Still not showing up

Apparently the Libs' reaction to having their poor Parliamentary attendance record pointed out last week was to continue the weak record at a fairly conspicuous time:

A Richmond, B.C., man says he feels slighted that many Liberal MPs left the House of Commons last week before the prime minister formally apologized for the Chinese head tax.

Howe Chan, whose father paid $500 to come to Canada, says he had taken his seat in the visitors' gallery, looking forward to hearing Stephen Harper's historic speech.

But Chan told CBC News his "eyes filled with tears" when he saw the empty Liberal seats as Harper made his speech...

(Liberal whip Karen) Redman says many Liberal members were not on house duty that day, and were already back in their ridings...

Chan says the ceremony itself was meaningful, but he remains embarrased by the lack of Liberals, especially since he's a member of the party.

It would have been problematic in any event for a large number of Libs to skip town just in time for the apology. But it's all the worse for it to happen at a time when the Libs were obviously aware that their erratic presence in Parliament hadn't gone unnoticed. And the end result is that even Lib members are left embarrassed by the party's MPs' disinterest in showing up to their elected seats.

Internal pressure

It isn't only the opposition calling for the Cons to follow through on extending access to information to include government itself, as several Con caucus members have called on the Cons to keep their promise:

In a letter obtained by Sun Media, Burlington MP Mike Wallace wrote to Justice Minister Vic Toews late last week asking he draft an update to Canada’s Access to Information Act. The request came as the Conservative government’s centrepiece accountability legislation was passed on to the Senate for its scrutiny before it’s expected to become law this fall.

In his letter, Wallace said he consulted his fellow government members of the Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics Committee (including Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s parliamentary secretary Jason Kenney) and would like to see a new bill that could be sent to the House of Commons...

Toews left opposition members frustrated last week when he appeared before the committee with a discussion paper around access to information reform rather than a proposed bill. Among the important issues left out of the Federal Accountability Act is a provision requiring government officials keep a paper trail of decisions.

While Harper seems happy to ignore dissenting views most of the time, he'll now have to answer the question of whether he's prepared to argue against both his caucus and his campaign promises in order to preserve an accountability-free cabinet. And even if Harper won't play along, the opposition parties and the Con backbenchers between them will have more than enough numbers to push through a change if he and Toews continue to try to avoid the access-to-information issue.

Good advice that they just didn't take

In case anybody was under the delusion that the Cons' moves to scrap existing environmental programs were based on a sound review of the programs' effect, word comes out that they ignored the good advice of the Environment Department when they gutted the One Tonne Challenge and Energuide programs:

The briefing book for (Rona Ambrose), prepared by departmental officials and obtained by CanWest News Service, contains strong warnings against reversing a number of key decisions taken by the previous Liberal government. In many cases, Rona Ambrose ignored the advice and has faced criticism from environmental organizations and opposition politicians.

Those decisions include scrapping the high-profile One-Tonne Challenge and the federal government's EnerGuide program, both of which are aimed at getting individuals to cut their emissions output in the home...

Departmental officials advising Ambrose described the two high-profile programs as "the cornerstones for engaging consumers."

"The day-to-day decisions of Canadians affect 28 per cent of Canada's emissions," the briefing books says, adding that each Canadian generates more than five tonnes of GHG's each year.

"The engagement of Canadian citizens is as much a fundamental component of addressing climate change for the long-term as engagement of industry."

But faced with that advice among other departmental information that didn't fit with the Cons' plans, Harper appears to have drawn on an oft-repeated tactic from his ideological soulmate to the south:

On May 5, three months into the Conservative government's term, Harper officially relieved Samy Watson of his role as deputy environment minister, the top departmental bureaucrat.

While it may be helpful from Harper's standpoint to be culling departmental employees who won't buy into the Cons' misinformation, it's undoubtedly a problem for those of us who want to see policy aimed at addressing problems rather than sheer political calculation. And if the Cons won't accept dissenting (though correct) views from within the departments under their control, it'll fall to outside pressure to point out when the Cons are headed for future missteps.

