On accumulated losses

I've previously linked to Erin's post on trends in corporate tax revenue over the past decade. But particularly in the face of budget deficits being used as the primary excuse for plans to slash social spending or push public services into the private sector, I'd think it's worth adding some more information into the mix.

Here's a slight reorganization of information from the same chart (all dollar numbers in the billions) with two new columns: the amount of corporate tax revenue which would have been collected at the 2000 effective rate of 23.4% calculated by Erin, and the difference between that amount and the revenue actually collected:

Year	Profits	Effective Rate	StatCan Revenue	Revenue @23.4%	Revenue Loss
2000	$136.0	23.4%	$31.8	$31.8	0
2001	$127.1	19.1%	$24.2	$29.7	$5.5
2002	$135.2	17.9%	$24.3	$31.6	$7.3
2003	$144.5	19.3%	$27.9	$33.8	$5.9
2004	$168.2	18.9%	$31.7	$39.4	$7.7
2005	$186.6	17.3%	$32.2	$43.7	$11.5
2006	$197.3	19.5%	$38.4	$46.2	$7.8
2007	$200.9	18.5%	$37.1	$47.0	$9.9
2008	$217.0	15.8%	$34.2	$50.8	$16.6
2009	$146.9	15.8%	$23.3	$34.4	$11.1

Totalling up the differences, we arrive at a grand total of $83.3 billion in lost revenue compared to what the federal government would have taken in if the same corporate profits had been taxed at the 2000 effective rate - in recent years averaging over half of the federal contribution to, say, health care through the Canada Health Transfer. And that's before the Cons' final two sets of corporate tax cuts kick in.

So what do we have to show for that lost potential revenue?

The tax-slashing argument is that the reduction in rates should result in increased economic activity. But the fact that both corporate tax revenues and broader economic conditions have fluctuated immensely based on factors such as resource prices and international economic events serves as fairly compelling reason for skepticism about any traceable benefits. And there looks to be little difference between the growth in corporate profits in the 1990s (before the current tax-cutting binge) and that since 2000.

Of course, in the heady days of the early naughts it may have seemed easy to get away with fitting the loss of billions of dollars a year into a budget that had plenty of room for movement. (Though even that hardly looks wise, particularly in retrospect.) But there's extra reason not to double down now that we're already in the red thanks to a decade of profligacy from Libs and Cons alike.

Saturday Morning Links

Content goes here.

- Gerald Caplan serves up the definitive retrospective on Ronald Reagan and the conservative cause:

Only an ideological curmudgeon would deny Ronald Reagan his due. He was a wildly successful president, achieving a remarkable number of his goals.

He entered office in 1981 determined to block advancement for black Americans, to halt the sluggish march towards equality for American women, to make America walk tall again by beating up tiny poverty-stricken nations, to allow insatiable greed and ruthless personal ambition to reap lavish rewards, to fire up the economy through trillions of dollars in defence expenditures, to invite industry to desecrate the environment, and to legitimate a morality in which any means justified his ends.

Notwithstanding his unparalleled laziness, indifference to most issues and immersion in fantasy, in all these areas his administration triumphed, a splendid record for conservatism in action.

- But the multi-decade track record of failed right-wing promises of benefits for the wealthy paying for themselves isn't stopping the Cons from pushing ahead with more of the same.

- And as another normal part of their effort to keep the public from having any say about Canada's long-term priorities, Jeffrey Simpson notes the Cons are looking to keep any real policy off the table until after the election they're working to force:

The Conservatives, for their part, have been doing everything possible to soften up Canadians for an election, including insisting that they don’t want one.

Those ubiquitous (and disgusting) Conservative attack ads on TV are all about gaining partisan advantage before the writ is dropped. The Conservatives have oodles of money. Their chief fundraiser, Senator Irving Gerstein, has just sent out another of his hilariously alarming letters asking for more cash, warning about threats almost to life itself from the other parties if they don’t pony up. Once a campaign formally begins, spending limits kick in; before the campaign, parties can spend whatever, which is what the Conservatives are doing with these attack ads.
...
The budget is likely to feature more of those itsy-bitsy targeted tax breaks this government adores and most economists hate. The government has already signalled it has no intention to make hard decisions on spending, any one of which might cause a political problem. Controversial decisions (such as the proposed merger of the Toronto and London stock exchanges) will be delayed until after the election.

- But hey, at least they still have Jane Taber to repeat their spin without a hint of independent thought.

On advance preparation

Robert Silver offers the radical argument that a party isn't particularly well served to keep its policy platform hidden:

(W)ith every policy announcement, your best case scenario is you get an hour or two of coverage, worst case scenario, you’re (sic) policy is completely ignored.

If the point of a platform is to:

1. Give voters a sense of what precisely you would do if elected (crazy, crazy thought);

2. Frame your values/ideology/approach to government;

3. Brand your party and leader; and

4. Differentiate you on all of the above from your opponent.

I would argue that the ONLY chance you have of that being successful is to release it well in advance of an election, work like hell to defend it from attack from your opponents and hope that some of it seeps in with Canadians by the time election day comes around. Without taking a shot at anyone, the only reason I can think of in 2011 to hold a platform back until the middle of the campaign (which I know is the conventional way of doing things) is if you are trying to bury your own platform.

But while Silver avoids taking any shots or offering any plaudits, it can hardly escape notice that one of Canada's opposition parties has made a huge chunk of its possible election platform into a staple of this year's budget coverage. And of course it's the Libs who have once again chosen to stay mum as to what they actually hope to accomplish.

That gap looks particularly significant with the NDP already well-trusted when it comes to handling specific issues. And its work in building up a strong platform in advance of a campaign means that an election centred on policy may offer just as much room for growth as one based on leadership.

Musical interlude

Sunlounger feat. Zara - Lost

Friday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Dan Gardner suggests that we may be better off planning to reduce the damage from most risky elements of our current economy instead of having to convene a new Committee to Save the World every decade:

(A)dmitting uncertainty and unpredictability does not mean we can do nothing. Building codes dramatically reduce the damage done by earthquakes, and insurance makes it possible to clear the rubble and re-build.

So, too, in economies, there is a role for regulation of the sort Flaherty envisions. But what about insurance?

Governments themselves can act as insurers. They did in 2008. But of course that was something of a fiction. The money governments spent to save the financial system was borrowed. Ordinary people and their children will be paying it off for decades.

That’s not fair. Or wise. The wizards of the financial system got rich taking on the risks that ultimately blew up in 2008. By not making them pay for the cleanup, governments gave them a powerful incentive to do the same again. Or worse.

The alternative is to require the financial system to pay insurance premiums: A tiny tax on financial transactions would allow governments to create substantial reserve funds which could be used in the event of financial meltdowns.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy continues to push a variant of this idea. Flaherty and others are adamantly opposed.

The better solution, Flaherty says, is a Committee To Save The World.

They’ll get it all figured out. Sure they will.

- Memo to Scott Simms: No, it isn't worth disassociating yourself with one of the most important opposition lines of clash against the Harper government for the sake of a "gotcha" moment.

- In contrast, it's great to see NDP MP Don Davies' pushback on the Cons' plan to push pardons out of the reach of the people likely to need them most.

- Finally, I know I feel reassured now that the same political communications staffers who have restricted any public comment by Canada's top scientists are declaring that there's nothing to be concerned about.

Membership has its privileges

Good thing Con Senator Irving Gerstein has a six-figure, publicly-funded salary to support both his Con fund-raising and his defence against the charges against him in the in-and-out scandal. After all, we'd sure hate for Gerstein to have to start begging for himself rather than for his benefactors.

On adverse inferences

Not that we're ever lacking for reasons to doubt the constant stream of self-serving spin from the federal Cons. But surely it can't speak well to their credibility when they're suppressing the only evidence that could possibly support their already-implausible public posturing:

The government website's partisan and personal promotion of Mr. Harper became an issue in the autumn of 2009, when The Canadian Press reported that the site was plastered with literally dozens of Harper photos.

After critics lampooned the site's self-aggrandizing appearance, many of the Harper photos disappeared.

