On available options

The Star presents an interesting point/counterpoint on the use of P3s as a means of deferring government expenses (at a high future cost). But while it's tough to disagree with the outcome of Thomas Walkom's piece against the use of P3s as a means of buying now and paying more later, it's Christopher Hume's column which actually raises the more interesting issues - both as to why P3s may be seen as needed by some, and what the public sector can do to minimize costs while potentially generating public returns.

Here's Hume on the background to why he sees P3s as inevitable for now:

In a perfect world, there would be no need for public-private partnerships. Government would have all the money it needs to pay for all we need, and everyone would be living happily ever after.

In the real world, however, government is chronically short of funds and we, the voters, aided and abetted by the media, would rather not pay the taxes we should. And so we elect leaders who tell us what we want to hear even when we know it's a lie.

And in these conservative times, not only are tax rates under fire; so is the very idea of government. Is it any wonder that the decline of the public infrastructure has reached the point where in Ontario alone it would cost $143 billion to bring it up to an acceptable standard?

Faced with such overwhelming need and a reactionary culture, government has little choice but to look to the private sector.

There's of course plenty of room for argument as to whether either commentators like Hume or governments themselves should be giving in to the assumption that voters prefer being lied to about the costs of providing needed services. And I'd strongly take the side that the most needed change is to counter the initial deception - not merely to look for some way of paying off the private sector to win its endorsement of government spending.

But whatever the proper response, the underlying premise is that any supposed need for P3s is itself based on incorrect assumptions. And that's surely a recipe for bad public policy.

Meanwhile, Hume does point out one means of bringing some benefit back to the public sector:

(I)n certain European countries, some government agencies and departments have themselves started to act as private companies, selling their expertise and services to the highest bidder, including government.

City planning services in Britain are an example, as are incineration plants in Sweden. They bid on public-sector contracts like any business, and when they make a profit, plough it into general revenues.

In Canada, public entrepreneurialism would be viewed as contrary to the ideals of public service.

Once again, it's not clear why we should take as a given that Canadians would disapprove of an effort to build public-sector capacity. And that's doubly so in the case of a development which would not only present the possibility of improving public services, but could also help bring in a return on investment which would help to bridge any gap between what voters want in services and what they're prepared to pay in taxes.

Ultimately, Hume is right to point out some of the options which have been wrongly excluded from Canada's public debate. But the fact that those possibilities are largely ignored offers a reason to bring them back to light and start making the case for more effective public investment, not a basis for accepting that governments have to pay more to get less for lack of any easy alternatives. And once the underlying assumptions are challenged, any case to funnel money into the private sector through P3s falls away in a hurry.

For a limited time only...

The Gazette introduces the Cons' apparent candidate in Westmount-Ville-Marie. But there's little reason to think that Guy Dufort will be allowed to hold the job for long - as even his first set of media coverage seems to show far more independent thought than the Cons have ever allowed from their candidates.

Dufort on the need for more infrastructure investment:

Guy Dufort, a Montreal lawyer, said big cities "won't be convivial places to live" unless they are given more help to tackle challenges such as crumbling roads and sewers. Infrastructure will go down the drain, transportation systems will become decrepit and more people will move to the suburbs, he predicts.

The party line:

Flaherty said the Tories have already given municipalities $33 billion in a multi-year package and he has rejected pleas for more cash.

Dufort on federal transfers to cities:

Dufort said the government has made some effort to address the problem by transferring a portion of gas taxes to municipalities. But they should also have access to a portion of income taxes or sales taxes, he said.

The party line:

SEAN MALLEN: As you well know the Mayor of Toronto, Mr Miller, joined by the Premier, have been calling for one cent of the GST to be dedicated to cities. Is that idea effectively dead?
Jim Flaherty: Yes.
SEAN MALLEN: Why?
Jim Flaherty: Well, it was a non-starter from the beginning.

Dufort on housing:

While Westmount-Ville-Marie has a reputation of being the home to some of Quebec's wealthiest residents, Dufort said it is also home to about 8,000 homeless people, and affordable housing is a priority for him.

The party line:

The federal Conservatives have ousted their candidate for Toronto Centre, 43-year-old international-trade lawyer Mark Warner, and he says it's because he wanted to play up urban and social issues that are at odds with the master Conservative campaign strategy...

Conservative officials have been actively resisting Warner's emphasis on housing, health care and cities issues, he said, even blocking him from participating in a Star forum on poverty earlier this year and pointedly removing from his campaign literature a reference to the 2006 international conference on AIDS in Toronto – which Warner attended but Prime Minister Stephen Harper did not.

And what's more:

Dufort, who describes himself as a "pragmatist," admitted that he personally only agrees with about 80 per cent of the Conservative Party's platform.

Now, we don't know for sure what's included in the 20% that Dufort disagrees with. But one has to figure the question will be brought up more than a few times during the course of a by-election. And there's no way for Dufort to answer without either giving the appearance of having been dishonest now, suggesting that Dufort has been brainwashed by extended reprogramming at the Cons' Hall of Harper, or angering his micromanaging leader.

One way or another, the gap between Dufour's more moderate stances and the Cons' governing principles can only make it all the more clear that the Cons can't offer a viable alternative to the Libs in Westmount-Ville-Marie. Which can only leave the door wide open for the NDP to pick up another Quebec beachhead in the riding once a by-election is called.

On motivation

There doesn't seem to be much doubt that the talk of an island being named after Deceivin' Stephen looks to be little more than an ego boost for Harper. But let's look on the bright side: while the Cons obviously can't be bothered to deal seriously with climate change based merely on the environmental, social and economic costs involved, might Harper at least give the matter a bit more thought if part of his legacy is in danger of being submerged?

On imbalance

LKO points out Paul Wells' brilliant column on the Harper Coalition. But all skewering aside, the more important part of Wells' column lies in the recognition of just what Harper has done to the federal government - and what the Libs are in turn propping up:

(T)he current Harper-Dion government is presiding over astonishing changes to the shape of Canada's government. It's all in that February budget, which the Liberals all but ignored before voting against it — wink, wink — in small enough numbers to ensure its survival. The budget provides for provincial revenues to grow, while federal revenues as a share of GDP decline. "The gap has widened in recent years," the budget document says, and "will likely continue to grow over the coming years." The gap between provincial revenues and federal revenues — in the provinces' favour — has never been as great in more than 20 years. Federal transfers to the provinces, as a share of all federal spending, are half again as high as they were when Brian Mulroney took office a generation ago.

In 2000-2001, the gap between federal revenues and provincial-territorial revenues was $5 billion. This year — according to the innocuous-looking "Annex I" tucked at the back of the budget — it will be $36 billion. The Harper GST cuts, which the Liberals have done nothing serious to stop, will ensure that Ottawa can't grow its lost revenue back. Harper's growing transfers to the provinces, which Dion — true to his word — found a way not to defeat, ensure the provincial governments will be the only ones with the resources to undertake ambitious new projects.

What's particularly worth noting is that not all of the change described by Wells is attributable to the Cons. Indeed, the Libs held a majority government during the first wave of reckless federal tax cuts at the start of the period noted by Wells. Which means that their recent choice to egg the Cons on to provide more of the same - an invitation which the Cons were of course eager to take up - only represents a continuation of what the Libs were already doing.

What remains to be seen is whether Canadians will take the opportunity to stop the demolition of Canada's federal government before it really is too late. But it should be clear that both in government and in opposition, the Libs and Cons have consistently pushed further in that direction - and the current coalition is only the latest example rather than a particularly radical new development.

Excuses, excuses

Not surprisingly, the Cons are now having to retract their false claim that it was NATO (and not Deceivin' Stephen) who decided to uninvite opposition defence critics from the upcoming Bucharest summit. But the new explanation only invites more questions about what the Cons' strategy was to begin with:

The Star reported yesterday that Defence Minister Peter MacKay's office had invited opposition critics to go to Bucharest April 2-4, then rescinded the offer 24 hours later, saying, "NATO officials reduced the number of Canadian officials that ... will be allowed to accompany our minister."

Following inquiries to MacKay's office, director of operations Paul J. Throop sent another note to opposition parties "to clarify" why defence critics had been uninvited.

"I wanted to convey to you our directive on the NATO meeting that we do not require pairing, not that it was a NATO directive. Sorry for the confusion," Throop wrote in an email Wednesday.

