Inadvisable

Not surprisingly, we won't find out exactly how David Johnston will handle any disputes over Stephen Harper's habit of shutting down democratic institutions until the next time it happens. But there looks to be reason for concern based on his interview today:

For David Johnston, the governor-general is not a referee who makes calls on every play in the game, he says, but a thoughtful, apolitical adviser with a keen appreciation for Canada's political history.

In order for his advice to be heard and heeded, he says he needs to maintain a solid relationship with Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

“It does require a rapport of a kind, between the prime minister and the cabinet and the governor-general,” Mr. Johnston said in a wide-ranging interview at Rideau Hall with The Canadian Press on Wednesday.

Mr. Harper needs the governor-general's approval to prorogue Parliament or call an election. Mr. Johnston would also have to decide whether a coalition could form government, if Mr. Harper were to lose the confidence of the House.
...
The inherent instability of minority government, along with Mr. Harper's track record of prorogation, will almost certainly mean Mr. Johnston can count on having to make tough calls in the months to come.

“I think the value that the governor-general can provide to our parliamentary system is the governor-general is outside of politics, is someone objective, one would expect would have a long-term view of the country and its values,” Mr. Johnston said.

“And I would hope that Mr. Harper and his colleagues would find my views on that helpful from time to time.”

Now, it should go without saying that Harper isn't lacking for advisers already. And if he was interested in listening to input from experts who do have Canada's long-term values and interests in mind, he wouldn't have chosen to set up the echo chamber that currently surrounds him.

Which means that the most important part of the GG's role (at least as matters stand now) would seem to be the "referee" element that Johnston is looking to downplay, rather than anything to do with dispensing "views" alone. And the more Johnston sees his role as merely involving suggestions rather than exercises of authority, the more likely the Cons are to be able to keep on walking over the institution.

And that danger is all the more obvious given that Johnston also looks to be setting up a fairly close relationship with the government - explicitly stating his intention to build "rapport" with cabinet ministers who wouldn't have seem to have any reason to deal directly with the GG except to be sworn in. In contrast, he's apparently left any mention of opposition leaders or parties out of his perceived job description.

Again, it remains to be seen how Johnston will actually exercise (or not exercise) his reserve powers in practice. But his stance today looks to make for a worrisome pairing with a government that's pushed the boundaries of executive control at every turn - and may have much to do with why Harper decided to appoint him in the first place.

Now that's a revelation

I'm sure Gilles Duceppe's take on his 2004 coalition talks with the Cons will receive plenty more attention in the days to come. But this may actually make for the most damning point of all when Stephen Harper tries to claim there's something wrong with a government (coalition or otherwise) holding confidence thanks to the Bloc's support:

Duceppe explained in the book that Harper's Conservatives had also pleaded with him in 2004 to prop up the minority government of former prime minister Paul Martin, in order to avoid an election following the throne speech.

In other words, Harper was downright eager to see the Libs propped up by the Bloc at that time. So how can he pretend that a similar arrangement would be the end of the world now?

On preemption

Obviously the media spin is in on Chantal Hebert's column discussing Gilles Duceppe's brief comments about the formation of the Lib/NDP coalition in 2008. But while Hebert, Norman Spector and others are rushing to proclaim it a win for the Harper Cons, I'm glad to see it from the perspective of those of us who want all options on the table to replace Harper after the next election.

After all, the "fear the Bloc" card looks to have been the Cons' main message from day one in trying to run against a coalition. And as with most aspects of the Cons' strategy, the only way it stood any chance of succeeding was if nobody discussed the Bloc's role rationally.

But while Duceppe's minimal revelations don't change anything much about the public narrative around the progressive coalition, they should ensure that the question of how the Bloc was involved then - and could be involved in the future - will get a thorough airing at a time when an election is nowhere in sight. And once again, so long as the Libs aren't spooked into saying anything counterproductive, the effect should be to blunt the force of the Cons' most obvious line of attack in the next campaign.

Wednesday Morning Links

- Thomas Walkom nicely summarizes what the Harper Cons want us to expect out of Canada's economy:

Young people should not expect good jobs when they leave school. The unemployed should not expect any work at all.

The sick should expect health care to be cut back. The poor should expect to get poorer.

The old should not expect the pensions they worked for.

In effect, the finance minister says, expect very little from this government. Take him at his word.

- And that only fits all too well with the Cons' general theme of spreading distrust and disinterest - which Alex Himelfarb identifies as one of the major challenges facing anybody who wants to see a public sector that responds more effectively to the needs of its citizens:

On the one hand, “blind trust” is neither desirable nor possible especially now that we understand the risks and the costs. The “age of deference” is well and truly over. But on the other hand, we are all the losers if the replacement is an “age of cynicism” which makes positive collective action impossible. The art is to find a middle ground and this won’t be easy if, as I fear, cynicism has the upper hand.

Yes, governments too often abused the trust we bestowed on them not simply by virtue of their political spinning and pathological partisanship which have always existed and now seem to have replaced all else, but also by too many instances where private interests trumped the public good or where majority interests trumped minority rights.
...
Any organization or, for that matter, any relationship is doomed if it is built on distrust. We know from our experience that it is easier to break trust than to build it, and once broken we waste enormous energy on scrutinizing behaviour, looking for any signal of wrongdoing. And those on the receiving end of distrust will often feel diminished or become paralyzed, afraid to risk error or take responsibility. We have seen some of this in the layering of rules, controls and oversight in the public service that serves only to undermine performance, constrain creativity and innovation and stall an already slow machine. Distrust makes cooperation impossible and it is insatiable.

- Last time the Cons introduced an obnoxiously large piece of budget legislation, the opposition parties ended up scrambling to try to deal with massive changes in far too little time. So somebody with a few spare days may want to take a close look at the Cons' latest omnibus monstrosity - especially since its summary is carefully phrased to mention "better targets" and "reform" without actually clarifying what changes are being made.

- Finally, Dick Haskayne provides a national perspective on why a PCS takeover shouldn't be approved:

I...now offer my specific reasons for recommending that the federal Industry minister not approve the proposed takeover of PotashCorp by BHP:

- It would be the largest, most significant takeover of any Canadian mining company in history. This news would send a worldwide message that Canada is prepared to sell any of its prized resource companies;

- This takeover would further reduce Canada's stature as an important mining country and indicate that Canadians are satisfied with 'branch office' operations of our major resource assets;

- PotashCorp is so important for the world because of its enormous reserves. Canada should take a long view and jealously protect the management of that asset considering the interest of shareholders and what is best for Canada;
...
It seems inconceivable that this takeover could be demonstrated as "a net benefit "to Canada because BHP offers nothing to PotashCorp that it is not doing now in terms of operations, finance or marketing. PotashCorp should continue to be a public company with all of the transparency involved, compared with a branch operation whose operations would be buried within a large multi-national corporation.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Wonder demonstrates his five-limb, five-direction sprawling technique.


Babushka Tigger is not amused.

Lacking benefits

Shorter BHP Billiton:

Our plan for a mine at Jansen Lake - which is in no way related to or dependent on our PCS takeover bid - is the main reason why our PCS takeover bid should be approved.

The battle ahead

As promised, let's look in a bit more detail at how dangerous the Cons' combination of motivations surrounding the 2008 coalition actually is - and why we'll need to do everything possible to make sure the next (seemingly inevitable) showdown turns out differently.

At the outset, it's worth remembering that the Cons have quite intentionally developed the habit of idolizing their leader. And while the main purpose of that strategy is surely to foster unity within the party, it would seem virtually inevitable that the cult atmosphere would have some effect on Stephen Harper's own view of himself.

That apparently led to Harper being momentarily shattered when he discovered that his actions had consequences, and that he couldn't simply impose his will on the country. But it didn't take long for Harper to summon up his most self-aggrandizing view yet, believing himself to be Canada's saviour against the caricature of a coalition that his party was already starting to paint:

But Mr. Harper’s mood and the government’s fortunes were transformed when Mr. Dion and NDP Leader Jack Layton invited Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe to attend the press conference and sign the document cementing the coalition. Galvanized, the Prime Minister vowed to do everything within his power to prevent what he called the Liberals coalition “with socialists and separatists” from forming the government.

