On unreasonable collection

While impolitical has largely covered the Globe and Mail's report on the Cons' use of ten-per-centers, there's one piece of the story which cries out for followup:

The mailers serve a more sophisticated function than just spreading a political message. Many of them include mail-back coupons, which are used to compile vital mailing lists on which political parties depend to solicit votes, volunteers and money – and that's hard, expensive work.

The Tories typically ask recipients to choose which party leader they like, and mail the coupon back.

Now, one might remember a couple of weeks ago when the Cons tried to raise a stink over fund-raising links on Lib MPs' websites. And one might well be able to make the case that publicly-funded MP resources shouldn't be used for partisan purposes.

But the Cons' ten-per-center scheme would seem like a far more blatant abuse of MP resources for partisan purposes. It directly takes advantage of both MPs' free mailing privileges and constituents' ability to mail material free to MPs, but by all accounts turns the entire transaction into an information-gathering effort for the Conservative Party.

What we don't know for sure is how (if at all) information from the returned ten-per-centers crosses the line from MPs' offices to Con party databases. And that looks to me to be the area crying out for some more research: surely it's worth putting some pressure on the Cons to tell Canadians exactly what they're doing with their publicly-funded survey results (including whether they're finding their way into the Cons' partisan database). And even if they won't say there's bound to be somebody involved in the scheme in the past who can answer the question.

Garbage in, garbage out

Shorter Leader-Post editorial board:

Sure, polls may say that the vast majority of Reginans are entirely willing to pay for improved recycling programs. But we're positive that the city's residents will develop sticker shock if the city actually listens to its citizens. Please? Can we get some tax rage over here?

Update: For those interested in letting the city know their preferences on improved waste management, its questionnaire is still available here.

Filed under "don't give them any ideas"

Apparently the Cons' attempt to sidestep questions about Leo Housakos by rewriting his biography has failed miserably.

But as long as Housakos is entirely malleable about changing his public face to suit Stephen Harper's interests, I'm sure he can get out of trouble by making one more change to his biographical information. After all, who in the opposition would dare to point out any concerns about corruption if he was named, say, Terry Fox?

The reviews are in

John Geddes:

Environment Minister Jim Prentice’s remarks today to the effect that it will be years—years!—before the Canadian government implements regulations to cut greenhouse gas emissions have to be crushingly discouraging for anyone who regards climate change as an urgent problem.
...
It’s fair enough to point out that Canada is part of a big, complicated world. But what’s stopping the Canadian government from proposing decisive measures on the international stage, even implementing some bold ones at home, to prove its seriousness? Instead, the tone of the Conservative government is passive to the point of being inert.

In the run-up to next month’s global climate change summit in Copenhagen, Prentice continues to repeat the government’s pledge to cut emissions by 20 per cent from 2006 levels by 2020. But what does that commitment (tepid as it is by world standards) mean if all the details around how to achieve it are left to the leadership of other countries?

I'll quibble only with the description of the Cons' policy as "passive" or "inert" rather than actively obstructionist. But it seems beyond doubt that while three consecutive ballyhooed environment ministers have claimed to want to deal with greenhouse gas emissions, the Cons' track record looks far more like that of a party run by climate change denialists than that of a government which saw a problem worth solving. And it's only getting worse as time goes by.

Winning the race to the bottom

Congratulations are in order to Con Environment Minister Jim Prentice. I didn't think anybody would be able to make his party's legacy of "wait 'til next year" for greenhouse gas emission regulations look good in comparison, but his "wait 'til global unanimity (which we're preventing)" definitely does the job.

On bravery

Dr. Dawg has thoroughly debunked Terry Glavin's attack on Afghan MP Malalai Joya. But it's worth pointing out that the absurdity of Glavin's column can be more neatly summed up by looking at what he thinks makes others "brave" in contrast to Joya. Shorter Glavin:

The true mark of bravery is to demand that others risk their lives for your benefit. Chickenhawks Forever!

Shocked...

...is what I'd be if the Cons weren't regularly taking private positions siding with corporate interests over Canadians in general despite their public pretense to the contrary. Which means that their dishonesty on airline passengers' consumer rights comes as no surprise at all.

On outsourcing

I'll start off this post by noting that there are few more tiresome refrains in Canadian politics at the moment than the Cons' line that Michael Ignatieff is about to run back to Harvard at the drop of a hat. So take the below as a point about what Ignatieff is doing while he's in Canada, not a reason to claim that he'll be teaching classes by next semester.

That said, there's reason to wonder whether Ignatieff is checking out of a seemingly vital part of his role as Lib leader. From yesterday's Hill Times:

In the past month there have been operational changes to try and make things run more smoothly. For instance, Mr. Ignatieff's so-called "Kitchen Cabinet," comprised of senior Liberal MPs, has stopped meeting every morning for half-an-hour and instead now meets weekly for two hours. Also, responsibility for preparation for the daily Question Period has been moved out of the OLO and is now overseen by Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale's (Wascana, Sask.) office.

Now, one could argue that Ignatieff's choice to farm out responsibility for question period would be consistent with the theory that he needs to focus less on Parliament in general and more on travelling around the country. But even if that's the reason for the switch, it looks to me like a highly questionable move.

After all, I've mentioned before the disproportionate amount of attention that question period receives in Canadian political reporting. And that only seems to be getting worse now that question period regularly the subject of live Tweeting from multiple sources, as well as near-instant reporting through two major media outlets.

Of course, there's no indication that Ignatieff will ever be able to get meaningful answers out of Harper or his government anytime soon. But the themes raised in question period still form the basis for most reporting on developments in Parliament. And even in the absence of any prospect of actually finding out anything new from the Cons, it's still the lone time when Ignatieff gets the chance to challenge Harper in direct wit-to-wit combat rather than having to fight the Cons' PR machine - not to mention a chance for many MPs to show their mettle in front of a national TV audience.

Based on that background, I'd expect question period to at least be included as a component of the messaging strategy being carried out by an opposition leader's office. Instead, though, Ignatieff has apparently washed his hands of it, leaving Ralph Goodale to manage it separately from the Libs' party-building work.

That might result in the Libs developing stronger direct challenges to Harper in the House, as Goodale presumably has far less qualms about the kind of oppositional politics which seem to have tripped up Ignatieff. But it also figures to raise far more likelihood that the Libs' questions will operate solely as temporary pokes at the Cons, rather than as part of the party's work on a longer-term narrative. And the Libs have to be wondering whether Ignatieff's decision to offload a major part of his and his party's work might be a sign of more flagging interest to come.

Now that's reassuring

Sure, the fact that the Sask Party hasn't given workers or the general public any input into two waves of anti-labour legislation might seem like reason for concern. But take heart, working Saskatchewanians: the Wall government will make sure you're taken care of just as soon as you're dead.

I stand corrected

My apologies to Stephen Harper for suggesting that he'd follow in the footsteps of Pat Fiacco and Brad Wall as a wannabe radio deejay. Instead, he's obviously using his time in office to assemble a demo tape for a future television variety show - which of course fully explains why he doesn't have time for such trifles as the Copenhagen climate change conference that his government has worked so hard to undermine.

On political considerations

The latest study on stimulus spending from the Citizen and Chronicle-Herald should make it clear that there's no inherent reason why infrastructure money would end up flowing disproportionately toward government ridings - as Ontario provincial ridings actually showed a slight tilt in the other direction.

That makes it all the more worth questioning why such a consistent pattern of government favouritism has played out in federal ridings. So let's consider a few of the possibilities as to how money could be simultaneously funnelled to favour the Harper Cons without any similar effects provincially.

First, let's note that federal stimulus money was earmarked for "shovel-ready" projects - meaning that projects with a greater degree of previous planning would be more likely to be prepared to receive funding. That means that the stimulus funding may prove to have been the Cons' payoff for setting up a Department of Pork a couple of years ago: it would only make sense that the Cons' efforts to seek out ways to spend in their own ridings then would result in there being more projects planned and ready to go this year.

And the Cons' publicly-known focus on pork-barrelling also doesn't seem likely to have escaped the notice of provincial and municipal governments, which leads to the second important possibility: it may be that provincial and municipal governments looked at the Cons' track record and concluded for themselves that their projects had a better chance of being approved if they could be linked to Con or swing ridings. Needless to say, that would result in the Cons effectively being able to rely on the other levels of government to establish a partisan tilt for them, as more marginal projects were submitted (and presumably approved) from Con ridings.

