The mask is slipping

For all their attempts to seem non-threatening, the federal Cons haven't been able to avoid revealing their true colours to at least some extent. And today provides a particularly important example, as Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice has not only declared that he doesn't think that residential school survivors deserve an apology, but also tried to justify the entire residential school system:

Speaking on behalf of survivors, native chiefs held a press conference yesterday in Moncton, demanding to know why Prime Minister Stephen Harper has apologized for the Chinese head tax and to Maher Arar, but not to residential school survivors.

But Mr. Prentice told reporters on Parliament Hill that the deal, which is nearly complete, will not include an apology...

Mr. Prentice played down the significance of a political accord signed nearly two years ago between the AFN and the then-Liberal government that was the precursor to a November, 2005, agreement in principle, and then an April, 2006, final agreement with the Conservatives worth at least $1.9-billion.

In that original letter, Anne McLellan, then deputy prime minister, wrote "there is a need for an apology that will provide a broader recognition of the Indian Residential Schools legacy and its effect upon First Nation communities" once a final settlement is reached.

Mr. Prentice insisted legal concerns are not behind his comments and said the issue is completely different from the cases of Mr. Arar or the Chinese head tax.

"I've said quite clearly that the residential school chapter of our history is one that was a difficult chapter. Many things happened that we need to close the door on as part of Canadian history, but fundamentally, the underlying objective had been to try and provide an education to aboriginal children and I think the circumstances are completely different from Maher Arar or also from the Chinese head tax."

Now, it would have been bad enough for Prentice to merely rely on any ambiguity in the agreement as reason not to apologize.

But rather than even stopping at that much damage, Prentice decided to take an extra step further to try to claim that the ends behind residential schools justified the means. And to top it all off, rather than recognizing that residential schools should be prominently remembered as a painfully stark example what happens when the state attempts to forcibly impose a majority culture on a minority group, Prentice figures that the settlement payment should "close the door" on any further discussion.

Needless to say, that type of attitude can't be seen as anything short of frightening - either for residential school survivors themselves, or for members of any other Canadian minority whose principles could come in conflict with the Cons' supposed good intentions. And now that the Cons have gone public in supporting the "underlying objectives" of the residential school system, it's hard to see how any apology from Harper or his party could be taken seriously.

Update: More from Kenn.

An end to bipolarism?

There was certainly some bad news associated with Quebec's election today: as noted by Erin, the choice of parties almost seemed designed to present the least appealing possible set of choices for a progressive federalist voter. But there may be more important good news if the break in Quebec's longstanding two-party system makes a similar change seem a more desirable possibility federally.

After all, leaving aside each party's position on the traditional political spectrum, the rise of the ADQ can only be seen as a rebuke to Quebec's default dichotomy between federalism and separatism. And while the ideological lines might seem more neatly drawn at the federal level, there's not much reason to think there's any lack of room to question the mutual attempts of the Cons and the Libs to run against each other rather than for anything in particular.

What's more, the rise of a third party didn't take place at the expense of smaller parties either. Both Quebec Solidaire and the Greens managed to boost their proportion of the popular vote, and Quebec Solidaire in particular was within striking distance of winning a couple of seats. Which suggests that the turn away from politics as usual and toward a search for better choices runs deeper than Mario Dumont's personal appeal alone.

Incidentally, in case anyone was wondering, the ADQ won 18% of the popular vote and just over 3% of the available seats in the previous Quebec election. Which should offer a strong hint that a federal party which won just a slightly lower percentage of the vote and a substantially higher percentage of seats than that in its most recent election can be well within striking distance of the supposed frontrunners...as long as voters nationally join their Quebec counterparts in recognizing the value of an alternative to the usual horse race.

Update: Saskboy has similar suspicions.

(Edit: fixed label.)

On needs for change

So far, the news that the Cons left a raft of sensitive information in the Leader of the Opposition's office has mostly (and understandably) been used to point out just how unfit the Cons are to run the country. And the partisan implications are certainly important.