Now, the belief of a controlling leader that a country requires saving at all costs from enemies within would be scary enough to begin with. And indeed one can argue that it's exactly that type of "only we can save Canada!" attitude that led to the Libs' downfall, as the consequences of their willingness to throw money at saving the country from separatists became much of the impetus for their removal from power.

But Harper also adds an extra element to the mix. While the Libs' sins were borne of a desire to stay in control of the country largely as it stands and a willingness to direct public dollars into their own hands to do so, they can't be said to have been willing to do deliberate harm along the way.

In contrast, Harper and his party wasted no time in threatening the country with ruin at their own hands if Michaelle Jean didn't give them the reprieve from democracy that they needed to stay in power. And unfortunately, the fact that attitude has been rewarded seems to have given them little reason to rethink their position.

So as matters stand, we're stuck with a Prime Minister who's spent five years being assured of his own infallibility, who's come to believe that only he stands in the way of untold horrors - and who's willing to destroy the country in order to save it.

Of course, it still remains to be seen exactly how far Harper intends to push matters in order to cling to power. But while I'm still optimistic that the general public won't be convinced by his fearmongering and will give some combination of opposition parties the chance to replace him following the next election, there's little reason to expect anything but a desperate fight at that point. And the more Harper manages to work himself and his party into a fury, the more dangerous the results figure to be for the country.

Heroes often fade

Since his expulsion from cabinet, Maxime Bernier has tried to carve out a niche for himself as an "idealistic" and "authentic" small-c conservative. But in case there was any doubt, his now-debunked claims about nonexistent census complaints should make it clear that he's no more interested in offering a remotely accurate or honest appraisal of the country than any of his partymates.

The art of the possible

Following up on this post, Stephen Gordon replies to Robert as to his take on expanding the reach of consumption taxes:

So Stephen, are you in favour of charging the HST on groceries and then giving low income households money for that?
Posted by: Robert McClelland | October 04, 2010 at 08:01 PM

Yes. But that battle was lost long ago.
Posted by: Stephen Gordon | October 04, 2010 at 08:17 PM

Which is pretty much the answer I'd expected - and certainly makes for a consistent view of how a tax system should be set up in theory.

But then we get to the practical side of the issue. And while one can understand Gordon's reason for frustration with the system as it stands, surely one also has to recognize that any policy is going to be discussed within something resembling our existing political reality. Which seems rather important when the NDP or any other party develops a policy proposal.

At another time, with another government, Gordon's "just give money to poor people" answer to redistributive issues might well make for the foundation of a better theoretical policy than one which involves cutting consumption taxes for all. (Though I'll post later as to why the economic theory behind that principle has inherent political weaknesses.)

But last I checked, the Harper Cons' answer to any suggestion about helping poor people ranged from hysterical laughter to the unprintable.

So the NDP's choice is then between tilting at windmills and proposing something which it knows will be shot down in short order, or making a suggestion that's at least close enough to the governing party's worldview to have some chance of being taken seriously. And if the measure catches on enough to push the Cons to act, then the result is the implementation of a policy which has some positive redistributive effects in percentage-of-income terms (even if it does fall short of the mark in absolute terms).

Again, that can reasonably be seen as less than an ideal outcome - and I'll be the first to agree that the NDP also needs to have its longer-term societal goals in mind, even if I may not agree entirely with Gordon as to what those should be. But there's some middle ground between a political party which is focused only on communication strategies at the expense of policy and one focused solely on theoretical outcomes which fail utterly to connect with politics as they stand - and I wouldn't want the NDP to trap itself in the latter extreme any more than the former.

Just wondering

A few quick thoughts on the cause and effect relationship between the Cons and their house media organ.

Should we interpret this editorial as a case of "when even the Sun thinks Christian Paradis is done, surely he has no choice but to step down"?

Or is it a case of "it's so obvious that Christian Paradis is stepping down that even the Sun has to play along"?

And in either case, can we look forward to his being labeled as a Liberal in keeping with a decade of journalistic tradition?

Burning question

How long before the Cons declare that their political control information extends no further extends no further than Sebastien Togneri and two of his co-workers who all mistakenly interfered in various files - and that this time they mean it until somebody proves otherwise?

On essential goods

Stephen Gordon has predictably rushed in to criticize the NDP's call to remove the GST/HST from home heating. But while Gordon has taken a fairly consistent line in favour of consumption taxes in the abstract, I haven't seen much from him directly addressing one element of our current tax policy which makes the idea an entirely logical fit.

So, to Gordon or anybody else looking to take his side:

Is there such a thing as an essential good that should be left out of a consumption tax system (e.g. groceries as matters stand now)? And if so, isn't there at least a reasonable argument to be made that heating oil should similarly be classified as essential?

Or is the preferred model simply to tax as many goods and services as possible? And in that case, why isn't there just as much effort to point out that omission in our current tax policy as there is to pillory the NDP for its proposal?

First impressions

A few quick notes on the Conference Board of Canada's potash report which was released today.

To start off with, the report includes some highly questionable assumptions which fit into the Conference Board's tendency to echo corporate buzzspeak. Most notably, it's stunning that the Conference Board ignores BHP Billiton's own repeated statements that it wants nothing to do with Canpotex by rationalizing that "market discipline" would override that explicit intention.

But that only makes for the difference between loss of $2 billion over 10 years, compared to one of $5.7 billion under a scenario where a buyer decides to undercut potash prices based on its own internal considerations (whether gaining market share or wanting to favour particular purchasers). So either way, the clear decision for the Wall government is whether it's worth losing hundreds of billions of dollars per year solely in order to be perceived as friendly to business.

Meanwhile, the Conference Board does present one useful suggestion to minimize the cause of the possible tax losses from a BHP Billiton takeover:

(T)he Province may want to consider making the impact of capital
expenditures on potash royalties project-specific, rather than company-specific.

Of course, it's open for question whether there should be much need for tax breaks on potash investment in any event. But to the extent they're going to remain in place, the Conference Board's suggestion would seem to make for a useful means of linking tax breaks to the capital investment they're supposed to stimulate, rather than having them serve as a means to put the province on the hook for a takeover.

Monday Morning Links

I'm pretty sure the tabs are multiplying on their own...

- Erin rightly slams Michael Ignatieff's complete reversal on EI - from threatening an election over it just last year, to voting with the Cons to keep the status quo this fall:

(A) modest decline in the unemployment rate reflects an increase in employment, rather than any decrease in unemployment. In both September 2009 and August 2010, 1.5 million Canadians were officially unemployed. By this measure, Ignatieff is flat wrong to claim that “the situation has changed.”

The Liberals had championed lowering the entrance requirement to 360 hours to make EI benefits more accessible. For that proposal, the issue is not total unemployment, but the number of unemployed workers who cannot access benefits.

In September 2009, there were 818,000 EI recipients among 1,549,700 unemployed workers, leaving 731,700 without benefits. In July 2010 (the last month of EI data), there were 672,200 EI recipients out of 1,493,100 unemployed workers, leaving 820,900 without benefits.

So, the problem that the Liberals said they wanted to address has actually gotten worse. Ignatieff’s claim that EI improvements “are no longer required” lacks credibility.

For more from Erin, you can check out his personal blog at Beer with Weir.

- Alison rightly criticizes the Cons and Libs for pushing a free trade agreement with Panama. But while I fully agree with her critiques, let's note that one of them isn't one that the Cons are the least bit concerned with: far from being concerned whether any of our trading partners are seen as tax havens, the Cons want Canada to be branded as one as well.

- Predictably, the Cons' dumb-on-crime measures are doing particularly significant damage to poor and Aboriginal communities. One can practically hear "Yes! Two for two!" echoing from the closed-door meetings.

- And similarly, pogge's criticism of Jason Kenney misses the genius of the Cons' combination of a constant PR campaign about Kenney's busy schedule of political appearances, and an overburdened immigration department which is forcing requests to go through MPs' offices instead. What better way to both keep one's political opponents busy, and set up an argument for junking large swaths of the civil service as ineffective while claiming to personally be doing everything possible?

- Finally, Dan Leger nicely criticizes right-wing parties and politicians in general for offering nothing but simplistic non-solutions to complex problems:

Beyond the anger and cynicism, perhaps the most troubling trend is a growing belief in simple solutions to our confounding problems. Ban the immigrants. Cut taxes. Lower power rates. Dumb down government. Round ‘em up and hang ‘em high. Build more jails. Cut everything except my personal entitlements.

