Politics & principles

Yesterday, I discussed how the Sask Party's platform on Crown corporations would lead to negative consequences for both the Crowns and the province even if Wall and company stuck to their word. But let's discuss why there's serious reason to doubt the Sask Party's commitment to keeping the Crowns public at all.

Part of the problem lies in the Sask Party's obvious ideological distaste for public-sector economic activity, which is readily visible both in their members' past statements on the subject, and in their desire to eliminate any Crown functions which could seemingly impact the private sector. And that undertone has been the main focus of the NDP's attacks so far.

That said, my suspicion is that the biggest problem is a lack of principle rather than an excess of it.

While Wall's answers may be getting even more abrupt within the campaign, the Sask Party's general comments on keeping Crowns public have been notable for their lack of a principled explanation. Instead of developing any particular reasoning as to the value of public ownership in the limited scope contemplated by their platform, the Sask Party has at best offered vague wording about how Crowns "work for Saskatchewan", and more frequently merely offered a flat denial in order to change the subject.

All of this signals that when it comes to the Crowns, the Sask Party has decided that politics will trump principle. Which seems well and good to the extent that it means denying any intent to privatize the Crowns in order to appear acceptable to voters.

But what happens to that political calculation if the Sask Party then forms government?

It seems to be a foregone conclusion that the Starship Enterprise Saskatchewan would chart a course to privatize what no man has privatized before. And if the Sask Party sees a track record of losing in 2003 in a Crown-based election and winning in 2007 only by changing the subject, then it surely won't want to seek an electoral mandate for privatization (or have to defend the group's conclusions) in 2011.

Moreover, as I noted yesterday, even the Sask Party's existing platform figures to substantially weaken the Crowns. And if a lot of Crown employees recognize that the Sask Party's chains are likely to lead to future decay and job losses, then the issue will once again figure to be a serious source of trouble for Wall down the road.

Faced with those choices, the Sask Party's political nerve centre figures to see at least one more option. Namely, they could privatize as much as they can as quickly as they can, accept the "broken promises" tag that comes with that action (and which will likely attach itself to a new government in any event), shatter one of the NDP's most reliable voting blocs, and hope that by 2011 the issue is far enough in the past to avoid any further harm to the Sask Party.

Note that this third option doesn't even have to be based on a principled dislike of the Crowns (though the Sask Party's stronger ideologues would surely be happy with it). Instead, it only seems logical that a party which treats the Crowns as a damaging issue to be dealt with based on political convenience will want to take a serious look at how to take that issue out of play. And there's certainly no reason to believe that anybody in the Sask Party holds any strong principles which would stop that course of action.

Of course, there's always the chance that a Sask Party government would retreat from the issue. But it seems beyond question that the party's stance on Crowns will continue to be based on what's best for the party's interests, not on any principled view of what's best for the province. And there's serious reason to doubt that the Crowns will survive the Sask Party's calculations.

Credit where due

It's a long way from making up for their refusal to oppose the Cons on their throne speech. But contrary to the bizarre media effort to minimize Conadscam, the federal Libs deserve credit for properly keeping focused on a serious issue for which the Cons have yet to provide anything resembling a reasonable answer.

Of course, the Cons seem particularly determined to keep stonewalling and deflecting - now by trying to claim that a scheme which plainly originated from the Cons' central command is less indicative of a party's commitment to following the law than a single dubious Lib MP - rather than providing any meaningful response.

But the last message the Cons should be sent at this point is that they can make a scandal go away by implausibly pretending they don't know what they did wrong. And if (as seems likely) the ongoing investigation concludes that the Cons indeed violated their national spending limit as a result of Conadscam, then the Cons' stubborn refusal to recognize their own fault should be the final nail in the coffin of the Cons' self-proclaimed commitment to accountability.

On price signals

It's laughable enough for Tony Clement to pretend to be concerned about prescription drug prices based on his gratuitous nine-figure giveaway to brand-name drug companies. But his latest gem gives the most clear indication yet that the Cons are eager to hand those companies all the extra income they can, regardless of the resulting effect on health-care costs:

According to Health Canada documents obtained by PoliticsWatch under the Access to Information Act, one of the ideas the NPS is considering is action to influence "the prescribing behaviour of health care professionals."

When asked by PoliticsWatch if such a system should recommend doctors not prescribe generic drugs when the price is too high, Clement said, "if the provinces and territories want to do that, I encourage it."

"I don't have a direct relationship with medical professionals. That's not my job as federal minister of health."

One would hope that Clement has at least enough knowledge about the health-care system to recognize that generic drugs are inevitably cheaper than the brand-name alternative - after all, there's no reason why a generic manufacturer would bother producing a drug otherwise. Which means that his comment amounts to encouragement for the provinces to deliberately inflate costs further in an effort to punish generic drug manufacturers.

Of course, there's a serious need for reduced drug costs in both the generic and brand-name departments. But it should be obvious that neither is likely to improve if health care professionals are pressured to prescribe the more expensive kind of drug. And from Clement's position, it's all too clear that he's more interested in looking for excuses to funnel even more money toward Big Pharma than in actually reducing prescription drug costs.

On public investments

So far in the Saskatchewan election campaign, most discussion of the role of Crown corporations (see e.g. the comments here) has been met at least in part with a question from Sask Party supporters as to why Crowns should be allowed to do anything more than carry out their "core" operations, mirroring the comments of Sask Party MLA Dan D'Autremont. I'll take a moment now to answer that question, and set the stage for the wider issue about the Sask Party's view on Crowns.

Let's start with the usual example, being SaskTel's place in offering home security services.

Now, one of the usual core principles of free-market supporters is that competition is good. And it seems fairly clear that as a general rule, the more suppliers there are pursuing the same dollars in the same area, the better the results will be for consumers.

So what happens when SaskTel offers a security service alongside its other operations? Simply put, the effect is to provide one more option in the marketplace.

Now, it may be that SaskTel has better connections to suppliers based on its existing knowledge base, as well as greater cost efficiencies due to the fact that its core operations already include a presence in most Saskatchewan homes. In that case, consumers benefit from receiving a better option than they would from private-sector competitors, and the province benefits a second time from SaskTel's profits in providing that more efficient service.

Or it may be that SaskTel isn't able to provide more efficient service. In that case, their private-sector competitors don't figure to have anything to worry about - though they may still be forced to meet better standards of price and service based on the existence of another option.

Either way, Saskatchewan residents benefit from the added competition provided by SaskTel. And in the best-case scenario, the province as a whole receives an added benefit, as any profits earned by SaskTel result in improved core services, lower rates, and/or dividends to the province.

So what's the Sask Party's take on that set of possibilities? It's eager to legislate away the Crown competition and see consumers pay higher prices for less if it means avoiding the risk that the profit might go into public hands rather than private ones.

Now, I'm sure some Sask Party apologist will start the usual rant about how additional competitors are driven away where SaskTel is already in the marketplace. Needless to say, I'm not buying that one: anybody capable of offering a better deal than SaskTel would still have every reason to enter the market, and consumers are obviously worse off if SaskTel vacates the market to make way for someone offering a worse option.

So it's clear that consumers benefit from Crowns which do more than just the bare minimum. But what about the Crowns themselves?

It should be obvious that in carrying out core operations, a Crown will acquire some resources which can be put to more than just one use - be they business connections, technological resources, physical space, or anything else. And by taking advantage of the opportunities created by those resources, a Crown can better carry out its core function of providing the basic services to the province as a whole for the lowest possible price.

In contrast, a Crown prevented from doing anything to make use of its additional resources will wind up having more difficulty carrying out its core services as a result. And a purge of non-core operations which represent an efficient use of public resources would be a natural first step in trying to paint the Crowns as stodgy, inefficient and ripe for a private-sector takeover. Which in all likelihood would lead to a new private-sector owner doing exactly what the Crowns are doing now - only with the profits flowing into private hands instead of public ones.

For reasons I'll get into in my next post on the subject, I'm not convinced that the Sask Party would wait before moving into whole-sale privatization in any event. But even if one takes at face value their claim that they'll only cut down the Crowns to avoid competition with private-sector actors, the end result is still to make the Crowns - and the province - far worse off in the long run.

