On departures

I'll take a moment to chime in on Belinda Stronach's departure from politics by noting how the decision fits into her wider career path. Keep in mind that Stronach jumped right into the Con leadership race after working to pull the PCs and Alliance together, then similarly ascended immediately into Cabinet on crossing the floor. And even as she chose not to run for the Lib leadership, she kept nearly as a high a profile as those who were in the race with both the Spread the Net campaign and her public calls for internal party reform.

In sum, Stronach's political career to date was marked by a concerted attempt to acquire as much power as possible as soon as possible - and she was more successful than most in achieving that.

Based on this background, it seem entirely likely that her departure can only be explained by a conclusion that she'll effectively have more power at Magna than can be offered to her by the Libs - even after she didn't apparently have a problem spending some time on the Cons' opposition benches until she was offered the chance to cross the floor. And however fallible Stronach's political instincts may have been to date, the perception that the Libs aren't likely to win any power to offer Stronach can do nothing but hurt a party whose previous departures could all be explained based on either retirement-age MPs or personal loyalties rather than such strategic considerations.

Not encouraging

In case anybody was wondering whether Jim Flaherty had given up on his well-established pattern of speaking softly and carrying no stick in dealing with banks on ATM fees, have no fear, as he made another media appearance today to prove that he's being just as ineffective as ever:

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says he's “encouraged” after talking with the major banks about bank machine fees.

The finance minister says he expects more announcements concerning banks and the fees they charge for automatic bank machines will come within days.

Mr. Flaherty didn't elaborate about what those announcements might be at a speech in Mississauga, west of Toronto.

Needless to say, the smart money is on any upcoming announcements consisting of still more media appearances where Flaherty publicly blusters about how progress is just around the corner. Though if there's any good news, it's that Flaherty's proven ability to declare optimism in the face of planned failure makes him a natural favourite to be the U.S.' new war czar.

Room on the left

Stephane Dion presents an interesting twist in the battle for Quebec votes in the contrast he draws between the Libs and the Cons:

The Bloc Quebecois is losing its relevance as Quebecers grow increasingly tired of protest politics, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said Wednesday.

"Quebecers now have the taste for an action vote rather than a protest vote," Dion said after a meeting with local party organizers in Levis, Que., just south of Quebec City.

"In the next election, we'll ask who can form the better government," Dion said. "In this debate, between the right-wing politics of Mr. Harper and the centrist politics that we propose, the Bloc will no longer be relevant."

The corollary to Dion's attempt to claim a "centrist" mantle would seem to be that neither the Libs nor the Cons can plausibly speak for the left in Quebec. And while that may be entirely true, it's not an admission that I'd have expected to hear from the Libs anytime soon.

While Dion of course doesn't mention the main federalist option for Quebec's left, it's worth noting that based on the recent SES leaders poll, Bloc voters already favour Jack Layton as a possible Prime Minister by a three-to-one margin over Dion. Which means that while now is likely an entirely promising time for the three major federal parties to put the squeeze on the Bloc, it also appears possible that both the preferences of Bloc voters and the Libs' own strategy will ensure that the NDP gets a strong share of any votes freed up by a Bloc decline.

Unaccountable

As if we needed more evidence that Harper government sees "accountability" as an excuse to inflict punishment on its political enemies rather than a value that it's even remotely interested in promoting, take a look at today's examples of the Cons' determination to cut any non-partisan sources out of government decision-making:

- The Cons are once again making Canada's laws on the long-gun registry inapplicable by fiat;

- More information has come out about the completely opaque process being used to select a new RCMP commissioner;

- Word comes out that Environment Minister John Baird has entirely avoided meeting with the scientists who know the most about the most central environmental issue now facing Canada; and

- A Con MP has vividly demonstrated his party's values by noting that eating doughnuts is a higher priority than answering for election promises.

But just in case you were worried that nobody was being asked to answer for anything, anybody who was involved in federal government polling more than four years ago will be put under the microscope.