Finally, it also seems clear that the Cons have made sure that opposition MPs were kept in the dark when it came to helping their constituents with funding application. That too would create an obvious source of possible bias without the Cons having to actually reject applications from opposition ridings.

(Of course, all of this is in addition to the documented bias in the approval of some projects at the federal level.)

Now, I'd be particularly interested to see if Ontario actually serves as an example of the converse on the provincial level: if the McGuinty government sent signals that it intended to be even-handed and actually provided MPPs from all parties with equal resources in putting infrastructure projects forward, then those would seem to be fairly clear distinguishing factors between the two levels of government. And if Ontario does serve as an example of how stimulus spending can be doled out fairly, then the federal Cons have even more to answer for in their complete failure to make that happen.

On closed doors

Shorter Con government:

Not that we intended to listen to the likes of the Canadian Wheat Board anyway. But we think it'll be easier for everybody if we make it illegal for them to even try to get our attention.

On priorities

When it comes to diplomats performing their duties trying to build Canada's reputation and make connections abroad, the Cons apparently aren't the least bit interested in making sure they have enough resources to do their jobs. So if a Canadian embassy is reduced to begging for food to promote Canada in the world's most populous country (and all for want of less than $10 million in slashed program money), that's entirely in keeping with the Harper government's view of diplomacy.

But that's not to say at least some of Stephen Harper's international priorities won't be thoroughly funded. Turn the discussion to the international community's desire to cooperate to fight climate change, and the Cons apparently have unlimited resources to dedicate to throwing wrenches into the works (and deflecting any PR fallout from that course of action).

So cooperation and reputation-building are beneath the Cons' funding, while blatant obstructionism is seen as worth whatever public money the Cons can think to throw at it. And while there's unfortunately been far too much return on the latter expense as the Cons seem to have succeeded in spreading the view that the potential for a new climate change deal in Copenhagen will go unrealized, it's certainly worth asking whether many Canadians actually share Harper's choice of priorities.

h/t to impolitical.

The reviews are in

Bruce Johnstone:

If you believe Finance Minister Rod Gantefoer, Saskatchewan just had the fastest recession in history.

Asked by Saskatoon StarPhoenix legislative reporter James Wood earlier this week whether Saskatchewan was in a recession, Gantefoer responded: "No. Well, the country's in a recession, North America is probably in a recession ... While our positive growth is pretty minuscule, it's still positive. So technically we're not."

By Tuesday, Gantefoer was in full retreat: "By the end of the year, we will be in a recession," he told reporters.

By Thursday, Gantefoer had done a complete about-face and was back on the offensive. "Saskatchewan is not going into a recession, we're coming out of one," Gantefoer said in question period.

Let me get this straight.

In the space of a week, Saskatchewan went from being technically not in a recession, to being in a recession by year-end, to coming out of a recession.
...
For Gantefoer to claim that Saskatchewan was "technically not in recession'' as late as this week is disingenuous, at best, and misleading, at worst.
...
I'm sympathetic to Gantefoer's plight as the guy who's left holding the bag when the promised flood of potash revenues turns to a trickle.

But I have little or no sympathy for a finance minister who tries to keep the public in the dark about the true state of the province's economy -- and its fiscal health -- for months at a time.

Compare and contrast

A couple more Shorters from the Con government's adventures abroad. First, their stance on climate change:

The U.S.' overwhelming dominance makes it pointless for us to even try to take a separate position. So we'll do exactly what they force us to, and no more.
---
But it's a different shorter story when it comes to corporate interests in attacking Buy American policies:

All we need to do is work together with our international allies, and we're sure we can convince the U.S. to see the light!

On holdouts

Shorter Stephen Harper:

There's no hope of making meaningful progress on climate change unless everybody pitches in and does their part. And since I have no intention of doing anything of the sort, the rest of you might as well just give up.

Musical interlude

Tara MacLean - If I Fall

It all makes sense

Sure, at first glance it might seem like Shelly Glover is speaking absolute nonsense in claiming she can't conceive of any way to promote French immersion other than by distributing Con propaganda. But after some reflection, the statement may not be quite as far-fetched as it seems.

After all, as a Con MP under Stephen Harper, Glover long since signed away her own ability to think for herself. So it would make sense that she doesn't have any ideas beyond what her party gives her.

And it's equally well-documented that the Cons themselves can't think of anything other than pure partisan advantage. So even if Glover asked for some idea as to what she could give students that didn't have the Cons' logo on it, they too would probably draw a blank.

So let's not look at Glover as an offender. Instead, let's just politely point out that it's indeed possible to offer congratulations - and even accompanying tokens of appreciation - without slapping a partisan logo on them. And hopefully Glover and her partymates can then take today's events as a learning experience.

(Edit: fixed typo.)

On lost capacity

Last night I noted the disconnect between the Libs' layoffs and their fund-raising rhetoric over the past year. But there's another angle on the Libs' staff cuts that looks even more telling about the party's fortunes.

There doesn't seem to be much room for doubt that over the course of the fall, the Libs have fallen short of what would seem to be their goals as a party - presumably including countering the Cons' attacks on Michael Ignatieff, developing and promoting their own policy, and building electoral machinery for future elections. At best, one can give them partial marks for developing and sticking to a couple of consistent lines of attack against the Cons, but it's hard to see any payoff yet in the impressions of Canadians toward the respective parties - particularly with both polls and by-election results looking weak for the Libs.

Now, one might see those failings as reason to replace staff who haven't performed to expectations, as seems to be the case with Ignatieff's original cadre. But it strikes me as an entirely different step to be cutting exactly the staff capacity which the Libs will ultimately need to try to turn things around.

In effect, having already failed to counter the Cons' messaging machine with the extra 30 workers on hand, the Libs will now be making less of an effort to try; having done little work toward their supposed 308-riding strategy as evidenced by their mediocre by-election results, they'll now have fewer staff working on picking up the slack.

Under the circumstances, the Libs' choice only makes sense if they that they were running a larger organization than they could afford in the first place. But it hardly speaks well for the Libs' potential to reverse their decline if even an unsustainably large operation can't do any better than keep them around their lowest support levels ever. And there's reason to wonder whether the Libs will take on even more water now that they'll have less hands on deck.

Suddenly lacking urgency

Shorter Doug Finley:

As a recent and high-profile recipient of Senate patronage, I strongly believe that Canadians should be patient with the Senate and its associated patronage. For at least the next 12 years.

Deep thought

I'd have figured that a party which has trumpeted its fund-raising the last four quarters in a row would at least have brought in enough money to avoid massive layoffs. But maybe that's just me.

Far beyond belief

Shorter Tom Flanagan:

To learn the true measure of a leader, one must ignore his instinctual reaction to a perceived crisis in favour of whatever image he now finds it most beneficial to project. (Warning: only applies to Stephen Harper.)

Without regret

The Cons let Canadians in general - and new citizens in particular - know what they really think about Canada's shameful legacy of residential schools:

From the 1800s until the 1980s, the federal government placed many Aboriginal children in residential schools to educate and assimilate them into mainstream Canadian culture. The schools were poorly funded and inflicted hardship on the students; some were physically abused. Aboriginal languages and cultural practices were mostly prohibited. In 2008, Ottawa formally apologized to the former students.

That's right: as far as the Cons are concerned, new Canadians should think that the most notable problem with residential schools was their level of funding - so that if the general goal of eradicating First Nations culture had received more resources, it would have been far less objectionable. And indeed, the concept of assimilation is listed only in direct conjunction with a desire to "educate" students - framing it in an outright positive light.

Now, one might argue that a citizenship manual should be relatively neutral in its description of historical events rather than getting into value judgments. But one can't claim that's the Cons' goal, as the same manual which looks to minimize the horror of residential schools as a matter of insufficient funding isn't anywhere near as shy about using terms like "regrettably" and avoiding any possible positive associations when it comes to wartime internment camps. (There, as an added signal of the Cons' priorities, they manage to phrase the coerced confinement of Japanese Canadians as mere "relocation" while providing a value judgment about the "forcible sale of their property".)

As a result, the only available conclusion is that while the Cons want new Canadians to recognize which past actions we most regret as a country, they don't see residential schools as meeting that standard. Which should offer plenty of reason to doubt both Harper's sincerity in the apology which the Cons are so eager to highlight, and his party's view of how First Nations and other cultures should be treated today.

