The reviews are in: Dion Part Deux edition

CuriosityCat:

Canadians who lose their jobs because the stimulus package did not cover the items set out in the Accord, or amount to the proper sum (at least 2% of GDP for now), should blame not only Harper when they lose their jobs, their homes and their livelihoods, but more particularly, each and every Liberal MP, and vote accordingly at the next election.

Because the Liberal MPs had a choice.

They could have voted to install a progressive centre government, with a more realistic stimulus program.

Instead, they supported Harper...

At a time when courage was called for, the Liberals offered cowardice.

In Canada, ‘Yes we can’ has become ‘No, we dare not.’ What a sad day for Canada.

Chet Scoville:

After all the trouble of replacing Dion with Ignatieff, here we go again...Yeah, yeah. Seen it, taped it, taped over it already.

The Disaffected Lib:

Let's get this straight. The interim leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, our nation's Official Opposition, is content to allow Canada in the face of this fiscal emergency to wallow haplessly under the weight of Harper's visionless bailout budget. If Ignatieff supports this budget, that's exactly what he has done.

If Ignatieff supports Harper on this one, he'll chalk up one more odious similarity to our Furious Leader - he'll put his personal political fortunes ahead of the interests of Canada.

L-girl at We Move To Canada:

These goddamn Liberals. They get to act tough, showcase Ignatieff's tough-talking leadership, and then defeat the Government and have an election when they're good and ready, and when they feel Canadians are amenable to it.

And we're stuck with this bullshit Government and their unfocused, grab-bag budget that does more for wealthy folks remodelling their kitchens than working people thrown out of work and barely hanging on...

I fucking hate the Liberals. I don't know how any Canadian who considers themselves progressive can vote for them.

Stageleft:

The budget falls short, but we’re gonna support it, and require reports, and then watch them like hawks, and if it doesn’t work the way we think it should we’ll bring them down — I think Dion wrote his text for him.

Saskboy:

Same ol’ Liberals. Pretty sad day for the country. Iggy is going to let Harper fall even further onto his face, and take the rest of us down with him while he wastes Billions of dollars in the process.

James Curran:

NO changes to the policies contained in the budget? NO CHANGES to the EI in the Liberal amendments? NO CHANGES to the housing clauses? NO CHANGES to help with day care and people on Social Assistance? What about green renovations instead of all renovations including your cottage?

WTF??? UNBELIEVABLE!!!

WHAT IS THE LIBERAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN? WHAT IS IT?

Updates:

catnip:

Throwing financial crumbs out to a starving public is no way to ensure a solid, timely recovery but that apparently doesn't bother the Liberal party enough to bring down this government. It's politics first. What else is new?

Beijing York:

At least Dion looked pained and embarrassed every time he rolled over and let Harper piss on him. Ignatieff can't wipe off that smug expression as he "swallows hard".

Still more updates...

Andrew P:

Iggy needed to put policy over politics for the good of the country. His failure do so has convinced me where his loyalties lay, and they aren’t in the order I hoped. There’s an old saying in Ottawa - I know it’s in Toronto, probably in Ottawa - that says, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me - you can’t get fooled again. Well sir, I won’t be fooled again.

James Laxer:

Rule number one in politics: you can’t have it every which way. If you vote for the Conservative budget, it becomes your budget Mr. Ignatieff, no matter what font the government uses to print its reports for you...

Having decided “not to be” as a serious opponent of the Harper government, Michael Ignatieff could consider a career on the stage.

Meanwhile, Jack Layton has become the real leader of the opposition. He showed courage when he reached out to the Liberals to form a progressive coalition that could provide Canadians with the leadership they need to cope with the economic crisis. He tried the option of working with the Liberals. Michael Ignatieff has walked away from that option. Layton has retained his integrity and his clear understanding of what the country needs. Progressives now have one party and one party only available to them: the NDP.

More Disaffected Lib:

No matter which way he squirms and spins, Michael Ignatieff is going to be saddled with this decision and it's going to come back to haunt him for years.

We won't support a budget that contains tax cuts! Remember that? It sounds an awful lot like Stephane Dion saying the Liberals would never, ever, positively not ever support an extension of the Afghanistan mission past 2009.

Yet another update...

Mentarch:

Words fail me ... because I am too pissed off.

More Chet Scoville:

The amendment, instead, is simply to require the government to make a claim to Parliament every few months saying, yes, we really are executing the flawed budget that we said we'd execute, and keeping the unfocused promises we said we'd keep. In other words, it demands nothing from the government, because accountability to Parliament is already an inherent part of a parliamentary system. Ignatieff is attempting to legislate something that's already there anyway by constitutional convention. All he's adding is a timetable, which, frankly, doesn't amount to much.

I don't expect much from Harper and company. They're not good at this governing business, and never have been from day one. I was hoping for better from Ignatieff's Liberals.

Miranda Hussey:

Despite all the problems with the budget and the rumors that the Liberals would ask for amendments with substance Iggy is only asking for some sort of checkpoint where the Conservatives have to provide quarterly reports on implementation. Given Flaherty's past history of creative accounting, and that fact that every economic projection that this government has put forward disagrees with all the experts this is a laughable as the only condition to put forward in order for the budget to get Liberal support.

I covered in my post this morning some of the things that I had major problems with and thought needed to be amended, yet all of them are being let slide in favour of quarterly reports. Might as well just give them a cart blanche for all the supposed teeth that amendment has.

One last update: See more at We Move to Canada.

Those who forget history

Let's offer a quick reminder to the Libs who are suggesting that adding some minor reporting requirements to the Cons' budget will somehow serve any useful purpose.

That strategy has been tried before - by the same deposed leader who the Libs are so eager to leave in the rear-view mirror. It's failed miserably before. It'll fail miserably again if it constitutes Ignatieff's answer on the budget.

And in fact, as pointless as it normally is to invite the Cons to report on their own actions, it's probably even more so in this case due to the time pressures involved. When the first report comes out in March, the Cons can say they haven't yet had time to do much (in between passages singing their own praises). And by the time the second one comes out, we can fully expect to hear that it's too late to bother with any change in course.

Indeed, about the only way we can expect to hear any negative report is if the Cons decide to test the Libs' confidence threats. Which means that the reporting system will serve only to provide even less stability in Parliament than we already had.

So the Libs seem to have come up with a way to invite the Cons to dispense even more propaganda, while utterly failing to actually hold Harper accountable for the results of his budget. And it doesn't figure to take long before that decision blows up in Ignatieff's face as Dion's similar strategy did not so long ago.

(Edit: fixed wording.)

Beyond amendment

Speaking of the possibility of an amendment as the Libs' strategy for dealing with the budget, let's note the obvious problems with such an approach.

First and foremost, banking on an amendment to resolve any outstanding concerns with the budget completely cedes the initiative and the final decision to the Cons. After all, if the Cons accept a package of substantive amendments, then there's basically no room left for the Libs to question or oppose the resulting amended budget.

Which means that once the Libs put their amendments out into the public eye, the decision as to whether or not the Cons would stay in power would be placed solely in the hands of Stephen Harper. And it's not hard to guess what choice he'd make.

That's particularly problematic since any amendment won't figure to do anything to improve the actual implementation of the budget - which Ignatieff has already recognized to be a significant problem.

For example, the Libs can try to strip out any legislated requirements for "leveraged" funding for infrastructure. But as long as a Con government will have the final say as to which projects receive funding it would be easy to implement the Cons' preferred limitations in practice even if legislation allows for broader funding.

Likewise, any legislated concern about the deficit would all too likely either be dealt with through revised estimates rather than substantive action, or offered up as an excuse for service cuts and asset sales.

And the problem is only amplified when one looks at how the Con government would likely administer even the measures within the budget which the Libs broadly agree with. After all, regional development agencies and sectoral supports are sure to be less effective than they should be when they're administered by a government that always puts partisanship ahead of policy.

Finally, it should be kept in mind that this is a road the Libs have been down before. Considering the results the last time the Libs allowed themselves to be prodded into agreement on a confidence measure, there's all the more reason to doubt that they'll be able to accomplish anything useful by following the same path now.

In sum, there's no basis for confidence that the Cons will start governing better once the threat of a coalition is removed. Which means that if the Libs are rightly concerned that Deficit Jim's budget is borderline at best even on its face, then the dangers of Con implementation should break any tie in favour of voting down the Harper government.

Equitable considerations

One of the more interesting surprises in the Cons' budget was their decision to keep attacking pay equity even after that was one of the main points of dispute in their fall fiscal update. So let's take a look at a couple of reasons why they might have kept such a contentious piece in what was supposed to be a conciliatory budget.