Good to know

Thanks to an extra push offered by the Bush-appointed judges, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it official: in the States, "when in doubt, kill" is a legitimate policy choice.

Contrasting coverage

About the only even vaguely plausible justification for the near-total lack of media attention to the NDP's environmental plan was the argument that the coverage would likely come once the plan had come together, rather than during the release of each component. Sadly, the full NDP plan to meet Canada's Kyoto obligations on a cost-neutral basis came and went with little notice besides some blog attention.

But now that it's time for the Cons to hand out military pork (some of which was already in the works before Harper took power), suddenly both the overall scheme and each daily announcement are being treated as top-headline news.

Update: In the comments, Pete points out another blog post on the NDP's plan. While I certainly don't agree entirely with Andrew's analysis, full credit to him for evaluating the NDP's plan on his view of the merits. Meanwhile, full discredit to CBC and CTV for giving top billing to the Cons' second daily announcement. (Interestingly, neither the Globe and Mail, the National Post nor the Star has yet followed suit with a story on the truck announcement.)

(Edit: typo and wording.)

On poor representation

Remember back when Harper claimed that he had appointed David Emerson and Michael Fortier to cabinet in order to ensure that larger cities were represented within his inner circle? It turns out that "representation" apparently means nothing more than the opportunity to get in on the Cons' cabinet photo ops, as Harper still lacks any clue about the problems facing Canada's urban areas.

On shaping memories

The White House appears to be trying to make the lame Bush impersonation act into the better-remembered part of this year's White House Correspondents' Dinner. Enjoy a laugh again from Stephen Colbert, who oddly enough doesn't seem to have been invited to join Bush again.

On maintaining links

The CP reports that the Canadian government is determining whether or not to allow Canadian residents to run in foreign elections. As best I can tell, to the extent that another country allows its citizens living abroad to vote or run for office while living abroad, it would be a far greater interference in that country's politics for Canada to try to restrict participation than to stay out of the way...to say nothing of the impact on an individual whose candidacy might be affected by Canada's refusal to cooperate. But it remains to be seen whether those interests will win out over what appear to be suspicions about foreign political divides replicating themselves in Canada.

The dangers of lowered expectations

In the aftermath of the spring session of Parliament, much of the commentary has focused on the view that the Harper government has boosted its reputation by keeping promises and exceeding expectations. Now, I don't agree that the Harper government has managed to do either. But I can see why there's at least some plausibility to such opinions...and it'll take a reshaped opposition, either in the Libs' strategy or in the voting choices of Canadians, to avoid continuing such a low standard that the Cons can barely help but to exceed it.

The problem seems to lie largely in the "fear Harper" message which has dominated the last couple of Lib campaigns, and in turn plenty of media coverage in the meantime. With the previous government having done its best to paint the Cons as a horrifying dictatorship-in-waiting, it hasn't been hard at all for Harper to exceed the anticipated level of competence and honesty in government - even while the Cons have broken promises from day one, and gutted several programs which deserved at least some continued evaluation before hitting the chopping block. "Hidden agenda" talk is a great way to play to fears during a campaign, but it also means that once in power, any action by the party subject to that accusation which falls short of a voter's deepest fears becomes somewhat of a pleasant surprise. And that in turn helps that party to boost its support enough to make the public's worst fears come true.

Consider instead how the Cons' parliamentary session would have looked based the NDP's implied standard of "wrong on the issues but (relatively) honest". Once the expectation of some bare minimum of honesty is added to the mix, the Emerson, Fortier and Clement fiascoes become serious problems rather than a continuation of politics as usual. And given their all-out assault on child care and the environment, the Cons certainly can't be seen to have exceeded expectations on the "wrong on the issues" front. Meaning that if the NDP's campaign message about the Cons had been set as the public's expectation all along, Harper would be on the defensive, trying to cling to power as long as he could rather than in a position to make a run at a majority.