But we should be leery when politicians promise simple solutions to the complex problems of our communities and our country. Complicated matters are rarely sorted out by simple solutions. Yet it’s an undeniable trait of the political right to claim simple solutions for just about everything.

Problem: the long-form census is annoying. Simple solution? Kill it and label anyone who disagrees an elitist. Problem: the long-gun registry is intrusive. Solution? Kill that, too.

Crime on the streets? Build more jails. Not really more crime on the streets? Build the jails anyway. Planet heating up? Close your eyes and it will just go away.

We have all these real-life problems. Do we really think they’re going to be fixed by simplistic solutions, accompanied by lots of screaming?

Sadly, you don’t get rid of a deficit by cutting taxes. You can’t tackle economic stagnation by creating phoney crises over guns and census forms. Any adult can tell you that yelling won’t pay any bills or solve any problems.

On minority influence

John Ibbitson's report on the Cons' immigrant recruitment strategy is rightly getting plenty of attention this morning. But let's take a moment to point out the good news behind the Cons' attempts to manipulate the immigration system for their own gain.

First, there's the fact that even among the new immigrants who are seen as more receptive to socon values, there's reason to think that any party willing to defend progressive principles can compete for votes:

A survey of visible minorities and immigrants done by the Canadian Election Study shows both groups tend to be more conservative than the rest of Canada on bedrock Canadian issues. Both groups, for example, are more likely to say it should be possible to pay for medical treatment and that getting an abortion should be more difficult. Visible minorities, a category that’s 84 per cent immigrant, are more likely to support private hospitals, lower taxes and paying parents individually rather than funding daycare.

(I)t’s not all tilting to the right. On most other issues in the survey, such as cutting welfare spending, opposing the death penalty, having troops in Afghanistan or spending more on defence, both immigrants and visible minority groups are to the left of the Canadian population.

What's particularly striking is that a number of the issues where the survey classifies visible minorities and immigrants as falling to the right of the general population are exactly the ones where the Cons most fear to tread. It may be worth seeing what the Cons are telling minority communities about privatizing health care, restricting abortion or revisiting same-sex marriage, but they certainly aren't prepared to take those policies to the general public - and can expect to be torn to shreds if they're trying to sell different messages to immigrant communities.

In contrast, issues like defence spending and military deployment have been front and centre thanks in large part to the Cons' being consistently on the wrong side of both Canadians as a whole, and the minority groups who have even stronger views than the general public. So there's plenty of room to tap into the values of new Canadians to oppose the Cons.

And that's just in the first generation of new arrivals, as Ibbitson notes that subsequent generations don't seem to be taking long to abandon any vestiges of social conservatism:

(T)here is one demographic shift that should keep Mr. Kenney awake at night. However economically and socially conservative new arrivals may be, their children are almost invariably more liberal.

Subir Mann, a 22-year-old student, came to Canada from The Punjab as a child. He says he supports same-sex marriage, even though his more traditional father has trouble with it.

“For me I think it’s important that gay people are considered equal,” he said. “Part of the reason I’m anti-Conservative is that they often mix religious issues with politics. That can be very dangerous.”

And though Helen Poon is giving serious thought to voting Conservative, her 12-year-old son, a proud cadet, has a very different view.

He came home from school one day urging her not to vote Conservative, Ms. Poon said.

So the Cons' much-hyped immigration strategy looks to be little more than a one-off effort with nothing but diminishing returns to follow. After all, the few social issues where they have any hope of persuading new arrivals to join their camp are exactly the ones where second-generation immigrants are joining the younger population at large on the other side.

Of course, the Cons could still do plenty of damage even with a single majority followed by a demographic turn against them . But there's no indication that the Cons are anywhere near achieving that despite their efforts to buy off new arrivals with public money - and there's ample reason for optimism that both new arrivals and their children will see their values better reflected in other parties.

Saskatoon Sutherland - NDP Nominates Naveed Anwar

It may make for an anticlimactic end to the NDP's nomination race. But as expected following Ryan Meili's decision to step aside, Naveed Anwar has won the NDP's nomination in Saskatoon Sutherland.

The 2011 race between Anwar and Paul Merriman may involve new faces in both of the main parties, but should still nonetheless make for an interesting battle for one of the seats which figures to be hotly contested on both sides. Congratulations to Anwar on his successful nomination campaign, and we'll look forward to seeing how much of his success recruiting members thus far can translate into a volunteer base for the general election.

Why it matters

Following up on my earlier posts commenting on Michaelle Jean's decision-making process in granting Stephen Harper the opportunity to avoid democratic accountability for his government's actions, let's note briefly why the issue still matters now.

For one, the effect of Jean's decision was primarily only to kick the can down the road. In granting prorogation, she only delayed any confrontation between a Prime Minister bent on keeping power and the combined force of a majority planning to vote him down - and the Libs' subsequent decision to keep the Cons in power hasn't changed the issues at play. And indeed, many of the developments since then - from the Cons' blatant executive power grabs to the popular outcry over prorogation in 2009 - can be traced directly to the same underlying conflict.

That might only leave the general debate to be dealt with at some undefined point in the future...if not for the fact that the Cons see their destructive mood of December 2008 as establishing exactly the political environment that's most beneficial for their electoral prospects.

By now, it should be clear that Harper and company are doing everything in their power to try to recreate that exact dynamic. And anybody wanting to stop Harper in that effort will need to recognize exactly what happened and why in 2008, as well as how best to counter it.

Now, the Cons' strategy has plenty of dangerous implications that I'll deal with in a future post. But for now, suffice it to say that anybody who thinks it's safe to relegate the events of December 2008 to the distant past is missing the boat - and we'll need all hands on deck to get Canada moving in the right direction.

Sunday Morning 'Rider Blogging

This past offseason, much was made of the arrival of Todd Reesing as one of the 'Riders' quarterback options. And there were two obvious reasons why Reesing captured so much attention before washing out due to a lack of arm strength: his strong college numbers, and his superficial similarities to Doug Flutie - who more than a decade after his departure from the league is still considered the prototypical CFL quarterback.

Of course, it's not surprising that a team and its fans might project such hopes onto a young prospect without much regard for his chances of meeting expectations. But for those looking for the next Flutie in style and in results, I'm not sure there's a need to look any further than the top spot on the 'Riders' depth chart.

After all, Darian Durant has put together a skill set not far short of the Flutie model that gave defences fits for so long - featuring a combination of speed and elusiveness that makes the defence work overtime to try to bring him down, to go with an effective soft-touch passing game.

All that's been missing has been some accuracy and consistency in Durant's passing attack. And the first half of yesterday's win over Toronto may offer a hint that Durant is about to put the full package together.

Granted, that had much to do with the Argos' strategy. From the first snap of the game, it was obvious that the way to attack the Argos was with short, quick passes to take advantage of a defence that didn't want to give up big plays. But it still requires a rare combination of awareness and accuracy to respond to that scheme - since a single pass going astray can torpedo a drive.

So how did Durant respond to a game plan which could cause serious trouble for a quarterback who played with less than perfect precision? The most obvious hint comes in his stunning 19-for-21 completion ratio in the first half. But the team's results relying almost exclusively on Durant are even more telling.

The 'Riders had four possessions in the first half - and didn't once end up with less than three first downs before giving the ball back to Toronto. In fact, the first time the 'Riders failed to hold the ball for at least 7-8 plays and 3 minutes of time off the clock was the first possession of the second half - where Andy Fantuz was able to find the end zone on the team's first play.

And all this despite both a nonexistent ground game, and a Toronto defence which did a fairly effective job limiting the 'Riders' yardage after catching the ball.

Now, Durant predictably cooled off somewhat in the second half, keeping the game closer than it might otherwise have been. But until the 'Riders had a two-score lead, he consistently met the challenge of keeping the ball moving with little but precise short throws and the occasional quarterback sneak.

And that has to be rather scary for teams scheming to stop Durant. For the most part, the danger in allowing the 'Riders to throw the ball short has been the risk of receivers running wild after catching the ball - while the prospect of streaky throws from Durant has offered reason for opponents to hope the 'Riders might stop themselves.