The PMO claimed no photos had been removed, and even issued talking points to MPs and supporters citing The Canadian Press story as “false.” Prominent party supporters claimed the site was simply undergoing routine technical revisions.

If it was routine site maintenance, the government does not want Canadians to know. An access request asking what happened to the missing photos elicited a two-page, internal explanation from PCO technicians – a response that was entirely blacked out before it was released.

Deep thought

Never before has a federal cabinet minister's utter failure to accomplish anything to earn public acknowledgment been trumpeted with such pride.

On blitzes

While there's plenty to criticize about the Cons' latest PR stunt, let's at least give them credit for managing to get 80 of Stephen Harper's minions out to work on the same day of an off week. After all, in the past they've gone entire months with no more of their members bothering to do any work that registered with the party.

On relevant considerations

Memo to Bob Hepburn:

If your goal is to discourage Canada's political parties from valuing internal democracy and member participation, then lumping them all together in a "pox on all their houses" column with no regard for actual differences in their internal structures is a great way to go about it.

But if you actually want to create some incentive for them to facilitate grassroots decision-making, it might help to make some note of the ones who actually do so even when their competitors don't dare.

On diversions

Of course they feel entitled to use as much of our money as they can to try. But somehow I doubt anybody will be fooled into thinking that yet another PR blitz will put a dent in the Cons' track record of 800,000 new jobless Canadians.

On effective responses

A quick message to those who have spent the better part of the last month spreading the Lib-serving theory that the NDP would seize on any theoretical concession the Cons might offer in order to pass a budget: try again.

Wednesday Morning Links

Assorted content for your midweek reading.

- It's generally agreed that the Cons' level of popular support involves a fairly firm floor at about 30%. But for those looking to determine the proportion of people who have given themselves over entirely to the Harper hive mind, we now have our number at 18%:

But when it comes to calling on the government to disclose all estimated costs for crime-related legislation, Canadians are clearly on the side of the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois. Eighty-two% said the government should be compelled to release the figures. Eighteen per cent said they should be kept secret if the government says they should be.

- It should never have been much of a secret that the Harper Cons are looking to take Canada down the same path as their Republican cousins. But Susan Delacourt is starting to trace the similarities for a wider audience.

- And the CCPA's report on the destruction of regulatory systems will offer plenty more fodder for Delacourt's series.

- All of which suggests that the growing realization of just what the Cons have in store for the country may have something to do with the fact that Harper's long-sought majority is getting less and less popular as an option (even as the Cons talk about it more overtly as a goal):

Only about 26 per cent of Canadians say they would be comfortable with the Conservatives winning a majority after the next election, according to a new poll conducted for The Globe and Mail and CTV by Nanos Research.

That number is lower than in any other Nanos survey that asked the same question.

A list with no end

Full credit to Carol Goar's ambition in trying to put together a list of things the Harper Cons don't want people to know. But as a time-saver, might I suggest starting here?

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Cats under glass.

Canada's Lawless Government

Shorter Jason Kenney:

"Law" and "order" are for the little people. Suckers.

Those pesky facts

Edward Greenspan and Anthony Doob take the Cons and their apologists to task for ignoring and/or misrepresenting the reality of decreasing crime levels in Canada:

Everyone wants to reduce crime and use resources effectively. But the Conservative government’s “tough on crime” agenda would have you believe that crime is increasing and can only be reduced by using tougher penalties. This assertion is wrong, as is a study by an Ottawa-based think tank that reviewed the 2009 Statistics Canada report on crime.

The study, by former Alberta Crown attorney Scott Newark for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, suggests that violent crime is increasing, contrary to the Statscan report and all reasoned examinations of existing data. Mr. Newark’s study is filled with problems: It compares figures that can’t be compared. It presents figures that are inaccurate. And it ignores evidence supporting the conclusion that crime is, in fact, decreasing.
...
It’s easy to make crime look as though it’s going up if one provides numbers that are wrong or misleading. Mr. Newark offers what he calls “youth violent crime” for three years and shows “rates per 100,000” for these years: 956 (for 2001), 1,498 (for 2004) and 1,887 (for 2008). He then concludes there’s been a 100-per-cent increase in youth violent crime.

The data from the Statscan report he’s critiquing are in Column 3. Mr. Newark’s starting point (2001) is clearly wrong; he says in his table that the number is 956 (rather than 1,957, the true number), thereby supporting his erroneous conclusion that there’s been a large increase in youth violent crime. Had he reproduced the correct figures for these years in his table, one couldn’t conclude that the youth violent crime rate had gone up.
...
It appears that for people such as Mr. Newark, Statistics Canada is never wrong as long as it reports that crime rates are increasing. If it says crime is decreasing, then it’s never right. The fact of the matter is that crime rates have nothing to do with tougher laws or harsher sentencing. The fact is that crime rates go up and down. In recent years, they’ve gone down.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday.

- Lawrence Martin points out what looks to be a highly interesting committee appearance by disgraced former Integrity Commissioner (and Harper appointee) Christiane Ouimet. But what's most noteworthy for now is that the Cons are spending the time before Ouimet's appearance making excuses for hiding key information rather than providing it as ordered:

Ms. Ouimet (rhymes with Antoinette) is the public servant who, according to Sheila Fraser’s damning report, did not do her job properly – choosing to investigate just seven of 228 complaints about wrongdoing in the public sector – possibly saving the Harper government multiple embarrassments. After failing to appear before a parliamentary committee despite being subpoenaed, she sent a rather terse message to the committee through her lawyer saying she was willing to return March 10 to face interrogators. What a show it promises to be. Given the large number of uninvestigated cases that came before her, the possibility of smoking guns suddenly appearing on the government’s doorstep can hardly be discarded.

Opposition members will be out to determine whether Ms. Ouimet was acting at the behest of her political or top bureaucratic superiors. The Public Accounts Committee has passed a motion requiring the delivery of all correspondence between her office and other government departments.
...
It is also clear, said Mr. D’Amours, that there was correspondence between her office and the Privy Council Office. Given that Ms. Ouimet was supposed to be operating an independent agency, he wonders why. “And now the PCO is saying they don’t have time to get us all the documentation.”

Which would seem to be explained only by either an absolute mountain of documents that should never have existed in the first place, or by a conscious choice to spend the time before Ouimet's appearance in cover-up mode. But either way, the result would seem to bode poorly for the Cons.

- Jim Stanford points out that the relationship between minimum wages and employment levels is far more complicated than free-market dogmatists pretend:

In practice, the effect of minimum wages on employment is probably a wash. Gradual increases in minimum wages, within reasonable bounds, have virtually no impact on employment at all, in either direction. So long as levels are set realistically relative to productivity and profitability, minimum wages can be increased with no measurable damage to employment.

Perhaps influenced by this recent sea-change in economists’ attitudes, policy makers in most provinces have begun to revitalize minimum wages. After years of stagnation, the real purchasing power of minimum wages has increased markedly since 2005, boosting incomes across the lower tiers of Canada’s labour market. With business profits simultaneously reaching their highest share ever of Canadian GDP, it could hardly be argued that these modest but important increases squeezed out private sector activity. On the other hand, those higher minimum wages contributed notably to the first real wage gains enjoyed by Canadian workers in a generation.

This successful policy trend should be continued. Minimum wages (now at or near $10 per hour in most provinces) should be increased gradually but steadily in the years to come.

- Part of the problem has as much to do with the concept of endorsing a government in a multi-party FPTP system where outcomes are far more complicated than simply selected a single party from a list. But nonetheless, Declan's chart comparing voter preferences with media endorsements highlights just how far removed the corporate media is from the majority of Canadian voters.

- Finally, Richard Wolff comments on how corporations have managed to turn the tax system to their advantage.

On contradictory positions

Shorter headlines about the latest from the Cons: Harper and company say "no" to an election, and to any compromise which might avert an election.

And the chances of the Cons facing any criticism for trying to hold both positions at the same time (which of course would get any other national political party beaten senseless by the pundits): barely north of zero.