A voice for change

Andrew Coyne has already earned plenty of plaudits for his willingness to call out those who blindly support the Cons. But while that post's appeal may have itself rested largely on a partisan base, his column today on Ontario's Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform looks to have potential appeal across the political spectrum, as it offers a strong mainstream voice in favour of a move to PR:

This weekend, the assembly will decide whether to recommend sticking with the present system, known as "first past the post," or whether, as seems all but certain, to propose adopting a form of proportional representation, the system in use in most of the democratic world. The issue would then be put to the voters in a referendum, to coincide with this fall's provincial election. And if Ontario goes for it, you may be sure the idea will take on new life elsewhere.

By rights, the referendum ought to overshadow the election, a pallid affair between two cautious centrists that will change nothing. Change the electoral system, on the other hand, and you change everything, not least the predominance of cautious centrists: poll-driven, essentially interchangeable brokerage parties who wouldn't know an idea -- or a principle -- if it bit them in the leg. Electoral reform holds the potential, as nothing else does, to transform our politics, from the present squalid auction of state favours to a genuine contest of philosophies.

Which is why the two main parties, Liberals and Conservatives, are already lining up against it. (The NDP is in favour, though for scarcely less self-interested reasons.) Expect to see other interests, heavily invested in the status quo, campaign strenuously to defeat it. The Citizens Assembly? It has the support of a handful of geeks like me. But stay tuned...

Coyne notes some personal concerns with the exact model chosen by the Citizens Assembly, but ultimately concludes that the proposed system is still a significant improvement on the status quo. And if voices like Coyne's are leading the fight publicly, then the odds of Ontario blazing a new Canadian trial on needed electoral reform figure may become much less daunting than they may have seemed.

Update: Greg has more.

The real choice

As a follow-up to this post, let's note that Jake McEwan's TILMA cheerleading job does stand out in one respect. Unlike most arguments for the agreement, it doesn't try to pretend that the TILMA will do anything but obliterate the ability of provinces and municipalities to act for the public good, as McEwan instead tries to paint the effective elimination of provincial autonomy as a plus:

Canadians have been hampered by an inter-provincial distrust of the power of free markets to produce economic and social benefits.

As a result, federalism has evolved into an inefficient system of provincial and municipal enclaves of economic autonomy. Provincial economic independence has created an interprovincial trading system that hampers productivity through barriers that curb the flow of goods and services...

We can continue to have barriers that perpetuate regional divisions and fragment the nation into a series of city-states and regional solitudes, or we can integrate as a whole and create a more productive Canada with free movement of goods, capital and people.

I couldn't disagree much more strongly with McEwan's conclusion or with his false assumptions about the upside of the TILMA. But it's worth highlighting that the choice facing provinces is indeed largely as McEwan describes.

On the one hand, each province can choose to maintain its authority to operate independently, which can easily include efforts to harmonize those rules which can be agreed to without a TILMA-style straitjacket. On the other, each province can throw in its lot with the TILMA in hopes that enough economic benefits result for their citizens and municipalities to not mind the fact that the provincial government (including all municipalities) is effectively unable to respond to their needs.

Given how many provinces have rightly been concerned in the past about relatively minor intrusions on their freedom to act when those are created by the federal government, it's hard to see how many (aside from the rabidly right-wing regimes which have already signed on) would have reason to be happy with the latter option merely because it's a self-imposed restraint. And that's doubly so given the lack of anything approaching a reliable indication that the TILMA will actually bring about any substantial economic benefits.

While there's been loads of misinformation about what's actually included in the TILMA, the only honest case for the agreement as drafted is to claim - as McEwan implicitly does - that the very notion of democratic provincial government is quaint and outmoded. The problem for the TILMA's backers is that there's little reason to believe that the public at large shares that view - which will hopefully push the rest of Canada's provinces to avoid signing away their autonomy as Alberta and B.C. already have.

On religious fervour

Shorter Jake McEwan:
If we have the faith to sacrifice our provinces to the Market Gods, a bounteous harvest will be our reward. - Conference Board of Canada, 3:16.

