A failed transplant

A quick break from my blogging hiatus, as there's one key point which I haven't yet seen made about the Cons' committee control manual. Take a look at the difference between how the Cons are instructed to treat other parties, and how they expect to be judged in return:

(T)he document - given only to Conservative chairmen - tells them how to favour government agendas, select party-friendly witnesses, coach favourable testimony, set in motion debate-obstructing delays and, if necessary, storm out of meetings to grind parliamentary business to a halt...

Among the more heavy-handed recommendations in the document:
• That the Conservative party helps pick committee witnesses. The chairman "should ensure that witnesses suggested by the Conservative Party of Canada are favourable to the government and ministry," the document warns.

• The chairmen should also seek to "include witnesses from Conservative ridings across Canada" and make sure their local MPs take the place of a member at the committee when a constituent appears, to show they listen and care.

• The chairmen should "meet with witnesses so as to review testimony and assist in question preparation."

• Procedural notes tell the chairmen to always recognize a Conservative member just before a motion is put to a vote "and let them speak as long as they wish" - a maneuver used to kickstart a filibuster as a stall tactic.

• Chairmen are told to notify all affected ministries prior to a motion being voted upon. "Communicate concerns with the Prime Minister's Office, House Leader or Whip," the document insists. "Try to anticipate the response of the press and how party could be portrayed."

• The guide says a "disruptive" committee should be adjourned by the chairman on short notice. "Such authority is solely in the discretion of the chair. No debate, no appeal possible." By failing to appoint the vice chair to run the meeting, the adjournment will last until the chair is ready to reconvene the committee...

Ironically, the manual also advises committee chairs to act fairly and build trust with members of all parties, getting to know them personally as well as politically.

In sum, the Cons' instructions are to manipulate proceedings and bully their opponents at every available opportunity - and in the process, earn the trust and respect of those same opponents.

It would be tempting to say that there's an inherent contradication between the two goals - except that they seem to fairly accurately describe how the Republicans managed to manipulate the American political system from 2002 to 2006. In that case, a hyperpartisan governing party used every trick at its disposal to punish its opponents for existing...and the opponents responded primarily by either staying silent, or apologizing for getting in the way.

But while that scheme worked frighteningly well in the U.S. (at least until the 2006 elections), it's been an utter flop in Canada so far. And for good reason: unlike the Dems, none of Canada's opposition parties have lacked at least some willingness to be publicly seen opposing the government.

Which signals that while the Cons indeed seem to have been borrowing heavily from the Republicans' playbook, there's little reason to think that they'll get far with it. And that conclusion is only slightly stronger now that the playbook itself is available for public skewering.

Update: Or maybe the point has been made already. But it's still worth some more emphasis.

Light blogging ahead

Expect little (if any posting) from this corner until next week. Have a great long weekend in the meantime...

On the verge

Apparently the Cons' list of committees to obstruct missed a rather important one, with the result that the NDP's Early Learning and Child Care Act has made it through committee and figures to pass in the House of Commons before too long:

NDP Child Care Act passes at committee

Amid a growing crisis facing ordinary parents and working families, there is now light at the end of the tunnel for the passage of the NDP’s Early Learning and Child Care Act. Bill C-303 passed second reading last fall and has been studied for the last three weeks at the Standing Committee on Human Resources and Social Development...

If passed, Bill C-303 would enshrine principles that federal dollars spent on child care would have to follow. Key among them is that provinces be accountable for federal child care investments and show that the money is being spent according to the law.

With only one vote in the Commons left to go, the biggest question now is whether the child care bill will get caught up in the Senate. But there doesn't appear to be much reason for obstruction from the upper chamber when the Libs in the House of Commons have supported the bill and the principles involved are relatively similar to those already applied under the Canada Health Act.

Which means that with far too little fanfare, the NDP (with the help of the other opposition parties) may be on the verge of a major legislative accomplishment in a Parliament which has clearly required some delicate navigation. And hopefully C-303 won't be the last bill the opposition parties put in place to mandate better government than the Cons want to deliver.

Another meeting cancelled due to Con incompetence

Following up on this morning's talk about the Cons' strategy shift, it seems the Cons are focusing on keeping things "quiet" by suppressing yet another set of information, rather than on anything approaching "good management":

Conservative MPs blocked witnesses Thursday from testifying at a Commons committee on the Afghan detainee controversy.

The ethics committee was to hear from a law professor and a freelance journalist about whether the foreign affairs department deliberately withheld scathing human rights reports on Afghanistan.

But Tory MPs Mike Wallace and Scott Reid tied up the committee for two hours, arguing they were not prepared for the witnesses and that the committee should seek legal advice.

Needless to say, using their own lack of preparation as an excuse to avoid hearing from witnesses can only reflect poorly on Wallace and Reid. And since committees have been listed as just one of the many areas under the control of Con strategists, the decision to plead ignorance reflects on the entire organization.

While the Cons may have managed to avoid yet another specific embarrassment in the short term, they figure to lose out far more in the long run based on their ever-expanding record of lies and cover-ups. And it doesn't figure to be long before it's the Cons' stay in power that gets cancelled as a result.

Lowering the bar

Lawrence Martin writes that several prominent Cons are pushing for their party to aim for a "low key" and "good management" philosophy now that a spring or summer election looks unlikely. And in light of Harper's well-known message micromanagement, it seems virtually certain that the number of Cons willing to go public with the idea means that Harper himself plans to try to sell the message as well.

But while "low key" and "good management" are positive enough concepts on their own (if in combination with at least some underlying principle), there's been precious little indication that anybody within the Cons can count either as a strength - and ample reason to believe that even under the thumb of an extremely controlling leader, the Cons simply don't have the self-restraint to avoid making negative headlines. Which means that the Cons are in severe danger of falling well short of even their own lowered expectations.

Running scared

The CP's story on the recent chaos in Parliament includes mention that the Cons have moved the NDP's opposition motion to Friday, with much less time allocated for debate than would be the norm. But while Jack Layton considers the move to be punishment for the NDP's refusal to let Con MPs from Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland off the hook for betraying their home provinces, I wonder whether it also involves a much more positive sign:

New Democrats are livid that the government abruptly changed the timetable for debating an NDP motion to revive the Clean Air Act. Instead of receiving eight hours of debate Thursday, it will now get only a couple of hours attention Friday.

Layton said the motion was bumped to punish the NDP for insisting on a recorded vote Tuesday on the budget implementation bill. The vote embarrassed some Altantic and Saskatchewan Tory MPs who were compelled to support the budget despite vicious opposition in their home provinces.

"Canadians should be furious at this," said Layton of Wednesday's machinations.

"It may seem like inside parliamentary procedure but what it is is arrogance. It is a rejection of the dignity and respect which is owed to parliamentarians, it's childish and it's completely unacceptable as far as we're concerned."

While there's likely at least a grain of truth to Layton's criticism, it's worth noting another possible reason for the Cons' move. By pushing the debate to Friday and giving it less time in Parliament, the Cons would accomplish one added goal in forcing the debate into the well-known Friday dead time for news reporting - and thereby reducing the amount of talk about the environment which might otherwise take place over the long weekend.

That kind of move would be no less undignified and disrespectful than one made solely out of spite in response to the budget vote. But it would also hint at some serious underlying weakness for the Cons: surely they wouldn't bother trying to push the debate into a lower-exposure slot unless they feared its outcome.

The problem for the Cons is that while they may be able to limit the amount of debate on this particular motion, they don't have anywhere near the power to dictate that C-30 won't be a dominant political issue if the other parties decide otherwise. And if the opposition can continue cooperating on C-30 as it is elsewhere, there's all the more reason to think that the Cons' current weakness will lead them to capitulate on the bill if it's the focus of enough attention.

Cooperative efforts

The Cons' efforts to shut down the Standing Committee on Official Languages have apparently met total failure, as the three opposition parties have agreed to set up a "consultative committee" to take over while the Cons sulk in the corner over the vote of non-confidence in former chair Guy Lauzon:

We do not accept being muzzled by the Conservative government. This is the reason why the three opposition parties decided to set up a consultative committee on Official Languages, which will be chaired by the current vice- chair of the Standing Committee, Pablo Rodriguez.

The mandate of this committee is to take up where the Standing Committee left off, namely studying the impact of the decision to abolish the Court Challenges Program, and then considering the Commissioner’s report, as per article 88 of the Official Languages Act. This consultative committee will begin its hearings tomorrow (before Parliament goes on break) and will prepare the work of the Standing Committee, which cannot be paralyzed forever.

