On the importance of showing up

Greg at Sinister Thoughts points out this Politics Watch article, featuring the Libs' poor excuse for the party's chronic absenteeism from Parliament:

The NDP fought back on Wednesday when NDP MPs Nathan Cullen and Brian Masse held a press conference on Parliament Hill to unveil a report card on the performance of the Liberals in this Parliament.

The NDP's report card was highly critical of the absenteeism of the Liberals in the House of Commons on a number of votes, and blamed the Liberals for allowing the government motion to extend the mission in Afghanistan to pass by four votes in the House.

"In this session of Parliament, the Liberals have had the worst record of attendance of any caucus," said Masse, noting the Liberals have had an absentee rate of 18 per cent in the 24 votes held so far in this session, including 11 Liberals who were absent for the Afghanistan vote.

"You can't stand up to a full-time Conservative government, with a part-time Liberal Official Opposition . . . We are in a minority Parliament and every single vote counts in the House of Commons and affects people's lives on a daily basis."

Sounds about right. Though in fairness it should be noted that even when they show up, the Libs have been doing more to act like Cons themselves than to hold the Cons to account.

But just what is it that the Libs have apparently found to be more important than serving the interests of their constituents in Parliament?

The Liberals suggested it was unfair to target their party for absenteeism when eight caucus members are running leadership campaign and many other MPs are involved as campaign managers or organizers.

In other words, a good chunk of the Lib caucus is too busy dealing with internal party politics to bother playing a role in the overall governance of the country, and hasn't apparently made much of an effort to strike any balance between the two. And the Libs' response is to criticize the NDP for pointing that fact out, rather than to admit that MPs should spend enough time in Parliament to represent their constituents.

Not that it should be too much of a surprise to see party interests placed ahead of all else in the minds of the Libs. The question now is how long it'll take for people to stop expecting the Libs to present a meaningful opposition, and to recognize that the NDP is already doing so despite its smaller amount of resources.

Expanding markets

SGI has taken up Ralph Klein's invitation to see how it can compete in Alberta's insurance market. Which will mean one more choice for Alberta consumers (who may well be familiar with how much better SGI's rates are than those of Alberta's private sector), and one more way in which Saskatchewan's provincial investments abroad help to pay for the costs of keeping the province running.

So that's how it works

It's been well documented that the NDP's policy proposals themselves can't break through the media's usual coverage of spin and pablum. But apparently a proposal released on the same day the NDP calls for a minister's resignation is seen as worthy of a mention in passing.

Update: Based on the CP and CTV coverage, even the concurrent release doesn't seem to lead to any mention of the policy. It's worth noting (via the CTV article) that the Libs in opposition seem to have adopted the same kick-the-can-down-the-road approach that helped them to accomplish so little while in government:

Godfrey said he agrees with the NDP view that Ambrose is incompetent; but said more time is needed to allow the minister to fully demonstrate her incompetence.

Manufacturing a crisis

The Globe and Mail reports on Harper's plan to import another of Bush's pet policies, taking a first step toward undermining the Canada Pension Plan:

Sources have told The Globe and Mail that Mr. Harper's efforts to fix the fiscal imbalance will become clear over the autumn months and that the government is looking at ways to reduce CPP contributions from both workers and employers.

The government is contemplating pouring some of its federal surplus into the CPP to accomplish this...

The fourth (Con proposal) would be the plan to use money from the annual surplus to top up the CPP. Ottawa hopes that doing so will allow it to cut premiums.

Needless to say, it almost certainly wouldn't be long after a cut in premiums before the federal government would plead poverty and point out how much money from general revenue was being eaten up by the CPP. Which could in turn be easily followed by cuts in benefits and talk of privatization due to the manufactured lack of public resources to meet the needs of Canadian pensioners...accompanied by assurances that the same businesses who are thriving at the current rates couldn't possibly abide an increase to the same rates in the future.

Canadians should rightfully expect that their pension system is self-sustaining, and hopefully won't buy Harper's claim that a temporary bump in take-home pay (in an already-overheating economy) is worth giving up the assurance that they can be secure in planning to receive the CPP upon retirement. It'll fall to public pressure (and to the provinces, who do have some say in the CPP legislation) to force the Cons away from imposing such a damaging tradeoff on Canadians.

Update: See My Blahg and blevkog for more.

New update: The C.D. Howe Institute has come out against any politicization of the CPP.

On networking

A Senate report recommends that CBC-TV become commercial-free. Of course, the recommendation will almost certainly run into serious opposition from both advertisers who want to continue to make use of the network, and competitors who won't want the CBC to receive the guaranteed funding which would presumably replace the current ad revenue. But the cause is still one worth taking up on the off chance that we could enjoy a national network that doesn't have to cater to commercial concerns.