Not the first time

Yes, it's downright appalling that the Cons don't think a minority government should have to pay the slightest bit of attention to what any other party says about what ought to be included in a budget.

But if we can all agree that the Cons' my-way-or-the-highway approach is a serious problem, then doesn't a substantial share of the blame have to lie with the parties who supported or waved through five previous budgets developed along exactly the same lines?

Out of curiosity

A couple of questions for discussion in the wake of a weekend where the NDP has received no lack of headlines, but has also had to deal with the media reading an entirely consistent message as reflecting two radical changes in position.

First, is there any hope of actually having the nuances in a party's position accurately portrayed in media coverage, or are we forever resigned to headlines that reflect the most extreme possible spin on a given day's statements or omissions?

And second, is it nonetheless a net plus for the NDP to get this weekend's level of attention even when it reflects repeated distortions of the party's position?

Monday Morning Links

Assorted reading to pass a chilly Family Day.

- Your non sequitur of the day comes from Con MP Ed Holder responding to the concerns of Kevin Page and the opposition parties about the use of "cabinet confidences" to hide the actual costs of Harper policies:

Conservative MP Ed Holder (London West, Ont.) said it wasn't so much about resources, but rather a lack of time, and MPs focusing on "salacious" issues rather than what they're in Parliament to do. He said the Library of Parliament is an excellent resource for MPs who need help understanding the budget or estimates or any piece of legislation.

How that's supposed to help in the absence of estimates related to a particular bill is left as an exercise for the reader - at least, assuming there isn't a "cabinet confidences" section of the library where full information can be found.

- Susan Delacourt gives her take on why Bev Oda's forgery and cover-up - and the Cons' continued defiance - are well worth some continuing coverage:

You want to know why this government spends so much time controlling its "message" and its portrayal in public? Because it's trying to enforce power over who writes its history -- criticism is tantamount to taking the enemies' side. We reporters in Ottawa are used to this by now.

The Bev Oda controversy is not staying in the headlines because we journalists are trying to bring down the government (much as many Conservatives love to believe). Most of us actually aren't in that good-versus-evil frame of mind. It's being reported because it was an open, ham-handed effort to distort the record. And it's part of a pattern. (See cases above -- there are more.) So is it a big deal? Yes. Precisely because it's so ordinary, and it's being portrayed that way by Oda's supporters.

- And Brian Topp theorizes that there's somewhat more to the Oda ado than the Cons are letting on:

Given Ms. Oda's impressive background and real qualities, her first round of testimony on this matter was more credible than her second. Notwithstanding her belated fess-up, I doubt she doctored that memo. In changing her story and claiming that she did, I speculate, she is taking the fall for someone else.

Someone dumb. Someone who is cavalier about the integrity of public servants. Someone who has a notably loose relationship with the truth. Someone in a position to give orders to ministers – orders in contempt of Parliament – even at the price of their credibility and (possibly) their careers.

Who could that be?

- Though in fairness, it's worth noting that no mistake, offence or outrage is actually a career-ender for a right-wing ideologue. Just ask Tim Powers, who's taken up Russell Ullyatt's defence after Ulyatt merely torpedoed an entire budget consultation process for his own personal gain.

- Finally, Scott Feschuk notes that the Cons are also taking embarrassing steps to try to revise the language used to rewrite their history:

The Conservatives imported the expression “job creators” from Republicans in the United States, who are masters at putting a positive spin on negative concepts like cuts to social programs (“budget relief”) and extending tax breaks for the super rich (“Gimme!”). Since some in the media here have obligingly begun to use the term, we can expect to see more of the same from Conservatives. Farewell words with negative connotations!

Old term: Deficit.
New term: Aspiring surplus.
Used in a sentence: “Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say it was this Conservative government that presided over the largest aspiring surplus in our history.”

Old term: Tar sands.
New term: Money juice.
Used in a sentence: “Hey, how did these 3,000 dead ducks wind up in our money juice?”
...
Those expressions and more await us. For now, it’s just “job creators” and what we can do for them so that maybe they can possibly do something for us perhaps. And if they later slash jobs by the thousands to protect the bottom line, the government can praise them as “leisure creators.”

Sunday Afternoon Links

Content goes here.

- Aside from the occasional attempt by the likes of Jim Flaherty to pretend that Ireland's disaster could never have happened to a country which so zealously bought into the free-market religion, few seem to be foolish enough to put forward the Irish experience as a model to follow for the moment. But in tracing Ireland's decline, Bruce Campbell points out that its boom wasn't anywhere near what it was hyped to be either:

Foreign direct investment—led by the computer and pharmaceutical sectors--poured in. It became the preferred location of (mainly US) multinational corporations seeking to keep their profits out of reach of their home country tax authorities. (Google, for example, is reported to have saved $3.1 billion over the last three years by setting up shop in Ireland). Ireland became the largest jurisdiction outside the US for declared pretax profits by American firms. The transfer of profits out of Ireland accounts for 20% of Irish GDP.

While indigenous Irish industry expanded, it never lived up to expectations. The hallmark characteristics of an enclave economy—weak linkages to the domestic economy, benefits accruing to a narrow segment of society—were clearly in evidence. Industry remained dominated by a relatively small group of multinationals. Data from the Irish Development Agency, show that while the foreign and domestic sectors each employed about 150,000. The foreign-owned sector accounted for over 80% total output.

While it created a lot of employment—much of it in the form of low wage service jobs—the Irish boom accentuated income and wealth inequality. Rather than apportioning gains to strengthen the welfare state to be more in line with European norms, the Irish model gave precedence to the interests of foreign capital and to a small domestic elite that had successfully ridden the Irish prosperity wave.
...
Income and capital gains tax cuts left the government coffers with a narrower tax base much more vulnerable to collapse of the construction and real estate sectors.

When the global crisis hit, the bubble burst: foreign finance dried up, exports tanked, construction came to a halt and property values plunged, exposing the toxic debt at the heart of the Irish banks. Ireland’s budget surplus and low public debt turned bad with lightening (sic) speed.

- Hugh Segal nicely points out how his own party's prison growth strategy makes absolutely no sense as a destination for public money:

At a time of government restraint, prisoners are, in a word, expensive. With all costs factored in, Canadians spend more than $147,000 per prisoner in federal custody each year.

By contrast, it would take between $12,000 and $20,000 annually to bring a person in Canada above the poverty line. Even at the high end of the GAI scale, this represents savings to taxpayers of $127,000 per federal prisoner each year. Those are figures that should be of interest to any federal or provincial finance minister — of any party background.

- But as Haroon Siddiqui notes, we're the ones left paying the price for the Cons putting Stephen Harper's political games ahead of even a minimal level of engagement with reality.

- And finally, Greg asks:

Liberals, is there no Conservative trick they won't fall for?

Only if you count the ones they're in on to begin with. This has been another version of simple answers to simple questions.

Canada's Pointy-Haired Government Strikes Again

Looks like somebody forgot to insert the United Way update again:

*The Minister has been clear: this was her decision.

*The Minister has apologized for a lack of clarity in her testimony before Committee, and has rectified that lack of clarity.

Well said

Last week I noted that the answer to the Cons' politically-motivated de-funding of civil society groups was to clash with the idea that a government should use the public purse to attack groups for their opinions. And Gerald Caplan does just that:

Every time I hear Michael Ignatieff shrieking at the Prime Minister to fire Ms. Oda I want to scream back: THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEV ODA. Of course she baldly lied, just as Jason Kenney lied about Kairos policy on Israel and Tony Clement lied when he claimed Statscan approved his crusade against the long-form census. This government lies as routinely as it maligns, and it never apologizes. But Ms. Oda, like Messrs. Kenney and Clement, is just the organ grinder’s monkey. Any CIDA minister would have been in the same boat. She just follows orders. And it’s those orders in the Kairos case that remind us of the real Harper agenda.

The issue here is the reversal, by Stephen Harper, of a 60-year consensus shared by all previous governments about the central role of civil society in Canada. Every previous government has funded civil society groups and NGOs even when they espoused policies that contradicted the government’s own. Governments might have done so grudgingly and not as generously as some of us hoped. But it has been one of the quiet glories of Canadian democracy that our governments have often backed groups that criticized them or had competing priorities.