Pairing is the parliamentary custom of matching a travelling government MP to an opposition member so that no one party is disadvantaged in the event of a vote in the House of Commons.

Now, it's embarrassing enough that the Cons seem to consider being caught in a lie as "confusion". But consider what the Cons' current message suggests about their reason for inviting the opposition parties.

After all, there's no particular reason why a pairing arrangement requires that opposition MPs be flown out of the country. Indeed, the same process is frequently followed by agreement between the parties when MPs aren't able to attend a vote.

But if one takes the Cons at face value, then they were originally willing to offer opposition critics a place in the Bucharest delegation - at public expense - solely for the purpose of getting them out of the House of Commons. And that's only made all the worse by the Cons now reversing course after apparently deciding they don't want any inconvenient reality coming from the Canadian delegation.

Needless to say, it doesn't look like the latest excuse will be the last one. But regardless of what explanation the Cons eventually settle on, the ultimate question once again is how anybody - whether reporter, pundit or mere observer - could justify believing a word from the Cons in the face of yet another set of contradictory and nonsensical excuses in the making.

For the sake of consistency...

I'll grant that don't see this column as evidence of much more than a need for John Ivison to recalibrate his personal laugh test. But shouldn't those who used supposed positive reinforcement from Deceivin' Stephen as an excuse to bash Jack Layton be attacking Stephane Dion with even more ferocity in the face of a story that the Cons are plotting their strategy to ensure he remains the Libs' leader?

Kicking and screaming

One of the less-reported stories surrounding this year's federal budget was the lack of meaningful investment in environmental programs: most media reports seemed to pick up on the one project funded by the Cons (being a small contribution to a clean coal plant in Estevan) and assume that this would somehow make up for nationwide neglect. But now, Deceivin' Stephen is complaining about doing even that much:

Cutting Canada's greenhouse gas emissions will mean cost increases in the short term for consumers and businesses alike but such costs are manageable, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Tuesday.

But Harper also said he would not commit the federal government to covering potential cost overruns beyond its $240-million share of the recently announced $1.4-billion clean coal project at nearby Boundary Dam.

"All the cost pressures on energy, including admittedly cost pressures of environmental regulation, are likely to lead to upward pressure on power prices across this country in years to come," Harper said when asked about what impact the clean coal project might have on consumers.

The Conservative prime minister said the federal government is trying to help spur on the development of new technology from which energy-producing provinces such as Saskatchewan can benefit over time.

"But there would be no kidding you ... that in the short term enhancing environmental protection, reducing greenhouse gases will cost consumers money, will cost business money. That's just the reality," he said...

SaskPower is putting an additional $758 million into the project, in which industry will also participate. The carbon dioxide stored underground will be used in enhanced oil recovery.

When fully up and running, the project is expected to produce 100 megawatts of power with near-zero greenhouse gas emissions. It would reduce SaskPower's emissions by one megatonne a year.

Mind you, it's not as if the Cons didn't have other choices as to what to fund. The article itself notes a valid critique of the Cons' choice to put their money toward a project which is primarily aimed at continuing the use of fossil fuels. And of course it would be been equally possible to encourage not only cleaner forms of energy, but also conservation measures which would reduce consumer costs.

But rather than taking more positive steps, Harper seems determined to do as little as possible, while grumbling about being forced to do anything at all. And Harper's choice to push the downside of his own government's environmental plan offers yet another indication of the Cons' insincerity in tackling environmental issues.

On astroturf

Shorter Ryan Sparrow:
Sure, Con supporters are utterly incapable of thinking and speaking for themselves. But we believe they're much happier that way.

On missed opportunities

If there was ever any doubt that the Libs took the wrong side in choosing not to vote non-confidence over the Cons' environmental mismanagement, a new survey reported by CanWest should put that to rest:

Four of five Canadians disagree with the Harper government's approach to protect economic growth in Alberta's oilsands sector while allowing its annual global warming-causing emissions to triple over the next decade, a new survey has revealed...

Overall, 79% of Canadians and 81% of Albertans said that greenhouse gas emissions from the sector should be "capped at current levels and then reduced" because of the impact on global warming, according to the McAllister Opinion Research poll. Only 12% of respondents, both in the province and in the country as a whole, said that emissions from the oilsands sector should be "allowed to exceed current levels" so as to encourage economic growth...

(W)hen asked about new projects, 52% of Canadians said they should not be approved until "environmental management issues are resolved," versus 32% who said they should be "permitted so as not to curb economic growth." In Quebec, 59% wanted to suspend new projects to resolve environmental issues versus 24% who said they should be allowed to continue to protect economic growth.

The numbers were closer in Alberta where 48% supported a suspension of new projects versus 40% who did not...

Meanwhile, Canadians are not worried about increasing tensions between the federal government and Alberta because of new regulations, according to the poll. Seventy-two% of respondents said that they supported a "more active role" in managing the environmental impacts of the Alberta oilsands versus 17% who did not.

Based on the survey's results, it seems clear that the Cons have failed miserably in their effort to defuse the environment as an issue. Not only did the survey's respondents disagree with the Cons' choice of targets by an overwhelming majority, but even faced with a tradeoff between environmental protection and oilsands growth the Cons are plainly on the wrong side of public opinion.

Unfortunately, though, the Libs still appear determined to prevent the Cons from answering for their unpopular choices. Which is why on the environment - as well as far too many other issues - the Cons don't apparently see any danger in pushing forward with plans disapproved of by most Canadians.

A consistent philosophy

Shorter Jim Flaherty:
Sure, to the untrained eye it might seem like unrealistic posturing to demand wholesale changes to a provincial budget just a day before it's set to be released. But who really wants to bother consulting or examining the consequences before handing out corporate giveaways or pork-barrel spending?

A failed coalition

Let's grant the Red Green alliance this much: they at least save their opponents time by rebutting their own core premises. Here's Elizabeth May's idea of helpful advice for the NDP:

The recent byelection results show the NDP should end its feud with the Green Party and start figuring out how to work together to topple the minority Conservative government, says Green Leader Elizabeth May...

"My advice to (NDP Leader Jack) Layton which is open and really in the spirit of co-operation -- rethink the policy of constantly denigrating the Greens and acting hostile towards us."

Now, one would think that May would then be careful to make sure to put her money where her mouth is by not putting her primary efforts toward ridings where she can actually topple the Cons. But aside from May's decision to personally attack a riding where a strong NDP candidate was already on the verge of knocking off Peter MacKay, here's May's idea of an additional target riding for her party:

May noted her party doesn't have a regional base like the Conservatives or Bloc Quebecois, but she thinks they do have pockets of support.

She named Vancouver Centre as a possible breakthrough riding in the next general election.

That's right, May plans to stop Harper by listing as her party's second-best prospect in the country a riding where the Libs and the NDP already run 1st and 2nd respectively.

Meanwhile, it would indeed be nice to see a reduction in opposition denigration. But while May's complaint against the NDP doesn't have any particular basis in fact, an obvious example of an actual insult toward the Greens (along with the NDP) comes from Red Green's other wing in the same article:

(Said Bob Rae), "(t)he NDP and the Greens can't replace Mr. Harper. They can snap at his heels, they can bark at his car, but they can't actually get in the car and drive it.

Needless to say, there's nothing like comparing one's opponents to dogs to help raise the tone of Canada's political dialogue.

Of course, May will all too likely be happy to overlook a real slight from the Libs in order to continue whining about imagined ones from the NDP. But all indications are that neither May nor her coalition partner is the least bit interested in actually living up to the purposes which May's backroom deal was supposed to further.

And based on the obvious bad faith on display from both May and her Lib allies, there's no reason at all for the NDP to allow themselves to be dragged down into the same hypocritical morass as well.

Problematic

Shorter Angelo Persichilli:
And in further bad news for the NDP, allow me to speculate that Ed Broadbent might run for the Bloc in Outremont.

On consultation

I'll deal in more detail later with a couple of articles. But let's start by pointing out part of Bill Curry's article which seems to have been far too easily lost in an otherwise negative narrative:

Mr. Layton enjoys solid and widespread support within the party and his caucus. Part of that is because he has taken the party to 30 seats from 13 and has inserted himself into the political consciousness of Quebec.