On choices

There's been lots of talk about today's poll on child-care. But much of the discussion has entirely ignored the fact that the Libs' plan alone wasn't the most popular option:

Support for a national child-care system was high across Canada, in urban and rural areas and among families with a stay-at-home parent, said Derek Leebosh, senior associate with Environics.

“It shows that Canadians put a very high value on child care. They think it's important that it be available and accessible.”

A solid majority of those polled questioned why there can't be a family allowance and an improved child-care network, he said.

“A lot of Canadians feel like maybe they're being forced to make a bit of false choice. Why can't we have both? There's huge surpluses. It's not like we're in a deficit.

“They don't want to see [the $1,200 cheques] come at the expense of funding of affordable child-care programs.”

In other words, respondents ultimately didn't buy the Libs' either-or claims any more than the Cons'. The preferred position was instead to recognize the need for increased resources flowing to parents as well as the need for government funding to generate child care spaces. Now if only more attention was paid to the fact that one party has been proposing just that all along...

Update: Based on the comments to blevkog's post, I'm not the only one to notice the omission.

Levelling the playing field

The Globe and Mail reports that several small Canadian political parties will be in court today arguing that the statutory minimum vote levels for federal campaign funding violate their Charter rights:

Since January, 2004, federal political parties have received $1.75 annually for every vote they received in the most recent election -- money that helps pay for campaign financing and other party expenses. That funding is restricted to parties that obtain at least 2 per cent of the national vote or 5 per cent of the vote in the ridings where they ran candidates...

But the small parties that exist today say denying them access to even a small portion of the federal funds given to larger parties is unfair and contravenes voting rights contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"The Supreme Court has ruled that small parties are equally deserving of respect as large parties and that voters have the right to participate in small parties," said Peter Rosenthal, the Toronto-based lawyer who represents the Marijuana Party of Canada, the Canadian Action Party, the Communist Party of Canada, the Christian Heritage Party of Canada and the Progressive Canadian Party, as well as the Green Party of Canada, which received money this year but was denied after the 2004 vote.

Even the Charter-based challenge may well have some real chance of success. But at the very least the small parties' effort, particularly in the cooperation among parties with such varied political philosophies, should highlight the need for a change in the current election law to encourage a more inclusive political system.

On the advance

The federal NDP continues to cast a wide net, taking on the Bloc for backing the Cons on the budget but not on accountability. It remains to be seen whether the Dippers can catch enough votes in Quebec to get into seat-winning range, but it's certainly a plus to see the party keeping up its efforts to do so...and pointing out how the Bloc has failed to represent progressives in La Belle Province.

Internal accountability

While Stephen Harper's decision to make sitting MPs subject to nomination challenges is certainly worthy of discussion, I have to disagree with Cowboys for Social Responsibility on both the merits and the likely outcomes.

It's a fair question to ask why Cons appear to have gone from being too busy to deal with potential nomination challenges while they were in opposition, to being able to do so once in government. But the problem isn't with the change, but rather with the previous policy which completed insulately MPs from the democratic will of their riding associations. The change may have taken longer than it should have, but that doesn't mean it's a bad one.

I note also that contrary to what's implied from CSR's post, the policy doesn't appear to be limited to backbenchers. As should be the case, each Con MP, whether or not appointed to a privileged position by Harper, looks to be accountable to his or her constituency. Granted, members of cabinet probably won't face particularly strong challenges...but it does appear that the process will apply to all MPs, and not only to the supposedly-expendable backbenchers.

So much for CSR's concern that this means that backbenchers in particular are disposable. But what about the practical effects within the Con party? In CSR's comments, Red Tory points out the possibility that social activists will use their ability to stack a nomination meeting to drive the Cons to the right:

(T)his opens up sitting MPs to pressure from social activists promoting a far right agenda who threaten to stack the nomination meetings with their supporters. The result is that the MP will either fold under this pressure and allow their views to be influenced (e.g., opposing SSM) or risk being defeated.

Of course, social activists aren't the only constituents who could see fit to shape the course of a nomination meeting. It could well be that the result would be instead for moderate challengers to mount successful runs against the Anders- or Vellacott-types who aren't likely to lose to another party anytime soon. And in those ridings where the social activists do outnumber all the groups with an incentive to keep the party moderate, that strikes me as more a necessary cost of an open policy than a large enough concern to justify a "get out of accountability free" card for sitting MPs.

Moreover, it seems likely that in any nomination race, the support of the party structure would tend toward more moderate nominees, providing a strong counterbalance to the possibility of far-right hijacking. Which means that while Red Tory's concern is a valid one, it's far from certain to reflect the end result.

