In this post, I dealt with federal Lib supporters who continually seek any excuse to complain that the federal NDP is in league with the Cons, yet are entirely willing to explicitly help the conservative Sask Party provincially in order to try to cut down the NDP. And you can see the continued hypocrisy in full bloom over at Abandoned Progressive Principles, where Saskboy can't hand Brad Wall a majority fast enough if it'll win David Karwacki some of those gold-plated benefits he's always complaining about.
But let's leave aside the personal motivations and contradictions of the bloggers involved, and ask a more basic question about the provincial Libs' position. Namely, will the "Brad Wall Government Is Inevitable. You Must Assimilate" strategy actually work?
It's obvious that the provincial Libs see some appeal in trying to paint the election primarily as a battle for second place rather than a contest of governing values. And obviously the Sask Party isn't complaining about having the Libs declare victory on their behalf. But let's momentarily take the Libs' current argument at face value.
If the main question in the election is that of which party will offer the best progressive opposition to a Wall government, why would any voter answer "the party which conceded government to Wall in the first place"?
And the picture for progressives only looks worse if one takes a closer look at the Libs' actual policies. The Libs' current stances would actually take the Sask Party to the right in some areas, calling for a selloff of at least some Crown assets and demanding that the government do nothing to save Saskatchewan jobs. Meanwhile, judging from their current issues page, the Libs have no apparent interest in prescription drugs, child care, or broader environmental programs than curbside recycling - suggesting that these areas of progressive accomplishment under the NDP simply aren't priorities for Karwacki, and will be soon forgotten if the Libs and Sask Party have the two loudest voices on the province's political scene.
In sum, a Wall government with a Karwacki opposition - while obviously the Libs' current goal for the campaign - would be the worst possible outcome for progressive voters. And there's plenty of time for Calvert and company to not only highlight that fact to bring any Lib/NDP swing voters back into the fold, but also make clear that it's not too late to stop the Sask Party.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
The chopping block
Buckdog asks one interesting question about the Sask Party's long-term plans for the province. But there's another one which seems to me to require a more immediate answer.
After all, the Sask Party's first priority is to artificially cap the size of Saskatchewan's civil service.
But the Sask Party's other platform planks include several which will require additional government resources. In addition to needing a crew for the Starship Enterprise Saskatchewan, they're planning at least three new health care structures (plus likely adding to the administrative burden on the province's Drug Plan through a means-tested program), and their numerous promised spending increases will presumably have to be administered by somebody.
With that in mind, which existing civil service jobs do they plan to axe in order to fit within their own public service cap?
After all, the Sask Party's first priority is to artificially cap the size of Saskatchewan's civil service.
But the Sask Party's other platform planks include several which will require additional government resources. In addition to needing a crew for the Starship Enterprise Saskatchewan, they're planning at least three new health care structures (plus likely adding to the administrative burden on the province's Drug Plan through a means-tested program), and their numerous promised spending increases will presumably have to be administered by somebody.
With that in mind, which existing civil service jobs do they plan to axe in order to fit within their own public service cap?
Credibility issues
Current announced funding for Saskatchewan's Green Initiatives Fund:
$350 million.
The Sask Party's proposed funding for Saskatchewan's Green Initiatives Fund:
$70 million.
The Sask Party's explanation (roughly paraphrased):
"If you ignore over 90% of the currently-announced funding, we'll more than double the size of the fund!"
Evaluate the rest of the Sask Party's promises accordingly.
See the story from CBC.
$350 million.
The Sask Party's proposed funding for Saskatchewan's Green Initiatives Fund:
$70 million.
The Sask Party's explanation (roughly paraphrased):
"If you ignore over 90% of the currently-announced funding, we'll more than double the size of the fund!"
Evaluate the rest of the Sask Party's promises accordingly.
See the story from CBC.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Blocking the vote
The CP reports that as the NDP warned all along, the Cons' Canada Election Act amendments designed to make voting more difficult appear likely to affect much of their own base more than anybody. And months after the fact, they're just now trying to fix their avoidable mistakes:
It certainly doesn't look like the Cons have learned anything given that they're now brazen enough to say that what the NDP had pointed out from the beginning should be classified as an "oversight" because they (and the other parties) didn't bother to listen. But the story should offer another prime example of why it's long past time for the other parties and Canadians in general to start paying far more attention to what the NDP has to say - and spending far less time cleaning up the messes that result when they don't.
Recent changes to the federal Elections Act will wind up disenfranchising more than 1 million rural voters, Canada's elections watchdog warns.It would have been the ultimate irony if the Cons' quest for a majority this fall had died in urban/rural split seats where their own electoral changes had prevented supporters from voting. But the Cons don't figure to take long to re-enfranchise rural voters while looking for a way to exclude the urban transient voters who were presumably their target all along - at least, if either the Libs or the Bloc decide to once again go along blindly with the Cons' electoral measures.
Just four months ago in a bid to clamp down on voter fraud, Parliament amended the Canada Elections Act to require that each voter produce proof of identity and residential address before being allowed to cast a ballot.
But Elections Canada now says more than one million rural Canadians do not have a proper residential or civic address - complete with street name and number - as envisaged by the legislation.