Blackout

The CP's Bruce Cheadle notes that the Cons' information suppression is reaching new lows, as even official government talking points are now being withheld from access to information requests:

The Canadian Press made a request under the Access to Information Act last January seeking government briefing materials on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.

Among the 139 heavily censored pages produced last week by the Department of Foreign Affairs are a number of old documents that end with "talking points."

In every instance, some of the points previously prepared for public consumption (but never publicly delivered) have been blacked out.

"Canada is very pleased with bilateral consultations with Australia on uranium and nuclear issues in Canberra on Nov. 20 (2006)," begins one set of talking points, dated Feb. 20, 2007.

"Our officials agreed to seek a trilateral meeting with U.S. officials . . . ," begins the next point, before blacking out the rest of the line.

The entire next "talking point" is black.

A document dated Feb. 10, 2006, cites five talking points and two "Responsive Only" points, prepared in case of specific questions from media. The responsive points are blacked out.

Following an April 12, 2006, meeting on the GNEP between Canadian and American officials, 11 talking points were prepared by Foreign Affairs officials. A year and half later, eight of those points are blacked out.

The latest release of documents to The Canadian Press arrived last week, the same day that the Globe and Mail detailed statistics showing that the public release of government information is being choked off under the Conservative government.

Now, there's already enough reason for suspicion about the GNEP - particularly given that Deceivin' Stephen is currently instructing his cabinet to keep Canadians in the dark about ongoing negotiations.

But from the information embargo, it appears that the Cons are also unwilling to allow Canadians to find out even what they were eager to make public previously. Which should be a sure sign of both an issue that Harper is afraid to answer for, and one that's in dire need of some serious digging to get at what the Cons are hiding.

On meaningless inputs

The CP reports that the Liebermanley Group is now pretending to care at least slightly about public input in the wake of last week's news that only the group's own hand-picked "experts" would actually get to address the panel. But not surprisingly, there's little reason to think that input will change the predetermined outcome:

John Manley's Afghanistan panel is setting up a website to take written submissions from the public, the head of a Canadian development group said Saturday.

The panel has said it had no plans for public hearings, but Gerry Barr, president of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, said the website will allow for public input.

Barr and representatives of about a dozen other Canadian aid groups met Manley and his panel on Saturday. They were told an Internet site will be running soon and will accept comments and recommendations.

Obviously, it's better for the panel to at least have some theoretical access to submissions from the public. But it's hard to see a public website as anything but a fig leaf to try to deflect attention from the obvious problems with the panel's composition - as well as to provide an opportunity to cite any public submissions which happen to support the panel's foregone conclusion.

Crowning achievements

Shorter Murray Wood:
Given the chance, the Sask Party would obviously do everything it can to undermine Saskatchewan's Crowns while technically honouring a promise not to sell them off just yet. And it would be for the best if the province had a full debate on the issue. But shame on the NDP for trying to start one when Brad Wall doesn't find it politically convenient to defend his side.

First things first

While there are other good questions circulating about the Cons' veiled voter law, I'm particularly curious about the timing involved.

After all, the Cons admitted just this week to having made a serious mistake in their last attempt to limit voting access. And I'd think it would only make sense to deal with a major issue like the negligent disenfranchisement of over a million voters at the first possible opportunity.

Obviously the Cons disagree, based on their choice to deal with the veiled voter issue sooner and separately. But what does it say about their interest in restoring the vote to rural citizens that they're making it a higher priority to further restrict voting first?

Legitimate doubts

L. Ian MacDonald fleshes out Hugh Segal's strategy to use a referendum on abolishing the Senate as an excuse to impose the Cons' preferred U.S.-style chamber. In short, the goal is to have a majority vote for keeping the Senate, such as to confer "legitimacy" which is currently lacking, then claim that legitimacy as reason to reform the chamber.

Now, I'm far from convinced that the vote would be to keep the Senate in any event. But even if that part of Segal's plan worked, there's still another serious question about the whole scheme: if the Senate is "legitimized" through a national referendum - particularly one where the referendum question doesn't actually include any mention of reforms - wouldn't that confer a similar amount of legitimacy on the current Lib Senate majority to stonewall against any attempts to reshape the chamber?

Poor excuses

Shorter Con response to allegations that some of their political hires could have received their jobs as a reward for participating in Conadscam:
Nobody can prove that any hirings were a direct reward for participation in an illegal scheme. After all, it's equally plausible that the staffers were already first in line at the trough.

On progressive choices

In this post, I dealt with federal Lib supporters who continually seek any excuse to complain that the federal NDP is in league with the Cons, yet are entirely willing to explicitly help the conservative Sask Party provincially in order to try to cut down the NDP. And you can see the continued hypocrisy in full bloom over at Abandoned Progressive Principles, where Saskboy can't hand Brad Wall a majority fast enough if it'll win David Karwacki some of those gold-plated benefits he's always complaining about.

But let's leave aside the personal motivations and contradictions of the bloggers involved, and ask a more basic question about the provincial Libs' position. Namely, will the "Brad Wall Government Is Inevitable. You Must Assimilate" strategy actually work?

It's obvious that the provincial Libs see some appeal in trying to paint the election primarily as a battle for second place rather than a contest of governing values. And obviously the Sask Party isn't complaining about having the Libs declare victory on their behalf. But let's momentarily take the Libs' current argument at face value.

If the main question in the election is that of which party will offer the best progressive opposition to a Wall government, why would any voter answer "the party which conceded government to Wall in the first place"?

And the picture for progressives only looks worse if one takes a closer look at the Libs' actual policies. The Libs' current stances would actually take the Sask Party to the right in some areas, calling for a selloff of at least some Crown assets and demanding that the government do nothing to save Saskatchewan jobs. Meanwhile, judging from their current issues page, the Libs have no apparent interest in prescription drugs, child care, or broader environmental programs than curbside recycling - suggesting that these areas of progressive accomplishment under the NDP simply aren't priorities for Karwacki, and will be soon forgotten if the Libs and Sask Party have the two loudest voices on the province's political scene.

In sum, a Wall government with a Karwacki opposition - while obviously the Libs' current goal for the campaign - would be the worst possible outcome for progressive voters. And there's plenty of time for Calvert and company to not only highlight that fact to bring any Lib/NDP swing voters back into the fold, but also make clear that it's not too late to stop the Sask Party.

The chopping block

Buckdog asks one interesting question about the Sask Party's long-term plans for the province. But there's another one which seems to me to require a more immediate answer.

After all, the Sask Party's first priority is to artificially cap the size of Saskatchewan's civil service.

But the Sask Party's other platform planks include several which will require additional government resources. In addition to needing a crew for the Starship Enterprise Saskatchewan, they're planning at least three new health care structures (plus likely adding to the administrative burden on the province's Drug Plan through a means-tested program), and their numerous promised spending increases will presumably have to be administered by somebody.

With that in mind, which existing civil service jobs do they plan to axe in order to fit within their own public service cap?

Credibility issues

Current announced funding for Saskatchewan's Green Initiatives Fund:
$350 million.

The Sask Party's proposed funding for Saskatchewan's Green Initiatives Fund:
$70 million.

The Sask Party's explanation (roughly paraphrased):
"If you ignore over 90% of the currently-announced funding, we'll more than double the size of the fund!"

Evaluate the rest of the Sask Party's promises accordingly.

See the story from CBC.

Blocking the vote

The CP reports that as the NDP warned all along, the Cons' Canada Election Act amendments designed to make voting more difficult appear likely to affect much of their own base more than anybody. And months after the fact, they're just now trying to fix their avoidable mistakes:

Recent changes to the federal Elections Act will wind up disenfranchising more than 1 million rural voters, Canada's elections watchdog warns.

Just four months ago in a bid to clamp down on voter fraud, Parliament amended the Canada Elections Act to require that each voter produce proof of identity and residential address before being allowed to cast a ballot.

But Elections Canada now says more than one million rural Canadians do not have a proper residential or civic address - complete with street name and number - as envisaged by the legislation.

Rural addresses are more often post office boxes. On native reserves, a resident's address is sometimes simply the name of the reserve.

