbia residents after apparently finding a loophole in provincial public health care rules.

The Urgent Care Centre at the False Creek Surgical Centre charges fees for on-site access to emergency room physicians. The...facility has been treating out of province and foreign patients since it opened last December...

The clinic was initially open to anyone but after discussions with the government, it pulled the plug on B.C. residents.

Medical director Dr. Mark Godley says the clinic has now hired emergency care doctors who have never enrolled with the B.C. Medical Services Plan, allowing them to levy private fees.

Today's announcement makes it apparent that Abbott must have been either lying about the nature of the "compromise" to begin with, or utterly negligent in making sure the clinic lived up to its side of the bargain. After all, the False Creek clinic surely can't have been seen as "operating like any other walk-in clinic" if its policy has been to refuse to treat B.C. residents in order to make sure that all payments were received from patients rather than from the publicly-funded system.

Meanwhile, it's far from certain that the clinic is correct in asserting that it's legally in the clear. On a quick review of B.C.'s Medicare Protection Act, the clinic would be subject to prosecution at least if its fees exceed the payment guidelines set out under the public system. Moreover, the linked version may not reflect amendments to the Medicare Protection Act which were apparently passed last fall to enable the provincial government to take action against similar schemes.

At this point, though, there's less reason than ever to trust that the B.C. Libs will make use of any means to protect publicly-funded health care even if those mechanisms already exist. And it remains to be seen whether the False Creek clinic's delay tactics will succeed in preventing any amount of public attention from correcting matters now.

A need for privacy

It may be awhile before it's possible to determine all the areas where the TILMA would impede on current government policy, let alone areas in which governments might want to act in the future. But on some reflection, it's worth adding one more major area to the list where the TILMA could create a serious shift against the public interest.

To my knowledge, most (if not all) provinces have legislation governing what may be done with personal health information; in Saskatchewan's case, it's the Health Information Protection Act. In addition, many provinces also have legislation governing the use of other personal information by businesses; for example, see Alberta's Personal Information Protection Act.

Given that such laws are entirely common among Canadian provinces, one would think that the TILMA would at least have taken them into account. But instead, nothing under the agreement appears to speak directly to the protection of privacy: on a quick review I don't see the term used either in the exceptions section (Part V), or the list of legitimate objectives.

For an example of what this could mean, consider what could happen where a business is able to show that it could make money selling personal health information, such that privacy legislation impedes on its ability to make a profit.

Under the TILMA, it's not even clear that a province challenged over a health privacy law would have an argument available to defend the statute. At best, the province would have to argue that the protection of personal health information constitutes either consumer protection, or part of providing health care in the province. And even then, the province would have to prove that its manner of dealing with the information was precisely the least restrictive possible from a profit standpoint - which would seem very difficult to prove with respect to statutes whose entire raison d'etre is the protection of privacy.

On losing any challenge, a province would then be left with three choices: it could essentially pay a regular tithe to private operators for the privilege of refusing them permission to sell off sensitive information; it could try to rewrite its privacy laws every time they're challenged in hopes of winning in front of a tribunal; or it could give in and make personal health information available to be sold freely.

Needless to say, such an end result would be disastrous from the standpoint of any patient who doesn't want to see their health information available for purchase by anyone interested - particularly since the choice to open up personal health information for sale would seem to be the path of least resistance for the government involved. But the TILMA seems entirely likely to make that a reality before long in the provinces reckless enough to sign on.

When it comes to information other than health information, the picture seems rather murkier. Generally, businesses are bound by the federal PIPEDA if there's no provincial counterpart legislation. But it seems entirely possible that the TILMA could be used to argue that each province should have precisely the weakest legislation which can possibly be accepted as an alternative to PIPEDA, thereby watering down existing privacy protections as far as possible.

Again, I'm sure there are many other areas where the TILMA may have equally dangerous potential effects - and I'll keep an eye for any more that can be pointed out. But it's safe to say that with each example, it becomes more and more clear that the TILMA falls far short of taking into account the legitimate needs of the general public.