No more. With Stephen Harper, you either buy the party line or you get slapped down.
...
Look at Stephen Harper's record.

He silences whistle-blowers and punishes dissenters.

He treats Parliament with open contempt and brazenly lies when found out.

He suspends Parliament at the first sign of political risk.

He makes a mockery of the accountability and transparency he loudly demands of everyone else.

He makes lying to parliament just another tactical device.

He fakes his budgets by refusing to cost new initiatives.

He transforms vital watchdogs of democracy into mushy lapdogs.

He unleashes ministers to attack judges who make unwelcome decisions. He personalizes attacks on his “enemies”.

He blithely smears other parties, groups and individuals as anti-Semitic.

He is impervious to the democratic spirit that has galvanized hundreds of millions of people to stand up for freedom.

He makes major economic decisions on the basis of their impact on his electoral fortunes.

Makes you wonder why Canadians aren’t yet out on the streets in the millions. Instead, Michael Ignatieff demands that Bev Oda be fired.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted material for your weekend reading.

- Great (and true!) news from the CRTC:

CRTC chair Konrad von Finckenstein says the commission tried to stall the amendment to its prohibition on false and misleading news for 10 years, but eventually gave into pressure from the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations when it proposed its amendments in January.

But now that the regulations committee has agreed to no longer pursue the issue, the chair says the CRTC will drop it.

“We never wanted to touch this thing. We put it forward because we were ordered to do it. We did what we thought would be a workable compromise,” von Finckenstein said in brief interview Friday at the Prime Time conference in Ottawa, organized by the Canadian Media Production Association.

“I was perfectly happy with what it was before, and I’m sure at the next commission meeting, we will withdraw this attempt at rewriting.”

- The Globe and Mail takes up the idea of birth bonds in contrast to the Cons' desire to spend billions on prisons. And it's hard to imagine that many Canadians would choose the Cons' side given the choice:

Assuming Canada had extra billions in a time of large deficits, consider the birth bond – a government investment to be made each time a child is born. The investment would be held until the child turns, say, 18, and then made available for postsecondary education or an apprenticeship program. Canada has 370,000 births a year. How much could it afford to put into an ambitious investment for each newborn, instead of into jail expansion?
...
If Mr. Page is right, Canada could seed an education account for each newborn with $13,783. Outlandish? Maybe, but it makes more sense than prison expansion, if the government is intent on spending an extra $5-billion. Canada wouldn’t need a birth bond, anyway; net tuition paid by all students is $3.5-billion a year. Instead of Truth in Sentencing, the country could afford Free in University, with change left over.

Let’s assume, for the moment, Mr. Page is wildly out of touch, as Ottawa claims. The federal government’s published budget estimates for federal corrections show an annual hike of $861-million – 36 per cent – by 2012-13 (compared with 2009-10). Now assume, conservatively, that the provincial costs rise by the same amount as a result of the federal crime bills. For that $1.722-billion extra a year, what could Canada do that is forward-looking, and has a long-term economic payoff?

It could pour resources into research. Currently, the government spends about $3-billion on the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canada Foundation for Innovation and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Canada could take the $1.08-billion given to the CIHR each year and double it, and still have $700-million to spend on an enormous expansion of subsidies for master’s and PhD students.

- I'm sure we can all agree the general public is too jaded about politics to think that forgery or deception matter. Right? RIGHT?

- But at least some people do still admire Bev Oda. Take for example Tabatha Southey:

Sure, some of us were, and I imagine still are, capable of changing a C to a C+, but very few of us are “courageous” enough to change a C into a “NOT a C.” This is essentially what Ms. Oda did when she (or so she now claims) arranged for a recommendation prepared and signed by the Canadian International Development Agency to be altered to state that CIDA did “NOT” recommend that funding for the church-based foreign-aid organization Kairos be continued, when in fact continuing funding is exactly what CIDA did recommend.

This wasn't a matter of changing $7-million to $3.7-million in funding. Any of us could've done that. This was no such small feat. Fraudsters, we've found our saint.

Not only did Ms. Oda give a false impression regarding what CIDA had recommended, she oversaw the alteration of a document already signed by two signatories and possibly herself so that it would support her claim, if and when the document were ever to be examined by complete and utter morons.

On limited space

There doesn't look to be much too controversial about the decision to build a glass-topped temporary home for the House of Commons. But one aspect of the plan seems rather odd given the problems with the current chamber:

The temporary Commons chamber will have exactly the same dimensions and layout as the existing one, complete with tiered seating for MPs and overhanging visitors’ galleries.

So what could be the problem with matching the current dimensions?

The House of Commons chamber can physically hold only 308 seats similar to the desk-and-chair combination now used. After the 1997 riding redistribution left the House with 301 MPs, it was renovated to hold 304 chairs for sitting members. That number jumped to 308 with the round of changes that took effect with the vote on June 28, 2004. Before that election, the Speaker's Office told CBC.ca that four more chairs and desks had been added in the room's northeast corner, to the Speaker's left, replacing a sitting area for the parliamentary pages. Now there's no more room for expansion.

However, riding redistribution must by law take place every 10 years, adjusting the federal electoral districts to reflect population changes. All provinces are guaranteed that their number of federal seats will not decrease, even if their proportion of the Canadian population shrinks dramatically. So the number of seats is bound to keep going up in the absence of dramatic changes to the way we elect a government (through bringing in some form of proportional representation, for example).

So is there some reason why the temporary chamber is being matched to the current, insufficient amount of space, rather than leaving more room for expected growth in the number of MPs?

On structural choices

Predictably, the same Libs who have stuck with their party through years of propping up the Cons in exchange for absolutely nothing are aghast at the thought that the NDP might ask the Cons to meet its own demands rather than the Libs'. But let's take a closer look at what the NDP's proposal for a budget deal actually means.

To start with, it's worth noting why it is that the corporate tax cuts already passed with the Libs' help are so objectionable, as they represent one more in a long line of decisions which have done deliberate long-term damage to the federal government's ability to act in the interest of its citizens. Under Libs and Cons alike, tax cuts with massive structural implications have normally been accompanied by short-term social funding to give a false sense of balance - but the effect has been to provide rapidly-snowballing benefits to those who need them least, and one-time, politically-oriented funding to everybody else.

But leaving aside that corporate tax cuts don't figure to be up for a vote anyway, it stands to reason that if the problem with corporate tax cuts is the structural shift toward favouring the corporate sector, then the main question in assessing a budget which includes them is whether it creates enough structural benefits to justify the harm.

With that in mind, the NDP has implicitly offered two different options to the Cons. If they insist on the tax cut schedule approved by the Libs (as looks to be the case), then the price for budget support will be to meet the rest of the NDP's demands, including positive changes to health care and the GIS and CPP which figure to be no less permanent than any corporate tax cut. Or the Cons can retreat on corporate taxes and leave more structural room for future government action - in which case the NDP's ask can be somewhat reduced in turn. But either way, there has to be some point at which the pluses can potentially outweigh the minuses.

And of course, in either event the possibility of a non-confidence vote will remain open - with the NDP having every reason to want any gains from the budget to be passed as quickly as possible to ensure that the Cons can't avoid accountability on unrelated matters by dragging out a budget vote.

One way or another, though, the standard for the NDP is rightly whether a budget and its associated legislation will do more good than harm for Canada's long-term direction. And while I'd think it's more likely than not that the Cons will fall far short of the NDP's demands and precipitate an election, the fact that the Cons can't rely on somebody else supporting them for nothing means that the NDP has every reason to see what it can get accomplished.

Musical interlude

Serge Devant feat. Emma Hewitt - Take Me With You

Friday Afternoon Links

Content goes here.

- I'll second Greg's agreement with Chantal Hebert's latest:

As it did over the census, the Liberal opposition has turned to the social media to put pressure on the Conservatives. Given the alleged seriousness of the offence, one would think the party would turn its mind to putting its money where its mouth is in Parliament rather than on Facebook and Twitter.