Rural addresses are more often post office boxes. On native reserves, a resident's address is sometimes simply the name of the reserve.
New Democrat MP Charlie Angus is one of those who stands to be disenfranchised. His driver's licence lists his address as Mileage 104, a reference to the original distance markers on the railway line through northern Ontario indicating that he's 104 miles from Timmins.
In a report to political parties, Elections Canada says 4.4 per cent of eligible Canadian voters do not have the legally required residential address. The problem is most acute in the northern territories, where over 80 per cent of Nunavut voters don't have a residential address.
Among the provinces, voters in Saskatchewan would be the hardest hit, with potentially 27 per cent being refused the right to vote because they have no proper residential address...
(Peter) Van Loan characterized the problem as an oversight and called on all parties to "enthusiastically support efforts to correct this deficiency."
Should the minority Tory government be defeated before further amendments can be introduced to rectify the problem, Van Loan said the chief electoral officer has assured him that he's prepared to use "his adaptation power to ensure that no Canadian loses their right to vote" in the ensuing election.
Angus said he raised the concern about rural addresses when the amendments were being considered last spring. He said all other parties dismissed or ignored his concerns and only the NDP opposed the bill in the end...
NDP Leader Jack Layton accused the Liberals and Conservatives of only belatedly caring about the rights of rural voters.
"Now we see this law was a bad law and other parties that supported these changes are now trying to scramble to fix the problems that we flagged at the outset."
It certainly doesn't look like the Cons have learned anything given that they're now brazen enough to say that what the NDP had pointed out from the beginning should be classified as an "oversight" because they (and the other parties) didn't bother to listen. But the story should offer another prime example of why it's long past time for the other parties and Canadians in general to start paying far more attention to what the NDP has to say - and spending far less time cleaning up the messes that result when they don't.
A thought experiment
Over the last couple of years, a consistent theme has developed among the now-Red Green alliance. In an effort to blame the federal NDP while painting the Libs as innocent victims completely unresponsible for their own demise, apologists have tried desperately to find evidence of a grand conspiracy against the Libs. And in the process, they've accused the NDP of being in bed with the Cons based on the most ridiculous of "evidence", ranging from Con supporter entreaties rejected by NDP supporters, to idle speculation about things which will never happen.
But let's put to a test just what kind of principle underlies the Red Green position.
Suppose there were an election pitting a long-time centre-left government against a right-wing opposition party which had spent a decade trying to moderate its image. Suppose the governing party had brought up the election's most progressive ideas on child care, the environment, health care, and electoral reform, while the opposition's platform consisted largely of targeted tax cuts (but with enough promised spending to take away some of the fear factor).
Now let's add a third party to the mix - one with nowhere near either the current seat count or the current support level of either of the two main parties, and whose most recognizable contribution in recent years had been to support the left-wing government when it was limited to a minority.
Suppose that third party tried to position itself as an ostensibly left-wing alternative to replace the "tired" government. But in doing so, the third party failed to offer any substantially different left-wing policies from those already proposed (and indeed implemented in part) by the governing party, instead running primarily on a platform of accountability in an effort to build up a perceived need for change.
And suppose as well that the third party not only withheld its fire from the right-wing party, but outright conceded the election to the conservative party in an explicit bid to position itself as a future opposition.
I bet those principled Red Greeners would be positively howling with outrage at the third party's damage to the progressive cause, and probably pointing out the likelihood of an active conspiracy between the third party and the right-wing party. Don't you?
But let's put to a test just what kind of principle underlies the Red Green position.
Suppose there were an election pitting a long-time centre-left government against a right-wing opposition party which had spent a decade trying to moderate its image. Suppose the governing party had brought up the election's most progressive ideas on child care, the environment, health care, and electoral reform, while the opposition's platform consisted largely of targeted tax cuts (but with enough promised spending to take away some of the fear factor).
Now let's add a third party to the mix - one with nowhere near either the current seat count or the current support level of either of the two main parties, and whose most recognizable contribution in recent years had been to support the left-wing government when it was limited to a minority.
Suppose that third party tried to position itself as an ostensibly left-wing alternative to replace the "tired" government. But in doing so, the third party failed to offer any substantially different left-wing policies from those already proposed (and indeed implemented in part) by the governing party, instead running primarily on a platform of accountability in an effort to build up a perceived need for change.
And suppose as well that the third party not only withheld its fire from the right-wing party, but outright conceded the election to the conservative party in an explicit bid to position itself as a future opposition.
I bet those principled Red Greeners would be positively howling with outrage at the third party's damage to the progressive cause, and probably pointing out the likelihood of an active conspiracy between the third party and the right-wing party. Don't you?
Monday, October 22, 2007
Just a thought...
Based on the Cons' track record for projection, there's little reason to lend much credence to their counteraccusations in response to the information-for-benefits scandal. But if the Libs want to respond with an actual demonstration of commitment to privacy (which would also have the added bonus of putting the Cons on the defensive), wouldn't it make sense to answer with legislation to make sure all parties are required to deal fairly with Canadians' personal information?
