On whistleblower enablement

One would expect the current public service integrity officer to have a handle on what needs to be done to ensure accountability within the public sector. Which makes Edward Keyserlingk's comments today a useful guide to what's missing from the Accountability Act...and what doesn't need to be included.

On the Cons' plan to offer small cash rewards to whistleblowers, the response was less than enthusiastic:

Edward Keyserlingk told a parliamentary committee studying the massive bill that cash shouldn't be the main incentive for doing what's right.

"You will hopefully see it as your duty to report wrongdoing rather than doing it because of a reward," he testified Thursday.

"It's a kind of motivation I would hope we don't have to appeal to."

Meanwhile, Keyserlingk did note a need for whistleblower protection in a few areas of the government which could be ripe for abuse:

(Keyserlingk) said his jurisdiction should be extended to include protection for whistleblowers within the Canadian Forces, the Canadian Security and Information Service (CSIS), and the Communications and Security Establishment.

He also would like whistleblowers in the private sector to be protected from reprisals if they expose wrongdoing, specifically those who are on contract with the government or are receiving grants from Ottawa.

Surely any corruption or waste would be even more egregious in the defense and national security sectors than anywhere else in government - and it speaks volumes about the Cons' motives that they didn't see fit to include whistleblower protection for those departments in their initial legislation. But with the issue made public, it'll be all the tougher for the Cons to justify keeping their pet sector for investment immune from the conscience of employees who want to ensure proper management of government money.

A needed prescription

The Canadian Institute for Health Information reports on the costs of prescription drugs in Canada. And for all the complaints about the increasing costs of health care, it's worth noting that the costs are skyrocketing most in an area with relatively little public funding:

Canadian spending on medical drugs rose to almost $25-billion last year, up 11 per cent over the previous year, in a trend that critics say can't be sustained.

Drugs — mainly prescription drugs — continue to be the fastest-growing category of health spending as they have been for years, says the Canadian Institute for Health Information...

Drug spending reached 17.5 per cent of total health spending, double the figure for 1985. But Canada remains below the median of 13 OECD countries in the amount of drug spending covered by governments.

Total per capita spending was estimated at $770 last year, but there were big variations across the country. Public-sector spending on prescribed drugs ranged from $194 per capita in Prince Edward Island to $341 in Quebec.

The article isn't without at least one viable solution to some of the problems in drug costs...though it's anybody's guess as to how long it'll take the Cons to become interested in dealing with the issue:

Manitoba Health Minister Tim Sale is pushing for progress on a national pharmacare program that first ministers promised in their 2004 health accord.

“Part of the whole discussion about fiscal imbalance is compounded by the fact that the feds approve these drugs, and in the case of patented pharmaceuticals, they set the price,” he said in an interview.

“We think they should then have part of the delivery responsibility.”...

Advocates of a national pharmacare program say it would help control costs by uniting the buying power of the provinces and by ensuring that only cost-effective drugs are used.

With the pharmacare idea having already formed part of an agreement among all provinces, there wouldn't be too much concern about intrusion into provincial jurisdiction...and there obviously isn't much of a case for the status quo from the standpoint of cost-effectiveness. But the previous agreement notwithstanding, it'll take some strong leadership from the federal level to get the needed program in place.

That presents an opportunity for the Cons to be seen as a viable government capable of improving Canada's health system....assuming they're willing to take a lead role, and acknowledge the positive contribution a federal government can make to health care. The question now is whether the Cons want to make that kind of improvement a priority.

From bad to no better

I'm not sure when a severe case of foot-in-mouth disease became a job requirement for the chair of the aboriginal affairs committee. But Stephen Harper's second choice after Maurice Vellacott is one of the few MPs who may be even better known for his embarrassing comments, even as a rookie in Parliament:

Rookie Tory MP Colin Mayes, who recently advocated jailing reporters who write stories the government doesn't like, was named as the Conservatives' pick to succeed Vellacott as the committee chairman.

But for those wondering whether anybody more qualified showed interest in being appointed instead, at least Harper can't be faulted on that front:

As for inserting Mayes in the hot seat, Hill said the B.C. MP is the only Tory on the aboriginal affairs committee who wanted the post.

In a sense, it's surprising that Harper hasn't done more to cover his weak spots by ensuring that he'd have at least one relatively well-reputed MP to take the lead on a committee where his party was bound to draw fire. And it of course speaks very poorly for the party's interest in aboriginal issues that nobody else seems to want to take the lead.