It remains to be seen how long the newly-formed committee will operate, or whether the Cons will realize they're probably better off nominating a new chairman - both from a perception standpoint, and to offer at least some chance to include the Cons' spin within any committee hearings and reports.

But whether or not the new committee ends up generating much by way of final work products, it looks certain to put some serious pressure on the Cons to work with the opposition. And all three opposition parties deserve credit for working together to make sure that the Cons' stubbornness doesn't lead to a lack of discussion about language issues.

Conservative vapours

The Cons are apparently responding to the accusation that they've run out of ideas by doing as much as they can to prove that point. And the CP reports on what looks to be the most pathetic excuse for a policy idea yet:

The Conservative government is set to unveil new legislation aimed at keeping foreign strippers out of Canada.

Government sources say the announcement will come Wednesday from Immigration Minister Diane Finley. They say the legislation would let the minister instruct immigration officers to deny work permits to foreign strippers, but they offer few details about how the law would work.

I suppose if one squints hard enough, one can see a few potential political benefits in such legislation. In addition to offering the Cons a paper-thin excuse to discuss the Libs' tenure in government rather than their own, the measure will presumably play relatively well both to the religious right and to the anti-immigration crowd.

But from the standpoint of what the bill says about Harper's government, it's hard to tell what's more striking about: its sheer frivolity, or its tendency to raise exactly the kinds of fears which the Cons presumably want to dispel.

On the frivolity side, the closest the article mentions to an actual problem which the bill is intended to resolve is a claim that the intention is to "protect women from exploitation". But there's absolutely no basis for thinking that the bill would actually prevent exploitation: indeed, it seems highly likely that most applicants seeking to immigrate to Canada in search of work as a stripper will would to make that move largely based on the likelihood of being less exploited in Canada than in the applicant's former country. And even if the Cons genuinely have a warped enough world-view not to see that fact, it's hard to imagine that there aren't far more pressing issues which Finley and the Cons generally should be addressing first.

As for the larger overtones, the bill hints at two obvious hooks for the "hidden agenda" discussion the Cons presumably want to avoid. First, there's the attempt to inject what the Cons presumably perceive to be a morality issue regarding the propriety of stripping into a completely unrelated policy area. And second, there's the spectre of establishing arbitrary, class-based restrictions on immigration - which will surely offer plenty of fodder to those concerned about the Cons shutting Canada's doors.

Fortunately, the bill doesn't appear on its face to be one that any of the opposition parties would want to support - meaning that the Cons' most laughable idea yet should remain nothing more than a gleam in Diane Finley's eye for the time being. But whether this bill is actually the best the Cons have to offer while in power or simply a signal as to where they'd want to take Canada given the control that comes with a majority, it offers plenty more reasons why Canadians will want to make sure to put the Cons' reign out of its misery.

Leading the way

Kuri points out some great news on the federal political scene, as the NDP will put forward a motion to bring the amended Bill C-30 back to the House of Commons.

Of course, it's still a shame that the other opposition parties refused to take a leadership role to get the ball rolling sooner. But since there's no apparent reason why either would vote against progress on a bill which they agreed to in committee, the motion should be virtually certain to pass. And that will leave only the question of whether the combination of the NDP's motion and a new public push from outside the Commons can force the Cons to accept the need to move the bill forward.

Update: The NDP's announcement is here, with a bit more material.

A just response

At least one of the Cons seems to think he's found a way out of the Alan Riddell scandal for now, as PMS himself has invoked Parliamentary immunity to avoid having to testify. But it's worth noting that in avoiding any scrutiny in court, Harper may only be opening himself up to a label which could severely undercut the brand he's trying to build.

Marleau and Montpetit describe the immunity from appearing as a witness as follows (footnotes removed):

The right of the House to the attendance and service of its Members exempts a Member, when the House is in session, from the normal obligation of a citizen to comply with a subpoena to attend a court as a witness. This exemption applies in civil, criminal and military matters before the courts. However, this claim is not intended to be used to impede the course of justice and, therefore, is regularly waived, particularly for criminal cases. When the House is in session, should a subpoena be served on a Member, the Member may wish to appear in court where he or she feels that absence from court might affect the course of justice. However, the Member still has a right to claim the privilege of exemption from appearing as a witness.

It's not entirely clear from the linked text whether or not Riddell will have any official recourse for the purposes of having the immunity lifted. It seems unlikely that a court would seek to override the jurisdiction of Parliament (see a brief outline of some of the case law here), and none of the Speaker's rulings discussed in Marleau and Montpetit suggest any particular taste for second-guessing a member's assertion of privilege.

But even if there's no clear means by which to force Harper to testify, he's still apparently opening himself up to some serious criticism based on the standard for claiming (or waiving) immunity: surely someone who's trying to sell himself as a law-and-order politician should know better than to voluntarily start a discussion about whether or not he's abusing his privilege by impeding the course of justice. And if Harper's choice ends up leading to that kind of conversation and in turn to a serious loss of face, then he may lose his privilege far faster than he'd likely think possible.

Update: One more point of interest to add, as the only time when Riddell could be sure of avoiding Harper's claim of privilege would be during an election campaign. Is it too early to book trial dates for September 2009?

You know you've gone too far when...

It seems to have escaped much public notice, but an exchange from yesterday's Hansard hints at just how determined the Cons are to cut down on the scope of federal jurisdiction (or how eager they are to use jurisdiction as an excuse in the absence of any valid answer):

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources claims to be a strong supporter of nuclear power, which he says is “very clean”. No doubt the minister is not aware of the many warnings that have been issued concerning the potential danger of the intensive use of nuclear power to extract oil from the oil sands.

Can the Minister of Natural Resources explain why he has a plan that could lead to the construction of 10 or even 20 nuclear reactors even though we are not even close to solving the problem of nuclear waste disposal?

Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her interesting question.

This matter falls under provincial jurisdiction. The provinces are the ones to decide what kind of energy can be used to exploit the oil sands.

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources is clearly not aware that nuclear power falls under federal jurisdiction.

Is the minister aware that his position runs counter to the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, which stipulates that “no decision be made on using nuclear energy to extract oil ... until the repercussions of this process are fully known and understood.”

Will he put a stop to these plans?

Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, any increase in oil sands production falls under provincial jurisdiction. We are working with Alberta to make this decision.

That's right: the Cons are so eager to avoid action through fabricated jurisdictional issues that even the Bloc is being forced to call for a relative expansion of federal involvement. Which should say plenty both about just how implausible the Cons' excuses are already - and just how little role the Cons would see for the federal government given more latitude than they have in their current minority.

Delaying the inevitable

Having already lost a first attempt to back out of their deal with former candidate Alan Riddell, the Cons are now looking for a way out of a hearing to determine whether Riddell himself breached the deal:

The federal Conservative Party will try to halt a trial Tuesday that could shed light on the deals that paved the way for the candidacies of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Public Works Minister Stockwell Day after they became leader of the former Canadian Alliance.

Mr. Harper has hired a lawyer to represent him at a proceeding that will be held this week to determine whether there was implied confidentiality in the Conservative Party's agreement with Alan Riddell, who gave up the nomination in the riding of Ottawa South so the Tories could run a high-profile candidate.

But the Conservatives will tell the court Tuesday that the trial should be adjourned — a position Mr. Riddell's lawyer says may have been influenced by the fact that details of similar agreements made by the Canadian Alliance, a predecessor of the Conservatives, could be called as evidence.

Tom Conway said that he plans to raise similar deals that paved the way for the candidacy of Mr. Harper in Calgary in 2002 and for Mr. Day in British Columbia in 2000.

“I am just speculating here, but that may be one of the reasons they don't want it to proceed this week,” Mr. Conway said.

At this point, it's surprising that the Cons haven't simply cut their losses with a settlement (and one with a clear confidentiality clause if it's that imporant to them). What's more, even if the Cons are determined to have the case heard, a time when a federal election looks unlikely would seem to be the best opportunity to minimize any damage.

But for now, all indications suggest that the Cons really are both too stubborn to admit defeat and too short-sighted to at least get the outcome determined in the near future. And that combination makes for a stronger indictment of the Cons' suitability to hold power than the contents of any past agreement.

Canadian Blue Lemons Out of Touch with Reality

Lemon is ready to throw blame around for the hidden polling which showed that the Cons couldn't be further from connecting with Canada's ethnic communities:

Who commissioned this study?
Was Ipsos Reid hired by bureaucrats hoping to embarrass the government?