Politics first
Shorter Sask Party message on health care:
The biggest problem with health care in Saskatchewan is that too many resources are diverted to peripheral structures rather than front-line care for patients. And we plan to create several new peripheral structures to prove it.
The biggest problem with health care in Saskatchewan is that too many resources are diverted to peripheral structures rather than front-line care for patients. And we plan to create several new peripheral structures to prove it.
First steps
The Hill Times only includes the latest on the amended Bill C-30 as an afterthought in an article on the Cons' crime bill intransigence. But if the opposition parties are indeed able to cooperate, a new private member's bill could lead to one of the most significant results of the current Parliament:
But at the very least, this should remove any doubt about whether or not there's some possibility for cooperation between the opposition parties. And if the Libs and Bloc can once again agree on the contents of Cullen's bill, then there's a clear opportunity for the opposition parties to join forces to get something positive done.
NDP MP Nathan Cullen (Skeena-Bulkley Valley, B.C.), his party's environment critic, said the Conservatives are "cutting off their nose to spite their face" because they are unwilling to work with the opposition on climate change issues. "They put a filter or almost a complete block on the Clean Air Act. They wanted to be able to reference it without actually doing anything about the environment and they're also not going to bring back parts of the bill that the Conservatives voted for, so they're cutting off their nose to spite their face," he said. "They're so determined to have their own way, not do much for climate change, only because what I can get out of it is an ideological bent, or some allegiance to the office towers in Calgary."It's still anybody's guess whether or not Cullen's bill - or one to a similar effect from another opposition member - will be able to work its way through Parliament before the Cons are brought down.
Mr. Cullen introduced a private members' bill last week that resembles Bill C-30.
But at the very least, this should remove any doubt about whether or not there's some possibility for cooperation between the opposition parties. And if the Libs and Bloc can once again agree on the contents of Cullen's bill, then there's a clear opportunity for the opposition parties to join forces to get something positive done.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Unprincipled
Stephane Dion is apparently trying to counter the growing perception that he's lost any claim to oppose the Cons on principle by drawing at least one line in the sand where he'd actually stand up to the Cons. But on a closer look, it's hard to imagine a more empty statement of "principle":
But it gets worse. After all, it's seemingly agreed by all parties that the current state of Canada's environmental statutes is far short of satisfactory. Otherwise the Cons wouldn't have introduced their now-dead Clean Air Act originally, and the opposition parties wouldn't agree on the importance of the amended version of the bill.
From Dion's non-threat, though, the Libs apparently don't plan on bringing down the Cons unless they propose legislation to change the status quo. Which suggests that whatever gaps exist in the law as it stands - and however weak the Cons' environmental regulations (which set out any actual greenhouse gas emission targets) may be - the Cons can avoid an election triggered by environmental issues as long as they simply avoid putting any legislation up for a vote.
Now, it's not impossible that the opposition could itself get something done, particularly if it cooperates to pass the amended terms of Bill C-30. But it's clear from Dion's failed attempt to look tough that the Cons won't face any real pressure from the Libs to improve their own direction. And that should leave all the more reason to doubt whether Dion will ever present a substantial opposition to Harper's government.
In Winnipeg yesterday, Liberal leader Stéphane Dion pledged to stop any anti-environmental Conservative legislation.So what's wrong with the statement? Let's note first that Dion's "pledge" is limited to saying the Libs "would not support" anti-environmental legislation...when it's already been made clear that the Libs aren't formally supporting the throne speech either, but merely refusing to vote against it so that the Cons can pass it. And it's hard to see that apparent loophole as an accident given the Libs' obvious fear of an election anytime soon.
While Dion stopped short of saying Liberals would defeat a confidence motion to trigger an election, he said the party would not support legislation that could endanger the environment or Canadians in general.
But it gets worse. After all, it's seemingly agreed by all parties that the current state of Canada's environmental statutes is far short of satisfactory. Otherwise the Cons wouldn't have introduced their now-dead Clean Air Act originally, and the opposition parties wouldn't agree on the importance of the amended version of the bill.
From Dion's non-threat, though, the Libs apparently don't plan on bringing down the Cons unless they propose legislation to change the status quo. Which suggests that whatever gaps exist in the law as it stands - and however weak the Cons' environmental regulations (which set out any actual greenhouse gas emission targets) may be - the Cons can avoid an election triggered by environmental issues as long as they simply avoid putting any legislation up for a vote.
Now, it's not impossible that the opposition could itself get something done, particularly if it cooperates to pass the amended terms of Bill C-30. But it's clear from Dion's failed attempt to look tough that the Cons won't face any real pressure from the Libs to improve their own direction. And that should leave all the more reason to doubt whether Dion will ever present a substantial opposition to Harper's government.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
On exclusion
The Globe and Mail reports that the Liebermanley Group has made sure to eliminate any danger of actually hearing from any diversity of opinions on Canada's options in Afghanistan. Rather than listening to what Canadians in general have to offer, it's decided to shut out any public input in favour of its own choice of "experts" and political hacks:
The independent panel on the future of Canada's mission in Afghanistan will not hold public hearings but does plan to travel to the war-torn country and to consult widely with experts.Given how slanted the group's composition was to begin with, it's amazing that it feels any need to further direct itself toward the inevitable end result. But the news that the Canadian public is seen as unworthy to participate should offer yet another reason for the Libs to properly denounce the group now, rather than being pressured to accept its conclusions later.