The first obvious possibility is that the Cons may have figured that the Libs would prefer amending the budget to voting it down. Under those circumstances, the continued attack on pay equity would be ripe for amendment - which could allow the Libs to claim some victory, and in turn allow the Cons to claim to have been cooperative by conceding that amendment.

But it might well be instead that the Cons have no intention of allowing their limitations on pay equity to be amended out of the budget due to the political advantage they could gain by leaving them in.

Keep in mind that Harper and company are already trying to rewrite history to claim that their position on stimulus hasn't changed from last fall, even though their fall update (a) failed to recognize that any was necessary and (b) didn't plan for a budget to reevaluate that position until March or April. Which seems very much intended to publicly undermine the main rationale for the formation of the democratic coalition.

For the Libs, the next-strongest argument why the fall showdown might have been justified was Deficit Jim's plan to hack away at pay equity. But if they now throw their support behind a budget which pushes forward with the same measure, then it'll be impossible for them to make any reasonable argument that pay equity was ever an inviolable principle.

That would leave the Cons with a slam-dunk message that the only time the Libs have opposed them was to preserve their own funding. And the combination of a Con base fired up by that theme and a Lib party demoralized by propping up the Cons likely represents Harper's best hope to make a final push into majority territory.

Deep thought

When it comes to funding intended to propel Canada out of a recession, "use it or lose it" isn't a reasonable threat.

Deficit Jim's Legacy

One other quick note on the Cons' budget.

$85 billion: Deficit Jim's red ink estimated over 5 years.
$87 billion: The total cost over 5 years of Deficit Jim's previously-implemented GST cuts (estimated at $7 billion per point per year), plus the income tax tinkering in the 2009 budget prorated from a 6-year estimate.

And that's leaving aside all the money Flaherty has tossed into other shiny vote-grabbing baubles. Which should make it glaringly clear where the responsibility lies for the deficits now confronting the federal government.

Falling short

The contents of the Cons' budget are now public. And the most striking news is the fact that the three largest programs - representing roughly half of the Cons' planned stimulus - all feature glaring weaknesses.

The largest dollar figure of $12 billion is attached to infrastructure spending. But that comes with a major caveat:

Nearly $12-billion federal dollars will be made available for “shovel-ready” public works projects across Canada that can be commenced quickly, but there's a catch. Provinces and municipalities will have to contribute nearly $9-billion more in order to get the roads, bridges and sewer upgrade work started.
...
The Conservatives warn however they will withdraw offered funding if there's not a speedy pickup by provincial and municipal governments “The government is expecting all partners in this stimulus plan to act with urgency and will reinforce this with a strong, consistent, ‘use it or lose it' theme,” the budget said.

In other words, much of the supposedly budgeted money won't flow if municipalities and provinces don't put their own money on the table first. And with some municipalities in particular already signalling that they can't afford to have stimulus costs foisted on them by the federal government, it looks like a certainty that at least some of the money nominally allocated to infrastructure won't actually be spent.

Next up is the Cons' tinkering with the income tax system, which would cost the federal treasury roughly $2 billion per year (so $4 billion over the 2-year stimulus period). But with the Libs and others having already raised justifiable concerns about the ineffectiveness of tax cuts as stimulus, it's hard to see that as a positive sign.

And it only gets worse when one gets to the next program on the list, being the Cons' home renovation tax credit. While the Cons budget a whopping $2.5 billion, the terms surrounding the credit make it another pool of money which is likely to have little if any effect on actual economic activity.

After all, the credit doesn't even come into play unless a homeowner has a spare $1000-plus lying around to invest in renovations. And even above that level, the 15% credit doesn't look like a meaningful incentive to spend money which wouldn't otherwise be spent - particularly when the Cons' noises about an impending depression figure to make Canadians more cautious in handling their money.

I'm sure the smaller initiatives will be dealt with before too long as well. But the top three on the list - which again include half of the supposed stimulus amount - are enough on their own to tell the story of a budget which is designed for failure. Which means that the Libs should have an easier time than expected concluding that it's time for a change in government.

(Edit: fixed typo.)

On details

Despite the best efforts of the Cons and others to force his hand, Michael Ignatieff is laying the groundwork for a thorough review of the impending federal budget. And it's worth noting that Ignatieff looks to be focusing on a couple of areas where the Cons figure to come up short:

Ignatieff said the budget's fine print will reveal whether the Liberals support the government or bring it down, which could result in an election or a governing coalition with the NDP.

"You go on what's in the cold type and make a kind of overall judgment about whether this is in the national interest," he said.

"And then suppose, just suppose, you think you can live with it. Then you've got the issue of how you can guarantee that it's properly implemented."

Ignatieff, who took over the Liberal leadership from Stéphane Dion in December, said some leaked budget information has already caused him concern, such as the proposed infrastructure funding formula and reported broad-based tax cuts.

Now, it's good enough news that Ignatieff's message is based on looking behind the large headline numbers underlying details - particularly given that the Cons seem to have concentrated on the former to the exclusion of the latter.

But it's even more significant that Ignatieff is raising implementation as an issue even before the budget is presented. If Ignatieff were looking for excuses to pass the budget, then the easiest course of action would be to focus only at the immediate numbers as representing a theoretical stimulus, while leaving any discussion about the Cons' competence or inclination to follow through until it's too late.

By raising the implementation issue now, Ignatieff has instead taken public responsibility for his ability (or lack thereof) to keep Harper in line if the Cons are left in power. Which can only figure to raise the perceived costs of propping up the Cons, as the Libs won't be able to direct future attacks toward implementation issues without all other parties pointing out that they could and should have dealt with those concerns earlier.

Moreover, if the Libs' choice is framed based on the question of whether they can best ensure the full and effective implementation of a stimulus plan as the opposition to a government which can't even be bothered to figure out the desired results or under a coalition government dedicated to putting economic recovery first, then it shouldn't be a tough decision to pull the plug on Harper. Which leaves only the question of whether the Libs will follow through on the direction they seem to have charted.

(Edit: fixed wording.)

More reviews are in

James Travers:

Harper is contradicting Conservative values. Suddenly, and for partisan advantage, he is willing to dump a debt load on coming generations, starting with a $34 billion deficit in the fiscal year beginning April 1, followed by another $30 billion the year after.

What that buys beyond the government's widely anticipated survival remains vague. Harper is counting on taxpayers and, should it come to an election, voters to confuse spending with a solution. Even after all the budget leaks, it remains only a smiley-face assumption that Canadians will be better off, more domestically productive and internationally competitive, when the worst still to come is finally over.

The reviews are in

John Ivison:

(S)uch is the severity of the current downturn that even the most conservative-minded economists have conceded grudgingly the government must step to the fore with timely, temporary and targeted counter-cyclical fiscal policy. However, they warn that the stimulus package must be focused on economic growth and employment -- and that spending must be reined in when the economy recovers.

On the current evidence, that is not what the government is proposing. The focus of this budget is not on setting Canada on the road to recovery. Rather, the principal goal appears to be ensuring a Conservative victory at the next election.

Harper: Never Mind the Results

I've theorized before that the opposition parties should highlight accountability and effectiveness as a key point of distinction between a coalition government and the Harper Cons. Now, Deceivin' Stephen has made it clear that he doesn't have any particular results in mind for the billions of dollars he hopes to be able to shovel out the door:

Harper declined to get into specifics about how many jobs will be created through massive government spending, which includes $7 billion for infrastructure spending and $2 billion for public housing projects, among other initiatives.

"I think that the game of predicting jobs is very dangerous" said Harper, adding that there are too many influences on the economy to pin down a specific number.

Now, one would think that even a government which had to be pushed into admitting the need for stimulus spending to get the economy back would at least take some look at what it hoped to accomplish with that spending.

But Harper apparently doesn't have any qualms about presenting a budget vital both to Canada's economy recovery and to his party's survival without even a hint of what results might be expected. And that should offer another compelling piece of evidence that leaving the Cons in power is a sure recipe for even more mismanagement at a time when Canada can least afford it.

On previews

The corporate media blitz is on, featuring "news" stories like this intended to try to force the Libs' hand toward backing the Cons' budget. But at least some of Harper's supporters in the press can't help themselves from letting slip what's to come if the Libs follow that poisoned advice:

(T)his isn't working out the way the Liberal leader might have preferred. Sure he'll be able to grouch about various details, and boast about having forced Mr. Harper to get serious after that embarrassing economic update in November. But claiming to have influenced the Prime Minister isn't the best route to becoming Prime Minister. One suspects Mr. Ignatieff will have some more cranky days ahead of him.

