For those who haven't yet seen them yet, a couple of must-reads on Conadscam came out today.
In the blogosphere, LKO boils down the scandal about as well as I've seen done so far.
And in the media, the Globe and Mail puts a human face on the riding impact by profiling Con candidate Joe Goudie, featuring two points of particular note.
First, as in seemingly every other case, the Cons' national office apparently didn't have the slightest interest in listening to how Goudie's campaign manager actually wanted to spend the money.
And second, it looks like Goudie and his campaign manager and official agent have joined many other Con candidates and campaign managers on the "them" side of the Cons' choice of battle lines. Which only figures to make the Cons' attempts to add any new supporters to their camp all the more difficuly - as when even those who were willing (however unfortunately) to tie their fortunes to Deceivin' Stephen's are being thrown overboard in an effort to feed Con anger, there's no reason for anybody else to believe the Cons won't do the same to them at a moment's notice.
Friday, April 25, 2008
On significant risks
Shorter Con policy on corporate data breaches which affect personal information:
The good news is that corporations will be held to a higher standard of transparency than our government. After all, we're not outright ordering them to cover anything up.
The good news is that corporations will be held to a higher standard of transparency than our government. After all, we're not outright ordering them to cover anything up.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
On victims
There's plenty of discussion today - both in the media and the blogosphere - about the Cons' attempt to paint themselves as victims in Conadscam. But it's worth noting that the effort not only seems doomed to fail and and of itself, but also looks to run contrary to the wider image the Cons have tried to build for themselves.
Let's start by considering just what would be necessary for the Cons to successfully claim victimhood. Any such argument would presumably have to be based on the premise that Elections Canada had gone after the Cons aggressively despite the Cons having reacted reasonably to the initial investigation. And particularly in the case of a party which is claiming innocence, that would require that the Cons actually cooperate with Elections Canada's efforts to get at the truth of the matter.
Of course, the Cons say that they've done so (normally with a conveniently narrow claim along the lines of having provided the documents requested by Elections Canada). But that's at best a self-serving statement if not backed up by enough public disclosure to show just what was requested and provided.
Needless to say, the Cons haven't backed up even their own choice of assertions with evidence. Morover, the public record shows that the Cons ordered its candidates and agents not to talk to Elections Canada. And that kind of coverup makes it awfully difficult for the Cons to claim that Elections Canada could get the information it needed through any other means - or that the truth would reflect well on the Cons.
Perhaps more importantly than the lack of cooperation with Elections Canada, though, are the Cons' own obvious manipulations surrounding Conadscam. As has been pointed out elsewhere, a party who's in the right generally doesn't attempt to selectively leak information, then find itself in the position of running out back exits and hiding behind closed doors trying to avoid revealing facts which it's willing to share with its preferred media conduits. And that goes doubly so for a helpless victim.
As a result, anybody who pays any attention to information from sources other than the Cons themselves should be able to see through the Cons' claim to victimhood in a hurry. But even if the Cons were successful in playing the victim card, it would seem to run counter to the public perception they're generally trying to foster.
After all, the Cons have eagerly built up the narrative of Deceivin' Stephen as a chessmaster, moving with ruthless efficiency to rearrange Canada's political scene to set himself up to win a majority government. But it's implicit in that narrative that Harper would have the ability to observe where the other pieces on the board are headed, and avoid being taken by surprise by an unforeseen move.
In the case of the RCMP raid, there's little reason to think the Cons actually wouldn't have anticipated it at at least some extent. Elections Canada's investigation has been no secret for quite some time, and presumably even the Cons wouldn't be quite so self-deluded as to think that their stonewalling would be perceived as cooperation.
But by feigning shock at the raid, the Cons are ultimately only undermining their own claim to having enough foresight or strategy to accomplish what they've set out to do. And for a party which has plainly shifted its focus from wanting to clean up government to rewarding its supporters with federal largesse, that may be just as damaging as any fallout from the investigation itself.
Let's start by considering just what would be necessary for the Cons to successfully claim victimhood. Any such argument would presumably have to be based on the premise that Elections Canada had gone after the Cons aggressively despite the Cons having reacted reasonably to the initial investigation. And particularly in the case of a party which is claiming innocence, that would require that the Cons actually cooperate with Elections Canada's efforts to get at the truth of the matter.
Of course, the Cons say that they've done so (normally with a conveniently narrow claim along the lines of having provided the documents requested by Elections Canada). But that's at best a self-serving statement if not backed up by enough public disclosure to show just what was requested and provided.
Needless to say, the Cons haven't backed up even their own choice of assertions with evidence. Morover, the public record shows that the Cons ordered its candidates and agents not to talk to Elections Canada. And that kind of coverup makes it awfully difficult for the Cons to claim that Elections Canada could get the information it needed through any other means - or that the truth would reflect well on the Cons.
Perhaps more importantly than the lack of cooperation with Elections Canada, though, are the Cons' own obvious manipulations surrounding Conadscam. As has been pointed out elsewhere, a party who's in the right generally doesn't attempt to selectively leak information, then find itself in the position of running out back exits and hiding behind closed doors trying to avoid revealing facts which it's willing to share with its preferred media conduits. And that goes doubly so for a helpless victim.
