I'll sound a slight note of caution on today's news that Julius Grey is considering a run for the federal NDP. While landing Grey as a candidate would be another massive coup after the recruitment and by-election success of Thomas Mulcair, the possibility of a Grey candidacy has already been discussed before without yet coming to fruition.
That said, it's significant that Grey himself is talking publicly about a potential run, and giving serious consideration to taking the plunge into politics after declining the same opportunity before. And whether or not Grey decides to follow through, it can only be a good sign for the NDP if he and other potential candidates are indeed giving substantially more thought to the possibility.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
On poor investments
CanWest reports on the Cons' planned announcements on infrastructure. And while Lawrence Cannon is typically distorting the nature of the Cons' plan to pretend that it represents a significant investment, it's glaringly clear that the main new effect of the Cons' plan is to funnel public goods into the private sector.
Let's look first at the outlines of the Cons' P3 plan - which now seems to be designed to force funding from other levels of government to fit within the Cons' desire for privatization:
But is the federal investment enough to make up for part of the damage caused by the P3 obsession? Not surprisingly, Cannon's high number for the plan is a poor attempt to conceal an embarrassingly low amount of new funding:
Moreover, the Cons' amount of funding - even spread out as far as it is - would put little dent in Canada's infrastructure deficit. The current need for investment may already be as high as $100 billion - which doesn't include the cost of continuing to maintain and upgrade infrastructure over the span of the Cons' plan. Which means that contrary to Cannon's attempt to pretend the plan would substantially resolve Canada's infrastructure problems, the Cons' scheme would address only a small fraction of the need for infrastructure investment.
In sum, the most substantial policy effect of Cannon's plan would be to invest a substantial amount of money now to make government spending on vital infrastructure less efficient in the future. And Canadians who don't want to see contractors' profits as the primary goal of federal infrastructure spending should be all the more motivated to make sure the Cons aren't in office long enough to put their plan into effect.
Let's look first at the outlines of the Cons' P3 plan - which now seems to be designed to force funding from other levels of government to fit within the Cons' desire for privatization:
Cannon added that the government will also proceed with plans to create a $1.25-billion public-private partnerships, or P3, fund. The fund, which would be managed by a new P3 agency, would count on contributions from cities and provinces.Of course, the same (or more) construction and work would be generated if the same funding was used for infrastructure projects in the public sector: the only newly-imagined part of the Cons' plan is the one which provides for an additional layer of private profit and ownership. And the Cons are so committed to including that inefficiency in any future investment that they're apparently unwilling to waste only federal funding on that needless expense, instead relying on municipal and provincial money being harnessed to the same end as well.
"With our partners' investments, we expect the new plan will generate another $50 billion in infrastructure funding," Cannon said. "Imagine the construction sites it will generate. Imagine the workers needed to complete this important work."
But is the federal investment enough to make up for part of the damage caused by the P3 obsession? Not surprisingly, Cannon's high number for the plan is a poor attempt to conceal an embarrassingly low amount of new funding:
The Harper government will unveil within weeks the details of its $33-billion plan to upgrade aging infrastructure, the federal minister responsible for transport, infrastructure and communities said yesterday...So half of the federal contribution is based on nothing more than extending a policy which already existed before the Cons took office, and which itself is significantly less of a contribution than municipalities have (rightly) been demanding. And in order to claim credit for an artifically high amount of money, the Cons' plan is based on spending over the next seven years at least - even though two federal elections would intervene before the end of that time frame.
Nearly half of the money would come from a $2-billion-a-year transfer of gas tax revenues, a measure introduced by the previous Liberal government and extended by the Conservatives until at least 2014.
Moreover, the Cons' amount of funding - even spread out as far as it is - would put little dent in Canada's infrastructure deficit. The current need for investment may already be as high as $100 billion - which doesn't include the cost of continuing to maintain and upgrade infrastructure over the span of the Cons' plan. Which means that contrary to Cannon's attempt to pretend the plan would substantially resolve Canada's infrastructure problems, the Cons' scheme would address only a small fraction of the need for infrastructure investment.
In sum, the most substantial policy effect of Cannon's plan would be to invest a substantial amount of money now to make government spending on vital infrastructure less efficient in the future. And Canadians who don't want to see contractors' profits as the primary goal of federal infrastructure spending should be all the more motivated to make sure the Cons aren't in office long enough to put their plan into effect.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Bloc voting
There's been plenty of talk today about the possibility that the Libs might end up holding back votes on the Cons' throne speech to avoid an election. There doesn't seem to be much doubt that such a move would be utterly disastrous for Stephane Dion - and even the fact that the issue is being publicly discussed can only reflect poorly on an already-embattled party.
However, I'm far from convinced that the Libs will ever be forced into the decision, as the Bloc has even less reason than the Libs to want to topple the Cons immediately.
After all, an election based on the Cons' throne speech would naturally focus strongly on the issues raised in that speech, resulting in a relatively policy-based discussion. And while the Bloc's best hope in that kind of race might be to try to paint itself as Quebec's progressive option, there's little reason to think they'd stand much chance of succeeding.
Remember the Bloc's results in 2000 - when the NDP took less than 2% of the vote in Quebec, and the Libs were playing a game of duelling tax cuts in response to the formation of the Canadian Alliance. With virtually no other progressive presence in Quebec and a relatively scandal- and protest-free election placing the focus on issues more than usual, the Bloc couldn't make any headway on progressive themes, dropping to its lowest-ever seat total at 38.
Now, the NDP is making a serious push into Quebec, while Dion is fighting desperately to try to win some progressive ground as well. And the Bloc surely can't expect to do any better trying to defend left-of-centre territory now that it's so strongly contested - particularly when its own budget votes have helped the Cons to put their most reactionary measures into effect.
In contrast, the Bloc's relatively successful elections have been ones where it has been able to tap into widespread public outrage at the federal government rather than having to fight a battle of ideas. And for all the Cons' missteps - both before and after their election - nothing they've done has yet managed to generate anything close to the anger which arose out of Mulroney's constitutional wranglings or the Libs' scandals.
Which isn't to say that there aren't some areas where the Cons could be vulnerable in the near future, as Conadscam in particular should offer the promise of juicy revelations about Con insiders once it's fully investigated. But the current level of knowledge about the scandal is still extremely low. And if the Cons fall on the throne speech, that would ensure that Parliamentary comittees won't get a chance to grill the Cons publicly about their scheme before a federal election.
As a result, the Bloc is left with the following choice: either toppling the Cons now and facing a campaign on its weakest ground, or backing off now in hopes of a significant Con misstep (whether Conadscam or another scandal) which could allow it to retake its usual posture of outrage. From my vantage point at least, the latter seems to offer the Bloc far more hope of maintaining something close to its current seat total.
But what about the political costs of propping up the Cons? Well, the Bloc alone among the opposition parties already has a lengthy track record of propping up the Cons' budgets - which will only make any attempt to paint itself as the primary Quebec opposition to Harper on policy issues seem less than credible. And one more example on the list of votes supporting the Cons wouldn't figure to do substantially more damage to the Bloc's public perception even if no suitable scandal materializes in the meantime.