Fortunately, it isn't yet too late for Ignatieff to recognize the obvious dangers of supporting continued Con government. But lest there be any doubt, neither the Cons nor their mouthpieces in the media are about to ease off the Libs for a second longer than they have to in order to keep Harper in power. And if Ignatieff takes the easy way out for the short term by propping up a government which he knows can't be trusted, then he and his party figure to start paying the price the moment they make that choice.

Deep thought

Somebody should tell Ted Menzies that it's faster to cut and paste Con talking points than to type them out by hand.

All for show

The Cons' pre-budget PR blitz now includes some attempt to distance themselves from the fiscal update fiasco and other glaring examples of putting partisanship above all. But it's worth noting that even the Cons' sources aren't pretending that message is anything more than a temporary facade:

Last fall's economic statement led to the creation of the Liberal-NDP coalition and the near-death of the government. Government officials have pointed fingers at Mr. Giorno, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and at Mr. Harper himself for the statement and its inclusion of such initiatives as suspending the public service's right to strike and the effort to eliminate voter subsidies to political parties.

While nobody has been reprimanded for the November difficulties, it now appears clear the government wants to send a message that it has learned its lesson...

One Tory insider also said that the PMO has sent out messages that individual ministers are not to draw attention to themselves during the budget process by pushing forward controversial ideas.

"There's a sense now that now's not the time for gimmicks," said the Tory. "We just have to appear serious at this stage. We can't appear to be poking our fingers in people's eyes."

The obvious first problem with the Cons' apparent position lies in their continued focus on perception rather than reality. Instead of showing any actual contrition for their past faults or even trying to do better for the future, they're once again looking to do nothing more than paper over the continued problems with Con government in order to survive the impending confidence vote.

All of which means that the Cons' strategy can be summed up in a familiar line:

Sincerity - If you can fake that, you've got it made.

Now, the Cons may well be clueless enough to think that a display of Groucho Marxism should somehow pacify the opposition parties. But Canadians who are expecting a serious response to the economic downturn only have all the more reason to be skeptical about the Cons' continued focus on appearances over substance.

What's more, it's implicit in the insider's statement that the Cons are perfectly happy to resort to gimmicks when the timing is right - or indeed to "(poke) fingers in people's eyes" as long as they can avoid the public appearance of doing so. And a civil servant sourced for the Globe's article confirms what we can expect if Harper is left in power:

When asked whether Mr. Harper would have done so much consulting without the sword of the coalition hanging over his head, the bureaucrat said "no way, no way. This isn't in their DNA. They're playing against type here."

That should offer another sure signal of what can be expected after the budget: any vote of confidence in Harper will only encourage him to resume his usual micromanagement and hyperpartisanship. And no amount of panicked messaging in the face of the democratic coalition will change that reality.

High stakes

The Disaffected Lib raises a good point about just how much Michael Ignatieff might be putting at risk if he goes along with the Cons' budget:

Come Tuesday, somebody's going to flinch. If it's Ignatieff he risks being seen as just another feckless leader like Dion whose caucus was known to steer clear of Parliament on confidence votes they couldn't support. Iggy is still just interim leader. How he handles the budget on Tuesday could impact on his expected coronation. He too has issues with his base, both existing supporters and those voters he needs to attract to the party.

Now, I haven't yet heard much public discussion about a serious Lib leadership race. And particularly if Ignatieff is busy actually governing the country before May, there wouldn't seem to be much risk of a viable challenge being raised.

But that could easily change if Ignatieff were to decide to prop up Harper, and thus begin to get tarred with the Cons' actions. With many within the party already having had enough of ducking confidence votes under Dion, it wouldn't be at all surprising if somebody else perceived an opening to make a serious run at the Libs' top job. Which means that the political stakes riding on Ignatieff's budget vote may involve his own leadership in addition to his party's claim to be a viable opposition to the Cons.

On responses

As I noted last week, the Cons' strategy for now looks to be to announce as many sectoral giveaways as they can in hopes that the actors involved will in turn put pressure on Michael Ignatieff to pass the budget. Let's follow up by noting that Jack Layton's response on CBC this morning offers an effective means of muting that message: rather than critiquing the Cons' spending announcements, Layton suggested that the measures made public so far are entirely consistent with NDP principles, and even mentioned the possibility of including some of the Cons' measures in a coalition budget.

Which seems like a tidy way to shift the discussion from the Cons' specific announcements to a broad comparison as to who's best suited to manage a stimulus package. But there may still be room to develop another theme on the latter point.

So far, the main message put forward by the opposition has been to the effect that the Cons can't be trusted to effectively administer spending which runs counter to their ideology. And that's certainly an idea worth emphasizing. But it's worth taking a hint from this month's developments south of the border as well.

After all, Barack Obama has announced not only an oversight board dedicated to handling stimulus spending, but also a plan to make audits and reports publicly available.

In contrast, the Cons' announcements to date have consisted solely of pools of money without so much as an indication of expected results, let alone any substantive oversight mechanisms. And the Harper government seems to be in far too much of a hurry to take credit for shovelling money out of the public purse to change that focus anytime soon.

As a result, the door is wide open for the opposition to mirror Obama's message and focus on the need for increased accountability to ensure that a stimulus plan actually works. And given the potential benefits from presenting a second main reason why Deficit Jim and Recession Stephen shouldn't be left in charge which will play well with some of the Cons' core supporters, it'll be a disappointment if they don't take the opportunity.

Transparent

Shorter Tim Powers:

It's the height of openness and transparency to tell people only what we want them to hear, when we want them to hear it.

Simple answers to simple questions

Robert asks:

Is it really fiscally responsible for the Harper government to have Conservative MPs winging off to various parts of the country on the taxpayer’s dime during an economic downturn in order to make announcements that could just as easily be made in Ottawa?

No. But the Cons are happy to let us pay the price to make sure that the media questioning one minister doesn't have any idea what's being promised by the others.

The Hack Doctrine

In case there was any doubt how the Cons' budget will weight the relative importance of the national interest and Stephen Harper's political future, the Financial Post points out Con insiders and supporters alike looking at the economic crisis as an opportunity to pay off the party's base and make life more difficult for future governments:

"It is a nontraditional time, but there is a traditional opportunity -- and it is in legacy issues," said a Conservative Party insider. "You can also spend money to please Conservative voters, with the public accepting that exceptional circumstances are at play and the global economy is giving you cover for that."...

"Temporary spending and permanent tax cuts fit within the ideology of the Conservative Party," said Henry Jacek, a political science professor at McMaster University in Hamilton (ed. note - and avowed Ontario Con supporter).

Further, Mr. Jacek said tax cuts would act as a poison pill of sorts. Either the Liberals opt to defeat the budget and defend the rationale of rejecting tax cuts, or they allow the budget to go through, but risk being stuck with managing a large deficit should they come to power later.

In sum, the Cons' response to a national recession has been no different from their typical focus since they first took power. Rather than putting any effort into determining what policies will actually benefit Canada the most, they're merely looking for excuses to pay off their current and potential supporters.

But the flip side is that when even the Cons' insiders are publicly trumpeting their intention to use an economic downturn for political advantage, there's little reason to think Canadians at large won't take notice if that message is emphasized enough. And the opposition parties have every reason to agree with the view that any effort to impose Con ideology under the cover of a crisis represents a poison pill which justifies removing Harper and his government from office.

Edit: fixed typo.

The reviews are in

Stephen Maher may use more gentle phrasing than would be ideal, but nicely summarizes a couple of Deceivin' Stephen's latest attempts to avoid reality:

(Harper's claim about capping equalization) sounds reasonable, except that the O’Brien commission did not call for a cap on equalization linked to the growth of the economy, which the Tories are imposing, but suggested the government publish a discussion paper if it unilaterally changed the program. The Finance Department has not published such a paper.

The prime minister’s misdirection here suggests (understandable) discomfort on his part.

In several other recent interviews, Mr. Harper was similarly economical with the truth — in particular on the subject of the government’s shifting response to the recession...

Mr. Harper’s comments suggest that either he has convinced himself that the government has not changed its position, or he is trying to change the record so his government will not seem to have changed its position.

On double-counting

If there was any doubt why the Cons are unveiling portions of their budget early, the first set of reports on today's PR stunts should provide the answer. The apparent game is to present specific funding plans as being tied to a number of mutually exclusive commitments - and from all indications the Cons figure the best way to do it is through multiple announcements which are unclear in their scope.

Let's start with this story, which describes a single fund apparently intended to cover re-training across all economic sectors:

The federal budget will include a $1-billion fund to help workers in hard-hit industries.

