On motivating factors

Jane Taber's column on the first quarter fund-raising numbers adds a bit more information about. And what's particularly noteworthy is the type of appeal which seems to work best for the NDP compared to the Cons.

Remember this post from last week, where the NDP mentioned which fund-raising appeal had helped bring in the most contributions:

An NDP fundraising appeal that asked, "Who will stand up to Stephen Harper's agenda?" proved a winner for the party.

"We'll stand in our places and vote against him – and face him in an election if we have to," the email read.

That effort won the party donations that totalled five figures, twice as much as other recent fundraising missives.

In contrast, here's what spurred the Cons' base into the most action:

For their part, the Conservatives say a fundraising campaign in which they criticized the CBC drove a significant number of donations into their coffers.

"It was overwhelmingly our single biggest fundraising initiative," said a Tory official. Late last year, party campaign director Doug Finley sent out a letter asking for money after reports that a CBC reporter supplied questions to a Liberal MP during a committee hearing.

"It demonstrates a huge level of suspicion amongst grassroots Canadians about the Liberal Party and the CBC," the official said.

Now, it's striking enough that the Cons' base was most motivated by a narrow gripe about the CBC rather than any agreement or disagreement as to any party's policies. Needless to say, that's in stark contrast to the NDP's appeal based on opposing Harper's broad agenda.

But what's even more significant is the continued gap between the will of the grassroots as expressed in their fund-raising response, and the public face put on by Deceivin' Stephen.

After all, Harper and his inner circle largely stayed out of the public fray in the CBC dispute - presumably in large part because for all the money their party brings in by bashing the CBC, they can't afford to do so personally due to the impact that would have on voters. That disconnect between what the Cons' base wants to see from the party and what the Cons pretend to be in public hints at best at some serious tension within the party, and at worst at what Canadians can expect if the Cons ever win a majority.

In contrast, the message which achieved the most fund-raising success for the NDP is the same one which the party has gladly presented to the public as its central theme ever since the Libs starting propping up the Harper government. Which means that unlike the Cons, the NDP doesn't face a fundamental conflict between its base and the voters it's trying to reach out to. And that can only help the NDP's cause in both raising funds and winning new voters going forward.

On contributions

While there's been some attention paid to the latest federal fund-raising numbers for the first quarter of 2008, let's point out just how it is that the NDP has pulled into a solid second place in the fund-raising standings.

Previously, the NDP has consistently tapped a fairly large base of support for relatively small donations. (See the 2007 numbers listed at the link.) And that generally led to results such as those in 2007, when the Libs raised more money than the NDP despite having barely 2/3 as many donors.

But for the first quarter of 2008, the NDP has actually managed to pull ahead of the Libs on a per-donor basis ($84 to $83) - in the process also topping its 2007 average of $75 despite each contributor having three more quarters in which to boost their donations. And all that while maintaining a healthy lead in the number of contributors.

Of course, a single quarter's fund-raising numbers may only say so much - particularly when the NDP had an even better first quarter last year which didn't carry over to the rest of the year. But the new comparative advantages over the Libs have to bode well for the NDP's ability to compete on other terrain as well.

Clear communication

It hasn't taken long for the Cons to try to backtrack somewhat from their draft communications plan which would force even independent officers of Parliament to have their public communications vetted by Deceivin' Stephen's inner circle. But it's worth noting both that the Cons' clarification still looks to create problems for even the offices which should most obviously be excluded from the plan, and that the proposal still looks seriously problematic even if it's going to apply more narrowly.

First, let's take a look at what the Cons have said with respect to the Auditor General and other offices which would fall under the policy:

Treasury Board officials claim it's a misunderstanding as they try to "simplify" the government's communications policies. And they insist that the statutory independence of these agencies would trump any new guidelines.

"I can assure you that we respect the independence of the officers of Parliament and this government would not do anything inconsistent with the independent role of those officers," Treasury Board President Vic Toews told the Commons yesterday.

In March, he sent a letter to officers of Parliament saying that he accepts that not all Treasury Board policies can be applied to the independent agencies. He said disputes would be handled on a "case-by-case" basis.

His spokesperson, Mike Storeshaw, said that the new communications policy "will respect and maintain the independence of agents of Parliament like the (auditor-general), as they always have."

If there's anything we've learned from the Cons' stay in office, though, it's that the Cons tend to read what they want in the law rather than what's actually there - and Conadscam offers a prime example of the Cons refusing to acknowledge that their interpretation could possibly be fallible.

Based on that background, there's a serious risk that the Cons will handle any "disputes" by sticking to their own interpretation of what an office should be able to say, and forcing independent offices to go to court to affirm their ability to say a single word more. And while it might suit the Cons just fine to mire Canada's independent watchdogs in litigation rather than being able to do their jobs unimpeded, it should be obvious that the effect would seriously affect the ability of those offices to hold the Cons accountable.

Moreover, the Cons' "case-by-case" handling of disputes looks like it could relate to specific communications "products" rather than offices as a whole - meaning that every press release which the Cons would like to see re-worded would be the start of a new battle.

So the Cons' plan still figures to cause problems even for the likes of the Auditor General and the Information Commissioner (i.e. independent entities whose main functions include determining whether the government is hiding information which should be made public).

But let's turn to a broader question which seems to have been missed so far. Even leaving aside offices which are independent by statute, what valid explanation can there possibly be for the Privy Council Office demanding to vet every single press release or public contact coming from every single entity related to the federal government?

From what I can tell, this is the most ridiculous example yet of Deceivin' Stephen's obsessive micromanagement. And it should be fairly obvious that such a requirement will make it more difficult for every branch of the federal government to get anything done - particularly since there's no indication that the Cons have given any meaningful thought to whether the PMO has the ability to handle what would figure to be a significant amount of material.

Of course, it's not entirely clear just how much of the plan is an extension of what the Cons already have in place, and how much has already been in effect for some time. But from Sheila Fraser's testimony, it looks like an already secretive government is trying to put in place wording designed to expand Harper's control even further - and to force even arm's-length bodies to fight for any ability to inform the public. And if the Cons see a need to formulate their communications guidelines on the basis that they can't afford to have any government office speak openly and honestly, there doesn't seem much reason to dispute that conclusion.

On non-accomplishments

With the stench of scandal rapidly enveloping the Harper government, it might be easy to lose sight of just how useless the Cons have been while in power. But the Cons themselves took the opportunity to remind us in yesterday's question period, using one of their allotted questions to try to take credit for the Manitoba NDP's announcement that it will put $92 million of provincial money into creating new child care spaces.