Lesser known, however, is his commitment to consulting every corner of the party's grassroots. From provincial leaders, to candidates, to political leaders on campus, Mr. Layton spends virtually every free moment canvassing NDP supporters. Further, he scolds his Ottawa staff if they have not shown similar zeal.

Naturally there still figures to be some room for improvement. In particular, it's not clear from the story that Layton's strategy has taken the next step from Ottawa-centred consultation to putting similar effort into connecting NDP supporters - and more importantly potential supporters - across the country.

But Layton's commitment to grassroots input still stands in stark contrast to Stephane Dion's top-down appointments strategy, or Deceivin' Stephen's unwillingness to even consider outside input until his inner circle has completely run out of things to say. Which means that while there's plenty of room to criticize "politics as usual" in the abstract, the NDP's efforts to ensure that its grassroots get heard make it part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

Canada's Snoozing Government

The sale of MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates - along with its publicly-funded Radarsat-2 satellite - would seem to be a relatively easy issue to deal with on its own. But Jim Prentice says he needs another 30 days - presumably to consider whether he can find a way to justify allowing the deal to go through.

The open disposal of blueprints for a sensitive counter-terrorism facility would seem to be a problem no matter what any investigation could come up with. But Stockwell Day is trying to buy time rather than admitting even that much.

And after one public report and several months of public hearings, there's no real reason to keep pushing off on the expected Mulroney/Schreiber inquiry. But instead of fulfilling his promise, Deceivin' Stephen has now hit the snooze button by requesting yet another report from David Johnston - which itself depends on a not-yet-completed report from the House of Commons ethics committee - before he'll even think of putting the inquiry in motion.

Which leads to the question: shouldn't the federal government have at least some interest in getting things done, rather than spending its time asking the public for unjustified extensions?

On expectations

So we've now confirmed that the full extent of the Red Green argument about the NDP holding fire against the Cons amounts to a complaint that while the NDP criticizes the Cons in three quarters of its press releases, it missed an opportunity to do so on Heritage Day. Which, from my standpoint, should nicely dispense with the conventional wisdom surrounding this week's by-election results (even if it doesn't stop Libs or Greens from continuing to ignore the evidence).

That said, let's take one last look at what the NDP could (and should) have done better surrounding the by-elections. And in that regard, I'll expand somewhat on my analysis from before the results came in.

The central theme which I didn't pick up at that time was a gap between the NDP and the other parties in giving voters a specific reason to cast a by-election ballot in their favour. Leading up to the by-elections, the Libs were frantic to try to hold onto their seats and build some momentum; the Cons made ample noise about road-testing their ethnic communities strategy; and the Greens spent plenty of time talking about challenging the NDP and turning their polling numbers into votes.

The NDP, on the other hand, didn't do much (from what I saw) to set any public expectations or goals going into the by-elections. In essence, the message aside from a contrast against other parties was "vote NDP for the sake of voting NDP". And in retrospect, despite the best efforts of the NDP's riding volunteers, that likely meant both that solid NDP supporters had little reason to make the effort to vote, and that swing voters had little immediate reason to favour the NDP over the other parties who had set out what they planned to accomplish through the by-elections.

Now, there are some mitigating factors. In each of the ridings in play the NDP finished between 13% and 45% behind the party in front of it in 2006, making it a dubious proposition to set expectations of passing anybody without any star candidates in the mix. And unlike the Greens, the NDP couldn't plausibly claim a triumph in putting up a double-digit percentage of the vote.

But that doesn't mean the NDP couldn't have worked to set goals and meet them. That could have taken the form of seeking to close some of the existing gaps, or trying to send the Libs a message that their non-opposition isn't acceptable, or even of giving valuable experience to a new set of bright young candidates (which might have both provided an end goal and explained some hiccups in the results).

Instead, the NDP failed to set public expectations before the trip to the polls. Which not only figures to have hurt the NDP's results in the by-elections themselves, but had left the party offering a dubious explanation after the fact as to why those results shouldn't be given too much credence. But even the "we weren't really trying" excuse lends itself to the question of why the party wouldn't have set at least some goals.

In sum, the lesson to be taken from the by-elections should be that the NDP can't afford to let such a substantial event pass without making a concerted effort to influence the media narrative. And hopefully the NDP will both learn from that mistake, and keep up its work on a broader narrative that only it can provide an effective counterbalance to the Cons.

Nicely put

IP challenges Lib supporters to actually provide some evidence to support their well-developed (and ignorance-based) conventional wisdom that the NDP has somehow given the Cons a free pass - with predictably insubstantial results. Now if only the Libs' supporters online weren't well enough trained in their confirmation bias to ignore that kind of post...

Behind the loss

Before this week's by-elections fade from view entirely, let's highlight a couple of little-noticed points surrounding the results in Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River.

First, as the Globe and Mail notes, the Libs' candidate appointment may not have been the only time when the party shot itself in the foot, as Lib-supported voter suppression legislation may have been another factor in the Cons' win:

(Liberal campaign officials) blamed their poor numbers partly on complacency among supporters who thought their candidate, former NDP cabinet minister Joan Beatty, had the riding sewn up, and on new election regulations that complicated the voting process for people on reserves. They say hundreds of people may have been prevented from voting because they didn't have photo ID and couldn't present proof of a civic address.

Of course, the Libs presumably made a calculated trade-off when they voted for the new voting rules in the first place, likely to the effect that they'd gain more ground by making voting difficult in urban areas than they'd lose in ridings like Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River. Which makes it disingenuous at best for the Libs to now be complaining about the obvious results of a bill which they supported.

That said, it does seem noteworthy that even in the face of the same rules, the NDP still managed to increase its share of the vote. Which might well reflect a real increase in NDP support in the riding - even if the Libs have gone out of their way to prevent it from registering at the polls.

Second, I'd mentioned when Beatty was first appointed, the respective vote totals required to win a federal riding as opposed to a provincial one made it doubtful that her provincial connections would get her much of the way to a victory. The flip side, of course, was that the federal riding would include far more voters with the ability to show their support - meaning that Beatty's seeming base level of support would include her provincial supporters plus the Libs' usual voters in the other half of the riding.

But interestingly enough, Beatty's vote total of 3,287 in the by-election lines up almost perfectly with her provincial totals (3,124 in 2007 and 3,268 in 2003) in a riding covering only half the area of Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River. Which offers just another indication of how far the Libs fell short of expectations - and raises the question of whether Beatty, Orchard or anybody else can make up for the ground the Libs gave away.

Post-mortem

IP has an interesting riding-by-riding take on last night's by-election results. But let's take a moment to note one important factor in the results before looking at my take for each party.

While IP's percentage-based graphs make all movement among parties appear to be based on a zero-sum game, the reality of the by-election may be somewhat different due to the lower turnout. In fact, for all the relatively sharp increases on a percentage basis, only two candidates topped their party's actual vote total from 2006 (those being Greens Dan Grice in Vancouver Quadra, and Chris Tindal in Toronto Centre).

In contrast, for example, the Cons' victory in Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River and near-upset in Vancouver Quadra look to have been based primarily on a particularly sharp dropoff in Lib turnout in those ridings; likewise the Greens' passing the NDP for third in Willowdale. And nothing in the results seems to suggest that any party actually bled a substantial amount of support to anybody else, rather than simply having more difficulty motivating past supporters to go to the polls.

So what can each party take from last night's results?

For the Cons, it's hard to disagree with IP's take. But I do have to wonder whether the Cons' unimpressive Ontario results are less a matter of of a rural/urban split, and more a wider-ranging provincial response to the Cons' recent potshots at the province.

While the Libs will naturally be happy with the Ontario results, their biggest issue is again the dropoff in turnout in the Western ridings. While Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River might be explained as the revenge of David Orchard, there's far less apparent reason why two-thirds of the party's supporters would stay home in Vancouver Quadra - particularly when Dion's top organizer is the architect of the B.C. Lib government which included Joyce Murray.

Unfortunately, the NDP is probably the only party which won't find much upside in last night's results; at best, it can say that its losses were modest in ridings where it didn't manage to generate much buzz. As I mentioned yesterday, that outcome seems to reflect the NDP's need to keep its candidates in the headlines rather than relying solely on its ground game - though of course that's sometimes easier said than done.