Never mind then

And to think I once worried that personal information in the hands of political parties might not be entirely secure. I should have known that they'd ultimately place a high value on maintaining the public's trust.

End of conversation

As a followup to yesterday's post on the False Creek Medical Centre, the Vancouver Sun reports that not only is the B.C. Lib government not apparently looking to take any action to deal with the new private emergency room, but it's instead taking the clinic's side in arguing against any federal action under the Canada Health Act:

Health Minister George Abbott said he doubts a private urgent care centre which reopened in Vancouver Monday will invite fines to the province by the federal government because a similar facility in Quebec has not garnered any such negative notice.

Abbott said in an interview he will contact Health Canada today to alert officials to the reopening of the Urgent Care Centre at False Creek Surgical Centre.

However, he said he doubts the federal government will regard it as breaching Canada Health Act statutes because such private centres exist unfettered in Quebec. In that province, doctors who work in such facilities are not enrolled in the publicly funded Medical Services Plan because they have opted out...

In his own press conference outside the private centre, NDP health critic Adrian Dix said the Canada Health Act clearly prohibits paying privately for medically necessary care and even if the urgent care centre has found a loophole in provincial statutes, the federal government could still levy a fine against B.C.

"If they respect the law, they have to take steps here; it's not a choice, it's an obligation," Dix said, referring to federal authorities.

It's likely worth pointing out what may be a violation of the Canada Health Act, even if the current Con regime is one which has absolutely no interest in enforcing federal law.

But it's surprising that the debate has shifted there so quickly when just last fall, the Campbell government was supposedly willing to make sure that the same clinic couldn't undermine public health care by operating on a patient-pay basis. It's the Libs who are doing nothing to close an unnecessary loophole which is being used to allow for corporatized health care. And they'll bear the ultimate blame if their negligence (or outright hostility toward a single-payer system) makes the province's "conversation" on health care moot.

See more from Eugene.

On leaders

Another day, another poll, another reason to think the NDP can make inroads in Quebec. This time, it's Jack Layton's 13% "best prime minister" vote in the province. While the number itself isn't terribly impressive (indeed it's Layton's worst regional number), it offers yet another example of the NDP's Quebec numbers being not far off from the Libs', and in this case slightly higher.

Meanwhile, as noted by Jeff, Stephane Dion's numbers have to be a serious concern for the Libs. And it's worth highlighting the most striking one of all: Dion's anemic 10% Quebec showing comes in the province which knows Dion best, and which he was chosen in large part for his ability to win.

Instead, all indications are that Dion is fighting a losing battle with the NDP for third place, rather than pushing the Libs toward dominance in Quebec. And if Layton can continue that pattern in Quebec, it may not be long before the rest of the country follows in seeing the NDP as the strongest national opponent to the Cons.

Insider trading

David Olive discusses suspicious trading of stock in Canada and abroad, noting that while Canada stands out with "aberrant trading patterns" preceding nearly 2/3 of large mergers, a substantial number of major transactions in the U.S. and U.K. have similarly followed dubious increases in trading. And somewhere, a free marketeer claims there's no reason to think the market will operate anything but fairly on its own.

False promises

Last fall, it was reported that B.C. Health Minister George Abbott had reached a "compromise" under which the False Creek Surgical Centre would operate as a publicly-funded facility rather than opening the door to private emergency rooms. But today, word comes out that the clinic in fact never operated that way, and is brazenly implementing a fully patient-funded model now that the initial outcry has died down:

A private Vancouver emergency clinic is reopening for British Columbia residents after apparently finding a loophole in provincial public health care rules.

The Urgent Care Centre at the False Creek Surgical Centre charges fees for on-site access to emergency room physicians. The...facility has been treating out of province and foreign patients since it opened last December...

The clinic was initially open to anyone but after discussions with the government, it pulled the plug on B.C. residents.

Medical director Dr. Mark Godley says the clinic has now hired emergency care doctors who have never enrolled with the B.C. Medical Services Plan, allowing them to levy private fees.