Suffice it to say that the Cons can plausibly claim about as much credit for the spaces as I can for the 'Riders' Grey Cup win. (And even that might be on the generous side, since unlike the Cons I didn't tear up an agreement intended to reach the end result.)

Since the Cons have cleared out federal coffers to the point where they can't can't afford to spend money on meaningful new initiaties, they don't figure to have much more to run on than what they've done to date. But even the Cons apparently recognize that they have so little to their credit as to need to latch on to a provincial NDP government's accomplishments. Which signals that while the scandals may offer plenty of reason to doubt the Cons' fitness for office, it's the track record in office that offers the most pressing need to remove Deceivin' Stephen from power.

On opportunities

Last weekend, I noted that there's some reason to suspect that the NDP is taking steps toward a more open form of politics than we currently see on the federal scene. Crawford Kilian is less hopeful, but offers an analysis of what any party could stand to gain by moving past narrow scripting:

If Canadian politicians study Obama too, they must realize that becoming a two-way, interactive democracy will require big changes -- and probably the biggest will be personnel changes at the top.
...
Canadian politicians will eventually figure out how to apply Obama's armoury of communication skills to our own battles. Some party will realize it needs a new leader -- not a web-savvy Trudeau or Mulroney, but a person of our own time who understands both us and the media we use as a communicating community.

That party will stay in power in this century the way Mackenzie King's stayed in power in the last.

The lack of any strong moves in the direction of a more interactive political model strikes me as especially surprising in the context of the current federal stalemate - which should seemingly leave every party looking for the next great possible advantage, rather than clinging to a status quo which nobody's particularly happy with.

Particularly with the Cons and Libs clinging to their nominally risk-averse strategies in hope that the other will stumble in an election campaign, though, the door is wide open for the NDP to present a stark contrast to the one-way messaging of Harper and Dion. And the opportunity is one which the NDP should be happy to take.

On crisis management

JimBobby is right to point out that the global food crisis deserves more attention than it's getting. So let's note a couple of facets of the story which seem to have passed largely without comment so far.

First of all, from the Globe and Mail story pointed out by JimBobby, it's worth pointing out just what it took for the U.N. to take note of the need for action:

The United Nations plans to establish a task force to tackle the global food crisis to avert "social unrest on an unprecedented scale," Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Tuesday.

Mr. Ban, who will lead the task force, said its first priority will be to meet the $755-million (U.S.) shortfall in funding for the World Food Program.

"Without full funding of these emergency requirements, we risk again the spectre of widespread hunger, malnutrition and social unrest on an unprecedented scale," he told reporters in the Swiss capital, Bern, where the UN agency chiefs have been meeting.

Obviously the anticipated increase in starvation may make the stakes higher than usual. But as JimBobby notes, the pre-crisis situation already involved 24,000 deaths every day due to starvation. And given that that number apparently wasn't seen as deserving of special attention, it seems that the possibility of "social unrest" is serving as a greater motivator than any agreement that hunger should be tackled in general.

Even once it's acknowledged that there's some need for action, of course, it still falls to individual countries to determine - if at all - they plan to improve matters. And the indications from Canada don't look promising at this point, as only the NDP appears willing to discuss whether proposed regulations on ethanol might make matters worse:

Concerned about the widening food shortage, the NDP has introduced an amendment seeking to have Bill C-33 sent back to committee where issues such as food scarcity, and whether or not ethanol is helping the environment, can be considered before the law is passed.

"We need to take a breath here and think about this," said Nathan Cullen, NDP environment critic. "Politicians need a little humility, and sometimes they need to say that it's time to think before we act, especially in light of recent events."

Which would seem to be an eminently sensible suggestion as to one means not to make the problems worse - particularly if coupled with discussion about contributions to the World Food Program and other ways to help.

But even Lib David McGuinty responded by trying to shout down any discussion of whether the impact of biofuels on food supplies should be considered. And given the Cons' connections to the industry group which pushed for an ethanol plan based on foods rather than other inputs, there's little prospect that Canada's possible role in contributing to the diversion of food will receive the attention it deserves.

Excuses, excuses

Shorter Pierre Poilievre, delivering the Cons' latest pathetic attempt to justify Conadscam:
If somebody once wrote that Canada's election laws were ineffectual, then that means we can safely ignore them.

Time to change course

The CP notes that the Cons' economic management figures to be a serious issue in any federal election campaign in the near future. But it's worth noting that it isn't just the Cons' probable "stay the course" response to the economic downturn that figures to come under fire.

Instead, the more important issue is the Cons' role in exacerbating the downturn to begin with. Even having come into power just as the U.S. economy was starting to collapse under the weight of corporatism and irresponsible tax slashing, Deceivin' Stephen's government has done nothing but to try to replicate that pattern in Canada. And whether or not it was possible to outright avoid the effects of the U.S.' downturn, it should be obvious that following the same flawed blueprint would only make matters worse for Canada.

Which means that regardless of how the Cons actually respond to any downturn, they and their governing philosophy can't escape blame for its arrival in the first place. And that should be the more important factor in any decision as to whether or not the Cons are fit to manage Canada's economy.

The future is wide open

Following up on this morning's post, Bruce Campion-Smith's article today nicely discusses how the NDP has offered the true opposition to Deceivin' Stephen and the Cons. But while the choice of message may be somewhat of a gimme in positioning the NDP in the wake of the Libs' dereliction of duty, it's particularly worth noting the NDP's willingness to open up some of the information which the other federal parties would generally keep close to the vest:

Federal New Democrats are enjoying a bump in membership, a rise in fundraising and a spring in their step these days. And they're quietly giving thanks to Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion.

Dion's decisions to abstain on key Commons votes on immigration changes, climate change and the Tory's big tax cuts have given New Democrats political room to declare they are Parliament's "progressive" party...

The Liberals have been careful in recent months not to oppose the government on key issues, which could force an election they don't want. And while the evidence is anecdotal, the New Democrats seem to be reaping the fallout.

An NDP fundraising appeal that asked, "Who will stand up to Stephen Harper's agenda?" proved a winner for the party.

"We'll stand in our places and vote against him – and face him in an election if we have to," the email read.

That effort won the party donations that totalled five figures, twice as much as other recent fundraising missives.