The five-member panel, led by former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley, has already rented office space in downtown Ottawa and is expected to have its first meeting this weekend, according to a source close to the panel...
The panel has been asked to finish its work by Jan. 31, 2008, giving it about three months to research, deliberate and write its report, although the legal mandate extends to March 31. The panel has recruited a half-dozen federal officials who have been seconded from Foreign Affairs, National Defence and the Canadian International Development Agency.
The timing of the visit to Afghanistan is still under wraps for security reasons. The panel is also expected to visit NATO headquarters in Brussels and to get advice from academics and non-governmental organizations active in Afghanistan.
In opposition
A bizarre movement seems to be starting among the Cons, with prominent bloggers floating trial balloons about either formally stripping the Libs of the title of Official Opposition, or simply refusing to deal with Lib questions and issues (though last I checked that was the Cons' typical response to all opposition questions already). And if there's anything more surprising than the effort to push in that direction, it's that Lib bloggers haven't yet offered any apparent criticism of the plan.
With that in mind, let's make this clear from a supporter of the party which would seemingly benefit most.
The Cons aren't entitled to pick and choose their opposition.
Con bloggers apparently don't see the slightest problem in disregarding the democratic allocation of seats in the House of Commons, or going to even greater lengths than the Con government already has to prevent Lib MPs from doing their jobs. And that may be a natural extension of a party which genuinely sees itself as entitled to make government benefits contingent on a partisan gain in exchange.
But the reality is that MPs - regardless of their partisan stripe - have the right to hold the government to account in the House of Commons. And based on the outcome of the last federal election, the Libs legitimately hold the title of Official Opposition, regardless of how effective (or ineffective) they are in that role.
Of course, the NDP will rightly keep pointing out the Libs' weakness as a reason to vote NDP as the effective opposition to Harper and his party. And hopefully that message will lead to a point where Canadian voters recognize and vote for the NDP as a strong future government in the making.
But the Cons have no more legitimate basis to try to cut a party out of the political process entirely than they do to appoint pseudo-MPs to usurp the function of opposition members. And the fact that high-profile supporters honestly see no problem with that kind of scheme only shows the Cons' fundamental contempt for democracy.
With that in mind, let's make this clear from a supporter of the party which would seemingly benefit most.
The Cons aren't entitled to pick and choose their opposition.
Con bloggers apparently don't see the slightest problem in disregarding the democratic allocation of seats in the House of Commons, or going to even greater lengths than the Con government already has to prevent Lib MPs from doing their jobs. And that may be a natural extension of a party which genuinely sees itself as entitled to make government benefits contingent on a partisan gain in exchange.
But the reality is that MPs - regardless of their partisan stripe - have the right to hold the government to account in the House of Commons. And based on the outcome of the last federal election, the Libs legitimately hold the title of Official Opposition, regardless of how effective (or ineffective) they are in that role.
Of course, the NDP will rightly keep pointing out the Libs' weakness as a reason to vote NDP as the effective opposition to Harper and his party. And hopefully that message will lead to a point where Canadian voters recognize and vote for the NDP as a strong future government in the making.
But the Cons have no more legitimate basis to try to cut a party out of the political process entirely than they do to appoint pseudo-MPs to usurp the function of opposition members. And the fact that high-profile supporters honestly see no problem with that kind of scheme only shows the Cons' fundamental contempt for democracy.
Friday, October 19, 2007
A call to assembly
I for one didn't see it coming, but the Saskatchewan NDP has promised to convene a Citizens Assembly if it wins next month's provincial election:
Of course, it remains to be seen whether the proposal will earn the attention it deserves - particularly given that it was made on the same day that the Sask Party unveiled its entire platform (or at least those parts which hadn't yet been leaked). But it's nonetheless remarkable for a party which has succeeded so thoroughly in the existing structure to be taking the lead in looking for ways to improve how Saskatchewan votes.
And if Calvert's move can push swing votes into the NDP column based on the prospect of an improved electoral system, then both the NDP and the province stand to benefit substantially in the long run as a result.
A re-elected NDP government would hold a "citizens assembly" to look at lowering the voting age, introducing fixed election dates and making other changes to democracy in Saskatchewan, party leader Lorne Calvert says.I'm not sure whether the focus on issues like fixed election dates and voting ages rather than electoral systems is based primarily on Calvert's own preferences, or the (however unfair) conventional wisdom arising out of Ontario's MMP vote. But Calvert's promise itself should help reverse any perception that electoral reform is done for - particularly if the NDP wins the election in part based on the commitment.
The assembly would be made up of "randomly chosen" Saskatchewan residents who would make recommendations to the legislature, Calvert said Friday.
They would examine a number of issues, ranging from fixed election dates to voting age to voter turnout.
Calvert said the panel could also discuss the possibility of a new electoral system as an alternative to the first-past-the-post system currently in place.
Of course, it remains to be seen whether the proposal will earn the attention it deserves - particularly given that it was made on the same day that the Sask Party unveiled its entire platform (or at least those parts which hadn't yet been leaked). But it's nonetheless remarkable for a party which has succeeded so thoroughly in the existing structure to be taking the lead in looking for ways to improve how Saskatchewan votes.