As a result, I'd anticipate the Bloc grudgingly voting for a throne speech which meets its demand of promising to curtail federal spending, makes some reference to an Afghanistan extension vote in Parliament, and contains enough fuzzy language on the environment to provide a modicum of political cover. And if the Bloc's ideal conditions never do materialize before the next election cycle, it'll at least save as much of its current level of resources for as long as it can in the meantime.
However, I'm far from convinced that the Libs will ever be forced into the decision, as the Bloc has even less reason than the Libs to want to topple the Cons immediately.
After all, an election based on the Cons' throne speech would naturally focus strongly on the issues raised in that speech, resulting in a relatively policy-based discussion. And while the Bloc's best hope in that kind of race might be to try to paint itself as Quebec's progressive option, there's little reason to think they'd stand much chance of succeeding.
Remember the Bloc's results in 2000 - when the NDP took less than 2% of the vote in Quebec, and the Libs were playing a game of duelling tax cuts in response to the formation of the Canadian Alliance. With virtually no other progressive presence in Quebec and a relatively scandal- and protest-free election placing the focus on issues more than usual, the Bloc couldn't make any headway on progressive themes, dropping to its lowest-ever seat total at 38.
Now, the NDP is making a serious push into Quebec, while Dion is fighting desperately to try to win some progressive ground as well. And the Bloc surely can't expect to do any better trying to defend left-of-centre territory now that it's so strongly contested - particularly when its own budget votes have helped the Cons to put their most reactionary measures into effect.
In contrast, the Bloc's relatively successful elections have been ones where it has been able to tap into widespread public outrage at the federal government rather than having to fight a battle of ideas. And for all the Cons' missteps - both before and after their election - nothing they've done has yet managed to generate anything close to the anger which arose out of Mulroney's constitutional wranglings or the Libs' scandals.
Which isn't to say that there aren't some areas where the Cons could be vulnerable in the near future, as Conadscam in particular should offer the promise of juicy revelations about Con insiders once it's fully investigated. But the current level of knowledge about the scandal is still extremely low. And if the Cons fall on the throne speech, that would ensure that Parliamentary comittees won't get a chance to grill the Cons publicly about their scheme before a federal election.
As a result, the Bloc is left with the following choice: either toppling the Cons now and facing a campaign on its weakest ground, or backing off now in hopes of a significant Con misstep (whether Conadscam or another scandal) which could allow it to retake its usual posture of outrage. From my vantage point at least, the latter seems to offer the Bloc far more hope of maintaining something close to its current seat total.
But what about the political costs of propping up the Cons? Well, the Bloc alone among the opposition parties already has a lengthy track record of propping up the Cons' budgets - which will only make any attempt to paint itself as the primary Quebec opposition to Harper on policy issues seem less than credible. And one more example on the list of votes supporting the Cons wouldn't figure to do substantially more damage to the Bloc's public perception even if no suitable scandal materializes in the meantime.
As a result, I'd anticipate the Bloc grudgingly voting for a throne speech which meets its demand of promising to curtail federal spending, makes some reference to an Afghanistan extension vote in Parliament, and contains enough fuzzy language on the environment to provide a modicum of political cover. And if the Bloc's ideal conditions never do materialize before the next election cycle, it'll at least save as much of its current level of resources for as long as it can in the meantime.
On misreporting
The Ottawa Citizen reports on yet another example of the Cons' complete disinterest in following Canada's election laws, as the party was forced to amend its 2006 general election return after its initial books listed zero expenses in a major spending category:
In fairness, it may well be that the Cons indeed decided to slash three quarters of their spending on this type of advertising from 2004. But when the party has already been shown to have falsely reported its spending in the area to begin with, there's no reason to have any confidence in their reported numbers.
As a result, and particularly in light of the Cons' consistent pattern of false reporting and coverups when it comes to campaign expenses and other party financing issues, it's worth wondering whether the Cons may have instead moved most of their "other advertising expenses" off the federal party's books in the same manner as they did with broadcast advertising. If so, that would take the Cons even further past the election spending limits, and offer another strong indication of central plans to circumvent Canada's election laws.
We'll see whether anything surfaces as the matter is dealt with in detail. But there's every reason for the opposition parties to make sure the Cons' campaign spending goes under the microscope this fall - and the results may well help ensure that no amount of spending can save the Cons' chances in the next election.
The Conservative party had to amend its national campaign expense return for the 2006 election and re-classify nearly $400,000 in advertising expenditures after Elections Canada formally questioned the original return, Elections Canada records show.Unlike the Conadscam scheme, the omission on its face wouldn't affect the legality of any of the Cons' expenditures within the campaign. But it would, at best, reflect another example of the Cons' complete disregard for their legal obligations, as once again the party seems to have simply made up implausible "facts" and forced an outside agency to correct the falsehood. And it's worth asking whether there's another even more serious issue at play in light of the Cons' massive drop in reported "other advertising expenses" from 2004 to 2006 following the correction.
The change required the party's auditor, Deloitte & Touche LLP, to withdraw its original opinion of approval for the Conservative election books and submit a new opinion nearly 11 months after the election.
Following the initial Elections Canada review of the return -- which accounted for $18 million the party spent on the campaign over and above candidate expenses -- the Conservatives moved a sum of $388,284 from a column for radio and TV advertising to a separate column for other forms of advertising.
The initial Conservative return, filed with Elections Canada in May, had designated no spending for other forms of advertising, which includes media such as billboards, newspapers and pamphlets.
A Sept. 21, 2006, letter from Elections Canada to Irving Gerstein, chairman of the Conservative Fund Canada, noted that the party reported an expenditure of $1.4 million on non-broadcast advertising for the 2004 campaign and added "we request that you confirm, in writing, that the information reported for the 39th general election for this category of advertising is correct."
The Conservative party response to the Elections Canada letter was a new expense return filed on Dec. 9. The party did not respond directly to the letter from the electoral agency.
In fairness, it may well be that the Cons indeed decided to slash three quarters of their spending on this type of advertising from 2004. But when the party has already been shown to have falsely reported its spending in the area to begin with, there's no reason to have any confidence in their reported numbers.
As a result, and particularly in light of the Cons' consistent pattern of false reporting and coverups when it comes to campaign expenses and other party financing issues, it's worth wondering whether the Cons may have instead moved most of their "other advertising expenses" off the federal party's books in the same manner as they did with broadcast advertising. If so, that would take the Cons even further past the election spending limits, and offer another strong indication of central plans to circumvent Canada's election laws.