But if Durant can present a credible threat to complete 80-90% of his passes when opponents play a bend-but-don't-break style, then it's not hard to anticipate that defences may soon be as helpless against him as they were against Flutie during his stay in the CFL. And it'll be far more enjoyable for 'Rider fans to watch that kind of artistry in action than to simply hope that one of our prospects might get there someday.

Canada held hostage

While I don't share the concern others have with Peter Russell's revelation that Michaelle Jean decided to grant Stephen Harper's 2008 prorogation request only after securing key promises from Harper, today's news about some of the other considerations taken into account looks to be downright scary:

In fact, though, Jean did believe there was a Plan B and that it did involve going over the head of the governor general — not to the Queen, but to the Canadian people, as loyal Harper cabinet minister John Baird had warned in a CBC-TV interview. Plan B, Jean and her constitutional advisers believed, would involve a direct, public-relations assault on the legitimacy of the governor general and her decision. That, and not an appeal to the Queen, was far more concerning to Jean on Dec. 4, 2008.

Peter Russell, the distinguished constitutional scholar at the University of Toronto, was one of the experts summoned to Rideau Hall that day and one of the rare ones to say publicly that he was there.

In the back of his cab, coming from the airport to Rideau Hall, Russell only needed to look out the window to see Plan B in action. Demonstrators, holding signs denouncing the coalition, had amassed outside Jean's residence while she was meeting with Harper.

“You can imagine how that would have escalated,” Russell said in an interview this week. “It would have embroiled the country in a constitutional crisis” — one that would have tested Canadians' faith in the entire system of government, including the institution of governor general. The Conservatives' use of the term “coup d'état” was especially worrying, Russell said.

Russell said this wasn't the only consideration in Jean's decision to grant Harper's request, but it was an important part of the context — one that hasn't been discussed publicly so far in the wake of the prorogation.

Now, it would be problematic enough if the small number of paid Con staffers who showed up to "protest" at the GG's residence were able to exert any meaningful influence on a determination as to whether or not Canada's elected representatives would be permitted to carry out a confidence vote. But from Russell's current take, it sounds like the fears went far beyond that, with Jean making her decision in order to avoid an assault on her own position as well as the Cons' promises of chaos if they didn't get their way.

Which might be defensible if the fears were based on any outcry actually originating in the general public, rather than the Cons' strategy of whipping up as much of a frenzy as possible. But as events played out, a party which lied to Canadians about the nature of their democratic system and threatened to make the country unliveable if it faced a democratic vote in the House of Commons was ultimately rewarded for its willingness to tear Canada apart. And it's hard to see how the temporary conflict avoidance achieved by Harper's prorogation - whether framed in terms of the role of the GG alone or the wider threat of party-based protest - is worth the long-term cost of a precedent that a governing party which lacks legitimacy can cling to power by threatening to torch the country.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Some content to help fill your weekend...

- The Chronicle Herald tears into the Cons' continued refusal to listen to reason or anything else when it comes to the long form census:

The government has been advised by its statisticians, by provinces and municipalities and by hundreds of organizations that depend on accurate census data that a voluntary census will not produce reliable, usable results. Former Chief Statistician Munir Sheikh felt it necessary to resign in order to inform us that the government’s plan would degrade the data (and to correct Industry Minister Tony Clement’s misrepresentation that Mr. Sheikh supported the plan).

A government document filed as evidence in a lawsuit that is aimed at stopping the change also acknowledges that switching to a voluntary survey will mean some data "will not be usable for a range of objectives for which the census information would be needed."

To ignore all this and to proceed with killing the detailed census is grossly irresponsible. Real people will suffer when there is poorer information about where services are needed.
...
But the government had the same response for this expression of Parliament’s will as it had for science, fact and commonsense. It doesn’t care and it isn’t budging.
...
(O)n it goes in a parade of unbelievably silly, trivial and discredited arguments.

The Conservatives are debating and governing with their fingers in their ears. It makes no sense and it’s not a pretty sight.

- Stephen Maher notes that whatever one's view of ministerial responsibility, the reality is that the Cons' culture of information suppression starts at the top. And that may make for the most important rebuttal to any spin as to whether to blame individual ministers or their subordinates: the Cons have a concerted effort to keep facts away from Canadians in every department under their control, and the real problem is Stephen Harper.

- Meanwhile, Kady O'Malley has posted the definitive Sebastien Togneri document dump.

- Dan Gardner writes a scathing indictment of the lack of action to protect sex workers, and notes that if the judiciary has had to step in it's only because Lib and Con governments alike have chosen to do nothing:

Let me repeat: a judge concluded that the law is helping to butcher women. Sure, it’s fun to argue about the role of the judiciary. Important, even. But isn’t the judge’s conclusion about what the law is doing to women just a little more worrying than the possibility that a judge’s interpretation of her role is excessively expansive?

Place the two issues on a scale and weigh them. On one side: an overstepping judge. On the other: thousands of bruised and bleeding women. And several hundred corpses.

Which matters more?

Now, I want to emphasize that reasonable people can look at the evidence and come to a different conclusion that Justice Himel. But what no reasonable person can do is shrug. The mere possibility that the law is contributing to brutality inflicted on vulnerable women is horrifying. A reasonable person who hears this will want to know more. A reasonable person will demand further investigation. A reasonable person will insist on getting to the bottom of this, now.

- Finally, I'll have plenty to say later on. But for commentary on the Cons' decree that anybody having anything to do with a major Canadian Islamic organization is to be shunned, the posts by Dr. Dawg, Balbulican, pogge, Dave, Greg and Cliff are well worth a look.

(Edit: fixed label.)

On double standards

Both of Saskatchewan's main dailies are once again carrying the Sask Party's water in pushing privatized health care. But the Star Phoenix is particularly obvious in its preference to pour money into the private sector even if there's no reason to expect better care or efficiency as a result:

While NDP health critic Judy Junor, whose former government signed off on this contract that clearly imperils the public good, thinks that the road to wait list salvation is found by pumping yet more money into a public health system that already swallows almost half the provincial budget, there is little evidence to support her stance.
...
To have a private care provider that either erodes quality or is more expensive isn't in the interest of society any more than it is to have a public provider that continues to take up ever more of the public purse. The fundamental shortfalls must be addressed first.

So what's wrong with those passages? Let's look at what the Star Phoenix is ultimately prepared to accept, and what it wants its readers to rule out.

As usual, the editorial is quick to condemn a public system that "already swallows almost half the provincial budget" and "continues to take up ever more of the public purse". So as far as Saskatchewan's corporate media is concerned, any further investment in our public system is to be avoided.

But when it comes to privatization, there's another standard entirely. Never mind whether any additional expense eats up just as much budget room as the public alternative; apparently the only concern in the private sector is whether it "erodes quality or is more expensive" than public investment.

In sum, as far as the Star Phoenix is concerned, any investment in the public sector at current cost levels is fiscally irresponsible and to be avoided. But pouring public resources into the private sector at the same cost and efficiency level that's considered intolerable when it goes to the public system - well, that's just peachy, as long as it isn't demonstrably worse.

Needless to say, that message strongly echoes the Sask Party's constant emphasis on privatization even when there's no reason to think there's anything to be gained. And both lines of spin are apparently based on the false claim (normally left unstated) that payments to private providers somehow don't count when it comes to managing health care costs.

But the focus on privatization over cost control and quality of care isn't any more reasonable coming from a media outlet than from a government determined to slash public services. And the Star Phoenix' double standard should lead readers to question whether it can be taken seriously in any of its discussion of Saskatchewan health-care issues.

(Edit: fixed typos.)

On conditional reprieves

It's a definite plus to see both the advice Peter Russell gave to Michaelle Jean during the Con-fabricated 2008 constitutional crisis, and the fact that Jean was able to secure at least a couple of concessions from Stephen Harper - including a commitment to reconvene Parliament quickly rather than ruling by fiat while shuttering the House of Commons indefinitely:

(Peter) Russell said Harper made at least two important commitments: that Parliament would return soon, and that his government would then produce a budget that could pass.
...
Russell, a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Toronto, said the prime minister's promises had a large influence on Jean, and he cautioned Canadians against seeing her decision to grant Harper's request for prorogation as a rubber stamp.

"I think they were extremely important in her weighing all the factors on both sides of the question," Russell said.