And if Calvert's move can push swing votes into the NDP column based on the prospect of an improved electoral system, then both the NDP and the province stand to benefit substantially in the long run as a result.
Return of the Pod People
In the midst of a week of speculation and analysis of the throne speech and its fallout, the first House of Commons mention of the Cons' Pod People Plan didn't receive any attention in the media. But with all three opposition parties apparently presenting a united front on a story which is starting to come into focus, it may not be long before the Cons find themselves on the defensive.
Not surprisingly, the point of privilege was brought up by Nathan Cullen, who generally summarized what's already known about the Cons' pseudo-MP in Skeena-Bulkley Valley. But two of the points in response add new information to the story.
First, while the Cons previously disavowed any national support for the Pod People plan, they seem to have let the mask slide. Now, their Saskatchewan caucus chair Tom Lukiwski has also tried to defend the Cons' undemocratic appointments. Which should remove any plausible claim that the plan stopped at Harris, and provide a strong suggestion that it's indeed a national policy (contrary to the Cons' initial protestations).
Second, other opposition MPs besides Cullen also had additional examples to offer. Perhaps most interesting was Paul Szabo's statement as to what he's been told while trying to do work for his own constituents:
- The federal government won't deal with any constituent issue unless it's brought up by a government MP.
- Government MPs won't deal with any constituent issue without collecting whatever information they can get from the encounter, and using it for Conservative Party purposes.
In sum, under Harper, any benefit from the Government of Canada is contingent on a constituent's giving a quid pro quo (whether knowingly or not) to the Conservative Party.
So what can the opposition parties do about it? The first step is obviously to raise the issue publicly wherever they can. And it's possible for them to do more on that front: while the Ethics Commissioner investigation, point of privilege, and media exposure have helped, it's long past time to use some prime Question Period time to force Harper to answer for his government's patronage.
Second, the opposition parties should be working together on legislation to ensure that neither the Cons nor any other party can misuse personal information about Canadians, and agreeing to use whatever means available to fast-track it through Parliament.
This could be as simple as making political parties subject to the Privacy Act, or it could involve a new set of rules under the Canada Elections Act. But whatever mechanism is chosen, it would both make for good public policy, and put a serious dent in whatever advantage the Cons may be deriving from their misuse of data.
And if the Cons want to make such legislation a confidence matter and fight an election over their ability to use the federal government as the Patronage Distribution and Information Gathering Department of the Conservative Party? Well, that's exactly the kind of ground where a referendum on the incumbent figures to be a losing proposition for Harper.
We'll see if the issue gets as much attention as it deserves going forward. But once again, the problem isn't so much any hidden agenda from the Cons as the one that they've already put in plain sight - and the opposition should be happy to make sure the public pays due attention to what's going on.
(Edit: fixed typo.)
Not surprisingly, the point of privilege was brought up by Nathan Cullen, who generally summarized what's already known about the Cons' pseudo-MP in Skeena-Bulkley Valley. But two of the points in response add new information to the story.
First, while the Cons previously disavowed any national support for the Pod People plan, they seem to have let the mask slide. Now, their Saskatchewan caucus chair Tom Lukiwski has also tried to defend the Cons' undemocratic appointments. Which should remove any plausible claim that the plan stopped at Harris, and provide a strong suggestion that it's indeed a national policy (contrary to the Cons' initial protestations).
Second, other opposition MPs besides Cullen also had additional examples to offer. Perhaps most interesting was Paul Szabo's statement as to what he's been told while trying to do work for his own constituents:
Mr. Speaker, just this past week I had a case in my constituency office requiring the urgent intervention by a minister to get a family member to come over to attend to a terminally ill child.Now, the prospect that the Cons have instructed federal departments to ignore requests from opposition MPs would be dangerous enough on its face. But it's all the more so when combined with this week's news about the Cons' data-gathering techniques:
We wrote to the minister but we did not get a response within a reasonable period of time. We made the necessary inquiry. We were told directly that the department no longer responds to opposition members' requests for assistance and ministerial intervention.
CIMS is used not only to track voter allegiance in a given riding -- something every political party attempts -- but also a host of other data gathered in the course of an MP's constituency office duties.Putting the pieces of the puzzle together:
"Any time a constituent is engaged with the member of Parliament, they get zapped into the database," Turner said in an interview. "It's unethical and it's a shocking misuse of data.
"Because once you cotton on to what's going on here, it's not good constituency work at all to allow that data to fall into any kind of hands. But the party is desperate to get more and more data in there because the primary use is fundraising. The secondary use is voter tracking to get out the vote."
- The federal government won't deal with any constituent issue unless it's brought up by a government MP.
- Government MPs won't deal with any constituent issue without collecting whatever information they can get from the encounter, and using it for Conservative Party purposes.
In sum, under Harper, any benefit from the Government of Canada is contingent on a constituent's giving a quid pro quo (whether knowingly or not) to the Conservative Party.