The party is seeing an uptick in membership, too. In the first quarter of 2008, the NDP added 504 new members – more than double the 180 who joined the ranks last year.

"People are coming and talking to us and appreciating that we're standing up... . I've noticed a difference," Layton said.

Now, my initial reaction is that the numbers themselves are relatively moderate. While the NDP obviously has to be happy to be adding members and discovering a message which seems to offer a fund-raising boost, there's little indication that membership numbers in three digits or financial contributions in five will substantially affect the NDP's position.

But particularly in the face of Harper's culture of secrecy, it's more significant that the NDP taking at least some tentative steps toward a more open form of politics by going public with these internal details in the first place.

When it comes to membership numbers, my quick attempt at research for a post last year didn't turn up anything approaching current totals for Canada's federal political parties. While the NDP's base numbers still aren't clear, it's still interesting to see what type of recruitment can be expected - particularly during what looks to have been a relatively quiet period for the party. And if the NDP is indeed accelerating its membership growth after having already been equal with the Libs last year, then that can only bode well for its long-term prospects.

And it's even more significant that the NDP has made public fund-raising numbers associated with a particular campaign, rather than limiting its disclosure to what's required in quarterly reports to Elections Canada. I've argued before that any political party should be looking at the effectiveness of fund-raising appeals to see what issues best motivate its base. But the NDP has gone a step further by both allowing at least some public insight into how money is normally raised, and what message has been most successful in boosting that number lately.

What's more, the NDP's willingness to put more information in the hands of the public comes at the same time as Elizabeth May's top-down control over the Greens has boiled over again. Given that the Libs have fought accountability tooth and nail and the Cons well known for Harper's micromanagement and secrecy covering virtually everything done within their party and government (not to mention being called out for lies by Canada's leading accountability watchdog), the NDP has a prime opportunity to push to be identified as the only party which values accountability and public information for itself as well as for others.

Now, there's undoubtedly a question to be raised as to whether the NDP plans to do more of the same and indeed expand its range of disclosure in the future, or whether the current openness is based solely on wanting to highlight some immediate good news. And I'll be disappointed if it turns out to be the latter.

But the door is open for the NDP to set itself apart from the top-down, unaccountable style of the other parties. And if it can take that mantle along with the "true opposition" title as its main themes heading into the next federal election, then the NDP's recent gains in the polls and in the eyes of the media should be just the beginning.

Signs of progress

Without much public fanfare, this past week looks to have been a highly positive one for the federal NDP. Two of the party's rising stars have won accolades in the media: Peter Julian from Political Bytes for positioning himself as Canada's leading political voice against the SPP, and Nathan Cullen from Susan Riley as one of the "hidden heroes" of Canadian politics.

And it isn't just the press finding something to like, as the latest Angus Reid poll suggests that the NDP is the only federal party in Parliament to have increased its popularity since the 2006 election. (Now if only the latest leadership polling had included Jack Layton to help draw a contrast against the lead weights currently dragging down the Cons and Libs.)

Most importantly, though, there are signs in another article today that the NDP's current strategy looks to be one which can keep up that momentum. But more about that later.

Your daily Conadscam reading

For those who haven't yet seen them yet, a couple of must-reads on Conadscam came out today.

In the blogosphere, LKO boils down the scandal about as well as I've seen done so far.

And in the media, the Globe and Mail puts a human face on the riding impact by profiling Con candidate Joe Goudie, featuring two points of particular note.

First, as in seemingly every other case, the Cons' national office apparently didn't have the slightest interest in listening to how Goudie's campaign manager actually wanted to spend the money.

And second, it looks like Goudie and his campaign manager and official agent have joined many other Con candidates and campaign managers on the "them" side of the Cons' choice of battle lines. Which only figures to make the Cons' attempts to add any new supporters to their camp all the more difficuly - as when even those who were willing (however unfortunately) to tie their fortunes to Deceivin' Stephen's are being thrown overboard in an effort to feed Con anger, there's no reason for anybody else to believe the Cons won't do the same to them at a moment's notice.

On significant risks

Shorter Con policy on corporate data breaches which affect personal information:
The good news is that corporations will be held to a higher standard of transparency than our government. After all, we're not outright ordering them to cover anything up.

On victims

There's plenty of discussion today - both in the media and the blogosphere - about the Cons' attempt to paint themselves as victims in Conadscam. But it's worth noting that the effort not only seems doomed to fail and and of itself, but also looks to run contrary to the wider image the Cons have tried to build for themselves.

Let's start by considering just what would be necessary for the Cons to successfully claim victimhood. Any such argument would presumably have to be based on the premise that Elections Canada had gone after the Cons aggressively despite the Cons having reacted reasonably to the initial investigation. And particularly in the case of a party which is claiming innocence, that would require that the Cons actually cooperate with Elections Canada's efforts to get at the truth of the matter.

Of course, the Cons say that they've done so (normally with a conveniently narrow claim along the lines of having provided the documents requested by Elections Canada). But that's at best a self-serving statement if not backed up by enough public disclosure to show just what was requested and provided.

Needless to say, the Cons haven't backed up even their own choice of assertions with evidence. Morover, the public record shows that the Cons ordered its candidates and agents not to talk to Elections Canada. And that kind of coverup makes it awfully difficult for the Cons to claim that Elections Canada could get the information it needed through any other means - or that the truth would reflect well on the Cons.

Perhaps more importantly than the lack of cooperation with Elections Canada, though, are the Cons' own obvious manipulations surrounding Conadscam. As has been pointed out elsewhere, a party who's in the right generally doesn't attempt to selectively leak information, then find itself in the position of running out back exits and hiding behind closed doors trying to avoid revealing facts which it's willing to share with its preferred media conduits. And that goes doubly so for a helpless victim.

As a result, anybody who pays any attention to information from sources other than the Cons themselves should be able to see through the Cons' claim to victimhood in a hurry. But even if the Cons were successful in playing the victim card, it would seem to run counter to the public perception they're generally trying to foster.

After all, the Cons have eagerly built up the narrative of Deceivin' Stephen as a chessmaster, moving with ruthless efficiency to rearrange Canada's political scene to set himself up to win a majority government. But it's implicit in that narrative that Harper would have the ability to observe where the other pieces on the board are headed, and avoid being taken by surprise by an unforeseen move.

In the case of the RCMP raid, there's little reason to think the Cons actually wouldn't have anticipated it at at least some extent. Elections Canada's investigation has been no secret for quite some time, and presumably even the Cons wouldn't be quite so self-deluded as to think that their stonewalling would be perceived as cooperation.