"For instance, if Mr. Harper had made no pledge to meet Parliament early, if he said well, he thought his financial position, which had been so badly received in the House, was terrific and he wasn't going to make any changes, I think she would have probably had to make the decision the other way."
...
Russell's revelation suggests the meeting that day was a negotiation in which the Governor General wielded considerable power.

"She made it clear these reserve powers of the Governor General may sometimes be used in ways that are contrary to the advice of an incumbent prime minister," Russell said.

"Because if the contrary was the case, any PM could, at any time, for any reason, not only dissolve Parliament, but prorogue it for any length of time for any reason. We wouldn't have parliamentary government. We would have prime ministerial government."

But I have to wonder whether Russell's revelation sheds some light on the events of the following winter as well. Might Harper's late-2009 request for prorogation by phone then have served not only to create a precedent in favour of the prime ministerial government which Harper is so eager to impose, but also as a form of personal payback for Jean's earlier message that she wouldn't give total deference to the PM's anti-democratic whims?

Musical interlude

Moody Blues - Blue World

Well said

Brian Topp laments the reverse Robin Hood principle that's been applied by Libs and Cons alike to ensure that less-wealthy Canadians pay more and get less for the benefit of those who already have money to burn:

The previous Liberal and current Conservative governments have pretended to cut taxes. In fact, in good part they have simply transferred taxes from those most able to pay them (profitable companies and wealthy individuals) to those least able to do so (the unemployed). This is reverse-Robin Hood economics, taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

In the process the Liberals and Conservatives have moved a significant portion of the tax burden (in net terms, almost $60-billion in recent years) from relatively progressive income and consumption taxes, to a grossly regressive poll tax.
...
Canada's federal government today is largely irrelevant to the daily lives of Canadians. That is why federal politics are increasingly driven by symbolic issues that have little to do with the underlying work of Parliament or its government. The consequences can be measured in growing income disparity; eroding economic competitiveness; rising foreign ownership and economic hollowing-out; rising poverty and household debt; and a subtle, pervasive unraveling of the strands of solidarity, mutual aid and common endeavour that bind us together as a society. This is the legacy Mr. Martin and Mr. Harper will leave their successors – no more clearly underlined that in the disgraceful mess they have made of income security in Canada.

Friday Morning Links

Some light reading to end your work week...

- Andrew Potter highlights the obvious response to the Cons' determination to eliminate reasoned discussion by focusing on gut-level politics instead:

(T)he ultimately more effective instrument is the control of language itself. The Tories have spent the past year rolling out a few slogans, most of them aimed at framing the terms of debate for the next election. And so we’ve heard the Prime Minister repeatedly tell us that “losers don’t get to form governments,” that the Liberals will form a coalition with “socialists and separatists,” and, now, that anyone who supports the long-gun registry is a member of an urban elite. It’s a straight-up appeal to the gut, aimed at short-circuiting more sophisticated thinking.

As the Tories’ resilience at the polls suggests, gut-level politics is incredibly effective, which is why George Lakoff suggested that the only real option for the Democrats would be to engage to Republicans on their own terms—take back the White House by taking back the dictionary. It is increasingly clear that you can’t win in modern politics by having evidence or good ideas on your side, and so it might be time for the opposition in Canada to take their cue from the Democrats down south, start fighting the Tories on their own turf. For example, Stéphane Dion would have had an easier time selling his Green Shift plan if the phrase “tax bads, not goods” had even once passed his lips. More radically, the opposition might want to try reframing the anti-gun registry crowd as the “death lobby.”

- I've spent plenty of time discussing the "coalition" angle on the Cons' scare tactics. Now, Chris Selley takes on the "separatist" side and finds it equally unreasonable:

It’s often said that until Quebecers decide they want to participate in the governance of Canada — i.e., by voting Liberal, Conservative or NDP — we’ll just have to live with the appalling consequences of officially separatist MPs infesting the House of Commons. I have no time for the argument. The Quebecers who don’t want to participate in federal governance don’t vote in federal elections. If we were willing to swallow our dusty, antiquated hardcore federalist pride, we could make the system work better — which is to say, as it’s supposed to work — right now.

Never mind the fact the Bloc’s MPs often seem more honestly concerned for Canadian democracy than the other parties‚ (even if they’re only concerned insofar as it benefits Quebec). The Canadian Alliance was perfectly willing to negotiate with the Bloc in 2000 if the Liberals hadn’t won their third consecutive majority. In 2006 the House of Commons voted 266 to 16 to declare that les Québécois “form a nation within a united Canada.” On Wednesday night, the House went further — voting unanimously to censure Maclean’s magazine for having “denigrate[d] the Quebec nation” (my emphasis). The federalist high road was demolished years ago. The October Crisis was four decades ago. As Mme. Jean’s tenure as governor-general proves yet again, the federalist/separatist divide is not nearly as wide or as bitter as politicians like us to think. There’s no point continuing the charade.

- Eric Reguly comments on the wider implications of BHP Billiton's bid for PCS:

So should the Canadian government prevent BHP from scooping Potash Corp. into its voracious maw? Ignoring the fact that potash is a strategic, irreplaceable resource that prevents mass starvation, why should Canada allow companies that are actually or effectively takeover-proof to buy homegrown corporate hotties?
...
Most subsidiaries, regardless or their size, have no say in the company’s important financial, legal, human resources and financing decisions. That, in turn, means that the spinoff benefits, such as the use of local lenders, legal teams and the like, are nil to negative. Tax, or lack thereof, is another big consideration. Typically, foreign buyers load up their new foreign subsidiaries with debt, all the better to minimize the local tax hit. Is that what BHP has in mind for Potash Corp.? If Investment Canada isn’t asking that question, there’s something wrong. If it isn’t legally allowed to ask that question, there’s something even more wrong.

BHP may be a fine owner of Potash Corp. Then again, it may not. If Investment Canada won’t block the takeover of a company that doesn’t need taking over, it has to ensure “net benefit” means as much. BHP can afford to deliver what the agency demands. It’s just that its demands for the last quarter century have been laughable. As a result, Canada is turning into a branch plant, A Mari usque ad Mare.

- Finally, it's well worth highlighting the Harper Cons' hiring of more and more executive staff even as they tell everybody else in the country to cut back. But can somebody ask Brian Lilley to either explain the building management implications of hiring increased numbers of "guys in the corner offices", or use language that actually describes the executive's function rather than burying the facts under a pile of inaccurate descriptions?

Regina Northeast - Dwayne Yasinowski Nominated for NDP

CJME has already covered the basics of last night's Regina Northeast nomination meeting which saw Dwayne Yasinowski win a nail-biter over Bill Wells on the second ballot. And I'll be glad to see Dwayne carrying the NDP's banner.

But it's worth noting that the nomination race was as lively and intense as it was close. Each of the candidates was able to create plenty of energy in a packed hall (including 200 Regina Northeast members plus 78 guests), as David Froh's lower numbers were balanced out by the youth and enthusiasm of his supporters. And with Froh endorsing Yasinowski while Wells made a concerted effort to keep the nomination campaign positive, there's every reason to think that all sides can come together now that the riding's members have had a chance to choose their nominee.

Of course, the flip side is that the NDP will need a strong grassroots effort to counter the money the Sask Party is throwing behind its hand-picked candidate. But if last night is any indication, there should be enough member interest to get the job done.

Burning question

So in this brave new world of ministerial responsibility, is it Sebastien Tognieri or Christian Paradis that gets charged with lying to Parliament?

Update: We can confirm that ministerial responsibility involves letting the underling take the fall. But that raises another point: will the Cons try to decree that an ex-staffer can ignore a summons from Parliament even over a subject for which he's lost his job?

Yessiree, that sounds plausible

Shorter PMO spin on today's sort-of-news that Stephen Harper was prepared to call in the Queen or anybody else he thought could keep him in power when faced with imminent defeat in the House of Commons:

We masters of seven-dimensional ultrachess don't need no stinkin' plan B.

Thursday Morning Links

A few links and comments to start your day...

- Boris picks up on the discussion of Lawrence Martin's new book by nicely summarizing what motivates the Harper Cons:

(H)atred is the motivation behind everything Harper and his band of orcs do. From visits to the Governor General, to mass prisons and beat-downs in the streets of Toronto, the one 'ideology' we see is a pathological hatred of anything and everyone standing against what they do or think.