Update: In the comments, Declan rightly points out that Article 7.4 of the TILMA does appear to offer some substantial protection for privacy laws. I'm not sure that the provision is bulletproof, as it could plausibly be read to apply only to information in the immediate control or possession of a province rather than the general content of privacy laws; however, the section does indicate that privacy is somewhat better protected than most other areas of public interest.

On real costs

Erin's discussion about a federal conference on internal trade highlights the fact that while the TILMA's alleged benefits have been properly debunked in the minds of all but the most reality-averse corporate shills, its costs need to be far more strongly considered:

The academic and policy people all agreed that the material costs of alleged inter-provincial barriers are insignificantly small relative to the economy. Representatives of nursing and legal associations indicated that their members have no difficulty transferring between provinces and perceive no meaningful barriers to labour mobility...

Despite the near consensus that there is not much of a problem, there was some discussion of potential “solutions”: expanding TILMA, deepening the Agreement on Internal Trade, or applying the World Trade Organization’s rules to intra-national trade...

Many participants had not scrutinized TILMA and its likely negative consequences. Although John Helliwell and I tried to raise some of these potential pitfalls, I fear that many people have concluded that this agreement entails minor benefits but no costs...

The optimistic conclusion is that Marc, I, and others have been somewhat successful in dispelling the fantasy that TILMA will yield significant economic benefits. The pessimistic conclusion is that much more needs to be done to inform people of TILMA’s economic, social, and environmental costs.

As noted by Erin, much of the debate over the TILMA has centred on the wildly-inflated claims about the possible benefits. But that focus on debating the size (or existence) of any benefit may result in the anti-TILMA side paying short shrift to the even more important costs of any agreement which puts a straitjacket on government in the name of increased corporate profits.

Of course, it's virtually impossible to quantify what some of those costs could be - though it's not hard to extrapolate from the Sierra Club's legal analysis to see how the TILMA could constrain governments now in ways which result in far larger environmental costs in the future.

But even immediate dollar amounts aside, it's also worth noting the political cost when governments are preventing from governing. Any problem faced by governments under a TILMA-type regime will have a far more limited range of potential solutions, with a strong bias toward corporate-friendly ones even if these do less to resolve the core issue. And that real reduction in what government actually does is only likely to lead to further cynicism on the question of whether government can in fact do better.

Needless to say, that kind of shift from (relatively) people-centred decision-making to an enforced corporate-friendly focus is probably exactly what makes the TILMA so appealing to businesses. But it's also a serious danger which would itself make for reason to be highly skeptical of the TILMA even if the Conference Board's invented benefits were even close to realistic.

An unwanted suggestion

Shorter Gerry Nicholls:
If the Libs were smart, they'd set liberalism back 200 years.

(Edit: fixed label.)

Subtle movement

There's been no lack of talk about the latest SES poll in general and the Quebec results in particular. But one interesting part of those results seems to have escaped notice so far: the Libs' Quebec decline combined with a boost for the NDP has closed the gap between the parties to only 5 points (18% to 13%). And it's worth examining the implications if those numbers are an accurate reflection of Quebec public opinion - which seems fairly likely, particularly given that other polls have also shown the gap narrowing or even being eliminated entirely.

First, the NDP's gain makes it more likely that (as suggested by Nik Nanos) the Libs' drop was based on recent negative press based on the sponsorship scandal and the Cons' attack ads, rather than approval for the Cons based on the federal budget. After all, if the movement was based on the budget, one would expect the NDP to lose ground as well, while the Bloc would presumably stand to gain for its support of the budget. Instead, the movement seems to be toward "anyone but the Libs".

Which leads nicely into the second point worth noting, as the NDP's rise suggests that it's already seen by a significant number of voters as a realistic option for those who don't want to put their federalist votes behind Harper. Contrary to the claim that there's no other federalist alternative besides the Cons and the Libs, the NDP is already in a position to compete with the Libs. And any continued growth for the NDP, combined with the party's recent wave of star candidate possibilities, should put the NDP in a strong position to turn its support into Quebec seats.

Update: Jeff has more.