As a result, anybody who pays any attention to information from sources other than the Cons themselves should be able to see through the Cons' claim to victimhood in a hurry. But even if the Cons were successful in playing the victim card, it would seem to run counter to the public perception they're generally trying to foster.
After all, the Cons have eagerly built up the narrative of Deceivin' Stephen as a chessmaster, moving with ruthless efficiency to rearrange Canada's political scene to set himself up to win a majority government. But it's implicit in that narrative that Harper would have the ability to observe where the other pieces on the board are headed, and avoid being taken by surprise by an unforeseen move.
In the case of the RCMP raid, there's little reason to think the Cons actually wouldn't have anticipated it at at least some extent. Elections Canada's investigation has been no secret for quite some time, and presumably even the Cons wouldn't be quite so self-deluded as to think that their stonewalling would be perceived as cooperation.
But by feigning shock at the raid, the Cons are ultimately only undermining their own claim to having enough foresight or strategy to accomplish what they've set out to do. And for a party which has plainly shifted its focus from wanting to clean up government to rewarding its supporters with federal largesse, that may be just as damaging as any fallout from the investigation itself.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Out of its shell
It apparently took Brad Wall just half a year in office before deciding to drop any pretense of moderation or responsible government. This week, the Sask Party decided to gratuitously cut social benefits for no apparent reason, claiming that low-income workers can blindly rely on "the economy" to provide benefits with without a shred of reason to believe that to be realistic.
That would be bad enough if it was merely a matter of artificial spending restraint. But in case there was any hope that the Wall government was going to be the least bit fiscally responsible, it's also seeking the power to dole out over a third of a million dollars at a time, with any public notice delayed until the following year's budget. And that early-year reporting date would conveniently ensure that the Sask Party could freely throw money around for nearly a year before its newly-fixed election date without any public knowledge.
It shouldn't come as much surprise that Wall's government is following the right-wing trend of shifting public spending from actual citizen needs to hidden pork-barrel politics. And there's no indication yet that the Sask Party cares enough about being seen to govern reasonably to pay attention to public pressure. But it's still worth pointing out how clearly any change under Wall has been for the worse - and with any luck, the type of hubris the Sask Party is showing now will ensure that it's booted from office in 2011.
That would be bad enough if it was merely a matter of artificial spending restraint. But in case there was any hope that the Wall government was going to be the least bit fiscally responsible, it's also seeking the power to dole out over a third of a million dollars at a time, with any public notice delayed until the following year's budget. And that early-year reporting date would conveniently ensure that the Sask Party could freely throw money around for nearly a year before its newly-fixed election date without any public knowledge.
It shouldn't come as much surprise that Wall's government is following the right-wing trend of shifting public spending from actual citizen needs to hidden pork-barrel politics. And there's no indication yet that the Sask Party cares enough about being seen to govern reasonably to pay attention to public pressure. But it's still worth pointing out how clearly any change under Wall has been for the worse - and with any luck, the type of hubris the Sask Party is showing now will ensure that it's booted from office in 2011.
On tangled webs
The Cons haven't made any secret of their intention to make use of the Conadscam scheme again in the next federal election unless a court tells them they can't (and regardless of whether Elections Canada or anybody else points out that it's against the law). But let's note that it isn't only the central party which is stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that it's in legal jeopardy, as the Cons' Calgary foundation is also showing signs of rot:
In case there was any doubt, the new, "independent" recipient of Barry Cooper's largesse would be the same Frontier Centre for Public Policy which was hand-picked by the Cons for a six-figure federal contract to consult about electoral reform - despite the group's acknowledged lack of expertise in the area, and a clear bias against electoral reform in what little material it had disseminated on the topic. Naturally, it didn't take long for the group to be embarrassed when one of its subcontractors decided to put together its focus groups based on word of mouth rather than any process which could possibly lead to a diverse set of viewpoints. And the Frontier Centre was also called on to speak for the Cons' position on the farcical Canadian Wheat Board barley plebiscite.
In other words, after being caught wrongly interfering with the 2006 election, the Friends of Science have simply pivoted from direct political intervention to taking on a role funding a different part of the Cons' right-wing noise machine. Which can only make it clear just how little claim any of the groups involved can have to anything approaching independence - and how little plausibility the Cons themselves having in trying to deny links to or among the groups involved.
Although the University of Calgary has severed all ties with the Friends of Science and shut down the accounts which were set up in 2004 by political science professor Barry Cooper, the anti-Kyoto group is still using the same charity, the Calgary Foundation, to collect money and issue tax deductible receipts for anonymous donors.Of course, it's worth pointing out one glaring flaw in the article's discussion.
The money is now going through an independent think tank, the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in Winnipeg, which has received at least $50,000 since last fall, according to a document released by the Calgary Foundation. The Frontier Centre has indicated that it wants to produce a climate change video for children in schools.
In case there was any doubt, the new, "independent" recipient of Barry Cooper's largesse would be the same Frontier Centre for Public Policy which was hand-picked by the Cons for a six-figure federal contract to consult about electoral reform - despite the group's acknowledged lack of expertise in the area, and a clear bias against electoral reform in what little material it had disseminated on the topic. Naturally, it didn't take long for the group to be embarrassed when one of its subcontractors decided to put together its focus groups based on word of mouth rather than any process which could possibly lead to a diverse set of viewpoints. And the Frontier Centre was also called on to speak for the Cons' position on the farcical Canadian Wheat Board barley plebiscite.