But with neither Harper nor his party having put any apparent thought into the committee, it'll at least be amusing to see whether Mayes can manage to talk his way out of the job even faster than Vellacott did.

Mission indefinite

Based on Peter MacKay's comments today, maybe Gordon O'Connor's "forever" time frame for Canada's involvement in Afghanistan isn't all that far off. And that goes doubly if the mission's goal still isn't any more specific than "(r)estoring democracy and a semblance of normal life".

On bad deals

The story may not get much attention since both the Libs and Cons will surely want to pretend it isn't happening. But Paul Dewar points out how both recent governments are moving Canada toward an appallingly bad deal for the new RCMP headquarters:

The Conservative government is set to ink a botched building deal that will cost taxpayers twenty times its value, according to an NDP MP.

Ottawa MP Paul Dewar said the Public Works department is ready to sign a 10-year lease worth $624 million for a building the last Liberal government could have purchased outright for $30 million.

“It is really is outrageous. The government will spend over $620 million for this property by the time it finally owns it — 20 times more than the original purchase price,” he asked in the House of Commons today. “Is this the minister’s notion of a good deal for taxpayers? If that is the case, he has really spent way too much time in the Senate.”

Naturally, the Cons' response for now is to point the finger at the Libs for failing to purchase the property for its actual value - and certainly some blame lies there as well. But there's no way that a government supposedly committed to reining in federal spending should be signing on to a deal which results in Canada paying many times more than a property is worth. And if the Cons really would prefer to cut costs on the backs of programs which actually accomplish things rather than by eliminating such obvious waste, then it may not take long for Canadians to conclude that the most important cost-cutting measure possible is to remove that attitude from any position of power.

Not giving up

The Cons had to be hoping that their decision not to let farmers take an ownership stake in the rail cars which get their products to market would be taken lying down. But fortunately, the Farmer Rail Car Coalition isn't playing along:

A farmers' group that planned to buy 12,000 rail cars from Ottawa is calling on farmers to contact their MPs about the government's decision to cancel the deal.

Handing control of the cars back to the railways means they will be able "to hold Western farmers to ransom in the future," Sinclair Harrison, president of the Farmer Rail Car Coalition, said Tuesday...

Harrison said (the Cons' plan to reduce current maintenance fees instead is) not a good deal for farmers.

"There might be a small decrease to freight rates in the short term, but significant increases in the future," he told a news conference in Regina.

Harrison urged people to phone or write their MPs. He said it wasn't right that Ottawa made the announcement right when farmers are in the middle of seeding.

Even among those who might support the Cons' decision, it's hard not to agree with Harrison that it's problematic for the decision to have been made at the time when those most affected by it would be too busy to respond. But the Cons' strategy could easily backfire if resentment toward Harper - both among Coalition members themselves, and among Canadians who think our farmers deserve better - has time to build before the next federal election.

Shady business

The Tyee reports on how B.C.'s "open and accountable" right-wing government is working out these days:

Last week, Bill 23 was introduced, which would allow government to keep secret the final reports of public inquiries. Now, we face Bill 30, which could seal information about nearly ANY of government's financial arrangements with the private sector...

As Vancouver Sun columnist Vaughn Palmer noted "(Bill 30) is intended to erect a legislative framework around the Liberal experiments in having private companies assume contractual responsibility for providing government services," that is, the so-called P3s.

The government can designate a "joint solution project" that the added secrecy level is applied to, but one problem is that the term is not defined. It is not clear which projects the government would apply the JSP status to, or why, but it grants itself the complete discretion to do so. Many believe that JSP and another term "procurement project" are so vague they could be applied to nearly ANY financial arrangement with a third party. "The definition leaves it wide open to designation," (Liberal MLA Blair) Lekstrom lamented...

Not only is the bill a great danger to our democratic system to cloak government projects in secrecy, it can also create immense financial consequences for taxpayers. This legislation creates a potential breeding ground for waste, fraud and mismanagement. A B.C. provincial equivalent of the entire Quebec sponsorship program could have been marked as a "joint service project," meaning all information "jointly developed" (such as advertising contracts and plans) could be sealed. It was FOI requests by the media that first exposed the Quebec scandal and led to the Gomery Inquiry - but in B.C., this might not be possible now.