I'll add that there is one more possible concern arising out of the policy. By opening up nominations, Harper may also be able to exercise more control over his sitting MPs by threatening to support an alternate nominee where an MP goes offside. It remains to be whether Harper would apply that type of threat. But any danger associated with increased top-down pressure on MPs would be more a symptom of Harper's own attitude toward his members than a problem with open nominations.

In sum, there are certainly ways in which an open nomination process could seem to go bad, both due to internal riding politics and central management. And those dangers certainly explain why the Cons and Libs apply such a process selectively rather than as a matter of course. But the rewards of a principled stance in favour of internal accountability ultimately outweigh the potential costs. And Harper deserves credit, not blame, for endorsing for once a policy which actually makes his party more accountable rather than less so.

(Edit: typo.)

Crazy 'bout that mercury

The Star reports on yet another negative consequence of Ontario's decision to keep its coal-fired plants open into the next decade, as the decision now appears set to torpedo a national effort to reduce mercury emissions:

Sources say the Liberal government's recent decision to break a 2003 cornerstone campaign promise and keep open the province's pollution-spewing coal-fired generating plants well past 2009 is behind the policy U-turn.

Canada's federal, provincial and territorial environment ministers were poised last Friday to announce a reduction in the highly toxic mercury emissions by 50 per cent from 2003-04 levels by 2010.

But in a letter to Saskatchewan Environment Minister John Nilson, president of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), Ontario Environment Minister Laurel Broten said the province is unable to keep the commitment.

While Broten claims Ontario is "the champion for mercury and air issues" among the environment ministers' collective, she offers no timetable for when Premier Dalton McGuinty's government could actually abide by standards approved by Ottawa and the other provinces and territories.

For now the end result is expected to be only a delay in the announcement, but Ontario's decision to back away from what was to have been a national commitment will do nothing but offer political cover for other governments who in turn repudiate either the mercury-emissions goal or other agreed environmental standards. And with the most powerful Lib government left in the country refusing to live up to even its existing environmental commitments, it'll be all the tougher for the federal party to plausibly claim interest in the environment as one of its core values, rather than a convenient campaign plank to be ignored after election time.

Make a note of the date...

...as Harper's honeymoon phase appears to be officially over. Or, to be more accurate, we now know that it ended some time ago:

Furious Canadians bombarded the prime minister with e-mail following controversial spring decisions not to lower Parliament Hill flags for soldiers killed in Afghanistan or allow the public to view their return to Canada, documents obtained by CanWest News Service show.

The letters, sent via Stephen Harper's Web site and obtained under the Access to Information Act, provide a glimpse into the public psyche during one of the first major missteps by the new Conservative government...

Of the thousands of e-mails that poured into Harper's office the day after he imposed a press ban on homecoming ceremonies in April, an overwhelming majority were highly critical.

For each positive endorsement of the policies, there were approximately 50 angry notes filled with words such as "disgraceful, shameful and cowardly."

While it shouldn't be surprising that the policies were unpopular, it is telling that the detractors outnumbered the supporters by such a wide margin - particularly over a policy which was supposedly implemented based on the interests of some of the same people who wrote in. And based on the reaction to this among other mistakes and broken promises, it's clear that much of the public long since concluded that Harper doesn't deserve a free pass.

On battle lines

The Globe and Mail suggests that Quebec's new carbon tax may ultimately win the approval of oil producers since it's relatively easily passed along to consumers. So far, the oil industry is still fighting tooth and nail against anything which could affect its profits rather than admitting to the preference. But if the debate shifts to one between measures which fall primarily on producers and ones that mostly hit consumers, it'll be interesting how the federal Cons choose between their financial base and their voting base.

More wasted space

pogge points out that the Con's announcement of security funding which has received mention in virtually every Canadian media outlet this weekend doesn't reflect a single new dollar. But by virtue of having come from the government, this too is apparently more worthy of widespread coverage than policy ideas which actually deal with widely-acknowledged problems.

On wasted space

The Star does its best to push toward an Ignatieff acclamation, shedding plenty of ink on the utterly unremarkable fact that Lib senator David Smith is supporting Ignatieff's leadership run.

It remains to be seen whether Smith's input in the leadership race will be as successful as it was in some of his prior efforts cited in the article, including his complete failure to bring the Chretien and Martin camps back together in 2004. But whatever Smith's impact on the race, surely some of the column space could have been better spent on a party which is actually introducing new ideas, rather than on the obvious back-room machinations driving the Lib leadership contest.

(Edit: corrected link.)