In other words, after being caught wrongly interfering with the 2006 election, the Friends of Science have simply pivoted from direct political intervention to taking on a role funding a different part of the Cons' right-wing noise machine. Which can only make it clear just how little claim any of the groups involved can have to anything approaching independence - and how little plausibility the Cons themselves having in trying to deny links to or among the groups involved.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Standing up against Canada
Shorter Deceivin' Stephen:
Canada stands to be better off if NAFTA gets opened up for renegotiation. And in keeping with my personal allegiances, I have no intention of letting that happen.
Canada stands to be better off if NAFTA gets opened up for renegotiation. And in keeping with my personal allegiances, I have no intention of letting that happen.
On refusals
Following up on yesterday's post, the Globe and Mail points out some even better evidence that Conadscam was based on spending decisions made at the national level rather than the riding association level:
Update: And now word comes out that the candidate in question, David Marler, was rejected by the Cons for the next federal election for no apparent reason other than his scruples in questioning Conadscam.
(T)he documents assembled by the Elections Canada investigators to justify a search of Conservative headquarters last week say the party brass was not pleased when local campaigns refused to take part in what has become known as the in-and-out scheme.That's right: as far as the Cons' central command was concerned, some special dispensation was required for a riding association to decline to participate in the scheme. Which offers yet another example of just how little the riding associations themselves had to do with the spending - and how clearly the spending was controlled at the national level.
"There were two outright refusals - Beauce and Brome-Mississquoi," Michael Donison, who was then party president, wrote in a December, 2005, e-mail to Conservative officials. "We have discussed and understood Beauce but what is with Brome? Why should they be allowed to just outright refuse?"
Update: And now word comes out that the candidate in question, David Marler, was rejected by the Cons for the next federal election for no apparent reason other than his scruples in questioning Conadscam.
Monday, April 21, 2008
On central control
I wrote yesterday that Conadscam figures to have expanded in scope now that Elections Canada is investigating alleged false and misleading statements within the Cons' financial returns. But let's note as well that the core dispute about the scheme as a whole also looks to have taken a turn toward ground where the Cons are in serious trouble.
Remember that the primary point of dispute before seemed to be whether or not the advertising purchased through Conadscam should be classified as local or national. While the Cons' arguments about listing candidate names in fine print were relatively weak on their face, there's probably a relatively plausible case to be made that a local candidate could choose to pay for advertising which would focus on national leaders or issues rather than ones specific to a riding.
But the Star's coverage suggests that rather than having to rely on its interpretation as what the Cons' money was spent on, Elections Canada has also found serious problems in how the money was spent in the first place:
By way of analogy, let's consider what a person may - and may not - do in providing money to other people which could be used for a political contribution.
It seems obvious that if a person who has already made political contributions up to his or her donation limit gives money to another person with no strings attached, there's no particular problem if the second person chooses to use the gift to also donate to a political party. And the Cons have tried to pretend that their transfers should be seen as identical to that type of freedom to transfer money back and forth.
Before the warrant was made public, it looked like the Cons had instead given money to their riding associations with an informal expectation that it be used on the ads involved. That could easily result in some liability depending on the intention of the parties. But there would at least be some room for argument that since the recipient had some ability to determine how the money was used, the donor wouldn't necessarily be responsible for the recipient's choices - and a relatively consistent position that no side deal existed might have made it difficult to prove any wrongdoing.
Based on the warrant, however, it looks like the Cons went a step further, seeking formal wire instructions to ensure that riding associations never held any control over the money.
Now, that might have seemed to be the safer course of action if they perceived a real risk that the riding associations would rather spend it on something other than the ads involved. But it's hard to see how the Cons could successfully argue that the riding associations were the ones who spent the money involved under the Canada Elections Act when they neither supplied it, nor had any ability to choose how it would be used.
And it only gets worse when one considers what happened to those who thought better about what was being done. When candidates asked to get out of the scheme, it was the Cons' central command which informed them that they didn't have any ability to back out of the scheme.
Which only offers one more signal of just who was actually spending the money involved. And that would seem to leave the Cons with no way out regardless of whether or not the content also ran afoul of the law.
Remember that the primary point of dispute before seemed to be whether or not the advertising purchased through Conadscam should be classified as local or national. While the Cons' arguments about listing candidate names in fine print were relatively weak on their face, there's probably a relatively plausible case to be made that a local candidate could choose to pay for advertising which would focus on national leaders or issues rather than ones specific to a riding.
But the Star's coverage suggests that rather than having to rely on its interpretation as what the Cons' money was spent on, Elections Canada has also found serious problems in how the money was spent in the first place:
The people acting as the "official agents" for the Tory candidates were given precise, step-by-step instructions in how the transfer would work.In other words, the money which the Cons claim to have transferred to local campaigns was never actually controlled by anybody other than the national party.
And in every case, Conservative head office first demanded that the local campaign provide bank wire instructions to ensure head office would get its money back.