But it's worth considering the possibility this might also lead to far better public knowledge of what appear to be major gaps in Canada's privacy laws. And if the end result is to bring about sorely-needed rules as to how Canada's political parties and institutions handle the personal information of both their employees and their constituents (in contrast to the previous disregard) by the Cons, Libs and Bloc), then any harm done to Harper may be the least of the long-term benefits from the newly-revealed documents.

Hurry up and wait

The CP reports that the Cons' wait-times plan is only getting more and more laughable as time goes on. This time, the comical element is Tony Clement's first announcement of a provincial agreement...which provides cash to Nova Scotia now in exchange for results no earlier than 2010.

Again, it's probably for the best that the Cons aren't getting further now given how damaging a wait-times guarantee may be in the wider scheme of things. But if anybody was still clinging to the illusion that the Cons' wait-times spending (or most other parts of their budget) bore any relation to benefits in the real world, the delay in any measured results only confirms beyond doubt that they're more interested in prominently announcing the funding than seeing whether it does any good.

Presenting the downside

Susan Riley has a solid overview of some of the seeming problems facing the Cons which haven't received their share of media attention amidst the refrain that a Harper majority is in the works:

All this draws attention from glaring confusion in Tory ranks on the environment. First, the prime minister and John Baird insist that Canada won't participate in an international carbon market -- an initiative they trivialize and misrepresent as "buying hot air from Russia." Then the environment minister attends a European summit, learns how the carbon market works, picks up enthusiasm among his foreign colleagues -- and, no doubt, hears from Canadian businesses eager to participate -- and hints that Canada may join after all. A short time later, that door is firmly shut again by the prime minister.

This is a hint of how ill-briefed the government is on a complicated file. But it is also a reminder that the environment minister in a Harper cabinet, be it Baird or Rona Ambrose, ranks one step above the baggage-handler.

There have been other significant Harper policy reversals, some noticed (income trusts), others not so much. The original Tory child care plan offered tax credits to companies prepared to build their own spaces. Experience in Ontario suggested the private sector wasn't likely to take up the offer, but that was ignored. Then, in the budget, a tacit admission of the weakness of an ideologically-blinkered approach to policy: the $125-million annual tax incentive was redirected to the provinces -- what the cancelled Liberal plan would have done, only more generously.

Instead of learning from this mistake, the Tories commit another in the new budget. It offers tax breaks of $1,000 or $2,000 on certain fuel-efficient cars, despite credible claims that this is money wasted -- that it only rewards people who were going to buy green anyway. Even on top of similar provincial incentives (which haven't changed buying behaviour), the federal bonus doesn't close the price gap between ordinary cars and more fuel-efficient hybrids.

Of course, it's far from news that Harper has received unreasonably positive media treatment which has helped him politically. And there are still plenty of columnists out there - both Con hacks and otherwise - still looking for far too many excuses to give Harper the benefit of the doubt at every turn.

But with Riley's column ranking as just one of many finding serious problems with the Cons' budget and general governing style, the tide may finally be turning. And if the media is willing to start portraying the Cons as they really are, then public opinion can't be far behind.

Lab reports

Thomas Walkom discusses the contrast between the past week's federal and Ontario budgets:

Two governments released two very different budgets this week, both aimed at essentially the same voters.

Stephen Harper's federal Conservatives are hoping to make a breakthrough in the suburban 905 region with tax cuts aimed squarely at middle-class families. The Ontario Liberals of Premier Dalton McGuinty are hoping to woo the same swath of middle-class voters with a budget that focuses on helping the poor.

In politics, this is about as close to a laboratory experiment as it gets. The McGuinty Liberals are heading into an Oct. 10 provincial election on their budget platform. The Harper Conservatives could face a federal election as early as this spring on theirs...

This week's duelling budgets say it all.

On Monday, Flaherty announced tax breaks for children that will help everyone but the poor.

On Thursday, Sorbara announced tax breaks for children that will help only the poor.

We shall see which version goes over better among the middle-class voters of Greater Toronto.