In sum, Harper's first session in power should have been seen as a negative one by any reasonable standard. If the Cons are being held to such a low standard that poor policy and dishonest government are seen as better than expected, Canadian voters should ask themselves both who's set such a low bar for those holding public office...and whether they're more likely to get rid of Harper in the long run by setting reasonable expectations that the Cons will probably fall short of, or by shrieking that the end is nigh in hopes that it'll come true.

(Edit: typos.)

Lacking the ring of truth

Dalton McGuinty is trying to soften opposition to his government's plan to invest massive amounts of money in new nuclear power facilities, claiming that while he himself isn't a fan of nuclear energy, he doesn't have any choice in the matter. Now where have we heard that kind of message before?

On welcoming policies

It seems highly unlikely that Maurizio Bevilacqua (or anybody else) will pay any attention to his suggested increases in immigration (including more family members of current immigrants) past his inevitable elimination from the leadership race. Which is a shame, since while the proposal would likely become a political liability in a general election, as a policy it could not only improve the lives of the immigrants already accepted, and to help strengthen Canada's global influence.

On political surveillance

The CP reports on some of the information-gathering currently undertaken by Canada's main political parties, leading naturally to questions about how political actors should be able to mine and apply data about voters:

(Conservative) Party sources say they are making personalized appeals to thousands of undecided voters in more than 40 ridings they hope to win. They're sending them letters, calling them, and setting up meetings with elected officials from nearby ridings.

It's all part of a data-gathering project that could be the most sophisticated of its kind in Canadian political history. The party has already compiled two million names in an electronic database that records the concerns and political opinions of voters...

Conservatives and opposition parties say they don't buy corporate information on individuals, which would be illegal under the federal Privacy Act. But they identify key neighbourhoods from public-opinion surveys and past election results from individual polling stations within a riding.

Then they can compile information for a single street by using publicly obtained and privately purchased information. Even people's Air Miles cards are used by ad companies and political parties to track their purchasing patterns and demographic data.

It's certainly not surprising that the parties are gathering as much information as possible in order to plot their strategies for upcoming campaigns. But it's worth wondering whether the political system is better or worse off for the strategy - and whether Canada's election rules should be changed to limit the ability of political parties to engage in the current degree of data collection.

Now, it's easy enough to argue that the data merely helps parties to create platforms which best reflect the desires of the targeted voters...making it little more than a more thorough form of canvassing voters for their views, which surely can't be considered a bad thing.

But then there's the problem that no matter how a platform or personalized message is phrased, it may bear little resemblance to the substance of how a party performs in government. And if intensive data mining enables a party to win votes by parroting narrowly-targeted issues and messages rather than by genuinely sharing and applying the same view of government held by constituents, it seems to be a potentially harmful influence on the electoral process.

For better or worse, there doesn't seem to be much prospect of changing the current law, since the current government seems to be ahead in data-mining strategies and since each party in Parliament is presumably leery of giving up information that it's been able to collect and use in the past. Which leads into the question of whether it'll be possible to move away from the demographic targeting model only by making laws to limit its application, or whether there's a real opening for a party to undermine the premise of the model by engaging in a less self-interested policy-making process.

Given what appears to be a great deal of (well-justified) public cynicism about the current system, one would think that the prospect of a party based more on substance than on gloss would hold a significant amount of appeal. But then there's no way to differentiate between the two types of policy based solely on the content of a platform...and any party which spends too much time boasting about its lack of message targeting might well come off as both implausible and naive.

For now, suffice it to say that while it's clear that some targeting is probably inevitable, it's hard to say whether the degree of targeting now taking place (along with any future expansion) is a positive either for the political system generally, or for the parties engaged in it. And since the parties are likely to hold the details and effects of their own strategies rather close to the vest, there doesn't seem to be much prospect of discovering the precise effects unless the targeted voters consider it worth their while to start analyzing political parties as closely as they're being analyzed personally.

Update: Note that the current talk about a voter ID plan could introduce another source of individual information into the mix.

An odd target

The Cons have done plenty that's worthy of criticism since taking power. But it's beyond me how Kevin Baker concludes that "encouraging constituents to stay healthy" ranks anywhere but the very bottom of the list.