(Edit: fixed wording.)

An instant classic

Here.

On limited exemptions

There's been some attempt to paint the McGuinty government's expected announcement about some more exclusions from its HST plan as a major capitulation - and it's certainly a plus to the extent it signals that the Ontario government's plans aren't set in stone generally. But isn't there reason to wonder just what it says that McGuinty is now setting up the system to favour fast food and fish wrap rather than actual necessities of life which are set to become more expensive due to the HST?

On turnout

Alice has some excellent advice for anybody who wants to focus unduly on cutting into other parties' support as the main growth strategy for the NDP:

Using the per cent of the electorate rather than per cent of the vote allows us to look at the fastest-growing “party” of the last 20 years in British Columbia: non-voters. In fact, if the non-voters were a political party, they would have won every B.C. seat in 2008 except Saanich-Gulf Islands and Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale.

Looking at elections results this way, we notice that Conservative support has remained fairly constant in most B.C. federal ridings since 1988. It’s just that the turnout is down.
...
NDP support is most likely to drop when turnout drops, since their support correlates with low-income status, and that correlates with lower voter participation. And in 1993 as the NDP vote plummeted in virtually every B.C. riding, about half of the drop could be accounted for by big increases in non-voters. But in 2004, the B.C. seats showing the biggest gains for the NDP were also seats where turnout went up.

So, Byers may want to go back to the drawing board to find a more successful formula, and perhaps a different dance partner.

Of course, the alternatives aren't necessarily mutually exclusive: presumably some of the same messages which may help to win additional voters away from other parties may also get some new participants involved in the political process, and the NDP will likely need a mix of both to continue its recent growth. But to the extent there's a choice to be made, there's more theoretical upside to be found in working to boost turnout overall than in following suit with the Harper Cons' brand of slice-and-dice politics - and it may be that the next possible wave of support for the NDP among regular voters will only surface once it's brought out enough new participants to reshape the current party standings.

Incidentally, it's worth noting that the by-elections themselves provided a strong example of the dangers of low turnout in a riding where the NDP made relatively modest gains compared to what it may have hoped for:

An official with Elections Canada said that based on by-election data they had available dating back to 1960, Monday’s 22.3 per cent turnout in Hochelaga is the lowest.

I've pointed out one side of the equation in the riding, to the effect that a clear cross-party push would be needed to make the NDP the default federalist option for the riding. But with the Bloc taking more than half the riding's votes as it was, it's apparent that no amount of federalist cooperation will flip ridings like Hochelaga unless it's paired with some additional turnout as well.

All of which is to say that for all the differences between Canada's assorted regions, the most important part of the NDP's formula for growth may well be the same across the country. And while it will be difficult to tell before a general election whether the party has made any progress in reversing the recent slide in voter interest, that may be the ultimate measure as to whether the NDP can continue to build from its current position.

Truly the idiocracy is upon us

Apparently Pat Fiacco's continued confusion between the roles of "public official" and "second-rate deejay" is contagious. Be sure to tune in tomorrow for your chance to win when Stephen Harper broadcasts live from a secret mystery location.

The reviews are in

Chantal Hebert's takeaway for the NDP from Monday's by-elections:

(W)ith the Liberals under Michael Ignatieff going nowhere fast in Quebec, federalists are looking at other options. While the Conservatives are the main beneficiaries of the Liberal vacuum outside Montreal, the NDP is picking up support on the island.

Former Liberal minister Martin Cauchon, who has set his sights on winning back his ex-riding of Outremont from NDP deputy leader Thomas Mulcair in the next election, might want to take note of the 20 per cent NDP score in neighbouring Hochelaga – a riding where the Liberals used to outvote the NDP by a ratio of 5 to 1 only five years ago.

In British Columbia, the NDP scored a hit with its campaign against the province's upcoming harmonized sales tax, holding on to the New Westminster-Coquitlam riding with an increased majority. It remains to be seen whether a protest vote against a provincial tax can be sustained throughout a full-fledged federal campaign but the issue does provide Jack Layton with a unique wedge against both the Liberals and the Conservatives in a crucial province for the three main parties.

By definition, a good by-election night for Harper and Layton means a sleepless one for the Liberals. There could be more to come. This was Ignatieff's first electoral test and the results are comparable to Stéphane Dion's dismal 2008 score. Against all expectations, it may be that the Liberals did not bottom out in the last election.

On sudden reversals

What a difference a day makes. Just this Monday, Saskatchewan Finance Minister Rod Gantefoer was trying to pretend that the province was continuing to experience overall growth rather than facing a recession:

Mr. Wotherspoon:
...
To the Minister of Finance: why is he the only person in Saskatchewan that does not know there’s a recession going on?
...
Hon. Mr. Gantefoer: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to stand up in this House and talk about the strength of Saskatchewan’s economy.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that there has been an unprecedented economic slowdown, not only in Canada, not only in North America, but in indeed the entire world. And
through it all, Saskatchewan has done relatively better than any other jurisdiction in that same environment.

Mr. Speaker, granted that the rate of growth predicted currently for Saskatchewan’s economy is very, very small. But even that small amount in 2009 is the highest number in the country of Canada and is higher than most jurisdictions. And so we do have some satisfaction in those numbers, Mr. Speaker.

And what's more, Gantefoer was trying to stamp out any talk about the mere possibility of a recession:

Hon. Mr. Gantefoer: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can’t understand why the opposition is so determined to put a negative spin on what is pretty good numbers for the province of Saskatchewan and what is very good numbers in comparison to other jurisdictions.

But by Tuesday, Gantefoer's line had taken a significant turn for the worse:

The Saskatchewan Party government is facing a harsh new reality after two years buoyed by a soaring economy and swelling provincial coffers.

Finance Minister Rod Gantefoer confirmed this week that the provincial economy will shrink in 2009 and the province will likely be in recession by the end of the year.
...
Going down as well at mid-term will be the government's economic growth projection for the province, which began at 2.1 per cent in the budget and was downgraded to 0.6 per cent at first quarter.

By the end of the year there will likely be two consecutive quarters of negative growth in the province, which means Saskatchewan will be in recession, acknowledged Gantefoer.

Now, it's hardly news that the Sask Party has eagerly taken up the Saskatchewan PCs' legacy of fiscal mismanagement.

But Gantefoer's turn on a dime - from blustering about "growth predicted currently" (with an admonition that nobody should even talk about the reams of evidence to the contrary) to admitting that we're actually in a recession in a matter of a single day - suggests that the Wall government has now combined the economic cluelessness of Grant Devine with the secrecy and dishonesty normally associated with the Harper Cons. And considering how quickly the Harper government's talk of never seeing a recession or running a deficit turned into record-setting seas of red ink, there's every reason to worry that the same is in store if Wall and Gantefoer are left in control of Saskatchewan's public resources any longer than we can avoid.

On disturbing positions

Shorter Leona Aglukkaq:

If we were applying the minimum standards for humane treatment of prisoners set out by the Geneva Conventions to combatants in Afghanistan, that would be a scandal and an outrage. But have no fear, there's no danger of that happening anytime soon.

(via Aaron Wherry.)

The reviews are in

James Travers:

Once there were reasons for the costly, long and deadly Canadian commitment to Afghanistan. Now there are none.
...
Canada's reasons for its blood and treasure offerings to Afghanistan have never been quite what they seemed or exactly as first Liberal and then Conservative governments explained. Creating a model democracy and civil society from warring factions and feudal customs is a softly engaging narrative that gains veracity through repetition. It's not the hard-headed stuff that persuades prime ministers to put their political hegemony at risk by putting lives in harm's way.
...
(I)n politics and war, triumphs are fleeting. Bowing to U.S. pressure to continue a losing battle won't appreciably improve cross-border relations now shaped as much by domestic economics as international threats. Any extension of the combat mission beyond 2011 would jeopardize current military success by demanding more than can be sustained by a small force already stretched too thin.

Whatever the motivations for going to Afghanistan, Canada has no compelling reason to stay longer.

On lessons learned

Not surprisingly, last night's by-elections produced no major upsets and only a slight shift in party strength in the House of Commons. Which means that their ultimate impact will likely be reflected more in what the parties are able to take away from the by-elections to help shape their message for the future. And interestingly enough, it's there - not in the actual results - that the Libs look to have lost the most ground.