So what can the opposition parties do about it? The first step is obviously to raise the issue publicly wherever they can. And it's possible for them to do more on that front: while the Ethics Commissioner investigation, point of privilege, and media exposure have helped, it's long past time to use some prime Question Period time to force Harper to answer for his government's patronage.
Second, the opposition parties should be working together on legislation to ensure that neither the Cons nor any other party can misuse personal information about Canadians, and agreeing to use whatever means available to fast-track it through Parliament.
This could be as simple as making political parties subject to the Privacy Act, or it could involve a new set of rules under the Canada Elections Act. But whatever mechanism is chosen, it would both make for good public policy, and put a serious dent in whatever advantage the Cons may be deriving from their misuse of data.
And if the Cons want to make such legislation a confidence matter and fight an election over their ability to use the federal government as the Patronage Distribution and Information Gathering Department of the Conservative Party? Well, that's exactly the kind of ground where a referendum on the incumbent figures to be a losing proposition for Harper.
We'll see if the issue gets as much attention as it deserves going forward. But once again, the problem isn't so much any hidden agenda from the Cons as the one that they've already put in plain sight - and the opposition should be happy to make sure the public pays due attention to what's going on.
(Edit: fixed typo.)
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Trail blazing
A few notes from the Saskatchewan election campaign today:
- The environment has become such a big issue federally that even Harper's Cons have had to at least try to pretend to care about it. But on the provincial level, it's received little attention from either the Sask Party or the Libs (give or take the odd mention of recycling or parks), while Saskatchewan's Greens have apparently failed to gain even the slightest bit of traction. Which means that the NDP's strong environmental platform could help to cement the environmental vote in Calvert's column.
- Meanwhile, the Libs' Saskferco selloff plan looks like an interesting strategic move. Since the suggestion focuses attention on the idea of selling public assets, it figures to help the NDP more than anybody by reinforcing its message about the Sask Party. That said, it may also shift some anti-NDP votes into the Libs' column if part of the pro-privatization crowd decides to throw in its lot with a party which doesn't hide its desire to dispose of public assets.
Now, that result isn't one that I'd mind seeing by any stretch. But it doesn't seem to fit at all with the Libs' apparent strategy of trying to overtake the NDP as the opposition to a Sask Party government.
- Finally, the Sask Party has announced an interesting test for political judgment, where as long as problems with a party's candidates were publicly known before a campaign, the party shouldn't be criticized for implicitly endorsing them. By this standard, several former cabinet ministers may find themselves right at home in Wall's party.
- The environment has become such a big issue federally that even Harper's Cons have had to at least try to pretend to care about it. But on the provincial level, it's received little attention from either the Sask Party or the Libs (give or take the odd mention of recycling or parks), while Saskatchewan's Greens have apparently failed to gain even the slightest bit of traction. Which means that the NDP's strong environmental platform could help to cement the environmental vote in Calvert's column.
- Meanwhile, the Libs' Saskferco selloff plan looks like an interesting strategic move. Since the suggestion focuses attention on the idea of selling public assets, it figures to help the NDP more than anybody by reinforcing its message about the Sask Party. That said, it may also shift some anti-NDP votes into the Libs' column if part of the pro-privatization crowd decides to throw in its lot with a party which doesn't hide its desire to dispose of public assets.
Now, that result isn't one that I'd mind seeing by any stretch. But it doesn't seem to fit at all with the Libs' apparent strategy of trying to overtake the NDP as the opposition to a Sask Party government.
- Finally, the Sask Party has announced an interesting test for political judgment, where as long as problems with a party's candidates were publicly known before a campaign, the party shouldn't be criticized for implicitly endorsing them. By this standard, several former cabinet ministers may find themselves right at home in Wall's party.
An alternate route
While it hasn't yet been confirmed, all indications are that the NDP won't vote for the Libs' throne speech amendment. While that's understandable given the wording of the amendment itself, it presumably means that the NDP won't be heading down the most immediate path to an election. But that doesn't mean the NDP can't still take a lead role in bringing down the Harper government.
Remember that prior to the throne speech, the Libs themselves made a series of demands. Obviously Stephane Dion didn't stick to his earlier position that he'd bring down the Cons if those demands weren't met - but that doesn't mean the Libs can afford to abandon them entirely, particularly given that the principles involved (a return of bill C-30, an end to combat in Afghanistan, dealing with poverty) are all areas where the opposition parties are largely in agreement.
In that light, consider what would happen if the NDP's throne speech amendment were to consist generally of those same Lib demands, but with just enough soft wording to avoid thorny questions such as whether Afghanistan withdrawal should take place immediately or in 2009.
With the Libs' confrontational wording out of play, the Bloc would be likely to vote for the amendment. Which would leave the Libs with a choice of either joining in to topple the Cons, or being directly responsible for voting down their own demands.
Of course, it's more likely that the NDP will instead play it relatively straight, using its amendment to correct the public record as the Libs once again try to spin voting against their distorted message as a vote for the Cons. But with the Libs already cowering at the prospect of facing off against Harper, now may well be the time to use the NDP's amendment to force the Libs to fish or cut bait when it comes to their own stated principles.