"The transfer of funds to, and the withdrawal of similar amounts from, participating campaign bank accounts was entirely under the control and direction of the Conservative Fund Canada," the document states.
As a result, the Conservative Party – not the candidates – was obligated by the law to report the spending, Elections Canada says...
One official said the party has never denied its campaigns are "centrally organized... that our national campaigns and our regional organizers were the drivers for this."
All ads contained the necessary local taglines, he said.
But some candidates who agreed to go in on buying advertising time "had second thoughts," and had to be told it was "too late" to later pull out.
By way of analogy, let's consider what a person may - and may not - do in providing money to other people which could be used for a political contribution.
It seems obvious that if a person who has already made political contributions up to his or her donation limit gives money to another person with no strings attached, there's no particular problem if the second person chooses to use the gift to also donate to a political party. And the Cons have tried to pretend that their transfers should be seen as identical to that type of freedom to transfer money back and forth.
Before the warrant was made public, it looked like the Cons had instead given money to their riding associations with an informal expectation that it be used on the ads involved. That could easily result in some liability depending on the intention of the parties. But there would at least be some room for argument that since the recipient had some ability to determine how the money was used, the donor wouldn't necessarily be responsible for the recipient's choices - and a relatively consistent position that no side deal existed might have made it difficult to prove any wrongdoing.
Based on the warrant, however, it looks like the Cons went a step further, seeking formal wire instructions to ensure that riding associations never held any control over the money.
Now, that might have seemed to be the safer course of action if they perceived a real risk that the riding associations would rather spend it on something other than the ads involved. But it's hard to see how the Cons could successfully argue that the riding associations were the ones who spent the money involved under the Canada Elections Act when they neither supplied it, nor had any ability to choose how it would be used.
And it only gets worse when one considers what happened to those who thought better about what was being done. When candidates asked to get out of the scheme, it was the Cons' central command which informed them that they didn't have any ability to back out of the scheme.
Which only offers one more signal of just who was actually spending the money involved. And that would seem to leave the Cons with no way out regardless of whether or not the content also ran afoul of the law.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
False or misleading
The first pieces of information about the search warrant against the Cons have been made public - and they seem to confirm my suspicion that the warrant was aimed largely at putting individual names to acts which are already known to have taken place. But it's worth noting that the warrant suggests as well that the offences currently being investigated go beyond what would have been inherent in the Conadscam scheme alone:
As a result, the added charge seems to signal that Elections Canada has also found independent problems with how the Cons reported on their election expenses. Which means that the Cons may be in serious legal trouble even if they manage to defend the in-and-out scheme itself.
The warrant says that the elections commissioner believes that the Conservative Party of Canada and its official agent, the Conservative Fund of Canada, violated the Canada Elections Act. The party and the fund are separately accused of exceeding the maximum amount allowed for elections expenses. The Conservative Fund is also accused of filing financial returns "that it knew or ought reasonably to have known contained a materially false or misleading statement."Up to now, it seemed that the issue raised by the Cons' campaign expenses was limited to the differing views as to what should be considered a national expenditure under the Canada Elections Act. But if that were true, then there's no reason why any financial return should have been anything but accurate in portraying what the Cons had done.
As a result, the added charge seems to signal that Elections Canada has also found independent problems with how the Cons reported on their election expenses. Which means that the Cons may be in serious legal trouble even if they manage to defend the in-and-out scheme itself.
Letting loose
I'd planned to post about the Cons' latest attack on reproductive rights in the form of Maurice Vellacott's Bill C-537, but thereginamom has beaten me to the punch.
So rather than commenting on the substance of the bill for now, let's consider the timing involved. With Rob Anders acting up this week as well, could it be that the Cons' crazies have finally decided that they can't restrain themselves any longer? Or was this another attempt to make sure that at least one set of bad news for Deceivin' Stephen - either the Cons' stay on the wrong side of the law or the latest in hard-right pandering - would be drowned out by the other?
(Edit: changed title.)
So rather than commenting on the substance of the bill for now, let's consider the timing involved. With Rob Anders acting up this week as well, could it be that the Cons' crazies have finally decided that they can't restrain themselves any longer? Or was this another attempt to make sure that at least one set of bad news for Deceivin' Stephen - either the Cons' stay on the wrong side of the law or the latest in hard-right pandering - would be drowned out by the other?
(Edit: changed title.)
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Entirely warranted
It turns out that my week away from the blog has turned into potentially one of the more significant ones in Canadian politics for quite some time. Having not been around to comment at the time, though, I'll take the opportunity to toss in my two cents' worth on the RCMP raid of the Cons' headquarters.
What strikes me as interesting is the need for a search warrant when most of the facts don't seem to be in dispute. The Cons haven't tried to deny that they sent money to riding campaigns which was used on what amounted to national ads with the local candidates listed only in fine print. And it's hard to see what the raid would add to Elections Canada's interpretation as to whether the fine print is enough to legitimize the scheme.
That said, the question of whether somebody did something wrong as part of Conadscam is different from the question of just who actually planned and ordered the acts in question. And given that the Cons' idea of "cooperation" with Elections Canada's investigation consisted of suing for expense reimbursements and trying to raise straw-man arguments about the other federal parties, it wouldn't be the least bit surprising if Elections Canada was left with no choice but to seek a search warrant to find out who within the party had enough of a role in the scheme to be held responsible.