For the NDP, the general lessons are obvious based on the strategies applied in three of the four ridings contested last night. Fin Donnelly's romp in New Westminster-Coquitlam confirmed that the HST is a winning issue in BC; Jean-Claude Rocheleau's difficulty getting within 30 points of the lead even while jumping into second place offered a fairly compelling signal that the Bloc won't easily be displaced in ridings like Hochelaga; and Mark Austin's moderately distant second in Cumberland – Colchester – Musquodoboit Valley provided an indication of exactly how far the NDP has come (and how far it has left to go) in building strength across Nova Scotia.

Likewise for the Cons, the contrast between a disappointing result from their invisible candidate in New Westminster-Coquitlam and victories for the more opinionated Bernard Genereux and Scott Armstrong would offer some evidence that strong individual candidates who actually speak publicly can sway more voters than party branding alone. And last night also offered a hint at some of the issues which may prove toxic (the HST) and beneficial (timed pork-barrelling) for the Cons down the road.

For the Libs, it's no huge surprise that last night's vote totals weren't all that great - and indeed Jim Burrows' reasonably close third in Cumberland – Colchester – Musquodoboit Valley likely made for a somewhat better outcome than might have been expected. But can anybody actually point to anything the Libs did in the by-elections other than going through the motions? And if not, then doesn't that reflect a failure in planning by a party which desperately needs to move past the realm of habit?

Simply put, it's one thing to lose by-elections while testing out messages and strategies which can be developed (or abandoned) for later - but it's something else entirely to sleepwalk through an opportunity to test in practice what works and what doesn't. And it's hard to escape the conclusion that the Libs were the lone national party in Parliament who faced a lose-lose outcome last night as a result.

By-election Chat

For those who haven't yet found their way to Cameron's by-election chat, stop by to discuss the returns as they come in.

The reviews are in

The Toronto Star:

(I)n Ottawa, the silence is deafening: no plausible policy, no detailed road map for attaining objectives, no statement of the costs – and benefits – of putting a price on carbon. Worse, that uncharacteristic Canadian silence becomes a roar when anyone dares to broach the subject.

Environment Minister Jim Prentice, who has had almost nothing of substance to say on the issue, is quick to shout down any informed debate about the costs of doing something – and the price of doing nothing. Prentice lapsed into hysteria last month after publication of a report by two respected environmental groups that painted a picture of how the government's nominal targets would impact provincial economies in 2020.
...
(T)here is nothing orderly or remotely coherent about federal Conservative policy on climate change. When the George W. Bush administration stalled, Ottawa idled. Now that the Barack Obama administration is moving forward, Ottawa is standing pat until further notice.

And Ottawa is saying nothing. While heaping abuse on the Pembina/Suzuki report, Prentice has so far hushed up the government's own internal predictions of the economic impacts of curbing greenhouse gas emissions. This is a bizarre case of the minister shooting the messenger, while withholding his own data from the public.
...
Increasingly, Canada looks like the sick man of the environmental movement, out of sync with the world – and out of touch with its own economic data.

By-election Breakdown

The spinners are out in full force when it comes to today's by-elections. The Cons are presenting a laughably skewed take in order to try to claim some momentous victory if they can eke out a win in territory which has voted for actual or expelled Cons all but once in the past 40 years; the Libs are understandably pointing out that the ridings aren't friendly terrain in order to justify a set of third-place finishes to come; and the NDP and Bloc are playing up their credentials in order to boost morale for election day. But let's put the current spin aside and take a look at the most likely outcomes in each riding.

New Westminster-Coquitlam

It's been well documented that the battle here is between the NDP's Fin Donnelly looking to take over the seat previously held by Dawn Black based on a combination of personal appeal and anger over the HST, while the Cons' Diana Dilworth tries to hide out and hope that the "Conservative" next to her name carries the day. Meanwhile, Lib Ken Beck Lee and Green Rebecca Helps figure to be fairly firmly entrenched in third and fourth place respectively - though it's worth wondering whether the flattening effect of a by-election can push Lee within striking distance of the top two contenders.

X-factor: The HST didn't manage to have much effect on a provincial by-election in Ontario, and today's vote may serve as the primary test of whether or not it'll sway votes in British Columbia.
Outcome Estimates: 65% chance of Donnelly win; 30% chance of Dilworth win; 5% chance of Lee win; 10% chance of Lee 2nd; 25% chance of Helps 3rd or higher

Hochelaga

Gilles Duceppe is now looking to downplay his party's all-out attack on the NDP. But all indications are that the NDP has put in place a couple of pieces from its winning formula in Outremont by winning the sign war and positioning itself as one of the two main alternatives in most commentary on the race - leaving the question of whether the final piece (shifting votes from other parties into the NDP's camp once that two-way race is set up) will push Jean-Claude Rocheleau ahead of the Bloc's Daniel Paille. The Libs normally run second in the riding but candidate Robert David hasn't been heard from much, while the Cons' Stephanie Cloutier looks to be even further back.

X-factor: It's been a common phenomenon in Quebec races involving the Bloc for federalist organizers and voters to unite behind one of the national parties. But for all of Rocheleau's strength through the campaign, I haven't heard much indication that he's managed to pull off the feat - and it's hard to see how he can overcome the Bloc's usual margin if not.
Outcome Estimates: 80% chance of Paille win; 15% chance of Rocheleau win; 5% chance of David or Cloutier win; 60% chance of Rocheleau 2nd; 20% chance of David 2nd; 40% chance of Cloutier 3rd or higher

Montmagny – L'Islet – Kamouraska – Rivière-du-Loup

I still have to figure it's a bad sign for the Cons if their star challenger Bernard Genereux is having to run against his own party. But there's at least a fairly plausible set of turnout assumptions which would nonetheless propel him to victory over the Bloc's Nancy Gagnon (particularly with the provincial Lib machine behind him), making this as likely a riding as any to change hands. Further back, while the NDP has done an effective job promoting Francois Lapointe, it'll have to be a pleasant surprise if he can make up a 10-point gap on the Libs to beat out Marcel Catellier for third place.

X-factor: Will the Cons' major highway announcement on Friday tip votes into their column based on Genereux' promise of patronage, or will it simply lead to voter fatigue?
Outcome Estimates: 60% chance of Gagnon win; 40% chance of Genereux win; 20% chance of Catellier 2nd; 30% chance of Lapointe 3rd or higher

Cumberland – Colchester – Musquodoboit Valley

While Bill Casey's old seat is being seen as an extremely close contest (with even the likes of Craig Oliver picking the NDP to win), I'll have to take a slightly less optimistic view of the likely outcomes. Yes, the NDP's Mark Austin is likely to finish a fairly strong second - but the Cons in one incarnation or another (PC, Con or Independent via Casey) have held the seat 36 of the last 40 years, and the safe bet has to be on Scott Armstrong continuing that pattern. With Lib Jim Burrows and Green Jason Blanch likely slotting into 3rd and 4th respectively, the other question to watch in the riding is whether the Christian Heritage Party's Jim Hnatiuk will develop enough traction to pass any of the national parties - but the likely answer there is "no".

X-factor: As much progress as the NDP has made within the riding provincially, the outcome will come down to whether the riding's voters are ready to forgive the Cons for their treatment of Casey now that one of his loyalists is carrying the party's banner. If so, then Armstrong should win in a walk based on the riding's historical tendencies; if not, then Austin figures to be the beneficiary of personal factors which easily trumped partisan identification in 2008.
Outcome Estimates: 70% chance of Armstrong win; 30% chance of Austin win; 25% chance of Burrows 2nd or higher; 20% chance of Hnatiuk 4th or higher.

As always, the above numbers reflect my own (hopefully reasonable educated) guesses rather than any mathematical formula. And it won't be long before we'll have some real results to mull over and analyze - hopefully with at least a couple more NDP MPs to show for the races.

Compare and contrast

It's great to see the Star reporting on the latest invasion of the Cons' Pod People. But there's another interesting new piece of information from the story which nicely highlights the relative priorities of the NDP's MPs compared to those of the Cons.

Remember that when Con MP John Duncan received an e-mail which wasn't intended for him, the result was his party surrepetitously dialling into and then leaking a private telephone call for political gain.