We'll see whether anything surfaces as the matter is dealt with in detail. But there's every reason for the opposition parties to make sure the Cons' campaign spending goes under the microscope this fall - and the results may well help ensure that no amount of spending can save the Cons' chances in the next election.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Kyoto by the numbers
Total federal surpluses announced over the last two days alone: $21.6 billion
Total cost of purchasing enough international greenhouse gas emission credits to meet Canada's Kyoto Protocol obligations in full at the Cons' assumed price of $25/tonne, assuming that emissions stay at their current level of 747 megatonnes per year until 2012 (compared to Canada's target level of 572 megatonnes per year): $21.875 billion
Number of corporate media pundits who figure to stop parroting the Cons' patently false spin that Canada can't afford to meet its Kyoto commitments: All too likely zero
Total cost of purchasing enough international greenhouse gas emission credits to meet Canada's Kyoto Protocol obligations in full at the Cons' assumed price of $25/tonne, assuming that emissions stay at their current level of 747 megatonnes per year until 2012 (compared to Canada's target level of 572 megatonnes per year): $21.875 billion
Number of corporate media pundits who figure to stop parroting the Cons' patently false spin that Canada can't afford to meet its Kyoto commitments: All too likely zero
On targets
In my absence, Uncorrected Proofs posted an interesting list of the NDP's likely target ridings in Quebec. While that post is worth a read, however, it's worth adding a few comments on the NDP's odds of success - as well as pointing out a few other types of ridings where the Dippers could mount a serious challenge.
While Uncorrected Proofs is pessimistic about the NDP's chances of pulling out another seat beyond Outremont, it's worth noting that two of the top targets in particular are looking more promising by the day.
As I've noted before, Hull-Aylmer is home to the Libs' Quebec lieutenant in Marcel Proulx. Not only will Proulx face a significant distraction from the Libs' other races within the province, but he also figures to be on the receiving end of some fallout from the Libs' internal turmoil. Which, combined with the NDP's already-solid results in the riding and the nomination of a high-profile candidate in Pierre Ducasse, makes this an extremely strong target.
Then there's Westmount-Ville-Marie - which just happens to be the site of one of the Libs' most significant internal fights as Marc Garneau seethes over Stephane Dion's refusal to name him as the party's candidate. It remains to be seen whether the Libs can attract anybody else with Garneau's profile (which was itself insufficient to win Garneau a seat when he ran in 2006), but if the NDP can put forward a high-profile candidate the riding should easily be up for grabs.
Those two are naturally the NDP's best targets based on the combination of a relatively high vote in the 2006 election and other favourable factors. But while Uncorrected Proofs seems to stick to ridings which were home to a fairly strong Dipper vote in 2006, those aren't the only ones which the NDP could realistically win. (Consider in comparison how far the Cons came to win ridings like Louis-Hebert or Jonquière—Alma in 2006.)
First, there's the possibility that Mulcair's history in Laval could help to bring the NDP into contention there. Mulcair consistently routed his opponents in Chomedey while running for provincial office, and indeed typically put up an extra 15-20 percentage points beyond his Lib predecessor and successor. And if Mulcair is able to persuade a substantial part of that base to put its effort behind the NDP, then it's entirely possible that the NDP could put together a winning effort in one or more Laval seats - particularly if the Libs and Bloc, who currently hold all the city's seats, continue their freefall.
Second, there are ridings which may be sufficiently disillusioned with Duceppe's support of the Cons to put their support behind the NDP as a better progressive alternative. In particular, I'd look for areas where the Cons weren't able to challenge the Bloc in 2006 (hinting at an aversion to Harper's brand of conservatism), including Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Trois-Rivières, Brossard—La Prairie, Chambly—Borduas, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, Saint-Lambert and Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou in addition to Laurier-Sainte-Marie, Manicouagan and the bulk of Montreal. Not all of these may fit the profile (i.e. the Bloc's total may be based on separatism rather than any progressive bent), but these should offer at least a few more possible targets - particularly if the Bloc does continue to crumble.
Finally, there's the possibility of recruiting additional star candidates who will bring their own electoral machinery to the table. While Mulcair was able to win in new territory, Political Bytes noted that the Cons' by-election success seems to have been based entirely on recruiting candidates with municipal electoral experience and an existing base of operations to match. And with a number of Libs having apparently turned their support toward the Cons in 2006, there's no apparent reason why a disgruntled riding association or two couldn't decide to put its strength behind the NDP instead.
With the NDP's star obviously on the rise in Quebec, there's a far better chance of attracting star candidates and/or former supporters of other parties. And there are awfully few seats where the NDP (or indeed any other one of the four main parties) couldn't at least mount a challenge with a strong existing machine behind it.
Of course, the NDP can't take anything for granted in Quebec or elsewhere. It may well need a couple of the above factors working in its favour to win any of the ridings where its 2006 support was relatively limited - and maybe none of the possibilities will pan out. But at this point, there are far more than just a couple of Quebec seats where the NDP could realistically come away victorious in the next election cycle or two. And hopefully Mulcair and the party's Quebec team are well on their way to making more than a few come to fruition.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
While Uncorrected Proofs is pessimistic about the NDP's chances of pulling out another seat beyond Outremont, it's worth noting that two of the top targets in particular are looking more promising by the day.
As I've noted before, Hull-Aylmer is home to the Libs' Quebec lieutenant in Marcel Proulx. Not only will Proulx face a significant distraction from the Libs' other races within the province, but he also figures to be on the receiving end of some fallout from the Libs' internal turmoil. Which, combined with the NDP's already-solid results in the riding and the nomination of a high-profile candidate in Pierre Ducasse, makes this an extremely strong target.
Then there's Westmount-Ville-Marie - which just happens to be the site of one of the Libs' most significant internal fights as Marc Garneau seethes over Stephane Dion's refusal to name him as the party's candidate. It remains to be seen whether the Libs can attract anybody else with Garneau's profile (which was itself insufficient to win Garneau a seat when he ran in 2006), but if the NDP can put forward a high-profile candidate the riding should easily be up for grabs.
Those two are naturally the NDP's best targets based on the combination of a relatively high vote in the 2006 election and other favourable factors. But while Uncorrected Proofs seems to stick to ridings which were home to a fairly strong Dipper vote in 2006, those aren't the only ones which the NDP could realistically win. (Consider in comparison how far the Cons came to win ridings like Louis-Hebert or Jonquière—Alma in 2006.)
First, there's the possibility that Mulcair's history in Laval could help to bring the NDP into contention there. Mulcair consistently routed his opponents in Chomedey while running for provincial office, and indeed typically put up an extra 15-20 percentage points beyond his Lib predecessor and successor. And if Mulcair is able to persuade a substantial part of that base to put its effort behind the NDP, then it's entirely possible that the NDP could put together a winning effort in one or more Laval seats - particularly if the Libs and Bloc, who currently hold all the city's seats, continue their freefall.
Second, there are ridings which may be sufficiently disillusioned with Duceppe's support of the Cons to put their support behind the NDP as a better progressive alternative. In particular, I'd look for areas where the Cons weren't able to challenge the Bloc in 2006 (hinting at an aversion to Harper's brand of conservatism), including Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Trois-Rivières, Brossard—La Prairie, Chambly—Borduas, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, Saint-Lambert and Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou in addition to Laurier-Sainte-Marie, Manicouagan and the bulk of Montreal. Not all of these may fit the profile (i.e. the Bloc's total may be based on separatism rather than any progressive bent), but these should offer at least a few more possible targets - particularly if the Bloc does continue to crumble.