Even with a minority government which can't force legislation through Parliament, Campbell's federal counterpart has been noted to have included provisions to isolate the inner legislative circle from scrutiny. And with Campbell apparently setting the precedent, it isn't hard to see where federal law might go if the Cons were to win a majority. After all, the Bill 30 example would fit nicely with both the Cons' ideological desire to create disincentives to public-sector projects in favour of P3s, and Harper's apparent insistence on personal control over information.

Given that Campbell's party obviously isn't in line on this issue just yet, there may be time to stop the B.C. legislation. But even if the current bill can be stopped, the example of Bill 30 - and the potential for exactly the kind of abuse so often criticized by the Cons - should be kept in mind next time Harper demands the trust of Canadians at the polls.

(Edit: typo.)

Update: Good news for now, as both of the controversial B.C. bills have been "deferred" for this session of the Legislature.

Hypocrisy at its most obvious

The Ottawa Citizen reports that despite years of criticizing the Libs for accepting business perks while in office, the Cons have (to nobody's surprise) continued the practice for their own benefit:

Accepting gifts, including free Ottawa Senators playoff tickets in luxury corporate boxes, continue to be acceptable for Conservative MPs in Stephen Harper's government, despite criticism of the practice when the Tories were in opposition.

The practice means a double standard regarding the acceptance of gifts still exists between politicians, such as government whip Jay Hill who attended last Friday's Senators playoff game, and federal rank-and-file bureaucrats who continue to be prohibited by rules overseeing their conduct...

On the apparent double standard with bureaucrats and her party's critical comments while in opposition, (Harper spokeswoman Sandra) Buckler declined comment, saying she was not familiar enough with the issue since she was not in opposition at the time...

Conservative MP John Williams has been very critical of freebies, saying that attending free hockey games with clients "is influence-peddling at its most obvious" and should be outlawed for "all decision-makers," including politicians. Contacted Monday, Williams said he still feels there is a double standard, but that the new government's Federal Accountability Act is a step in the right direction in placing restrictions on freebies. He said the act will require lobbyists to register any freebies they give out.

It's hard to see what principled reason could exist for holding politicians to a substantially lower standard than public servants. But even if there is a principled argument to be made, the Cons don't seem the least bit interested in bothering to make it.

Instead, the Cons seem satisfied with the conclusion that whatever they do themselves can't be wrong...even if it's precisely the same behaviour which used to inspire fits of rage when done by the Libs. And even those Cons who are still willing to acknowledge a double standard are hiding behind increased obligations on lobbyists (not on MPs themselves) as an excuse for preferential treatment for the Cons now that they hold power.

Once again, the Cons' only problem with the Libs' culture of entitlement seems to have been the fact that it wasn't the Cons who reaped the benefits. Fortunately, though, the opposition parties have the means to use the Accountability Act to force the Cons to live up to their own opposition rhetoric. And hopefully they'll be able to work together long enough to ensure that accountability applies to Harper's inner circle as well as to the rest of Canada's government apparatus.

A wasted opportunity

The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is currently reviewing Canada's human rights record since 1998. And during a time period dominated by a Liberal majority government with relatively few fiscal concerns, the country seems to have conspicuously failed to move in the right direction:

A United Nations watchdog group has harshly criticized Canada for its failure to live up to its commitments under an international treaty that protects people's economic, social and cultural rights.

In a tough assessment, one of the committee's 18 independent experts noted that “some situations (in Canada) had actually got worse” since Canada's record was last scrutinized in 1998...

“Many of the issues our committee raised in 1993 and 1998 are unfortunately still live issues today,” said Ariranga Govindasamy Pillay, an expert from Mauritius. “Years later, the situation appears to be unchanged, and in some respects worse.”

“There is continuing homelessness and reliance on food banks, security of tenure is still not enjoyed by tenants, child tax benefits are still clawed back.”

“The situation of Aboriginal peoples, migrants and people with disabilities doesn't seem to be improving,” Mr. Pillay said.

About the best one can say for federal policy in the meantime is that a few of the problem areas are provincial rather than federal responsibilities...meaning that the blame extends beyond the federal government alone. But a few of the problems were plainly the Libs' responsibility, and were neglected during the time period when Chretien and Martin had the most fiscal flexibility. And based on the U.N.'s review, it's glaringly clear why Canadians shouldn't be satisfied with a repeat of the Libs' record.