If Harper was the leader of the official opposition, he would already be taking steps to withdraw the confidence of the House from the government.
...
The testimony that triggered the 2005 opposition siege of Martin’s minority government did not involve the Liberal leader or his ministers directly. It surfaced as the result of an inquiry set in motion by the prime minister himself and only a few months before its definitive conclusions were scheduled to be delivered to the public.

Still Harper made a strong case that the issue of the character of the government was one of such importance that it deserved to be put to voters at the earliest opportunity.

What was true then is as true now. The Prime Minister — by virtue of his role and his authority — defines the culture of his government and Canadians deserve to decide whether a culture of ministerial deceit is what they expect from a party that came to power promising to restore the integrity of an abused system.

- And unfortunately, the fact that the Libs are treating Oda's forgery as just another momentary scandal rather than linking it in any meaningful way to the broader question of whether or not the Cons can be left in office - including by publicly stating a willingness to work with other parties to achieve change - only figures to give force to criticisms like John Ibbitson's that the issue is one of "nit-picking" rather than the fitness for office of the Harper Cons.

- Rick Salutin is right to note that there's a serious lack of activist organization to serve as a counterweight to political leaders in reaching the broader public. But it's worth also adding the caveat that there's also a need for some kind of identifiable longer-term goal in organizing to ensure that one-time outpourings of public outrage such as that which toppled Hosni Mubarak don't simply give rise to more of the same under another figurehead leader.

- Finally, Dan Gardner's latest features a reminder as to just how much the Cons have done to eliminate inconvenient (though accurate) data from Canada's public debate:

While the world moves ever deeper into an Information Age, Canadian public policy is headed in the other direction. “As a nation, we have very little capacity to conduct social policy research, evaluate social programs or monitor progress towards achieving social aims,” concluded a federal report in 1998. That statement is even more true today.

“There is genuine concern that Parliament is losing control of its fiduciary responsibilities,” Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, told a House of Commons committee this week. Page raised his red flag for many reasons. The latest is the refusal of the Conservative government to provide MPs with the estimated costs of implementing its crime bill. The government says the estimates are “cabinet confidences.”

So Cabinet gets to see them, no one else. Vote, but vote blindly. Having come to power promising “open and transparent” government, the Conservatives have made government more closed and opaque than ever.

The Law Commission, which studied complex legal issues: closed. The Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO), which reports on critical financial issues: under-funded and stonewalled. The long-form census, which was the source of essential data used by private and public sectors across the country: replaced with a useless survey.

Perhaps worst of all, civil servants are increasingly forbidden from organizing conferences or otherwise connecting with external researchers whose findings my be uncongenial to the government. Where contact is permitted, there are still restrictions. I know of one conference where a survey of the attendee’s views was quashed by frightened civil servants because it was likely to produce numbers the Conservatives don’t want to exist. Mission accomplished.

Destruction in progress

Amy Minsky nicely sums up why Elections Canada is set up to avoid political challenges to its funding:

For many federal agenies, requests for additional money must be voted on and approved in the Senate and the House of Commons.

Other agencies, such as Elections Canada, however, do not require this sign-off. The agency operates with this independence in order to remove any implication of political partisanship when funds are voted, said Treasury Board expenditure management expert David Enns.

But then, the Cons never met an independent institution they weren't eager to politicize. And sure enough, one of Stephen Harper's hand-picked, citizen-funded Senate cronies can't resist the opportunity to do exactly what Elections Canada's funding structure is designed to avoid:

"Probably in itself, $100 million is not very much money," said Conservative Senator Doug Finley. "But in relation to the annual moneys budgeted by Elections Canada(,) that seems to be an inordinate amount of (extra) money to ask in terms of your annual budget."
...
"Since I have been involved in politics, there have been byelections pretty well every single year," Finley said in response to Enns' statement (that additional funding was required to administer by-elections). "I know my party budgets accordingly. Why is it that Elections Canada seems incapable of doing this?"

An opportunity for debate

Aaron Wherry's article on the current state of the House of Commons is well worth a read. But I have to wonder whether part of the solution is easier than one might think from Wherry's lamentation about the meaning of debate in the House:

In many ways, the scene in the House reflects modern practicalities. Since the proceedings are televised, attendance is not necessary to follow what is said. MPs have myriad other responsibilities they must attend to, from committee work to dealing with the concerns of constituents. In the beginning, House debates were covered extensively in the popular media. Up until the mid-1980s, the Canadian Press kept a reporter in the House for the duration of each sitting day. But those days are gone and, besides, despite the impressive decor—carved sandstone and wood, chandeliers and stained glass—a lack of wireless Internet access makes the chamber something less than a modern workplace for reporters.

But the sight of the ornate room sitting mostly empty, an MP on his or her feet pontificating into the abyss, speaks as well to the undeniable obscurity of the institution at this point in history. Because the debates don’t matter, the press doesn’t cover them and because the press doesn’t cover them, the debates don’t matter. Instead of covering the exchanges that occur each day in the House, the evening political shows prefer to assemble their own panels of MPs to exchange shouted talking points.

Now, it's understandable that political TV shows may prefer to generate their own content to fit the time they have available. But for print media in particular, I'd think the debates in the House of the Commons would offer an obvious source of easy and relevant content. After all, every word of the debates is available for public review within a day - and it would seem like a fairly simple matter to make a regular practice of distilling the bills or issues being discussed, along with the parties' positions and any interesting interactions between them, into a regular stream of content.

And what's more, the fact that debates in the House cover as much time as they do means that they're less easily scripted. Which means that there would figure to be far more opportunity to discuss a range of different perspectives than there is in reporting on question period.

Of course, it's probably seen as easier to report on bills only when somebody is putting on a direct PR push. But Wherry is right to note that there's plenty of (at least nominally) important discussion taking place that seems to receive far less attention than one would expect in light of the formal role of MPs. And it might well be a win-win for a media outlet and the state of Canada's political conversation to reverse the vicious circle and start more fully covering Parliamentary debates as more than just a matter of curiosity.

On voting blocs

Matt Gurney is mostly on the mark in pointing out the Bloc's motivations in raising the possibility of supporting a coalition government. But he does miss the rather important point that there's a third national party competing for seats in Quebec. And unlike the Libs and Cons, the NDP has plenty to gain if the possibility of a coalition is front and centre in the province where it's always been most popular.

Most obviously, anybody looking to choose between the Libs and NDP will have a strong incentive to show support to the national party which is more favourable toward a coalition. And the Libs' choice to position themselves as refusing to discuss the possibility means that the NDP will then be the natural first option for federalists hoping to see a coalition emerge.

But perhaps more interesting is the question of how Bloc/NDP swing voters may be affected if the Bloc succeeds in making a possible coalition into the main Quebec ballot question. After all, given the choice between supporting a party whose main aspiration is merely to support a coalition government and one which actually figures to participate in one, there's every reason for voters to opt for the latter - particularly to the extent the Lib+NDP seat count might be seen as a factor in whether or not a coalition will be formed.

So while the Bloc's strategy makes a world of sense in its messaging against the Cons and Libs, it may also give the NDP the upper hand in the current three-party pileup. And with plenty of Bloc voters already seeing the NDP as their second choice, that might well redound to the NDP's benefit in winning Bloc support as well.

On de-funding

David Climenhaga's call to de-fund the right holds plenty of appeal on the surface, particularly in the wake of a federal government that's spared no prisoners in pulling funding from any group which might disagree with its reactionary worldview with no regard for how much good its projects might accomplish. But I'd think that in an echo of the argument over party funding, it's worth keeping in mind the broader question of how public debate should be funded in general.

We can argue all we want to de-fund the right when it comes to public money. But the right will never lack for private actors with a massive incentive to fund a noise machine out of their own pocket on the understanding that even a tiny change in upper-bracket tax rates can make up the cost. And a call to de-fund the right can only strengthen a countermovement along the lines of the Cons' when the political winds shift.