Today's announcement makes it apparent that Abbott must have been either lying about the nature of the "compromise" to begin with, or utterly negligent in making sure the clinic lived up to its side of the bargain. After all, the False Creek clinic surely can't have been seen as "operating like any other walk-in clinic" if its policy has been to refuse to treat B.C. residents in order to make sure that all payments were received from patients rather than from the publicly-funded system.

Meanwhile, it's far from certain that the clinic is correct in asserting that it's legally in the clear. On a quick review of B.C.'s Medicare Protection Act, the clinic would be subject to prosecution at least if its fees exceed the payment guidelines set out under the public system. Moreover, the linked version may not reflect amendments to the Medicare Protection Act which were apparently passed last fall to enable the provincial government to take action against similar schemes.

At this point, though, there's less reason than ever to trust that the B.C. Libs will make use of any means to protect publicly-funded health care even if those mechanisms already exist. And it remains to be seen whether the False Creek clinic's delay tactics will succeed in preventing any amount of public attention from correcting matters now.

A need for privacy

It may be awhile before it's possible to determine all the areas where the TILMA would impede on current government policy, let alone areas in which governments might want to act in the future. But on some reflection, it's worth adding one more major area to the list where the TILMA could create a serious shift against the public interest.

To my knowledge, most (if not all) provinces have legislation governing what may be done with personal health information; in Saskatchewan's case, it's the Health Information Protection Act. In addition, many provinces also have legislation governing the use of other personal information by businesses; for example, see Alberta's Personal Information Protection Act.

Given that such laws are entirely common among Canadian provinces, one would think that the TILMA would at least have taken them into account. But instead, nothing under the agreement appears to speak directly to the protection of privacy: on a quick review I don't see the term used either in the exceptions section (Part V), or the list of legitimate objectives.

For an example of what this could mean, consider what could happen where a business is able to show that it could make money selling personal health information, such that privacy legislation impedes on its ability to make a profit.

Under the TILMA, it's not even clear that a province challenged over a health privacy law would have an argument available to defend the statute. At best, the province would have to argue that the protection of personal health information constitutes either consumer protection, or part of providing health care in the province. And even then, the province would have to prove that its manner of dealing with the information was precisely the least restrictive possible from a profit standpoint - which would seem very difficult to prove with respect to statutes whose entire raison d'etre is the protection of privacy.

On losing any challenge, a province would then be left with three choices: it could essentially pay a regular tithe to private operators for the privilege of refusing them permission to sell off sensitive information; it could try to rewrite its privacy laws every time they're challenged in hopes of winning in front of a tribunal; or it could give in and make personal health information available to be sold freely.

Needless to say, such an end result would be disastrous from the standpoint of any patient who doesn't want to see their health information available for purchase by anyone interested - particularly since the choice to open up personal health information for sale would seem to be the path of least resistance for the government involved. But the TILMA seems entirely likely to make that a reality before long in the provinces reckless enough to sign on.

When it comes to information other than health information, the picture seems rather murkier. Generally, businesses are bound by the federal PIPEDA if there's no provincial counterpart legislation. But it seems entirely possible that the TILMA could be used to argue that each province should have precisely the weakest legislation which can possibly be accepted as an alternative to PIPEDA, thereby watering down existing privacy protections as far as possible.

Again, I'm sure there are many other areas where the TILMA may have equally dangerous potential effects - and I'll keep an eye for any more that can be pointed out. But it's safe to say that with each example, it becomes more and more clear that the TILMA falls far short of taking into account the legitimate needs of the general public.

Update: In the comments, Declan rightly points out that Article 7.4 of the TILMA does appear to offer some substantial protection for privacy laws. I'm not sure that the provision is bulletproof, as it could plausibly be read to apply only to information in the immediate control or possession of a province rather than the general content of privacy laws; however, the section does indicate that privacy is somewhat better protected than most other areas of public interest.

On real costs

Erin's discussion about a federal conference on internal trade highlights the fact that while the TILMA's alleged benefits have been properly debunked in the minds of all but the most reality-averse corporate shills, its costs need to be far more strongly considered:

The academic and policy people all agreed that the material costs of alleged inter-provincial barriers are insignificantly small relative to the economy. Representatives of nursing and legal associations indicated that their members have no difficulty transferring between provinces and perceive no meaningful barriers to labour mobility...