Government officials have told The Canadian Press the program -- a centrepiece of Tuesday's federal budget -- will be Canada-wide, and apply to industries ranging from forestry to agriculture to manufacturing...

Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt offered some details of the fund in a speech where she specifically cited forestry workers.

She told a Nova Scotia audience that the new fund will help communities adapt to the changing economic climate...

Other federal ministers are expected to share more details of the fund at events across the country Friday.

But look what happens when a separate article focuses on Raitt's speech:

The federal government will spend $1.15 billion on new initiatives to help the forestry industry.

Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt said the federal budget, to be tabled Tuesday, will contain three new initiatives to help the struggling sector...

Raitt said that she expects the budget will contain a new community adjustment fund worth $1 billion to help rural areas adapt to the changing economic climate...

Raitt also said the budget would set aside more than $100 million to invest in the development of emerging technologies for the forest sector, including forest biomass utilization and the development of next-generation forest products.

The federal budget will also contain $50 million to promote the forest sector abroad. This had been one of the requests made by the Forest Products Association of Canada.

Now, it looks like one or both of the articles must be off in its assumptions. Indeed, even on Raitt's wording the second is seemingly wrong in counting the entire $1 billion as funding for forestry. And it's possible the first one is wrong as well in taking Raitt's words to apply to the same fund rather than reflecting two separate funds (one for retraining, one for rural communities).

But that may not be the reporters' fault so much as the Cons' design. If Harper wanted his government to set out a clear statement of exactly how much money he intends to commit to what industries and goals, it surely wouldn't be that complicated a task to do so - and indeed one would expect him to be responsible for any unclear messages coming from his sources and cabinet ministers.

Which makes it look likely that the Cons' plan is to spread their ministers out across the country to try to link one or two funding envelopes to multiple different industries and priorities, while hoping that the contradictions inherent in those announcements don't get pointed out until it's too late.

Of course, nobody involved would figure to be happy when they find out that the headline numbers don't actually apply to them. But the Cons are presumably happy to take that risk in the future if it means pushing the Libs to keep them in power now. And the illusion of "$1.15 billion for forestry!" - repeated for every industrial sector - may well induce some businesses to try to put pressure on Ignatieff if they haven't considered the fine print.

Fortunately, there's an easy answer to the Cons' shell game. Surely the opposition parties have every reason to highlight the Cons' misleading announcements as another indication that they're not interested in presenting an honest financial picture. And if Harper's apparent plan receives the skeptical reception it deserves, then virtually everybody who the Cons are apparently hoping to win over to their corner will have reason to want a change in government now.

Well said

James Bow:

(E)ither Ignatieff has an idea of how to get us out of the economic crisis or he doesn’t. If he does, he should be making his suggestions now and, if necessary, working with the constitution to take charge to implement them. If not, then he should get out of the way and cede power to the professionals who do have the ideas. It says nothing good about the character of some Liberals that they’d allow individual Canadians to suffer so as to increase anger at the current governing party, making it easier for the Liberal party to take power down the road.

Say what you will about the merits or morality of Jack Layton and Stephane Dion’s coalition proposal, but these two leaders were still willing to put themselves in charge at a time when it may be very politically inconvenient to be so. That, in my opinion, is an example of two people putting their country before their parties, which is something we should laud.

Documented double standards

Impolitical discusses the latest developments in Conadscam, featuring an attempt by Elections Commissioner William Corbett to unseal millions of pages of documents to which the Cons have denied access based on a sketchy claim to solicitor-client privilege. But it's worth pointing out that the Cons' argument is far weaker than it would be if they were actually claiming that all of the documents in question were privileged:

Elections Canada is asking a judge to unseal up to a staggering five million pages of Conservative party documents tied to allegations the party broke federal election laws with a controversial advertising campaign in the 2006 election...

Elections Commissioner William Corbett and lawyers with the federal public prosecution service have asked the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to review the documents after the party claimed they contained confidential information that is protected by solicitor-client privilege...

“The investigation cannot adequately proceed because the number of documents over which privilege is claimed, and which investigators and our forensic accountants are therefore unable to review, results in potential evidence not being available to investigators,” Ronald Lamothe said in an affidavit supporting the application...

RCMP computer experts cast doubt in the affidavit on Conservative claims that it would be too onerous to review the millions of computer documents to weed out records that might be available to Elections Canada without violating privilege.

So the issue isn't that there's any plausible claim to privilege over the whole lot of documents. Instead, the Cons' argument relies on a claim that some portion of the documents might be privileged - and that since they can't be bothered to determine which ones actually are, the easier solution is instead to deprive Elections Canada of the ability to review the documents which aren't, regardless of how relevant they might be to the investigation.

Which presumably makes for an ideal outcome for the Cons. But consider how the claim would look if it were any other party making the same claim - for example, an individual under investigation for corporate fraud saying that the police can't look at a single file seized from the relevant office because some legal advice might be included.

Needless to say, under those circumstances the Cons would be the first to wail about a system which coddles criminals rather than allowing investigators to do their jobs. But as always, the same standards to be applied to everybody else are seen as far too onerous when applied to the Cons.

And that's doubly clear when one looks at another of the Cons' arguments. At the same time as they claim that it would be an undue burden to have to identify privileged documents which they've held for over three years, the Cons are also trying to make the case that Elections Canada should have been able to thoroughly review them during the course of a single-day raid. From Canwest's coverage:

Conservative party lawyers say investigators probing the financing of the 2006 election campaign seized documents outside the scope of their search warrant when they raided the party's Ottawa headquarters last spring.

Investigators working for Commissioner of Canada Elections William Corbett took away dozens of boxes of printed documents and hard drives with millions of e-mails and electronic accounting records. The seizure of material was "overbroad" and netted vast amounts of irrelevant records, the Conservatives argue.

Of course, when a party is left making such contradictory arguments, it's usually a sign that it doesn't figure that either position will get far on its own. And hopefully the latest hearing will allow Corbett to determine just who properly bears responsibility for the Cons' spending manipulations - regardless of how loudly the Cons continue to shriek that the rules shouldn't apply to them.

We have a race

It doesn't come as much surprise based on his earlier hints, but Yens Pedersen has announced his entry into the Saskatchewan NDP leadership contest with a theme of youth and change.

We'll find out before too long how well Pedersen does in selling that message (and from what I've seen so far he looks to be winning over at least a few of his targets). But whatever the result, it's a plus that he's officially thrown his hat in the ring.

On boundaries

Today's revelations that the Cons are planning to gut the Environmental Assessment Act figure to demand plenty of follow-up. But for now, let's note one element of the leaked plan which doesn't seem to have been emphasized elsewhere:

The leaked documents show the Conservatives are planning to rush a watered-down version of the Environmental Assessment Act through parliament as early as March or April. The new rules would exempt from environmental assessment: any Building Canada infrastructure projects under $10 million regardless of the environmental or health risk; any project on federal lands or using federal dollars; and, any project that a provincial government asks be exempted.

Now, we'll have to see the exact wording to know exactly what terms might exist for that type of exemption. But it's not hard to imagine the problems that could arise if Ed Stelmach decides to avoid any discussion of the effect of new oil sands projects, or if Brad Wall concludes that Bruce Power is best served by avoiding a thorough review of the effects of a nuclear reactor.

Moreover, it would seem entirely possible for one province to offload environmental issues onto another by requesting to avoid any assessment of a project whose effects might be felt elsewhere. Which may result in far more risk than opportunity in the Cons' plans for many provinces - and that in turn may lead more than a few provinces to join Canadians who don't see the economic crisis as an excuse to throw the environment out the window in opposing the Cons' plans.

On lesser options

With Michael Ignatieff affirming the possibility of leading the democratic coalition to government while making the case against yet another federal election, the possibilities. But not surprisingly, at least a few commentators have been trying to suggest other avenues which the Libs might take on the budget. So let's take a look at those less-likely options, and how they'd likely turn out for all parties concerned.

One theory suggests that the Libs could repudiate the coalition but still seek the nod from Michaelle Jean to form a single-party government after a vote of non-confidence in the Cons. In effect, the goal would be to take the momentum that the NDP and Bloc have built to remove the Cons from office, and turn it on those parties to force them to back the Libs absent an agreement to do so.

But there are a couple of serious problems with that theory. First, there's the instability of the potential government: having backed out an agreed governing structure, the Libs couldn't expect support from other parties to last long if anybody saw a potential for gain in bringing them down. Which means that unlike the agreed coalition structure, a Lib-only government would face a serious risk of being voted down if another party decided that the political winds had shifted. And it would be the Libs alone left wearing that failure.

