A study in contrasts

So which party figures to do the better job dealing with the environmental and social problems raised by unbridled tar sands development: one which goes out of its way to raise awareness of the issues? Or one whose leader thinks there's nothing to be learned about them?

A telling message

It's probably true that those hoping to revive the Republican Party don't have much to go on but wishful thinking. But Gerry Nicholls' spin is particularly amusing considering how the Republicans themselves handled last night's response speech.

While most of the commentary on Bobby Jindal's speech has revolved around the Kenneth comparison, take a look at what's missing from the transcript. Jindal mentioned the name "Obama" only once - and in the following sentence:

In all these areas, Republicans want to work with President Obama.

And from there Jindal went back to criticizing "Democratic leaders" generally before getting into the rest of his anti-government rant.

Now, given Obama's sky-high approval ratings it's understandable that the Republicans think they have a better chance of making short-term headway by trying to place the spotlight elsewhere. But as long as the party in general and 2012 contenders like Jindal in particular think they're best off not laying a glove on the most visible Democratic politician in the country, the odds of Obama facing a serious threat from either party in 2012 would look fairly remote.

Deep thought

It seems to me that an effective probation officer wouldn't publicly inform offenders that they aren't going to face any consequences for misbehaviour.

On rallying cries

Shorter Warren Kinsella, responding to Michael Sticking's evisceration of Michael Ignatieff:

A leader focused only on "his own glorification"? "Seems to lack any real passion for the country he intends to lead"? "An air of haughty detachment, an arrogant sense of entitlement to leadership, limited charisma, Bush-friendly positions on key foreign policy issues, hardly any record on (and relatively little knowledge of) social and economic issues"? All fine by me, as long as he's ever so slightly less horrific than Stephen Harper!

Shed a tear for your corporate media overlords

For clearly it's unfair that their control over content in multiple media might strengthen the CRTC's hand in regulating them.

Lib MP: Parliamentary democracy a "pointless exercise"

David Akin nicely chronicled the NDP's efforts to point out the need for some actual review of what Deficit Jim wants to push through in his budget. But perhaps the most telling line is the response given by one Lib MP as to why they weren't interested in bothering:

Liberal and Conservative MPs did not respond to the NDP attacks. Privately, they said their strategy was to speed the legislation through committee by avoiding what one Liberal MP privately characterized as "a pointless exercise" of engaging in debate with the NDP or the Bloc Quebecois.

Now, it's interesting enough that the Cons and Libs presented a united front - with the Libs not even expressing the slightest concern about being told when debate is and isn't appropriate. But even more striking is the Libs' apparent opinion that it's "pointless" to actually review legislation before passing it.

After all, the committee stage figured to be the one opportunity the other parties had to put some pressure on the Cons to accept amendments to a budget which even the Libs recognize to be flawed. But rather than doing anything constructive with that opportunity, the Libs not only joined with the Cons in running out the clock, but went out of their way to attack the idea that anything else could be done.

Needless to say, it shouldn't come as much surprise when the Libs once again end up feigning indignant surprise as the problems they've ignored in rolling over for the Cons come to affect Canadian voters. But for those of us who recognize the need for our elected representatives to actually do their jobs by scrutinizing the government's actions, yesterday's events should offer another strong signal that the Libs aren't up for the task.

On common interests

While yesterday's Burning Question was largely snark-based, there's a serious issue underlying it: namely, is there any chance of getting any of the Cons' gratuitous additions removed from the budget to be properly dealt with as separate legislation? And there might be an interesting possibility for cooperation between the NDP and corporate leaders who are thoroughly unimpressed with Deficit Jim's changes to competition and investment rules:

Embedded in a document that has principally drawn attention for its pledge to spend $30 billion to kick-start the sputtering domestic economy are sweeping changes to the fundamental business framework of the country. The abrupt overhaul of both the Competition Act and the Investment Canada Act without warning or consultation has the corporate community howling with outrage and opening their wallets for top legal counsel.

The approach used to introduce the changes reflects that for all the talk of collaboration in tough times, the gap between the government and the business community is as wide as it has ever been...

Their primary concerns are new measures that would exponentially increase the fines charged for anti-competitive behaviour and would freeze assets while a Competition Bureau investigation is under way. Accusations of conspiracy would lose the current "undue effect on competition" test, and leave it to the discretion of the bureau.

For large corporations which typically have hundreds of deals with other companies, it would require a massive and expensive audit and analysis of each one of those transactions...

Those who will be most affected by the changes argue that such important steps should be reviewed carefully and on a standalone basis, rather than being pushed through with the haste of emergency stimulus packages. But the political nuance behind the new rules makes any attempts at concerted objection particularly tricky.