But by feigning shock at the raid, the Cons are ultimately only undermining their own claim to having enough foresight or strategy to accomplish what they've set out to do. And for a party which has plainly shifted its focus from wanting to clean up government to rewarding its supporters with federal largesse, that may be just as damaging as any fallout from the investigation itself.

Out of its shell

It apparently took Brad Wall just half a year in office before deciding to drop any pretense of moderation or responsible government. This week, the Sask Party decided to gratuitously cut social benefits for no apparent reason, claiming that low-income workers can blindly rely on "the economy" to provide benefits with without a shred of reason to believe that to be realistic.

That would be bad enough if it was merely a matter of artificial spending restraint. But in case there was any hope that the Wall government was going to be the least bit fiscally responsible, it's also seeking the power to dole out over a third of a million dollars at a time, with any public notice delayed until the following year's budget. And that early-year reporting date would conveniently ensure that the Sask Party could freely throw money around for nearly a year before its newly-fixed election date without any public knowledge.

It shouldn't come as much surprise that Wall's government is following the right-wing trend of shifting public spending from actual citizen needs to hidden pork-barrel politics. And there's no indication yet that the Sask Party cares enough about being seen to govern reasonably to pay attention to public pressure. But it's still worth pointing out how clearly any change under Wall has been for the worse - and with any luck, the type of hubris the Sask Party is showing now will ensure that it's booted from office in 2011.

On tangled webs

The Cons haven't made any secret of their intention to make use of the Conadscam scheme again in the next federal election unless a court tells them they can't (and regardless of whether Elections Canada or anybody else points out that it's against the law). But let's note that it isn't only the central party which is stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that it's in legal jeopardy, as the Cons' Calgary foundation is also showing signs of rot:

Although the University of Calgary has severed all ties with the Friends of Science and shut down the accounts which were set up in 2004 by political science professor Barry Cooper, the anti-Kyoto group is still using the same charity, the Calgary Foundation, to collect money and issue tax deductible receipts for anonymous donors.

The money is now going through an independent think tank, the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in Winnipeg, which has received at least $50,000 since last fall, according to a document released by the Calgary Foundation. The Frontier Centre has indicated that it wants to produce a climate change video for children in schools.

Of course, it's worth pointing out one glaring flaw in the article's discussion.

In case there was any doubt, the new, "independent" recipient of Barry Cooper's largesse would be the same Frontier Centre for Public Policy which was hand-picked by the Cons for a six-figure federal contract to consult about electoral reform - despite the group's acknowledged lack of expertise in the area, and a clear bias against electoral reform in what little material it had disseminated on the topic. Naturally, it didn't take long for the group to be embarrassed when one of its subcontractors decided to put together its focus groups based on word of mouth rather than any process which could possibly lead to a diverse set of viewpoints. And the Frontier Centre was also called on to speak for the Cons' position on the farcical Canadian Wheat Board barley plebiscite.

In other words, after being caught wrongly interfering with the 2006 election, the Friends of Science have simply pivoted from direct political intervention to taking on a role funding a different part of the Cons' right-wing noise machine. Which can only make it clear just how little claim any of the groups involved can have to anything approaching independence - and how little plausibility the Cons themselves having in trying to deny links to or among the groups involved.

Standing up against Canada

Shorter Deceivin' Stephen:
Canada stands to be better off if NAFTA gets opened up for renegotiation. And in keeping with my personal allegiances, I have no intention of letting that happen.

On refusals

Following up on yesterday's post, the Globe and Mail points out some even better evidence that Conadscam was based on spending decisions made at the national level rather than the riding association level:

(T)he documents assembled by the Elections Canada investigators to justify a search of Conservative headquarters last week say the party brass was not pleased when local campaigns refused to take part in what has become known as the in-and-out scheme.

"There were two outright refusals - Beauce and Brome-Mississquoi," Michael Donison, who was then party president, wrote in a December, 2005, e-mail to Conservative officials. "We have discussed and understood Beauce but what is with Brome? Why should they be allowed to just outright refuse?"

That's right: as far as the Cons' central command was concerned, some special dispensation was required for a riding association to decline to participate in the scheme. Which offers yet another example of just how little the riding associations themselves had to do with the spending - and how clearly the spending was controlled at the national level.

Update: And now word comes out that the candidate in question, David Marler, was rejected by the Cons for the next federal election for no apparent reason other than his scruples in questioning Conadscam.

On central control

I wrote yesterday that Conadscam figures to have expanded in scope now that Elections Canada is investigating alleged false and misleading statements within the Cons' financial returns. But let's note as well that the core dispute about the scheme as a whole also looks to have taken a turn toward ground where the Cons are in serious trouble.

Remember that the primary point of dispute before seemed to be whether or not the advertising purchased through Conadscam should be classified as local or national. While the Cons' arguments about listing candidate names in fine print were relatively weak on their face, there's probably a relatively plausible case to be made that a local candidate could choose to pay for advertising which would focus on national leaders or issues rather than ones specific to a riding.

But the Star's coverage suggests that rather than having to rely on its interpretation as what the Cons' money was spent on, Elections Canada has also found serious problems in how the money was spent in the first place:

The people acting as the "official agents" for the Tory candidates were given precise, step-by-step instructions in how the transfer would work.

And in every case, Conservative head office first demanded that the local campaign provide bank wire instructions to ensure head office would get its money back.

"The transfer of funds to, and the withdrawal of similar amounts from, participating campaign bank accounts was entirely under the control and direction of the Conservative Fund Canada," the document states.

As a result, the Conservative Party – not the candidates – was obligated by the law to report the spending, Elections Canada says...

One official said the party has never denied its campaigns are "centrally organized... that our national campaigns and our regional organizers were the drivers for this."

All ads contained the necessary local taglines, he said.

But some candidates who agreed to go in on buying advertising time "had second thoughts," and had to be told it was "too late" to later pull out.

In other words, the money which the Cons claim to have transferred to local campaigns was never actually controlled by anybody other than the national party.

By way of analogy, let's consider what a person may - and may not - do in providing money to other people which could be used for a political contribution.

It seems obvious that if a person who has already made political contributions up to his or her donation limit gives money to another person with no strings attached, there's no particular problem if the second person chooses to use the gift to also donate to a political party. And the Cons have tried to pretend that their transfers should be seen as identical to that type of freedom to transfer money back and forth.