Finally, the Greens will of course be perfectly content with the outcome in the three urban ridings. And indeed the most promising outcome may be in the lone riding which saw the Greens stay in fourth place, as any continuation of the Libs' drop in Vancouver Quadra could turn that riding into one of the Greens' best chances of sneaking to victory in a four-way split. But their foray into the expectations game looks to have been a disaster, as their now-disappeared internal polling supposedly showing them running second in Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River has given way to an actual result that left them 14 points out of third place.

All of which is to say that like most other developments in Canadian politics since the 2006 election, yesterday's by-elections seem to speak more to inertia and apathy than any lasting change. Which leaves only the question of who's willing to go back to the drawing board to try to radically improve their position (even if that means taking some risks) - and who's convinced that the status quo is close enough to where they want to be to keep playing it safe.

Contributing factors

Tossing in my two cents' worth on today's byelections, it's tough to disagree with the consensus that the Libs figure to hold on to each of the urban ridings while Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River is somewhere between a tossup and a likely Con pickup. But the votes in Toronto Centre, Willowdale and Vancouver Quadra nonetheless figure to offer an interesting experiment as to the different strategies and strengths of the non-Lib parties.

The Cons have gone out of their way to downplay the importance of the ridings, but two elements in play figure to help their cause. And while much has been made of their efforts to connect with ethnic communities, the more significant factor to me looks to be the effect of media coverage which has often proclaimed the Cons to be the main challenger even where history would suggest otherwise. Which combined with the Cons' national advertising strategy makes their result a proxy for the role of the "air war" as opposed to other factors.

The Greens, meanwhile, have plainly gone the other way in the expectations game by releasing surprising-looking internal polls - apparently looking to push their numbers upward for the by-election in hopes that a higher base for next election will make up for the likely disappointment if the Greens do fall short of their own expectations. Which makes them into a test case for the effectiveness of what I'd describe as opinion management - with an even more interesting test to come as to whether they're able to hold onto any gains.

Then there's the NDP, which even with solid candidates all around and a history of contending in two of the ridings has largely stayed under the media radar - a radical departure from the successful push to get Thomas Mulcair's name in the headlines early and often in order to win Outremont.

Of course, that strategy figures to be based on at least some calculation that today's contests will be tougher ones for the NDP. What I'm watching for, though, is any sign that the NDP's behind-the-scenes growth will be able to keep it at least in line with the usual results even despite the lack of public exposure based on a sufficiently strong ground operation. And if not, then one has to figure the NDP will need to put more effort into the strategies that would then have worked for the Cons and/or Greens.

What about the Libs? It's hard to glean much information at all from their results simply because everything seems to be in their favour: star candidates, safe ridings, ample coverage and leads in the polls. Which means that if the Libs can't cruise through, the story may be less one of a particular strategy failing than of a party in serious trouble.

More motion creep

Following up on yesterday's post, it looks like the Cons indeed have previously-unannounced assurances that the U.S. will provide enough added troops to meet the requirement in the Con/Lib Afghanistan motion. But Peter MacKay still can't help looking for excuses to avoid living up to the motion:

In an interview Sunday with The Canadian Press, Defence Minister Peter MacKay confirmed weeks of speculation, saying the Americans have “signalled that they will backstop” Canada with reinforcements in Kandahar after February 2009 if necessary...

Speaking to reporters in Brussels, Mr. MacKay cautioned against talk of a NATO exit strategy...

“This type of insurgency is a long and abiding challenge. This is going to take a consistent, long-term effort,” Mr. MacKay said.

Now, it's bizarre enough to suggest that there should be no exit strategy whatsoever. Surely if there's any purpose at all to NATO's presence, there must be some accompanying expectation as to the circumstances under which an exit would be anticipated, and some planning to accomplish the task.

But the statement is all the more dubious based on the extension motion. After all, one of the supposed victories of the Libs in negotiating the terms of the motion was their obtaining a firm exit date (and accompanying strategy):

(T)his extension of Canada’s military presence in Afghanistan is approved by this House expressly on the condition that:...

(c) the government of Canada notify NATO that Canada will end its presence in Kandahar as of July 2011, and, as of that date, the redeployment of Canadian Forces troops out of Kandahar and their replacement by Afghan forces start as soon as possible, so that it will have been completed by December 2011;

(T)he government of Canada, together with our allies and the government of Afghanistan, must set firm targets and timelines for the training, equiping of the Afghan National Army, the Afghan National Police, the members of the judicial system and the members of the correctional system;

At best, one could argue that MacKay's expectation is that other NATO countries will take over combat in Kandahar beginning in 2011. But then the motion itself makes little sense in referring specifically to timelines for training the Afghan forces who are supposed to serve as permanent replacements, rather than simply stating that somebody else would take over any continued NATO role.

Which means that once again, MacKay looks to have wasted no time in taking back what little ground the Cons may have given in the interests of a supposed compromise. And if the Cons end up in a position to renege on the 2011 end date as well, the responsibility again lies with a supposed opposition party which should have known better than to think Deceivin' Stephen would deal with them in good faith.

Motion creep

As Greg has noted, it was fairly obvious before the Libs gave Deceivin' Stephen his way on the Cons' Afghanistan motion that the Cons wouldn't accept being bound by its terms. But even I didn't expect them to resile from one of its central premises this quickly.

Just a day after the motion passed, here's Peter MacKay refusing to commit to follow the terms of the motion if the extra troops required aren't provided:

Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, it is not yet a foregone conclusion that Canada will be at war in Afghanistan for another three years. For the extension to come into effect, NATO needs to come up with an additional 1,000 soldiers and the deployment of medium and heavy lift capacity. To date no official announcements have been made on additional troops committed to the war or planned procurement of airlift capacity.

Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs clarify today that if these conditions are not met, Canada will not extend its combat mission in Afghanistan?

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member, no, I cannot thank the member for his support for the motion last night.

Last night the Parliament of Canada took the position that Canada would continue in Afghanistan. We would continue a whole of government approach which does include, of course, giving our men and women in uniform the necessary equipment to carry out this mission, to execute the security perimeter that will allow for greater development, and greater efforts at the humanitarian relief that is taking place in that war-torn country.

Canada should be very proud of that effort. We are looking forward, with the support of the Liberal Party, to seeing this mission continue...

Of course, the original motion was on its own terms "expressly on the condition" that additional troops would be provided. But the Cons haven't wasted any time in declaring that an extension is now a done deal - with no reference to the preconditions contained in the motion which haven't been met.

It remains to be seen whether the added troops are indeed a fait accompli based on information which has been withheld from the public. But even if not, it now looks like a distinct possibility that the Cons will be happy to claim that the motion authorizes another two years of combat in any event. And that can only offer one more indication as to the harm being done by the Libs' refusal to stand up to Deceivin' Stephen.

Unprepared

If we needed any more evidence that the Libs' tough talk about finally opposing the Cons in April figures to be as empty as their rhetoric since last fall, the Star provides it with a report on the Libs' disarray in Quebec:

All is not well in the Quebec wing of the federal Liberal party, which held a crisis meeting to deal with grassroots grumbling over election planning that a source described as "close to non-existent."

A group of disgruntled Quebec organizers took the unusual step of activating a clause in the party constitution to force a meeting of the executive committee to discuss their mounting grievances.

"I've never seen that happen before," said a Liberal involved in the party's inner workings for more than two decades...

Several party sources said much of the donkey work of preparing for elections – renting office space, co-ordinating local fundraising chairs, booking phone lines, printing signs – has not yet been done.

"The last time we looked like we were headed for an election, I read in the papers that the Quebec wing isn't ready. Well I don't want to be blamed for that. The executive hasn't met since December," an influential Quebec Liberal fumed before the meeting.

Naturally, the Libs' apparent failure to get the basics of a Quebec campaign in place only figures to make the current party infighting all the worse - as factions within the Libs who have nothing to do thanks to the party's lack of organization instead take out their frustrations on each other. And that in turn seems likely to drive away any star candidates who the Libs may have hoped to lure to their cause.

For now, all indications are that the battle remains an internal one. But after well over a year of Dion's misleadership, there's less and less reason for frustrated Lib supporters to continue to wait for their current party to get its act together - and all the more for them to instead turn to a progressive federalist party which is actually prepared to take on the Cons.