Despite the near consensus that there is not much of a problem, there was some discussion of potential “solutions”: expanding TILMA, deepening the Agreement on Internal Trade, or applying the World Trade Organization’s rules to intra-national trade...

Many participants had not scrutinized TILMA and its likely negative consequences. Although John Helliwell and I tried to raise some of these potential pitfalls, I fear that many people have concluded that this agreement entails minor benefits but no costs...

The optimistic conclusion is that Marc, I, and others have been somewhat successful in dispelling the fantasy that TILMA will yield significant economic benefits. The pessimistic conclusion is that much more needs to be done to inform people of TILMA’s economic, social, and environmental costs.

As noted by Erin, much of the debate over the TILMA has centred on the wildly-inflated claims about the possible benefits. But that focus on debating the size (or existence) of any benefit may result in the anti-TILMA side paying short shrift to the even more important costs of any agreement which puts a straitjacket on government in the name of increased corporate profits.

Of course, it's virtually impossible to quantify what some of those costs could be - though it's not hard to extrapolate from the Sierra Club's legal analysis to see how the TILMA could constrain governments now in ways which result in far larger environmental costs in the future.

But even immediate dollar amounts aside, it's also worth noting the political cost when governments are preventing from governing. Any problem faced by governments under a TILMA-type regime will have a far more limited range of potential solutions, with a strong bias toward corporate-friendly ones even if these do less to resolve the core issue. And that real reduction in what government actually does is only likely to lead to further cynicism on the question of whether government can in fact do better.

Needless to say, that kind of shift from (relatively) people-centred decision-making to an enforced corporate-friendly focus is probably exactly what makes the TILMA so appealing to businesses. But it's also a serious danger which would itself make for reason to be highly skeptical of the TILMA even if the Conference Board's invented benefits were even close to realistic.

An unwanted suggestion

Shorter Gerry Nicholls:
If the Libs were smart, they'd set liberalism back 200 years.

(Edit: fixed label.)

Subtle movement

There's been no lack of talk about the latest SES poll in general and the Quebec results in particular. But one interesting part of those results seems to have escaped notice so far: the Libs' Quebec decline combined with a boost for the NDP has closed the gap between the parties to only 5 points (18% to 13%). And it's worth examining the implications if those numbers are an accurate reflection of Quebec public opinion - which seems fairly likely, particularly given that other polls have also shown the gap narrowing or even being eliminated entirely.

First, the NDP's gain makes it more likely that (as suggested by Nik Nanos) the Libs' drop was based on recent negative press based on the sponsorship scandal and the Cons' attack ads, rather than approval for the Cons based on the federal budget. After all, if the movement was based on the budget, one would expect the NDP to lose ground as well, while the Bloc would presumably stand to gain for its support of the budget. Instead, the movement seems to be toward "anyone but the Libs".

Which leads nicely into the second point worth noting, as the NDP's rise suggests that it's already seen by a significant number of voters as a realistic option for those who don't want to put their federalist votes behind Harper. Contrary to the claim that there's no other federalist alternative besides the Cons and the Libs, the NDP is already in a position to compete with the Libs. And any continued growth for the NDP, combined with the party's recent wave of star candidate possibilities, should put the NDP in a strong position to turn its support into Quebec seats.

Update: Jeff has more.

Correct perceptions

The CP reports that a plurality of Canadians believe industry to have a bigger say in environmental regulations than any other factor, including public opinion, science and environmental groups. And sadly, John Baird continues to go out of his way to prove them right.

On poor organization

An interesting tidbit from Susan Delacourt, as the much-ballyhooed Con election machine apparently isn't yet equipped to keep track of the Cons' own candidates:

(T)his week, Harper's Conservatives invited reporters out to an industrial park in Ottawa's east end to show off the party's readiness for the ground war. The Tories have leased 17,000 square feet of space and filled it with snazzy computers, specialized "desk" units and a fully equipped TV studio.