So instead, the principle that's worth promoting is that it's in the public interest to encourage a broader range of voices than we'd hear based on private investment alone - which includes ideas like Climenhaga's proposal to take a closer look at tax credits to private charities, but also encouraging support for groups who don't have the money up front to buy their way into the conversation. And while public money shouldn't be used as a source of patronage for either side, nor should it be manipulated so as to deliberately exclude anybody.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- We can say this much for Bev Oda's KAIROS forgery: it ranks up there with the census debacle and the 2008 fiscal update crisis as one of the moments which has launched the best commentary on Stephen Harper's government. For sheer outrage, it's hard to top Stephen Whitworth:

It’s past time to say it: it is no longer possible for any informed, intelligent person of sound mind to vote for a Conservative candidate as the party is currently constructed. Voting Conservative automatically indicates the voter is either uninformed (which this paper’s staff and writers will work harder to help correct), or a demented ideologue and possible sociopath.

- Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne is somewhat more restrained, but makes up for it in style points:

In times past — not under the last government, but in any previous — a minister who lied to Parliament, even once, would be gone, immediately: if not out of any genuine sense of shame or remorse on the part of the government, then certainly out of a sense that it could not afford to be publicly associated with such deceitful behaviour. But this government, and this Prime Minister, seem instead to be bent on riding this out. They do not deny that she lied. But neither do they acknowledge that she did. They simply do not address the issue at all. Instead they make another point altogether: that the minister was within her rights to overrule her bureaucrats.

Yes, of course she was. She may even have been right to do so, though that is something that can be debated. What cannot be debated, what she had absolutely no right to do, was to misrepresent her bureaucrats’ views, alter documents, and lie to Parliament.

WHICH IS to say: it is the government’s defense of her, more even than the minister’s misconduct, that is now the issue. Ministers in any government will screw up from time to time. Some will even lie. That is fallible humanity. But when they are caught, when the jig is up, when there are no longer any lies to be told, it is to be expected — it has always been expected — that consequences should follow. At the least, one could expect the government to acknowledge that what she did was wrong — or at the very least, to acknowledge that she did it.

If it then tried to keep her on, arguing that the sin was not so great as to warrant a resignation, that would be objectionable enough, and a denial of all previous precedent. But it would at least be a tacit concession that ministers should not lie to Parliament. If it had tried to pretend there were some doubt about what she had done, that would be graver still, since it would be to deny facts that were not capable of dispute, and thus to cast into doubt the very possibility of fact and evidence as guides to public debate. But just to ignore the charge altogether, to carry on as if nothing had happened, takes us into the kingdom of dada.

- Alex Himelfarb's post on the shifting of the Overton Window is well worth a read. But I have to wonder whether his conclusion matches his analysis: if it's true that the most substantial impact of the right's well-funded push over the past few decades has been to shift the terms of political debate, isn't it more important to develop and amplify a competing narrative than to spend time and energy denouncing the current one?

- Finally, Stuart Thomson makes a good point about the Cons' targeted political stimulus which looks to be worth some follow-up on the national level:

A year after the Citizen published its stimulus story, it occurred to me that maybe 30 smaller, $1 million projects were more effective than a single $30 million project. Maybe even 30 times more effective.

The government would seem to agree. Re-sorting my stimulus spreadsheet by the number of projects, rather than the amount of money spent, produced some startling results.

Vaughan, the so-called battleground riding that recently switched from Liberal red to Tory blue, received funding for a whopping 136 projects. That’s 136 billboards for the government. It’s at the top of the list for all of Canada, but that doesn’t even begin to tell the story. It has 60 more stimulus projects than the second-place riding. It has more than six times the average for Ontario. If you look at the results on a bar graph, Vaughan shoots into the sky, towering above every other riding. It looks not unlike the Toronto skyline, with the bar representing Vaughan mimicking the CN Tower.

Perhaps it’s a coincidence, but the second riding on the list also tells a story: Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing, home of NDP MP Carol Hughes, who found herself high on a Conservative hit-list after she voted to scrap the gun registry. She changed her vote, but not before attracting a series of attack ads.

How do you tell if a riding like Hughes’ is coveted by the Conservatives? Look around at the 76 stimulus signs dotting the landscape. It’ll tell you all you need to know.

No longer sacrosanct

Perhaps the most remarkable part of the Cons' desperate evasion on Bev Oda's behalf has been the degree to which it violates the credo that's served as this blog's tagline for the past few weeks. There may once have been some opportunity to cut Oda loose in hopes of minimizing the damage to Stephen Harper personally - but after two consecutive days of the Prime Minister using his role as the face of the government to poke a thumb in the eye of anybody who thinks honesty or even a willingness to concede some connection to reality has the slightest relevance to a party's fitness to hold office, there doesn't seem to be any turning back now.

That may make Oda's job relatively secure in the short term. But if we are headed for a spring election, it surely figures to make the kingpin weaker than he would have been otherwise. And if the current level of observer outrage over a government that's willing to ignore crimes within its midst holds up through an election campaign, we may well see the entire edifice come toppling down.

Wednesday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your midweek reading.

- Dan Gardner nicely sums up the Cons' destructive governing style with a handy analogy:

Lots of people accuse him of being ruthless, or an ideologue, but he’s usually credited with being a basically competent manager.

He doesn’t deserve that credit. His government is badly run and incoherent. Promising fiscal conservatism, Stephen Harper spent money like crazy, expanded the federal government, cut taxes, and turned a surplus into a structural deficit (yes, it’s structural, as even the International Monetary Fund agrees). He has no real plan for getting the budget back into balance.
...
To be clear, there’s nothing wrong with questioning the census or any other status quo. Indeed, it’s always good practice to consider the relative merits of alternatives.

But as any reasonably competent manager knows, you do that before, not after, you pick up the sledgehammer and smash stuff.

- But let's give the Cons credit for at least being efficient when it comes to what really counts: maximizing the amount of public money going to their cronies.

- Frances Russell points out what the Cons' use of public offices for political advertising says about their disrespect for Canada's political system and voters alike:

With his unprecedented commandeering of the Prime Minister's Office, Harper has out-Americanized the Americans -- and struck another blow against our constitutional tradition.

No U.S. politician, not senators, not congressmen, not even the president, can conduct fundraising, campaign ads or any overt political activity from Capitol Hill, the White House or federal buildings or facilities. The House of Representatives Ethics Manual prohibits the use of House recordings for "any political purpose."

Harper's attack on Canadian traditions doesn't stop there. The prime minister has his minions looking for ways he can appropriate the role of the Governor General as Canada's head of state to hand out honours and awards to Canadians.

He's already created the Prime Minister's Volunteer Awards. And he has been fighting his defence minister for two years to get one of the military's troop and cargo Airbuses repainted white.

Pollster Frank Graves told The Hill Times he believes Harper is trying to assume "symbolic office, similar to the president of the U.S., which is one of the things they have been shooting for."

- Finally, who plans to spend the afternoon refreshing this page waiting for Bev Oda's name to be added?

On cost shifting

Shorter Harper Cons:

Money is no object when it comes to posturing on crime - at least, as long as somebody else is stuck with the bill.

Cause and effect

David Akin is right to note that there's an obvious connection between the Cons' ad campaign and what looks to be a shift in their favour in the polls. But there's another causal link worth pointing out as well: because the Libs gave the Cons two months worth of advance notice that they were pushing for an election, the Cons were able to put the ads together to improve their starting position if one happens in the near future.

Which looks to make for just one more way in which the Libs' positioning against the other opposition parties is serving only to help Harper - and should serve as a reminder that telegraphing every move isn't any brighter now than it's been for the last five years.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Cats on mats.

Harper is a Dirty Word

And I for one think it's about time Macleans governed itself accordingly.

Just wondering

Yes, I know Jane Taber can't be held to the standard of "exercising independent thought" that we'd like to expect from most political journalists. But is it really too much to ask that she at least remove the Cons' ad copy when reproducing one of their supposed strategy memos?

On balancing interests

As promised, let's follow up on the CRTC's push for false news with a brief look at some of the cases that need to be taken into account in determining what limits can properly be applied to freedom of speech.