Good times

The happiest day of the year offered plenty of good news for Saskatchewan. Not only is the economy projected to keep rolling for the foreseeable future, but the political scene is set to take a turn for the better.

Just wondering...

...but would Liberal leader Bill Graham bother responding seriously to the possibility of the NDP overtaking the Libs if there wasn't a real chance of it happening?

Pointless-3s

A couple of good articles on P3s in B.C. turned up today. First, from the CCPA:

Value for Money? Cautionary Lessons About P3s from British Columbia...examines how P3s have been used for public infrastructure projects such as roads, transit and hospitals in BC and internationally. It finds that:

- P3s are being aggressively pursued in BC in spite of a lack of evidence that they are a superior option.
- P3s are less cost-effective, timely and transparent than traditional government procurement.
- Partnerships BC, whose mandate is both to promote P3s and evaluate whether they are appropriate for use on specific projects, cannot adequately protect the public interest.
- Decision-making about infrastructure projects is being guided by “Value For Money” assessments produced by Partnerships BC that are so subjective, so complicated, and so consistently withheld from public scrutiny that they are not of legitimate use.

Stuart Murray, author of the study and the CCPA’s Public Interest Researcher, says “One rationale after another has been put forward by those who favour P3s, but the only rationale that stands up to scrutiny is that they generate profit for industry. That’s not a good enough reason to pay more for something than it’s worth.”

Meanwhile, the Tyee reports that at least one recent attempt by the Campbell government to strong-arm a municipality into a P3 has succumbed to local resistance:

The most recent round of the debate that's been running since 2001 happened on Monday night when Whistler council met to decide whether to take the proposed P3 to a referendum or cancel the project entirely...

On Monday night, Whistler Water Watch presented the ballots to council. The mayor, Ken Malamed, said was surprised at the (1800 signatures gathered in opposition to the P3 structure), and suggested council extend the vote by two weeks to give the P3 supporters more time to make their case. In the end, however, in a 4-3 decision, the council voted against the extension and also voted against continuing to a referendum. This effectively killed the P3 project.

So where does Campbell fit into the picture?

At the beginning of the debate about how to proceed, in 2001, Mayor Melamed and council rejected a P3 solution entirely. But on May 30, 2002, the B.C. Liberal government announced the creation of a new policy -- the Capital Asset Management Framework -- which requires that public sector agencies investigate alternatives for capital development, including the P3 option.

So after rejecting the P3 option, the province asked Whistler to revisit its decision. And on January 10, 2005, in a 5-2 decision, Whistler announced its support of the P3 option to "design, build and operate" the upgrade to the existing wastewater treatment plant. If the project were to go ahead, design, construction and daily operation would be handed over to a private company.

Fortunately, while Whistler's council was all too easily swayed during the interim, its citizens didn't stand to have a P3 imposed by the province...with the end result that the town should now be free to pursue another publicly-owned treatment plant which produces results as positive as the current one.

There's probably no changing the minds of Campbell and his ilk who insist on putting an end to public ownership of public works. But it's still a plus to know that the P3 movement is on the wrong side of both the weight of the evidence, and enough of the public's opinion to keep municipalities honest. And that should only encourage citizens to make sure that their interests, not those of potential P3 contractors, come first when governments decide how to provide needed services.

Impending delays

The Globe and Mail reports that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security will be forced to delay the first set of passport restrictions on Canadians due to take effect at the end of this year:

There are growing signs that the U.S. government will be forced to delay the Jan. 1, 2007, implementation of the passport requirement for air and sea passengers crossing back from Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean.

Officials of the Department of Homeland Security insist that their plans are still on track, but a senior Canadian official says federal bureaucrats have been told by their U.S. counterparts that there will be a delay.

The problem is that Homeland Security has still not published its detailed proposed rule, which must then be open for public comment and is subject to other legal delays before a final rule can be imposed by the end of the year.