So let's take a look at which notorious Communist operative actively took credit for a poll which Lemon sees as an effort to sabotage the Cons' efforts:

A spokesman from the Prime Minister's Office said the research was based on policies outlined in the speech from the throne, as well as issues of importance to new Canadians.

"The groups were non-partisan, policy-focused and helpful in getting input from members of Canada's multicultural communities," said Dimitri Soudas.

For those who find the name familiar, that's with good reason, as it's Harper's deputy press secretary who actively sought to defend the poll when it was first discovered. Which means either that Soudas managed to come down with a severe case of Left Wing Conspiracy Syndrome without his bosses noticing over the last year-plus - or that we have another prime example of reality's notorious left-wing bias.

Looking to the future

The detailed numbers are now out (warning: PDF) for the poll that I mentioned last night. And there's another tidbit worth noting, as the voting intentions by age suggests that the current proliferation of parties could be the norm for some time to come.

In the 35-54 and 55+ age classes, the Cons and Libs are well out in front of the other parties. But the numbers in the 18-34 age take a significant turn:

Lib 27
Con 24
NDP 22
Green 14
Bloc 11

Now, this is a small sample of younger voters (216 voters aged 18-34)...and it's also entirely possible that voting patterns will change with time. (In that vein, I'm curious as to whether there's a usual pattern of younger voters disproportionately supporting third, fourth and fifth parties - and will have to follow up on that.)

But those caveats aside, the poll offers at least some indication that younger Canadian voters are significantly less wedded to the Libs and Cons than their older counterparts. And one of the major tasks for the NDP and Greens going forward will presumably be to both cultivate that trend, and retain their current share of the 18-to-34 vote.

Correction: My mistake in linking this poll to last night's Decima numbers - instead it's the breakdown from a poll released earlier.

Canada's Know-Nothing Government At Work

After announcing his "clarification" of the federal government's policy on subsidizing investment abroad, Jim Flaherty reminds us just how little thought and preparation goes into so many of the Cons' policies:

Mr. Flaherty had promised in the federal budget to end what he described as a job-killing practice: allowing Canadian companies to deduct from their income the interest paid on loans used to finance business operations abroad.

But since then he has focused on tax havens, and also attacked ‘double dipping”. This allows businesses that operate in more than one jurisdiction to claim deductions for the same interest payments.

The minister said he wants to introduce legislation this fall that will take effect in 2012. The legislation would remove an existing tax deduction for any company that borrows money to expand abroad and also deducts similar taxes in another country.

Specifically, the measure will put an end to funnelling money through tax havens to claim multiple tax deductions, and will also target “towering”...

Mr. Flaherty told reporters after his speech that he and his department did not know how prevalent double-dipping and towering are, nor did they have any kind of calculation about how much government revenue would be gained by clamping down on interest deductibility.

Of course, there's always a danger in studying a loophole to death as an excuse to avoid acting to close it - as was done with income trusts under the Libs. And it's hard to argue with the seeming intent behind Flaherty's plans.

But the danger of over-analyzing doesn't justify acting without thinking. And Flaherty has gone to a ridiculous extreme in that direction, having now announced two different policy changes on investment tax credits without first taking even a cursory look at the effect which might result from those changes.

Fortunately, there should be time to work through the implications by this fall - and the legislative process should ensure that other parties receive the opportunity to fix any glaring issues that the Cons are too incurious to notice. But with even one of the Cons' supposedly most-competent ministers formulating policy based on a wilful lack of knowledge, the can be little doubt that the Cons' pattern of incompetence goes straight to the top.

Backing off

Blogging Horse notes that rather than trying to push the Cons toward action on the climate change bill or any other progressive priority, the Libs used their opposition day last week to try to reopen two corporate tax loopholes. But that may be the least of the signs of the Libs' lack of commitment to act on climate change, as Pablo Rodriguez seems to be pushing to put the focus back on a private member's bill which carries strictly symbolic value rather than containing any plan to reduce emissions.

We'll see if this means the Libs will start actively placing roadblocks in front of any effort to pass the agreed amendments to C-30, rather than simply failing to do anything themselves to move the plan forward. But if the Libs plan to shift back to a position that the Cons should make the key decisions as to how to pursue Kyoto, then the odds of getting anything done in the current Parliament look grim at best.

Swinging votes

Decima has taken a look behind its voter intention numbers to see how party support has shifted since the 2006 election. And while the results don't lead to any strong conclusions, there look to be a few trends worthy of notice:

We've analyzed our last 7000 surveys on voting intention (between March 22 and May 7), and here's what we see:

* The Conservatives have done better at retaining the support of those who voted for them in 2006, losing only 15 per cent of their supporters. The lost points went to the Liberals (six per cent), the NDP (four per cent) the Green Party (three per cent) and the BQ (one per cent).
* The Liberals have lost 22 per cent of their 2006 voters. Ten per cent went to the Conservatives, five to the NDP, five to the Greens and just one per cent to the BQ.
* The BQ has lost 23 per cent of its support, with six per cent siphoned off by the Conservatives, six per cent to the Greens, five per cent to the NDP, and only three to the Liberals.
* The NDP has lost a quarter of its support - an even 25 per cent. Ten per cent went to the Liberals, seven per cent to the Greens, 5 per cent to the Conservatives, and 1% to the BQ.

Let's note initially that the percentage numbers are problematic since they don't account for the number of votes received to begin with.

For example, looking solely at the percentages, it would appear that the NDP had lost more votes to the Cons than it had gained. But with the Cons losing 4% of a 36% share of the total 2006 vote to the NDP while winning back 5% of the NDP's 17% share, the reality is that the NDP has won a net gain of .6% of all voters in the movement between themselves and the Cons.

Once that type of adjustment is made, it appears that a significant number of transferred votes among the Cons, Libs and NDP have led roughly to a saw-off overall - though with slight net transfers from Con to NDP, NDP to Lib and Lib to Con. And each has also shared roughly equally in the Bloc's decline. Which offers significant risks and opportunities for each of these parties in a number of ways, as they try to continue the inroads since 2006 while winning back voters who have switched allegiances since then.

The more obvious trends, meanwhile, involve the two parties which have been either successful or unsuccessful across the board. In the former category, the Greens have managed to pick up a substantial share from each other party...though unfortunately the study doesn't apparently track the Greens' 2006 voters to see if any of their existing base has leaked elsewhere.

And then there's the Bloc. Even before Gilles Duceppe's declaration of irrelevance this past week, the Bloc had managed to lose a substantial proportion of its support to each of the other four listed parties, while winning back next to nothing in return. And with a weakened leader and few obvious issues left to focus on, the Bloc figures to have trouble reversing that trend anytime soon.

Of course, the polls have themselves been fairly volatile lately, making it dangerous to draw many conclusions from Decima's snapshot of voter flow. But this finer analysis only seems to reinforce both the lack of many changes likely to significantly influence any election outcome, and the unlikelihood that many parties will see enough upside to want to gamble on an election in the near future.

Uncertain returns

The CP reports that over $2 billion in federal spending on child care has gone untraced for lack of any real accountability mechanism under either the Libs or the Cons - with eight provinces as well as the federal government itself ignoring existing reporting requirements. Was there any more evidence needed that it's long past time for legislation to make sure that money goes where it's supposed to?

Untrusted

An interesting note from today's Question Period, as the PMO apparently declined to allow any Con MP to appear on a panel discussing corporate tax issues, choosing instead to let a solo interview by Jim Flaherty act as the Cons' voice on the issue.

Of course, it's no surprise that the Cons value message consistency over independent thought by their MPs...and even the micromanagement requiring all bookings to go through the PMO rather than individual MPs is entirely consistent with how Harper has operated in power. But it would seem to be a rather stark indictment of the Cons if Harper doesn't think a single one of his party's backbenchers is competent enough to stay on message. And once again, Canadians will have to ask why they should trust MPs and candidates who are held in such low esteem by their own party's leader.

Out of the blue

Linda Diebel (excerpted in the Star) writes that while Michael Ignatieff has received the most attention as a Lib leadership loser waiting for the first possible chance to take down Stephane Dion, it's Bob Rae who's been holding an obvious grudge against anybody who he thought might support his bid. Which must surely come as a shock to the Libs: who could have imagined Rae launching a misplaced and insulting tirade against former allies?