Many of the key elements of the changes this time around first surfaced in Bill C-19 in 2005, which died with Paul Martin's Liberal government. Ironically, several of the Conservatives who were instrumental in fighting Bill C-19 at that time are now involved in pushing it through.

In November 2005, James Rajotte was the Conservative industry critic and he argued passionately against the passage Bill C-19 at industry committee hearings. Specifically, he is on record urging more thorough consultation before the measures (which are largely intact this time around) proceed any further.

Mr. Rajotte is now head of the parliamentary finance committee, which is attempting to push through the budget legislation as quickly as possible.

Of course, it could be that the competition and investment measures themselves are ones which the NDP would ultimately support in substance. But it shouldn't be that difficult to send a public message that even ideas worth pursuing shouldn't be suddenly imposed without consultation. And that goes doubly when the measures would cause uncertainty and instability in the corporate community just as an ineffective government is counting far too much on the private sector to pull Canada out of a recession.

From there, if a combined effort from the NDP and business leaders can pressure the Cons into pulling a couple of the elements of the budget out for further consultation, then it's hard to see how they'd justify doing otherwise when it comes to the parts of the budget bill dealing with pay equity and other issues. Which means that a temporary joint effort with corporate Canada may be the best way for the NDP to ultimately influence what does and doesn't get passed in the budget.

Burning question

Is today the day the Lib apologists' message on the budget officially changes from "it's too early to criticize" to "why bother when it's too late to do anything"?

We got the idea the last time we told you to stop

It may be time to check whether the Libs are suffering a case of collective amnesia. Yesterday, it was Paul Szabo who was completely unaware that his party had heard and ignored the Privacy Commissioner of Canada's concerns about the Cons' Canada Elections Act changes. And today, Marlene Jennings looks to have gone Szabo one better by trying to claim a practice which the Libs shut down in 2006 as a bright idea of their own:

(O)nto students. Again. What about polling stations *inside* the university residences and buildings, staffed by students? Actually, that’s an interesting idea - and apparently, it comes from Jennings’ parliamentary intern, who is either not here, or cool enough not to blush violently at the shoutout.

Which sounds like an absolute slam dunk of a suggestion. After all, what kind of anti-democratic party could possibly be opposed to the idea of making voting more convenient for students?

On target audiences

BigCityLib asks whether the Cons can pass Garry Breitkreuz' bill to repeal the federal long gun registry. But the real question is whether or not they want to - and the answer to that still looks to be "no".

If the Cons' actual goal was to eliminate the registry, then their path to get that done would seem to be obvious. After all, NDP MP John Rafferty has already announced that he plans to introduce a bill to the same effect. Which means that if the goal was to actually pass a bill, the Cons would be publicly working with Rafferty to try to round up additional support in Parliament and in the public.

Instead, the Cons are conspicuously ignoring the fact that Rafferty is looking to reach the same supposed goal, refusing to mention any opposition MPs by name and suggesting that they'll generally be reluctant to vote to repeal the registry. Which should serve as a strong indication that their intention is something other than to actually get the legislation changed.

That's doubly so when one looks at Breitkreuz' bill. Rather than merely repealing the registry, it also sets up what looks to me to be a highly unusual requirement that the Auditor General evaluate all gun laws every five years - without the slightest indication as to why gun laws in particular should be subject to that kind of review.

At best, that can be seen as a cynical way to keep gun issues in the news even after the main irritant is removed. But the provision might be seen as a poison pill for opposition parties - or worse yet, as an excuse for somebody to stop the bill in its tracks as requiring the Auditor General to spend money reporting even if it otherwise enjoys enough support to pass.

In sum, the real danger isn't that C-301 will eventually pass (since the Cons have essentially rendered the registry useless anyway). Instead, the greatest risk is that it will allow the Cons to keep gun owners on their side and motivated even as Harper deliberately avoids acting on his party's promises. And if the opposition parties are on the ball, they'll find a way to get a poison-pill-free version of the bill through Parliament to shut down the issue.

Asleep at the switch

Over the past year and a half, I've generally figured that the Libs at least have some idea what it is that they're allowing the Cons to get away with. But Paul Szabo raises the possibility that they really don't have the slightest clue what's going on around them:

Paul Szabo takes over after Block’s clock runs out, and wonders about the recent revelation of the privacy concerns inherent in the changes to the Elections Act that resulted in dates of birth of electors being released to parties. He wonders if Stoddart’s office brought that up during committee, and the commissioner explains that both she and her Ontario counterpart did, at length. That was some impressive witness-listening y’all did on those committees, guys.

Public dangers

It's difficult to diagree with Buckdog that the Saskatchewan Libs' lurch to the right looks like the party's last gasp. And the move is particularly surprising given that the effect is to put Ryan Bater and company in direct competition with the remnants of the PCs - who ran on a similar platform in 2007 with even less success than the Libs.