Most of the discussion has revolved around R v. Zundel, in which the Supreme Court of Canada struck down a Criminal Code offence against spreading false news. But that decision is rife with points of obvious distinction: the statutory provision couldn't be justified based on even remotely modern rationales since it had been passed to protect nobles of the realm from slander by commoners, to the point where the Court majority couldn't find any valid public policy rationale for the prohibition; it was found to be overbroad in extending to any "statement, tale or news"; and it involved the "most draconian of sanctions" (i.e. criminal prosecution for an indictable offence) against an individual offender.

In contrast, none of those considerations applies to the CRTC's standards for false news. So the more relevant case looks to me to be Thomson Newspapers Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), which led to a far more balanced analysis on the question of whether the publication of polling results could be banned in the final days of a federal election campaign. The Supreme Court majority did strike down the law in question, but only based on a lack of minimal impairment after concluding that there was a legitimate objective involved in ensuring that some meaningful opportunity existed to challenge the accuracy of a poll. Which signals that there can be a legitimate role for the government to play in preventing some types of information from going unchallenged where it might unduly affect an election.

Now, I'd think there's some need to expand that analysis to apply to the wider public debate - as would be the case in discussing false news in general rather than a specific type of data at a specific time.

But that can be balanced against the fact that the CRTC's rules apply only to broadcasters. That means that they only affect the limited range of actors who wield disproportionate power to choose what content will be presented to Canadian viewers. And the ultimate sanction for a violation of the public's trust reposed in a broadcaster is merely a loss of a privilege (the license that allows for more direct access to viewers than would be available otherwise), rather than a limit on any individual's freedom of speech.

What about the argument that we should rely on the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council rather than providing for any role by a government regulator?

To start with, I'd note the obvious public vs. private bias involved in assuming that there's no problem in limiting speech as long as it's carried out by a private actor. But more importantly, the CBSC is itself made up of exactly the parties who have at least a theoretical interest in expanding their ability to distort the public debate on issues which affect them and their advertisers.

That makes for exactly the type of situation where at least some backstop is needed - both to keep the CBSC focused on the interests of the public rather than those of its members, and to ensure that possible sanctions are significant enough to keep individual broadcasters honest. (After all, a broadcaster which knows that it can air the Liberals Engage in Treasonous Sharia Bestiality Hour for the duration of an election campaign while facing no sanctions other than a possible obligation to issue a retraction after it's too late isn't going to be the least bit deterred - while the potential loss of a license figures to do far more to ensure at least some standard of reality.)

So the big questions to me look to be: should we refuse to acknowledge any imbalance between broadcasters and their possible subjects in their ability to influence the public? And should we trust private parties to protect the public interest in reality-based broadcasting with no regulatory backstop except in cases of threats to safety?

While there's room for debate on both points (and a revised standard of knowing falsehood may make sense), the ultimate answers figure to be "no" and "no". And so I'll stick with the view that it's worth fighting for some public protection of truth in broadcasting.

Update: It looks like Avaaz covered most of the above and more in its submission to the CRTC (warning: PDF). h/t to Dr. Dawg.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday...

- Yes, the story behind the Cons' KAIROS funding forgery is far from over. And while the media and opposition will undoubtedly want to get to the bottom of the matter, Paul Dewar rightly notes that somebody else should be very interested to figure out who doctored an official document to mean the opposite of its original text:

NDP MP Paul Dewar wants Oda to appear again before the foreign affairs committee to face questions. He raised the prospect of a police probe if opposition MPs can't find out who “doctored” the document.

- Meanwhile, Murray Dobbin notes how the KAIROS forgery fits into the Cons' general style of governance:

Shocked hardly describes it. This is political thuggery worthy of a dictatorship. It clearly originated in the PMO, but Bev Oda, the hapless minister of International Cooperation, was assigned the role of Official Stonewaller. Oda's answers to questions put to her by a parliamentary committee reveal an arrogance of power that is identical in its mentality to the dozens of autocracies around the world. Oda stated she didn't know who doctored the documents she signed, but said: "I know that the decision ultimately reflects the decision I would support."

That is almost impossible to believe. Almost surely, the only reason the not was inserted into the document was that it had already been signed by Oda -- indicating she accepted the recommendation by CIDA officials. Had Oda not signed, authorizing payment of the grant, there would have been no need to doctor the document to reverse its intent. She could simply have declined to sign it and announced that KAIROS would not be getting a grant. The vulgar method used to circumvent the law demonstrates just how little this government cares about the rule of law. They couldn't even be bothered to make it credible.

- But if there's any good news to be found in the Cons' constant cover-ups, it's that they may be setting up their own government's demise. Here's John Ibbitson:

(N)ot only do the Conservatives give tax cuts to fat cats and waste billions on toys for the military and prisons that turn scared kids into hardened criminals, but they also erode democratic freedoms by keeping Parliament and the rest of us in the dark about their plans.

Only you don’t have to camp out at Liberation Square to bring this government down. You only need to cast a ballot.

None of this may matter. The Conservatives think they can win the next election on the ballot question of competence and leadership, and the polls suggest they’re right.

But don’t be surprised if you see a Liberal attack ad that shows Parliament with the doors chained shut. And the Conservatives will have only themselves to blame.

- Finally, the Star points out the dishonesty in the Cons' attempt to play to prejudice by attacking veiled voters:

No fewer than 253,069 voters cast mail-in ballots in 2008. Elections officials had no way of checking their faces. Other voters turned up at the polls with two pieces of acceptable non-photo ID, such as a hydro bill, a government cheque or an insurance policy. Still others with no valid ID at all just swore an oath and had a neighbour or roommate (with valid ID) vouch for them.

In a crunch, a veiled Muslim woman can either show her face in private to an official, or swear an oath that she is qualified to vote, and present two pieces of ID.

Given all these factors, it is absurd, as the Star has argued before, to think of veiled Muslim women as posing a threat to the integrity of our electoral system. Laws that in effect single out Muslim women send an ugly message that if minorities want to exercise their rights as Canadian citizens, they should behave and look more like the “mainstream,” whatever that might be.

Fair and balanced

Gloria Galloway helpfully presents all possible sides of the corporate tax debate: the Cons complaining that the Libs don't currently support their tax slashing, the Libs complaining that the Cons aren't slashing their choice of taxes, and the CFIB suggesting that everybody should agree on all possible tax slashing.

Is it too late to add a talking point from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation? You know, for balance.

On false opposition

Andrew Coyne rightfully skewers the Libs for not believing a word of their rhetoric on what's supposed to set them apart from the Harper Cons:

The difference between them and the Conservatives, the Liberals would like you to know, is all about “values.” That is, it’s about “priorities.” I mean to say, it’s about “your Canada” versus “Stephen Harper’s Canada.” Indeed, the Liberals have three favourite examples of how the two parties’ values diverge, which they will rhyme off for you at the least provocation. In a phrase, they are: fighter jets, prison cells, and corporate tax cuts.
...
There isn’t any doubt about where the Liberals would like you to think they stand on these. “Instead of spending $16 billion on untendered stealth fighters and…borrowing $6 billion more to give tax breaks to the largest corporations,” the Liberal website proclaims, “Liberals want to address the economic pressures facing Canadian families when it comes to family care, pensions, learning and jobs.”

Unveiling a new French-language campaign, the MP Denis Coderre fumes: “[Harper's] priorities have nothing to do with us: billions for stealth Fighters and American-style mega-prisons, yet nothing for families.” Addressing partisan crowds on his periodic road trips, Michael Ignatieff often expresses his devotion to building “schools, not prisons.”

Got that? If you don’t like jets, jails or, um, jorporate tax cuts, vote Liberal. Except… that’s not actually the Liberal position on any of these. Or to the extent that it is, it’s at best a recent conversion. The merits of all three policies may be debated. But you have to actually be on the other side to do so.
...
I understand the Liberals’ need to differentiate themselves from the Tories. But, really: what kind of chumps do they take us for?