Correct perceptions

The CP reports that a plurality of Canadians believe industry to have a bigger say in environmental regulations than any other factor, including public opinion, science and environmental groups. And sadly, John Baird continues to go out of his way to prove them right.

On poor organization

An interesting tidbit from Susan Delacourt, as the much-ballyhooed Con election machine apparently isn't yet equipped to keep track of the Cons' own candidates:

(T)his week, Harper's Conservatives invited reporters out to an industrial park in Ottawa's east end to show off the party's readiness for the ground war. The Tories have leased 17,000 square feet of space and filled it with snazzy computers, specialized "desk" units and a fully equipped TV studio.

There's one thing, though – if you ask this highly sophisticated operation for the names of Conservative candidates on the ground, you're out of luck. "Sorry, can't help," the Star was told when it asked for the names of duly nominated Tory hopefuls in about a dozen or so interesting ridings across Canada.

The Liberals, on the other hand, who are supposed to be highly disorganized and unready for a campaign, were able to supply those Conservative candidates' names in under a half an hour. Go figure.

I suppose there's an argument to be made that since individual Con candidates aren't intended to do anything more than repeat talking points from on high in any event, it doesn't matter who the candidate is for a riding. But there's no apparent reason why the Cons would want to admit that publicly.

As a result, it seems far more likely that the Cons are so focused on attacking the Libs that they've forgotten that important first step of keeping track of who's on their side. Which in turn suggests both that it may not only be Con candidates for whom intelligence and strategy are optional - and that the Cons' big-money investments haven't paid off in the slightest.

On false moderation

Stephen Maher nicely pegs why Harper's attempts to appear relatively moderate haven't put a dent in the rightful suspicions of Canadians - and aren't likely to anytime soon:

Ted Byfield, a conservative Alberta commentator who has watched Mr. Harper for years, said in 2004 that any such moves would be merely strategic.

"I don’t think he knows how to compromise," he said. "It’s not in his genes. The issue now is: how do we fool the world into thinking we’re moving to the left when we’re not?"

Since then, on virtually every important national issue, Mr. Harper has shifted left toward the traditional Canadian consensus position. He has rarely, though, enunciated reasons for the shift, perhaps because that would mean admitting he was wrong earlier, or perhaps because he does not believe he was wrong, just that the earlier position was not acceptable politically...

Some policy flip-flops are a normal byproduct of going from opposition to government, but Mr. Harper has changed his whole platform, one item at a time, embracing everything from bilingualism, which he once called "the god that failed," to the Kyoto accord, which he called "a socialist scheme."

It looks like he would change a policy, judge whether it moved him close enough to the centre, then finding it had not, sigh and change the next policy...

These changes are different from the normal broken promises of politics — like Jean Chretien’s vow to scrap the GST or Mr. Harper’s promise on income trusts — and more like a complete transformation. And since they have not been accompanied by a public explanation, it is hard for anyone to know what Mr. Harper really thinks about things.

Average Canadians, who pay little attention to politics between elections, nonetheless seem to sense this ambiguity, perhaps in the guarded look that Mr. Harper has in his eyes from time to time.

If there's anything Maher misses, it's that there's another reason for concern beyond only Harper's lack of justification for his changes in position.

Instead, the Cons' stay in government has also been marked by a distinction between their spontaneous responses and their more calculated maneuvers. Harper's grudging moves toward the centre have, as noted by Maher, largely been based on an intention to do as little as possible as late as possible in order to appear centrist.

In contrast, his party's manner of dealing with new issues which demand an immediate response (particularly with respect to foreign policy) has generally involved taking as extreme a position as possible as quickly as possible, then refusing to retreat except to the extent absolutely necessary. And since all but the largest foreign policy issues tend to be relatively quickly forgotten, that's often resulted in little (if any) movement from the Cons' initial stances.

Based on that track record, it's easy to see that the instincts of Harper and the Cons still amount to nothing more than a cynical, centralized and corporatized version of the extreme positions which they now try to claim are in the past. And with the Cons' stay in power marked by a complete absence of principle other than a desire to reinforce that power with a majority government, Canadians have every reason to think that Harper's refusal to explain his party's change in position simply reflects the fact that he's looking to reverse course at the first politically-viable opportunity.