Forecasting a thaw

A U.S. think tank suggests that Harper's repeated attempts to ingratiate himself to Bushco are doomed, as it'll take a new U.S. president to improve relations between the two countries:

Christopher Sands told a security conference on Saturday that Canada has sent mixed signals to the U.S. on issues such as Iraq and missile defence. In both cases, Sands said Ottawa had considered joining U.S. efforts only to decide against doing so, which hurt relations...

U.S. President George W. Bush is constitutionally barred from running in the 2008 election, so a new president will take power the following year.

Canada would have a clean slate under a new president, Sands said.

It's hard to see why Bush would hold a grudge against Harper's government generally, but Sands' analysis appears right to a point. The two issues in question are obviously ones where the Cons can't afford to buck world opinion to side with the U.S. without paying a price at the polls...and they're plainly not ones where Bushco is about to change its position anytime soon.

All of which means that to the extent there is any need to repair the current relationship between the U.S. and Canada, the necessary precondition is a new U.S. administration which repudiates Bush's "with us or against us" stance. And no matter how much Harper pretends to have the ability to improve matters, nothing he does now can bring that about any faster.

Plausibility Freedom Day is here again

The Fraser Institute's tedious Tax Freedom Day concept is once again eating up far too many headlines (particularly compared to the potential alternatives which haven't been similarly publicized). But Bruce Johnstone points out one of the many reasons why even if one accepts the core assumption that taxes are somehow paid into a black hole with absolutely no redeeming return, the Fraser Institute's calculation does nothing but misrepresent the amount actually paid by Canadian (and particularly Saskatchewanian) citizens.

On branding

Greg rightly slams both the Libs and Cons for their transparent efforts to paper over weak spots by associating themselves with words which couldn't be a less accurate description of their underlying philosophies.

While the Cons and Libs go over the top with pretense, however, I wonder whether the NDP should be looking to expand on its brand from the past election as well - albeit with much more plausible language than Anne McLellan and Rona Ambrose are using for themselves. The "getting results" message from the 2006 has laid the groundwork for the NDP to be seen as far more than just a protest vote, but that leads naturally into the question of what kind of results the NDP will be looking for in the future.

So, up for discussion: what should be the NDP's next step in looking to expand the scope of its brand? A "responsible government" message, with frequent references to the fiscal success of NDP provincial governments? A "good for business" message focusing on how the NDP's policies can boost the economy? A "strong role in the world" message to counter the Harper/Ignatieff axis of machismo?

In any event, it seems clear that the NDP needs to go on the offensive to help shape its own reputation as well as keeping the Cons' and Libs' feet to the fire. And while it may take more work for the NDP to do that without the media attention that the Libs and Cons receive, it'll be worth the effort if it takes the NDP into the next election with a more positive public perception.

On poor recruitment tactics

A few choice quotes from Con MPs on one of the sitting Libs who was apparently on the receiving end of Harper's recent recruiting effort:

From David Tilson:

If I could have just one wish for Christmas, it would be a straight answer from the immigration minister.

The ever-diplomatic Rob Anders:

The minister is no longer just an international embarrassment, she is now a security threat...I would like to know what the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has planned for a New Year's resolution. Will she reduce the stress in her life and just resign?

Paul Forseth:

It seems the minister has compassion for cases that might help her politically, yet the minister or the system cannot help real refugees. The credibility of the minister is in shreds.

Peter MacKay:

The minister has abused her position, ducks accountability, refuses to answer questions, and now misleads the House. Having lost public confidence, will she now resign her post?

Jim Prentice:

The minister has been repeatedly misleading the House. This amounts to nothing less than contempt. When will this disgraceful minister resign?

Helena Guergis:

The immigration minister has shown time and again to both sides of the House and to Canadians across the country that she is completely incapable of running her own office, let alone a government department. When is she going to step down?

And a couple from Harper himself:

What is disgusting, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister will never answer a straight question until she is caught red-handed.

The immigration minister's indiscretions grow daily. Today we learn that she has been divulging confidential information on immigration files in order to save her career. In addition to information she has released in the House, she apparently has directed staff to discuss the stripper case with various members of this chamber.

This is completely improper. Will the minister do the honourable thing and resign?

Needless to say, it shouldn't be much surprise that Sgro apparently turned down the Cons' overtures. But it speaks volumes about the Cons' desperation to try to create a perception of positive momentum now that they'd have bothered sending out feelers to somebody who was on the receiving end of these types of Con attacks in the past.

A bit of relief

For all the disturbing similarities between the Bush and Harper administrations, we can take some solace in not being stuck with a John Bolton just yet.

Heh

Pope Awesome brings the snark over CBC's decision to pull Prairie Giant: The Tommy Douglas Story from all scheduled airings.

(Edit: typo.)