If that's so, then the real story from this week's raid remains to be told. And since it's highly doubtful that Elections Canada would have bothered requesting the search warrant if they didn't see the case as one which should be pursued, every Con who had a role in Conadscam - or who might be in a position to participate in similar schemes in the future - has to be concerned about the danger of having to answer for the Cons' disregard for the law.
What strikes me as interesting is the need for a search warrant when most of the facts don't seem to be in dispute. The Cons haven't tried to deny that they sent money to riding campaigns which was used on what amounted to national ads with the local candidates listed only in fine print. And it's hard to see what the raid would add to Elections Canada's interpretation as to whether the fine print is enough to legitimize the scheme.
That said, the question of whether somebody did something wrong as part of Conadscam is different from the question of just who actually planned and ordered the acts in question. And given that the Cons' idea of "cooperation" with Elections Canada's investigation consisted of suing for expense reimbursements and trying to raise straw-man arguments about the other federal parties, it wouldn't be the least bit surprising if Elections Canada was left with no choice but to seek a search warrant to find out who within the party had enough of a role in the scheme to be held responsible.
If that's so, then the real story from this week's raid remains to be told. And since it's highly doubtful that Elections Canada would have bothered requesting the search warrant if they didn't see the case as one which should be pursued, every Con who had a role in Conadscam - or who might be in a position to participate in similar schemes in the future - has to be concerned about the danger of having to answer for the Cons' disregard for the law.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
A bit of a break
Expect light to no blogging from this space over the next week as I'll be on holiday. In the meantime, though, here's a bit of Monday morning quarterbacking to consider.
For all the (misdirected) flak the NDP has taken for not simply echoing the Libs' position on Cadscam and other issues, I do have to wonder whether the NDP missed some significant opportunities in trying to turn attention to other issues altogether.
In particular, now that the Cons are more interested in patronage than populism, my recollection is that the NDP is the only party in Parliament calling for a restriction on floor-crossing. And while Cadman's situation might not have fallen within the scope of floor-crossing as such, the proposed justice committee hearings would seem to offer a great opportunity to discuss both the possibility of limiting transfer of MPs into a federal party through means other than Criminal Code provisions, and the plight of independent MPs under our current election financing laws.
Of course, the likely result would be to provoke the Cons and Libs into a pie fight as to why their past gain/loss of Brison/Stronach/Turner is entirely different from the other party's gain/loss of Emerson/Khan/Comuzzi. But that would seem to serve all the better to paint the Cons and Libs as indistinguishable from each other - making the NDP's position stand out as a populist alternative, rather than being buried as the same one shared by other actors.
So, should the NDP have taken up the Cadman story as a means to talk about empowering individual MPs rather than parties? And is it too late to do so now?
For all the (misdirected) flak the NDP has taken for not simply echoing the Libs' position on Cadscam and other issues, I do have to wonder whether the NDP missed some significant opportunities in trying to turn attention to other issues altogether.
In particular, now that the Cons are more interested in patronage than populism, my recollection is that the NDP is the only party in Parliament calling for a restriction on floor-crossing. And while Cadman's situation might not have fallen within the scope of floor-crossing as such, the proposed justice committee hearings would seem to offer a great opportunity to discuss both the possibility of limiting transfer of MPs into a federal party through means other than Criminal Code provisions, and the plight of independent MPs under our current election financing laws.
Of course, the likely result would be to provoke the Cons and Libs into a pie fight as to why their past gain/loss of Brison/Stronach/Turner is entirely different from the other party's gain/loss of Emerson/Khan/Comuzzi. But that would seem to serve all the better to paint the Cons and Libs as indistinguishable from each other - making the NDP's position stand out as a populist alternative, rather than being buried as the same one shared by other actors.
So, should the NDP have taken up the Cadman story as a means to talk about empowering individual MPs rather than parties? And is it too late to do so now?
Friday, April 11, 2008
A matter of opinion
For all the examples of the consistent gap between the Cons' fantasy world and reality, there may be none better than how Deceivin' Stephen and company have treated publicly-funded opinion polling. And this week - with surprisingly little public attention - the Cons added yet another indication of their utter distaste for the factual.
Remember that before the Cons took power, one of their frequent (and not entirely unjustified) slams against the Libs involved the amount of public money spent on opinion research.
Of course, once they took power, the Cons immediately increased polling to a record level - which only became public when a report designed to embarrass the Libs instead blew up in the Cons' face. In response, the Cons promised to cut polling expenses by $10 million per year - being over 30% of the amount previously being spent across the federal government.
Which brings us to this from Thursday's Hansard:
Now, this surely wouldn't be the first time the Cons have fallen short of their own supposed standards, or taken up the kind of behaviour they used to decry while in opposition.
But then there's the Cons' response - which may be the only part of the whole story which actually does set them apart. Rather than seeing their track record of feigning outrage then breaking promises as cause for the slightest bit of embarrassment, the Cons are apparently sufficiently proud to want to highlight it for themselves - and even to claim that it somehow sets them above the party which used to earn their vitriol for doing the exact same thing.