New Democrat MP Charlie Angus is one of those who stands to be disenfranchised. His driver's licence lists his address as Mileage 104, a reference to the original distance markers on the railway line through northern Ontario indicating that he's 104 miles from Timmins.

In a report to political parties, Elections Canada says 4.4 per cent of eligible Canadian voters do not have the legally required residential address. The problem is most acute in the northern territories, where over 80 per cent of Nunavut voters don't have a residential address.

Among the provinces, voters in Saskatchewan would be the hardest hit, with potentially 27 per cent being refused the right to vote because they have no proper residential address...

(Peter) Van Loan characterized the problem as an oversight and called on all parties to "enthusiastically support efforts to correct this deficiency."

Should the minority Tory government be defeated before further amendments can be introduced to rectify the problem, Van Loan said the chief electoral officer has assured him that he's prepared to use "his adaptation power to ensure that no Canadian loses their right to vote" in the ensuing election.

Angus said he raised the concern about rural addresses when the amendments were being considered last spring. He said all other parties dismissed or ignored his concerns and only the NDP opposed the bill in the end...

NDP Leader Jack Layton accused the Liberals and Conservatives of only belatedly caring about the rights of rural voters.

"Now we see this law was a bad law and other parties that supported these changes are now trying to scramble to fix the problems that we flagged at the outset."

It would have been the ultimate irony if the Cons' quest for a majority this fall had died in urban/rural split seats where their own electoral changes had prevented supporters from voting. But the Cons don't figure to take long to re-enfranchise rural voters while looking for a way to exclude the urban transient voters who were presumably their target all along - at least, if either the Libs or the Bloc decide to once again go along blindly with the Cons' electoral measures.

It certainly doesn't look like the Cons have learned anything given that they're now brazen enough to say that what the NDP had pointed out from the beginning should be classified as an "oversight" because they (and the other parties) didn't bother to listen. But the story should offer another prime example of why it's long past time for the other parties and Canadians in general to start paying far more attention to what the NDP has to say - and spending far less time cleaning up the messes that result when they don't.

A thought experiment

Over the last couple of years, a consistent theme has developed among the now-Red Green alliance. In an effort to blame the federal NDP while painting the Libs as innocent victims completely unresponsible for their own demise, apologists have tried desperately to find evidence of a grand conspiracy against the Libs. And in the process, they've accused the NDP of being in bed with the Cons based on the most ridiculous of "evidence", ranging from Con supporter entreaties rejected by NDP supporters, to idle speculation about things which will never happen.

But let's put to a test just what kind of principle underlies the Red Green position.

Suppose there were an election pitting a long-time centre-left government against a right-wing opposition party which had spent a decade trying to moderate its image. Suppose the governing party had brought up the election's most progressive ideas on child care, the environment, health care, and electoral reform, while the opposition's platform consisted largely of targeted tax cuts (but with enough promised spending to take away some of the fear factor).

Now let's add a third party to the mix - one with nowhere near either the current seat count or the current support level of either of the two main parties, and whose most recognizable contribution in recent years had been to support the left-wing government when it was limited to a minority.

Suppose that third party tried to position itself as an ostensibly left-wing alternative to replace the "tired" government. But in doing so, the third party failed to offer any substantially different left-wing policies from those already proposed (and indeed implemented in part) by the governing party, instead running primarily on a platform of accountability in an effort to build up a perceived need for change.

And suppose as well that the third party not only withheld its fire from the right-wing party, but outright conceded the election to the conservative party in an explicit bid to position itself as a future opposition.

I bet those principled Red Greeners would be positively howling with outrage at the third party's damage to the progressive cause, and probably pointing out the likelihood of an active conspiracy between the third party and the right-wing party. Don't you?

Just a thought...

Based on the Cons' track record for projection, there's little reason to lend much credence to their counteraccusations in response to the information-for-benefits scandal. But if the Libs want to respond with an actual demonstration of commitment to privacy (which would also have the added bonus of putting the Cons on the defensive), wouldn't it make sense to answer with legislation to make sure all parties are required to deal fairly with Canadians' personal information?

Politics first

Shorter Sask Party message on health care:
The biggest problem with health care in Saskatchewan is that too many resources are diverted to peripheral structures rather than front-line care for patients. And we plan to create several new peripheral structures to prove it.

First steps

The Hill Times only includes the latest on the amended Bill C-30 as an afterthought in an article on the Cons' crime bill intransigence. But if the opposition parties are indeed able to cooperate, a new private member's bill could lead to one of the most significant results of the current Parliament:

NDP MP Nathan Cullen (Skeena-Bulkley Valley, B.C.), his party's environment critic, said the Conservatives are "cutting off their nose to spite their face" because they are unwilling to work with the opposition on climate change issues. "They put a filter or almost a complete block on the Clean Air Act. They wanted to be able to reference it without actually doing anything about the environment and they're also not going to bring back parts of the bill that the Conservatives voted for, so they're cutting off their nose to spite their face," he said. "They're so determined to have their own way, not do much for climate change, only because what I can get out of it is an ideological bent, or some allegiance to the office towers in Calgary."

Mr. Cullen introduced a private members' bill last week that resembles Bill C-30.

It's still anybody's guess whether or not Cullen's bill - or one to a similar effect from another opposition member - will be able to work its way through Parliament before the Cons are brought down.

But at the very least, this should remove any doubt about whether or not there's some possibility for cooperation between the opposition parties. And if the Libs and Bloc can once again agree on the contents of Cullen's bill, then there's a clear opportunity for the opposition parties to join forces to get something positive done.

Unprincipled

Stephane Dion is apparently trying to counter the growing perception that he's lost any claim to oppose the Cons on principle by drawing at least one line in the sand where he'd actually stand up to the Cons. But on a closer look, it's hard to imagine a more empty statement of "principle":

In Winnipeg yesterday, Liberal leader Stéphane Dion pledged to stop any anti-environmental Conservative legislation.

While Dion stopped short of saying Liberals would defeat a confidence motion to trigger an election, he said the party would not support legislation that could endanger the environment or Canadians in general.

So what's wrong with the statement? Let's note first that Dion's "pledge" is limited to saying the Libs "would not support" anti-environmental legislation...when it's already been made clear that the Libs aren't formally supporting the throne speech either, but merely refusing to vote against it so that the Cons can pass it. And it's hard to see that apparent loophole as an accident given the Libs' obvious fear of an election anytime soon.

But it gets worse. After all, it's seemingly agreed by all parties that the current state of Canada's environmental statutes is far short of satisfactory. Otherwise the Cons wouldn't have introduced their now-dead Clean Air Act originally, and the opposition parties wouldn't agree on the importance of the amended version of the bill.

From Dion's non-threat, though, the Libs apparently don't plan on bringing down the Cons unless they propose legislation to change the status quo. Which suggests that whatever gaps exist in the law as it stands - and however weak the Cons' environmental regulations (which set out any actual greenhouse gas emission targets) may be - the Cons can avoid an election triggered by environmental issues as long as they simply avoid putting any legislation up for a vote.

Now, it's not impossible that the opposition could itself get something done, particularly if it cooperates to pass the amended terms of Bill C-30. But it's clear from Dion's failed attempt to look tough that the Cons won't face any real pressure from the Libs to improve their own direction. And that should leave all the more reason to doubt whether Dion will ever present a substantial opposition to Harper's government.

On exclusion

The Globe and Mail reports that the Liebermanley Group has made sure to eliminate any danger of actually hearing from any diversity of opinions on Canada's options in Afghanistan. Rather than listening to what Canadians in general have to offer, it's decided to shut out any public input in favour of its own choice of "experts" and political hacks:

The independent panel on the future of Canada's mission in Afghanistan will not hold public hearings but does plan to travel to the war-torn country and to consult widely with experts.

The five-member panel, led by former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley, has already rented office space in downtown Ottawa and is expected to have its first meeting this weekend, according to a source close to the panel...

The panel has been asked to finish its work by Jan. 31, 2008, giving it about three months to research, deliberate and write its report, although the legal mandate extends to March 31. The panel has recruited a half-dozen federal officials who have been seconded from Foreign Affairs, National Defence and the Canadian International Development Agency.