A display of weakness

It didn't take long for Gilles Duceppe to reverse course on his plans to run for the PQ leadership. But it's far from clear that the move will be anything short of the another disaster for the separatist movement (and concurrent benefit for federalists and the rest of Canada alike).

On the provincial side, the PQ will seemingly head toward a coronation for Pauline Marois rather than a meaningful race. But it can't speak highly of the party's strength or depth that someone who couldn't beat out Andre Boisclair just two years ago is now considered to be head and shoulders above all other options. And presumably both Boisclair's and Duceppe's supporters will be ready to pounce on Marois if she can't push a weakening party back to power in a hurry.

As for the Bloc, Duceppe himself will have plenty to answer for - both in his seeming admission that he sees federal politics as being less important than the provincial scene, and in his seeming confusion as to what his own personal goals are. And those factors can only ensure that both internal rivals and the other parties smell weakness...leaving the Bloc all the more vulnerable to what already looked to be an unfavourable federal scene.

Credit not due

Macleans (along with other media outlets) seems awfully eager to praise the U.S. for what's supposed to be a move in the right direction on border crossings. But it's worth noting that the position put forward as evidence is no change at all from the stance the U.S. has held for years - signalling that the push now is instead to get Canadians to be happy with what the U.S. has always been demanding, rather than for the U.S. to moderate its position at all.

From Macleans:

The United States may be backing down from its plan to require visitors to and from Canada to carry passports...

The U.S. ambassador to Ottawa made positive comments about an alternative proposal that relies on new security-enhanced drivers’ licenses instead.

Speaking in Winnipeg, Ambassador David Wilkins said that the Department of Homeland Security would consider accepting the new high-tech drivers’ licenses - pointing to a pilot project that has been approved for use of the secure licenses between the state of Washington and British Columbia.

The problem, of course, is that it's always been clear that some other form of ID might be accepted - with the only question being whether the U.S. would get its act together sufficiently to actually approve it. Remember this from early 2006:

A simple identity card the size of a driver's licence could be sufficient to allow Canadians to travel in the United States, the U.S. ambassador said Wednesday...

"The Department of Homeland Security is given the jurisdiction or the authority to come up with that or equivalent secure documents," Wilkins said in an interview.

"They are working very hard; it's being discussed at every level.

"I am optimistic that there will be such an alternative document to the passport," he said.

As a result, there's no reason to think that Wilkins' position - or that of the Bush administration - has moved an inch from where it stood all along. All that's been brought forward is a signal that some of the documents which Canadian provinces were working on anyway will finally be considered. In addition, there's no indication of what precise requirements are even on the table, meaning that provinces whose forms of ID aren't among those mentioned so far still figure to face problems when the land-crossing deadline strikes.

Granted, there's some reason for hope in the other evidence mentioned in the article - namely a call from the House of Representatives for both an extension of the deadline, and a study of the merit in more stringent documentation requirements. But there's still little reason to think that DHS in particular or the Bush administration in general have moved past their plan to impose greater burdens on Canadians for their own political purposes...and no reason at all for Canada to act grateful at finally receiving word that its efforts to meet the burden are being considered.

Extreme spin

I'm not quite sure why I bothered reading the column. But since I did, here's Shorter Larry Zolf:
On at least one issue, Harper has changed his position to be no more extreme than the Bush administration!1!!squarerootof121!!! Can you feel the centrism?

For added fun, compare and contrast to the Poor Man Institute's consistently brilliant mockery of pseudo-centrism. As best I can tell, the main difference is that in Zolf's case, the absurdity is entirely unintentional.

Defining the issues

The Times Colonist covers Jack Layton's visit to Victoria, featuring a call for a national pharmacare program and strong criticism of privatization run amok at both the provincial and federal levels:

Federal NDP Leader Jack Layton rolled out a national campaign in Victoria yesterday to provide universal prescription drug coverage and ripped into B.C. politicians for pursuing private developers to build Victoria's sewage treatment plants and hospitals.

"[Premier] Gordon Campbell is determined to privatize as much of this great province as he can -- he's even set up an organization to do it," Layton told Canadian Union of Public Employees-B.C. at their four-day annual convention at the Victoria Conference Centre.

"The purpose of Partnerships B.C. isn't to ensure fairness, transparency or accountability -- it's to ensure the highest profits for the corporations that sign up to public-private partnerships [P3s]," he said, referring to Royal Jubilee's new $269-million patient tower and plans for the region's $1.2-billion sewage treatment plants...

"Stephen Harper and Gordon Campbell are ganging up on local governments here in B.C.," the federal NDP leader said. "They are trying to force local governments to sign onto P3 agreements -- even when it's not in their best interest...

He also laid out his plan to provide prescription drug coverage for the 20 per cent of Canadians with little insurance and 3.5 million with none at all...

Initially, the federal government, through the provinces and territories, must start by providing catastrophic drug coverage.

That means putting a cap on the cost of expensive drugs for those who can't afford them so that they don't fall into financial ruin or stop taking treatment because they can't afford it.

Layton also proposed steps to reduce the costs of drugs for provincial governments and businesses that offer drug plans, limiting advertising by pharmaceutical companies, changing the rules around patents, and arranging bulk purchasing.

Needless to say, it's an excellent sign for Layton to be stepping outside the bounds of personality politics to focus attention on a couple of important policy issues which all too often get overlooked. And with the NDP seemingly surging in B.C. already, a strong campaign kicked off by Layton's visit should have a strong chance of either forcing the Campbell and Harper governments to answer for their neglect of public needs, or ensuring that they're punished at the polls if they don't.

On second thought

Bill C-31 managed to pass in the House of Commons with the support of the Cons, Libs and Bloc despite a massive set of readily-noticeable problems. But the Citizen reports that in the Senate, Libs and Cons alike are giving the bill the serious look that was sorely lacking in the lower house - and so far the consensus seems to be that the bill should be sent back to the drawing board:

A bill proposing to put the birth dates of all federal electors on copies of the permanent voter registry given to political parties could cause an explosion of identity theft and invasion of privacy, Liberal and Conservative senators warned yesterday.

In a rare departure from the wrangling that has recently enveloped the Senate, senators from both sides questioned Government House Leader Peter Van Loan over the proposal to release vital personal information so broadly.

"With the passage of this bill, everybody's date of birth is going to be known to everybody in Canada," said Liberal Senator George Baker, noting Elections Canada gives the political parties electronic copies of the permanent voters list three times a year as it is updated with new data on citizens.

Mr. Baker, who cited court rulings saying compulsory release of birth information violates the Charter of Rights in certain circumstances, found support from Conservative Senator Pierre-Claude Nolin, who also raised concerns about rights violations...

Liberal Senator Lorna Milne...noted parties swell their ranks during election campaigns with volunteers who may be unfamiliar to party organizers: "People just walk in off the streets and volunteer."

While the Senate may suffer from serious problems from a legitimacy standpoint, in this case it's providing at least some counterbalance to the party-over-public viewpoint that managed to push the bill through the House of Commons. And it'll be interesting to see what happens if the seeming position on both sides of the aisle in the Senate holds up.

Will Harper be as eager to accuse his own party of Senate obstruction as he seems to be with the Libs? Will the Senate grudgingly pass the bill with or without prodding? Or will the bill be sent back for serious changes which either the Cons alone or the Libs and Bloc together will be forced into accepting in the public interest?

One way or another, it's for the best that C-31 is coming under more scrutiny. And hopefully today's questions are merely the first step in a process to make sure the worst parts of the bill get cut out before it passes into law.

On unintended consequences

In and of itself, the Cons' proposal to increase the number of Ontario, B.C. and Alberta seats in the House of Commons looks to act as little more than an ineffective temporary diversion: a readjustment was set to take place around the same time anyway, and the likely anger from provinces which will receive proportionally less seats figures more than outweigh the gratitude of the provinces which will receive more.

But it's worth noting that while the plan may have little practical impact on the federal political scene, it may have a far greater effect in helping one of the Cons' least-desired democratic reforms to take root in Ontario.

After all, one of the most immediate criticisms of Ontario's proposed MMP system - and likely one of the most effective from a sheer populist perspective - has been the complaint that the province doesn't need more politicians.

But at last notice, the provincial Cons figured to be the primary opponents of the MMP plan. And it'll be awfully tough for Tory and company to make use of that argument when their federal cousins - led by some of the most prominent figures in the last provincial Con government - are actively increasing the number of legislators on the federal scene. Which means that the Ontario discussion figures to spend substantially more time on much more favourable territory for the "Yes" side.