All of which suggests that the first and most profound obstacle to holding the Cons accountable for their actions is that they're either dim enough not to recognize their own shortcomings, or detached enough from reality not to care. And it's hard to see those attributes polling well under any circumstances.
Remember that before the Cons took power, one of their frequent (and not entirely unjustified) slams against the Libs involved the amount of public money spent on opinion research.
Of course, once they took power, the Cons immediately increased polling to a record level - which only became public when a report designed to embarrass the Libs instead blew up in the Cons' face. In response, the Cons promised to cut polling expenses by $10 million per year - being over 30% of the amount previously being spent across the federal government.
Which brings us to this from Thursday's Hansard:
Mr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC):That's right: the Cons have now failed to meet the target which they promised on a percentage basis, even when they've conspicuously limited that percentage to "departments" rather than including entities which wouldn't fit under that classification (which seems worded to exclude the Privy Council in particular). And what cuts the Cons have made only appear have put spending back at the same level which they used to criticize coming from the Libs.
Mr. Speaker, for years the former Liberal government wasted huge amounts of money on public opinion research with little or no oversight. Liberal-friendly firms conducted hundreds of unnecessary surveys and polls at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.
Recently, the government made a strong commitment to bring the free spending Liberal ways of the past to an end and ensure that public opinion research is used in an effective way.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works please update the House as to what progress has been made up to this date and what Canadians can expect moving forward?
Mr. James Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer this question from my good friend from Peace River and I will answer this question very clearly.
We recently announced reforms in order to change the public opinion research regime that is in place in different departments. I am pleased to report to the House and to taxpayers that we have reduced public opinion research and polling by departments by 20% over last years, saving taxpayers millions of dollars.
Now, this surely wouldn't be the first time the Cons have fallen short of their own supposed standards, or taken up the kind of behaviour they used to decry while in opposition.
But then there's the Cons' response - which may be the only part of the whole story which actually does set them apart. Rather than seeing their track record of feigning outrage then breaking promises as cause for the slightest bit of embarrassment, the Cons are apparently sufficiently proud to want to highlight it for themselves - and even to claim that it somehow sets them above the party which used to earn their vitriol for doing the exact same thing.
All of which suggests that the first and most profound obstacle to holding the Cons accountable for their actions is that they're either dim enough not to recognize their own shortcomings, or detached enough from reality not to care. And it's hard to see those attributes polling well under any circumstances.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
On categorization
Greg highlights one point which deserves more discussion about the latest machinations around the Cons' plan to centralize control over immigration in Diane Finley's hands. But there's one other aspect of the story which seems to have been largely lost in the shuffle - particularly in the Libs' messaging.
The Libs seem to be focusing their current critique on the possibility that the Cons would value economic immigrants (particularly the temporary workers who they're already trumpeting to mask a decline in permanent immigration) rather than any other type. Which is reasonable enough as a point of dispute, but falls far short of telling the whole story.
Remember that as part of the Cons' ethnic targeting strategy, they've already written off "one-fifth of all ethnic groups" as unlikely to vote for the Cons under any circumstances. By assigning to the minister the ability to set up "categories" by fiat, the Cons would be able to conveniently exclude applications from those communities who wouldn't figure to help their electoral cause.
And the potential for abuse only gets worse when considering how the other 80% of ethnic communities would be treated. Particularly if the Cons do plan on paying more attention to economic immigrants than other types, there figures to be a limited number of spots available in other categories - making a position at the top of any category list essential for any community which wants to be able to bring new members across the border in the future. Which would enable the Cons to force different communities to compete as to who does the most to help out their partisan cause, and give top priority to whoever answers the call.
Of course, any categorization would be subject to the Charter and to other applicable law. But it wouldn't figure to be all that difficult to find non-partisan excuses for a set of choices which would have serious partisan effects. And the Cons have done nothing to suggest that this would be an exception to their general rule of governing in their party's interests rather than those of the country as a whole.
Needless to say, neither a system based on politics rather than genuine merit nor a system skewed in the Cons' favour would figure to be anything but a disaster for Canada in the long run. And that - not the contrast between economic and other types of new arrival - looks to be the aspect of the Cons' bill that needs to be highlighted to show what's most wrong with the Harper government.
The Libs seem to be focusing their current critique on the possibility that the Cons would value economic immigrants (particularly the temporary workers who they're already trumpeting to mask a decline in permanent immigration) rather than any other type. Which is reasonable enough as a point of dispute, but falls far short of telling the whole story.
Remember that as part of the Cons' ethnic targeting strategy, they've already written off "one-fifth of all ethnic groups" as unlikely to vote for the Cons under any circumstances. By assigning to the minister the ability to set up "categories" by fiat, the Cons would be able to conveniently exclude applications from those communities who wouldn't figure to help their electoral cause.
And the potential for abuse only gets worse when considering how the other 80% of ethnic communities would be treated. Particularly if the Cons do plan on paying more attention to economic immigrants than other types, there figures to be a limited number of spots available in other categories - making a position at the top of any category list essential for any community which wants to be able to bring new members across the border in the future. Which would enable the Cons to force different communities to compete as to who does the most to help out their partisan cause, and give top priority to whoever answers the call.