In addition, the Libs' limited caucus size would make a single-party government problematic. After all, they'd be looking at having up to half of their MPs in cabinet just to keep the government running - and with the Libs also needing to keep up with their duties in Parliament, carry on constituency relations and work through a party rebuilding process, I can't see how the Libs would want to risk sidetracking that many of their MPs rather than sharing some of the burden.

Another theory suggests that the Libs should seek to pass a budget amendment as a way of detaching themselves from the coalition and putting momentary pressure on the NDP and Bloc. But I'm not sure that the theory has been entirely thought through.

After all, the Cons would indeed have the opportunity to take the amendment as friendly and pass it without leaving any risk in the hands of the other parties. Which would result in Harper being able to say that he's literally doing exactly what the Libs want him to, even as a Con government gets to mangle and politicize the actual implementation at every turn.

Which looks to me to be the worst of all possible worlds: full responsibility for the outcome of a budget at a time of economic uncertainty, and exactly zero say in how Harper continues to govern the country.

So how would the Libs change the latter point? That would be through the final possibility of a grand coalition - which has rightly been dismissed to the extent it's been discussed by anybody but Con partisans, but almost looks palatable compared to the above options.

If the Libs were to make a public push for a true Con/Lib coalition to deal with the economic crisis, Harper might have little choice but to go along - particularly given the noises he's made about substantially agreeing with the Libs on the budget.

By putting some Libs at the cabinet table from a junior partner position, Ignatieff would have the opportunity to at least influence how some of an agreed budget was implemented - both through the Libs' ministerial responsibilities, and by eliminating Harper's full control over cabinet discussions. And one would have to figure Harper would have a far more difficult time pushing his usual overtly political agenda with some of his opponents in cabinet.

In addition, the terms of a grand coalition agreement could both rein in some of the Cons' more damaging policies, and provide the Libs with a firm timeline in which they'd likely be able to avoid an election. Which would offer at least some assurances which wouldn't exist under any other structure where the Cons stay in power.

Which means that of the additional options being put forward, the "grand coalition" idea might actually be the least damaging for Ignatieff and his party. But the fact that the Libs' next-best option is to be a junior coalition partner while leaving Harper in power may only serve to highlight just how undesirable their choices are other than pursuing a progressive coalition with the NDP. And that might explain why Ignatieff and his party seem to be stepping up their preparations to move on the coalition as it stands.

Update: Erin has more on the problems with the amendment option.

(Edit: fixed wording.)

On working relationships

Shorter Tim Powers:

It's preposterous to think Barack Obama would be able to get along with a prime minister who disagrees with him on some issues. But a prime minister who disagrees with Obama on the same issues and whose government sabotaged his primary campaign - now that's a bestest buddy in the making.

Grasping at straws

Following up on their previous attempt to rely on glaringly flawed spin as their best hope to saddle opposition parties with Deficit Jim's sea of red ink, the Cons' mouthpieces are now clinging to an obvious omission to try to pretend that the prospect of a coalition has passed. Which raises the question: what does it say about a party when the closest it has to good news is bad journalism?

On openness

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the NDP's open economic roundtable on Monday, particularly based on its apparent success in attracting the media to cover substantive policy discussions:

10:15:02 AM
Okay, I take back my prediction that my fellow reporters would be fleeing in droves by the half hour mark - there are actually more of us here now than when we started. I wonder if anyone is covering it live, or if CPAC is still running highlights from last fall’s total collapse of Parliament.

In related news, the Cons' idea of open government continues to be a consistent message of "off the record, no comment".

Marvels of consistency

Shorter Cons a couple of weeks ago when it was revealed that some of their planned Senate appointments were constitutionally invalid:

Nothing's final until the senators are sworn in, so it doesn't matter who isn't qualified at the time of the announcement.


Shorter Cons responding to sexual harrassment allegations and financial malpractice surrounding Patrick Brazeau well before his swearing-in:

The appointment is a done deal which we're utterly powerless to change.

Deep thought

The Cons' attempts to take advantage of an Obama halo effect won't get them far at all if they're out of office before he arrives in Canada.

Setting the stage

A couple of weeks back, I mused about what different types of public stances from the Libs might mean in determining the likelihood of their voting down the Cons' budget in favour of the democratic coalition. But now that the Libs have had their opportunity to frame a position before the budget is unveiled, let's take a look at what it might mean.

Starting off with the seeming downside, the Libs have conspicuously failed to say much about the actual coalition deal with the NDP, perhaps wasting a significant opportunity in the process.

After all, even assuming that the Libs need to leave open the possibility of voting for the budget in order to ensure that Harper allows a vote to take place, it would seem possible to preserve a full range of options while still working to boost the actual example of how a coalition might work. Instead, the Libs have offered some defence of the idea of a coalition in theory, but with little mention of the one which might actually come into being - which means that the Cons' messaging from December which tried to cut the NDP and the Bloc out of the Canadian political picture hasn't faced the opposition that it could have.

That said, there's plenty of possible good news as well. Perhaps most significantly, the Libs' public discussion of a shadow budget would make little sense if they didn't perceive a significant opportunity to put that budget into place. And the fact that the Libs will have their own budget plan ready for public presentation should help to nudge the Libs toward the more favourable type of decision-making process: rather than merely deciding whether Harper's plan meets some bare standard of adequacy, they'll figure to be able to make their decision based on the question of which plan is actually better.

In addition, more than a few Libs have picked up on the message that Harper has lost the trust of Parliament. And there wouldn't appear to be much way to reconcile that acknowledgment with a decision to keep Harper in power when the opportunity to replace him presents itself.

Finally, there's what may be the most interesting development: the Libs' recent message that they won't approach Michaelle Jean with the coalition, but would serve as a government only if asked.

On its face, that could easily be interpreted as a sign of reluctance about the coalition. But I have to wonder if it might instead serve as both a means of defusing Con-stoked anger about the coalition, and framing expectations in the event that the coalition comes to pass.

On the public opinion side, one of the Cons' most frequent criticisms of the coalition has been to try to paint the parties involved as hungry for power. But that may be a much more difficult narrative to sell if the Libs make it clear that they're not asking the Governor-General for the position.

And similarly, there's probably an argument to be made that a party which makes a clear statement that it wants to take over the reins immediately should face a higher standard than one which takes power only based on somebody else's request in the national interest.

All of which is to say that while the Libs have still been shy about saying much positive about the coalition (presumably to avoid any lingering associations if they do lose their nerve on the budget vote), there's still a strong case to be made that their messaging has nicely kept the option open. Which means that once again, the main question looks to be whether they'll take the opportunity when the time comes.

The reviews are in

Dan Gardner:

(H)ere is the Conservative Party of Canada suggesting, in effect, that people should be scared as jackrabbits about the economy. And that people should support unknown economic policies which are decidedly not before Parliament.

If this misleading and alarmist ad is any indication, Stephen Harper has learned nothing from the debacle in December.

On factual deficits

Not that anybody could possibly have seen it coming. But Con apologists are now trying to take advantage of their own deliberate confusion as to just how Deficit Jim put Canada into the red. So let's remind readers of a few points in terms that even the National Post's audience can understand.

Jim Flaherty has put Canada in a deficit position before a cent is spent on economic stimulus. The opposition parties aren't now, and have never been, happy about that fact.

Independently of that issue, though, economic stimulus is needed to avoid prolonging and deepening the recession which Stephen Harper said would never happen. And that would be equally true whether or not Jim Flaherty was already running a deficit.

Putting those all together, there's nothing contradictory about criticizing Jim Flaherty for his structural deficits while also highlighting the need for economic stimulus. And it's in fact the Cons who are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of Canadians by misleading the public about their pre-existing deficit.

Edit: fixed wording.

Either-or

Impolitical has largely dealt with the latest report on sketchy practices under Patrick Brazeau's watch, including distributing cash to members at meetings and continuing to make payments on projects which had expired. But let's note as well what the story has to say about the Cons' vetting process or lack thereof:

Health Canada is demanding the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples return up to $260,000 in ineligible expenses after an audit found directors of the native advocacy group divvied up thousands of dollars in federal cash with insufficient evidence of where the money went.

The federal department has suspended all funding to the organization, led until recently by new Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau, until the group comes up with a plan to pay back the money and respond to the government's concerns.

Health Canada launched an audit in late 2007 to find out what happened to $472,900 it transferred to the congress for projects aimed at improving aboriginal health in areas such as early childhood development and diabetes.

Auditors discovered a long list of problems, including improper per diem claims, the hiring of consultants without contracts or competition and the handing out of large sums of cash to directors with little explanation...