Material witnesses

It doesn't seem to have attracted much attention at the time, but Gilles Duceppe's question on Cadscam yesterday points out an interesting thread in James Moore's answers in Parliament:

(T)he Prime Minister, like everyone in our caucus, knew that Chuck Cadman had received an offer to rejoin our caucus, run for election and be re-elected as a Conservative.

Now, to date Deceivin' Stephen has largely succeeding in funneling all questions through himself, Moore and Peter Van Loan for their usual combination of non-answers and non sequiturs.

But Moore's answer would seem to suggest that the Cons' caucus as a whole was informed of at least some discussions about Cadman in 2005. And that would add dozens more names to the list of individuals who may also be able to shed light on at least some of the party's internal discussions about Cadman - not to mention far more likelihood than before that somebody outside Harper's most trusted cadre of advisors knows something worth bringing to light.

On counterarguments

Following up on yesterday's post about the Libs' latest set of election musings, it's possible that the talk may be aimed at the critique that there's no point in casting a by-election vote for a party whose MPs won't vote to represent their own constituents. But I have to seriously wonder whether "vote for us, we might start doing our jobs next month!" is the message the Libs are looking for in trying to defend their previous seat count.

Falling short

Shorter John Baird, responding to rightful criticism by John Gomery of the Cons' top-down government:
It's completely unfair for Gomery to judge us by his expectations and recommendations for a clean government, since I'm sure we'd look much better if the evaluation was against what we promised... or on second thought, can't you just take our word that we're accountable enough?

Pointers

A couple of quick links for those who haven't seen the posts yet...

First, IP points out the Greens' remarkable lack of any apparent comment on the prospect of bringing down the Cons over their environmental negligence. I'll add only that even if there isn't an official larger deal between the Greens and Libs, it could be that May has simply decided that it's easier to say nothing about the party's signature issue than to risk having to answer questions about how she can justify cutting back-room deals premised on the need to remove Deceivin' Stephen from power when the other party involved is itself refusing to do just that.

Second, Alison highlights the contrast between the Cons' talk about the importance of Radarsat-2 to Canada's sovereignty, and their apparent intention to facilitate the sale of the satellite to an American arms manufacturer. If anything, this story would seem to be the one that deserves more focus from the opposition parties - as the gap between the Cons' rhetoric and their desire to auction off Canadian interests has seldom been quite this stark.

On timing

It's tough to disagree with the near-universal skepticism which has greeted the Libs' declaration that they're seriously considering growing a spine over the course of the next month. But let's note that even if the Libs are finally recognizing that continuing to prop up Deceivin' Stephen is a bad idea, their continued strategy of telegraphing their every possible move can only help the Cons.

After all, as Lib strategists note in Don Martin's column (the third link above), an election campaign will put the national parties on an equal footing when it comes to spending money - while during the period before the writ drops, the Cons' apparent advantage in cash on hand gives them the ability to pour as much money as they like into unregulated pre-campaign advertising.

Now, this is one reason why it would be pure folly for the Libs to delay an election until the fixed election date in the fall of 2009. If the Cons know in advance that the election won't take place until then (or that general time period), then they'll be free to pour millions of extra dollars into an ad blitz over the summer which will still be prominent in voters' minds for the campaign. And it's hard to imagine a starting point more likely to lead to a Con majority than that.

For the same reason, though, any smart Lib strategy to bring down the Cons would involve holding their cards to their vest to prevent the Cons from putting together a pre-campaign ad blitz sooner - rather than hinting a month in advance that they might be willing to oppose Harper.

If the Libs had shown any particular political shrewdness under Dion, I'd wonder if the current sabre-rattling is in fact an indication that they're not willing to force an election. After, if the plan was to wait until fall, it might well be in their interest to provoke the Cons into throwing money into a panicked pre-campaign which won't ultimately accomplish anything.

But based on how the Libs have given advance notice of their every move so far, it seems more likely that they're merely doing the same once again. And if there's anything the Libs have done far too much of already, it's going out of their way to make Stephen Harper's life easier.

Sucking and blowing

Time for today's dose of Con consistency. According to the Cons, this unbudgeted, billion-dollar federal expense isn't even worth discussing. But this unbudgeted, billion-dollar federal expense stands to be solely responsible for pushing federal finances into a deficit.

How far they've come...

Greg Weston puts forward his theory as to what the Cons may have offered Chuck Cadman for his vote. And if he's right, then the scam may have represented the Cons' ultimate repudiation of the movement that gave rise to Harper's party in its current form:

At the risk of inciting mass-protests from the federal pension department, here is a rough estimate of what might have been in the offing for Cadman.

At the time of Cadman's meeting with the two Conservative operatives, he was 57 years old and had been a sitting MP for just over eight years.

As such, he was entitled to an MP's pension, or "retiring allowance" as it is known, regardless if there were an election.

That retiring allowance, based on Cadman's eight years of service, would have been about $29,000 a year.

When he died two months after the mystery meeting, his widow would have been entitled to 60% of that amount, or just over $17,000 a year for the rest of her life, while each of his children would get 10% annually, or just under $3,000.

But a provision in the Commons pension plan allows an MP to "buy" more years of service, either by paying a lump-sum, or through increased monthly premiums over any period up to 20 years.

If Cadman bought an extra 10 years of service, it would have increased the pension to his widow by something in the order of $30,000 a year, and to his children by over $3,000 apiece.

If she lived another 30 years, her dying husband would have effectively provided his family with additional pension benefits worth about $1 million -- something Cadman might well have considered a "$1-million life-insurance policy."

For now, I don't have time to take a detailed look at the law surrounding that kind of scheme: while a party contribution to a candidate is indeed excepted from some of the provisions of the Canada Elections Act, it's hard to see how a loan on special terms wouldn't be seen as a "compensation" under the Parliament of Canada Act. And it's possible that the Cons may have been asking Cadman to take much of the legal risk if money was put into his campaign coffers which wasn't intended to be used for valid electoral purposes.

That said, regardless of the ultimate legal analysis, it would seem deliciously ironic if the heirs to the Reform legacy of protesting "gold-plated MP pensions" attempted to buy their way into power by purchasing a vote with nearly a million dollars from the current MP pension system. And that might explain why Harper would be afraid to admit the facts even if the scheme narrowly managed to stay on the right side of the law.

On targets

It's no secret that there's plenty of reason to doubt the Cons' assumptions when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. But let's note that even from the Cons' choice of starting points, the effect of their apparent plan is to dictate that oil sands development - which already coughs up 18% of all Canadian greenhouse gas emissions - will be the lone industry in the country which is permitted to increase its absolute emissions between now and 2010.

On mismanagement

This weekend's news about Deceivin' Stephen's gaffe on sales tax harmonization is an important enough story in showing that the Cons are sorely lacking in managerial competence. But the picture gets even worse when one looks at the Cons' subsequent "apology".

Here's the main part of the story so far:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Office has apologized to the government of Prince Edward Island for praising the Island for considering harmonizing its provincial sales tax with the GST.

Mr. Harper gave the speech Friday during a luncheon of the Economic Club of Toronto.

But provincial officials called off negotiations two weeks ago, saying they could not reach a deal with Ottawa that was acceptable to the Island government.

It appears nobody told the Prime Minister that negotiations had ended.

"I'm pleased to see Prince Edward Island looking at harmonizing its sales tax with the GST," Mr. Harper said in the speech...

Erin Mitchell, director of communications for Premier Robert Ghiz, said she was at a loss to explain Mr. Harper's comments.

But late Friday night, she said the Island government received a call from the Prime Minister's Office apologizing for the inaccuracy.

"The PMO is now aware that negotiations regarding HST have concluded with the province," she said.

In sum, the Cons tried to push harmonization on PEI, which said it wasn't interested and cut off negotiations. And the Cons were forced to apologize after claiming credit for continued negotiations long after the province had indicated it wasn't interested in what the Cons had to offer.

Which leads to the Cons' public statement for the article:

Carolyn Stewart Olsen, a spokeswoman for Mr. Harper, said they had set aside money in the budget to woo Prince Edward Island into joining the harmonized sales tax.

"We have been in talks," she said. "There is no agreement to date. But we remain hopeful."

She later said that the Prime Minister was told discussions had taken place, but that "we understand there are no discussions at the present time."