Remember that prior to the throne speech, the Libs themselves made a series of demands. Obviously Stephane Dion didn't stick to his earlier position that he'd bring down the Cons if those demands weren't met - but that doesn't mean the Libs can afford to abandon them entirely, particularly given that the principles involved (a return of bill C-30, an end to combat in Afghanistan, dealing with poverty) are all areas where the opposition parties are largely in agreement.
In that light, consider what would happen if the NDP's throne speech amendment were to consist generally of those same Lib demands, but with just enough soft wording to avoid thorny questions such as whether Afghanistan withdrawal should take place immediately or in 2009.
With the Libs' confrontational wording out of play, the Bloc would be likely to vote for the amendment. Which would leave the Libs with a choice of either joining in to topple the Cons, or being directly responsible for voting down their own demands.
Of course, it's more likely that the NDP will instead play it relatively straight, using its amendment to correct the public record as the Libs once again try to spin voting against their distorted message as a vote for the Cons. But with the Libs already cowering at the prospect of facing off against Harper, now may well be the time to use the NDP's amendment to force the Libs to fish or cut bait when it comes to their own stated principles.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
On internal mistrust
Another telling sign about the current state of the Libs managed to pass largely without notice today, as all indications are that Stephane Dion doesn't trust his MPs' discretion any more than they trust his judgment:
What's more, the situation figures to repeat itself as the Cons put the Libs' backs to the wall in a series of confidence votes this fall. And if Dion really thinks he's best off making his decisions in public first and justifying them to his caucus later, it's worth wondering just what future surprises he'll end up springing on the Libs - and how long it'll take for his MPs to start responding in kind.
Mr. Dion left his MPs guessing about the potential for a fall election just hours before giving his response in the House of Commons to the government's fall agenda.Given how blatantly the Libs had leaked most of their strategy already, it's surprising that Dion thought anything was in need of protection. But even if there was much of a secret to keep, it can't say much for Dion's view of his own caucus that he didn't consider his MPs capable of holding off on leaking his strategy for the few hours between the caucus meeting and his afternoon speech.
Liberal MPs emerged from a caucus meeting saying little, telling reporters that Mr. Dion had not revealed his decision about whether to accept or reject the throne speech.
What's more, the situation figures to repeat itself as the Cons put the Libs' backs to the wall in a series of confidence votes this fall. And if Dion really thinks he's best off making his decisions in public first and justifying them to his caucus later, it's worth wondering just what future surprises he'll end up springing on the Libs - and how long it'll take for his MPs to start responding in kind.
On openings
It's interesting to note that even while purporting to want to "make Parliament work", Stephane Dion apparently has no greater strategic goal in the fall session than to try to pressure the NDP. But as John has already mentioned, the Libs shouldn't be so sure the NDP will play along - particularly in the face of a plan so obviously targeted at it:
The likely result would be a campaign where the NDP could contrast its recent momentum against the Libs' freefall in progress - while also playing up the NDP's role as the real opposition based on the Libs' unwillingness to oppose the Cons' plans. And with Layton having taken the clear initiative in bringing down the Con government, the Libs' steady stream of cries that "those traitors didn't keep us in power!" would be turned on their head permanently.
Of course, the Libs could reverse course themselves in order to avoid the polls. But they'd only be able to do so by backing down yet again - this time by torpedoing their own motion for fear of having to face the voters on their own terms.
Now, it could be that a few more months of Dion incompetence (combined with Cons facing the scrutiny of Parliament again) could put the NDP in an even better position later this fall. But given the potential upsides both for the NDP as a party and for Canada as a whole in the possibility of removing Harper from power, I for one hope Layton and company are seriously considering bringing down the Cons through the Lib motion.
Update: Obviously I'm not the only one thinking along these lines.
Instead, Dion said, he would introduce amendments to the speech. If those are rejected, the party would abstain, allowing the throne speech to pass.Now, it may well be that Layton will simply choose to slam the Libs for their willingness to prop up Harper on the wider throne speech. But it's entirely possible that in the face of such an obvious bluff, the NDP could declare that it's not going to pass up what may be the lone opportunity to bring down the Cons in light of the Libs' plan to roll over and play dead once its motion is dealt with.
Dion introduced an amendment that includes a recognition of past Liberal programs, a call to reverse the income trust decision and a commitment to end the combat mission in Afghanistan in February 2009.
But the NDP have said they want Canadian troops out of Afghanistan immediately and support the decision to tax income trusts, meaning the amendment will likely fall.
The likely result would be a campaign where the NDP could contrast its recent momentum against the Libs' freefall in progress - while also playing up the NDP's role as the real opposition based on the Libs' unwillingness to oppose the Cons' plans. And with Layton having taken the clear initiative in bringing down the Con government, the Libs' steady stream of cries that "those traitors didn't keep us in power!" would be turned on their head permanently.
Of course, the Libs could reverse course themselves in order to avoid the polls. But they'd only be able to do so by backing down yet again - this time by torpedoing their own motion for fear of having to face the voters on their own terms.
Now, it could be that a few more months of Dion incompetence (combined with Cons facing the scrutiny of Parliament again) could put the NDP in an even better position later this fall. But given the potential upsides both for the NDP as a party and for Canada as a whole in the possibility of removing Harper from power, I for one hope Layton and company are seriously considering bringing down the Cons through the Lib motion.