The timing of the visit to Afghanistan is still under wraps for security reasons. The panel is also expected to visit NATO headquarters in Brussels and to get advice from academics and non-governmental organizations active in Afghanistan.

Given how slanted the group's composition was to begin with, it's amazing that it feels any need to further direct itself toward the inevitable end result. But the news that the Canadian public is seen as unworthy to participate should offer yet another reason for the Libs to properly denounce the group now, rather than being pressured to accept its conclusions later.

In opposition

A bizarre movement seems to be starting among the Cons, with prominent bloggers floating trial balloons about either formally stripping the Libs of the title of Official Opposition, or simply refusing to deal with Lib questions and issues (though last I checked that was the Cons' typical response to all opposition questions already). And if there's anything more surprising than the effort to push in that direction, it's that Lib bloggers haven't yet offered any apparent criticism of the plan.

With that in mind, let's make this clear from a supporter of the party which would seemingly benefit most.

The Cons aren't entitled to pick and choose their opposition.

Con bloggers apparently don't see the slightest problem in disregarding the democratic allocation of seats in the House of Commons, or going to even greater lengths than the Con government already has to prevent Lib MPs from doing their jobs. And that may be a natural extension of a party which genuinely sees itself as entitled to make government benefits contingent on a partisan gain in exchange.

But the reality is that MPs - regardless of their partisan stripe - have the right to hold the government to account in the House of Commons. And based on the outcome of the last federal election, the Libs legitimately hold the title of Official Opposition, regardless of how effective (or ineffective) they are in that role.

Of course, the NDP will rightly keep pointing out the Libs' weakness as a reason to vote NDP as the effective opposition to Harper and his party. And hopefully that message will lead to a point where Canadian voters recognize and vote for the NDP as a strong future government in the making.

But the Cons have no more legitimate basis to try to cut a party out of the political process entirely than they do to appoint pseudo-MPs to usurp the function of opposition members. And the fact that high-profile supporters honestly see no problem with that kind of scheme only shows the Cons' fundamental contempt for democracy.

A call to assembly

I for one didn't see it coming, but the Saskatchewan NDP has promised to convene a Citizens Assembly if it wins next month's provincial election:

A re-elected NDP government would hold a "citizens assembly" to look at lowering the voting age, introducing fixed election dates and making other changes to democracy in Saskatchewan, party leader Lorne Calvert says.

The assembly would be made up of "randomly chosen" Saskatchewan residents who would make recommendations to the legislature, Calvert said Friday.

They would examine a number of issues, ranging from fixed election dates to voting age to voter turnout.

Calvert said the panel could also discuss the possibility of a new electoral system as an alternative to the first-past-the-post system currently in place.

I'm not sure whether the focus on issues like fixed election dates and voting ages rather than electoral systems is based primarily on Calvert's own preferences, or the (however unfair) conventional wisdom arising out of Ontario's MMP vote. But Calvert's promise itself should help reverse any perception that electoral reform is done for - particularly if the NDP wins the election in part based on the commitment.

Of course, it remains to be seen whether the proposal will earn the attention it deserves - particularly given that it was made on the same day that the Sask Party unveiled its entire platform (or at least those parts which hadn't yet been leaked). But it's nonetheless remarkable for a party which has succeeded so thoroughly in the existing structure to be taking the lead in looking for ways to improve how Saskatchewan votes.

And if Calvert's move can push swing votes into the NDP column based on the prospect of an improved electoral system, then both the NDP and the province stand to benefit substantially in the long run as a result.

Return of the Pod People

In the midst of a week of speculation and analysis of the throne speech and its fallout, the first House of Commons mention of the Cons' Pod People Plan didn't receive any attention in the media. But with all three opposition parties apparently presenting a united front on a story which is starting to come into focus, it may not be long before the Cons find themselves on the defensive.

Not surprisingly, the point of privilege was brought up by Nathan Cullen, who generally summarized what's already known about the Cons' pseudo-MP in Skeena-Bulkley Valley. But two of the points in response add new information to the story.

First, while the Cons previously disavowed any national support for the Pod People plan, they seem to have let the mask slide. Now, their Saskatchewan caucus chair Tom Lukiwski has also tried to defend the Cons' undemocratic appointments. Which should remove any plausible claim that the plan stopped at Harris, and provide a strong suggestion that it's indeed a national policy (contrary to the Cons' initial protestations).

Second, other opposition MPs besides Cullen also had additional examples to offer. Perhaps most interesting was Paul Szabo's statement as to what he's been told while trying to do work for his own constituents:

Mr. Speaker, just this past week I had a case in my constituency office requiring the urgent intervention by a minister to get a family member to come over to attend to a terminally ill child.

We wrote to the minister but we did not get a response within a reasonable period of time. We made the necessary inquiry. We were told directly that the department no longer responds to opposition members' requests for assistance and ministerial intervention.

Now, the prospect that the Cons have instructed federal departments to ignore requests from opposition MPs would be dangerous enough on its face. But it's all the more so when combined with this week's news about the Cons' data-gathering techniques:

CIMS is used not only to track voter allegiance in a given riding -- something every political party attempts -- but also a host of other data gathered in the course of an MP's constituency office duties.

"Any time a constituent is engaged with the member of Parliament, they get zapped into the database," Turner said in an interview. "It's unethical and it's a shocking misuse of data.

"Because once you cotton on to what's going on here, it's not good constituency work at all to allow that data to fall into any kind of hands. But the party is desperate to get more and more data in there because the primary use is fundraising. The secondary use is voter tracking to get out the vote."

Putting the pieces of the puzzle together:
- The federal government won't deal with any constituent issue unless it's brought up by a government MP.
- Government MPs won't deal with any constituent issue without collecting whatever information they can get from the encounter, and using it for Conservative Party purposes.

In sum, under Harper, any benefit from the Government of Canada is contingent on a constituent's giving a quid pro quo (whether knowingly or not) to the Conservative Party.

So what can the opposition parties do about it? The first step is obviously to raise the issue publicly wherever they can. And it's possible for them to do more on that front: while the Ethics Commissioner investigation, point of privilege, and media exposure have helped, it's long past time to use some prime Question Period time to force Harper to answer for his government's patronage.

Second, the opposition parties should be working together on legislation to ensure that neither the Cons nor any other party can misuse personal information about Canadians, and agreeing to use whatever means available to fast-track it through Parliament.

This could be as simple as making political parties subject to the Privacy Act, or it could involve a new set of rules under the Canada Elections Act. But whatever mechanism is chosen, it would both make for good public policy, and put a serious dent in whatever advantage the Cons may be deriving from their misuse of data.

And if the Cons want to make such legislation a confidence matter and fight an election over their ability to use the federal government as the Patronage Distribution and Information Gathering Department of the Conservative Party? Well, that's exactly the kind of ground where a referendum on the incumbent figures to be a losing proposition for Harper.

We'll see if the issue gets as much attention as it deserves going forward. But once again, the problem isn't so much any hidden agenda from the Cons as the one that they've already put in plain sight - and the opposition should be happy to make sure the public pays due attention to what's going on.

(Edit: fixed typo.)

Trail blazing

A few notes from the Saskatchewan election campaign today:

- The environment has become such a big issue federally that even Harper's Cons have had to at least try to pretend to care about it. But on the provincial level, it's received little attention from either the Sask Party or the Libs (give or take the odd mention of recycling or parks), while Saskatchewan's Greens have apparently failed to gain even the slightest bit of traction. Which means that the NDP's strong environmental platform could help to cement the environmental vote in Calvert's column.

- Meanwhile, the Libs' Saskferco selloff plan looks like an interesting strategic move. Since the suggestion focuses attention on the idea of selling public assets, it figures to help the NDP more than anybody by reinforcing its message about the Sask Party. That said, it may also shift some anti-NDP votes into the Libs' column if part of the pro-privatization crowd decides to throw in its lot with a party which doesn't hide its desire to dispose of public assets.

Now, that result isn't one that I'd mind seeing by any stretch. But it doesn't seem to fit at all with the Libs' apparent strategy of trying to overtake the NDP as the opposition to a Sask Party government.