In other words, even while trying to explain their own failure to recognize that PEI wasn't interested in harmonization, the Cons still couldn't take "no" for an answer. Instead, they seem to want to use their own gaffe to pressure PEI back to the table for more of the negotiations which the Cons wrongfully pretended were going on already. And even the Cons' subsequent correction to their first explanation would only admit that nothing was going on "at the present time".

Not that it should be much of a surprise that the Cons are once again practicing their distinct brand of strong-arm federalism. But it's still remarkable that Harper can't even acknowledge a mistake without using it as an excuse to try to impose his party's will on an unwilling province. And both the initial mismanagement and the Cons' subsequent spin offer even more reasons why the provinces should be eagerly anticipating the end of the Cons' stay in power.

The new ethical standard

Shorter Rick Fuschi, who is apparently more than ethical enough for Harper's Cons after running for them in 2004 and 2006:
As far as I'm concerned, the real criminal is anybody who won't take our bribe money.

On missions

I'm not sure exactly how "wry" the NDP strategist cited by Greg Weston was in providing quotes for Weston's article. But let's take a moment to note how problematic it would be if some of the NDP's braintrust is indeed narrowly focused on avoiding "anything that would give the Liberals a chance to score points" - as the result could only be a failure of both principle and strategy.

The principle point should be a fairly obvious one. But the question of what strategy is most likely to lead to success for the NDP deserves a bit more of an explanation.

In order to establish itself as a governing alternative, the NDP needs to convince a substantial number of voters of the answers to two questions: whether the Cons deserve to stay in power, and which party deserves to take their place if not. Given the need to get both of those questions answered in the NDP's favour, it makes little sense to concentrate only on the second one - and even less to focus solely on whether a particular action might potentially assist the Libs rather than on whether it can be turned to the NDP's favour.

Moreover, even to the extent the NDP needs to capitalize on Lib weakness now, it won't do that successfully by letting the Libs land more effective blows to Harper when it comes to Con scandals. If the Libs are given a chance to balance their ineffectiveness in opposing the Cons on policy with a relative advantage in challenging the Cons' ethics, then the NDP is far less likely to persuade historic Lib voters that they're a more effective contrast to a government which is wrong on both.

Which means that the NDP needs to keep the Cons' feet to the fire. And while it can validly do so by reaching different conclusions than the Libs as to which scandals and ethical issues need to be brought to light (e.g. choosing a different target for its punches), it can't get anywhere by pulling punches altogether - as the strategist's position would suggest.

Fortunately, the NDP's actions are far more in keeping with what the party should be doing than with what the strategist says it's doing. As I've pointed out, the NDP has in fact made repeated efforts to bring together the opposition to Harper's Cons. Meanwhile, it's the Libs who have refused entreaties to do so, ensuring that they appear as petty in opposition as they are ineffective.

And contrary to what Weston implies in the rest of his article, the NDP has indeed kept challenging the Cons on ethics as well as policy - helping to ensure that the Canadian public does reach the right answer as to whether or not it can afford to leave Harper in power. Which means that as long as the NDP's actions continue where they're headed rather than where the strategist suggests they're aimed, Layton and company should remain on the best possible path for both party and country.

Compare and contrast

For those wondering which opposition parties are actually focused on the Cons and which are most interested in sniping at each other, yesterday's climate change motion offers about as vivid an example as one could find.

After a speech centred on the Cons' failures in office (most notably surrounding Bill C-30), Jack Layton was offered a clear invitation to slam the Libs' management of the environment and performance in opposition. Rather than taking the bait, though, here's what Jack Layton had to say instead:

Mr. Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, CPC):
...
I just wanted to ask this member, who has been around this House longer than I have, if he feels that the previous government acted proactively on behalf of the environment? Does he see anything in the Leader of the Opposition that indicates to him that the action that he desires would be carried forth by the Leader of the Opposition?

The Leader of the Opposition last night tried to pass a motion of non-confidence in the NDP. What does he see from this leader that indicates to him that there would be proactive action on behalf of the Liberal Party?

Hon. Jack Layton:
Mr. Speaker, I choose not to really offer observations on the conduct of other leaders.

I just simply wanted to say that I thought there was a moment of hope in this chamber when we were able to secure agreement from all parties on the issue of climate change to send a piece of legislation to a special committee.

In fact, it was done in a way, using the procedures of the House, that allowed all parties to bring forward their best ideas, to remove those elements of the climate change legislation that would not work, and to replace them with a plan that represented the best thinking of this House.

This does not happen very often, I think members would agree. But when it does happen, it should be celebrated. And not only that, it should be respected...

If there was one issue that Canadians would tell us they want us to work together to address, it would be the climate change crisis and that is exactly what was done by this House. But the attitude of the government is totally disrespectful to this House of Commons.

That is why we have been forced to place a motion of non-confidence on this issue, specific to this particular action by the government, or inaction as it would more appropriately be called.

On the other hand, there's the Libs' environment critic David McGuinty, who was the Libs' main voice in dealing with the motion. And for McGuinty, no invitation was needed to start a round of gratuitous smears toward the NDP:

Before I get into the substance of some of the issues raised in the motion, I do want to make a few general comments about the nature of the motion and some of the motivating factors behind this motion.

First, I would like to remind the House that the official opposition of any political stripe does possess, in the case of a minority government, a certain amount of power. That power culminates, I believe, in the exercising of a decision which would take down a minority government and cause an election. It is a power which, I believe, has to be exercised responsibly, judiciously, and one that cannot be taken lightly.

It is fair to say that this motion is more than tinged in partisanship. The leader of the NDP made comments this morning that were somewhat troubling to me and to the official opposition. He made comments, for example, around the notion, in my view, that the NDP is prepared to put this motion in a confidence form because it is unwilling to cooperate with the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party of Canada in taking the time necessary to expose for Canadians just what has been happening with this minority government. [Ed. note: This is about as accurate as it sounds. About the closest one could find would be Layton's admonition that there was "no time for more mistakes" on climate change.]
...
Why is it wrong for the NDP to play partisan politics with this motion? It is wrong because it is important for Canadians to get to know more about the character, the nature, the values, and the approaches taken by this Prime Minister and his reformed Conservative Party.

So, with respect to the politics of this motion, that is all I really wanted to say, except that it is unfortunate that the NDP, by couching this important climate change debate on a motion of confidence, is really aiding and abetting the government in its attempts to hide from plain public view what has been happening on a number of key fronts...

With respect to the motion, the NDP may say that it cares about climate change, but it is the reason we have a Conservative government today. [Ed. note: What reason could there possibly be to doubt the Libs' conventional wisdom on that?] Its members brought down the Liberal government right when the world came to Canada for the 2005 Montreal climate change conference, despite all of the leader of the NDP's rhetoric. He is accountable to the Canadian people for that decision. He will ultimately be accountable for these kinds of partisan moves.

So, let's ask the question: based on the above choices of focus on a subject which both the NDP and the Libs recognize to be a core issue facing the country, which opposition party is actually focused on holding the Cons to account, and which is once again too busy jockeying for position against its opposition rivals to keep the Cons under the microscope?

Testing

In comments at We Move to Canada, Sarah O provides Peter Stoffer's explanation for his vote on C-484, essentially reflecting a personal policy of encouraging as many private member's bills as possible to reach the committee stage even if he's opposed in substance.

While that explanation certainly isn't as damaging as support for the bill in substance, it's still hard to see any reasonable justification for prioritizing form over content to that great an extent - particularly when it would seem to make it less likely that more positive bills will actually get dealt with in committee. And given that the Libs aren't doing all that much else at the moment, can it be long before they introduce a Let's Lock Up Peter Stoffer and Throw Away the Key Act to challenge the strength of Stoffer's convictions?

Uncooperative efforts

Kuri has already blogged about NDP MP Irene Mathyssen's valiant attempt to turn the Libs' sad excuse for a motion into something that all opposition parties could agree on to highlight the Cons' continued failure to consider the needs of Canadian women. But Lib MP Maria Minna's reaction may say even more about the Libs' current lack of direction than the original motion:

Mrs. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP):
...I move that the motion be amended by deleting all the words “that, therefore” and all the words after, and replace them with: “that this House acknowledge International Women's Week and call on the government to reinstate the court challenges program, restore funding to research and advocacy groups under women's program, reopen the 12 regional offices of Status of Women Canada, create a national housing program, provide resources for an early learning and child care program, implement proactive pay equity legislation, address violence against women, reform the employment insurance program to allow women better access to it, and recognize that women in Canada deserve fairness, affordability, equal opportunity, equal pay for work of equal value, a decent standard of living, and the freedom to live without fear”.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):
Before ruling on the receivability of the amendment, it is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion.

Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Beaches—East York if she consents to this amendment being moved.

Hon. Maria Minna:
I do not, Mr. Speaker.

In sum, rather than simply leaving the Libs to twist in the wind based on their own poor strategy, the NDP actually offered a way to salvage a united front against the Cons. But even after the firestorm that immediately followed their introduction of the motion, the Libs still weren't interested in acknowledging that the motion could be improved - preferring to stumble forward with a motion doomed to both fail in Parliament and embarrass the Libs as a party, rather than redirecting the publicity surrounding the motion toward more constructive ends.

Which means that amazingly enough, Minna seems to have managed to make the Libs' most obvious misstep yet even worse. And given the track record of the Libs under Dion, it only seems like a matter of time before they find a way to descend even further.

Uncanny

Isn't it an interesting coincidence how many Lib supporters who are normally thoroughly skeptical about Deceivin' Stephen's manipulations suddenly lose all ability to question Harper's motives if it means getting to bash the NDP?

On interference

Shorter David Wilkins:
As a lifetime partisan of the party which stands to benefit from the Harper government's meddling in the U.S. elections, I see no reason why anybody should be held accountable for the leaks.

Diminishing returns

One more question worth asking about the Kerry Joseph to Toronto trade - though I hope the 'Riders have done their due diligence to make sure that the return they got on paper will materialize.

As Eric Tillman was at pains to point out back when it was reported that the 'Riders were over the salary cap for 2007, the league's audits of team finances aren't going to be available until April. And one of the penalties for exceeding the salary cap is the loss of a first-round draft pick.

So is it possible that a significant chunk of the already-unimpressive return for KJ will vanish into thin air if the Argos turn out to be over the cap?

Voting patterns

It's understandable that most of the talk about House of Commons votes today has focused on the Cons' attempt to start clawing away at reproductive rights. (For commentary on C-484, see here, here, here, here and here, among others. And no, I won't try to defend Peter Stoffer's vote on what couldn't be a more obvious attempt by the anti-choice crowd to get a foot in the door under Canadian law.)

But another noteworthy vote seems to have taken place largely without comment yesterday, as the Libs voted with the Cons against a motion to correct the film industry censorship provisions of Bill C-10 - with the excuse that the Senate which has already shown its willingness to be pushed around by Deceivin' Stephen should be counted on to fix the problem. Which, combined with the Libs' consistent complicity in the Cons' agenda since last fall, can only leave Canadian voters to consider the likelihood that they're better off not putting votes in the hands of a party which doesn't seem interested in using them to support the priorities it claims to care about.

A raw deal

While I try to keep fairly close tabs on the sports scene, I don't often cover sports subjects on this blog; indeed, I think I have exactly once before, when the 'Riders made the most significant personnel move in the franchise's recent history. That is, until today, when they apparently decided they'd had enough of a Grey Cup-calibre quarterback.

But while I've seen plenty of criticism of the reported trade sending Kerry Joseph to Toronto for Glenn January, Ronald Flemons and draft picks, it looks to me like the deal is even worse than it would seem on the surface.

I'll note first that I haven't seem much discussion of the alternative which Eric Tillman seems to have rejected: namely, giving Joseph a contract extension for the kind of money he's looking for (which I presume to be in the 300-400K range).

Based on the CFL's salary management system, that is a lot of money to put into a single player. But KJ may be one of the few players in the league who's more than worth it - even at age 34.

To see why, it's worth drawing a distinction between young player's skills and old player's skills, as others have done (for example) in baseball. Even at 34, Joseph's speed was better than any other CFL starting QB, and his arm strength well within range of anybody other than Michael Bishop. Which means that his athletic gifts - or "young player's skills" - still figure to be well above average for a long time to come.

Meanwhile, unlike most quarterbacks his age, there's still some realistic prospect of improvement in the "old player's skills" category (particularly in throwing accuracy, and possibly somewhat in decision-making as well) due to Joseph's relative inexperience at the position. Which means that Joseph could easily be a better player in the next five years than he was in the last five - making a long-term contract a positive prospect rather than a negative one.

Let's accept, though, that Joseph might have left the 'Riders after the 2008 season rather than re-upping. Even then, I'd argue that the smart play would have been to keep him around to finish up his contract.

After all, Tillman did recently acquire a quarterback with a profile relatively similar to Joseph's in Steven Jyles. But there doesn't seem to be much indication that Jyles is ready to start just yet, due to both accuracy and interception issues. And a year of mentoring from the prototype for his style of play would seem to significantly improve Jyles' chances of evolving into a CFL starter for 2009.

Which means that by keeping Joseph, the 'Riders would have not only maintained a better chance of winning in '08, but also enjoyed a greater likelihood of developing an impact starter for the longer term.

In Joseph's absence, the 'Riders' presumptive QB is now Marcus Crandell, who doesn't offer anything close to KJ's athletic ability. With the team now unable to rely on Joseph to stretch out plays and spread the defence, the entire offence will need to adjust to having less time and space to work with - likely making the jobs of every offensive player more difficult. And since Crandell will need to try to outguess defences rather than being able to create space, the 'Riders figure to be far worse off in the turnover department as well, making the defence's job more difficult too.

Needless to say, the 'Riders did get some talent in return. But I don't see the new acquisitions taking any of the edge off the deal: Flemons figures at best to challenge Kitwana Jones to take over Fred Perry's lineup spot, January doesn't figure to be much of a long-term improvement on the better of Steve Morley or Chris Best, and the draft picks are at best lottery tickets for the long term.

Of course, Eric Tillman has pleasantly surprised with some odd-looking moves before - e.g. bringing in a dozen qualified receivers to last year's camp while Gainer looked to have a shot at a backup RB spot, then reversing that positional imbalance by the middle of the season.

But while Tillman has shown plenty of ingenuity in pulling extra backs and receivers out of thin air, it's far harder to find a QB with enough skill and experience to lead a team to the top of the league. And it looks like Tillman just gave away what may have been the least replaceable player in the CFL for exactly the kind of fungible assets he should have been able to track down elsewhere.

In agreement

The Globe and Mail reports that Lib Ethics Committee Chair Paul Szabo agrees with NDP MP Pat Martin's take that for now, Cadscam should be dealt with by the RCMP rather than the committee:

(E)ven the Liberal chairman of (the ethics) committee does not agree that it is the right venue for an airing of the facts in the Cadman case.

“The best outcome here to clear the water is for an RCMP investigation,” Paul Szabo said. “We're not a court. We can't lay charges. It would just delay, ultimately, the process.”

Which would seem to give those principled Libs who have spent the last couple of days bashing Martin for saying the exact same thing a choice if they want to be consistent: they can either turn their vitriol against Szabo as well on the substance of the matter, or alternatively start slamming Elizabeth May for being the lone holdout against a united national opposition front. But needless to say, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for either to happen.

On political choices

I'll toss in my two cents in response to Steve's concerns about the NDP's stance on Cadscam. While I don't agree entirely with Pat Martin's public stances, it seems to me there's an awfully good reason for the Ethics Committee not to drop everything now in order to race to deal with Cadscam - not because it wouldn't be a plus to deal with the matter quickly, but because of what the committee would presumably leave behind in order to do so.

Remember that one of the major recent questions in the Mulroney/Schreiber scandal (remember that?) was when - if ever - Deceivin' Stephen would keep his promise to call a public inquiry. While the opposition may have reasonably expected the inquiry to start once the Ethics Committee's hearings ended, Con MP Russ Hiebert has made clear that Harper plans on waiting until after the committee completes its report into the matter. And if anybody thinks Heibert had anything but the full approval of Harper in putting that position forward, Doug Finley has a million-dollar life insurance policy he'd like to sell them.

So why not simply put Mulroney/Schreiber on hold while dealing with Cadscam, and finish off the report later? As I've pointed out earlier, without some kind of mandate to keep Schreiber in the country, there's every danger that the Cons could find some way to shuttle him off the continent and permanently bury any potential inquiry. Which would of course cost Canadians any hope of getting to the truth behind another major Con scandal, and equally cost the opposition the political gains that come with getting to the facts behind Harper's Godfather.