While the analysis in the middle part of the column is certainly food for thought, I'm not sure that I entirely share Walkom's view about the ultimate results - which seems to implicitly praise McGuinty's sudden rediscovery of progressive values as much as it criticizes and fears Harper for the Cons' longer-term intentions.

Of course, it's presumably true that the federal Cons are looking for opportunities to shape the Canadian political scene from top to bottom and see a current gloss of moderation as their way to get there. But that task is far bigger than can be accomplished solely through one budget...and even a couple of years in minority government don't figure to be anywhere near enough time to fundamentally rewrite the language and underlying principles of Canadian politics.

Until the Cons manage to accomplish that goal, their anti-effective-government bent - which is at best thinly disguised in this year's budget - figures to leave them on the wrong side of an awful lot of the voters they need to win over to have any chance of their desired transformation. And while it's certainly worth pointing out where the Cons are seemingly looking to shred Canada's social fabric, it's equally important to point out how that fabric can be strengthened as a long-term balance to the Cons' efforts to reshape political dialogue.

So much for the federal side. Let's turn now to the Ontario budget, which Walkom goes out of his way to paint as reflecting a benevolent impulse toward helping Ontario's poor. Sadly, though, even to the extent it's accurate to say that the Libs' budget is a shift leftward, it's not at all clear that the Sorbara's budget is any less aimed at influencing the future shape of his jurisdiction's political system than the federal Cons'.

The difference is that where the federal Cons are trying to rise to the top of a perceived one-governing-party system, the Ontario Libs seem less interested for now in the question of who's considered Ontario's default government than in trying to make sure that the NDP can't work its way into the picture. The apparent operating assumption appears to be that they can beat the Cons in a two-way race, or at least would rather take their chances in that type of battle than face the compromises that come with minority government. But the result seems equally to be based on a short-term leftward move in hopes of being able to win greater power for the governing party's right flank.

In sum, there's little reason to think that the Ontario Libs' long-overdue recognition of the needs of Ontario's poor is any more authentic than the federal Cons' pretense of generally favouring the middle class, rather than simply seeing middle-class votes as a means to the end of transferring more wealth upward. Which means that while the "experiment" comparing the two budgets certainly makes for interesting observation, no outcome involving either of the governments managing to improve its electoral standing appears likely to do much good in the long run.

One too many kinds of green

It didn't receive much attention when it was made public earlier this week. But it's worth pointing out Tim Naumetz' report on just how unprepared the federal Greens are to actually deal with an election:

The hill Elizabeth May is climbing in her challenge of Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay is so steep that her Green party does not even have an electoral district association registered with Elections Canada in his Nova Scotia riding.

In fact, Elections Canada records show, the Green party has only 153 riding associations registered across the country, despite its record gains in the 2006 federal election.

The party's fragile position is reflected further in the fact that 19 of its previously existing associations, required to provide financial and campaign support to candidates, have been de-registered for lack of activity.

It's of course possible that the party is managing to turn some of its recent polling numbers into added volunteers and party structure. But Naumetz' numbers already come after several months of record poll results - suggesting either that the party hasn't figured out how to convert momentary support into feet on the ground, or that it had so far to go that even after running a full slate of candidates twice, it's still working on putting any structure in place in half of Canada's ridings. And based on the number of riding associations de-registered, the Greens look to have work to do just to reassemble the machine which managed to win them nothing more than a few double-digit ridings in 2006.

As a result, there's little reason to think that the Greens have anything approaching the internal strength to turn their current poll numbers into real votes and seats - whether in Central Nova or in any other riding. Which means that any party willing to step aside and let the Greens serve as the only alternative to the Cons is likely doing nothing more than handing a freebie to Harper...while voters looking for a strong environmental alternative would be far better served taking their votes elsewhere.

But he's just the messenger

Shorter Jason Cherniak:

Politics is about compromise. Let's bring down the volume of the debate and discuss it rationally - by casting evidence-free aspersions against our political competitors.