In contrast, the Star reveals that when NDP MP Linda Duncan received an e-mail which wasn't intended for her, the result was...the newfound knowledge being used to help her constituents:

In Edmonton-Strathcona, the only Alberta riding the Conservatives do not hold, local Tory candidate Ryan Hastman has participated in at least five government announcements over the past few months, while the local NDP MP, Linda Duncan, says she has been excluded from all of them. Hastman boasts of his participation in pictures on his Facebook page.

Duncan, who calls the "whole process offensive," says it becomes doubly irritating when a Conservative candidate claims credit for funds she helped to get for the community, as the duly elected MP.

"What I find reprehensible about all this is that they just can't seem to accept the fact that Edmonton-Strathcona voters elected me, not a Conservative," Duncan said.

Hastman was on hand, posing for pictures with Labour Minister Rona Ambrose, when the Conservatives gave a $14.8 million cheque to the GO community sports centre in Edmonton in September, for example.

Duncan had worked with the centre to get the application into the government before the deadline elapsed earlier in the year – and says she only found out about that deadline because someone accidentally sent her an email directed to the Alberta Conservative caucus.

Now, there's plenty of reason for concern about how the Cons themselves apparently tried to keep the funding deadlines to themselves. (And it's probably worth some followup as to whether that might help to explain the glaring gap between stimulus funding for Con-held ridings and that for the rest of the country.)

But Linda Duncan's response also highlights the fact that there are indeed MPs to be found whose main focus is working to serve their constituents rather than taking credit for what others are doing. And the fact that Duncan's main challenger has that set of priorities exactly backwards should give Edmonton-Strathcona voters ample reason to keep Duncan in Parliament.

Update: And lest I forget, you too can help out the cause.

On headaches

Cameron and impolitical have already picked up on the fact that the Cons' candidate in Montmagny-L'Islet-Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup is effectively running to turn the party into something other than what it is. But I'd think it's worth wondering just where that decision came from, particularly in a party notorious for message control (as epitomized by their refusal to allow a single one of their MPs to talk about the gun registry on national TV today).

Cameron speculates about Bernard Genereux "going rogue". That's certainly one possibility - and if it's true, the Cons may well be hoping for Genereux to merely hold a close second place in the riding rather than becoming an inside voice against their environmental neglect.

But I'd think there's another equally plausible possibility as well. Could it be that the Cons have authorized Genereux to criticize them based on a conclusion that he can only win the by-election as an anti-Conservative? And might that make for a rare crack in the Cons' PR facade which has the potential to weaken the entire structure?

Sunday Morning 'Rider Blogging

Needless to say, there's plenty to be satisfied with in the 'Riders' win over Calgary which clinched first place. After two nail-biters in the team's earlier games against Calgary, the 'Riders managed to maintain at least some advantage throughout the game, then pulled away late to the point where the Stamps didn't even bother leaving Henry Burris in the game for their last drive. So let's note what the team did particularly well to win yesterday - and what it will need to work on in case the Stamps are back in town two weeks from now.

The biggest plus for Saskatchewan was the most consistent offensive game the team has put together in some time. While Andy Fantuz seems to have finally broken out as a superstar receiver, the rest of the team's success was once again based on balance between a number of threats, with five receivers and three rushers posting 24 or more yards of production.

About the only time the offense was ever bottled up was in the first quarter after the 'Riders' first touchdown - but by then the Stamps were already on their heels due to the 'Riders' lead. After that point, the 'Riders posted a grand total of one two-and-out the rest of the game to go with no turnovers and few significant losses of yardage (thanks largely to Darien Durant's creativity when the Stamps managed to get pressure on him). And that combination will usually ensure that a team at least stays in any game - or holds a lead once it exists.

What's more, even while winning the game by 16 the 'Riders had more near misses than their opponents when it came to piling up even more points. Several deep passing routes were no more than a stride away from turning into long TDs, while a couple of drives were stopped just short of field goal range (including one where a rare sack may have made the difference between a field goal attempt and a punt). Which offers the 'Riders some obvious room for improvement - but holds out the potential that the 'Riders could blow out their conference final opponent without much change from how they played yesterday.

Meanwhile, the defence was remarkably effective in slowing down Henry Burris. The defensive line surrounded Burris on most plays so that he couldn't generate big gains on the ground, while the secondary did a superb job shutting down deep routes and making quick tackles when Burris was forced to throw short. (In particular, credit has to go to Omarr Morgan, who regularly seemed to be in a better position to catch passes thrown his way than the Stamps' receivers.)

The price of that focus was yet another huge game for Joffrey Reynolds, and one would surely like to see a few more of his first-down runs stopped after 2-3 yards rather than watching another steady stream of 7-10-yard gains following broken initial tackles. But for this game at least, the 'Riders were able to firm up their defence nearly every time the Stampeders were within striking distance of the end zone. And allowing Reynolds some yardage closer to his own end of the field in exchange for limiting the Stamps' passing offence is probably a trade-off which any team will be glad to make.

Finally, special teams were largely a saw-off in yesterday's game, with no game-changing returns and only a few significant kicking plays. The Stamps managed to expose one weakness in when Sandro DeAngelis recovered his own kickoff in the third quarter, but it should be a fairly easy fix for the 'Riders to keep one player in front of the kicker to keep that from being repeated. Meanwhile, the 'Riders greatest strengths were ones which should remain effective for the rest of the season: in particular Louie Sakoda's punting and kicking is turning into a major boon for the team.

We'll find out next week who the 'Riders will end up facing in the West final. But the prospect of adding a few of the team's injured players back into the lineup after a game as strong as yesterday's has to serve as a great sign for the 'Riders' chances of turning a Calgary Grey Cup into an effective home game.

On clunkers

Now that the first snarky response to Andrew Steele's latest HST sales pitch is out of the way, let's deal with the more substantive problem with Steele's most recent posts. Steele tries to rely on a report by the University of Calgary's Jack Mintz as demonstrating that the HST (along with a number of other moves by the McGuinty government) will create 591,000 "net new jobs" over the next decade, and argues that the report will fundamentally change the terms of Ontario's debate over the HST.

Let's leave aside for the moment that Steele's first post on the subject falsely tried to attribute that entire amount of theoretical job growth to the HST alone. Even looking solely at what Mintz' report actually says rather than the spin Steele is so eager to place on it, there's simply no basis for taking its numbers seriously: while Mintz' highly specific number speaks of "net new jobs", it doesn't actually take into account any of the costs of the HST or other associated policies to provide a "net" picture.

To start with, Mintz utterly fails to take into account how factors other than theoretical investment through global capital markets might affect Ontario's economy. Even other backers of the HST acknowledge that it'll result in higher costs for consumers, which is bound to create a cost in jobs in the meantime as well as undercutting the supposed gains in incomes. But Mintz cuts that out of the picture in order to focus solely on corporate investment.

And there are problems with that unduly narrow focus as well. Others have pointed out that corporate tax cuts like those included in Mintz' study may simply change the recipient of the same corporate tax amounts, rather than providing even a theoretical increase in economic activity.

But again, Mintz doesn't mention that as a factor, looking solely at the nominal "marginal effective tax rate" payable to Ontario rather than the amount which American companies in particular would actually pay. Which makes for a particularly glaring omission given both Ontario's interdependence with U.S. markets, and Mintz' attempt to paint changes by multijurisdictional businesses as one of the main benefits of reducing marginal tax rates.

In effect, Mintz' job estimate is the equivalent of a clueless would-be businessperson excitedly declaring "Eureka! If we sell 5,000 widgets for $200 apiece, we'll make a million dollars in net profit!". And the fact that it takes such an obviously distorted study to make the HST look good has to seriously call into question whether there's any benefit to be had for anybody but corporations looking to boost their share of public wealth.

Mind you, Steele tries to paint Mintz as the "Cadillac of Canadian public policy and economics" in hopes that nobody will look too closely at what he's actually done. But it may bear pointing out that businesses which actually put reliance on brands like Cadillac over creating quality products haven't exactly fared well for themselves - and indeed have contributed to Ontario's downfall in the first place.

Update: Erin points out a few more problems with Mintz' report.

On false equivalencies

Shorter Andrew Steele:

"Cutting corporate taxes" (by transferring costs to mere citizens) is the new "saving childrens' lives".

Musical interlude

Weekend Players - Into the Sun

The reviews are in

Don Martin:

It takes considerable effort to become a complete embarrassment.

Congratulations Senator Mike Duffy, you've finally done it.