This isn't politics. They aren't interested in parliament. There's no tradition of intellectual or philosophical thought underwriting their platform. Their numbers betray their rhetoric about small government for a lie. They shut down critical institutions of state that produce information independent of political control. They break protocol and convention at will. All they want to do is smash and destroy anything and anyone not fitting their worldview.

- Meanwhile, James Travers criticizes the fear and loathing the Cons are so eager to spread among the public:

Only an audience contentedly frozen in the Cold War could still fret that the Russians are coming. Tamils put themselves more at risk than us by crossing the Pacific in a rusting hulk. Canadian jails — the ones Conservatives plan to overflow with hardened litterers, crazed dope smokers and Stockwell Day’s masterminds of unreported crime — have yet to incarcerate their first long-form census scofflaw.

Banging the drum so loudly about so little is a sure sign other mischief is afoot. That contrived bit of Ruskie theatre was really about positioning the Prime Minister as Canada’s fearless protector of Arctic interests and justifying spending a breathtaking $16 billion on stealth fighters. Getting tough with Tamils is part of the trend shifting immigration from a social and economic dilemma into a law-and-order peril. Blowing smoke about jailing citizens for census disobedience is cover for the determined Conservative effort to control information.

- And while the Cons blow nonexistent threats and gripes out of proportion, we can fully expect to hear nothing about problems that probably do deserve public outcry - such as the discovery of billions of dollars which look to have been illegally hidden so that wealthy Canadians (i.e. those with a minimum of half of million spare dollars to shelter) could avoid paying the taxes they owe.

- Finally, Rick Salutin's dismissal from the Globe and Mail has given rise to plenty of protest so far. But I do wonder whether the focus is being put on the wrong element of the Globe and Mail's decision: isn't the greater problem the fact that virtually no genuinely progressive voices are being added to the media landscape (even as the reactionary right can add full networks to the mix), rather than what may be some expected churn among the longer-serving left-wing commentators?

A temporary reprieve

There's certainly some good news to be found in an arbitrator's ruling that private surgery clinics are permissible as a temporary measure at most due to their not being cost-effective as a permanent systemic change. But it's also worth pointing out the dangers of relying on a collective bargaining agreement as the means of preserving Saskatchewan's public health care system.

After all, it's entirely foreseeable that the same government which imposed the mandate to use private operators in the first place might meddle in future negotiations to ensure that it doesn't run into such snags in the future. And if that results in the removal of the relevant CBA provisions (either by bargaining or by legislation) before the 2013 deadline expires, then yesterday's decision may serve as little more than a speed bump on the Wall government's road to for-profit health care.

So while it's worth celebrating some arbitral confirmation that building capacity in the public sector is the only move that makes sense for long-term cost efficiency, the most important task in defending the province's health-care system is still to replace a government bent on its privatization.

On missed opportunities

John Ibbitson's article is headlined by a "revelation" that seems to me to be less than newsworthy: that Stephen Harper would do anything, including demanding that the Queen overrule the Governor General, in an effort to cling to power.

But what strikes me as a more interesting revelation is the report that for at least some time in 2008, Harper was actually set to leave peacefully:

During the political crisis of December 2008, as Mr. Harper realized that he had made exactly that kind of mistake by announcing an end to government financing of political parties, which united the opposition against him, he sank into something approaching despair, according to Mr. Martin.

“He was resigned to defeat, prepared to give up the government,” Mr. Martin writes. “Staffers had never seen him like this, pale and shaken. He told them, in so many words, that it was over, that the government would fall.”

Now, the followup point that it was the presence of Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe at a signing ceremony that put Harper back in the mood to fight for power at all costs looks to be tacked on rather conveniently given the Cons' current rhetoric. But to the extent one takes it at face value, it's worth noting that as with the later videotape fiasco, the biggest problem seems to have been an insufficient amount of cooperation among the other parties rather than an excess of it. If Stephane Dion had listened to Gilles Duceppe's suggestion that Duceppe not participate in a photo-op when he was never intended to be part of the coalition in any event, then Harper may well have gone down willingly.

Instead, we remain stuck with a PM all the more convinced that no strategy is too destructive or dishonest if it keeps him in power. And it's anybody's guess as to whether he'll ever be willing to voluntarily cede power again, no matter how clear it is that he lacks any democratic legitimacy.

Attack of the Paleo-Libs - War Resister Edition

I've pointed out before that there are plenty of Lib MPs kept in office by party nomination rules which strangle any grassroots organization toward better representation, but positively begging to be dumped in favour of a more progressive alternative - with Alan Tonks featuring prominently in that group.

Now, having actually voted against his partymate's bill to offer amnesty to war resisters, Tonks may have just earned himself the top spot on the list. But given the number of abstentions which caused Gerard Kennedy's cause to fail, it's obvious that there are more than a few Libs still in need of replacement.

Wednesday Afternoon Links

- Impolitical is right to note the absurdity of the "conventional wisdom" that a Con-dominated Senate should feel entitled to block whatever it wants regardless of what's passed by Canada's elected representatives. But even leaving aside the fact that a Lib flip-flop has made the issue moot when it comes to EI, should anybody be surprised that the Cons are using the unelected Senate to impose their will on the country given their track record of doing just that?

- Meanwhile, the Cons are also doing their best to eliminate any good the Senate could otherwise do as a source of policy ideas, offering nothing but complete rejection for a plan to deal with poverty.

- Dog Blog has already posted on the subject, but I'll also encourage readers interested in getting involved in Regina's municipal boards, commissions and committees to take a look at the openings and apply to participate.

- Finally, while Murray Mandryk jumps to a few too many conclusions based on a single federal poll, he's duly cynical about the Harper Cons' handling of the gun registry - echoing the question of why a party which has fomented public outrage for years over its flaws will soon be arguing to keep it in place without improvements.

Wednesday Morning Links - Coalition Edition

- Angus Reid releases its latest poll results featuring Canadians' view of the country's federal leaders. And predictably, the terms most associated with Stephen Harper are..."Secretive (38%), arrogant (36%), dishonest (36%), out of touch (33%), uncaring (31%)" - making for a seemingly ideal contrast with an open, caring, attentive coalition if anybody notices the opportunity.

- Meanwhile, Jeffrey Simpson eviscerates the Cons' latest set of talking points, including those relating to coalitions. But in doing so, he also highlights why the opposition parties should take another angle: does anybody think it'll accomplish more to spend the entire lead-up to the next election trying to explain why...

the Bloc was never part of the ill-fated “coalition” between the Liberals and the NDP almost two years ago. The Bloc said it would support the other two parties, but not enter an agreement with them.

...rather than to pitch a simple, understandable message of "cooperation = good"?

- And finally, Postmedia looks at the potential role of the Governor General after the next federal election. But I'd take issue with one point raised by Errol Mendes:

Moreover, if Harper continues to publicly deliver those warnings after an election, said Mendes, Johnston will have to deal with the issue "with great finesse and diplomacy."

"At a certain stage, he may have to debunk the standard rhetoric of the Harper government that all coalitions are evil."

Simply put, there doesn't seem to be any reason why the GG would take on the job of debunking the Harper government's spin if other actors haven't already done so. Which is why it's so important that commentators set the record straight now, as the Cons are all too obviously willing to lie to the public in an effort to cling to power.

On overpayments

The Citizen's report on the U.S.' rethinking its F-35 purchase focuses mostly on the prospect that Canada will be left out in the cold when it comes to industrial benefits. But it's also worth pointing out the per-unit costs which are leading the U.S. to rethink the whole idea - as our neighbours to the south are blanching at numbers which the Harper Cons were entirely happy to sign onto:

(T)he cost of each stealth fighter has jumped from $50 million (U.S.) to at least $92 million, with some U.S. estimates putting that price-tag as high as $135 million. That has sparked a push in the U.S. to cut costs.
...
Asked what impact the initiatives will have on F-35 contracts now being carried out by Canadian firms, as well as potential future contracts, Adams said "it's too soon to provide a detailed assessment of the implications and potential impacts on our programs and business."

He said, however, that Lockheed Martin is on "the path to achieving an average unit cost of about $60 million" in U.S. dollars for the F-35.