For those looking to act

While Olivia Chow's YouTube call for regulation of pet food has received plenty of attention, the media coverage hasn't gone so far as to mention what can be done to support Chow's drive. But for those interested, Chow has a petition available from her Take Action page, along with other suggested ways of passing along the message that Canada should join the U.S. and E.U. in making sure that pet food is kept safe.

Comparing bills

As a follow-up to this post, a commenter over at Closet Liberal tries to claim that the Veterans' Bill of Rights put into force by the Cons meaningfully resembles what veterans themselves wanted. So let's take a look at the Bill of Rights which the Royal Canadian Legion proposed a year ago, presumably in response to the Cons' promise to implement such a bill:

Canadian veterans, who have committed their lives and “service” for the freedoms Canadians enjoy today are special citizens. They deserve recognition, benefits and services to maintain an appropriate quality of life during all stages of their lives. Their special status should be recognized in all jurisdictions, federal, provincial and municipal.

Veterans have a right to be treated with courtesy, with respect and in a timely fashion in all their contacts with Veterans Affairs Canada at all levels of the Department. This respect, courtesy and timeliness of service must also be demonstrated to their families and dependants.

Veterans have a right to be fully informed of all programs and benefits to which they are eligible. In that respect, Veterans Affairs Canada has a responsibility to inform not only their current clients; it also has a responsibility to reach out in providing information to potential clients.

Veterans have a right to be provided with equal benefits in any part of the country in which they or their dependants reside. Geographical location should not determine the quality or level of service provided. Confidentiality of information must be preserved.

Veterans have a right to receive fair and equal treatment, irrespective of rank, position, or status. They should be treated with tact, comprehension and understanding. They should be involved in the decisions affecting their care and the formulation of programs and benefits.

Veterans have a right to receive referral and representational assistance in presenting their claims for benefits and services in the official language of their choice. This assistance should be broad based, and should not be restricted to governmental agencies.

In other words, the Royal Canadian Legion's original request for a bill of rights provided all the substance that the Cons' final draft doesn't: it contained substantive rights beyond those which already existed by statute, and placed a direct onus on the government to ensure that veterans were made aware of the benefits available to them (rather than merely saying that the government would pay those benefits as required). Indeed, a comparison between the two only highlights just how empty the Cons' final draft was.

Of course, it's fair enough to point out that the Royal Canadian Legion's official line is that the Cons' bill represents some progress. But that should surely come with acknowledgement that some veterans have also criticized the bill's flaws:

"It's far too vague, it's far too wishy-washy to give veterans what they really deserve," said Sean Bruyea, an ex-captain in the intelligence corps.

Meanwhile, it's also worth noting that the Cons are refusing to act on yet another reasonable request from veterans - this one for hearing aids to help veterans who may have suffered hearing loss in combat. Which adds one more reason to think the Cons' commitment to Canada's veterans doesn't extend any further than the bare minimum to provide them with an immediate political benefit.

Science and politics

The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which brings into even sharper focus the potential effects of climate change, has been approved - but only after some of most significant dangers were cut out or minimized as politics were put ahead of science:

An international global warming conference approved a report on climate change Friday, chairman Rajendra Pachauri said, after a contentious marathon session that saw angry exchanges between diplomats and scientists who drafted the report...

“The authors lost,” said one participant. “A lot of authors are not going to engage in the IPCC process any more. I have had it with them,” he said on condition of anonymity because the proceedings were supposed to remain confidential. An Associated Press reporter, however, witnessed part of the final meeting.

The climax of five days of negotiations was reached when the delegates removed parts of a key chart highlighting devastating effects of climate change that kick in with every rise of 1 degree Celsius, and in a tussle over the level of confidence attached to key statements.

The United States, China and Saudi Arabia raised the most objections to the phrasing, most often seeking to tone the certainty of some of the more dire projections.

The final report is the clearest and most comprehensive scientific statement to date on the impact of global warming mainly caused by man-induced carbon dioxide pollution.