Before the warrant was made public, it looked like the Cons had instead given money to their riding associations with an informal expectation that it be used on the ads involved. That could easily result in some liability depending on the intention of the parties. But there would at least be some room for argument that since the recipient had some ability to determine how the money was used, the donor wouldn't necessarily be responsible for the recipient's choices - and a relatively consistent position that no side deal existed might have made it difficult to prove any wrongdoing.

Based on the warrant, however, it looks like the Cons went a step further, seeking formal wire instructions to ensure that riding associations never held any control over the money.

Now, that might have seemed to be the safer course of action if they perceived a real risk that the riding associations would rather spend it on something other than the ads involved. But it's hard to see how the Cons could successfully argue that the riding associations were the ones who spent the money involved under the Canada Elections Act when they neither supplied it, nor had any ability to choose how it would be used.

And it only gets worse when one considers what happened to those who thought better about what was being done. When candidates asked to get out of the scheme, it was the Cons' central command which informed them that they didn't have any ability to back out of the scheme.

Which only offers one more signal of just who was actually spending the money involved. And that would seem to leave the Cons with no way out regardless of whether or not the content also ran afoul of the law.

False or misleading

The first pieces of information about the search warrant against the Cons have been made public - and they seem to confirm my suspicion that the warrant was aimed largely at putting individual names to acts which are already known to have taken place. But it's worth noting that the warrant suggests as well that the offences currently being investigated go beyond what would have been inherent in the Conadscam scheme alone:

The warrant says that the elections commissioner believes that the Conservative Party of Canada and its official agent, the Conservative Fund of Canada, violated the Canada Elections Act. The party and the fund are separately accused of exceeding the maximum amount allowed for elections expenses. The Conservative Fund is also accused of filing financial returns "that it knew or ought reasonably to have known contained a materially false or misleading statement."

Up to now, it seemed that the issue raised by the Cons' campaign expenses was limited to the differing views as to what should be considered a national expenditure under the Canada Elections Act. But if that were true, then there's no reason why any financial return should have been anything but accurate in portraying what the Cons had done.

As a result, the added charge seems to signal that Elections Canada has also found independent problems with how the Cons reported on their election expenses. Which means that the Cons may be in serious legal trouble even if they manage to defend the in-and-out scheme itself.

Letting loose

I'd planned to post about the Cons' latest attack on reproductive rights in the form of Maurice Vellacott's Bill C-537, but thereginamom has beaten me to the punch.

So rather than commenting on the substance of the bill for now, let's consider the timing involved. With Rob Anders acting up this week as well, could it be that the Cons' crazies have finally decided that they can't restrain themselves any longer? Or was this another attempt to make sure that at least one set of bad news for Deceivin' Stephen - either the Cons' stay on the wrong side of the law or the latest in hard-right pandering - would be drowned out by the other?

(Edit: changed title.)

Entirely warranted

It turns out that my week away from the blog has turned into potentially one of the more significant ones in Canadian politics for quite some time. Having not been around to comment at the time, though, I'll take the opportunity to toss in my two cents' worth on the RCMP raid of the Cons' headquarters.

What strikes me as interesting is the need for a search warrant when most of the facts don't seem to be in dispute. The Cons haven't tried to deny that they sent money to riding campaigns which was used on what amounted to national ads with the local candidates listed only in fine print. And it's hard to see what the raid would add to Elections Canada's interpretation as to whether the fine print is enough to legitimize the scheme.

That said, the question of whether somebody did something wrong as part of Conadscam is different from the question of just who actually planned and ordered the acts in question. And given that the Cons' idea of "cooperation" with Elections Canada's investigation consisted of suing for expense reimbursements and trying to raise straw-man arguments about the other federal parties, it wouldn't be the least bit surprising if Elections Canada was left with no choice but to seek a search warrant to find out who within the party had enough of a role in the scheme to be held responsible.

If that's so, then the real story from this week's raid remains to be told. And since it's highly doubtful that Elections Canada would have bothered requesting the search warrant if they didn't see the case as one which should be pursued, every Con who had a role in Conadscam - or who might be in a position to participate in similar schemes in the future - has to be concerned about the danger of having to answer for the Cons' disregard for the law.

A bit of a break

Expect light to no blogging from this space over the next week as I'll be on holiday. In the meantime, though, here's a bit of Monday morning quarterbacking to consider.

For all the (misdirected) flak the NDP has taken for not simply echoing the Libs' position on Cadscam and other issues, I do have to wonder whether the NDP missed some significant opportunities in trying to turn attention to other issues altogether.

In particular, now that the Cons are more interested in patronage than populism, my recollection is that the NDP is the only party in Parliament calling for a restriction on floor-crossing. And while Cadman's situation might not have fallen within the scope of floor-crossing as such, the proposed justice committee hearings would seem to offer a great opportunity to discuss both the possibility of limiting transfer of MPs into a federal party through means other than Criminal Code provisions, and the plight of independent MPs under our current election financing laws.

Of course, the likely result would be to provoke the Cons and Libs into a pie fight as to why their past gain/loss of Brison/Stronach/Turner is entirely different from the other party's gain/loss of Emerson/Khan/Comuzzi. But that would seem to serve all the better to paint the Cons and Libs as indistinguishable from each other - making the NDP's position stand out as a populist alternative, rather than being buried as the same one shared by other actors.

So, should the NDP have taken up the Cadman story as a means to talk about empowering individual MPs rather than parties? And is it too late to do so now?

A matter of opinion

For all the examples of the consistent gap between the Cons' fantasy world and reality, there may be none better than how Deceivin' Stephen and company have treated publicly-funded opinion polling. And this week - with surprisingly little public attention - the Cons added yet another indication of their utter distaste for the factual.

Remember that before the Cons took power, one of their frequent (and not entirely unjustified) slams against the Libs involved the amount of public money spent on opinion research.

Of course, once they took power, the Cons immediately increased polling to a record level - which only became public when a report designed to embarrass the Libs instead blew up in the Cons' face. In response, the Cons promised to cut polling expenses by $10 million per year - being over 30% of the amount previously being spent across the federal government.

Which brings us to this from Thursday's Hansard:

Mr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, for years the former Liberal government wasted huge amounts of money on public opinion research with little or no oversight. Liberal-friendly firms conducted hundreds of unnecessary surveys and polls at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.