With his wild rant on a CBC national politics show this week, the television icon has accomplished the difficult feat of offending all those in his parliamentary orbit -- his former journalistic occupation, the Conservative party, senators, MPs and even the prime minister who appointed him.
...
It's not easy for me to write this because Mike Duffy was a personal friend until I derided his appointment to the Senate, but Thursday's antics have cost him any lingering credibility.

Many senators are decent types trying to make intelligent and constructive contributions to public policy.

But Mike Duffy's only value has become that of poster boy for why the Senate needs, at very least, major reform if not outright abolition.

On perpetual campaigns

So what can we take away from the Sask Party's announcement that just halfway through its mandate, it's already making the 2011 election its main focus? From my standpoint, there are two crucial points worth mentioning.

First, it said enough about the weakness of the Sask Party's caucus when Wall named Bill Boyd as Minister for Everything the Government Cares About. But apparently Wall's opinion of the rest of the Sask Party's supporters isn't any higher, as he's now piling party responsibilities onto Boyd as well.

The choice of Boyd over not only his caucus-mates but also party staff and community supporters suggests that however much money the Sask Party is able to bring in, its list of members Brad Wall trusts to carry out any task more complex than tying their own shoes consists of exactly one name.

That leads nicely to the second point, as Wall seems to have sent a clear signal as to his party's focus for the next two years - and it's hardly one that figures to play well with the public.

Others can correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the first time I'm aware of a governing party explicitly starting its re-election campaign this early. And that timing is especially striking in light of everything else that's already on Boyd's plate.

At a point in time when Boyd's departments are supposed to be making major decisions over the course of the next few months, Wall apparently figures Boyd's time is better spent on the politics of getting elected two years down the road than on actually governing in the meantime. And that order of priorities should raise a serious question for Saskatchewan citizens as to whether or not they're satisfied with a half-time government.

In need of abolition

There's been plenty of talk about the yesterday's showdown between NDP MP Peter Stoffer and Con Senator Mike Duffy over Senate expenses. But while many people have noticed the contrast between Stoffer's calm demeanour and Duffy's sputtering rage, I'm not sure anybody has pointed out what looks to me to be the most glaring problem with Duffy's attacks on Stoffer.

While Duffy did indeed get angrier and angrier over the course of the appearance, there's little indication that his attacks on Stoffer were a matter of going too far personally in a single outburst. Duffy first went to the "fakers" line at a point when nobody else was speaking in a way that could even be argued to have set him off - and repeated it several times intertwined with other Con talking points thoroughout the interview. Which suggests to me that the problem isn't Duffy going off message, but that he's being given more and more inflammatory messages to deliver.

Now, there's some obvious logic as to why the Cons might want to set up a strategy where their unelected, unaccountable, unfireable Senate hacks are the ones sent out to deliver the most personal attacks they can. Anytime an MP or candidate who faces the voters is the one to be associated with such a message or to show unbridled anger in public, they face the danger of a backlash at the polls.

But with Duffy and his ilk put in front of the cameras, there's no similar risk of direct consequences. Instead, the Cons can claim some degree of deniability if comments are construed as being offensive. And if any stunt isn't immediately met with public outcry, then their elected officials can move in and start repeating and reinforcing it.

In effect, then, the Cons seem to have turned Duffy into a Canadian version of a Rush Limbaugh or a Glenn Beck: somebody responsible for pushing the boundaries of acceptable debate, road-testing extreme and personal messages with no electoral repercussions. And the only obvious differences are ones where the Cons' version looks even worse: while Limbaugh and Beck are at least nominally in control of their own message and financially affected by their choices, Duffy is proud to take orders directly from Stephen Harper and money from the Canadian public.

In other words, yesterday's appearance is probably best seen less as a problem with Duffy alone, and more as yet another turning point where the Cons have abused public institutions for their partisan ends. And the fact that the Senate is ripe for such misuse offers up an even more compelling argument for abolition than the waste and patronage that Duffy was so eager to deflect from in the first place.

Update: For those who haven't seen it yet, Glen Pearson's take is worth a read.

On blocked channels

Shorter Brad Wall:

Any public servant who thinks we're covering up a public safety issue should be entirely satisfied pointing that fact out only to the same people responsible for the cover-up.

The appropriate response

For all that's been said about Brad Trost's attempt to eliminate federal funding to Planned Parenthood's international operations, the definitive word so far goes to Stephen Whitworth:

Reasonable, tolerant people do not launch petitions against Planned Parenthood because it provides legal abortions. I'm officially calling it and I'm sticking to it: Saskatoon MP Brad Trost is unfit for public office and frankly he's a threat to human rights, freedoms and civil society.

On alternatives

In case there was any doubt whether the NDP's efforts in the Hochelaga by-election are bearing fruit, it's worth noting just who the Bloc is attacking in order to try to keep the seat. Apparently the Libs (who actually finished second in the riding in 2008 and have plenty of history winning seats including the Hochelaga area) don't even rate a mention in the Bloc's late-campaign advertising efforts, while the NDP alone is on the receiving end of a campaign criticizing a position held in common by the NDP and the Libs. Which would seem to send a fairly compelling signal that the Bloc is treating the NDP's Jean-Claude Rocheleau as its sole perceived competitor.

Of course, that's a double-edged sword for the NDP to at least some extent, particularly given the Bloc's track record of cutting their main opponent down to size. But it's surely better to be seen as the main competition heading into Monday's vote than not - and we'll find out before long just how many inroads the NDP has been able to make during the by-election campaign.

Deep thought

The Wall government's efforts to turn Saskatchewan's governance over to the corporate sector have sure done wonders to ensure business confidence in the province.

Thursday Morning Link Blast

Time to clear off a few tabs...

- Ontarians worried that the province's decision to impose the HST on them (with federal inducement of course) was made without their views being taken into account will surely take plenty of solace in the fact that some of McGuinty's MLAs are in the same boat.

- Joe Kuchta details the fact that a decision on nuclear power isn't the only one that the Wall government is looking to force by the end of the year without full information. Instead, after promising not to sign the TILMA, it's looking to sign onto an arrangement which differs (if at all) only in its application to municipalities and Crown corporations who have been allowed into the inner circle - while once again freezing the public out of the process.

- Canada's correctional investigator points out the obvious fact that a more punitive penal system does nothing to help public safety. But I'm not sure that anything much was said in response: the Cons even bother with their rote "we know better than any so-called 'facts'", or did this particular report simply get entirely ignored?

- Finally, it shouldn't be a huge surprise that Con candidate Diana Dilworth is going to comical lengths to avoid talking to the media in the New Westminster-Coquitlam by-election. But one has to wonder whether anybody remembers what happened the last time the Cons tries the same flee-the-media strategy in a by-election where there's plenty of attention being paid to what the individual candidates actually have to say for themselves. And it may be worth sending them a reminder by pitching in for the NDP's Fin Donnelly.

On partisan screening

The news that applicants for federal civil service jobs are being forced to write essays on the Cons' economic policies is unsettling enough on its own. But there's another seemingly-overlooked piece of the story which leaves little room for doubt that the move is designed to serve the Cons' political goals:

Spaces are in high demand among university graduates.

But this year, for the first time, candidates need to provide more than a list of qualifications and good marks. They also must to write 1,000 words on the federal government's last budget, promoted widely as the Economic Action Plan.
...
Applications need to be submitted by Monday. It's the first time recruits have to submit an essay. It's also the first time recruiting has been led by the Privy Council Office. Treasury Board spearheaded the program in previous years.

Now, the move to require job applicants to write paeans to the Cons' policies would seem problematic enough if it had been the lone change to the hiring process (and implemented by the same body normally responsible for recruitment). But it's surely not by accident that the move coincides with the secretive, domineering Harper PCO taking over. And considering how determined Harper's office has been to politicize everything else it's touched, it figures to be a near certainty that positions in the training program will be allocated based on the Cons' political ends.

The reviews are in

Greg Weston:

Canadians who fear their hard-earned tax money is disappearing down a black hole will no doubt be relieved to learn they are actually investing in government mismanagement on a grand scale.

Auditor general Sheila Fraser's latest compendium of federal misdeeds calls into question the basic competence of a Conservative government already under fire over stimulus squander and the current flu-shot fiasco.

Surprising only to those awaking from a long coma, Fraser concluded that Stephen Harper's government of big cardboard cheques is far better at making announcements than actually implementing them.