By way of comparison, the Cons' agreement to purchase 65 planes for $9 billion dollars results in a final cost of...$138 million per plane. Which means that thanks to Stephen Harper's desire to throw free money at big military, we're stuck with a bill higher than the U.S.' estimated worst-case scenario as our base price.

Needless to say, with the main purchaser involved already looking to change direction and any supposed bidding opportunities apparently evaporating, there's absolutely no reason why Canada should be the lone country eager to push ahead at a price no other country is irresponsible enough to accept. And the more desperately the Cons try to pretend that we have no choice but to pour billions down the drain in a fighter jet deal, the more clear it should be that the Cons have no clue what they're doing with our public money.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

It's helpful enough that Tigger and Wonder fit into standard-size cupboards for easy storage.


But it's even better that they can interlock to save space.

Pop quiz

For John Ivison:

Name a single instance where the Cons' reaction to a firm, direct denial of one of their talking points was a pleasant "Oh, you weren't planning to do that? So sorry for making the unjustified allegation. We won't speak of it again."

On imbalanced conclusions

Shorter Tony Clement:

Surely we can all agree to stop the public's unjustified fears about the census by giving in to baseless fear-mongering.

On paper transactions

I'll grant Alan Reynolds this much in his Great Inequality Debate with Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks: he's absolutely right to recognize that the issue goes far beyond labour income. But I'm not sure he recognizes the implications of his argument for ignoring the higher nominal income gaps that have developed over the past few decades:

(M)ost growth of top 1% incomes since the 1986 tax reform has been the result of shifting income from corporate tax forms to individual tax forms (by using Subchapter S corporations, partnerships and LLCs) when individual tax rates fell in 1987 and 2003. There were also unusually large increases in reported capital gains and dividends after those tax rates were cut in 1997 and 2003.
...
CBO estimates are extremely sensitive to what Piketty and Saez (in an article with ­Anthony Atkinson of Oxford University) refer to as “the ­response of reported income to changes in tax law.” When tax rates on capital gains were reduced in 1997 and 2003, taxable capital gains reported by the top 1% soared for four years. When the dividend tax was cut to 15% in 2003, ­dividends reported by the top 1% ­quintupled in four years.

Now, the former point seems to me to offer a compelling refutation of the claim that lowered tax rates do anything to increase productivity or generate any other positive economic outcome. Instead, according to Reynolds' own analysis, the link between lower income tax rates and higher income is the result of wealthy individuals shuffling the same activities from "corporate tax forms" to "individual tax forms".

That would seem to offer reason to establish a baseline relationship between the two so that there's no particular value in shifting back and forth to game the tax laws in place at any given time. But I have my doubts that Reynolds would want to see that kind of system put in place, since his tax-cutting ilk seem to prefer attacking only one form of taxes at a time rather than acknowledging the long-term implications of a race to the bottom in both corporate and personal taxes.

What about the issue of compliance, though? It's easy enough to point out that if the wealthy have been abusing the tax system in a way that allows them to leave taxes unpaid, the answer out of both budgetary common sense and principles of fairness is to step up enforcement, not to lower tax rates in hopes that they'll be more willing to pay what they owe voluntarily.

But again, it's also worth asking whether there's any indication that high tax rates actually affect the economy as Reynolds and company accept and preach as an article of faith. And if Reynolds is right in suggesting that the only real difference caused by higher tax rates is in reporting and transaction structure rather than economic activity, then it's hard to buy any argument that there isn't room to raise taxes on the wealthy if needed to balance the U.S.' federal budget.

On withdrawal

Needless to say, Ryan Meili's withdrawal from the Saskatoon Sutherland nomination race makes for a disappointment for many within the Saskatchewan NDP - not to mention a shock coming less than a week away from the riding's nomination meeting. But let's take a closer look at what his departure figures to mean both for Meili and the party.

From Meili's perspective, the nomination race looks to have gone wrong in nearly every way that last year's leadership race went right. Instead of starting out as a virtual unknown who was able to make a positive impression without facing a lot of opponents' potshots, Meili began the nomination race as the front-runner - and the obvious target for the other candidates (with going especially negative for a nomination campaign).

What's more, instead of being able to count on broad appeal to boost his candidacy, Meili ran into the realities of local politics where a highly focused effort on a single cultural community by a well-connected candidate can swamp the membership numbers in the balance of a riding. And indeed, the race may raise some reason for wider discussion as to whether the NDP should work on eliminating any perceived barriers to membership in order to facilitate broader decision-making at the riding level.

But while Anwar's impressive membership sales raised questions about whether Meili would be likely to win, they hardly figures to explain his dropping out of the race without even testing whether Anwar's supporters would turn out.

Instead, I have to wonder whether the biggest issue for Meili was his own response to the challenges - including the recent jawing between his camp and Cam Broten (wherever it may have originated). During a sometimes-acrimonious leadership race, Meili did a remarkable job of staying above the fray. But he apparently wasn't quite so successful in the nomination race, and that might explain why he wouldn't want to keep going from a personal standpoint even if there was still a substantial chance of winning the nomination.

If there's any good news, it's an important caveat in Meili's announcement - that he "(intends) to continue to work for a better world, but not by seeking public office". And while many of us hoped to see what he could do as an MLA, there's plenty of reason for optimism that a leader who managed to inspire many an NDP member can still have a substantial impact in venues other than the Legislature.

So what does Meili's departure mean for the party as a whole? By all accounts, Anwar had already managed to achieve front-runner status in the nomination race - so barring a weak turnout among his newly-recruited supporters, it might not affect the immediate chances of taking Saskatoon Sutherland.

Instead, the more obvious potential impact is the prospect that some of Meili's enthusiastic leadership supporters might become similarly disillusioned by the electoral process. And the party would be well served to make sure that both Meili and his grassroots movement are seen to have a voice as it develops its slate of candidates and policies for 2011.

Well said

It's not often that I'll see fit to quote Ross Douthat - and there's plenty not to like about his preferred outcome when it comes to the options available to governments in handling their budgets. But his column today is right on target with his critique of Republican money mismanagement - and the point applies equally well at home if one substitutes "Conservative" for "Republican":

Officially, the Republican Party stands for low taxes and limited government. But save during the gridlocked 1990s, Republican majorities and Republican presidents have tended to pass tax cuts while putting off spending cuts till a tomorrow that never comes.

Conservatives have justified this failure with two incompatible theories. One is the “starve the beast” conceit, which holds that cutting taxes will force government spending downward. The other is the happy idea that tax cuts actually increase government revenue, making deficit anxieties irrelevant.

The real world hasn’t been kind to either notion.

On confidence matters

I posted earlier about the Harper Cons' cynical manipulation of supporters when it comes to the gun registry. But let's meet about the only point anybody could possibly make in the Cons' defence before it gets made.

It's bad enough that the Cons are claiming to be doing everything in their power to dismantle the long gun registry after never bringing the issue up for a single vote as a government bill. But was there actually a chance for them to pass such a bill if they'd tried?

There, the answer is a clear yes.

After all, it was alongside the Cons' 2007 Speech from the Throne that they introduced their confidence gambit to pressure the Libs, declaring that the defeat of any of their throne speech priorities would result in an election. Which is how the Cons strongarmed the Libs into supporting them on matters ranging from and Afghanistan extension to multiple crime bills.

And that Speech from the Throne included the long gun registry as one of the Cons' potential confidence issues in no uncertain terms:

In addition to tougher laws, our government will provide targeted support to communities and victims. It will help families and local communities in steering vulnerable youth away from a life of drugs and crime, and the Anti-Drug Strategy will help to treat those suffering from drug addiction. It will again ask Parliament to repeal the wasteful long-gun registry.

So how did the Libs respond? Michael Ignatieff said that he didn't see any poison pills in the speech - serving to highlight that the Libs' newfound devotion to the registry doesn't actually reflect anything but recent political calculation. And Stephane Dion introduced an amendment which dealt with several other matters, but didn't even mention the gun registry.

In effect, the Libs didn't just let a throne speech pass which included eliminating the gun registry as a confidence measure. Instead, they also took issue with a number of the Cons' priorities without even hinting that they'd object to having the registry dismantled.

And the Cons chose to do nothing, rather than taking the opportunity to hold a vote to repeal the gun registry.