Recently, the government made a strong commitment to bring the free spending Liberal ways of the past to an end and ensure that public opinion research is used in an effective way.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works please update the House as to what progress has been made up to this date and what Canadians can expect moving forward?

Mr. James Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer this question from my good friend from Peace River and I will answer this question very clearly.

We recently announced reforms in order to change the public opinion research regime that is in place in different departments. I am pleased to report to the House and to taxpayers that we have reduced public opinion research and polling by departments by 20% over last years, saving taxpayers millions of dollars.

That's right: the Cons have now failed to meet the target which they promised on a percentage basis, even when they've conspicuously limited that percentage to "departments" rather than including entities which wouldn't fit under that classification (which seems worded to exclude the Privy Council in particular). And what cuts the Cons have made only appear have put spending back at the same level which they used to criticize coming from the Libs.

Now, this surely wouldn't be the first time the Cons have fallen short of their own supposed standards, or taken up the kind of behaviour they used to decry while in opposition.

But then there's the Cons' response - which may be the only part of the whole story which actually does set them apart. Rather than seeing their track record of feigning outrage then breaking promises as cause for the slightest bit of embarrassment, the Cons are apparently sufficiently proud to want to highlight it for themselves - and even to claim that it somehow sets them above the party which used to earn their vitriol for doing the exact same thing.

All of which suggests that the first and most profound obstacle to holding the Cons accountable for their actions is that they're either dim enough not to recognize their own shortcomings, or detached enough from reality not to care. And it's hard to see those attributes polling well under any circumstances.

On categorization

Greg highlights one point which deserves more discussion about the latest machinations around the Cons' plan to centralize control over immigration in Diane Finley's hands. But there's one other aspect of the story which seems to have been largely lost in the shuffle - particularly in the Libs' messaging.

The Libs seem to be focusing their current critique on the possibility that the Cons would value economic immigrants (particularly the temporary workers who they're already trumpeting to mask a decline in permanent immigration) rather than any other type. Which is reasonable enough as a point of dispute, but falls far short of telling the whole story.

Remember that as part of the Cons' ethnic targeting strategy, they've already written off "one-fifth of all ethnic groups" as unlikely to vote for the Cons under any circumstances. By assigning to the minister the ability to set up "categories" by fiat, the Cons would be able to conveniently exclude applications from those communities who wouldn't figure to help their electoral cause.

And the potential for abuse only gets worse when considering how the other 80% of ethnic communities would be treated. Particularly if the Cons do plan on paying more attention to economic immigrants than other types, there figures to be a limited number of spots available in other categories - making a position at the top of any category list essential for any community which wants to be able to bring new members across the border in the future. Which would enable the Cons to force different communities to compete as to who does the most to help out their partisan cause, and give top priority to whoever answers the call.

Of course, any categorization would be subject to the Charter and to other applicable law. But it wouldn't figure to be all that difficult to find non-partisan excuses for a set of choices which would have serious partisan effects. And the Cons have done nothing to suggest that this would be an exception to their general rule of governing in their party's interests rather than those of the country as a whole.

Needless to say, neither a system based on politics rather than genuine merit nor a system skewed in the Cons' favour would figure to be anything but a disaster for Canada in the long run. And that - not the contrast between economic and other types of new arrival - looks to be the aspect of the Cons' bill that needs to be highlighted to show what's most wrong with the Harper government.

The fix is in

It looks like we can now add one more item to the list of ways in which the Libs have given the Cons an effective majority: the Libs' signal that they won't defeat the Harper government on anything has given the Cons the effective ability to choose the timing of the next federal election by relying on its own dirty tricks manual to say that House of Commons committees are dysfunctional. And matters only get worse from there when one looks at what the Cons can do with the ability to choose their own election date.

As I've noted before, the main reason why the fixed election date in 2009 offers an advantage to the Cons is the prospect that they could save their war chest for the summer, then take advantage of the lack of pre-writ spending limits to run an advertising blitz which the other parties would be unable to counteract just in time to set themselves up for a fall campaign. But that at least carries some downside in that the Cons won't be able to say for sure what the political conditions will be like next year.

With the Libs being just stubborn enough in committees to set up some argument that an election should be called without showing the backbone to vote down the Cons on any matter of substance, though, the Cons may now get the best of both worlds. They're now able to launch into a pre-writ ad campaign at any time, secure in the knowledge that they can make a relatively plausible claim to demand an immediate election before the opposition can generate much of a response. (And if the Libs can only avoid that by capitulating to every demand the Cons can think of in order to avoid claims of gridlock, I doubt Harper would complain about that result.)

For all the Libs' talk about keeping control over when an election will happen, it looks like their delay tactics have only handed that power over to Deceivin' Stephen. Which means that just when it seemed like the Libs couldn't be any less effective at keeping the Cons in check, they've managed to sink to yet another new low.

On limitations

One of the main Con talking points surrounding Tom Lukiwski's anti-gay remarks has been to ask whether any "statute of limitations" should apply in determining the appropriate response to the video. With that in mind, I'll take a moment to point out a couple of the principles behind actual statutes of limitations - and why neither the Lukiwski example nor other examples of seemingly old news about Con actions would give rise to a legitimate limitations defence.

First off, it's worth noting that virtually all statutes of limitations are subject to the principle of discoverability. In weighing the relative interests of a defendant who wants to be able to move on from past actions and a plaintiff who deserves the opportunity to seek redress for a wrong, courts have understandably concluded that most limitation periods won't operate where the plaintiff couldn't reasonably determine that any claim existed.

Needless to say, if the discoverability principle were applied to Lukiwski's comments, there would be no basis for a limitation defence. Indeed, nobody could possibly have known that a wrong was committed without either crashing the Devine Cons' after-debate party, or breaking into the opposition offices at the legislature to track down the videotape. Which means that a fresh limitation period would apply from the time the tape could have been (and was) found.

Mind you, a recent development in limitations law has provided for "ultimate limitation periods" which may bar a claim which has not yet been discovered after what's determined to be a sufficiently large amount of time - normally in the range of 15-20 years. But even then, a defendant can't take advantage of the ultimate limitation period to the extent the defendant deliberately conceals the fact that there's any claim to be made.

In Lukiwski's case, it's far from clear that such a principle would be in play. (Though the great unanswered questions so far include just who knew the tape existed, and what if anything was done with it after the post-debate party.)