- Finally, the Sask Party has announced an interesting test for political judgment, where as long as problems with a party's candidates were publicly known before a campaign, the party shouldn't be criticized for implicitly endorsing them. By this standard, several former cabinet ministers may find themselves right at home in Wall's party.

An alternate route

While it hasn't yet been confirmed, all indications are that the NDP won't vote for the Libs' throne speech amendment. While that's understandable given the wording of the amendment itself, it presumably means that the NDP won't be heading down the most immediate path to an election. But that doesn't mean the NDP can't still take a lead role in bringing down the Harper government.

Remember that prior to the throne speech, the Libs themselves made a series of demands. Obviously Stephane Dion didn't stick to his earlier position that he'd bring down the Cons if those demands weren't met - but that doesn't mean the Libs can afford to abandon them entirely, particularly given that the principles involved (a return of bill C-30, an end to combat in Afghanistan, dealing with poverty) are all areas where the opposition parties are largely in agreement.

In that light, consider what would happen if the NDP's throne speech amendment were to consist generally of those same Lib demands, but with just enough soft wording to avoid thorny questions such as whether Afghanistan withdrawal should take place immediately or in 2009.

With the Libs' confrontational wording out of play, the Bloc would be likely to vote for the amendment. Which would leave the Libs with a choice of either joining in to topple the Cons, or being directly responsible for voting down their own demands.

Of course, it's more likely that the NDP will instead play it relatively straight, using its amendment to correct the public record as the Libs once again try to spin voting against their distorted message as a vote for the Cons. But with the Libs already cowering at the prospect of facing off against Harper, now may well be the time to use the NDP's amendment to force the Libs to fish or cut bait when it comes to their own stated principles.

On internal mistrust

Another telling sign about the current state of the Libs managed to pass largely without notice today, as all indications are that Stephane Dion doesn't trust his MPs' discretion any more than they trust his judgment:

Mr. Dion left his MPs guessing about the potential for a fall election just hours before giving his response in the House of Commons to the government's fall agenda.

Liberal MPs emerged from a caucus meeting saying little, telling reporters that Mr. Dion had not revealed his decision about whether to accept or reject the throne speech.

Given how blatantly the Libs had leaked most of their strategy already, it's surprising that Dion thought anything was in need of protection. But even if there was much of a secret to keep, it can't say much for Dion's view of his own caucus that he didn't consider his MPs capable of holding off on leaking his strategy for the few hours between the caucus meeting and his afternoon speech.

What's more, the situation figures to repeat itself as the Cons put the Libs' backs to the wall in a series of confidence votes this fall. And if Dion really thinks he's best off making his decisions in public first and justifying them to his caucus later, it's worth wondering just what future surprises he'll end up springing on the Libs - and how long it'll take for his MPs to start responding in kind.

On openings

It's interesting to note that even while purporting to want to "make Parliament work", Stephane Dion apparently has no greater strategic goal in the fall session than to try to pressure the NDP. But as John has already mentioned, the Libs shouldn't be so sure the NDP will play along - particularly in the face of a plan so obviously targeted at it:

Instead, Dion said, he would introduce amendments to the speech. If those are rejected, the party would abstain, allowing the throne speech to pass.

Dion introduced an amendment that includes a recognition of past Liberal programs, a call to reverse the income trust decision and a commitment to end the combat mission in Afghanistan in February 2009.

But the NDP have said they want Canadian troops out of Afghanistan immediately and support the decision to tax income trusts, meaning the amendment will likely fall.

Now, it may well be that Layton will simply choose to slam the Libs for their willingness to prop up Harper on the wider throne speech. But it's entirely possible that in the face of such an obvious bluff, the NDP could declare that it's not going to pass up what may be the lone opportunity to bring down the Cons in light of the Libs' plan to roll over and play dead once its motion is dealt with.

The likely result would be a campaign where the NDP could contrast its recent momentum against the Libs' freefall in progress - while also playing up the NDP's role as the real opposition based on the Libs' unwillingness to oppose the Cons' plans. And with Layton having taken the clear initiative in bringing down the Con government, the Libs' steady stream of cries that "those traitors didn't keep us in power!" would be turned on their head permanently.

Of course, the Libs could reverse course themselves in order to avoid the polls. But they'd only be able to do so by backing down yet again - this time by torpedoing their own motion for fear of having to face the voters on their own terms.

Now, it could be that a few more months of Dion incompetence (combined with Cons facing the scrutiny of Parliament again) could put the NDP in an even better position later this fall. But given the potential upsides both for the NDP as a party and for Canada as a whole in the possibility of removing Harper from power, I for one hope Layton and company are seriously considering bringing down the Cons through the Lib motion.

Update: Obviously I'm not the only one thinking along these lines.

Rejected

There's been plenty of talk about the Libs' state of disarray. But while there's been little doubt about some turmoil in terms of staffing and management, another more important factor seems to have revealed itself within the story:

While Proulx said he's a team player and has no problem with being replaced, sources said he quit after learning that Dion had offered the lieutenant's post to Montreal MP Denis Coderre.

However, Coderre declined. Dion then tried to persuade Pablo Rodriguez, another Montreal MP, to take the post. Late Tuesday, he finally announced that Senator Celine Hervieux-Payette will take the job.

In other words, the Libs have now reached the point where even sitting MPs aren't interested in taking up positions of prestige within the party if it means having to share in the responsibility for what's to come. And if those most closely tied to the Libs' current brand are themselves completely uninterested in trying to help right Dion's sinking ship, there's little reason to think that swing voters on either side will stay on board.

(Edit: see comments.)

On non-opposition

Taking a broader look at the Cons' throne speech, I'd have to agree with the numerous other commentators who don't see it as likely that the Libs will vote down the Cons. But based on the most controversial measures the Cons have put forward, the reason for that likely support is based as much on the policies involved as the Libs' own calculation that they don't want an election.

After all, to the extent anybody has suggested an election trigger in the speech, it's the Cons' plan to put all of their most extreme crime measures into a single bill. But the Libs have already offered to fast-track the Cons' crime agenda, meaning that it wouldn't be anything new for them to back off again.

What about the War on Terror provisions which the Libs voted down? That was of course Lib legislation to begin with - and just a few months before suddenly rediscovering the value of civil liberties, they supported an extension of the same measures in committee.

The Libs got Canada into combat in Kandahar to begin with, and that position was extended to 2009 thanks to Lib votes. Stephane Dion is looking to give the Cons a run for their money in the tax cut department. And Dion said himself during the Lib leadership race that he didn't think he could get Canada to its Kyoto targets - which will make it awfully tough for him to bring down Harper for saying the same now.

In sum, a Lib party desperate to avoid an election indeed shouldn't have the least bit of trouble propping the Cons up on their throne speech. But that's largely because the Libs themselves have agreed with nearly everything the Cons had to say. And that makes it all the more clear that Dion and his party couldn't offer plausible opposition to the Cons even if they weren't distracted by their own internal meltdown.

Update: Alison has more.

One for the junk heap

Based on the Sask Party's total platform leak, Brad Wall probably had no choice but to go public with his promise to eliminate the PST on used car sales. But I have to wonder if the party has thought through the unintended consequences of the move.

After all, it doesn't seem to be a matter of much dispute that newer cars tend to be less environmentally damaging than their older counterparts. And that trend only figures to continue as hybrids and other emission-friendly vehicles become more widely available - particularly since automakers themselves have agreed to work toward more emission reductions.

As a result, by setting up a tax structure which provides an effective tax break for used cars as opposed to new ones, Wall is in fact promising to provide an incentive for Saskatchewan residents to purchase less efficient vehicles. Which means that the costs of Wall's plan would go well beyond the (itself significant) opportunity cost of the money he'd pour into it - and that the contrast to the Calvert government's focus on the environment figures to offer yet another strong wedge issue for the NDP.

Throne away

A first reaction to the Cons' throne speech: so much for my theory that the Liebermanley Group was actually intended to buy the Cons time and deniability on Afghanistan. Instead, by calling for a two-year extension of the current mission without bothering to hear from a panel which he himself appointed last week, Harper himself has made it absolutely clear that he couldn't care less what it has to say.

As a result, it seems that the sole purposes of last week's announcement of the panel were to put temporary pressure on the Libs, and to win a modicum of public perception of having John Manley on the Cons' side. Which in turn adds yet another in the column of misusing public resources for partisan gain.