Finally, there's the possibility of recruiting additional star candidates who will bring their own electoral machinery to the table. While Mulcair was able to win in new territory, Political Bytes noted that the Cons' by-election success seems to have been based entirely on recruiting candidates with municipal electoral experience and an existing base of operations to match. And with a number of Libs having apparently turned their support toward the Cons in 2006, there's no apparent reason why a disgruntled riding association or two couldn't decide to put its strength behind the NDP instead.
With the NDP's star obviously on the rise in Quebec, there's a far better chance of attracting star candidates and/or former supporters of other parties. And there are awfully few seats where the NDP (or indeed any other one of the four main parties) couldn't at least mount a challenge with a strong existing machine behind it.
Of course, the NDP can't take anything for granted in Quebec or elsewhere. It may well need a couple of the above factors working in its favour to win any of the ridings where its 2006 support was relatively limited - and maybe none of the possibilities will pan out. But at this point, there are far more than just a couple of Quebec seats where the NDP could realistically come away victorious in the next election cycle or two. And hopefully Mulcair and the party's Quebec team are well on their way to making more than a few come to fruition.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
Misplaced demands
In the past, I've been critical of both the Bloc and the Libs for their all-too-frequent strategy of leaving full responsibility for developing policy in the hands of the Con government, rather than seeking to improve legislation through cooperation and/or public demands. Unfortunately, it looks like both have utterly missed the point of trying to use Parliamentary levarage to improve policy, as both have inexplicably made an atypical move toward public demands when it comes to a throne speech which will have no substantive policy impact - in the process increasing the risk of an election which neither likely wants.
Let's start with the track record of the two parties. It didn't take long after the Cons took power for the Bloc to rubber-stamp the Cons' first budget on the assumption that Deceivin' Stephen somehow deserved the benefit of the doubt. And in the time since then, the Bloc has likewise fallen into line on softwood lumber and on the Cons' second budget - at times criticizing the resulting effects and cuts, but never making even the slightest effort to change the Cons' choices before casting votes in favour of the Cons' legislation.
The Libs' budget strategy has been similar. When the Cons' budget was set to come out this year, for example, the Libs did nothing but decline to comment until the budget was released rather than suggesting what elements could earn their support. Which meant that rather than influencing the slate of issues to be discussed around the budget - as the NDP properly did by setting out a clear set of demands - the Libs simply allowed the Cons a free pass.
And the same pattern has played out on other issues as well. For example, it took the NDP forcing a committee review of bill C-30 to push the Libs to demand anything on greenhouse gas emissions other than a Con plan for opposition review - while the Libs' preferred strategy (as exemplified in Bill C-288) has been to simply restate Canada's Kyoto obligations and demand that the Cons figure out how to meet them. And any effort by the NDP to actually suggest what could be done was routinely slammed as support for Harper rather than for positive action.
Of course, the Libs finally came around to the idea of cooperation on C-30. And hopefully it isn't too late for the opposition parties to team up and pass the plan which they all agreed on.
But that brings us to the Cons' upcoming throne speech - in advance of which the Libs and Bloc have both suddenly reached the conclusion that it's time to start making very specific demands.
So what's the problem with that strategy now? Unlike a bill before Parliament, the throne speech is non-binding, and has absolutely no chance of accomplishing anything if passed. Which means that after consistently refusing to try to influence the Cons' substantive decisions, the Libs and Bloc are now using whatever political capital they have left on a purely symbolic matter.
What's worse, on the two issues which seem most likely to provoke disagreement from the Cons, the Lib and Bloc demands only stand in the way of the opposition parties getting something done. On Afghanistan, if the government is toppled on the throne speech as a whole, then the House of Commons will never consider the issue of a mission extension on its own - when it's obvious that if it works in tandem on the appropriate wording, the opposition should be able to pass a motion to definitively reject an extension once Parliament is in session. And likewise, if the opposition puts its weight behind a private member's bill in substantially the same form as the amended C-30, then it can get some real emission-reduction measures in place even without the Cons seeing it as part of their own agenda.
Which isn't to say the opposition shouldn't be willing to vote non-confidence in the Cons in the meantime, or indeed on the throne speech itself. But if it's time to go to the polls, then the Lib/Bloc strategy makes even less sense: the Cons' mere willingness to mouth some desired throne speech wording without any concurrent action wouldn't offer any reason to keep them in power, particularly given the Cons' track record of mouthing support for child care, health care and the environment while implementing policies which directly undermine those programs.
We'll see how the current gamesmanship of the Libs and Bloc plays out. But their strategy shows all too clearly that the two largest opposition parties are no less prone to prioritizing facades over substance than the Harper government. And that should leave Canadian voters with yet another reason to want a more effective alternative to the Cons no matter when the next election takes place.
Let's start with the track record of the two parties. It didn't take long after the Cons took power for the Bloc to rubber-stamp the Cons' first budget on the assumption that Deceivin' Stephen somehow deserved the benefit of the doubt. And in the time since then, the Bloc has likewise fallen into line on softwood lumber and on the Cons' second budget - at times criticizing the resulting effects and cuts, but never making even the slightest effort to change the Cons' choices before casting votes in favour of the Cons' legislation.
The Libs' budget strategy has been similar. When the Cons' budget was set to come out this year, for example, the Libs did nothing but decline to comment until the budget was released rather than suggesting what elements could earn their support. Which meant that rather than influencing the slate of issues to be discussed around the budget - as the NDP properly did by setting out a clear set of demands - the Libs simply allowed the Cons a free pass.
And the same pattern has played out on other issues as well. For example, it took the NDP forcing a committee review of bill C-30 to push the Libs to demand anything on greenhouse gas emissions other than a Con plan for opposition review - while the Libs' preferred strategy (as exemplified in Bill C-288) has been to simply restate Canada's Kyoto obligations and demand that the Cons figure out how to meet them. And any effort by the NDP to actually suggest what could be done was routinely slammed as support for Harper rather than for positive action.
Of course, the Libs finally came around to the idea of cooperation on C-30. And hopefully it isn't too late for the opposition parties to team up and pass the plan which they all agreed on.
But that brings us to the Cons' upcoming throne speech - in advance of which the Libs and Bloc have both suddenly reached the conclusion that it's time to start making very specific demands.
So what's the problem with that strategy now? Unlike a bill before Parliament, the throne speech is non-binding, and has absolutely no chance of accomplishing anything if passed. Which means that after consistently refusing to try to influence the Cons' substantive decisions, the Libs and Bloc are now using whatever political capital they have left on a purely symbolic matter.