The department said it will not finalize and publish the audit until it is repaid by the congress. Health Canada's comments were in response to questions from The Globe, which obtained a draft audit report dated March 28, 2008.

Now, it would seem fairly likely that the audit report would have been seen by the higher-ups at the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, particularly given how quick the organization was to come up with excuses and explanations once the Globe and Mail started investigating.

Which raises the question about just how much the Cons knew when they first announced their intention to give Brazeau the cushiest patronage appointment in Canadian history. And it doesn't look like any answer will be a positive for the Cons.

On the one hand, it could be that the Cons did so little vetting that they didn't so much as check with Brazeau or any of the people he's worked with in the role which set him up for his impending appointment about the existence of financial impropriety while he was in charge. Which seems entirely possible given the Cons' haste to stack the Senate, but looks to be going even further than the lack of preparation which was already known. (And it's worth wondering as well whether Brazeau and his entourage were fully forthcoming in answering any questions which the Cons might have posed.)

Or on the other hand, the Cons could have known about the problem and decided to appoint Brazeau anyway. Again, that wouldn't come as much surprise given how brazen they've been about ensuring that none of their own face meaningful consequences for their actions. But it would surely serve as a damning indictment of the standards of any government to state that misuse of public funds is seen as grounds for a lifetime promotion.

Not surprisingly, either problem would only be amplified in the context of a recession where the government which has shown either gross incompetence or disinterest in financial accountability now plans to manage a multi-billion dollar stimulus package. And regardless of what the Cons knew or should have known earlier, the more stubborn they are in ramming through their Senate appointments in the wake of public revelations like these, the more impetus the opposition parties should have to make sure the Brazeau appointment is one of Harper's last mistakes.

On omissions

Aaron Wherry asks one interesting question arising out of Diane Finley's signature turning up on a petition against OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino. But I'd see a couple more worth tossing into the mix.

Did the Cons somehow miss "signing petitions" on their list of actions which MPs can't take without the PMO's approval?

And if so, what's the over/under on the number of minutes after the CP story went public before that changed?

Publicity hounding

Jane Taber's latest "hot and not" column rightly criticizes the Harper government for attempting to take sole credit for the provincial labour mobility agreement signed last week. But it's worth noting that the events of the first ministers' conference only scratch the surface of how Harper's attempt at branding the agreement conflicts with the reality of how it was reached:

Mr. Harper's staff wanted their boss, and only their boss, to be in the spotlight for the photo op when an agreement on trade mobility was signed at the first ministers meeting yesterday. The PMO, according to sources, wanted the premiers to sign the agreement behind closed doors and then in public have the PM sign for the cameras. The premiers would stand behind him. Loud shouting ensued as the provincial officials pushed back. They won: The PM and premiers all sat together at a long table and smiled for the cameras.

What Taber doesn't mention is that the process in question has been in the works for years - and with provinces rather than the federal government taking the lead at every step.

As far back as 2006, Manitoba premier Gary Doer had been working on getting an interprovincial labour mobility agreement in place. In recent meetings, Jean Charest and Shawn Graham had joined Doer as the leading public backers of the move. And the signing this weekend merely involved formalizing terms which the provinces had agreed to in principle last July at a Council of the Federation meeting which (as best I can tell) didn't include federal participation.

In other words, the fact that Harper was even in attendance when the final agreement was signed can best be classified as a coincidence or a contrivance. But that apparently didn't stop Harper from trying to position himself to take sole public credit for the work the provinces had done.

All of which serves to highlight that once again, the Cons' main commitment is to perception rather than reality. And with Canada facing a recession which demands effective federal action, there's no reason to settle for a government whose sole plan is to take credit for others' accomplishments.

Misplaced priorities

I've already pointed out one telling passage from Stephen Harper's interview with John Ivison. But let's note that in addition to representing no change at all from the Cons' habits over their past three years in power, Harper's plans apparently also place any desire for effective stimulus behind both ideological considerations and his personal desire to pander for votes:

Harper: ...(M)ake no mistake, that as a Conservative government, we think it is very important that the middle class be part of a stimulus program. Yes, it is very important to help the vulnerable, struggling sectors and help people who are losing their jobs, but you can’t sustain economic activity without having stimulus for the middle class as well. That’s very important. Since the middle class is paying most of the freight, the middle class has to share in the stimulus program and we will be making sure that is the case.

So what's wrong with that passage? From my standpoint, there are two glaring signs that Harper has something other than the best interests of Canada's economy at heart.

First, Harper looks to be confirming the usual Con view that multi-party cooperation means other parties going along with their plans. Rather than presenting a message that he's looking to find common ground that's acceptable to two or more parties, Harper's frame of reference is "as a Conservative government" - with the implication being that he's more concerned with catering to his base by doing what Con governments normally do than he is with putting together a package which will be acceptable to anybody but his own party.

Which is of course exactly what got Harper into his current predicament in the first place, as he wrongly concluded that he was entitled to push typical Conservative attacks on pay equity and union rights into last fall's fiscal update without considering whether anybody else supported them. But evidently any lesson which Harper could have learned from that experience has been long forgotten or put aside - a fact which shouldn't be lost on the Libs in particular in assessing whether the Cons ought to be left with the levers of power.

Mind you, there's a strong case to be made that partisanship of any kind shouldn't be the main concern for a budget which is supposed to set out Harper's plan to deal with a recession over a period of several years. But the question of what policies are best designed to put Canada's economy back on track is a different one from what policies are most popular with the middle class or those who are "paying most of the freight".

Now, an actual leader would figure to be willing to make the case as to what policies will be most effective on their own to relieve the effects of the recession, and put some political capital into getting those who have less need for help to buy in based on the national interest. But Harper's answer states fairly clearly that he's committed to pandering to the latter groups by saying that any package should be conditional on their receiving some handouts as well - rather than to putting together the most effective set of policies possible.

Not surprisingly, Harper has already been rightly criticized by a number of economists for those types of plans which simply don't make sense from an economic perspective:

(S)ome economic tools under consideration — including temporary tax cuts and other incentives to spend — could backfire, say a group of six high-profile economists. Such measures often don't result in extra spending by tight-fisted consumers during tough times. The budget should instead aim to fix employment insurance and other programs that protect the most vulnerable in a recession, they said.

"I'm dead against a temporary GST cut," said Warren Jestin, chief economist at Bank of Nova Scotia, one of the members of the economists' group, which met with The Globe and Mail's editorial board Friday before Mr. Harper emerged from the premiers meeting...

Don Drummond, chief economist at Toronto-Dominion Bank and a former Finance Department official, said there is still discussion about temporary cuts to the goods and services tax and other federal levies. Another idea being bandied about in Ottawa, Mr. Drummond said, is for vouchers in the range of $500 to $1,000 to induce consumers to make purchases at Canadian retailers within a given time frame.

He dismissed the notion, which he described as being akin to retailer gift cards, as ridiculous. "There's a compact between citizens under which citizens allow governments to take their money to respend on the public good," he said. "This is not a public good."

On other issues, the group of economists said:...

* Support for low-income Canadians may have a greater economic impact than measures for the whole population, because poor people spend more of their income.

But while the economists quoted obviously can't do more than to point out the economic ineffectiveness of Harper's plans, the Libs hold the power to make sure that any stimulus is actually targeted toward ensuring Canada's prosperity rather than serving Harper's political goals. And hopefully they'll recognize that both they and the country at large will be best off if they take that opportunity.

On duress

In case there's any doubt how much (or how little) credence to give to the Cons' attempt to claim support from a number of premiers in the wake of this week's federal/provincial meeting, let's consider a simple question.

Does anybody think Stephen Harper is above threatening to withhold or delay stimulus funding to any premier who hurts his position vis-a-vis the coalition?

I'd think the answer is fairly obvious - particularly in light of the Cons' track record of allocating funding based on politics alone. So in the immediate aftermath of a conference where Harper had a captive audience with which to both promise gobs of money and threaten to pull it back, it's worth taking any declarations of support for continued Harper government with a heavy grain of salt.

Still more of the same

Martin Mittlestaedt highlights yet another example of Stephen Harper's failing state, as yet another supposed Con priority has been stopped in its tracks without warning or explanation:

The federal government made international headlines last year when it added bisphenol A to the country's toxic substances list, but it has quietly stopped issuing new reviews of hazardous chemicals under the program that highlighted the dangers of the plastic-making compound.

The initiative, known as the Chemicals Management Plan, was supposed to issue assessments during November and December of the effect on human health and the environment of about 50 possibly hazardous substances.

Among them are several that European regulators have flagged for their cancer-causing potential, and a group of substances, using silicone, that are widely added to cosmetics and other personal-care products.