Verifiably idiotic

Other have pointed out the Finance Department's ludicrous decision to include inefficient vehicles in the Cons' car tax credit for political purposes. But that change alone is the least of the problems with the Cons' car tax incentive plan, as the scheme looks to be a spectacular failure as an investment in emission reductions:

Dennis Desrosiers of Desrosiers Automotive Consultants says the Vehicle Efficiency Initiative announced this week in the federal budget may be the most expensive program yet in terms of dollar per tonne of reductions of greenhouse gases:...

At $5,600 per tonne this policy has the dubious distinction of being even more expensive per tonne of GHG reduction than the previous record holder - the Conservatives' transit pass tax credit ($2,000 per tonne, because about 97% of the subsidy recipients were already daily transit riders). (In fact it’s the) most expensive environment program anywhere in the world by a wide margin.

To see just how far off base the Cons' plan is, compare the cost of any reductions through the car price incentives to the $15 per tonne of reductions established the price under the previous Lib government - or the $25-35 per tonne suggested by the TD Bank as the appropriate level to influence industrial behaviour. Or, judging from the article, to absolutely any other emission-reduction plan put in place by any other government on the face of the planet.

But the Cons apparently aren't the least bit interested in reducing emissions efficiently, or even in allowing Canadian firms to engage in international carbon trading at anything resembling a reasonable price. Instead, they're merely using the environment as an excuse to throw money at target voters - highlighting once again their disregard both for environmental progress and effective government (measured in anything other than votes received).

At this rate, next year's budget figures to include an "environmental plan" consisting of dumping money on street corners on the theory that whoever finds it might use it to reduce emissions. And the scary part is that if half a percent of the money distributed that way were in fact put into efficient emission-reducing investments, that strategy would work better than what the Cons are doing now.

I'll stop now before I give Flaherty too many ideas. But it should be clear that Canada can't afford the Cons' affinity for wasteful spending much longer - either in terms of finances, or for the good of our environment.

Update: More from Robert:

No wonder conservatives believe that implementing a plan to combat climate change will destroy our economy. If PMS is left in charge of it, it will.

Grounds for investigation

There's been plenty of talk over the past week about a renewed investigation surrounding Stockwell Day's entry into the House of Commons. I tend to think the most interesting story here is actually the sheer disorganization of the Cons as they took power: how in the world could they have apparently paid no attention to 30 boxes of documents left behind in the Opposition leader's office? (And for that matter, why was anything still left from Stockwell Day's stay which they didn't think would be of some use in the future?)

But that aside, let's take a closer look at the Criminal Code sections which may apply to those involved in the Hart/Day deal.

The potentially applicable sections are section 124 and section 125 of the Criminal Code:

124. Every one who

(a) purports to sell or agrees to sell an appointment to or a resignation from an office, or a consent to any such appointment or resignation, or receives or agrees to receive a reward or profit from the purported sale thereof, or

(b) purports to purchase or gives a reward or profit for the purported purchase of any such appointment, resignation or consent, or agrees or promises to do so,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

125. Every one who:...

(b) solicits, recommends or negotiates in any manner with respect to an appointment to or resignation from an office, in expectation of a direct or indirect reward, advantage or benefit,...

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

The main difference between the two sections appears to be that section 125 doesn't require that any deal actually be reached: the mere act of "negotiat(ing) in any manner" is enough to result in an offence. Any doubt about the final terms offered to Hart would thus be irrelevant under that section to the extent that there was any discussion of a "resignation" from an "office".

But then, given that the potential punishment is the same for both, it appears clear that both are considered equally serious offences.

So what does an "office" mean? That term is defined in section 118:

“office” includes
(a) an office or appointment under the government,
(b) a civil or military commission, and
(c) a position or an employment in a public department;

Let's note here an important difference between the Day case and some other examples which might seem similar.

In the Ontario Libs' example which Peter Van Loan used to try to deflect any discussion in Question Period, the seat in question was held by an independent MP who wasn't running again. Likewise, in the Cons' Alan Riddell fiasco, the seat was (and remains) held by the Libs.

As a result, nothing more was up for grabs in either of these questions than a party's nomination. And that plainly doesn't result in either of the offences which might apply to the Day case, since no "office" was involved - however unseemly it may be for a nomination to be purchased or sold.