What's worse, on the two issues which seem most likely to provoke disagreement from the Cons, the Lib and Bloc demands only stand in the way of the opposition parties getting something done. On Afghanistan, if the government is toppled on the throne speech as a whole, then the House of Commons will never consider the issue of a mission extension on its own - when it's obvious that if it works in tandem on the appropriate wording, the opposition should be able to pass a motion to definitively reject an extension once Parliament is in session. And likewise, if the opposition puts its weight behind a private member's bill in substantially the same form as the amended C-30, then it can get some real emission-reduction measures in place even without the Cons seeing it as part of their own agenda.
Which isn't to say the opposition shouldn't be willing to vote non-confidence in the Cons in the meantime, or indeed on the throne speech itself. But if it's time to go to the polls, then the Lib/Bloc strategy makes even less sense: the Cons' mere willingness to mouth some desired throne speech wording without any concurrent action wouldn't offer any reason to keep them in power, particularly given the Cons' track record of mouthing support for child care, health care and the environment while implementing policies which directly undermine those programs.
We'll see how the current gamesmanship of the Libs and Bloc plays out. But their strategy shows all too clearly that the two largest opposition parties are no less prone to prioritizing facades over substance than the Harper government. And that should leave Canadian voters with yet another reason to want a more effective alternative to the Cons no matter when the next election takes place.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
By the byelections
I'll check in from my vacation for a couple of quick notes on the federal byelection results. (Though you'll also want to read IP's analysis if you haven't already.)
First, while the NDP's overwhelming byelection victory in Outremont is a huge story in its own right, the vote total involved signals that Mulcair may be able to hold the seat for a long time to come.
Remember that Jean Lapierre won the seat in 2006 with just over 14,000 votes, in a riding where over 40,000 voters went to the polls. Now, Mulcair holds the seat after winning over 11,000 votes with barely half the turnout. And with the NDP's standing obviously improving in Quebec and its voter list presumably far expanded from what it was a year ago, Mulcair should be a safe bet to be able to significantly exceed Lapierre's general election total - along with that of his competitors.
Second, as I'd speculated earlier, the results from the other two ridings may say even more about the Libs' lack of strength in Quebec (and the NDP's relative strength) than the Outremont vote total. While Outremont can be classified as being based on Thomas Mulcair's name rather than relative party strength, the NDP also showed enough party depth to beat out the Libs in Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot. And even in Roberval-Lac-Saint-Jean, the Libs' star candidate - apparently backed by a number of dissident former Cons - wasn't able to break into double figures.
Now, as IP notes, the story here is at least as much about the strength of the parties which broke through rather than the weakness of the parties in free-fall. And while that's unfortunate in the case of the Cons' rise in Bloc territory, the NDP's successful Outremont push - and ability to push past the Libs in another riding which was a Bloc/Lib battle as recently as 2004 - offers a strong signal that the NDP is on the rise as a long-term choice for progressive Quebec voters.
First, while the NDP's overwhelming byelection victory in Outremont is a huge story in its own right, the vote total involved signals that Mulcair may be able to hold the seat for a long time to come.
Remember that Jean Lapierre won the seat in 2006 with just over 14,000 votes, in a riding where over 40,000 voters went to the polls. Now, Mulcair holds the seat after winning over 11,000 votes with barely half the turnout. And with the NDP's standing obviously improving in Quebec and its voter list presumably far expanded from what it was a year ago, Mulcair should be a safe bet to be able to significantly exceed Lapierre's general election total - along with that of his competitors.
Second, as I'd speculated earlier, the results from the other two ridings may say even more about the Libs' lack of strength in Quebec (and the NDP's relative strength) than the Outremont vote total. While Outremont can be classified as being based on Thomas Mulcair's name rather than relative party strength, the NDP also showed enough party depth to beat out the Libs in Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot. And even in Roberval-Lac-Saint-Jean, the Libs' star candidate - apparently backed by a number of dissident former Cons - wasn't able to break into double figures.
Now, as IP notes, the story here is at least as much about the strength of the parties which broke through rather than the weakness of the parties in free-fall. And while that's unfortunate in the case of the Cons' rise in Bloc territory, the NDP's successful Outremont push - and ability to push past the Libs in another riding which was a Bloc/Lib battle as recently as 2004 - offers a strong signal that the NDP is on the rise as a long-term choice for progressive Quebec voters.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Hiatus
I'll be away from the blog for the next two and a half weeks - hopefully to return to at least one more NDP MP, and not too many more Con horror stories.
One quick note before I go: while the NDP's Dirty Dozen theme is certainly a worthwhile way to call attention to the Cons' betrayal of Saskatchewan, doesn't it also bear mention that two of the dozen have already willingly surrendered?
One quick note before I go: while the NDP's Dirty Dozen theme is certainly a worthwhile way to call attention to the Cons' betrayal of Saskatchewan, doesn't it also bear mention that two of the dozen have already willingly surrendered?
On co-conspirators
The Ottawa Citizen has the full list of Con MPs caught up in Conadscam.* And there look to be plenty more interesting stories worth considering:
First off, Day is obviously the biggest-name Con on the list. And it's particularly noteworthy that the minister responsible for the RCMP (among other law-and-order matters) seems to have had absolutely no regard for federal law when it came to his own campaign.
Second, Conadscam now offers yet another reason for Dick Harris' constituents to see him as thoroughly corrupted...and neither Conadscam nor the Pod People Plan figures to go away any time soon. All of which should at least put a serious dent in his margin of victory - if not sweep him out of his seat entirely.
Third, another of the Cons caught up in the scandal aside from the Quebec MPs figures to be a prime target in the next federal election. Patricia Davidson won Sarnia-Lambton by just over 4,000 votes in 2006, with the NDP also within striking distance in the riding. Which could make her particularly vulnerable to a a change in public opinion based on rightful distrust of the Cons - especially when she's caught up in the scheme personally.
This week's committee hearings figure to offer plenty more material about the scandal, particularly in assessing responsibility within the Cons' central command. But while there's more yet to be learned, it's already obvious that a number of the Cons' most prominent members were either unwilling or unable to recognize the problems with the scheme - raising all the more reason to doubt the Cons have anywhere near the judgment Canadians should expect from their federal government.
*While the "Con Air" name isn't a bad one by any means, I'll stick with Conadscam for two reasons: first, because that's the tag I've used for previous posts, and second, because the "scam" part seems to me an important part of the title.
Elections Canada has listed 17 sitting MPs among Conservative candidates who participated in a contentious scheme to channel $1.2 million through riding campaigns to pay for blanket regional television and radio advertising during the 2006 election, court documents show.I'd discussed earlier the implications for the Quebec cabinet ministers on the list. But in addition to Hill and his apparent conflict of interest discussed in the Citizen's article, a few more names on the list are worth a bit more discussion.
One of the Conservative MPs, cabinet minister and Government Whip Jay Hill, sits on a committee the opposition has forced to meet today to begin probing a series of "in and out" transactions the Liberals claim may have been used by the Conservative party to skirt campaign spending limits...