Again, all of this is aside from the merits of the long gun registry. But with the Cons telling rural voters that the registry is the only issue that matters and that they have some interest in getting rid of it, it's well worth pointing out that the registry only exists today because Stephen Harper chose to leave it in place.

(Edit: fixed wording.)

Zero action

To follow up on one of themes of last week's Blogger Battle Royale which is echoed in the Hill Times, let's take a closer look at how the Cons handled the long gun registry before their wedge politics on Bill C-391.

Since taking office, the Cons have introduced three government bills which would have had the effect of repealing the long gun registry. And as the governing party, they've had full control as to when the bills would be debated and voted on.

Bill C-21 was introduced in June 2006. It then sat in limbo until a year later when it was debated at second reading, three days before the end of the spring session of Parliament in 2007. The Cons then prorogued Parliament before the fall sitting, killing the bill.

The same legislation was reintroduced as Bill C-24 in November 2007 - at a time when the Libs were actively rolling over at every opportunity. This time, the Cons didn't even bother bringing the bill forward for debate before they chose to pull the plug and call an election in 2008.

Finally, the Cons introduced Bill S-5 into the Senate as an apparent April Fool's joke on their constituents in 2009. And once again, it was never even debated before Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament again.

So in all their time in office, after introducing three bills to pretend to be taking action, the Cons have never so much as bothered to bring a government bill on the gun registry up for a vote.

With that in mind, readers can judge for themselves whether Harper and company actually want the registry gone, or simply want to grandstand about it while preserving it as a fund-raising tool. But I'd think the evidence points strongly toward the latter.

New Brunswick Goes to the Polls

We've finally reached election day in New Brunswick, with plenty of potential for some highly interesting results as little seems to have been decided so far. Most of the projections have the NDP at 1 or 2 seats, with the main question being whether the party is able to build on its momentum from this year's campaign or whether a past trend of losing support late in the campaign continues. But nbpolitico has a full list of ridings which are particularly worth watching from the NDP's perspective:

The NDP is in play in somewhere between 2 and 4 ridings (Tracadie-Sheila, Nepisiguit, Bathurst and Tantramar) according to my analysis. They may also be in play in Saint John Harbour, Saint John East and Fredericton-Silverwood, though my analysis says no.

Note that nbpolitico has also modeled a series of "surge scenarios", leading to a fascinating set of possible outcomes.

Of course, there's still a day's worth of GOTV efforts to determine who will win out in the end. And we'll look forward to finding out whether voters are frustrated enough with a campaign of wilful self-delusion from the Graham Libs and Alward Cons to give the NDP an unprecedented presence in New Brunswick's legislature.

(Edit: updated link.)

Reason to howl

So what's the more damning part of the latest news on the Cons' use of public money to promote themselves?

Is it the instant classic line that "Bunting is allowed, plaques are an allowable expense"?

Or is it the scope of promotional material compared to the RinC fund as a whole?

To put that in perspective, let's do a bit of back-of-the-envelope math. Based on approved signage of up to $9,000 per project for over 2,000 projects in total, the Cons green-lighted no less than $18 million for signs and plaques alone. Which amounts to over 3.5% of the money allocated for the RinC program.

And that's not even counting the bunting.

A plan to fail

Jim Flaherty's latest excuse for not extending the deadline for stimulus projects - even those delayed for reasons entirely out of anybody's control - is that he's more worried about balancing the federal budget than continuing with any stimulus. So let's ask the question: what impact would extending funding actually have on the federal government's fiscal picture?

After all, one would hope that enough money to complete the agreed stimulus projects in full would have been budgeted in any event. So whether the money is spent before or after March 2011 will have precisely zero effect on any long-term budgeting issues.

That is, unless the Cons have been budgeting for some of their allocated money to go unused - in effect banking on the failure of part of their stimulus efforts. But if that's the case, shouldn't we know exactly how much of the money they've promised is in fact intended to be pulled back?

Update: I'm apparently not the only one suggesting that it shouldn't matter if money is held over. But the fact that provinces had been proposing a way to meet Flaherty's concern even before he made it public only makes his determination to cut off funding all the more galling.

Sunday Morning 'Rider Blogging

The Saskatchewan Roughriders' victory over Hamilton yesterday may serve as the perfect summary of the team's season. While the 'Riders showed plenty of vulnerability on both sides of the ball, they managed to make enough big plays to pull out the game in the end. And the result was another notch in the win column - if not a clear statement that the 'Riders can keep piling them up in the future.

The story offensively was of course the number of jaw-dropping receptions that made for key plays on the 'Riders' touchdown drives. Presumably thanks in part to the wind in Hamilton, Darien Durant's deep throws weren't quite as precise as they'd been the previous week - but thanks to the stellar play of Weston Dressler, Rob Bagg and Andy Fantuz, they nonetheless connected more often than not. And the Ticats' fear of the bomb managed to open up enough room underneath for the 'Riders to do fairly well in the ball-control department as well (even if Wes Cates seems to have slowed back down after showing a bit more burst early in the season).

So the 'Riders' offense generally looked good...as long as one doesn't take turnovers into account. But Durant did serve up a couple of stinkers: an interception by Dylan Barker on a pass that looked doomed from the beginning, and a fumble on Saskatchewan's last offensive play of the game that gave Hamilton new life when the 'Riders had a chance to put the game away. And the timing of the latter giveaway looks like a particularly strong indication that Durant is still working on deciding when it's worth taking risks.

Meanwhile, the defence had a fairly easy answer to the same question about risk-taking - as it spent the entire game trading off big plays for the chance at turnovers, with remarkably strong results.

In theory, Kevin Glenn should be one of the last CFL quarterbacks to get suckered by deceptive coverage schemes - but he threw one interception and one near-miss on plays where defensive backs went unaccounted for on deep throws. And Deandra Cobb's valiant efforts to churn out extra yardage were turned into a negative by the 'Riders' propensity for forcing fumbles.

Again, that has to be balanced against the Ticats' success in moving the ball, with the 'Riders' focus on turnovers resulting in sloppy tackling through much of the game. And Glenn's already-impressive numbers could have been even better if not for a couple of embarrassing dropped passes. But once again, the tradeoff looks to have worked in the 'Riders' favour. And if the 'Riders' defence is creative enough to find ways to force turnovers even without generating its usual amount of pressure due to a banged-up defensive line, opposing offences may have little choice but to reduce their own production by playing it safe.

Finally, the special teams look to have been at worst a wash for Saskatchewan, making the game a relative success in that department. Ryan Grice-Mullen may not have the best hands of any returner around (as he showed with a fumble which he was able to recover), but his combination of raw speed and willingness to attack the coverage team resulted in a better return game than we've seen through most of the season. And while the 'Riders' kicking team had some rough moments, it was at least roughly able to match the production of its Hamilton counterpart.

So the end result is that while there's ample room for improvement on most fronts other than the receiving corps, the 'Riders once again did just enough to pull out a win against a contending team. And with the 'Riders enjoying both a winning streak and a strong position in the standings, the big question is once again whether they can sustain and build on their current level of play (rather than what can be done to fix major defects).

What you don't know won't hurt you. As far as you know.

Sure, the revelation that the federal government is illegally withholding test results showing consistently false advertising by food manufacturers might seem like evidence that our public sector needs to be a bit more focused on the public interest rather than on papering over corporate misdeeds:

(W)hen the Organization for Economic Co-operation and DeveThlopment has just reported that better food labelling is a crucial component in fighting Canada's obesity epidemic, the government's actions are particularly damaging. Earlier this month, my Postmedia colleague Sarah Schmidt revealed that testing by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency found that 122 out of 208 breads and baked goods had contents that didn't match label claims that they were low-fat or contained certain grains.

Among 161 snack foods, 79 were found to have ingredients that didn't match labelling about low sodium or certain contents.

Other claims found not to stand up included "100 per cent pure," "genuine" and "real."

The CFIA also found that one in five packages of "lean" and "extra-lean" ground beef tested did not meet their labels' claims.

Schmidt's report prompted another Postmedia colleague, Paula Simons, to ask the CFIA for the names of the foods and their makers. She was (wrongly) told federal privacy legislation prevented the agency from naming the products and manufacturers.

But in true free-market style, can't we all agree that anybody who really cares whether the food they buy at the grocery store actually fits the description on the label should have to pay for the testing themselves?