Party over country

It's been clear for some time that the Harper Cons are looking out for every opportunity to use public funds for partisan gain. But a couple of stories from the last two days offer additional evidence as to their lack of any distinction between campaigning and governing - as well as hints as to how much further they're looking to go in the future.

First, there's the Globe and Mail's report on the Cons' targeting of ethnic voters:

Select ethnic and religious groups across Canada are being targeted by a previously unknown Conservative team that is bluntly gunning for votes in a bid to supplant the Liberals in multicultural ridings in the next election.

The operation's strategic blueprint, obtained by The Globe and Mail, states the “ethnic outreach team” is largely overseen by the Prime Minister's Office and Jason Kenney, the junior minister for multiculturalism...

Overall, the comprehensive strategy involves targeted mailings, one-on-one meetings at “major ethnic events” and the creation of large databases of immigrants and new Canadians...

The “outreach team” used a Canadian Heritage government computer to create the initial version of a document that was provided at the political training conference in March. A spokesman for Mr. Kenney explained that the final version, including Conservative logos, was modified on another outside computer.

In another presentation, Conservative community relations manager Georganne Burke told Conservatives that outreach calls on them to work beyond their traditional base, even if it means “to look outside your normal comfort zone.”

Concretely, Ms. Burke urged Conservative candidates and organizers to break down each riding's ethnic and religious composition, and directly target potential voters.

She said that Conservatives should use all available opportunities to “build the database” of ethnic voters, by renting or buying lists of names from third parties and by attending events where they can gather business cards and guest lists.

The story doesn't expand on Kenney's weak attempt to deflect criticism by saying that the final draft was done on a private computer. But there doesn't appear to be any reason why the Cons could validly use public resources for the early drafts of their own partisan plans - particularly when they're at pains to say that the final version was completed elsewhere. Which means that there's already one concrete example of the Cons' misuse of public resources.

But the article also hints at another question. It appears clear that the Cons:
(a) have no compunction about using public resources for purely partisan purposes;
(b) are using "all available opportunities" to gather lists of ethnic voters, and
(c) are looking at new immigrants specifically as a target group.

Given that background, there's ample reason to wonder whether the Cons are also using government resources more directly related to their goal - i.e. data from Immigration Canada and other departments who might have useful information for the Cons' database.

Meanwhile, the Hill Times reported yesterday that Con staffers are looking for excuses to use public resources to help the Cons within an election campaign:

Sensing the possibility of a federal election this fall, the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office are working on finalizing "clear and detailed guidelines and rules of conduct" for exempt ministerial staffers who hope to work on the Tories' next federal election campaign, according to Conservative sources.

A Conservative source told The Hill Times that the Treasury Board guidelines are not clear under the new provisions of the Federal Accountability Act in terms of exempt staffers and election campaign work. Some staffers are asking for clarification, the source said.

"The Treasury Board guidelines are very barebones. The Treasury Board guidelines say, 'You cannot go and work on a campaign during working hours.' Does that mean I can email? Could I spin the media sitting here at my desk? How many people from a minister's office could go and work in a campaign? If a ministerial office has 10 [political] staffers, how many of those could go and work on a local campaign? What are the rules for minister's offices, who can do what? Which offices have to stay functional? Which offices have to have which people in them?" said one top Conservative, who added that the PMO decided to work on the new code-of-conduct guidelines for election campaigns because the Treasury Board guidelines do not provide enough details for ministerial staffers...

According to the existing Treasury Board guidelines, "Should a member of the minister's exempt staff decide to become actively involved on a full-time basis in a federal, provincial, or territorial election or byelection, the member is required to take leave without pay or resign his or her position. If a member becomes engaged in campaign activities on a part-time basis, his or her involvement must be on his or her own time and not during regular office hours. No vacation leave or any other leave with pay will be permitted for election purposes."

Now, it says something about the Cons' staffing philosophy that they see a real risk that offices might be completely cleared out during a campaign, rather than being able to plan for enough employees to keep the department running.

But the more striking part of the story is the attempt by a "top Conservative" to look for every conceivable loophole in the existing wording - including one that obviously doesn't exist by claiming the existing guideline refers to "going" rather than "involvement". Based on that stance, it's glaringly clear that the Cons don't recognize any general principle that government resources shouldn't be used for partisan gain. And that attitude suggests that the ultimate wording of the guideline is irrelevant, as the Cons will invent enough loopholes to allow their staffers to perform party work on the public dime.

Growing intrusions

In a story closely related to this afternoon's post on the Cons' likely problems in trying to impose the TILMA on Quebec, the Globe and Mail reports that La Belle Province is already in a fighting mood when it comes to another of Jim Flaherty's plans to impose the Cons' view of markets on unwilling provinces:

The notion of a single national securities regulator for Canada is turning into a politically charged issue with an international twist.

Quebec's Finance Minister accused the federal government Monday of pressuring the International Monetary Fund to back Ottawa's campaign for a single, countrywide regulator.

Alluding to the coming release of an IMF study that recommends the creation of a single watchdog in Canada, Monique Jérôme-Forget said the only way to explain such “intervention” in the country's internal affairs is that Ottawa put pressure on the world body.

The “close ties between the [federal] finance ministry and the International Monetary Fund are certainly one of the reasons,” she told a financial markets luncheon audience.

“Pressure was probably exercised by the federal government to encourage this interference in our internal debates,” she said.

The charge is the latest salvo in an increasingly bitter set-to between Ms. Jérôme-Forget and federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty over the need for a single national regulator...

Ms. Jérôme-Forget is an ardent proponent of the so-called passport system that would create a virtual national regulatory system for Canada, thus avoiding shifting power to a central body in Toronto or Ottawa.

All of the provinces except Ontario support the passport idea, which would allow companies or individuals to get regulatory approval in their home jurisdiction with the other provinces or territories automatically accepting the decision.

I commented last year on the Cons' efforts to link artificial limitations on federal spending to the provinces' willingness to tie their own hands. In effect, the Cons have long been offering to trade the promise of ineffective federal government for ineffective provincial government, in hopes that provinces would be happy enough with perceived non-intervention from Ottawa to limit their own freedom of action.

Now, Flaherty's patience seems to have reached an end - leading to an attempt to instead force unwanted restrictions on the provinces through both federal action and outside pressure. But it's not surprising that Quebec and others aren't interested in playing along. And if the federal push to neuter provincial governments gets the attention it deserves, then it wouldn't be surprising to see a strong push headed in the opposite direction to make sure the Cons can't impose their agenda on the provinces.

Failed controls

There's been plenty of discussion today about the Cons' plan for their own personal Pravda, led of course by Kady O'Malley's rant.

But the discussion so far has missed one important point (which is only confirmed by Deceivin' Stephen's hurried denial of any plan to follow through). For all the talk of Harper's supposed victory in his cold war against the (relatively) mainstream media, it seems awfully clear that the Cons were sufficiently afraid of the possible public reaction to back off their most extreme reported press control plans. Which would suggest that the balance of power never swung anywhere near as far in Harper's favour as most reports suggested.

Indeed, it wouldn't be the least bit surprising if the Cons would have preferred to unveil their means of controlling their coverage in a citizen-funded form, rather than having to pay for their own explicitly partisan equivalent. And while the Cons' large amount of cash on hand presumably played a role in their going the latter route instead, it seems entirely likely that a rightful fear of a serious backlash also played a major role.

What's more, thanks to the Star's report, the Cons may now face that backlash anyway. While O'Malley may represent a particularly strong voice, it's entirely likely that a significant chunk of Canada's media will start wondering just what else Harper had in the works to try to control any reporting on his government. And that could well help to ensure that Harper loses his chosen war with the media as well as this particular battle.

Costly trade

The Cons are apparently perfectly willing to match Stephane Dion in the corporate pandering department, matching the Libs' call for tax cuts while promising yet another attack on mythical "internal trade barriers". But there's a strong possibility that the Cons are miscalculating in trying to force the latter issue at the national level:

Mr. Flaherty (said) on Monday (that) taxes are still too high, and the federal government is committed to lowering them.