According to the court documents filed by Elections Canada, the list of other MPs who participated in what the party called a "regional media buy" include Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, Heritage Minister Josée Verner and Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon.
The other MPs are: Quebec MPs Sylvie Boucher, Daniel Petit, Steven Blaney, Jacques Gourde, Luc Harvey, and Christian Paradis; B.C. MPs Ron Cannan, Dick Harris, Jim Abbott and Colin Mayes; Ontario MP Patricia Davidson; and Saskatchewan MP David Anderson.
First off, Day is obviously the biggest-name Con on the list. And it's particularly noteworthy that the minister responsible for the RCMP (among other law-and-order matters) seems to have had absolutely no regard for federal law when it came to his own campaign.
Second, Conadscam now offers yet another reason for Dick Harris' constituents to see him as thoroughly corrupted...and neither Conadscam nor the Pod People Plan figures to go away any time soon. All of which should at least put a serious dent in his margin of victory - if not sweep him out of his seat entirely.
Third, another of the Cons caught up in the scandal aside from the Quebec MPs figures to be a prime target in the next federal election. Patricia Davidson won Sarnia-Lambton by just over 4,000 votes in 2006, with the NDP also within striking distance in the riding. Which could make her particularly vulnerable to a a change in public opinion based on rightful distrust of the Cons - especially when she's caught up in the scheme personally.
This week's committee hearings figure to offer plenty more material about the scandal, particularly in assessing responsibility within the Cons' central command. But while there's more yet to be learned, it's already obvious that a number of the Cons' most prominent members were either unwilling or unable to recognize the problems with the scheme - raising all the more reason to doubt the Cons have anywhere near the judgment Canadians should expect from their federal government.
*While the "Con Air" name isn't a bad one by any means, I'll stick with Conadscam for two reasons: first, because that's the tag I've used for previous posts, and second, because the "scam" part seems to me an important part of the title.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
On predetermination
It wasn't that long ago that Deceivin' Stephen was talking about needing a consensus to approve any extension of Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan. Now, the CP reports that Harper has predictably reversed course, suggesting not only that he's looking only for a bare majority vote, but also that he's completely unwilling to listen to what the House of Commons has to say unless he agrees with the outcome:
But it's all the more clear that left to their own devices, the Cons' sole interest is in forcing their preferred outcome rather than actually governing in a way that reflects the desires of Canadians and their elected representatives. And that fact should make opposition MPs - especially the Libs who put Harper's last extension over the top - ever more wary of allowing their votes to be used for the Cons' purposes.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he won't be holding a vote in Parliament on Canada's Afghanistan mission unless he can get some other party to support his desire for an extension beyond 2009.It remains to be seen how Harper will react if, as expected, the opposition parties aren't about to let the Cons dictate the timing of the next vote on Afghanistan.
Harper, speaking after a summit of pan-Pacific leaders in Sydney, Australia, said there's no rush to have a debate or a vote on mission...
The prime minister says there will be no vote until at least some of the opposition in the minority Commons will support the government...
But it's all the more clear that left to their own devices, the Cons' sole interest is in forcing their preferred outcome rather than actually governing in a way that reflects the desires of Canadians and their elected representatives. And that fact should make opposition MPs - especially the Libs who put Harper's last extension over the top - ever more wary of allowing their votes to be used for the Cons' purposes.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
A power play
As Buckdog has already noted, the Saskatchewan Party is already in serious trouble over its continued antipathy for Crown corporations. But I have to wonder if they've also provided another issue that will result in some serious mileage for the NDP down the road - even if it largely escaped notice at the time.
I alluded briefly in this post to a discussion about SaskPower's options for new generating capacity. The article focuses mostly on SaskPower's decision to pursue natural gas, wind generation, waste heat recovery and biomass rather than clean coal to meet the province's capacity needs over the next five years. But here's what Dan D'Autremont - Sask Party's chosen spokesman on the subject, and not coincidentally the same MLA who let the party's mask slip when it came to the Crowns - had to say:
What's particularly striking is that while D'Autremont attempts to paint the NDP as refusing to consider "all of the technologies", he doesn't seem able to name a single source other than nuclear that the Sask Party would see as a viable option. Which provides a strong hint that given the chance, the Sask Party would be looking for excuses to bring nuclear power into the picture regardless of the ready availability of a myriad of other sources.
Needless to say, that figures to be a political loser for Brad Wall and his troops if it becomes an issue. There's obviously little (if any) natural constituency which would be attracted to the Sask Party based on a desire to see nuclear power plants in Saskatchewan, particularly with the province's utility rates already the lowest in the country.
Meanwhile the NDP, which has already been working to burnish its environmental credentials (particularly over the last year), would surely welcome the chance to argue against the risks of both nuclear power generation and the resulting waste. And an imminent danger of nuclear power could make any frustration with the NDP's willingness to develop the uranium mining industry seem relatively inconsequential in comparison.
We'll see whether D'Autremont's comment will simply be ignored in the longer term, or whether a debate on the subject will actually materialize. But if the Sask Party continues to want to see nuclear energy put at the top of the list of options, then there's every reason to think that in addition to harboring a desire to attack the province's existing Crowns, Wall and company are also severely wanting in judgment as to what the province should look to build for itself in the future. And that can only help the NDP's effort to point out the similarities between Wall and the PC government he once assisted.
I alluded briefly in this post to a discussion about SaskPower's options for new generating capacity. The article focuses mostly on SaskPower's decision to pursue natural gas, wind generation, waste heat recovery and biomass rather than clean coal to meet the province's capacity needs over the next five years. But here's what Dan D'Autremont - Sask Party's chosen spokesman on the subject, and not coincidentally the same MLA who let the party's mask slip when it came to the Crowns - had to say:
(D'Autremont) added the Calvert government has its "blinders on" when it comes to nuclear power and other options that could provide safe and secure energy for the future "We need to be looking at all of the technologies, including nuclear, to see what's economically viable."Let's mostly leave aside the questions of whether nuclear power is either economically viable in the first place, or realistically capable of being constructed quickly enough to meet the demand discussed in the article. (Though in brief, the answer is "no" on both counts - even if there always seems to be some nuclear apologist willing to massage cost projections enough to try to pretend otherwise when it comes to the cost factor.)
What's particularly striking is that while D'Autremont attempts to paint the NDP as refusing to consider "all of the technologies", he doesn't seem able to name a single source other than nuclear that the Sask Party would see as a viable option. Which provides a strong hint that given the chance, the Sask Party would be looking for excuses to bring nuclear power into the picture regardless of the ready availability of a myriad of other sources.
Needless to say, that figures to be a political loser for Brad Wall and his troops if it becomes an issue. There's obviously little (if any) natural constituency which would be attracted to the Sask Party based on a desire to see nuclear power plants in Saskatchewan, particularly with the province's utility rates already the lowest in the country.