In the end, Harper's most significant contribution to real democratic reform may be in the last way his party would have expected - or wanted - to influence how Canadians choose their leaders. And with any luck, a successful Ontario move toward more proportional voting will only be the beginning of a national trend.

Freedom of speech ends where we disagree: Committee Edition

The NDP's hard-fought effort to win hearings on the Security and Prosperity Partnership may only be a first step in attracting public attention to the issue of deep integration. But it's managed to cause yet another Con to blow a fuse - this time the committee chair Leon Benoit, who attempted to shut down the hearing to prevent a witness from testifying about the consequences of guaranteeing energy supplies to the U.S.:

Amid heated charges of a coverup, Tory MPs yesterday abruptly shut down parliamentary hearings on a controversial plan to further integrate Canada and the U.S.

The firestorm erupted within minutes of testimony by University of Alberta professor Gordon Laxer that Canadians will be left "to freeze in the dark" if the government forges ahead with plans to integrate energy supplies across North America...

The deal, which calls North American "energy security" a priority, will commit Canada to ensuring American energy supplies even though Canada itself -- unlike most industrialized nations -- has no national plan or reserves to protect its own supplies, he argued.

At that point, Tory MP Leon Benoit, chair of the Commons Standing Committee on International Trade, which was holding the SPP hearings, ordered Mr. Laxer to halt his testimony, saying it was not relevant.

Opposition MPs called for, and won, a vote to overrule Mr. Benoit's ruling.

Mr. Benoit then threw down his pen, declaring, "This meeting is adjourned," and stormed out, followed by three of the panel's four Conservative members.

The remaining members voted to continue, with the Liberal vice-chair presiding.

Mr. Benoit's actions are virtually unprecedented, observers say; at press time, procedure experts still hadn't figured out whether he had the right to adjourn the meeting unilaterally.

It's mildly surprising that Benoit was himself taken aback by testimony which shouldn't have come as much surprise given the NDP's legitimate concerns about the effects of ceding Canadian sovereignty. But that aside, Benoit's action seems only to be yet another symptom of the Cons' general belief in a right to shut down any discussion which doesn't suit their political purposes.

Fortunately, the effect of Benoit's snit will likely be to win more attention for Laxer's testimony than might otherwise have been received. And if the opposition parties continue to ensure that information is available despite the Cons' desire to suppress it, it shouldn't be long before the wave of truth washes Harper and company out of any position to dictate who says what.

On choosing one's battles

While the Libs' response to the arrest of a civil servant for leaking details was a bit dubious from the beginning, I was prepared to let it pass without comment in and of itself. But David Akin notes that not only has Dion taken a traditional strong Lib stand against accountability, but he's also gone out of his way to provoke a battle with the NDP...even when given a golden opportunity to highlight the Cons' policy failures instead:

Reporter: Mr. Layton has just said that he wishes the Conservative government would be as zealous in reducing pollution as it is in reducing leaks.

Dion: Mr. Layton will never govern. I have a responsibility as Leader of the Opposition. I want to become Prime Minister of this country. I need to be respected and I will never encourage this kind of behaviour whether it's from Environment Canada or Finance Canada or whatever. I will not speculate on this specific case. I don't know if I may come with accusations against the government when I don't know what is happening. I will not comment on the specific case. For the principle, I think civil servants must respect the secrecy of their role.

Of course, at the best of times the attitude espoused by Dion can only be described as the kind of arrogance that got the Libs booted out of office to begin with. But this example of it is particularly damning for a few reasons.

First, it seems to have occurred out of a relatively spontaneous exchange. An argument might be available that the Libs' usual attacks on the NDP are the product of strategists or spin doctors. But Dion's knee-jerk dismissal of Layton seems to be his first personal reaction to a mention of the NDP, even when the message from Layton is one that Dion would presumably support at least in part. Which can leave no doubt that for all the effort to present himself as something above politics as usual, his first impulse is to head directly for the gutter.

Second, while showing what Dion apparently believes personally, it also calls into question the honesty and sincerity behind his arrangement with the Greens. After all, if Dion believes that the leader of a party with 29 seats should be dismissed out of hand due to his supposed unlikelihood of forming government, surely that must reflect an even greater contempt for a party which has never won a single one. (Unless, of course, Dion has reason to figure that May will be a part of the Lib fold before too long - but that would reflect even more deviousness behind the alliance.)

And third (and most importantly), it suggests that Dion is so eager to slam the NDP on a relatively small issue that he's willing to ignore a major area of policy agreement just to get in a single shot at Layton. Surely Dion's most obvious apparent goals - to oppose the Cons and to secure environmental action - would be best met by riffing off Layton's statement to discuss the importance of reducing pollution by passing the amended C-30. But Dion's decision to turn away from those ends would seem to suggest either that Dion is awfully easily distracted from his party's main apparent goals, or that his priorities lie elsewhere.

Now, I'm certainly not going to claim that Dion can't or shouldn't criticize Layton, just as it's entirely legitimate for the NDP to focus attention on the Libs when warranted. But if he's eager to turn discussion in that direction even at the expense of letting the Cons off the hook for both their iron-fisted management style and their poor environmental policy, then there's just one more reason to think that the Libs are far from the most effective opposition party in Canada - and that it's long past time to prove Dion's assumptions wrong.

On intelligent coverage

I've noted many times before that one of the largest problems with most mainstream coverage of politics is that it generally fails to distinguish between substance and spin (or even outright nonsense). With that in mind, let's give due credit to Aaron Wherry for contrasting Dawn Black's substantive questions on Afghanistan with the embarrassing non-responses provided by Peter MacKay (and other assorted hijinks):

(W)hile the buffoons were basking in their bons mots, the Speaker called upon the honourable member for New Westminster-Coquitlam and up rose the NDP's Dawn Black.

"Mr. Speaker, Afghans are increasingly concerned with the mounting civilian death toll," she explained. "This week the Afghan senate asked foreign forces to put an end to the hunting and the search and destroy approach. Last week President Karzai said the civilian death toll is something his government can no longer accept. Will the government acknowledge the serious concerns of the Afghan government and change course, just as Afghan officials and the Canadian public are demanding?"

Now, as the New Democrat defence critic, Dawn Black isn't likely allowed much room for improvisation. Her agenda is fairly obvious. But that aside, this seemed a fairly intelligent and well-meaning query.

We can perhaps debate who is or is not being beaten with electrical cords, what the Canadian military has to do with that and what can be done in a foreign country where the issue of jurisdiction and responsibility is the stuff of legal briefs. But it is difficult to dispute that in military conflicts, innocent people - that is to say, those who are not actively trying to facilitate the killing of our guys - are often unduly harmed. And even the most coldly practical among us must concede that unwarranted death and destruction do not generally endear an occupying force to its occupied nation, nor fill the homeside with patriotism. This is, then, a reasonable concern.

So up came Peter MacKay. "With respect to international security assistance force, it is a UN-mandated NATO mission," the Foreign Affairs Minister explained. "We are all aware of that. We know that the operations are conducted with the consent of the Afghan authorities under a democratically-elected government in Afghanistan. NATO operations are conducted jointly, alongside Afghan national forces."

This seemed a fine way of saying, "Hey, we aren't the only ones who periodically blow up women, children and well-meaning old people."

Dawn Black pressed on. "Mr. Speaker, 90 civilian deaths in the last two weeks is something to take very seriously. The Conservative government cannot tell us anything about what is happening with Afghan detainees. It cannot give us a straight answer about the duration of the mission. Canadians have clearly lost confidence in the Minister of National Defence and the government's handling of the war. If the Government of Afghanistan does ask Canada and NATO to change their tactics, will the government do so?"

Setting aside the debatability of several assumptions therein, this too seemed a reasonable question.

Here came MacKay's response. "What we know very well is when it comes to the mission in Afghanistan, the members of the NDP are sheep in sheep's clothing."

One assumes the Foreign Affairs Minister was trying to be smart. One might subsequently suggest that the Buffoon from Bourassa may want to save a chair at the next club meeting.

Now, it could be that the focus (along with a relatively similar contrast the previous day) will be the exception rather than the rule. And indeed, it does seem clear that the story about some MPs providing more substance than others is only being told as a matter of contrast when a real policy discussion immediately precedes or follows the very worst of the worst - thus offering at least equal time and notoriety to those who stand out for their lack of substance.