It predicts that up to 30 per cent of species face an increase (sic) risk of extinction if global temperatures rise 2 degrees Celsius above the average in the 1980s and 90s.

In other words, never mind privatizing the "highway to extinction"; instead, the U.S. and others apparently managed to have that route removed from the map entirely. Which only means that there'll be less way to determine where'll we end up if the anti-environment faction manages to keep us on that road.

In the longer term, we'll have to hope that the scientists who are now rightfully frustrated with having their work rewritten by political hacks will decide not to abandon the IPCC as a result - lest the same type of anti-science hack write the next set of reports from the beginning.

For now, though, the report should show that even the most irresponsible countries are no longer willing to pretend that climate change is anything but a serious problem which demands immediate action. And if the report helps to spur that kind of action forward, then its specific wording may be secondary to the good it can do to shape the political scene.

A fairly serious problem

I couldn't disagree much more thoroughly with Aaron Wherry's attack on the use of "fairer" and "fairness" as viable political themes. And the difference goes to both semantics and substance: I'd think most people would acknowledge that fairness can be evaluated on a spectrum rather than an all-or-nothing concept as suggested by Wherry, and there's plenty of room for Canada's public policy to reflect a far higher standard of fairness.

But in using the Libs' recent framing as an excuse to try to push "fairness" language outside the political sphere, Wherry does hint at one of the biggest problems with the Libs' current strategy. By trying to use the language of fairness so regularly to refer to both their own personal slights and to larger social issues (with a heavy emphasis on the former), the Libs are only draining the message of meaning and encouraging Canadians to ask just why it should matter what Dion labels as "unfair".

Unfortunately, if Dion and company can't get their message on track in a hurry by sorting out just what they mean by fairness and how it actually matters to Canadians in general, the resulting harms may extend far beyond the Libs' own prospects. What's at stake may be the likelihood of making real fairness (as in genuine equality of opportunity) a goal seen as worth pursuing in Canada's political discussion over the short to medium term, rather than a butt of jokes for the likes of Wherry. And it can only be unfair to Canadians who would benefit from nothing more than fair treatment if the Libs' confused message helps to push such a goal beyond their grasp.

A false bill of sale

Remarkably, the Cons' "declare victory and leave" strategy on wait times may not even have made for their most embarrassingly empty piece of electioneering this week. It was sad enough when Harper announced a Veterans' Bill of Rights without having even the slightest clue what was supposed to be included. But judging from what appears to be the actual document, the Cons have scrupulously avoided providing anything of substance to veterans.

The entire list of "rights" set out by the Cons is as follows:

You have the right to:
o Be treated with respect, dignity, fairness and courtesy.
o Take part in discussions that involve you and your family.
o Have someone with you for support when you deal with Veterans Affairs.
o Receive clear, easy-to-understand information about our programs and services, in English or French, as set out in the Official Languages Act.
o Have your privacy protected as set out in the Privacy Act.
o Receive benefits and services as set out in our published service standards and to know your appeal rights.
o You have the right to make a complaint and have the matter looked into if you feel that any of your rights have not been upheld.

In other words, the most substantive of the supposedly new "rights" granted to Canadian veterans consist of nothing more than a restatement of what already exists under other laws. And indeed, the specific references to the Official Languages Act, Privacy Act and "published service standards" strongly imply that if the Cons are able to change these for the worse, then veterans will explicitly share in the loss of that benefit.

Meanwhile, the Cons themselves have voted against actual improvements to the benefits available to veterans' widows. But then, "honest government" doesn't appear either in the bill of rights, or in the Cons' general vocabulary.

Unfortunately, it doesn't get any better from there. Most of the remaining "rights" are nothing more than basic principles of natural justice, which should likewise apply to all Canadians. (Unless the Cons think that only veterans should be able to take part in discussions which affect their interests, to bring another person for support in dealing with government entities, or to make complaints.)

Which means that we're now down to the first clause - which would itself easily be lumped into the category of "things that should be reasonably expected by anybody dealing with the government" if it weren't too vague to be even remotely enforceable.