Of course, any categorization would be subject to the Charter and to other applicable law. But it wouldn't figure to be all that difficult to find non-partisan excuses for a set of choices which would have serious partisan effects. And the Cons have done nothing to suggest that this would be an exception to their general rule of governing in their party's interests rather than those of the country as a whole.
Needless to say, neither a system based on politics rather than genuine merit nor a system skewed in the Cons' favour would figure to be anything but a disaster for Canada in the long run. And that - not the contrast between economic and other types of new arrival - looks to be the aspect of the Cons' bill that needs to be highlighted to show what's most wrong with the Harper government.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
The fix is in
It looks like we can now add one more item to the list of ways in which the Libs have given the Cons an effective majority: the Libs' signal that they won't defeat the Harper government on anything has given the Cons the effective ability to choose the timing of the next federal election by relying on its own dirty tricks manual to say that House of Commons committees are dysfunctional. And matters only get worse from there when one looks at what the Cons can do with the ability to choose their own election date.
As I've noted before, the main reason why the fixed election date in 2009 offers an advantage to the Cons is the prospect that they could save their war chest for the summer, then take advantage of the lack of pre-writ spending limits to run an advertising blitz which the other parties would be unable to counteract just in time to set themselves up for a fall campaign. But that at least carries some downside in that the Cons won't be able to say for sure what the political conditions will be like next year.
With the Libs being just stubborn enough in committees to set up some argument that an election should be called without showing the backbone to vote down the Cons on any matter of substance, though, the Cons may now get the best of both worlds. They're now able to launch into a pre-writ ad campaign at any time, secure in the knowledge that they can make a relatively plausible claim to demand an immediate election before the opposition can generate much of a response. (And if the Libs can only avoid that by capitulating to every demand the Cons can think of in order to avoid claims of gridlock, I doubt Harper would complain about that result.)
For all the Libs' talk about keeping control over when an election will happen, it looks like their delay tactics have only handed that power over to Deceivin' Stephen. Which means that just when it seemed like the Libs couldn't be any less effective at keeping the Cons in check, they've managed to sink to yet another new low.
As I've noted before, the main reason why the fixed election date in 2009 offers an advantage to the Cons is the prospect that they could save their war chest for the summer, then take advantage of the lack of pre-writ spending limits to run an advertising blitz which the other parties would be unable to counteract just in time to set themselves up for a fall campaign. But that at least carries some downside in that the Cons won't be able to say for sure what the political conditions will be like next year.
With the Libs being just stubborn enough in committees to set up some argument that an election should be called without showing the backbone to vote down the Cons on any matter of substance, though, the Cons may now get the best of both worlds. They're now able to launch into a pre-writ ad campaign at any time, secure in the knowledge that they can make a relatively plausible claim to demand an immediate election before the opposition can generate much of a response. (And if the Libs can only avoid that by capitulating to every demand the Cons can think of in order to avoid claims of gridlock, I doubt Harper would complain about that result.)
For all the Libs' talk about keeping control over when an election will happen, it looks like their delay tactics have only handed that power over to Deceivin' Stephen. Which means that just when it seemed like the Libs couldn't be any less effective at keeping the Cons in check, they've managed to sink to yet another new low.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
On limitations
One of the main Con talking points surrounding Tom Lukiwski's anti-gay remarks has been to ask whether any "statute of limitations" should apply in determining the appropriate response to the video. With that in mind, I'll take a moment to point out a couple of the principles behind actual statutes of limitations - and why neither the Lukiwski example nor other examples of seemingly old news about Con actions would give rise to a legitimate limitations defence.
First off, it's worth noting that virtually all statutes of limitations are subject to the principle of discoverability. In weighing the relative interests of a defendant who wants to be able to move on from past actions and a plaintiff who deserves the opportunity to seek redress for a wrong, courts have understandably concluded that most limitation periods won't operate where the plaintiff couldn't reasonably determine that any claim existed.
Needless to say, if the discoverability principle were applied to Lukiwski's comments, there would be no basis for a limitation defence. Indeed, nobody could possibly have known that a wrong was committed without either crashing the Devine Cons' after-debate party, or breaking into the opposition offices at the legislature to track down the videotape. Which means that a fresh limitation period would apply from the time the tape could have been (and was) found.
Mind you, a recent development in limitations law has provided for "ultimate limitation periods" which may bar a claim which has not yet been discovered after what's determined to be a sufficiently large amount of time - normally in the range of 15-20 years. But even then, a defendant can't take advantage of the ultimate limitation period to the extent the defendant deliberately conceals the fact that there's any claim to be made.
In Lukiwski's case, it's far from clear that such a principle would be in play. (Though the great unanswered questions so far include just who knew the tape existed, and what if anything was done with it after the post-debate party.)
But it's worth turning to the Cons' general practices in government while keeping in mind the rules which apply in a civil context. Greg Weston notes today that the Cons have made a habit of concealing information requested by the public, with the result that it's awfully difficult to determine just what Deceivin' Stephen and his gang have been up to. And Weston expressed concern that by the time any potentially damaging news comes out, it's seen as old enough to be of little value.