Needless to say, the expected delays in this part of the U.S.' border scheme should only highlight the need for some more leeway in the current 2008 drop-dead date on land travel. Hopefully the Cons will for once be willing to push the need for a change in timing, rather than continuing to insist that Canada accept the current deadline when the U.S. department responsible is showing no signs of getting its act together in time.

Poker faces

When the Cons are obviously bluffing, the Libs fold. When the NDP raises the ante, the Cons get scared and leave the table. Now who do you want to bet will still be in at the end of the game?

A loaded invitation

Two Senators are daring Harper to open up the full constitutional can of worms by proposing a modest increase in Senate seats for the Western provinces:

Jack Austin and Lowell Murray served notice Thursday of their intention to introduce a resolution to amend the Constitution to significantly increase the number of western seats, particularly for British Columbia.

Under the proposal, B.C.'s Senate seats would double to 12, Alberta would get 10 and Manitoba and Saskatchewan would each get seven.

The proposal doesn't look like one which would leave anybody entirely happy: the West would still be somewhat underrepresented, the other provinces would lose some proportional influence in the Senate, and presumably the talk of opening up the Constitution under the seven-province amendment formula will lead to others presenting their constitutional wish lists.

But from a political standpoint, the proposal will put Harper's back to the wall. After all, he spent significant time during the election campaign musing about how he'd like to see the West better represented. The invitation to move in that direction is one that he can only ignore at his own peril - and it'll be interesting to see whether the Cons see more danger in turning their back on increased Western representation, or in facing the full gamut of constitutional demands.

Globe cool to logical thought, poll analysis suggests

The Globe and Mail seems eager to interpret a new Leger poll as reflecting Canadian disapproval with immigration generally. But the poll itself doesn't support that conclusion at all:

While those polled showed substantial support for Canadian security procedures and multicultural policies, they seemed to be cooling to the country's immigration policy.

While the margin is slight – 33 per cent saying they were dissatisfied with Canada's immigration policy compared with 29 per cent that were satisfied – what becomes more significant is the decrease in positive attitudes from previous research, said Jack Jedwab, executive director of the ACS.

“My findings in the past have been that attitudes toward immigration have been quite positive,” Mr. Jedwab said, citing a recent Gallop (sic) International poll taken before the arrests that found 58 per cent of Canadians were satisfied with the level of immigration in the country.

It shouldn't take much examination to see that the two polls cover entirely different issues. While the latter clearly reflects public support for the number of immigrants accepted by Canada, the former can reflect a number of immigration issues which have received public attention. The issue of recognizing foreign credentials was a frequent topic of discussion in the past election campaign; the need for workers in Alberta has led to public debate over the importation of temporary workers; and even Canada's restrictive refugee appeal process could easily cause a person to disapprove of "immigration policy" without wanting to see the level of immigration changed. Moreover, one could just as easily be dissatisified with the level of immigration as being too low rather than too high.

Instead of taking any of the above possibilities into account, the Globe's article (based on Leger's analysis) instead assumes that any lack of satisfaction with immigration has to do with a desire to lower immigration levels, then makes a simplistic comparison to another poll which asked an entirely different question to suggest there's been some sea change in Canadian public opinion.

Fortunately, one isn't limited to speculation to see just how wrong the Globe's conclusion is. There's also evidence within the Leger poll to suggest that any concerns related to immigration don't correlate to a lack of security arising out of immigration levels:

More than twice as many people polled said they were satisfied (43 per cent) with Canada's multicultural policy than were dissatisfied (18 per cent)...

Roughly the same level of satisfaction came with Canadians attitude toward security – 47 per cent saying they were satisfied with the level of security in the country, compared with 21 per cent who were not.

Now, surely anybody who suddenly considered Canada's level of immigration to be too high based on the Ontario arrests would also flag that as a security issue. Instead, based on the difference between the two poll numbers at least 18% of Canadians are satisfied with the security situation, but unhappy with our immigration system for other reasons.

Sadly, both Leger and the Globe write that distinction off rather than drawing the link. But there should be no doubt that the weight of the evidence still shows Canadians recognizing the importance of immigration, even if our current policies can stand to be improved.