Ottawa also wants to knock down trade barriers within Canada so provinces can trade more freely with each other, he said.

Now, it certainly isn't news that the Cons are eager to see the TILMA imposed nationally. But any inclusion of the issue in the throne speech nonetheless figures to raise the stakes considerably.

Remember that just this summer, the provinces agreed to include a dispute-resolution mechanism in the existing Agreement on Internal Trade. And it seems a reasonable assessment that the actual agreement on a relatively limited expansion of corporate privileges hinted at a lack of consensus on anything more.

Presumably, the Cons wouldn't be bringing up the issue if they were satisfied with that outcome. Which strongly suggests that Flaherty's path will be to attempt to impose the TILMA on a national scale - whether by direct legislation, or by pressuring the provinces into accepting it.

The unpopularity of the TILMA itself offers reason enough to think of that as a problematic strategy. But there's an even more significant danger in trying to impose the TILMA from the federal level.

Remember that the main force against any additional national agreement has been Quebec's refusal to cede any sovereignty to national pressure and corporate interests. For Harper to force on Quebec what it's already rejected for itself - and thereby limit the province's scope of legislative action - would reek of unwarranted intrusion into provincial jurisdiction, offering Gilles Duceppe just the kind of issue that could reverse the Bloc's recent slide.

And even if one assumed the Cons are willing to take the minority side of an issue where the opposition parties will then split the majority position, it's far from clear that TILMA would offer that opportunity. With the Libs obviously seeking to reclaim their title as the party of corporate Canada (and generally unwilling to fight the Cons' priorities), they'd be at least as likely as not to simply play along with the Cons' plan. Which would eliminate any benefit in the big-business buyoff department, which making the Cons extremely vulnerable to the NDP and the Bloc.

Of course, it's possible that any talk of internal trade barriers in the throne speech will be limited to more of the relatively noncommittal language which the Cons have already spouted through most of their time in office - making the declaration merely meaningless rather than reckless. But if the Cons do plan to try to impose government barriers on unwilling provinces, they have little to gain and much to lose in doing so.

Undeserved benefits

In fairness to the Libs and Stephane Dion, they aren't the only ones who seem utterly willing to ignore all available evidence to give Stephen Harper the benefit of any doubt. After all, the Cons' own riding association in Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley seems to have kidded itself into thinking that Harper might care about internal democracy, despite all evidence being to the contrary:

A Conservative riding association in northern Nova Scotia is defying Stephen Harper and standing behind renegade MP Bill Casey, leaving the prime minister with the choice to either reverse course or brush aside the wishes of local Tories...

(T)he Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley riding association's board voted Sunday to reinforce Casey's nomination, putting the longtime MP's future as a Conservative candidate back in Harper's hands.

"There is a democratic process in place, they nominated me once, they reinforced that tonight," Casey said in an interview following riding association's two-hour meeting in Truro, N.S.

"If (Harper) believes in the democratic process, then that decision will hold."

Casey and riding association president Scott Armstrong acknowledged that Harper has the final say on candidate nominations, but they remained hopeful the prime minister would change his mind.

Now, the riding association deserves credit for standing up for its own principles. But it's hard to believe that it was completely unaware of either Harper's stated refusal to countenance independent thought like Casey's, or the Cons' track record of suppressing anything approaching internal democracy - making its appeal to some "belief in the democratic process" look utterly naive at best. And the more Harper's chosen opponents (whether within the Cons or the Libs) continue to pretend there's reason to assume the best of him, the less likely Canadian voters are to be skeptical enough of Harper to avoid writing him a blank cheque in the next federal election.

Universal agreement

Based on Murray Mandryk's Week 1 recap from Saskatchewan's election campaign, it looks like my theory as to the most likely battleground may be right on the money, as the Sask Party seems eager to base its message on narrowly-focused programs rather than universal ones:

At Calvert's election announcement Wednesday night, the buzz among New Democrats was that voters' minds would be made up in the first few days of the campaign. We now know that the NDP was talking about its universal drug plan that was designed to solidify the vote.

However, Wall said Friday that the difference between Calvert's drug plan and his own may "already be the turning point" but one that has turned in his party's favour. Voters have a clear choice between the NDP's slashy, costly and unnecessary plan and the Saskatchewan Party's targeted, moderate and costed-out approach, Wall contended at his announcement.

One Saskatchewan Party insider privately acknowledged Friday the party's smaller-announcement approach -- including its alternative prescription drug plan policy that was actually reported last spring -- has come from policy pre-election focus group testing.

Of course, a focus-group test may not tell the whole story when it comes time to defend a policy choice as part of an election debate. And the Sask Party's position will leave the NDP with plenty of ammunition as well - both to defend the value of universality in its own policy proposals, and to question whether Wall would later seek to narrow the benefit from other popular programs as well in keeping with the same arguments he's making to defend his prescription drug policy.

It remains to be seen which view will in out in the end. But whatever the outcome, it looks like both the NDP and the Sask Party are more than willing to agree that the question of universality will be the main issue for Saskatchewan voters to decide at the polls.

Update: GPM has another example, pointing out the contrast between Sask Party's all-but-declared proposal to offer tax credits for children's activities and the NDP's plan to make sports and arts programs more accessible in the first place.

On group dynamics

The Star has filled in some details on the Liebermanley Group through a series of reports this morning. And it seems that the Libs themselves were well aware that their spin on the situation had absolutely no basis in reality.

Let's start by noting that while Dion's public message tried to downplay the danger of John Manley's involvement by suggesting that his presence might moderate both the final report and Harper's actual position, Manley himself has an entirely different target in mind:

Manley, who has twice visited Afghanistan, said he's been deeply touched by the humanitarian needs there and suggested Canada should not withdraw prematurely.

"Afghanistan represents an enormous opportunity for Canada to play a meaningful role in a globally significant arena. But it also represents an enormous challenge to our resources and our capabilities," he said. "And Canadians rightfully ask whether our sacrifices are making a lasting difference."

Manley said yesterday that he hopes Dion is open to hearing the panel's advice on an "appropriate role" for Canada in Afghanistan.

Needless to say, when Manley himself figures the Libs should alter their stance to match the group rather than the other way around, there's absolutely no reason to think Manley will offer any moderating presence on the panel. And that goes doubly given his tendency to let the U.S. dictate Canadian actions as pointed out by Lawrence Martin.

But then, it appears Dion himself knew perfectly well just how problematic the appointment was, even as he tried to spin in the opposite direction for the cameras:

As has happened in the past, Manley's move had Liberals shaking their heads. This was a man, after all, who chose to return to private law practice rather than accept former prime minister Paul Martin's offer of the coveted post of Canadian ambassador to Washington.

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion publicly welcomed Manley's attempt to contribute to the divisive Afghanistan debate, but was privately fuming over what many Liberals saw as a betrayal that would help Harper build a case for prolonging the Afghan military mission contrary to the wishes of all three opposition parties.

Which means that Dion himself seems to have recognized the most important problem with the group's appointment - but decided to say otherwise publicly in order to appease the Manley wing of the party. Which can only make it likely that he'll end up giving Manley his wish at the end of the process as well, in the form of yet another combat extension.

It's hard to imagine a much more vivid example of how quickly any trace of principle has been wrung out of Dion over the course of less than a year at the helm of the Libs. But with Dion now publicly taking the Cons' side on another of the major issues facing the country (even while he grumbles about doing so in private), the time has never been better for former Lib voters to turn to a more progressive choice.

Weakening

The Libs have given another couple of hints as to how they're planning to cave to Stephen Harper going forward. And there's all the more reason to doubt that Stephane Dion's party is even remotely interested in presenting an effective opposition.

First, rather than recognizing Deceivin' Stephen's Afghanistan delay tactic for what it is, Dion's response suggests that he's under the delusion that Harper is even remotely interested in hearing and being convinced by opposing views:

Manley said he called Liberal Leader Stephane Dion on Thursday night to inform him of his decision. Dion praised the appointment and expressed hope that Manley might get the prime minister to modify his Afghan position.