In contrast, Hart's seat in the House of Commons would much more likely fall into the definition of "office". There might be a technical argument available that since the term "resignation" is linked to the term "appointment" in both sections, the sections don't deal with elected positions. But there's case law (see paragraphs 13-14 of this case to the effect that the list in section 118 is not a closed one, and that the definition is intended to include "‘a position of duty, trust or authority, esp. in the public service or in some corporation, society or the like’". As a result, I don't think many people would want to take a chance on that particular argument to defend against a serious criminal charge.

And unless there's some reason to doubt the accuracy of the documents found by the Libs, it's hard to see what other element of the offence would be missing, as Hart's own letter would indicate that his resignation was directly tied to the negotiated benefits.

Of course, it remains to be seen what any investigation will turn up. But the incident at the very least highlights what seems to be a lack of concern for the law among the Cons and their predecessors. And if the Cons' best explanation is that they consider the matter done with, they may rightly be in for a surprise.

The reality gap: wait-times edition

The CP follows up on the question of how provinces will respond to the Cons' wait-times funding. And as I'd suspected, the uptake looks to be almost entirely focused on a single area per province rather than any commitment to meet all five of the Cons' targets:

Health Minister Tony Clement says he is close to announcing agreements with most provinces for medical wait-time guarantees...

But the agreements will cover only one area of treatment per province, far short of what was promised in the 2006 election platform...

The 2006 Tory election platform committed the government to “ensure that all Canadians receive essential medical treatment within clinically acceptable waiting times,” suggesting that all essential care would be covered.

The platform identified five priority areas as a starting point: “cancer, heart, diagnostic imaging, joint replacements and sight restoration.”

But Clement conceded that the agreements will be more limited in scope. The priority list is also now open to provincial discretion.

“What we’re asking, for the purposes of this agreement, is for a province or territory to choose one guarantee they would declare in place and operational within the next three years.”

If there's any consolation in this news, it's in the fact that the wait-times concept is itself a flawed one. So at the very least, the provinces' apparent rejection of the Cons' across-the-board standards should have little negative impact on the care received by Canadian patients - and may only ensure that provinces continue to deal with a more complete view of health-care priorities rather than focusing only on the Cons' target areas. (In other words, this is likely another promise better left broken.)

But at the same time, the Cons have been awfully eager to highlight a pool of money that they apparently don't expect provinces to touch. And that massive gap between funding announced and funding actually likely to be provided shows that it isn't just in the area of tax credits that the Cons are actively exaggerating their social investment by taking credit for the potential maximum, while counting on limited uptake to minimize the amount spent and accomplished.

Which makes for yet another area where the Cons' rhetoric bears a tenuous (and shrinking) relation to reality. And their continued eagerness to keep widening that gap in turn offers one more strong reason why they simply can't be trusted.

On again...for now

As Kenn points out, Nathan Cullen's latest blog post shows plenty of optimism that the committee working on Bill C-30 will be able to "get to the brass tacks" next week and work out an agreed bill to send back to the House of Commons.

Interestingly enough, Cullen refers only obliquely to the Libs' late raft of amendments - but he seems confident enough that one way or another those won't prove to be a problem. We'll have to see whether that's because the NDP and Bloc have managed to conclude that they're worth agreeing to over the course of a day, or because the amendments figure to be voted down...either of which would seem to leave either the Libs or Cons with an excuse to try to make sure next week is no more productive than the end of this one was.

Of course, I hope Cullen is right in being hopeful about the outcome. But given the Libs' and Cons' track record - both in general, and on this committee in particular - it's tough to share that positive outlook.

Not in command

CBC reports on yet another reason why Con Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor can't be trusted, as he apparently has neither any knowledge of nor any control over what's going on in his own department:

Defence Department lawyers are trying to block investigations into the way Canadian troops handle detainees in Afghanistan, even though the defence minister has promised they would go ahead.

Minister of Defence Gordon O'Connor told MPs earlier this week that an independent commission would review allegations that military police broke the law when they turned Afghan prisoners over to the Afghan government, knowing they might be tortured.