Meanwhile the NDP, which has already been working to burnish its environmental credentials (particularly over the last year), would surely welcome the chance to argue against the risks of both nuclear power generation and the resulting waste. And an imminent danger of nuclear power could make any frustration with the NDP's willingness to develop the uranium mining industry seem relatively inconsequential in comparison.
We'll see whether D'Autremont's comment will simply be ignored in the longer term, or whether a debate on the subject will actually materialize. But if the Sask Party continues to want to see nuclear energy put at the top of the list of options, then there's every reason to think that in addition to harboring a desire to attack the province's existing Crowns, Wall and company are also severely wanting in judgment as to what the province should look to build for itself in the future. And that can only help the NDP's effort to point out the similarities between Wall and the PC government he once assisted.
On declarations
Shorter Joseph Quesnel, trying to justify the Cons' aversion to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:
Indigenous peoples are just plain wrong in claiming to know better than I do what rights they actually want.
Indigenous peoples are just plain wrong in claiming to know better than I do what rights they actually want.
More listings
The Halifax Daily News adds to the list of Con candidates implicated in Conadscam. And even one of the Con reps interviewed for the article (who still seems to support both the party and the scheme) seems to be admitting facts which confirm the scandal:
We'll see how many more stories come out in the next little while highlighting the local candidates caught up in the Cons' national scandal. But there's no reason to think the list will be exhausted anytime soon...and the Cons may soon find that the rightful negative publicity from their attempt to circumvent election spending limits will far outweigh the effect of the ads themselves.
The Liberals are accusing the federal Conservatives of laundering more than $20,000 through three metro Halifax ridings during last year's election. It's part of a tactic involving 68 constituencies that's under investigation by Canada's elections commissioner...To my recollection, Morgan is the first riding official to state flat-out that the sole purpose of the transactions from a riding perspective was to boost spending in order to be able to claim a greater reimbursement. And that admission looks to be a huge one, as the lack of any candidate-level interest in the ads themselves says plenty about who was intended to benefit from the actual advertising (not to mention who was "controlling" the scheme).
The campaign manager for Halifax Conservative candidate Andrew House said the federal party suggested the deal to that riding association.
"What the federal party did was it said, 'Look, it will benefit them through controlling the advertising, but it will also benefit the local association because you can maximize the spending,'" Jordi Morgan said yesterday.
"From our understanding of the legislation, it was totally straight up and there was nothing that was seen as underhanded or any of that."
The House campaign got a cheque for $4,733.48 from the Conservative Fund of Canada on Jan. 12, 2006. It transferred $4,736.48 back to the party's national fundraiser Jan. 23.
Rakesh Khosla's campaign in Halifax West shuffled $11,841.20 with the national party.
Official agent Jim Melvin could not be reached yesterday.
Robert Campbell's Dartmouth-Cole Harbour riding association exchanged $3,947.07.
We'll see how many more stories come out in the next little while highlighting the local candidates caught up in the Cons' national scandal. But there's no reason to think the list will be exhausted anytime soon...and the Cons may soon find that the rightful negative publicity from their attempt to circumvent election spending limits will far outweigh the effect of the ads themselves.
Friday, September 07, 2007
A growing list
The Citizen's story on Conadscam from earlier today adds ones more set of candidates whose 2006 results are apparently tainted by illegal advertising - including another of the Cons' most prominent cabinet ministers:
A further Citizen review of TV ads broadcast in the Toronto area has revealed the ads may also have allowed candidates with little support and few donations in ridings dominated by the Liberals and NDP to bankroll costly television advertising that likely benefited star Conservative candidates...Fortunately, the Cons apparently only managed to win one of the seats in question despite the ads - making for significantly less impact on the overall election outcome than their similar scheme in Quebec. But with more and more of the Cons' ridings and cabinet members now caught up in the scandal, it's worth wondering just how much strength the Cons would actually have in a legal campaign - and how far the Cons have to fall if they have to answer for their abuses next time Canada goes to the polls.
Seven candidates with no chance or little chance of winning, including those in ridings such as Trinity-Spadina, Toronto-Danforth and York-South Weston, paid tens of thousands of dollars each for advertising that was broadcast in the ridings of three Tory stars in the Metro Toronto region. The three, who were not among those paying for the ads through the transfer scheme, were now-Finance Minister Jim Flaherty in Whitby-Oshawa, former TV anchor Peter Kent, who ran against prominent Liberal Carolyn Bennett in St. Paul's, and John Capobianco, a former organizer for onetime Ontario premier Mike Harris who ran against Liberal Michael Ignatieff in Etobicoke-Lakeshore.
All three had received tens of thousands of dollars in individual and corporate contributions -- Mr. Capobianco's war chest included a $5,000 transfer from Mr. Harper's riding association in Calgary -- and ended the campaign with overflowing bank accounts.
Radioactive policy
The Globe and Mail goes into more detail about the Cons' plan to put Canada on the hook for international nuclear waste disposal through the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. And the assumptions behind the Cons' current stance show just how problematic their position is.
First, here's Gary Lunn's take:
Compare this to the Cons' stance on Kyoto, where they can't repeat often enough that it's simply impossible to meet international standards where (1) the technology already exists to actually meet Canada's targets, and (2) there are other compliance mechanisms available besides implementing immediate technological change.
Based on that contrast, it's clear that the Cons are as devoted to pushing the increased use of nuclear technology as they are determined to avoid doing anything about global warming. And the former position seems to be downright contagious among the Cons and their provincial allies.
Mind you, Lunn wasn't the only Con to speak out about the nuclear proposal. So let's see what Deceivin' Stephen is concerned about in considering the GNEP:
We'll see whether the current public pressure is enough to make the Cons take a second look at their plan. But it seems all too clear that any change would be purely for political reasons rather than because of any recognition that there's some serious risk involved in the GNEP. And that complete disinterest in the obvious downside of a dangerous agreement offers just one more reason why Canadians shouldn't trust the Cons' judgment.
First, here's Gary Lunn's take:
This week, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said he believes it is inevitable that the spent fuel, which contains significant energy potential, will be reprocessed, and then reused by the domestic Candu owners. However, Mr. Lunn denied Canada would be required to accept imported waste under the global partnership agreement.Once again, it's worth highlighting what the Cons are willing to assume for the sake of signing on to the nuclear deal. Lunn's view is based on the assumption that as-of-yet nonexistent technology to reprocess nuclear waste will "inevitably" turn up in time to avoid the requirement to dispose of the waste otherwise. And if that doesn't happen...well, it's inevitable, so why worry?
Compare this to the Cons' stance on Kyoto, where they can't repeat often enough that it's simply impossible to meet international standards where (1) the technology already exists to actually meet Canada's targets, and (2) there are other compliance mechanisms available besides implementing immediate technological change.
Based on that contrast, it's clear that the Cons are as devoted to pushing the increased use of nuclear technology as they are determined to avoid doing anything about global warming. And the former position seems to be downright contagious among the Cons and their provincial allies.