On deterrents

Rafe Mair points out what the Cons would do if their goal was really to reduce crime in Canada rather than to be seen as "tough":

Putting more people behind bars for longer terms will have one obvious consequence: we will spend a hell of lot more money, over $80,000 a year per prisoner in federal prisons. And we'll need more capital to build more prisons...

What happens if we take the money the Tories' new policy will cost and make a better parole system? A system which is strictly enforced so that there really will be a deterrent to the parolee who knows that any breach of his parole will see him back behind bars.

This will require a better and thus more expensive parole system, but wouldn't that be a better way to spend our tax dollars than more jails and longer sentences?

Assuming that there's a need to make any massive changes to a system which has already produced a declining crime rate for the past 15 years, the short answer is "yes". But as Mair points out, the Cons aren't the least bit interested in asking the question to begin with.

That said, it's worth noting that even using the language of "deterrence", Mair's plan makes a lot more sense than anything the Cons are proposing. After all, it's not as if any of the crimes included in the Cons' proposed reforms are subject to a low maximum sentence...meaning that resources to improve the "risk of detection" element of deterrence are likely to produce far more bang for the buck than incremental increases in length of sentence. And the potential return on investment is all the larger with respect to parole, given that the nature of parole requirements is to keep offenders moving in the right direction at the very point where they'll have the choice whether to reintegrate, or to continue down the criminal path.

Sadly, it's doubtful that Toews and company are interested in considering the possibility of putting their money toward something more effective. Instead, the Cons' plan is to cultivate public outrage rather than rationally evaluating which action will best prevent crime in the future. And if the of a system which focuses less effort on reintegrating offenders into society is to produce yet more crime for the Cons to be "tough" on in the future, then so much the better.

Vellacott in the act

Both CBC News and the Dan Report have noted the latest nonsense spewing from the mouth of Maurice Vellacott. But a couple of important points seem to have been missed in the discussion.

First, both sources seem to give Vellacott too much credit in his response when called on his inaccuracy:

"As I'm not a member of the cabinet, I obviously do not speak for the government of Canada on these matters," he said in a statement Sunday.

"For my part, I appreciate the important role judges play in our justice system in ruling on the written laws and constitution of Canada. I respect the independence of our judges as a fundamental aspect of a free and democratic society."

CBC's headline considers this to reflect Vellacott "eating crow", while Dan describes it as Vellacott "swallowing his pride". But while the answer clearly reflects Vellacott being put in his place to some extent, it doesn't actually admit any error in the words Vellacott put in Chief Justice McLachlin's mouth. Instead, Vellacott merely tries to change the subject by talking about judges generally rather than about his original claim. And of course, Vellacott also tries to argue that any error on his part shouldn't reflect on his party.

Which leads nicely into the second problem with the coverage. In light of Vellacott's assertion that he doesn't "speak for the government", it's worth keeping in mind that Vellacott was hand-picked by Harper for his committee chairmanship. And having given such direct approval to Vellacott, Harper must also be taken to at least be willing to overlook Vellacott's wilful disregard for reality.

On worthwhile missions

Politicians from all parts of the political spectrum (and both in Canada and internationally) have decried the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. Which will make it difficult for anybody to criticize the NDP's recommendation that Canada make Darfur its top international priority:

The federal NDP says Canada should take a lead role in any UN mission to stop the bloodshed in Darfur, even if that means scaling back its commitment in Afghanistan...

He says an intervention in Sudan's Darfur province, where hundreds of thousands have died and millions are refugees because of a bitter civil war, is more like the traditional peacekeeping mission Canadians support...

NDP defence critic Dawn Black says it's unlikely the armed forces can make the necessary commitment to a Darfur mission and still maintain its forces in Afghanistan at current levels.

She says once Canada fulfils its Afghan commitment in February, it should look at returning to a more traditional peacekeeping role in a place like Darfur.

We'll find out soon whether the Libs and Cons who have claimed to be interested in stopping genocide and securing peace in Darfur care enough about the issue to commit Canada's troops. It seems all too likely that the talk by the other parties isn't intended to turn into action. But thanks to the NDP's willingness to point out how much good can and should be done by Canada's military in Darfur, the other parties will have to answer for any gap between their rhetoric and their ultimate position when the issue gets dealt with in Parliament.

Update: Gordon O'Connor responds to the idea by saying that due to Afghanistan, Canada can't spare troops for any other deployments:

There have been suggestions Canada might play a role in an eventual international effort in the Darfur region of Sudan, but O'Connor says the military already has its hands full with Afghanistan.