I'd argue that as in the case of limitation periods, the mere passage of time doesn't make grievances about the Cons' hidden actions any less legitimate. If anything, the fact that the Cons have managed to keep something under wraps only amplifies the wrong: not only is there the initial action to criticize, but also the subsequent cover-up. And as in the case of a civil actor who successfully hides the existence of a claim, it should be clear that stories about the Cons' actions in office are just as newsworthy and relevant when they actually come out as they would have been when they should have been disclosed in the first place.
First off, it's worth noting that virtually all statutes of limitations are subject to the principle of discoverability. In weighing the relative interests of a defendant who wants to be able to move on from past actions and a plaintiff who deserves the opportunity to seek redress for a wrong, courts have understandably concluded that most limitation periods won't operate where the plaintiff couldn't reasonably determine that any claim existed.
Needless to say, if the discoverability principle were applied to Lukiwski's comments, there would be no basis for a limitation defence. Indeed, nobody could possibly have known that a wrong was committed without either crashing the Devine Cons' after-debate party, or breaking into the opposition offices at the legislature to track down the videotape. Which means that a fresh limitation period would apply from the time the tape could have been (and was) found.
Mind you, a recent development in limitations law has provided for "ultimate limitation periods" which may bar a claim which has not yet been discovered after what's determined to be a sufficiently large amount of time - normally in the range of 15-20 years. But even then, a defendant can't take advantage of the ultimate limitation period to the extent the defendant deliberately conceals the fact that there's any claim to be made.
In Lukiwski's case, it's far from clear that such a principle would be in play. (Though the great unanswered questions so far include just who knew the tape existed, and what if anything was done with it after the post-debate party.)
But it's worth turning to the Cons' general practices in government while keeping in mind the rules which apply in a civil context. Greg Weston notes today that the Cons have made a habit of concealing information requested by the public, with the result that it's awfully difficult to determine just what Deceivin' Stephen and his gang have been up to. And Weston expressed concern that by the time any potentially damaging news comes out, it's seen as old enough to be of little value.
I'd argue that as in the case of limitation periods, the mere passage of time doesn't make grievances about the Cons' hidden actions any less legitimate. If anything, the fact that the Cons have managed to keep something under wraps only amplifies the wrong: not only is there the initial action to criticize, but also the subsequent cover-up. And as in the case of a civil actor who successfully hides the existence of a claim, it should be clear that stories about the Cons' actions in office are just as newsworthy and relevant when they actually come out as they would have been when they should have been disclosed in the first place.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Poor excuses
Shorter John Moore:
Shouldn't we at least consider the possibility that Tom Lukiwski launched into his anti-gay diatribe because he cared too much?
Shouldn't we at least consider the possibility that Tom Lukiwski launched into his anti-gay diatribe because he cared too much?
Compare and contrast
When Deceivin' Stephen threatens a lawsuit, it's to try to stop the opposition from doing its job by holding him accountable.
When the Libs go to court, it's to try to stop the media from doing its job by reporting news about them.
When the NDP plans legal action, it's to require the government to do its job of reviewing a foreign sale of publicly-funded assets in accordance with the law.
Based on the above, can there be much doubt which party has the best judgment as to what does (and doesn't) deserve to be dealt with by the judicial system?
When the Libs go to court, it's to try to stop the media from doing its job by reporting news about them.
When the NDP plans legal action, it's to require the government to do its job of reviewing a foreign sale of publicly-funded assets in accordance with the law.
Based on the above, can there be much doubt which party has the best judgment as to what does (and doesn't) deserve to be dealt with by the judicial system?
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Misspoken
The Cons have already done plenty to twist language beyond belief where it suits their political purposes, in particular by extending the definition of "misspeak" to include a false statement of fact which is later exposed.
But Jay Hill's appearance on Question Period (see link to video from here) looks to be taking the redefinition a couple of steps further. As far as the Cons' talking points go, a statement made deliberately and interpreted in precisely the manner intended is also a matter of "misspeaking" when it later proves to be embarrassing.
As a result, it looks like the Cons' definition needs to be rewritten again to include absolutely any statement which hurts their political cause. Which only makes it all the more clear why Hill has been sent out to argue that the proper response is to begin ignoring any "misspoken" statement as quickly as possible - rather than to take a closer look at why the statement was made in the first place.
But Jay Hill's appearance on Question Period (see link to video from here) looks to be taking the redefinition a couple of steps further. As far as the Cons' talking points go, a statement made deliberately and interpreted in precisely the manner intended is also a matter of "misspeaking" when it later proves to be embarrassing.
As a result, it looks like the Cons' definition needs to be rewritten again to include absolutely any statement which hurts their political cause. Which only makes it all the more clear why Hill has been sent out to argue that the proper response is to begin ignoring any "misspoken" statement as quickly as possible - rather than to take a closer look at why the statement was made in the first place.
Wishful thinking
Shorter Scott Tribe:
Sure, the Libs have already driven away one former MP and thoroughly irritated other would-be candidates by refusing to confirm nominations in hope that a Miracle Star Candidate will come along. But if we up the ante by holding out for the Greatest Miracle Star Candidate Ever, I'm sure it'll all work out.
Sure, the Libs have already driven away one former MP and thoroughly irritated other would-be candidates by refusing to confirm nominations in hope that a Miracle Star Candidate will come along. But if we up the ante by holding out for the Greatest Miracle Star Candidate Ever, I'm sure it'll all work out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)