Needless to say, there's no explanation as to how someone who apparently shares Harper's desire for long-term combat would even be arguing for a modified position, let alone succeed in winning it on a Con-stacked panel advising a prime minister who's notorious for listening to nobody but himself. And Dion's bizarre willingness to overlook reality effectively ensures that the united opposition response which would be needed to undercut Harper's ploy won't materialize.

Meanwhile, the Libs' environment critic has announced that he doesn't think his party will even consider voting down the Cons' throne speech no matter what it contains on Kyoto:

Liberals won't bring down the Harper government over next week's throne speech, even if it effectively abandons the Kyoto climate-change pact, the party's environment critic says.

"The Liberal Party of Canada isn't going to be goaded into the boxing ring with Stephen Harper," David McGuinty said Friday. "We're not that gullible or foolish."

With the Kyoto announcement having failed to provoke any semblance of a spine from a party which is supposedly dedicated to making the environment one of its top three issues, it's hard to see what the Cons couldn't slip into the throne speech while still be able to count on the Libs propping them up. Though they may well be tempted to toss in the occasional "Librano organized crime ring" just to confirm that the Libs will put up with absolutely anything to avoid a trip to the polls.

Toss in the Libs' call for corporations to be put ahead of the general public yet again, and there's no reason at all for Canadians to think either that the Libs genuinely hold even faintly progressive values, or that they'd stand up to Harper to defend them if they did. Which means that anybody hoping for effective opposition (and an alternative to continued Harper government) is long overdue to start looking elsewhere.

On delay tactics

While a few bloggers have commented on the Cons' plan to appoint an -I-r-a-q- Afghanistan study group (cue breathless media fawning: "with a special bipartisan guest appearance by John Liebermanley!"), the talk so far has mostly assumed that Harper's primary motivation is to eliminate Afghanistan as an election issue this fall. But from what I can tell, the move is aimed primarily at the possibility that the current Parliament might continue.

As I've discussed before, the main question on Afghanistan in the current Parliament always figured to be when the issue would be put up for a vote. And there's little reason to think the result of a vote this fall - which the opposition could raise of its own motion at any time - would be anything but a firm opposition vote against an extension.

As a result, the Cons have been desperately trying to avoid any action this fall, trying to push the vote to somewhere between early 2008 and whenever they'll be sure of the result they want. And having obviously failed to convince the public that their entitlement to set the timing for a vote should stand on its own merits, they're now looking to buy themselves a few months with a cherry-picked "bipartisan" study group.

Now, I'm not sure that Canadian voters would ultimately buy the excuse that the Cons should be able to delay the vote any more this way than through their previous edicts. But the appointment offers at least one new fig leaf for a clearly-frightened Harper to hide behind - at least until the opposition responds with a clear statement that it doesn't see the group as a legitimate means of delaying an Afghanistan vote this fall.

Universal ideas

While most of the coverage from the first day of Saskatchewan's election campaign has focused fairly narrowly on the first policy offerings from both the NDP and the Saskatchewan Party, I haven't yet seen the broader philosophies behind those platform planks receive much attention. But it looks like another issue in addition to federal/provincial relations will serve as a major point of difference between the two main contenders, as the parties are seemingly taking polar opposite views on the idea of universality in access to services (even while trying to put money toward the same issues).

Of course, the NDP's prescription drug plan figures to be the largest universal program to be brought up during the course of the campaign. And it only makes sense as an extension of universal health care to make sure that Saskatchewan residents receive relief from the fastest-rising share of health-care costs.

But with the Sask Party having not yet unveiled anything by way of health policy, the most stark contrast for now lies in the parties' respective treatment of education costs.

The NDP's promise to adopt the McCall report would result in an across-the-board tuition cut, making education more affordable to all students while they're actually enrolled at Saskatchewan universities - particularly in light of a concurrent increase in student loan limits for housing and living.

Mind you, some elements of the plan would involve some differentiation - based either on individual accomplishment (i.e. added scholarship funding) or a specific need for improved access (i.e. incentives for students from neighbourhoods of low socioeconomic status). But even the latter differentiated benefits can be classified in terms of universal access. And the obvious core of the NDP's plan is to make sure that all students are better able to afford university at the time they attend it.

In contrast, the Sask Party's education platform is aimed almost entirely at tax credits after graduation. Student debt would pile up no less quickly, and the cost of seeking a university education would be no more affordable at the time when a student actually attends school. The only difference from the status quo would be the possibility of paying any debt down more quickly after the fact.

That graduate credit is also accompanied by a promise to offer an additional credit limited solely to income earned through self-employment - despite the lack of any apparent difference in principle between the merits of self-employment and employment generally. I'd think that's a fairly curious choice, but it certainly offers a stark contrast to the NDP's more universal focus.

While education offers the most obvious example of the differing philosophies so far, it figures to be far from the only issue where the question of universality comes up. Again, health care looks to be an obvious one as well, as the Sask Party is already attacking the NDP's prescription drug plan precisely for its universality. And the NDP's focus on low utility rates also serves as an effective universal benefit which figures to be a topic of conversation.

Of course, it's always possible that the campaign could go in an entirely different direction. But the difference in views on universal access could both serve as the main point of distinction between the NDP and the Sask Party, and lead to a far more meaningful policy debate within the Saskatchewan campaign than we've seen in other provinces which have recently gone to the polls. And hopefully that's a result that would be universally well-received.

Update: And not surprisingly the Sask Party's prescription drug proposal feeds into the argument somewhat as well, clawing back the existing benefits for thousands of seniors, providing no similar plan for anybody aged 15 to 64 and adding a cap on costs only for children under 14. Though it's interesting to note that the Sask Party's means-testing for seniors wouldn't be applied to children (or their parents).

Shady dealings

A few notes on the equalization announcement yesterday by the federal and Nova Scotia Cons.

First, it's far from clear that the ultimate deal reflects any more generous offer by the federal government in order to get a deal done. Indeed, it was reported earlier this year that the federal offer at that time similarly contained no explicit downside while potentially offering an additional billion dollars over the life of the deal - double what the new deal apparently includes.

All along, the question was whether the federal government would actually stick to the deal offered by Harper. And from this angle, it still looks like MacDonald got the answer right the first time.

So what changed since the earlier offer? Obviously the federal Cons haven't done anything much to earn any additional trust in the meantime. But it seems entirely possible that MacDonald bought into the conventional wisdom (however flawed it may be) that with the Libs floundering, Harper's Cons will stay in power for some time to come - meaning that there was little prospect of a new federal government either offering a better deal, or overturning one agreed to by Harper.

Meanwhile, MacDonald likely recognized as well that the federal bargaining position wasn't about to change in his favour as long as Harper stayed in power. After all, the lone Con MP principled enough to stand up for his province had already been expelled, meaning that there was virtually no risk of in-caucus strife over the lack of a deal. Since Harper was obviously willing to pay the price in Nova Scotia seats for failing to keep the federal bargain before, there wasn't much reason to think that would change. And unlike Lorne Calvert, MacDonald hadn't shown any particular willingness to test the legal merits of his position.

As a result, MacDonald may have decided to simply take the best deal he could get on paper now in the hope that Harper (or a subsequent PM) would live up to it.

Based on the fact that the deal doesn't seem different from the previous federal offer, it's hard to give Harper much credit or blame for the fact that the deal happened. But the timing of the announcement has his fingerprints all over it.

In Atlantic Canada, the announcement figures to stop some of the bleeding following Danny Williams' successful anti-Harper campaign in Newfoundland and Labrador. (Though I have serious doubts that it'll actually improve the Cons' fortunes in Nova Scotia as some seem to think.)

And with a Saskatchewan election known to be in the cards, the deal also provides a signal to Brad Wall that Harper would very much like him to abandon any critical talk about the federal government in favour of a "Stephen Is My Sugar Daddy" strategy. Though I remain far from convinced that the result will be anything other than a backlash against both Wall and Harper.

What remains to be seen is whether MacDonald and Harper have calculated correctly in agreeing to the deal how and when they did. And it seems entirely possible that both minority governments will later regret their efforts to temporarily improve their standing now.

On practical theories

Shorter Andrew Coyne:
Because neoliberal economic theory is infallible, you'd have to be hopelessly dogmatic to even suggest policies which don't implement it in its entirety. And no, I don't see any irony in that statement.