But lawyers working for O'Connor's own department are now at odds with him.

A spokesman for the Canadian Forces legal office said lawyers are reviewing whether an independent commission would be overstepping its bounds by reviewing how Afghan detainees are treated. The lawyers may pursue legal action to stop such an investigation.

To my recollection, the issue isn't a new one within the House of Commons. But even if there was any room for confusion or miscommunication before this week, surely a new set of assurances from O'Connor that his office is cooperating with the investigations should be taken as an important signal to his department.

Instead, the department is going ahead contrary to O'Connor's publicly-stated plans. That may by the result of their simply not seeing him as a leader worth listening to - or it may be that O'Connor is giving different instructions away from the cameras than in front of them. But either way, it only adds to O'Connor's complete lack of credibility...which leaves only the question of whether Harper really has so little left on the bench that nobody else within his caucus can do better.

Two steps back

Apparently the Libs couldn't deal with a stream of praise from the Blogging Dippers over their seeming cooperation on the committee reviewing the Clean Air Act - as instead of sticking with the amendments which all opposition parties effectively agreed on earlier this week, the Libs dumped into the mix a new raft of amendments which may prevent the committee from finalizing anything:

Members of a parliamentary committee studying the much maligned proposed clean air act are accusing the federal Liberals of trying to delay its work by introducing a series of last-minute amendments.

The Liberals introduced on Thursday dozens of amendments to Bill C-30, originally drafted to give the federal government power to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases.

The bill, which has passed first reading in the House of Commons, was sent last year to a special legislative committee to be rewritten.

The committee, however, has only until March 30 to report back to the Commons. One of the Liberal amendments introduced Thursday is said to be about 3,000 words long.

Committee members said after a meeting in Ottawa that the Liberals should have introduced the amendments earlier, and they fear the amendments will bog the committee down.

"I expected a delay today and I thought it would come from the government," NDP MP Nathan Cullen said. "Instead it came from the Liberal party. And why? I honestly don't know. It's truly disappointing for all of us."

Hopefully it won't be too late for the committee to deal with the Libs' new amendments. And even if it is, there's always the chance for some combination of the NDP, Bloc and Cons to simply vote down the late amendments and see if the Libs want to be seen taking a stand against the Kyoto amendments that the opposition can agree on.

But given that all parties were aware of a deadline a week earlier, the Libs were at best careless in leaving a new bunch of amendments this late, and at worst trying to prevent exactly the kind of collaboration that was earning so much praise. And if the result is to keep the committee from agreeing on a final bill to report back to Parliament, the Libs may have just taken on an added share of the blame for a continued lack of meaningful action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Even worse than expected

The corporate media has finally picked up on the Cons' laughable decision to put the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in charge of consultations on electoral reform. And the process has managed to go haywire even before the actual consultations have started:

The Canadian Press has learned that at least some of the recruitment of participants was compromised even before the Frontier Centre begins leading what the government calls "deliberative consultations."

Compas Public Opinion and Customer Research confirmed Thursday that an unauthorized sub-sub-contractor had been recruiting participants for forums this Friday and Saturday in Winnipeg and in Oakville, Ont.

Sources say Brooks and Done, a Calgary firm, was seeking up to 80 participants and accepting unsolicited applications after putting out a last-minute, word-of-mouth call this week.

Compas, which along with the Frontier Centre is jointly contracted to conduct the consultation, said Brooks and Done has been dropped and all applicants will be vetted by the polling firm. Compas president Conrad Winn said Thursday that only five per cent of the participants for the two forums were recruited by the firm.

If there's anything that could make the process even more brutally flawed than it already was, it's for the contractors involved to use "word of mouth" and a private application process to skew the sample of citizens involved in favour of another group of ideologically-friendly participants.

But then, it's clear that there's nothing the Cons would like less than for the process to produce any meaningful results. Which means that they're all too likely to overlook what appears to already be both a glaring violation of the original contract (if the subcontract was "unauthorized") and strong evidence of just how useless the process is, and claim that the foregone conclusion actually means something.