Mind you, Lunn wasn't the only Con to speak out about the nuclear proposal. So let's see what Deceivin' Stephen is concerned about in considering the GNEP:
Mr. Harper told a Friday afternoon press conference in Sydney that he felt no pressure to decide, within a particular time frame, whether Canada should take part in the initiative.That's right: priority one is the almighty dollar, priority two is...basically an excuse for implicit posturing toward Iran, since nothing in the GNEP looks to actually change the non-proliferation regime already in place. And if you're looking for any mention of the risk associated with nuclear waste...well, that's just not a priority as far as the Cons are concerned.
"Obviously, in terms of anything internationally in this, Canada would have two priorities. One is to ensure that our uranium industry and our nuclear industry are not left out of any of the international opportunities that other countries may take advantage of," he told reporters.
"And, at the same time, we would obviously want to make sure that any kind of international agreement or any kind of international co-operation on nuclear energy fully respects the non-proliferation agreements and the non-proliferation objectives that Canada and other major countries have long subscribed to."
We'll see whether the current public pressure is enough to make the Cons take a second look at their plan. But it seems all too clear that any change would be purely for political reasons rather than because of any recognition that there's some serious risk involved in the GNEP. And that complete disinterest in the obvious downside of a dangerous agreement offers just one more reason why Canadians shouldn't trust the Cons' judgment.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
On risk assessment
When it comes to a non-binding declaration on aboriginal rights, the Cons continue to be the leading global opponent based on supposed fears about limiting government action.
When it comes to signing on to a binding agreement to turn Canada into a nuclear waste dump, the Cons can't see what could possibly go wrong.
Is it any wonder the Cons are more afraid than ever to answer for their decision-making?
When it comes to signing on to a binding agreement to turn Canada into a nuclear waste dump, the Cons can't see what could possibly go wrong.
Is it any wonder the Cons are more afraid than ever to answer for their decision-making?
Poor excuses
Shorter Jay Hill, trying to justify Deceivin' Stephen's extra month of summer vacation:
But being in government is hard work - especially in my job as whip. Why, just last spring I had to deal with one of the trained seals clapping out of time. So clearly I need another month off.
But being in government is hard work - especially in my job as whip. Why, just last spring I had to deal with one of the trained seals clapping out of time. So clearly I need another month off.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
On questionable speech
Shorter Pierre Poilievre, trying to claim that the Cons' now-all-but-admitted breaches of the Canada Elections Act should be ignored on free-speech grounds:
And while we're at it, we now firmly believe that there's no more important form of political speech than the right to leave large amounts of cash in an unmarked bag.
And while we're at it, we now firmly believe that there's no more important form of political speech than the right to leave large amounts of cash in an unmarked bag.
Dirty money
The Citizen reports on the latest developments in ConAdscam. And it looks like a number of the Cons' Quebec star candidates - including two cabinet ministers - may have joined the federal party in exceeding their spending limits through the scheme:
But that designation should equally plainly be directed toward the individual candidates featured prominently in the ad, rather than ones listed only in small print. And if so, then a number of the listed candidates look to have exceeded their riding spending limits if any substantial money was put into the ad.
Take a look at the candidates' actual expenditures compared to the 2006 limits:
Candidate - Stated Expenses - Riding Limit (Name)
Lawrence Cannon - $72,148.27 - $89,728.35 (Pontiac)
Josee Verner - $74,577.18 - $79,200.40 (Louis-Saint-Laurent)
Maxime Bernier - $79,344.54 - $81,496.69 (Beauce)
Daniel Fournier - $73,903.31 - $74,512.38 (Outremont)
Jean-Pierre Blackburn - $36,273.44 - $79,025.04 (Jonquiere-Alma)
It appears fairly safe to assume that Blackburn wouldn't have exceeded the riding limit based on his campaign paying a share of the expenses for the ad. Which would make his campaign at worst a facilitator of a scheme to evade the Canada Elections Act. And let's give Cannon the relative benefit of the doubt as well since his campaign both had some real leeway under the spending limit, and took on some of the cost of the ads.
But for the Cons' other star candidates - including two current cabinet ministers - any substantial investment in the ads would have put their own campaigns over the spending limit. And even for those whose campaigns wouldn't have exceeded the spending limit, their apparently willing participation in the shell game demonstrates a flagrant disregard for the Canada Elections Act.
In sum, today's information suggests that the Cons' latest scandal goes even further than expected. And now that the Cons' most prominent Quebec figures themselves apparently have dirty hands when it comes to the party's electoral violations, there's ever less reason for Quebeckers to believe that Deceivin' Stephen will offer any improvement on the scandal-ridden Libs in the province.
The dispute between Elections Canada and the party hinges on whether the ads were intended to promote local candidates, or whether they were part of the national campaign...Now, there's probably a fairly strong argument to be made that an ad featuring the Cons' featured Quebec candidates should be viewed as promoting individual campaigns - making the ad one which may not count toward the federal party's spending limit. (Which would reduce the amount by which the Cons had exceeded their federal cap - though not likely far enough to bring the party below the limit.)
Another TV ad for the Quebec market features the party's star candidates in the province, Lawrence Cannon, Josée Verner, Maxime Bernier, Daniel Fournier and Jean-Pierre Blackburn. But small print on the ad says it was authorized and paid for by official agents for 12 other candidates, as well as agents for Ms. Verner and Mr. Cannon.
But that designation should equally plainly be directed toward the individual candidates featured prominently in the ad, rather than ones listed only in small print. And if so, then a number of the listed candidates look to have exceeded their riding spending limits if any substantial money was put into the ad.
Take a look at the candidates' actual expenditures compared to the 2006 limits:
Candidate - Stated Expenses - Riding Limit (Name)
Lawrence Cannon - $72,148.27 - $89,728.35 (Pontiac)
Josee Verner - $74,577.18 - $79,200.40 (Louis-Saint-Laurent)
Maxime Bernier - $79,344.54 - $81,496.69 (Beauce)
Daniel Fournier - $73,903.31 - $74,512.38 (Outremont)
Jean-Pierre Blackburn - $36,273.44 - $79,025.04 (Jonquiere-Alma)
It appears fairly safe to assume that Blackburn wouldn't have exceeded the riding limit based on his campaign paying a share of the expenses for the ad. Which would make his campaign at worst a facilitator of a scheme to evade the Canada Elections Act. And let's give Cannon the relative benefit of the doubt as well since his campaign both had some real leeway under the spending limit, and took on some of the cost of the ads.
But for the Cons' other star candidates - including two current cabinet ministers - any substantial investment in the ads would have put their own campaigns over the spending limit. And even for those whose campaigns wouldn't have exceeded the spending limit, their apparently willing participation in the shell game demonstrates a flagrant disregard for the Canada Elections Act.
In sum, today's information suggests that the Cons' latest scandal goes even further than expected. And now that the Cons' most prominent Quebec figures themselves apparently have dirty hands when it comes to the party's electoral violations, there's ever less reason for Quebeckers to believe that Deceivin' Stephen will offer any improvement on the scandal-ridden Libs in the province.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)