But it's worth turning to the Cons' general practices in government while keeping in mind the rules which apply in a civil context. Greg Weston notes today that the Cons have made a habit of concealing information requested by the public, with the result that it's awfully difficult to determine just what Deceivin' Stephen and his gang have been up to. And Weston expressed concern that by the time any potentially damaging news comes out, it's seen as old enough to be of little value.

I'd argue that as in the case of limitation periods, the mere passage of time doesn't make grievances about the Cons' hidden actions any less legitimate. If anything, the fact that the Cons have managed to keep something under wraps only amplifies the wrong: not only is there the initial action to criticize, but also the subsequent cover-up. And as in the case of a civil actor who successfully hides the existence of a claim, it should be clear that stories about the Cons' actions in office are just as newsworthy and relevant when they actually come out as they would have been when they should have been disclosed in the first place.

Poor excuses

Shorter John Moore:
Shouldn't we at least consider the possibility that Tom Lukiwski launched into his anti-gay diatribe because he cared too much?

Compare and contrast

When Deceivin' Stephen threatens a lawsuit, it's to try to stop the opposition from doing its job by holding him accountable.

When the Libs go to court, it's to try to stop the media from doing its job by reporting news about them.

When the NDP plans legal action, it's to require the government to do its job of reviewing a foreign sale of publicly-funded assets in accordance with the law.

Based on the above, can there be much doubt which party has the best judgment as to what does (and doesn't) deserve to be dealt with by the judicial system?

Misspoken

The Cons have already done plenty to twist language beyond belief where it suits their political purposes, in particular by extending the definition of "misspeak" to include a false statement of fact which is later exposed.

But Jay Hill's appearance on Question Period (see link to video from here) looks to be taking the redefinition a couple of steps further. As far as the Cons' talking points go, a statement made deliberately and interpreted in precisely the manner intended is also a matter of "misspeaking" when it later proves to be embarrassing.

As a result, it looks like the Cons' definition needs to be rewritten again to include absolutely any statement which hurts their political cause. Which only makes it all the more clear why Hill has been sent out to argue that the proper response is to begin ignoring any "misspoken" statement as quickly as possible - rather than to take a closer look at why the statement was made in the first place.

Wishful thinking

Shorter Scott Tribe:
Sure, the Libs have already driven away one former MP and thoroughly irritated other would-be candidates by refusing to confirm nominations in hope that a Miracle Star Candidate will come along. But if we up the ante by holding out for the Greatest Miracle Star Candidate Ever, I'm sure it'll all work out.

A steaming pile by any other name

A sneak preview of Barbara Yaffe's column for May 2, 2009:
So it turns out that renaming the SPP as the "North American Standards and Regulations Area" didn't manage to fool anybody. But I'm sure if we just rename the exact same type of integration as the Motherhood, Frolicking Puppies and Wealth Beyond Your Wildest Dreams Coalition, we won't have any trouble selling it.

Incidentally, with the SPP back in the news, it's worth drawing a contrast between the Cons' stance on deep integration and their obstruction against World Health Organization labeling requirements. Apparently they're all for setting international standards when it means avoiding democratically-made regulations to make sure that more goods get sent from country to country. But when it comes to actually allowing consumers to find out what it is they're buying, the Cons' appetite for cooperation disappears.

h/t to Alison and pogge.

On warning labels

Deceivin' Stephen's Conservative government: proudly fighting against the public's right to know relevant information around the world as well as at home.

A need for change

Following up on last night's post, I'll take a moment to respond to the commentators who seem eager to assume that Tom Lukiwski's views have changed in the past 17 years, such that his comments can't be held against him now.

Again, the problem is precisely the Harper strategy of gagging his MPs rather than allowing them to actually express their personal views in public. It might well be that Lukiwski's stance has changed in the meantime, and I'd be interested to see if there is a public record to that effect. But it's difficult to assume that Lukiwski actually has changed his mind without some evidence a bit less self-serving than anything he could say now. And it's the Cons' fear of having its MPs say something politically damaging that's made it impossible for their members to discuss gender and sexuality issues even where their views might have progressed with time.

Of course, the flip side is that a strategy of muzzling what candidates actually think also makes it plausible that bigotry can survive and indeed thrive, as long as its purveyors keep it out of the public eye. And based on the Cons' response to Lukiwski's comments (trying to claim the matter is "closed"), there's precious little reason to give the party the benefit of any doubt now.

Update: If we needed more reason to be skeptical about any supposed change, Lukiwski's comments on same-sex marriage provide just that.

Out in the open

I'll take a moment to toss in my two cents' worth on the Lukiwski/Wall scandal that's naturally dominating today's news coverage. But I'll take a different line than most of the commentary so far.

As problematic as the video is, the larger issue which it highlights is how little we're actually able to know about most politicians based on the high levels of coaching and scripting which underlie any public appearance. For all the media and citizen attention to political campaigns, the sad fact is that it's still relatively easy for political parties to hide their candidates behind talking points and "no comments", rather than allowing anybody to test what kind of judgment they possess. And indeed, both Lukiwski and Wall reached their current status as high-ranking politicians based precisely on "good campaigns" which involved their parties avoiding public embarrassment by going out of their way to say nothing.

Of course, there have always been suspicions about just what has been hidden from the public. But there's still been no concerted effort to actually push behind the facades put up to varying degrees by different parties. And as long as our political narratives continue to see a campaign that's free of "gaffes" as being the ideal even when that's achieved by hiding who candidates really are from public view, it can't come as much surprise when it turns out that our leaders do have something to hide.

On conditions

It's not as if there was much doubt that the Cons would find some excuse to extend Canada's combat mission regardless of whether or not the already-dubious Manley recommendations were met. But it's noteworthy that Deceivin's Stephen is now claiming that the extension is a done deal based on little more than wishful thinking when it comes to two of the conditions:

The key conditions laid down by Parliament for keeping Canadian troops in Afghanistan have been fulfilled, Prime Minister Stephen Harper declared Thursday...

His statement came half way through a meeting with NATO allies in this former Cold War capital. The certainty of American reinforcements for Kandahar, NATO's approval of a comprehensive political-military plan for the war-ravaged country as well as progress toward acquiring battlefield equipment gave Harper the confidence to state that Canada will remain in Afghanistan.

"Today I can report that we have met these conditions," Harper said...

Canada has made significant progress in getting helicopters and unmanned aerial drones to support Canadian troops operating in southern Afghanistan, he said.

It shouldn't take much effort to notice a significant difference between actually securing helicopters and drones, and merely proclaiming that some "progress" has been made.