He told a Senate committee that the Afghanistan operation can essentially be maintained at the present level forever, but there's nothing to spare for any other deployments.

Left unanswered is the question of whether Canadians want to be locked into the Afghanistan mission "forever", especially if it leaves Canada unable to assist anywhere else in the world.

Your weekend must-read

Idealistic Pragmatist dissects the Libs' arguments to try to blame Jack Layton for all that is wrong with the world.

On poor advice

Shorter Frank Luntz: Never mind governing effectively, the key for the Cons is to keep bashing past Lib administrations.

It'll be interesting to see a couple of the consequences of Harper taking such advice. First, if he does, he'll open himself up all the more to claims that it's Bush's allies that really pull the strings in Harper's administration...which seems likely to turn into a liability which far outweighs any benefits to Harper in continued public anger at a past Lib regime.

Second, Luntz' advice essentially amounts to demanding that Harper resume auditioning for an opposition role. And with the Libs equally entrenched in bashing others rather than proposing solutions, the playing field could open up completely for another party which is willing to act more like a future government.

On defending one's position

There was some discussion earlier this week when word came out that Stephen Harper had offered to fund Bill C-48 in exchange for two years of support from the NDP. But aside from Gen X at 40, none of the commentators seem to have noticed the ultimate result of the offer. And it's worth taking a moment to compare Layton's reaction - and the outcome - to those of the other Canadian leaders in similar circumstances.

From the Star's coverage:

Sources say the NDP had no intention of accepting an offer that could spell political suicide.

Instead, the New Democrats quietly called the groups and governments counting on the cash that could be lost from C-48, such as provinces, municipalities and transit agencies, setting in motion a furious backroom lobbying effort to save the spending program.

"They were all convinced the money was secure and, in fact, it was already in their budgets," said one federal official.

It appears that effort succeeded. Last month, it was revealed the government will set up independent trust funds to distribute about $3.6 billion from C-48.

Rather than trying to win a better deal only by haggling with Harper himself, Layton instead brought other actors into the picture who had an interest in making sure the funding went through. The end result was that Harper went from making a ludicrous demand to caving completely, giving the NDP almost everything that Harper offered originally at absolutely no cost to the NDP. And it's hard not to think that Harper was worried about trying to work out a deal where the NDP gave something up for fear that Layton would keep the pressure up and get all the more for the NDP as a result.

Naturally, this should be compared to Harper's contrasting strategy on softwood lumber. There, Canada seems to have gone in with a relatively strong opening position (presuming that Harper at least brought up the possibility of full repayment and no restrictions before caving). But as I've discussed before, rather than allowing anybody with a common interest to be heard, Harper deliberately left Canadian lumber producers away from the table...and got snookered in the deal as a result. The process seemed bad enough at the time. But now that it's clear that Harper had been on the receiving end of a lesson in how to get results out of a bargaining situation, it's all the more negligent of Harper to have refused to learn from that example.

Needless to say, Harper's apparent all-or-nothing style of negotiating has its downside...as has been proven by Harper's inability to win a deal of any kind with the NDP, or a deal worth signing on softwood. But it does have its uses when dealing with another party which doesn't seem to want to learn from history. And lucky for Harper (if perhaps not for anybody else), Gilles Duceppe seems to have ignored Harper's history of bluffing then caving when it came to the budget. And it's hard to see much reason for that choice other than an aversion to personal responsibility for any results: this way Duceppe can claim (to a point) that the budget was solely Harper's doing, whereas by getting a better deal he would be forced to take more ownership of the outcome.

So much for reviewing the negotiating styles used so far this Parliament. But what can we take from all this? First, it seems rather clear that Harper's negotiating style is one that only succeeds when he's in a position to bully the other side (and/or where the other side isn't playing attention)...which is hardly a position that Canada can count on too often on the international scene. Second, Duceppe would rather be bullied into a mediocre result than be given any responsibility for a negotiated deal.

As a result, only one of the current federal leaders who will lead his party into the next election has a track record of brokering moderately strong positions into good results. And given Layton's record of working his way to solid outcomes from all parties domestically, it's worth wondering just how much more Canada could get done internationally if he got the chance to occupy Canada's seat at the table.