And that's undoubtedly a shamem as this among other Con abuses of power only highlights how much Canada stands to gain from an electoral process that wouldn't give Harper so much power with just over a third of Canada's popular vote.

Update: Peter Van Loan now says that the recruiting problems were "clearly unacceptable", but that we should now accept them and stop questioning the process.

The most sincere form of flattery

While Harper's Cons have proven themselves to be nothing but cynical manipulators with little regard for rules or principles, the Libs seem to be taking steps to match the Cons manipulation for manipulation - today by offering to throw both Parliamentary procedure and their own apparent policy positions out the window to avoid perceived political damage:

The Conservatives thwarted a move to fast-track four of their law-and-order bills, arguing Wednesday a Liberal motion to speed up their passage didn't jibe with parliamentary procedure.

A day earlier, a cabinet minister said Prime Minister Stephen Harper is prepared to go to an election if the opposition stalls his law-and-order agenda.

The Liberals – who have faced repeated accusations they're soft on crime – said the Tories have shown they are only interested in making political hay and not genuinely committed to their law-and-order plan.

The Liberals' motion was designed to inoculate themselves against further criticism they are stalling anti-crime bills, and take away a potential tool at the prime minister's disposal for triggering an election...

Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe...ridiculed the Liberals for trying to take the bills off the table. His party would like a full debate and committee hearings on the bills, including one that raises the age of sexual consent to 16 from 14.

“It's the first time I've seen an opposition party ask to fast-track and pass laws that they said they were against just a few weeks ago,” Mr. Duceppe said. “When (Liberal Leader Stephane) Dion says he doesn't want an election, he really doesn't want it.”

NDP House Leader Libby Davies said parties have a responsibility to give each bill due process.

“We're elected as parliamentarians to seriously consider and weigh and debate legislation, and some of this legislation is very far reaching,” Ms. Davies said.

On the one hand, the move should somewhat defuse the Cons' claims that the Libs in particular are looking to obstruct the bills in question. And that may somewhat reduce the Cons motivation to go to the polls over their lock-'em-up agenda.

But then, the motion also looks like sheer political cynicism at its most destructive from the Libs. After all, it can only reflect a willingness to completely abdicate their role as an opposition - in some cases on issues which they themselves have already claimed to oppose - if it'll slightly reduce the government's ability to criticize them. Which can only make the Libs look ineffective as a true opposition to Harper, rather than a party simply practicing its machinations in anticipation of a return to power.

And that's just the impression based on today's action...but the effects will last into the future. Now, any time the Libs don't go along with the Cons' wishes, today's example can be thrown back at them along with a "why won't you cooperate like that again?". Which, combined with what's bound to be some rightful frustration from those who genuinely oppose draconian criminal laws, should rightfully make the Libs look far worse than they would have if they'd simply continued their previous stance of being willing to deal with the Cons' bills within established procedures.

Still delaying

As noted elsewhere, the Libs unfortunately followed through with their plan to reject Bill C-257 (the anti-scab bill).

But what about their claim that they'd "come back with a better bill"? Not surprisingly, despite the fact that Bill C-257 and its amendments could have been put into a new bill without any difficulty, they haven't yet bothered.

Mind you, there's one anti-scab bill still in the pipeline if anybody wants to test whether the Libs have shifted positions again. And if the Libs don't get their act together, it shouldn't be the least bit surprising if another party beats them to the punch in bringing a new bill forward.

Update: Or maybe it's already happened.

Update II: Or maybe not, as Mario Silva did put forward a bill yesterday (while Duceppe oddly enough didn't). But will it manage to make any progress before the writ drops?

Unfit for office

Today was a particularly ugly day for Con personal attacks: in addition to Harper's much-discussed Bush impression, Maurice Vellacott reminded everybody why he's normally muzzled by launching a slander that Lorne Calvert was able to dismantle in a matter of seconds.

But as poorly as those incidents reflect on the Cons' fitness to hold office (or indeed productive employment), the even bigger problem remains that of policy. And one of the worst of the Cons' plans managed to go virtually unnoticed even as the Cons brought it up again to try to influence the results of Quebec's election:

The Conservative government is promising to take historic steps to limit federal spending power - but only if federalists win next week's Quebec election.