But the more attention there is to the difference between MPs who are using their public platform to deal with real issues and those who see the House of Commons as a place where, truth, decorum and intelligent thought are all optional, the more likely Canadians are to ask why we don't have more of the former. And hopefully that kind of discussion will be both continued in Wherry's coverage, and picked up by others as well.

(Edit: fixed label.)

On visions

Mitchell Anderson joins the crowd suggesting that Stephane Dion can help himself, his party and Canada's electoral scene by taking up the cause of a more proportional voting system. But while it would be a huge plus if the Libs heeded that advice, it looks far too likely that they're still in the mindset that a new coat of paint for Dion himself is all the bold strategy they need.

A crime of inconvenience

Shorter "message" from John Baird and the rest of the Cons:
Government sources leak when we tell them to leak, and not a moment sooner.

Via CFSR.

Update: I'd planned to follow up on Baird's laughable interpretation of the difference between a "whistle-blower" and...well, somebody who doesn't say what the Cons want to hear. But Greg has taken care of it.

On non-confidence

Politics Watch reports that Con MP Guy Lauzon will rightly face a vote of non-confidence from Yvon Godin and the other opposition members of the Official Languages Committee for his sudden cancellation of hearings on the Court Challenges Program:

On Tuesday, NDP MP Yvon Godin held a press conference on Parliament Hill to announce he had given a notice of motion to the clerk of the committee to express no-confidence in Lauzon.

The motion calls for Lauzon to "be relieved of his duties" for the cancellation of Tuesday's meeting on the Court Challenges Program.

"The chair acted against the will of the committee and overstepped his role as chair," Godin's motion reads. "As a consequence, he has lost the confidence of the committee."

Godin said he expects the committee will deal with the motion when it is scheduled to meet next Tuesday. If Lauzon cancels that meeting, too, then committee members could bypass him and have a meeting without the chair's consent within 48 hours if four MPs agree to it. Either way, a vote of no-confidence is expected next week.

Bloc MP Richard Nadeau said Lauzon's actions this week means he's "not fit for the job any more."

"How can we have confidence in someone who's not even man enough to tell us (about cancelling the meetings) in front of us in the committee," the Bloc MP told PoliticsWatch.

Liberal MP Raymonde Folco said Lauzon's actions to single-handedly take control of the committee's agenda were "utterly unethical and unacceptable."

"I will be supporting Mr. Godin and all the members of the Liberal caucus will be supporting Mr. Godin," she told reporters after question period.

If there's anything faintly disappointing about the move, it's that Lauzon will face repercussions for an action less deserving of censure than those of numerous Con members of cabinet who have gone without formal punishment.

But it can't hurt for the Cons to receive a reminder that they can't rule Parliament by fiat any more than they can the country as a whole - and that for all the other parties's differences, they can readily agree not to let the Cons off the hook for trying to avoid any accountability for their actions.

Correcting the record

As I'd feared yesterday, Lib bloggers are out in force in trying to attack the very idea of removing big-money supporter loans from politics. While I'd much rather see a cooperative effort to improve the bill going forward to make sure that the end result is as fair as possible, I'll take a few minutes to debunk a couple of the more glaring pieces of misinformation on the topic.

1. A restriction on loans makes big-money campaigns less important, not more important.

A number of the Lib commentaries have seized on a claim that the effect would be to somehow favour big-money, self-financed campaigns. Suffice it to say that that's a patently wrong interpretation of the ban on loans: indeed, the very nature of the move is to ensure that big-money donations - whether from oneself or from others - don't find their way into the political system as "loans" (with or without a "wink-wink" background).

But what about the question of banks being more willing to loan to a person with money? As it stands, another loophole which would be closed is one related to guaranteeing loans. From the Globe and Mail:

The legislation will allow only banks to lend to political candidates, and places stringent limits on providing guarantees or collateral for politicians.

I'm presuming that the rules would also applying to repaying loans after the fact (i.e. that this would be classified as a "donation"), such that individual wealth will be properly removed from the system. And if the Cons' legislation as phrased doesn't go so far as to cover repayment later such as to result in a benefit to wealthier candidates, the proper response would be to try to amend it to close that last loophole - rather than to demand that nothing be fixed.

2. A system based on commercial loans (if any) makes for a playing field that's more equal and fair, not less so.

Remember that in the Libs' leadership campaign, Carolyn Bennett managed to take out a CIBC loan for $35,000 based solely on their presumptive appraisal of the ability of a lower-tier candidate to make up that amount. It thus seems readily apparent that money is available from financial institutions.

So why did so many Libs choose to make use of private loans instead? Presumably, the main reason is because they were able to get a better interest rate or better repayment terms out of supporters (or themselves) than out of a bank. Or perhaps it's because unlike banks, private supporters were more than willing to see the money converted into a donation if repayment doesn't prove possible.

But that only hints at the fact that it's the current system which involves a need for big-money supporters to provide a candidate with a better financial footing that his or her competitors. In contrast, in a system based on regulated financial institutions, it's the candidate's ability to fund-raise and attract support - so as to offer confidence that the loan can in fact be repaid, rather than serving as a disguised donation - that will determine a candidate's available loan funding. In sum, the proposed change involves a move from a system based on self-funding and/or cronyism, to one where any available loans are based on merit.

Of course, it does bear mention that Bennett's loan was smaller than the ones her competitors received from their supporters. But that only hints at another potential benefit: a need for all loans to be justifiable on a commercial basis would likely limit the amount of money involved in a race, forcing candidates to persuade potential supporters through words and actions rather than dollars to a greater extent. Which only feeds into a shift away from reliance on big money, rather than the move toward it that Lib supporters seem to want to allege.

None of the above is to blame the Libs for operating within the system that existed at the time of their leadership race. But if the party seriously plans on trying to argue that an attempt to remove a loophole which allows for unlimited back-door funding constitutes an "attack (on) democracy", then it's going to be awfully tough to for anybody to believe that the Libs are any less beholden to big-money supporters than they've ever been. And I hope at least some Libs will come around to the merits of trying to improve the plan to close the campaign-loan loophole, rather than stubbornly assuming that any policy which calls into question anything the Libs have ever done must itself be indefensible.

Update: Full credit to Steve for one in separating politics from policy. (And if anything, he seems more supportive of some of the Cons' other plans than I'd be.)

Update II: Now that the original hysteria has died down, Jason (no, seriously) and Jeff have some constructive thoughts on how the Cons' proposal could be improved. In the case of Jason's ideas, I wonder only whether the dollar amounts will take care of themselves under a commercial-loan system (particularly to the extent that a party will itself decide its own nomination costs and procedures), but the possibility of including statutory spending caps is certainly worth discussing. And it's hard to quibble with Jeff's points about making a riding association liable for the acts of a candidate who may well have few long-term links to the riding and/or the party.

On roleplaying

Sure, it looks bad enough for the Cons that another of their MPs - this time Gord Brown - has been caught allowing an assistant to impersonate him. But I suspect it may only get worse: how much more damaging will it be when word gets out that the role of "Question Period Gordon O'Connor" has been played by a paperweight for the last three weeks?

Valuing diversity

The Globe and Mail reports that Canada's exports to Europe have been skyrocketing over the past 5 years, resulting in both a large amount of business and a significant decline in Canada's dependence on the U.S.

Which would seem to be a fairly obvious plus for the country. But somewhere, Canada's most-prominent right-wingers are working to reverse the trend.

Accentuating the negative

It's bad enough that the Cons have as few useful ideas as they do. But it's all the worse when even the rare plan worth supporting is packaged in a way which makes it sound less worthwhile than it is. Which brings us to the Cons' planned legislation on political loans - and the decidedly negative message behind it:

The new legislation will:
- Ban corporations and unions from making political loans.
- Allow individuals to loan or provide loan guarantees only up to the amount of their $1,100 personal donation limit.
- Allow only banks, credit unions and such accredited financial institutions to make loans of more than $1,100, at commercial rates of interest. Parties or their riding associations will also be able to loan funds at commercial rates.

In the case of candidates in an election, the new law will make riding associations responsible for any unpaid loans.

But there will be no similar backstop for loans taken out by leadership contenders.

Now, it's hard to quibble with much in the plan itself. While there will be some room for debate in either direction as to what parties should be able to fund, on the balance there shouldn't be much room for disagreement with the idea that the loan loophole is one worth closing...as I've been pointing out since the Canadian Action Party first used it.