In sum, the Cons' much-publicized announcement effectively amounts to nothing more than a declaration that the law which applies to Canadians generally also applies to veterans. And that lack of honesty in what the Cons have presented - not to mention their broken promise on widows' benefits - can only be seen as antithetical to the respect the Cons pretend to hold for those who have fought for Canada.

Nicely done

It takes some effort to come up with a suitable amount of derision for PMS' announcement that the Cons have kept their wait-times promise through their laughable budget announcement and subsequent one-procedure agreements. So kudos to Scott Feschuk for doing the job.

A needed push

It's been a couple of days since IP praised Nathan Cullen for his message on the need to work with other parties. But with Parliament out of session at the moment, Cullen is going out of his way to work with more than just his political friends and rivals.

Babbler Ken S sets out the big picture:

Nathan Cullen is on a national speaking tour right now encouraging environmentalists to speak up so that the government feels the pressure. I saw him in Halifax today.

That's a measure of his personal commitment. Nathan is by no means assured of re-election and this parliamentary break is prime time for incumbents to be pressing the flesh at home.

And for a more local perspective, Northern Life wrote about his stop in Sudbury earlier this week:

NDP Environment Critic Nathan Cullen is on a five-day Canada-wide tour that stops in Sudbury Tuesday to hear from ordinary Canadians about their environmental concerns and learn more about local sustainability initiatives.

Cullen will also be informing Canadians of the NDP’s victory in achieving real progress on climate change by engineering the complete revision of the Conservatives’ failed Clean Air Act...

Cullen’s Sudbury visit will include meetings with local environmental organizations, a meeting with Greater Sudbury Mayor John Rodriguez, and a visit to local campuses that are engaging in sustainability research.

Credit certainly goes to Cullen for his willingness to make a cross-country push to pass the amended C-30 his top priority over what's increasingly looking like a pre-campaign period.

But the biggest question is whether the tour is likely to make a difference in the Cons' thinking. And while it hasn't been particularly well reported, the NDP's track record of forcing results is an impressive one, as past coordinated efforts within the community have forced the Cons to follow through on investments contained in the Libs' previous budget, as well as to move forward with needed funding for housing on multiple occasions.

Of course, Bill C-30 may run into a far more entrenched Con position. But enough of a push from the environmental movement may well be the factor which makes the Cons choose not to be seen as the party which held up sorely-needed progress. And hopefully Cullen's tour will help to make sure that the Cons get the message.

A top five unemployed political mind

Shorter Gerry Nichols:
Will make Stephen Harper look like a Marxist revolutionary for food.

(Edit: fixed label.)

Coalition-building

As promised, let's look in a bit more detail at Andrew Coyne's suggestion that the three opposition parties work together to form a governing coalition in the event that Harper requests a trip to the polls. While I'd welcome the possibility of such a coalition, there are two serious obstacles to it managing to emerge.

The first is simply a matter of timing. I presume that it's most likely that on the Cons demanding an election, Michaelle Jean wouldn't likely call on another party to take power unless she had already received some indication that a stable coalition would be possible. Which means that the opposition parties would have to put vital resources into hammering out at least the broad terms of any coalition ahead of time, then signal their intentions publicly before Harper brought his own government down.

And that presents some significant downside risk based on the uncertainty as to the Governor General's reaction. If Jean were to choose to accept Harper's request for an election rather than offering an opportunity for other parties to form government, then each party which was willing to participate in the coalition would then be easily painted as having accepted the faults of every other coalition party, with no opportunity to make up for that perception with a stay in power. Or to be more precise, the NDP and Libs would each face all the downside of a formal electoral coalition, without the benefit of having a better chance of any single seat.

While that problem is one which would be in place no matter how badly each opposition party wanted to form a coalition, the second goes to the question of whether a coalition can be formed at all. With the Bloc having supported the Cons' budget based entirely on the amount of money provided to Quebec, there's not likely any way they could then turn around and accept a budget which offered less. Meanwhile, at last notice the Libs were still sticking to the position that the amount provided was intended as a resolution to a phony problem to begin with.