Update: Obviously I'm not the only one thinking along these lines.
Rejected
There's been plenty of talk about the Libs' state of disarray. But while there's been little doubt about some turmoil in terms of staffing and management, another more important factor seems to have revealed itself within the story:
(Edit: see comments.)
While Proulx said he's a team player and has no problem with being replaced, sources said he quit after learning that Dion had offered the lieutenant's post to Montreal MP Denis Coderre.In other words, the Libs have now reached the point where even sitting MPs aren't interested in taking up positions of prestige within the party if it means having to share in the responsibility for what's to come. And if those most closely tied to the Libs' current brand are themselves completely uninterested in trying to help right Dion's sinking ship, there's little reason to think that swing voters on either side will stay on board.
However, Coderre declined. Dion then tried to persuade Pablo Rodriguez, another Montreal MP, to take the post. Late Tuesday, he finally announced that Senator Celine Hervieux-Payette will take the job.
(Edit: see comments.)
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
On non-opposition
Taking a broader look at the Cons' throne speech, I'd have to agree with the numerous other commentators who don't see it as likely that the Libs will vote down the Cons. But based on the most controversial measures the Cons have put forward, the reason for that likely support is based as much on the policies involved as the Libs' own calculation that they don't want an election.
After all, to the extent anybody has suggested an election trigger in the speech, it's the Cons' plan to put all of their most extreme crime measures into a single bill. But the Libs have already offered to fast-track the Cons' crime agenda, meaning that it wouldn't be anything new for them to back off again.
What about the War on Terror provisions which the Libs voted down? That was of course Lib legislation to begin with - and just a few months before suddenly rediscovering the value of civil liberties, they supported an extension of the same measures in committee.
The Libs got Canada into combat in Kandahar to begin with, and that position was extended to 2009 thanks to Lib votes. Stephane Dion is looking to give the Cons a run for their money in the tax cut department. And Dion said himself during the Lib leadership race that he didn't think he could get Canada to its Kyoto targets - which will make it awfully tough for him to bring down Harper for saying the same now.
In sum, a Lib party desperate to avoid an election indeed shouldn't have the least bit of trouble propping the Cons up on their throne speech. But that's largely because the Libs themselves have agreed with nearly everything the Cons had to say. And that makes it all the more clear that Dion and his party couldn't offer plausible opposition to the Cons even if they weren't distracted by their own internal meltdown.
Update: Alison has more.
After all, to the extent anybody has suggested an election trigger in the speech, it's the Cons' plan to put all of their most extreme crime measures into a single bill. But the Libs have already offered to fast-track the Cons' crime agenda, meaning that it wouldn't be anything new for them to back off again.
What about the War on Terror provisions which the Libs voted down? That was of course Lib legislation to begin with - and just a few months before suddenly rediscovering the value of civil liberties, they supported an extension of the same measures in committee.
The Libs got Canada into combat in Kandahar to begin with, and that position was extended to 2009 thanks to Lib votes. Stephane Dion is looking to give the Cons a run for their money in the tax cut department. And Dion said himself during the Lib leadership race that he didn't think he could get Canada to its Kyoto targets - which will make it awfully tough for him to bring down Harper for saying the same now.
In sum, a Lib party desperate to avoid an election indeed shouldn't have the least bit of trouble propping the Cons up on their throne speech. But that's largely because the Libs themselves have agreed with nearly everything the Cons had to say. And that makes it all the more clear that Dion and his party couldn't offer plausible opposition to the Cons even if they weren't distracted by their own internal meltdown.
Update: Alison has more.
One for the junk heap
Based on the Sask Party's total platform leak, Brad Wall probably had no choice but to go public with his promise to eliminate the PST on used car sales. But I have to wonder if the party has thought through the unintended consequences of the move.
After all, it doesn't seem to be a matter of much dispute that newer cars tend to be less environmentally damaging than their older counterparts. And that trend only figures to continue as hybrids and other emission-friendly vehicles become more widely available - particularly since automakers themselves have agreed to work toward more emission reductions.
As a result, by setting up a tax structure which provides an effective tax break for used cars as opposed to new ones, Wall is in fact promising to provide an incentive for Saskatchewan residents to purchase less efficient vehicles. Which means that the costs of Wall's plan would go well beyond the (itself significant) opportunity cost of the money he'd pour into it - and that the contrast to the Calvert government's focus on the environment figures to offer yet another strong wedge issue for the NDP.
After all, it doesn't seem to be a matter of much dispute that newer cars tend to be less environmentally damaging than their older counterparts. And that trend only figures to continue as hybrids and other emission-friendly vehicles become more widely available - particularly since automakers themselves have agreed to work toward more emission reductions.
As a result, by setting up a tax structure which provides an effective tax break for used cars as opposed to new ones, Wall is in fact promising to provide an incentive for Saskatchewan residents to purchase less efficient vehicles. Which means that the costs of Wall's plan would go well beyond the (itself significant) opportunity cost of the money he'd pour into it - and that the contrast to the Calvert government's focus on the environment figures to offer yet another strong wedge issue for the NDP.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)