Support denied

While farmers have been protesting in droves seeking assurances that they'll have enough resources to plant crops this year, the Cons have responded only by holding back on the collection of money owed under the CAIS program, not by providing a cent beyond what farmers currently have in their possession:

Effective immediately, the government is deferring the collection of overpayments to individual farmers under the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program -- the so-called CAIS clawback -- until the retroactive program changes announced in Tuesday's $1.5-billion agriculture budget are calculated, Strahl said Friday during a speech at the Calgary Chamber of Commerce.

He also said there will be no interest on overpayments until Jan. 1, 2007.

Strahl said the announcement "assures farmers that the money they have in-hand, at least they can keep in-hand" while recalculations are underway.

In other words, any farmer with enough money on hand already will be fine regardless of any amounts owing. But for those who need a cash injection to keep their farms running? Well, there it gets more than a bit hazy:

Strahl also made note Friday of a new program aimed at helping low-income farmers find more options for the future and assist them in improving their business opportunities. He did not provide further details.

Needless to say, one has to figure that Strahl wouldn't have been holding back on the details of any program which had been thoroughly thought out. Which means that aside from not taking away money that farmers already have, the best the Cons seem willing to do is to plan to develop a plan eventually. And that can't be particularly comforting for farmers who need money - not just a delay in amounts owing - in order to keep their operations running.

The inefficiency continues

The Edmonton Journal reported today on a move by Canada's military to privatize delivery of some services at Canadian Forces Station Alert. But the reason for the change doesn't make sense under the slightest bit of examination:

The military plans to replace half of its personnel with contract workers at Canadian Forces Station Alert, a secretive spying outpost at the top of the world, by November.

"We do have excess infrastructure that we're maintaining right now," said Maj. Gioseph Anello, who is in charge of the Alert modernization project, a multi-year effort to shave the military's costs at the station...

With 72 full-time personnel who rotate in and out on six-month terms, Alert costs the military about $30 million a year to operate. Contractors could run the station for less by multi-tasking their employees, said Anello.

"As an example, the (contracted) driver of the truck can maintain that truck, off-load the truck and load the truck," he said. "In the military we would have the driver, a mechanic and a traffic guy."

Needless to say, Anello's explanation begs the question: why can't the military train a single employee to handle all three duties if a private contractor is able to? Surely that should be a simpler way to cut costs at least as much - and probably more since (presumably) the Canadian Forces wouldn't be looking to make a profit off the work, and since it'll presumably take a significant amount more planning for a contractor to decide how to get employees to the base than for the military to modify its current rotation practices.

Meanwhile, guess which programs also operating in the area are facing higher costs as a result of the move:

(O)ther groups who use Alert say the changes might increase their costs. The station is home to a marquis Environment Canada facility that has for two decades monitored the atmosphere for pollutants and global warming gases. But researchers say they expect their program to continue, since the military is not planning to reduce the number of beds available at Alert.

"There might be some different logistical arrangements or maybe some more increased costs to travel and deal with the infrastructure up there," said Marjorie Shepherd, manager of air quality measurements and analysis for Environment Canada.

In sum, this looks like just one more lose-lose privatization plan. Sadly, the question for now isn't whether that pattern will continue, but only whether any of Canada's state apparatus will emerge unscathed.

Easy target

So much for any one hidden agenda. It turns out that the Harper cabinet now has many of them - and it's going to court to keep them that way:

The Conservative government is moving to ban the release of prime ministerial agendas, a surprising change of heart after fighting the Liberals for the documents for years.

Government lawyers told Information Commissioner John Reid's office Friday that they intended to proceed with a Federal Court case over the prime minister's agendas, as well as those of other cabinet ministers...

Other requests for agendas of the transport and defence ministers, as well as RCMP records of the prime minister's agendas, have also landed in Federal Court.

And the Cons can't even claim that their about-face is based on difference people being involved, as the original case involved a current ministerial aide:

The case was born in 1999, when then Reform Party researcher Laurie Throness made six requests for then-prime minister Jean Chretien's agendas, detailing his daily appointments.

The Privy Council Office refused, Throness filed a complaint with the information commissioner, and the issue landed in Federal Court.

Now Throness is chief of staff to Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl, and in the strange position of having his name in court affidavits taken on behalf of the information commissioner.

Once again, any claim Harper ever had to a belief in accountability has been left by the wayside in favour of covering up his (and his cabinet's) activities. But if there's any bright side, it's that now that the Cons are going to court trying to keep their agendas hidden, they'll have absolutely no reason to complain when Canadians speculate as to what Harper wants to cook up outside the public eye.