So the policy is a huge plus in and of itself. But the Cons' primary message - which has been taken up to at least some extent in the other blog posts dealing with the issue - is based on the premise that the plan is merely a means to embarrass the Libs for their recent leadership race, rather than a meaningful policy idea.

And that kind of message (which was unfortunately picked up to a lesser extent in Layton's response as well) can only poison the general perception of the policy on its own. Not only will the message encourage the Libs to oppose the legislation itself vociferously lest they be seen to agree with the Cons' criticisms, it will also make the legislation itself appear to be more of a partisan shot than anything worth pursuing on its own.

Of course, the good news is that the plan figures to become law before long. And the positive effects of the policy will hopefully far outlast the current politics surrounding it. But it has to be a bad sign that the Con government can't even introduce a meritorious policy without turning the announcement into another mudslinging opportunity.

A crumbling Bloc

Andre Boisclair's resignation as leader of the PQ is grabbing the headlines so far. But while that may have been sufficiently predictable to lead to few lasting implications, there's another story today which seems to have far more potential to damage the separatist movement, as Gilles Duceppe's agreement to apologize to Stephane Dion for libel within the Bloc's 2006 campaign materials should result in serious questions about both the leader and the party:

Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe will publicly apologize to Stephane Dion as part of an out-of-court settlement of a lawsuit after the separatist party published a French pamphlet in 2005 linking the Liberal leader to the sponsorship scandal.

Mr. Duceppe has agreed to apologize for the offending pamphlet, which was distributed to thousands of homes in 22 ridings in Quebec just before the launch of the 2006 winter election. The pamphlet, titled "La route de l'argent" (the money trail), showed arrows pointing to Mr. Dion and other Liberal politicians. In papers served on Mr. Duceppe, Mr. Dion pointed out that the Gomery commission absolved him of any links to the scandal and the pamphlet libelled him by suggesting he benefited financially.

A spokesperson for Mr. Duceppe's office confirmed the separatist leader will sign an apology in a similar pamphlet to be distributed in the same 22 ridings in June.

Given that the Bloc has defined itself primarily in opposition to the Libs in Quebec, it would seem to be a major blow to its credibility to publicly admit that it falsely portrayed its strongest issue in the last election. And the damage would both spill over to the PQ and be amplified if the leader most responsible for the fabrication is then anointed the new face of separatism within Quebec.

Mind you, the federal Libs may not see themselves having much incentive to try to discredit Duceppe or the Bloc. And that likely explains the relative silence about the agreement so far.

But even if Dion isn't motivated to highlight Duceppe's retraction, the issue doesn't figure to go away entirely...particularly if Jean Charest can dismiss criticism of his own government on the provincial level by showing how Duceppe was off the mark federally. And that only figures to send Quebec's political scene into a state of even greater flux - with plenty of room for surprises as a result.

At Crazy Stevie's, no decision is ever final

So how's that strong, decisive government working out so far? In just the last week, word has come out about major backtracks or exceptions to three of the Cons' supposedly most principled actions, including:
- an environmental carve-out for the industry which figures to cause the most damage as it expands;
- a "clarification" which will effectively undo a policy against subsidizing investments outside Canada; and
- discussion of a funding side deal for Nova Scotia, which would be labeled as something other than "equalization" in an effort to claim that a consistent formula was applied.

Somewhere, Brent Fullard is grinning from ear to ear - while he orders his next ad buy.

Unanticipated consequences

Another aspect of the Libs' leadership race beyond the large and unpaid loans has made its way into the news, as Bob Rae is apparently leading a legal challenge to an Elections Canada interpretation that the candidates' deposit to the party can't be returned to them:

As former Liberal leadership contenders scrounge for money to pay off up to $3 million in cumulative campaign debts, Bob Rae has gone to court to recoup the $50,000 deposit each candidate was required to plunk down.

The money is desperately needed by some candidates. At least two of them are finding it so difficult to raise money that they're urging the party to take over all campaign debts for all 11 contenders. Those with knowledge of the discussions say that's highly unlikely to happen.

The party found itself flush with cash after last December's profitable leadership convention and promises were made to refund the deposits as a way of helping candidates reduce their onerous debts.

But Elections Canada vetoed the move as an illegal cash transfer.

The watchdog agency considered the deposits to be entry fees, not refundable deposits. And while the law allows candidates to pay for services from the party, Elections Canada ruled that it does not allow the party to transfer cash to candidates.

Just so there's no doubt, the action doesn't appear to involve any conflict between Rae and either the Libs as a whole or anybody within the party.

But it does call into question whether the Libs had fully thought through the ramifications of their leadership process at the time, or whether this is another case of the Libs' party structure being asleep at the switch. And the Libs' trouble raising money can only become all the more damaging if a lack of advance planning results in the party's most prominent figures having to raise larger-than-anticipated amounts for themselves.

Room for cooperation

The CP reports on the NDP's call to modernize the Canada Elections Act to account for the new fixed-election-date system. And based on the issues now in play, it's not hard to see where there's room for cooperation to fix some of the current holes in our electoral regime:

The NDP wants comprehensive electoral reforms before the next federal vote, not the "piecemeal" approach it says is being taken by the Conservative government...

New Democrat MPs Paul Dewar and Pat Martin say the Tories appear fixated with partisan concerns and not with a comprehensive overhaul.

Now that Canada is committed to fixed election dates every four years, the New Democrats believe electoral cycles will be fundamentally altered.

All parties will begin gearing up well before the writ is dropped, when current rules for campaign spending kick in.

So the NDP wants rules on political spending between campaigns. That way, they say, no one party will be able to dominate political advertising "just by virtue of the size of their bank account."

None of the issues appear to be particularly new ones. But the timing may be right to allow for far more progress than the other parties were willing to work toward last year.

On the issue of loans, the NDP has been calling for action for some time already. Which means that even if the Libs want to try to defend the system that effectively funded their leadership race, there's every reason to think that some needed controls will be put in place. At the same time, though, the NDP may need to team up with the other opposition parties to ensure that commercial loans remain an option, such that the Cons' cash-on-hand advantage doesn't translate into a radical difference in campaign resources.

As for non-campaign spending, it shouldn't be a particularly difficult job to sell the need for such reforms to the other opposition parties. Not only is the idea an easy one to support on principle once the election date is set in stone, but the Libs' and Bloc's self-interest will clearly dictate that the Cons not be allowed to spend at will in the months leading up to an election campaign.

In sum, the types of electoral reforms currently under discussion should allow the NDP to broker a number of different agreements. And even if neither the Cons nor the Libs are willing to work toward the most important possible reform (a switch to a more fair voting system), the end result will hopefully be an electoral system which better emphasizes ideas over dollars.

Stuck in neutral

Following up on last week's Star report, the Hill Times discusses the opposition parties' options in bringing the amended C-30 before the House of Commons. (See final headline link.) But unfortunately, it doesn't look like there's yet much commitment to move the issue forward:

Mr. Cullen said the Conservatives have lost credibility on the environment and will work to implement stronger targets. He said the NDP will negotiate with the other parties at the Environment and Sustainable Development committee and work through legal parameters to include parts of C-30 in C-377. "This one has been accepted by the House in principle and that allows us to have some certainty as to when it will be delivered back and compel this government who's lost what little credibility they had, [to act]. Canadians just don't trust them on this file. So that means we have to find another route to get there."...

Liberal MP David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Ont.), his party's environment critic, said the Liberals are also looking at possible ways to bring C-30 back to the House. "We will not let the government walk away from Bill C-30," he said.

Unfortunately, one of the more obvious possible routes - namely a private member's bill based on the agreed C-30 framework - still doesn't appear to have surfaced either before Parliament or in the discussion from either Cullen or McGuinty. And one would think that this and other possibilities would at least be worth mentioning as examples of the "routes" or "ways" which the opposition parties have presumably been looking for since C-30 was first amended.

Meanwhile, it also seems that the Bloc has already missed one opportunity to bring C-30 to the forefront, and nobody else has given any indication of doing any better:

The NDP wrote a letter to both the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois on April 27 asking them to use their opposition days to try to force the government to call the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-30 for debate. The Liberals had an opposition day last week, but used it to call on the House to apologize to aboriginal Canadians who suffered in residential schools. This week, the Bloc have their opposition day on Tuesday and will use it to discuss the rising gas prices in Quebec. Mr. Bigras said he had put in a motion to call on the House to debate the C-30 report, but the party chose gas prices as their supply day topic. The Liberals have a supply day on Thursday, but it's unclear what the party will choose to debate. Mr. Cullen said the NDP's opposition day is still too far away to commit to a topic.