And even if Schreiber wasn't sent on the next available plane across the Atlantic, it's still entirely possible that Harper would declare that with the committee having lost interest, he wouldn't see any reason to follow through on the promised inquiry.

As a result, the choice isn't necessarily between dealing with Cadscam now and Mulroney later or vice versa. Instead, the choice may well be between dealing with Mulroney now to keep both issues live - or putting all the opposition's eggs in one basket and missing out on another prime opportunity to highlight the past the Cons would prefer to bury.

Of course, the Mulroney/Schreiber story doesn't necessarily reflect well on the Libs either...which is why it's understandable that they'd be looking for a narrative of all Cadscam, all the time. But if one's goal is to get all the Cons' shady dealings into the public eye, it's entirely reasonable to want to make sure the Ethics Committee finishes off its Mulroney report as the top current priority.

Square one

If the Cons weren't having a bad enough week thanks to Cadscam, it just got worse, as the London Court of International Arbitration awarded Canada its first (partial) victory on softwood lumber since the Cons nullified Canada's long string of previous wins. Which, based on the Cons' track record, means that they'll now have to go back to the drawing board to figure out how to give away the successful part of today's ruling.

If they're looking for some advice as to how to go about that, though, the Court apparently had plenty to say about the Cons' poor job of developing the agreement itself:

As they issued their ruling, the three judges who handled the dispute remarked on how poorly worded the softwood deal is.

“The Tribunal has found the provisions of the SLA to be less clear and consistent than one might hope for in a bilateral treaty so long negotiated and so closely scrutinized and debated by the contracting states,” the judges said.

That's right: Deceivin' Stephen and his crew aren't even competent enough to deliberately give away the farm without finding a way to screw it up. Which can only make it all the more clear why it's a bad idea to have the Cons representing Canada's interests abroad - and all the more reason for hope that more reasonable parties will soon be in charge of Canada/U.S. trade issues on both sides of the border.

Non-confidence

From a trivia standpoint, I'm curious as to whether there's any precedent for the vote result on the Libs' budget amendment yesterday.

In particular, when was the last time any matter which was seen as important enough to raise in the House of Commons received only 7 "yea" votes?

Has it ever happened for an official party position of the Official Opposition - or a party with more than 50 (or even 20) seats?

And when was the last time a party who didn't abstain completely had more MPs participate in a debate than actually bother to vote?

Update: One other point of interest from my end. Votes in the House of Commons are dealt with by voice rather than recorded votes unless 5 or more members stand to request that yeas and nays be counted. And I'm curious as to who it was that stood to put numbers behind what was already a "nay" result: did the Libs themselves want to record their meager presence, or did members from other parties ask for a standing vote on an issue they'd already won?

Worst. Bluff. Ever.

Deceivin' Stephen figures that a threat to sue the Libs for defamation will somehow help his own cause when it comes to Cadscam. But let's consider what would actually happen if a lawsuit went forward.

After all, as much as the Cons would like to make the issue one of parliamentary privilege alone, truth (or technically "justification") is a full defence to a claim in libel. And if the Libs were to raise that as a defence, with the alleged truth of their statements brought into issue, they'd be entitled to full disclosure of any documents relevant to the question of what the Cons did or didn't offer to Cadman.

Of course, the libel notice seems to want to make the cut both ways by demanding access to the Libs' own internal computer systems. But it's hard to see how that could be of any relevance to what was actually published - while the Libs' entitlement to information from the Cons would be obvious.

What's more, Harper would almost certainly have to testify personally as to what actually happened. And as thoroughly as the Cons may be able to stonewall during the course of an hour-long question period or even a committee hearing, it would be an entirely different matter for Harper to avoid saying something damaging during an extended examination for discovery focused on a detailed review of such topics as what he meant by "financial considerations (Cadman) might lose due to an election" in his taped interview with Tom Zytaruk.

And of course Flanagan, Finley, and anybody else with relevant knowledge would come under similar scrutiny - potentially laying bare the Cons' entire command structure. Which means that if Harper were foolish enough to actually go forward with the threatened lawsuit, the effect might well be to finally open the floodgates to exactly the kind of information which the Cons have gone to severe lengths to suppress.

Finally, the outcome of a trial would depend almost entirely on a technical discussion as to the definition of the word "bribe". Which must surely be the last word Harper wants permanently associated with himself personally - especially when it's not too late to try to deflect most of the responsibility.

In sum, the Libs' response to the libel threat should be a hearty "bring it on". And if the added bonus is to see Harper back down, they surely can't complain about that result either.

Cult Conservatives

CBC reports on the Cons' latest sad effort to win back lost support in Newfoundland. And it looks like they may soon be in conflict with Charles McVety and his fundamentalist friends as to just which religion they're trying to impose:

Defence Minister Peter MacKay says Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn — Newfoundland and Labrador's federal cabinet representative — is getting an unfairly rough ride at home.

"Sometimes you know, a prophet is least appreciated in his own land," said MacKay, who visited the province over the weekend for a meeting of Atlantic Conservative MPs and to make some funding announcements.

Of course, it might be pointed out that even if one believes that the Cons' goal is the stuff of prophecy rather than farce, MacKay's appeal wouldn't make much sense. After all, the most-respected prophetic figures tend to be those who stand by their vision even when it isn't particularly popular, rather than feeling the need to send a slightly higher-ranking cleric to whine about how it's not fair to question the prophet's words.

But then, it's worth asking just why MacKay would select the term that he did. And it would seem that MacKay's choice to use "prophet" to describe Hearn would seem to offer yet another example of the Cons trying to operate more like a cult than a political party.

On creative insults

For all the justified talk about Cadscam this weekend, I'm surprised one tidbit seems to have passed without notice even as Garth Turner blogged about his exchange with James Moore:

Hon. Garth Turner (l): Thank you, speaker. When I was a Conservative member of parliament, before that party threw me out, I heard the prime minister call Chuck Cadman a poor M.P. The prime minister said Mr. Cadman was more concerned with ethics and with the country than he was with political organization and power.

Mr. Speaker, I have always wondered why the prime minister was so angry at the late Chuck Cadman, but now we know a lot more. Was it simply because he could not be bribed?

The speaker: The honourable parliamentary secretary to the minister of public works.

James Moore (c): Mr. Speaker, how dare — the member from Halton never served with Chuck Cadman. He didn’t know Chuck Cadman. Chuck Cadman supported the prime minister when he was leader of the opposition, supported him in his leadership races. The prime minister wanted him to rejoin the Conservative party.

Chuck Cadman was a dear friend of mine from a neighboring riding. And we always supported Chuck Cadman. He was a fantastic human being, a great member of parliament and a dear friend. He has no proof. He has no evidence that the prime minister ever said that about Chuck Cadman. That’s outrageous.

We honour Chuck Cadman’s memory. He was a dear friend. The member from Halton should withdraw that ridiculous question and statement.

From what I can tell, Moore's response offers one of the best examples yet of Cons' crass partisan focus - and the gap between that narrow-minded view and what Canadians would actually expect from their government.

Turner's question can be broken into two premises: that Cadman was known to put ethics and principles ahead of purely partisan interests, and that as far as Harper was concerned that made Cadman a "poor M.P.". The lone statement about Cadman personally is the first one, while the latter is obviously a matter of Harper's judgment rather than a direct slight to Cadman.

But Moore's choice of responses - which of course fit with the Cons' set of talking points last week - was to the effect that Turner's question somehow represented an affront to Cadman, to the point where it would be necessary to rebut it with a positive opinion of Cadman. Which leads to the question of what in Turner's question could possibly be offensive to Cadman personally.

From what I can tell, Moore's attempt to claim outrage on Cadman's behalf only makes sense if one assumes either:
- that it's actually an insult to describe somebody as more concerned with ethics than political power; or
- that Harper personally is infallible, such that the mere fact that he had offered his disapproval must be a sign of bad character on the part of the subject without even considering whether Harper was in the wrong.

What's truly sad is that based on how the Cons have operated under Harper, it's entirely possible that one or both could be seen as true within the party. But it seems highly likely that most of the swing voters who they're now courting would disagree strongly with both - and that the more Harper's "Cons over country" philosophy gets aired in public, the less likely those voters are to provide Harper with the power he's so bent on pursuing.