The obvious solution would be for the Libs to find a reason to justify supporting the same amount of funding in a coalition budget, if perhaps not based on "fiscal imbalance" language. While that might require some fancy footwork and a bit of backtracking from Dion, it could also be used as evidence that the Libs' new leader is no less politically astute than Harper if it succeeds in keeping the Cons from choosing the timing of an election.

One other way around the budget problem would be for the opposition parties to simply surprise the Cons by failing to oppose the budget such that it passed automatically (and this time intentionally!), then launching their coalition afterward to govern within the Cons' fiscal framework. Once again, a daring maneuver - but also likely one that would work wonders in shattering the myth that Harper is fully in control of Canada's political scene.

Of course, any benefit to the image of any opposition party would be based on such maneuvers succeeding in creating a stable government. As a result, if there's any doubt about whether all parties could be trusted to keep working together (and likely in the face of a series of Con opposition motions/bills designed to split them), it may oddly be a safer course of action to simply go to the polls and see what happens.

That said, I'd still like to see at least some effort by the Libs and NDP to see if a coalition can be put together. But it's worth recognizing now what the downsides are, to ensure that they can be minimized if things don't work out as hoped.

Coalition-breakers

Shorter Jason Cherniak:
I'd rather see a Harper majority than a Dipper in cabinet.

(More about Andrew Coyne's coalition suggestion later.)

Update: I've discussed before the difference between a partisan (which I'd consider myself), and a hyperpartisan - see the comments to this post for one distinction between the two. But I'd might as well point out a prime example based on Cherniak's view that he doesn't want to see a coalition government lest the NDP's credibility improve as a result of its members successfully holding federal cabinet positions:

A partisan wants to keep power out of his/her opponents' hands to avoid the risk that they'll use it badly; a hyperpartisan wants to keep power out of his/her opponents' hands to avoid the risk that they'll use it well.

Con/Lib Inc.

So much for all the talk about the Libs supposedly moving to the left to offer an alternative to the Cons, as those parties' respective members of the International Trade Committee couldn't agree more in wanting to divert federal resources toward more free-trade agreements and U.S. integration:

A Commons committee is urging the federal government to invest a lot more money and effort into securing bilateral trade and investment deals around the world.

The international trade committee calls for a 50 per cent increase in federal spending on trade and investment promotion, including more trips abroad by Canadian officials and MPs.

However, NDP and Bloc Quebecois MPs on the committee warn some of the 22 recommendations in the report tabled late last week pose an economic, social or political threat...

The NDP dissenting report is especially critical of recommendations urging greater integration of the Canadian economy into the U.S. dominated North American economy...

“Generally, the report is based on the assumption that fast-tracking deregulation and blind faith in bilateral free trade will create sustainable and positive prosperity and employment,” the NDP says in its dissenting report...

“This report, based on an ideology that was popular in the 1980s and 1990s and according to which market openness has no harmful secondary effects and no need for safeguards, is now completely outmoded and unsuited to Quebec’s economic reality,” the Bloc report stated.

Of course, both the Libs and Cons are fighting each other for the backing of corporate Canada (which presumably has much to do with the "natural governing party" status that each wants to claim). Which means that it's not entirely surprising that neither wants to go on record pointing out the real concerns about yet another round of deregulation and integration.

But then, the Libs' calls for effective government are bound to ring hollow one it's pointed out that they're eager to restrain government action as long as it's matched by a similar commitment in another country. And one would think that the official opposition would at least be willing to point out some issues with the Security and Prosperity Partnership to at least shape where future talks end up going, rather than simply choosing not to deal with it (or worse yet providing what sounds like unconditional supprt).

As usual, it's worth clarifying that expanding trade is indeed a worthy effort, and the recommendation to increase and improve Canada's presence abroad should be followed. But there's no reason why such an effort has to be accompanied by agreements to tie down Canada's governments. And ultimately, Canadians who want effective governments at both the provincial and federal levels should be just as concerned about the Libs' willingness to limit our scope of action through agreement as they are about the Cons' plan to dismantle the state from within.