None of the opposition parties said they were willing to use their opposition day to try to defeat the government on the environment.

The latter point is understandable given the potential for other means of getting results from the current Parliament. And indeed brinksmanship probably isn't the best way of moving the issue forward.

But even if a confidence vote isn't in the cards just yet, there doesn't seem to be much reason for any opposition party to hold off on a motion calling on the Cons to bring C-30 forward. And the longer the opposition parties let the issue slide without even a preliminary step toward keeping the environmental focus in Parliament, the more likely the Cons will be to get away with nothing more than their own sad excuse for a plan.

Poll error

Most of the discussion about the Cons' ever-more-rank stench of corruption has surrounded Jean-Pierre Blackburn's hidden airplane rentals. (Suggested motto: "Secret flights: not just for extraordinary rendition anymore!")

But the story which figures to be more interesting in the longer term is the news surrounding the Cons' multiple-language polling. And even there, I wonder whether the most important issue hasn't been missed in the discussion so far. From the CP:

(A) $117,000 research project completed for the Privy Council Office, entitled "Exploring the Views of Canada's Multicultural Communities," does not appear in public records. The report was issued last September, meaning it should have been publicly listed no later than March.

Asked about the non-compliance, a PCO spokeswoman said officials were working to fulfil disclosure requirements. No explanation was given for the delay...

Government guidelines only specifically prohibit polling subject matter such as voting intentions and perceptions about party leaders. Departments routinely do polls to gauge public reaction and knowledge as they move forward with their policies.

However, the auditor general reported early this year that there are still problems with departments failing to provide a rationale for the research they commission.

The main objectives described in the Ipsos-Reid research were "understanding the views of Canada's multicultural communities as to issues facing the country and immigrant communities," and "awareness of the government's agenda, their views on government's performance."

It's hard to see how a prohibition against polling on "perceptions about party leaders" would leave much scope for asking about "views on government's performance": surely polling doesn't suddenly move from being illegitimate to legitimate simply because it asks about only the governing party rather than all parties.

And indeed, in some ways it's even more objectionable to limit the polling to one party. In particular, it's worth wondering whether the poll amounts to a modified push poll by injecting the Cons' message into communities which otherwise don't seem particularly interested in listening to it.

That said, may be that the poll itself managed to remain within the strict letter of the existing guidelines. But even if the Cons didn't break the current rules, it seems glaringly clear that they're pushing as far toward using the government apparatus for party gain as they think they can get away with. And it shouldn't take much polling to figure out that few Canadians - whether or not within the Cons' targeted ethnic communities - want a government which thinks the public purse is nothing more than its own political research and development fund.

Message received

I've discussed on numerous occasions my theory that the Cons' supposed commitment to accountability was based their interpretation of the term as "inflicting punishment on one's political enemies". But even I didn't think the Cons would be crass enough to publicly (if implicitly) admit that definition:

An official from the Prime Minister's Office recently followed a journalist off Parliament Hill, then approached the reporter to challenge a story about the PMO's refusal to disclose how Harper's travelling hairdresser is being paid.

The official told the reporter three times that accountability measures are for crooks, not honest people.

I'll look at the substantive issues in detail later. But for now, it's worth emphasizing that all the visible cracks are nothing more than a symptom of the Cons' general belief in a divine right to avoid scrutiny of their actions, based on nothing more than their belief in their own rightness. And while the Cons surely aren't about to admit it, that kind of structure can only ensure that crooks are able to thrive in their midst.

Light blogging ahead

Expect few to no posts between now and Sunday - though hopefully the last one will give commenters ample material to chew on in the meantime. Enjoy the weekend, and I'll be back soon.

From principle to practice

As a follow-up to my suggested principles for cooperation among Canada's left-to-centre parties, here's my suggestion as to the type of deal I'd think would meet the principles. Once again, this is simply a personal take as to the type of deal which would be most palatable - and there are some significant caveats as I'll discuss below.

The Process

In keeping with the need for democratic approval, I'll start by setting out what I'd think each party should want to do in order to secure approval for the substantive terms.

Once a deal is reached, each party should submit the deal to as strong an internal voting process as is feasible - but in any event no less than required by any party's constitution to formally approve the deal. Once a party had signed on, it would be formally entitled to end its participation in the deal either through the same process by which the deal was approved, or by a vote of a specified number of riding associations as a measure of grassroots disapproval.

Electoral Cooperation

In order to maximize the possibility of reaching the core goal of toppling the Cons, here's the structure I'd suggest:

- One candidate in each federal riding would be designated the "preferred candidate" as among the participating parties.

- Each incumbent MP from a participating party would be a "preferred candidate" by default. (This would both make sense in ensuring that the coalition doesn't go backwards from where it stands now, and would likely be an absolute requirement for current MPs to buy in - though I'd certainly be sympathetic to the idea of removing the default provision.) All other ridings would then be selected in turns by the participating parties.

*Based on Lib/NDP/Green cooperation with 85 incumbent Lib MPs (which I believe is close to the mark) and 28 incumbent NDP MPs, this would result in 150 seats having a preferred Lib candidate, 93 seats having a preferred NDP candidate, and 65 seats having a preferred Green candidate.*

- No party within the coalition would endorse any other coalition party to form government, or any other leader to be voted Prime Minister.

- No riding association would be prevented from running a candidate against a preferred candidate. However, the participating national parties would agree not to provide support to non-"preferred" candidates, aside from allowing them to participate in multi-candidate events and providing them with generic national materials.

- The participating parties would agree to coordinate messaging on a national level on the issues agreed to be addressed by the coalition government. In addition, the national parties and leaders would agree to avoid "low-blow" messages in opposing the other participating parties. This agreement would not be binding on individual riding candidates in establishing their own materials and messages, though they'd be encouraged to follow the deal's principles.

- The participating parties would agree to reassess whether any "preferred" designations should be changed to improve the chances of defeating the Cons. Any changes would be by agreement of all participating parties, and would be designed not to result in any one party forming a majority government (so as to ensure the deal remains enforceable).

Coalition Government

In addition to merely toppling the Cons, any deal should also include some discussion as to what party members (and Canadians at large) can expect. I'd see the following as the bare essentials for cooperation following an election:

- The participating parties would agree to form a coalition government. All coalition parties which win seats would receive cabinet positions in proportion to their number of seats won, in an arrangement to be agreed.

- The coalition's top priority would be passage of an environmental plan in substantially the same form as the currently-amended Bill C-30. Any further amendments would be only to strengthen the plan as agreed by all coalition parties. (This assumes of course that the efforts to pass C-30 in the current Parliament won't bear fruit.)

- The coalition would also immediately begin a Citizens' Assembly process to review possible federal electoral reforms. The parties would agree to maintain the coalition at least until this process is complete, such that a referendum on any selected change would form part of the next federal election.

- All budgets and similar general policy documents would be drafted by agreement among the coalition parties. At the time the deal is first reached, the parties would agree to baselines as to the minimum focus to be put into specific policy areas such as health care, child care, First Nations funding, education and social housing; these would be included within the coalition's budget and legislative priorities.

Comments

Beyond the questions of whether it's a plus for parties to be looking to make this kind of deal in the first place, there would still be serious issues about how the deal would be carried out. For one, I'm not sure what the parties' respective constitutions would require to allow for such a deal; I'm presuming that the voting processes would cover it, but it may be that there simply isn't a way to validly reach and approve this kind of agreement.

I'd also have some concerns about the effect of the Canada Elections Act on any type of substantial cooperation. Given the limit on party spending, there might be some argument that cooperation between parties serves as a wrongful means of getting around the spending caps. And I wouldn't want to see a deal either leave the parties involved on the wrong side of the law, or encourage a long-term adaptation from the Cons (either by taking up an NCC-style call to remove caps on spending, or by splitting into multiple linked parties to get full use out of their money each election.)

And, there's always the question of what additional details would be brought up which could undermine the purposes I'd outlined earlier. I won't speculate too much as to those, but please bring up in the comments any which seem obvious.

I'm not sure who, if anybody, would be prepared to push for this type of arrangement. And indeed, I can't say that I'd be at the point of supporting it immediately, even if I'd consider it about the best format for cooperation if any is to be found. But I'm interested to see how much taste there is among other progressives for something along these lines - or whether deals like the current Red Green deal (for all its glaring flaws) make for as much cooperation as others are prepared to stand.