And it's worth noting that Harper's stance today can only make it more difficult to finish the acquisition on reasonable terms. After all, without a final declaration that the preconditions "have been met", Canada would have the leverage of pointing out its intention to withdraw its troops if the equipment wasn't secured.

Instead, having already declared that the extension is a done deal, Harper doesn't figure to be willing to face the public embarrassment of rescinding that statement - making it more likely that Canada will end up either taking equipment on less favourable terms, or trying to fudge having met the preconditions at all. Which means that once again, Deceivin' Stephen has subordinated Canada's interests to his personal whims.

Strategic positions

It's been no secret that the Libs' sense of worth as a party has been (rightly) declining as a result of their strategy of non-opposition. But even I wouldn't have expected them to argue that being associated with the party could cause irreparable harm to the Libs' own candidates.

Promising nothing

There's certainly reason for concern about what the Cons would want to change about Canada's constitution given the chance. But it's worth noting that their current musings don't seem to involve any change at all to the status quo other than more Con seats in Quebec:

Emphasizing the Conservative receptiveness to “Quebec's historical demands,” Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn raised the possibility of winning 30 to 40 seats in the province, up from the current 11.

“The recognition of the Quebec nation within Canada allows us to think that we can put some meat around it, and that a majority government is more able to do a number of things, while being respectful of all of the provinces,” Mr. Blackburn said in an interview.

And as noted in the Globe and Mail's report, there's plenty of reason to doubt the Cons are doing much other than trying to posture for soft-nationalist votes while rocking the boat as little as possible elsewhere:

The Conservatives are treading carefully to manage expectations and avoid a backlash in the rest of Canada...

Mr. Blackburn spoke positively, albeit guardedly, of launching further constitutional talks with the provinces if the Conservatives form a majority.

A number of constitutional changes require the assent of all of the provinces, but leadership on the matter usually comes from Ottawa.

Mr. Blackburn said the Conservatives are “much more receptive to Quebec's historical demands” than the Liberals, using language from the days of the failed Meech Lake accord that described Quebec as a distinct society.

All of which suggests that the Cons are offering little more than fuzzy language to hide their future agenda from one or more of their targeted voting blocs. Which from a strategic perspective looks to be a sign of resignation that the Cons aren't about to pick up the seats they need to build a genuine seat majority anywhere other than Quebec, and thus have to try to sell different messages in Western Canada and Quebec in order to improve on their current Lib-supported pseudo-majority.

Of course, the problem with that plan is that there's an easy response from the opposition: force the Cons to explain what they mean by "receptive" and "historical demands", then highlight the gap between the expectations the Cons are trying to build and what they're actually willing to commit to. And if the opposition parties can succeed in generating outrage over the Cons' duplicity among groups of voters who have seldom stood for the same in the past, then Blackburn's gambit may do little more than seal the Cons' fate as a one-term government.

Gone private

Let's take note of one point from yesterday's Handard which doesn't seem to have attracted much attention: Lib MP Navdeep Bains' observation that the Cons decided to farm out their NAFTA scandal investigation to the private sector:

Last Thursday we learned that the Privy Council Office outsourced the investigation of sensitive diplomatic leaks to BMCI Investigations & Security Ltd. of Ottawa, a private company. Yet, the government never said a word about this decision.

If the government is incapable of conducting its own investigation, why did the Prime Minister not say so when he announced it in the House? Why was a private company chosen and, more important, what is its mandate?

Bains points out one question which deserves plenty of followup, which is what exactly BMCI was asked to do. But I'm equally curious as to what the farmout does to the results of the investigation: will the involve of a private third party be used as an excuse to keep the final report and (particularly) any explanation about the investigative methods out of the public eye?

In motion

With the NDP announcing its House of Commons motion for later this week, let's highlight two factors which seem to have largely been missed in coverage so far.

First, and most importantly, the motion looks to be the strongest statement from any opposition party that the Cons' tax slashing (and the concurrent damage to federal finances) doesn't have to be a permanent development. For all the justified complaints about the Cons prioritizing tax cuts over all else, this looks to be the first time the parties will be directly debating the need to reverse any of the cuts in the future.

Second, despite the narrative attached to the story by the Canadian Press, the motion doesn't put any particular pressure on the Libs to vote against their policy principles (as they had to do to avoid an election on the NDP's previous environmental confidence motion). Instead, the wording not only takes aim at the Cons' policies directly, but also allows the Libs to speak (and vote) for their own position on corporate tax cuts without triggering an election by doing so.

Of course, that doesn't figure to stop some Libs from criticizing the NDP for not putting forward a motion designed specifically to assist Dion. But the motion is nonetheless an important step both in leading the way as to what needs to be done to reverse Harper's regressive policies, and in differentiating the NDP's position from those of the other federal parties.

A cool reception

Shorter Terence Corcoran (2 for 1 special edition!):
I simply can't conceive of a value system which would prioritize the survival of half the species on Earth, along with a substantial proportion of humanity, over a cheaper supply of consumer goods.

-and-

Having successfully lobbied the Con government to thumb its nose at Canada's Kyoto obligations, allow me to lecture you on the sacrosanct inviolability of international trade agreements.

Playing defence

The Hill Times notes that at least some Lib MPs are finally raising a cry that it's time to go to the polls. But if there was any hope that the Libs were prepared to actually challenge the Cons even if they do force an election, the article offers yet another indication to the contrary:

Dion is intensifying his training for political debates (in fact he had always refused to participate to the training) and other activities to prepare for a federal election.

For example, last week the Liberals sent organizers from Ottawa to Toronto to coordinate electoral activities within ethnic communities, particularly Asian communities. The initiative was welcomed with some sarcasm by a Toronto Member of Parliament: "With all ethnic MPs in Toronto, the last thing we need is paid organizers from Ottawa."

While the Toronto MP's frustration is understandable from the standpoint of what's likely to be successful even in the targeted ridings, there's another more important point at play. After all, if the Libs are in such a state of disarray that they're just now getting around to organizing even their most solid bases of support, then there's virtually no prospect that they'll be in a position to go on the offensive against Harper.

Of course, the fact that the Libs seem to be planning only to cut their losses may explain their reluctance to face the voters. But if even the Libs themselves don't think they can stop the Cons, then it's long past time for Canadians to take a closer look at a party which aspires to do more than just save its own skin while allowing the Cons to keep imposing their reactionary agenda.

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.