Ottawa hasn't issued evaluations of any of them, stoking worries among public-health and environmental advocates that the government is cooling toward the plan...

And lest anybody hope for a straight answer on that or any of the Cons' other failures, those are no more likely now than they've ever been. After all, the Cons are too busy speaking from their all-politics script to acknowledge any of their own mistakes:

Conservatives have been told to communicate the government's intention to run a deficit in the range of $20 billion to $30 billion.

Don't expect apologies for having projected surpluses just two short months ago or for inserting into the November economic update those provocative cuts to public financing for political parties or curbs to public servants' right to strike that sparked the opposition's threat to bring down the government.

And don't expect any acknowledgment that Conservative policies – such as relaxed rules around mortgage financing brought in by the government – exacerbated the economic situation.

Instead, the tone remains defiant.

So once again, the Cons' actions have signalled their complete lack of fitness for office. But once again, they couldn't care less about actually following through on their supposed commitments, instead dedicating their efforts to drowning out that reality with spin.

Fortunately, the decision as to whether or not the Cons can keep exercising power that way isn't in their hands. And the more the Cons keep up their combination of stonewalling and finger-pointing instead of doing anything useful, the more obvious the choice will be for all of the opposition parties to decide that it's time for some positive change.

Nothing learned, nothing changed

With Stephen Harper's political career likely riding on the result of a single confidence vote, it isn't much surprise that he's once again putting on a media blitz. But even in the face of those high stakes, he apparently can't help giving away the fact that he doesn't plan on offering up anything more than his government's standard fare:

Ivison: You’ve talked about the deficit being “very, very large”. I know you won’t put a figure on it but that has the potential to strangle the public finances down the road. Are you worried that the legacy of this will be you will have to cut back program spending dramatically or raise taxes?

Harper: No...We have the financial situation that allows us to borrow money in the short term and spend that money, as long as most of that is time-limited spending. That’s what we’re going to be proposing — programs of one to two years duration for the most part. The key will be for us to resist calls that will be inevitable to extend some of those things indefinitely.

Ivison: So we don’t expect permanent tax cuts, for example?

Harper: I’m saying on the spending side, most of the actions we’ll be bringing forward are of a short-term nature, in terms of their financial impact. We do not have the intention of running a structural deficit or having a whole bunch of long-term spending initiatives.

Note the conspicuous change of subject in the last answer. Invited to suggest that the stimulus package as a whole - tax cuts included - would be time-targeted to deal with the financial crisis, Harper apparently can't bring himself to put an end date on another round of tax slashing. But when it comes to any spending, Harper draws a line in the sand to the effect that his government has no interest in anything but temporary actions.

Which raises an important question: how would a budget along those lines be any different from what the Cons have been doing their entire time in office?

From the beginning, the Cons have coupled low-efficiency tax cuts intended to permanently weaken the federal government with just enough short-term spending to paper over their lack of interest in social issues. And it's that combination which has already pushed Canada into at least half a decade of deficits to come, while securing Harper's image as somebody who's more interested in using the public purse to pursue his ideological agenda than in governing responsibly.

In sum, anybody holding out hope that Harper would take advantage of a last chance to try to put together a budget that's designed for the public interest rather than the pursuit of a right-wing agenda is headed for yet another disappointment. Instead, Harper has again signalled that he only knows how to govern one way - and that the mere combination of a financial crisis facing the country and a coalition waiting to replace him isn't about to take precedence over conservative dogma.

Words of warning

As I've noted before, it's for the best that the NDP is keeping up a positive message toward the coalition rather than threatening the obvious consequences if Michael Ignatieff chooses to match Stephane Dion's most crucial strategic mistake. But lest there be any fear that the Libs wouldn't receive any due warning about the effects of propping up Harper, Gilles Duceppe is rightly highlighting the dangers of propping up the Cons:

Le nouveau chef du Parti libéral du Canada, Michael Ignatieff, pourrait connaître le même sort que son prédécesseur Stéphane Dion et perdre en crédibilité s'il devait appuyer le budget conservateur, qui sera déposé le 27 janvier.

C'est la mise en garde qu'a faite hier le chef du Bloc Québécois, Gilles Duceppe, qui était à Québec dans le cadre d'une tournée du Québec avant la reprise des travaux parlementaires. «M. Ignatieff aura une décision à prendre, a-t-il affirmé. S'il accepte les propositions de M. Harper qui sont insatisfaisantes parce qu'il ne veut pas exercer le pouvoir ou qu'il ne veut pas d'élections, il fera la même chose que M. Dion.»

It's worth noting that as pleased as the Libs are with their recent poll numbers, their largest gains have come in the province where the democratic coalition is particularly popular. And while riding that wave of approval to the government benches would give the Libs a chance to lock in and increase Ignatieff's level of support, it wouldn't take long for both the Bloc and the NDP to start eating away at the current numbers if the Libs signal that they're not interested in listening to Quebeckers' concerns about the Cons' fitness for government.

Indeed, the risks for Ignatieff in supporting the Cons' budget may be even greater than they were for Dion: unlike his predecessor, he has an obvious opening in Quebec which he'd stand to lose. And the Libs' decision on the budget may make the difference between their reaping the benefits of frustration with the Harper government where they most need to rebuild their electoral machine, or squandering their best chance to set themselves up for future electoral gains.

Sinking in

It's no great secret that Stephen Harper can't be trusted to deal with the economic crisis. But it may be news to some that Canadians fully recognize that fact.

On non-stories

It's probably true that "MP Peter Stoffer at odds with mischaracterization of leader's position" wouldn't have quite the same ring to it. But that doesn't mean there's any excuse for this.

And it's worth wondering just how many enterprising questioners are calling out the one leader who actually has rejected suggestions before hearing them.

On legacies

Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page confirms that just months after promising balanced budgets no matter what, Deficit Jim Flaherty has ensured that Canada's financial picture will match his moniker for "more than five years" to come. Which leads to the inevitable question: how much more of a monument to incompetence should the opposition parties want to let him build?

Edit: fixed wording & label.

Positive steps

Just as the first musings emerged about the NDP being relatively quiet, both Jack Layton and Thomas Mulcair sent a strong message about the coalition yesterday. And there's plenty to like about the general themes:

"I think it's a happy marriage and we had a nice cup of coffee and a good discussion," Mr. Layton said of (a meeting with Michael Ignatieff) during an interview on CTV's On The Hill. "The coalition plan really is that bold plan that we need in this country right now."

Mr. Layton said even if Mr. Harper embraces the opposition demand for measures that provide economic stimulus, Canadians have no reason to believe he will act upon them.

"I hope that the Liberals are going to look at the choice they are facing," said Mr. Mulcair. "It is very simply this one: either we leave the Conservatives there or we replace them. I greatly prefer by far, in the interests of the population, to replace them."

There are two important components worth pointing out. Not surprisingly, Layton and Mulcair are both emphasizing that the ramifications of the budget vote will go far beyond passing a single piece of legislation, implicitly raising the question of whether Ignatieff wants to go on the record saying that the country is better off with Harper in charge than with the coalition.

But equally importantly, that message isn't being conveyed adversarially. Instead, the NDP's focus for now is on Harper's well-known lack of trustworthiness and interest in effective government, coupled with a strong willingness to work with the Libs toward the shared goals of the coalition parties. And that positive message toward Ignatieff should contrast nicely with Harper's continued habit of reflexively bashing the opposition without even hearing its ideas when Ignatieff decides who the Libs should be working with in getting Canada's economy back on track.

An ounce of prevention

Shorter John Baird:

In the interests of efficiency, we should focus on punishing environmental violations after the fact rather than spending any time preventing them from happening in the first place.

What Greg said

On the Libs' options:

If Liberals allow the Harper budget to pass, they will hear forever, the words "Well, I am just following the budget that was passed with the help of the Liberal Party", whenever Harper is asked about anything to do with the state of the economy. Think about that for a while before abandoning the idea of a coalition. Either way your party is going to own the recession. You might as well be in the driver's seat instead of being tied up in the trunk.

Taking aim

NDP MP John Rafferty's announcement that he'll introduce a private member's bill to scrap the federal long-gun registry has received some comment from a policy perspective. But it's worth noting the political implications of the move as well.

Keep in mind that Harper's Cons have done everything they can to minimize the use of the registry as it now exists, adopting an amnesty policy which eliminates any consequences for not registering guns and thus ensures that the registry isn't current or comprehensive. So the actual utility of the registry is significantly lower than it would be if the current law was being enforced - and only gets reduced further with time as information in the registry gets further and further out of date.