Well said

Alice chimes in with the definitive post on how to handle between-election polling:

(S)top reading "the polls", stop obsessing about "the polls", and for goodness sake stop writing that "the polls say this will happen or that will happen", because they don't say any such thing. And take amateur seat predictions having a zero-general-election track record with as big a boulder of salt as Joan Bryden's sources advise taking the polls. "The polls" didn't predict the Conservatives would win Montmagny–l'Islet–Kamouraska–Rivière-du-Loup, or that the Liberals would win Winnipeg North either. Campaigns matter, and outsiders don't know what ridings political parties are going to target or send resources to yet, though we can certainly draw some conclusions now (and no, it's not based exclusively on whether they were "close" last time or not either).

The future of hackery

Shorter Brian Lilley:

What kind of two-bit, credibility-free news outlet has the nerve to take a politician's actual words out of context when it's so much easier to just make something up out of thin air?

Sunday Afternoon Links

Content goes here.

- Joan Bryden notes that even pollsters are warning against paying too much attention to tiny fluctuations in their results:

(T)he media often trumpet shifts in provinces or other small sub-samples of the population, like urban women or educated males. But with MOEs of as much as 10 percentage points, seemingly huge 20-point fluctuations are actually statistically meaningless.

"I've seen pollsters comment one week, you know, 'The Tories are dead in Quebec' only to have this magical resurrection the week after and there's a pressure to sort of explain that and you come up with saying, 'You know, well, (Prime Minister Stephen Harper) made this statement or he wore this tie,'" says Mukerji.

"I think if you take a step back and look at the general trend, there hasn't actually been all that much that's changed, quite frankly, in the party standings."

- I tend to agree with the theory, raised by Alan Shanoff among others, that the recently-developed responsible communication defence to libel or slander claims should be a guiding principle in determining how the CRTC should handle false news. But it's also worth pointing out where the law of defamation falls short of protecting the public interest: shouldn't the need for responsible journalism be just as obvious when a broadcast involves subject matter that isn't so directly aimed toward an individual's reputation as to be enforceable through a private lawsuit?

- Stephen Gordon criticizes the new head of Statistics Canada for being willing to spout the Cons' party line on the census even when his organization has conclusively refuted the claim that there's any real prospect of a voluntary survey providing data of the same quality as a mandatory census:

In point of fact, Statistics Canada has done quite a bit of research documenting the fundamental flaws associated with voluntary surveys; see Kevin Milligan's guest post as well as this. Insisting that "critics cannot be sure" is a remarkable thing for a Chief Statistician to say; statistics is not in the business of providing absolute certainty.
...
I understand that as Chief Statistician, there are certain truths that Mr Smith cannot speak in public. But that's no excuse for making statements that are contrary to available evidence. Statistics Canada has a reputation to maintain; Mr Sheikh resigned in order to protect it. It would be a very bad thing indeed if Statistics Canada is itself the next victim in the continuing assault on evidence-based policy.

- Finally, while the conventional wisdom is that cabinet ministers have absolutely no ability to act outside the wishes of the Harper PMO, let it never be said that at least some cabinet ministers can't take a stand on principle. That is, when it comes to true matters of conscience such as airplane colour schemes. I'm sure news will soon leak that despite his census embarrassment, Tony Clement should be seen as a maverick for refusing direct orders as to his tie selection.

Sunday Morning 'Rider Blogging

So far, the Saskatchewan Roughriders' offseason looks thoroughly unimpressive.

Sure, a team can't stop key players from retiring like Jeremy O'Day, or taking their shot at the NFL like Andy Fantuz. But it can try to make up for those losses by looking for young, high-upside Canadian talent - and on that front the 'Riders have given away more than they've taken in, while a rapidly-rebuilding Edmonton team not only snatched up ex-'Rider Donovan Alexander but also grabbed former Ram and #1 pick Chris Bauman for free.

Meanwhile, the 'Riders' one player pick-up involved winning a bidding war to pay top dollar to a 34-year-old lineman who's been so much as a divisional All-Star exactly once in his career - making for as much of a low-upside, high-downside transaction as one could possibly imagine.

But the offseason is young, and there are still plenty of players available (to say nothing of the glut of rookie talent that may come on the market if the NFL does lock out its players). For now, the 'Riders' sights figure to be limited to the CFL's free agent list - so let's take a look at who beyond Saskatchewan's own free agents might be worth pursuing based on the combination of talent and price.

1. Brandon Browner, CB - In most cases, I'm not a fan of paying big money to try to lure a player away from another team. But every rule has its exceptions - and Browner looks to be far too good a fit for the 'Riders to pass up if he returns from the NFL's Seattle Seahawks in 2011.

After all, two of the 'Riders' biggest weaknesses in 2010 were an inability to cover a single top opposing receiver (due in large part to a secondary filled mostly with smaller players), and a propensity to give up big kick returns. And those areas of need mesh perfectly with Browner's talents: he's a big, athletic defender who can single-handedly take even a top receiver out of a game, and also a special-teams demon known for cutting down returners before they get started.

Of course, the Stampeders will figure to want Browner back as well. But he'll have his pick of CFL teams if he does return - and the 'Riders should do everything they can, including offering an elite-level contract, to get Browner into the green and white if they get the chance.

2. Chris Leak, QB - No, he hasn't had the chance to prove much in the CFL yet. But with Anthony Calvillo back for another season in Montreal and Adrian McPherson next in line for playing time, it wouldn't be surprising if Leak is looking for a chance to move up someone's depth chart sooner rather than later. And the 'Riders would seem to be able to offer a better opportunity to win a backup job to start the 2011 season than any other CFL team.

3. Jermaine Reid, DT - The one area where there's loads of free-agent talent available is the defensive line. But instead of going for an older, higher-priced option like Kevin Huntley or Eric Taylor, the 'Riders might be best served picking up a non-import who may have some untapped upside if he can earn more regular playing time. And Reid showed enough promise in 2010 (4 sacks for Hamilton) to be worth a look.

4. Adam Nicolson, WR - Of course, Bauman would have been a better fit in every way than Nicolson, who was already deemed expendable by the 'Riders last year when they shipped him out for Prechae Rodriguez. But Saskatchewan does have an opening for a big possession receiver, and even if he's on the verge of falling into journeyman status Nicolson is the best option left on the free-agent market.

5. Justin Medlock, P/K - I noted last season that Medlock would have been an ideal fit for the 'Riders to provide a strong punter who could step in to replace Luca Congi as placekicker in the event of another injury. This offseason, both Medlock and Damon Duval fit that bill among the CFL's free agents - and while Eddie Johnson is a great fallback option as a punter, the 'Riders may want to see whether the price is right in looking for more special-teams flexibility.

On feigned helplessness

Michael Geist rightly notes that there's little reason to buy the argument that Canada's current laws don't provide adequate protection against file-sharing sites:

The claims in the isoHunt lawsuit must still be proven in court (as would any case using the new powers contemplated by Bill C-32). But past cases suggest Canadian law is hardly toothless. In 2008, the recording industry filed a lawsuit against QuebecTorrent, a Quebec-based BitTorrent site. Within months, the Superior Court of Quebec handed down a permanent injunction against the site and it discontinued operation. Soon after, the industry targeted other sites with cease-and-desist letters, relying on existing law to demand that they stop operating.

Foreign organizations have also successfully used Canadian copyright law to counter alleged online infringement. Last month, the Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN announced that it had quietly shut down dozens of BitTorrent sites by filing copyright violation complaints with the sites' hosting providers. While BREIN keeps the names of the sites secret, it notes that Canada is one of the countries where it brings legal action.

The reality is that all major countries are home to some BitTorrent sites, including Canada. The question is not whether Canadian law is equipped to deal with these sites — recent history and the latest lawsuit demonstrate that it is — but rather why the industry has opted for a strategy of damaging Canada's reputation by loudly claiming that it is unable to address online infringement using existing law while it quietly files court documents that suggest that the opposite is true.

But that reality shouldn't be used to understate the difference between the status quo and the Cons' plan under C-32 (bolstered by the attempt to paint Canada as lacking the enforcement mechanisms already in place). And indeed, the fact that copyright holders are complaining despite the existence of mechanisms to deal with peer-to-peer sites should offer a compelling signal that it's the peers themselves who are the targets of the Cons' legislation.