There's one thing, though – if you ask this highly sophisticated operation for the names of Conservative candidates on the ground, you're out of luck. "Sorry, can't help," the Star was told when it asked for the names of duly nominated Tory hopefuls in about a dozen or so interesting ridings across Canada.

The Liberals, on the other hand, who are supposed to be highly disorganized and unready for a campaign, were able to supply those Conservative candidates' names in under a half an hour. Go figure.

I suppose there's an argument to be made that since individual Con candidates aren't intended to do anything more than repeat talking points from on high in any event, it doesn't matter who the candidate is for a riding. But there's no apparent reason why the Cons would want to admit that publicly.

As a result, it seems far more likely that the Cons are so focused on attacking the Libs that they've forgotten that important first step of keeping track of who's on their side. Which in turn suggests both that it may not only be Con candidates for whom intelligence and strategy are optional - and that the Cons' big-money investments haven't paid off in the slightest.

On false moderation

Stephen Maher nicely pegs why Harper's attempts to appear relatively moderate haven't put a dent in the rightful suspicions of Canadians - and aren't likely to anytime soon:

Ted Byfield, a conservative Alberta commentator who has watched Mr. Harper for years, said in 2004 that any such moves would be merely strategic.

"I don’t think he knows how to compromise," he said. "It’s not in his genes. The issue now is: how do we fool the world into thinking we’re moving to the left when we’re not?"

Since then, on virtually every important national issue, Mr. Harper has shifted left toward the traditional Canadian consensus position. He has rarely, though, enunciated reasons for the shift, perhaps because that would mean admitting he was wrong earlier, or perhaps because he does not believe he was wrong, just that the earlier position was not acceptable politically...

Some policy flip-flops are a normal byproduct of going from opposition to government, but Mr. Harper has changed his whole platform, one item at a time, embracing everything from bilingualism, which he once called "the god that failed," to the Kyoto accord, which he called "a socialist scheme."

It looks like he would change a policy, judge whether it moved him close enough to the centre, then finding it had not, sigh and change the next policy...

These changes are different from the normal broken promises of politics — like Jean Chretien’s vow to scrap the GST or Mr. Harper’s promise on income trusts — and more like a complete transformation. And since they have not been accompanied by a public explanation, it is hard for anyone to know what Mr. Harper really thinks about things.

Average Canadians, who pay little attention to politics between elections, nonetheless seem to sense this ambiguity, perhaps in the guarded look that Mr. Harper has in his eyes from time to time.

If there's anything Maher misses, it's that there's another reason for concern beyond only Harper's lack of justification for his changes in position.

Instead, the Cons' stay in government has also been marked by a distinction between their spontaneous responses and their more calculated maneuvers. Harper's grudging moves toward the centre have, as noted by Maher, largely been based on an intention to do as little as possible as late as possible in order to appear centrist.

In contrast, his party's manner of dealing with new issues which demand an immediate response (particularly with respect to foreign policy) has generally involved taking as extreme a position as possible as quickly as possible, then refusing to retreat except to the extent absolutely necessary. And since all but the largest foreign policy issues tend to be relatively quickly forgotten, that's often resulted in little (if any) movement from the Cons' initial stances.

Based on that track record, it's easy to see that the instincts of Harper and the Cons still amount to nothing more than a cynical, centralized and corporatized version of the extreme positions which they now try to claim are in the past. And with the Cons' stay in power marked by a complete absence of principle other than a desire to reinforce that power with a majority government, Canadians have every reason to think that Harper's refusal to explain his party's change in position simply reflects the fact that he's looking to reverse course at the first politically-viable opportunity.

For those looking to act

While Olivia Chow's YouTube call for regulation of pet food has received plenty of attention, the media coverage hasn't gone so far as to mention what can be done to support Chow's drive. But for those interested, Chow has a petition available from her Take Action page, along with other suggested ways of passing along the message that Canada should join the U.S. and E.U. in making sure that pet food is kept safe.