Yet the Harper government has also conspicuously declined to do anything legislatively to deal with the registry - even during the period of time when the Libs were allowing the Cons to pass whatever legislation they wanted to. Which would send a strong signal that Harper wants to keep the issue on the table to keep rural ridings in his column as part of a push for a majority.

But what would happen if Rafferty's bill passed? Not only would the Cons lose their ability to hold the registry over its rural supporters, but they wouldn't even be able to take credit for the bill which changed the status quo. Which could only be bad news for the Cons' rural MPs who still rely on the registry as their main source of outrage against urban Canada and the other parties - and great news for the NDP in particular as it seeks to expand its own image and win back some ground in rural areas.

Of course, as long as the Cons stay in power they can at least try to take credit for any change by presenting a bill of their own before Rafferty's can work its way through Parliament. But all indications are that the Cons would prefer not to forfeit their feigned outrage over the gun registry if they can avoid it. And Rafferty's bill may thus serve a valuable purpose in forcing their hand.

On legitimacy

With even Con MPs forced to acknowledge that the democratic coalition is perfectly legitimate from a constitutional standpoint, the closest the Cons and their flacks have to an argument against the coalition has been limited to the claim that it lacks legitimacy as defined by popularity in a couple of public opinion polls.

Now, I don't subscribe to the view that the legitimacy of the actions of democratically elected officials is governed by the latest set of polls. But those who have relied on popular opinion as an argument against the coalition are now facing some strong evidence to undermine their position.

The latest support for the coalition:

Overall: 42%
Quebec - 62%
Ontario - 40%
Atlantic Canada - 40%
Western Canada - 29%

And the latest support for the Cons:

Overall: 33%
Western Canada - 44%
Ontario - 35%
Atlantic Canada - 28%
Quebec - 17%

Now, it's undoubtedly fair to say that the latest polls should be taken as reflecting only a portion of public opinion - as the previous ones should have been as well.

But when more people want to see the coalition in power than the Cons, it would defy belief to try to make the argument that the Cons could have any more democratic legitimacy than the coalition would based on current levels of popular support. And to the extent anybody wants to play the national unity card, it can't escape mention that the greatest regional legitimacy issue would involve the Cons' lack of support in the one region which has actually seriously threatened to separate in the past.

All of which is to say that the number of serious arguments against the coalition is rapidly dwindling. And with any luck, public opinion will keep turning in the coalition's favour just in time for it to come into being.

(This post expands on a couple of comments made at Far and Wide.)

In his own image

Shorter Stephen Greene, one of Harper's impending appointees to the Senate, on the much-trumpeted "pledge" to step down if the Senate is reformed:

I'd like to see you try to hold me to it. Suckers.

Edit: added label.

Ground rules

The Saskatchewan NDP leadership race still looks to be stuck in neutral at best, with some significant frustration starting to leak out from those of us who would like to see a genuine contest develop: see e.g. GPM's latest, as well as the most recent Babble discussion thread. But one of the largest problems with potential contenders waiting to get into the contest may have to do with the strategy decisions which might result.

For any underdog with an early start, the blueprint for success is fairly widely available in the form of the Obama model: upbeat messaging from a charismatic candidate, coupled with an organization designed to turn positive impressions into committed support. And the result worked out perfectly for Obama's party as well as for him personally: while a hard-fought primary helped Obama to develop a massive campaign apparatus which boosted his cause tremendously in the general election, the fact that he could win the nomination by building a machine based on his own positives rather than attacks on Hillary Clinton made it far easier for the party to unite behind him once the contest was over.

Unfortunately, it's not clear that the same road will be as open to Saskatchewan's challengers - and it becomes less and less so with every day that goes by without another candidate jumping into the race. With Dwain Lingenfelter enjoying both a significant head start and the bulk of institutional support within the party, it may be extremely difficult for any other candidate to put together a competitive campaign based on an organization-building strategy if Lingenfelter has done even a passable job of using the resources at his disposal.

As a result, the easier path to victory for any challenger might seem to be to bank on a negative strategy to turn current members and new sign-ups against Lingenfelter, rather than working to seek out new blood. But whatever the likelihood of actually winning through those means, the prize would figure to be seriously diminished regardless of who emerged on top. Either Lingenfelter could hold on in the face of a barrage but carry a damaging set of negatives into a general election, or the challenger could try to lead the party into 2011 with irate Link supporters choosing to stay on the sidelines.

Since that can hardly be a positive result for anybody involved other than the NDP's rivals, I'll once again encourage challengers to get into the race, but with an exhortation to run with an eye to the long term as well. The ultimate measure of any candidate in the leadership race will be how much good their policy vision and organizational skills can offer the party and the province - and as eager as many of us are for a competitive race, I for one won't hesitate to criticize any candidate (including the one already there) who decides to go negative rather than keeping those factors in mind.

On targeting

Following up on yesterday's post, let's turn to the possible downside to the NDP's moves on financial policy - which is that while an effort to reach out to the financial sector might be a plus on its face, it may also raise questions about what priorities the NDP is pursuing:

Party strategists say they can sometimes face a credibility gap when they engage with Conservatives, Liberals, and business groups over policies affecting the financial sector. They argue it is a difficult handicap to overcome as they have no record of serving in a federal Cabinet to point to, meaning they have to do far more homework to have the same impact as their counterparts.

This political deficit came to the fore in early December when the Conservative government teetered on the brink of collapse and the NDP appeared to be hours from entering government in Ottawa for the first time.

Party strategists say that amid historic turbulence in financial markets, they made an effort to avoid fuelling uncertainty, making it clear the party was not seeking the finance portfolio and assuring the banking sector there would be a period of continuity in implementation of already-promised emergency measures to stabilize the financial system.

But during the interlude that has followed the suspension of parliament, the NDP caucus has been calling on external advisors and allocating more resources to strengthening its research on financial policy.

"There as been an effort to expand the capacity of the caucus," says an aide, who points to meetings with outside economists such as Glen Hodgson, chief economist for the Conference Board of Canada.

The aide says the push reflects both a sense of "responsibility" that comes with the prospect of decision-making power and the wider need for policymakers to become more familiar with "microscopic" aspects of the banking system as they seek a way out of the financial crisis.

A party strategist said while efforts to sharpen the party's financial policy-making had gained pace, it was best viewed as part of a longer-range goal of "changing perceptions of the party over a protracted period of time."

Let's start with the apparent concern about a "credibility gap". Whatever one's criteria for credibility, there's every reason to think that any gap is more a matter of perception (fueled by the other parties who have a vested interest in misrepresenting the NDP's level of knowledge) rather than any justification for treating the NDP with additional skepticism.

By way of comparison, remember that the Cons' near-complete lack of federal cabinet experience doesn't seem to have particularly affected them on taking office in 2006. And to the extent one takes into account governing experience at other levels, the NDP's crop of candidates - featuring former cabinet ministers from multiple provinces as well as a leader with experience on the council of Canada's largest city - similarly stacks up extremely well against the Cons' on taking office.

Once the "no experience" canard is dismissed, the more plausible conclusion is that the issue is one of political positioning: simply put, business will tend to be more receptive to a message which is perceived to maximize its potential profit without any associated social responsibilities. But that feeds into the bigger question, which is whether the NDP is best off committing its spare resources into impressing sectors which are likely to generally put their weight behind other parties regardless of what the NDP does, or into reaching out to Canadians who are more likely to become NDP members or supporters.

In that respect, I'd hope the NDP would have learned a lesson from the 2008 campaign. To my recollection, virtually every media commentary as to which party ran the best campaign pointed in the NDP's direction - suggesting that the corporate press which normally looks for reason to question the NDP was overcome by the party's effort just as some bank representatives seem to be now.

But that positive press didn't seem to do much to influence voters, even when the number of people theoretically open to voting NDP was similar to that for the other major parties. And the end result was a wave of pundits questioning whether the NDP can reach any more voters when it failed to do so while having earned the respect of the media.

Now, the above isn't to say that the NDP shouldn't be looking to improve its perceived and actual knowledge base on the economy (or any other issue), nor that it should want anything other than to be perceived as the best-managed party in Canadian politics. And it may be that the NDP has enough additional resources to pair some deeper internal financial research with a broader appeal to voters at large which has thus far flown under the radar - which wouldn't be a bad combination in making use of the product of an increased seat count.

But in the final analysis, any amount of demonstrated knowledge will be of limited use if it isn't accompanied by further increases in the party's vote and seat count. And I'd think the NDP would be best served countering any perceived gaps by proving its ability to bring in more first-choice voter support to increase the likelihood of its ideas being put into practice, rather than using too many of its resources to try to appeal to the last groups which are likely to ultimately support the party.