Some of Fraser's findings would be worthy of a comedic spoof were the consequences not so dire.

Incidentally...

...those looking to impose an NDP litmus test in favour of the federal gun registry may want to take a look at the history behind its implementation. The "yea" votes for Bill C-68 included a grand total of one NDP MP (Svend Robinson), while the "nay" votes when the registry first passed included the rest of the NDP caucus - including such familiar names as Audrey McLaughlin, Bill Blaikie and Simon de Jong.

Which isn't to say that the party couldn't rightfully change its mind in the interim. But surely there would be some significant explanation needed as to how the position held by all but one NDP member when a measure passed initially would be grounds for punishment when it comes to reversing course.

Off the mark

Somewhere, Stephen Harper is laughing his ass off over the intraparty fighting he's managed to provoke by pushing Candace Hoeppner's private member's bill to eliminate the federal long gun registry. But I'll suggest that for those who are eager to fight over today's vote (and future ones), the current strategy of attacking NDP and Liberal MPs over their willingness to vote against the gun registry is at best marginally productive for a single vote, and thoroughly counterproductive in the long run.

So far, the lone apparent strategy has been to try to pressure rural opposition MPs (some of whom actually ran on repealing the gun registry) to vote with their party leader instead of with their constituents. But to the extent the issue is seen as one involving a rural/urban split, doesn't it make more sense to instead put pressure on urban or suburban Con MPs to listen to their constituents as well, rather than setting up a situation where opposition MPs are the only ones in the line of fire?

It's obvious that the Cons are trying to have it both ways by playing up the "free vote" line for opposition MPs while their party looks to be entirely whipped. But that messaging can be used against them by the opposition parties: they can embrace the free-vote principle for themselves (rather than calling for whipped votes as some are doing), then turn a spotlight onto Con MPs as to their individual choices.

From there, it should be an easy step to turn the tables on urban and suburban Cons - not only by pointing out the support of police chiefs for the registry, but also by highlighting crimes which have taken place in a particular community where the gun registry would be a useful tool in law enforcement, and asking why the Con MP doesn't want to see them solved.

Again, I'm far from sure that the gun registry is in fact a hill that any opposition party should be willing to die on. But if the issue is one that's going to be a public fight (at the expense of the patronage and incompetence themes that were starting to take hold), then surely it's at least better to make Con MPs the battleground - rather than assuming that Harper's hold over his party can't be challenged, and thus needlessly taking on damage to the opposition that can be avoided.

Update: Steve V makes the case for free votes as a matter of principle.

Zero confidence

Now this is why it pays to read the fine print of a Sask Party initiative. Sure, a "Mission: Zero" strategy seemingly aimed at putting an end to work injuries would seem to be a plus on its face. But apparently a more accurate title for the Wall government's view of workplace safety would be "Mission: Zero Reporting".

Deep thought

Mark Sakamoto has some nerve thinking he's entitled to respond to a "street interview" with anything other than the statement, "I'm a Liberal, so my opinion doesn't count".

HUAC north indeed.

(Edit: corrected name.)

The reviews are in

The Star-Phoenix editorial board:

Oh, how eager was newly minted Prime Minister Stephen Harper to do the public's business in a transparent and accountable way, as he rode to power in 2006 on a wave of promises to govern differently from the entitlement-minded Liberals who'd worn out their welcome with Canadians over the adscam fiasco.

But that was then and this is now, with Mr. Harper's second-term Conservative government going even further than its predecessors to erect an opaque barrier between itself and citizens employing what an alarmed Information Commissioner Robert Marleau described in January as a "communications stranglehold" on the bureaucracy.
...
It's hard to believe that the mealy-mouthed utterance, "administrative alternatives, such as enhanced guidance and training that can be equally effective," actually came from a cabinet minister of a Conservative administration that took power on a promise to overhaul the system.

Four years in power is all it's taken for political sclerosis to set in.

On incentives

Your Brad Wall government, in a nutshell...

Gross incompetence which results in an inmate serving time for sexual assault being set free before his sentence is up? No problem there as far as Wall is concerned.

A cover-up to ensure that nobody knows said sexual offender has been freed? Fine by the Sask Party, and indeed expected.

But if somebody has the nerve to let the truth out? Now that's time to start not just pointing fingers, but punishing public servants based on mere suspicion.

Egowarriors indeed

Shorter Kelly McParland:

It's impossible to take environmentalists seriously when a few of them have an unrealistically inflated sense of self-worth. Now stay tuned for part 738 of Ezra Levant's 2,105-part series, "Why Me and the Other Speech Warriors are like Gandhi, Jesus and Superman All Rolled Into One".

On misinformation

You probably don't need me to tell you that the Cons' excuses for not providing information to Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page are absolute nonsense. But just in case there was any doubt, the Cons' excuses for not providing information to Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page are absolute nonsense.

Here's the latest excuse from a John Baird spokesflack:

Mr. Baird said that the amount of pages is large because there are 7,600 projects underway. Mr. Day said that the reason why these files were hard copies was because of the nature of the documents, information gathered as part of the application process, some of which can be confidential commercial information that could not be released without the consent of third parties.

"We would have to go through and get consent and permission from every single one of our proponents and we're bound by privacy laws," said Mr. Day. "We provided [the Parliamentary Budget Officer] with the data, some of it is sensitive information, it may include some financial statements, budgets, board information and all that stuff. We've got thousands of pages worth of documents to him and his staff can go through it and do their due diligence, do the financial analysis."

Now, one might read that response and ask, is the PBO's office really set up so that its efforts to shed light on Canada's public finances can be stymied by third parties who refuse to consent to the disclosure of relevant information? Fortunately, the answer is "not by a long shot":

79.3 (1) Except as provided by any other Act of Parliament that expressly refers to this subsection, the Parliamentary Budget Officer is entitled, by request made to the deputy head of a department within the meaning of any of paragraphs (a), (a.1) and (d) of the definition “department” in section 2 of the Financial Administration Act, or to any other person designated by that deputy head for the purpose of this section, to free and timely access to any financial or economic data in the possession of the department that are required for the performance of his or her mandate.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of any financial or economic data

(a) that are information the disclosure of which is restricted under section 19 of the Access to Information Act or any provision set out in Schedule II to that Act; or

(b) that are contained in a confidence of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada described in subsection 69(1) of that Act, unless the data are also contained in any other record, within the meaning of section 3 of that Act, and are not information referred to in paragraph (a).

For those wondering, the exemptions referred to in section 79.3(b) include personal information under section 19 of the Access to Information Act, information subject to a statutory prohibition on disclosure under Schedule II of the Access to Information Act (none of which would appear to apply to infrastructure spending), and information which the Privy Council Office chooses to make confidential. And I doubt the public would have reason for sympathy if the records surrounding the use of stimulus money are of "personal" use or are being suppressed by the Cons' own choice.

What's more, the PBO has been set up to scrupulously avoid the disclosure of any information whose release might affect third parties:

79.4 The Parliamentary Budget Officer, and every person acting on behalf or under the direction of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, shall not disclose any financial or economic data that come to their knowledge under section 79.3, unless the disclosure is essential for the performance of his or her mandate and the financial or economic data to which the disclosure relates are not information described in subsection 13(1), section 14, any of paragraphs 18(a) to (d), section 18.1, any of paragraphs 20(1)(b) to (d) or section 20.1 of the Access to Information Act.

So to sum up, then: the federal government isn't entitled to refuse to disclose information to the PBO merely because it's "commercial information"; there's no reason why any third party would have to consent to the disclosure of information to the PBO; and even if one wanted to ignore the PBO's entitlement to the information requested, there's no plausible reason to suggest that sensitive information which does get disclosed would be at risk.

Now, I'm sure the Cons will simply give the Wheel of Excuses another spin even if it does get pointed out that their supposed concern for protecting information has no basis in reality. But it's still worth pointing out just how implausible their explanations actually are to make sure that the next round receives the skepticism it deserves.

On ceasefires

Michael Byers' proposal for cooperation among the national opposition parties in the next federal election figures to be a major topic of conversation over the next little while. So let's take a closer look at what Byers suggests, as well as the impact it figures to have on the political scene.