On ill-conceived alliances

There's been plenty of discussion today about Harper's efforts to build links with his ideological soulmates on the provincial level. It's hard to dispute Harper's apparent intention based on his record in office so far. But there's plenty of reason to think that all the right-wing parties involved have plenty to lose in tying their fates together.

For the provincial downside, consider Murray Mandryk's take on the risks to the Saskatchewan Party:

(W)hile it might seem to make political sense to hitch your wagon to a federal government that's now slashing sales and corporate taxes and handing out cheques to young mothers, there's an inherent danger in this strategy.

It has to do with the fact that Ottawa's interests are seldom aligned with Saskatchewan's interests for very long...

(I)f the Saskatchewan Party is shifting its allegiance to the interests of the Conservative party rather than the interests of the people of Saskatchewan, it's not a very smart move.

Mandryk goes into some detail about the Sask Party's sudden willingness to accept Con actions now which it actively criticized when the Libs were in power. And that should provide rich fodder for the NDP in the next provincial election, as it'll have plenty of examples of how the Sask Party's determination to stand up for the province apparently ends on Harper's command.

Likewise in Ontario, Harper's strategy seems to rely on voters being utterly ignorant as to who it was that put the screws to McGuinty's government. But it's just as likely that McGuinty will strengthen his position by tying Tory to Harper's cuts, and thereby win an election which might otherwise have eluded his grasp.

The situation may be different in other provinces where Harper may be seen more as giving in to provincial demands than forcing provincial parties to get in line with his policies. But in both of the apparent leading examples (Quebec and B.C.), that seems likely to be a losing cause at this point. And again, there's always a risk that association with the federal Cons will only be a weight on the chances of Campbell and Charest once Harper's honeymoon period is over.

Meanwhile, there's a serious danger to Harper as well. I'm not sure how far the same phenomenon goes in other regions, but it's fairly well understood that in the Western provinces aside from Alberta, a party which governs at the provincial level tends to be seen with suspicion at the federal level. (See the history of the B.C. NDP, passim.) Which could mean that if Harper is indeed successful in winning power for his provincial counterparts, he may only succeed in making his government more vulnerable in the next federal election as voters seek a counterbalance to more conservative provincial governments.

It's anybody's guess as to how Harper's strategy will work out, and of course the Bush example might suggest the upsides of a nationwide bloc outweigh the downsides. But at this point, Harper seems a lot more stubborn than savvy in his effort to select Canada's premiers...and it may not be long before a lot of parties regret the associations.

A dirty-air act

Since we clearly needed one more example of the insanity of the Cons' made-in-Canada inaction on climate change, the Globe and Mail reports that the Cons are pulling funding which was to have assisted in Ontario's effort to phase out coal-fired power plants:

The federal government has pulled the plug on hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding that was supposed to help Ontario phase out its high-polluting, coal-fired power plants while it concentrates on its "made-in-Canada" approach to fighting emissions that cause climate change.

Ontario officials say that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty wrote on Wednesday to Dwight Duncan, his provincial counterpart, informing him that at least $538-million the previous Liberal government pledged to help defray the costs of the province's actions to fight global warming were off the table...

Ontario officials say the action breaks a funding commitment for an important national environmental goal. The coal phase-out is the largest effort in Canada to reduce greenhouse gases, and when it is complete in 2009, would reduce emissions by up to 30 million tonnes, or the same amount as taking seven million cars off the road, according to Ontario estimates.

In addition to the "need to reevaluate" excuse, the article notes that the funding was to have been provided under the Libs' "partnership agreement" giveaway to Ontario, some parts of which were retracted by the Cons as being national issues rather than bilateral ones. But there's no apparent reason for the Cons to maintain funding under that agreement only for areas which are supposedly Ontario-specific, while undermining national (and global) policy goals by withdrawing funding. And the article points out that to the extent the issue is a national one, there may be a spillover effect in preventing Manitoba and Quebec from being able to plan on an Ontario market for hydroelectric power - which surely won't go over well in those provinces either.

As for the environment, it's once again clear that the Cons will gladly throw important policies out the window in order to avoid the risk that the Libs might look good in the long run. And to the extent that Ontario is delayed in (or prevented from) taking coal-fired plants offline, the damage may be felt by Ontario and the rest of the world for a long time to come.