Accountability-free

The Cons demonstrate another example of their belief that accountability doesn't apply to money sent to the provinces, as word comes out that the Harper government isn't bothering to check up on how provinces have spent the money provided under the federal/provincial health-care accord despite the provinces' agreement that they'd submit data as to how the money was spent:

(T)he federal and provincial governments have quietly abandoned one of the key elements of the 2003 first ministers' health accord, which was the requirement for accountability in the spending of billions of federal health dollars.

Jeanne Besner, interim chair of the Health Council of Canada, reported earlier this year that it is impossible to know where the federal money is going because provinces have not provided the necessary data.

"We are unable to say where the provinces and territories are investing funds from the federal health-care agreements because no financial breakdowns are provided," she said in her 2007 report.

The 2003 accord required that provinces provide comparable health indicators but they have not done so, and the federal-provincial committee overseeing the work has been disbanded, Besner said.

Of course, some of the blame has to lie with the previous Lib regime for also failing to follow through on securing the required data. But unlike the Cons, they at least left the structures in place which would have enabled the federal government to figure out where the money was spent.

In the face of today's news, the largest question going forward is how the provinces will react to the Cons' abandonment of the reporting requirement. For now, they figure to be happy to have no obligations associated with a large pile of money. But it seems all the more likely that the Cons are merely hinting at their long-term disinterest in health care, child care and other priorities by refusing to make sure money is spent wisely in those areas now. And if the provinces react with short-sighted approval which provides a boost to Harper, they stand to lose out more than anybody in the long run as the Cons' antipathy for effective social programs gets reflected in non-minority budgets.

On goalposts

Gordon O'Connor offers his take on how long he plans to keep Canada's military in Afghanistan - and suggests once again that as long as the Cons are in power, they don't care how much reason there may be to bring our troops home:

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says Canada will stay in Afghanistan until the progress that's been made becomes irreversible by the extremists who still threaten the country.

Remarkably, O'Connor doesn't even seem to suggest that a NATO or U.S. pullout would be enough for him to want to bring Canadian troops home. Instead, he wants to keep Canada's military in Afghanistan it succeeds where both the Soviet Union and the U.S. have failed.

And if that weren't bad enough, the standard chosen by O'Connor is one that simply can't reasonably be reached. After all, it's hard to see how any change could possibly become "irreversible" in the mind of anybody with even the slightest grasp on reality. Though of course the standard may leave the door open for a "declare victory then leave" strategy which few Con supporters would question.

If there's any solace in O'Connor's latest statement, it's that there's no particular reason to think that he has any more idea what he's talking about now than he normally does. But that offers precious little relief as long as O'Connor - or anybody else suffering from the same detachment from reality - remains in a position to dictate (or at least parrot) Canada's military policy.

Shocking and awful

There have been a few comments on yesterday's media tour of the Cons' campaign headquarters. But even this seemingly innocuous paragraph helps to hint at the serious problems behind the Cons' facade:

There were no employees toiling in the headquarters during Monday's visit -- but in a main room that holds about 100 brand-new desks, the computers were plugged in and running.

Keep in mind that the forthcoming election will be one where every other party is going out of its way to be environmentally friendly: the Libs and Greens have stated their intention to pay for emission credits to counter the effects of the campaign, while the NDP is looking for ways to reduce its emissions in the first place.

Against that backdrop, the Cons have firmly established themselves as the party of conspicuous and wasteful consumption, running a room full of computers even with no staff present for the sake of impressing the media.

Of course, there may be one other reason for the Cons to see a need to turn the computers on for the benefit of the press. With their track record of playing fast and loose with the facts, it could well be that anything short of completely visible screens would have led the Cons' guests to wonder what might only have been a prop:

"While Baird claimed to be walking us through a room full of computers, the furthest two rows or more could easily have been made out of Lego. And I could swear I saw a few TS 1000s mixed in."

Either way, though, the Cons can only be seen as irresponsible - whether based on a callous tendency toward overconsumption, or on their facing a chronic credibility deficit of their own making. And if voters catch on to those problems, all the spotlights and TelePrompters in the world won't be able to help the Cons stay in power.