To start off with, there seems to be little indication that Byers' suggestion is based on anything more than a personal idea. Significantly, he doesn't even begin to discuss the obvious practical hurdles associated with a plan - particularly the question of how (if it all) the plan could be approved within the NDP's existing structures which don't allow for the same degree of top-down control exercised by other parties' leaders. And aside from raising an issue as to how democratic such a proposal would be, that hints to me that Byers hasn't looked ahead as to whether the proposal could practically be implemented - nor discussed the idea in detail with anybody who has considered the question.

So what about the substance of his proposal? I've posted before about my take on what elements a deal for electoral cooperation would have to include for me to see it as a plus overall - and while Byers' plan comes somewhat closer to the mark than some others I've seen, it still seems to be lacking in a few key areas.

First and most fundamentally, there's little reason to think that an electoral ceasefire would actually hold much of a chance of success.

Byers bases his argument on the raw 2008 vote totals for the NDP and the Libs, without so much as recognizing the possibility that one party's votes wouldn't necessarily transfer en masse to the other. But even that would lead to a Parliament where the two parties' combined seats would fall short of a majority - leaving little prospect that a referendum on proportional representation would be allowed to take place without the Cons and Bloc voting down any new government.

And even that scenario is likely too generous an interpretation of the probable outcome. After all, the track record of multi-party deals suggests that any combined effort tends to add up to less than the sum of its parts - a problem which seems particularly obvious for NDP ridings under an agreement where a substantial number of Lib votes would bleed to the Cons. And there's equally some history of completely unforeseen consequences: see e.g. the B.C. effort by the two traditional parties to suppress the CCF, which instead led to the rise of Social Credit as it unraveled.

Meanwhile, there are also pitfalls in Byers' plan if it succeeds beyond anybody's expectations. Byers himself notes that there would be a chance of the Libs winning a majority government if a combined effort manages to turn the tide strongly enough against the Cons. But he doesn't note the obvious implication of that possibility: a Lib majority government would have absolutely no incentive to follow through on a promise to do anything about proportional representation, and the NDP would have no hammer at its disposal to force the issue. So Byers' plan falls short on the question of enforceability as well.

And as an added problem, the focus on 2008 results would lead to a complete lack of flexibility. To the extent both parties were to agree on a common goal of toppling the Cons, it would seem obvious that it's in nobody's interest for a party to be arbitrarily assigned a seat where it doesn't have the best chance of winning. But the allocation of seats based on past results combined with the elimination of any other opposition candidates would ensure that there would be no way to correct for any realization that a particular candidate or party actually doesn't have the better chance to defeat a Con opponent.

Finally, I'll note that there are serious questions to be raised about the timing of Byers' proposal. I could see a far better argument for the necessity of cooperation at what's seen to be a particularly crucial decision point in Canadian politics. But Ignatieff already broke an agreement with the NDP at the last one of those to leave the Con government in charge of dealing with Canada's recession. And the threat of a Harper majority isn't a particularly new one either, as it loomed as a distinct possibility through most of the 2008 campaign.

In sum, then, I'm not clear on what's changed since a year ago to justify a deal along the line of Byers' proposal. Which means that while he deserves credit for looking to spread a message of cooperation, there doesn't seem to be much prospect that his suggestion will find much traction.

Update: Pogge is much more succinct.

(Edit: fixed wording re: B.C. example.)

By necessary implication

It's understandable to a point that the opposition's messaging about the Cons' misuse of public money to take credit for even the most mundane actions has been based on direct confrontation rather than trying to seek any admissions out of a government notorious for stonewalling its opponents. But it seems to me that there's an available next step where the current allegation against the Cons actually becomes their defence to an even more irresponsible implication coming from their current position.

There's plenty of material already available where the Cons send the following messages:
- First, that their "economic action plan" is synonymous with stimulus spending.
- Second, that they see stimulus spending as a temporary measure which they're eager to end at the earliest opportunity.
- Third, that the vast majority of any stimulus spending (90% by their reckoning) has already been committed.

Based on that combination, can't it be said that Canadians should look at the type of activity that's being included within the "Economic Action Plan" by Cons' own advertisement - and conclude that the Harper government has no intention of investing in any similar priorities at any point in the foreseeable future once their "exit strategy" from stimulus spending plays out? And shouldn't the opposition parties be eager to draw exactly that connection?

As best I can tell, that argument would create an extremely target-rich environment. Any opposition MP could point to, say, a stretch of a national highway with an Economic Action Plan sign (ideally in a Con riding); point to another stretch of highway in obvious need of repair without such a sign (ideally in an opposition riding), and announce that the Cons have declared that the latter won't be dealt with as long as they're in office since the stimulus money has basically run out.

Or better yet, point to maintenance being carried out with "Action Plan" publicity, and announce that it's going to stop as soon as the stimulus period is done with. From my standpoint, the strategy gets even better with each example of an "Action Plan" sign where it doesn't belong - i.e. in an area which obviously had to be invested in regardless of whether or not there was any need for immediate stimulus.

One option in response to such examples would be for the Cons to answer that they have no intention of investing in any federal infrastructure once the recession is over. But that would raise the spectre of the Cons effectively allowing federal institutions to go to seed, playing to some of the public's worst fears about the party.

Or instead, the Cons could try to start drawing fine distinctions as to what types of "Action Plan" spending will continue and what types won't. But that would create some significant contradictions against their current message, and indeed result in their effectively admitting that their PR campaign goes far beyond anything that can plausibly be claimed as stimulus.

The above is a far less direct strategy than the one currently being used. But I'd have to think it's far more likely to create some real contradictions in the Harper government's message - and that should pay far more dividends than the current he said/she said when it comes time to use the Cons' own words against them.

The reviews are in

Greg Weston:

In the world according to federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, the national deficit will disappear when the Conservatives stop printing those big cardboard cheques for roads, sewers and new door knobs.

The finance minister's recent economic report went so far as to promise the country would "return to budgetary balance" without raising taxes, or cutting support to seniors or families.

Canada will be back in the black, Flaherty promised, without reducing employment insurance benefits or funding to the provinces for health care, social services or regional equalization.

Instead, the author of federal budgets lucky to get the page numbering right would have us believe that when the recession ends, the deficit will too.

Or not. A closer look at what is actually driving the government $55 billion into the red this year shows much of the shortfall is the result of permanent Conservative tax measures and other factors that won't simply vanish in an economic recovery.

Sunday Morning 'Rider Blogging

Most of the talk about yesterday's loss to Hamilton looks to be painting the game as a writeoff for the 'Riders as a whole. But I'm not sure that analysis is fair either to the parts of the team which did play pretty well, or to the offence which needs to look at the game as a sign of serious room for improvement rather than than a mulligan.

The relatively bright side starts with the special teams, where Jason Armstead again managed to give the offence plenty of opportunities with superb field position, and the kick and cover teams were both solid (though Luca Congi was just off on a couple of long field goals which could have changed the complexion of the game if they'd succeeded).

More importantly, Saskatchewan's defence held up remarkably well for a game where it was stuck on the field for 39 minutes. While Deandra Cobb had a big game in the final numbers, he at least faced tough going most of the game until the final drive when the outcome wasn't really in doubt. And a depleted secondary managed to hold Kevin Glenn to his lowest numbers since he took over the Ticats' starting job, completely shutting down any deep passing game and causing enough trouble on shorter routes to keep Hamilton from pulling more than a couple of scores ahead.

But that of course leads into the real problem for the 'Riders, which was that scores of any kind seemed to be beyond the capability of Saskatchewan's offence. And the problem wasn't limited to any one player or strategy: while it would be easy to focus in on Darien Durant's early turnovers and later inaccuracy, there were equally obvious issues with receivers dropping passes, the offensive line collapsing under pressure and Wes Cates finding absolutely no room to run.

In effect, yesterday looks to be the flip side of what I noted last week. Even when it's been fairly productive, Saskatchewan's offence has functioned mostly by spotting the small holes created by aggressive defences and targeting those with precision timing, rather than by actually controlling the game for itself. And yesterday's outcome is a vivid example of what happens when the usual precision is lacking: after missing the narrow windows offered up by the defence, the 'Riders can end up getting swamped at every turn.

Of course, it's probably too late for any major changes to Saskatchewan's game plan. So hopefully the 'Riders will be able to get back to their previous pattern of living on the edge - rather than watching the season end early as their offence plummets off a cliff.

Shocking, positively shocking

So the Cons are no longer even pretending to care about doing anything about the Senate now that their unelected partisan hacks are about to outnumber the Libs' unelected partisan hacks. Who could have suspected?