Lost in all the budget headlines this week was a little-noticed promise to negotiate with the provinces about how to formally prevent Ottawa from spending money in provincial jurisdictions. Prime Minister Stephen Harper repeated the promise in the House of Commons on Wednesday and said he wants to hold those discussions with a federalist government in Quebec.

Tory Quebec lieutenant Lawrence Cannon was asked whether that means the entire initiative hinges on the defeat of the separatist Parti Quebecois in Monday's election.

"That's what I understood," Cannon said of the prime minister's remarks.

"We'll see what happens on election night. But it takes federalists to reform federalism."

Now, I've blogged before about how damaging it would be if the Cons are successful in tying their own hands as well as those of the provinces. And that part isn't particularly new - although it too is one of the most under-reported stories of the Cons' stay in power so far. But it's a new development for the Cons to have explicitly tied their promise to the outcome of the Quebec election.

Mind you, given the rightful cynicism of Quebec voters when it came to the federal budget, it's entirely possible that the Cons will only manage to hurt the cause of Quebec's federalist parties by tying what's supposed to be a carrot to their willingness to vote in the right party. But whatever the effect, the fact that the Cons are both fixated on bad policy and attempting to use it to dictate election results in Canada's provinces should serve as a far more profound indictment of their competence than their taking a few steps further into the personal-destruction morass.

An idea worth saving

So far, exceedingly little has actually been accomplished on the ATM fee front, as the Cons have rejected the NDP's call for legislation, and the banks have predictably ignored Jim Flaherty's series of threats to continue talking. (And all this while the Cons' corporate tax cuts also figure to disproportionately benefit the banks over other businesses.)

But Duff Conacher has a suggestion which is both worthy of discussion in its own right, and likely to make action on ATM fees (whether legislated or not) seem like a compromise the banks will be glad to accept:

Duff Conacher, chairperson of the Canadian Community Reinvestment Coalition, thinks Ottawa should look at more than convenience fees.

"If the federal Conservatives are actually concerned about protecting bank customers from gouging, they must require banks to undergo an independent audit of all bank fee charges ... and require fees to be decreased wherever the audit finds excessive profit."

Of course, the terms of reference for an audit would have a huge role in influencing the outcome. But if properly designed, such an audit could both help to lower fees in the short term, and ensure that the banks couldn't simply shift fees elsewhere - particularly if such audits were designed to occur regularly in tandem with the government's reviews of the Bank Act.

And it's not as if the principle would be against the a drive for accountability in general. Instead, it would simply spread that accountability into private-sector entities whose privileged position is the result of government choices.

Of course, the Cons are even less likely to approve of Conacher's suggestion than of the NDP's plan to focus on ATM fees. But if Conacher continues to take up the call (and the NDP highlights the idea as one to consider), it may well be possible to push the banks into some real action to benefit Canadian customers.

On openings

One of the NDP's strongest pickup opportunities just got even juicier, as Stephane Dion has expelled Thunder Bay—Superior North MP Joe Comuzzi from the Libs' caucus for planning to support the Cons' budget:

Former cabinet minister Joe Comuzzi has been expelled from the federal Liberal caucus for pledging to support the Conservative government's budget.

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion says it's parliamentary tradition that MPs toe the party line on important confidence votes such as the budget. The Liberals plan to oppose the budget when it comes to a vote in the House of Commons soon.

Comuzzi, who represents Thunder Bay, Ont., will now sit as an Independent.

He is not planning to run in the next election.

With Comuzzi not planning to run again, the Libs won't face the danger of him taking another shot as an independent or jumping to the Cons. (And the latter course of action would seem to be the only way for the Cons to have much chance of winning a seat where they've never ranked higher than a distant third.)

But his expulsion is bound to divide Lib voters in the riding among those who have historically supported Comuzzi personally, and those whose primary allegiance is to the party. And that can only be good news for the NDP's chances of taking the seat.