But unlike Buckdog, I'd also see the Libs' shift as a potentially harmful one for the province: not because it makes the Libs more competitive, but because it figures to give Brad Wall political cover to start doing his worst.

Of course, there's been plenty of reason to criticize the Sask Party government so far. But the combination of a strong NDP opposition and the lack of much pressure from the right has at least forced the Sask Party to be somewhat more moderate than might have been expected given its well-known reactionary impulses. (That is, when it comes to issues other than labour relations.)

But if the Libs choose to focus on privatization as their primary demand, then the situation might take a significant turn for the worse. After all, any time which Bater spends railing against fabricated evils associated with public ownership can only give Wall just the excuse that he's been looking for to start gutting Saskatchewan's public sector.

Of course, if Wall responds to a privatization message by triangulating back to the right, that might become the final nail in the Libs' coffin. Which means that Bater probably has ample reason to instead focus his attention on issues which Wall won't be so eager to co-opt.

If the Libs continue on the road they seem intent on travelling, though, the result might be serious damage to the province for the future - as future NDP governments would be left having to try to reassemble any auctioned-off public institutions. And it's hard to take any great satisfication in any Lib self-immolation if the result is to make matters worse for the province as a whole.

On meaningless reporting

Congratulations to John McCallum, who apparently needed only a month after the Libs decided that the Libs' request for reports would do anything to keep the Cons in line to figure out one of the glaring problems with that theory:

The Liberals amended the ways and means motion to force the government to report on its progress with "getting money out the door" and into communities for infrastructure projects and other initiatives related to the stimulus package.

The reports would provide information on how the government has implemented the budget and be tabled in the House of Commons at least five sitting days before the last opposition day in every supply period this year.

The first supply period ends March 26, but the House is on a break from March 16 to 20. If the last opposition day is scheduled for March 26, the first report would be due to be tabled in Parliament by March 12...

"The government's own record is that money does not go out the door. Money sits forever under a mattress in Ottawa doing nobody any good, so that is why we'll be holding the government to account, to make sure the money does flow for infrastructure, but also the money for business lending," Mr. McCallum said, noting that because the first report is due in a few weeks, it will be a different nature than the subsequent ones. "The money is not even legal to go out the door before April 1. The first report will be different from the others in the sense that we cannot expect budget money to have gone out the door when we're still in March and the new fiscal year has not begun."

Of course, it was the Libs who chose for themselves when to ask the Cons to provide their reports. But they apparently didn't think far enough ahead to consider when any meaningful information would be available.

As a result, the first report supposedly intended to ensure that budget money actually does flow to its intended destinations can't say anything other than that it's impossible for money to flow yet. And the fact that the Libs have just realized that fact now that would seem to suggest that the Cons aren't the only party in Ottawa which is sorely lacking in the bare competence department.

Liberal 13 of 92

The Libs have telegraphed what will apparently pass for their strategy in Western Canada. And all indications are that Michael Ignatieff and company are looking at making minimal inroads at best:

Federal Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, who is trying to woo Western Canada and wants to be the next Prime Minister, should focus only on six to eight unheld seats in the Conservative territory, say top Grits.

"We have to be realistic. As a first step, we should choose six to eight ridings on top of what we already have and put in as much money and other sources as we can. Later on, we can focus on other ridings," one top Liberal based in Western Canada told The Hill Times...

There are 92 House seats in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. In the last federal election, the Conservatives won 77, the Liberals won seven and the NDP won 14. Conservatives won nine of 14 seats in Manitoba, 13 of 14 in Saskatchewan, 27 of 28 in Alberta and 22 of 36 in B.C. The Liberals won five in B.C., one in Saskatchewan and one in Manitoba. The NDP won four in Manitoba, one in Alberta and nine in B.C...

Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Sask.) said Mr. Ignatieff wants to reach out to Western Canada in order to make the party a truly national party and agreed the Grits should narrow their focus on winnable ridings. He declined to get into specifics...

"There are ducks in Western Canada, they're elusive ducks, but there're ducks in Western Canada and you don't write off Western Canada and that's what Mr. Ignatieff is saying," Ms. McLellan told The Hill Times. "In fact, what he wants to do is spend more time here and make sure that we, as a party, are speaking to Western Canadians' aspirations and we have some seats."

Now, it would seem surprising for a party whose strategy consists of little more than portraying itself as the alternative government in waiting to aspire to match the NDP in a major region of the country. But that looks to be where the Libs have positioned themselves, as the suggested range of 13 to 15 targeted seats fits perfectly with the NDP's recent performance in the region (14 in 2008, 13 in 2006).

Not to mention that the Libs themselves won 14 Western seats even while losing power in 2006. And the connection between that number and the Libs' latest plans may signal that for all Ignatieff's bluster about addressing the West, he actually plans to do less about it than his predecessors. After all, any Lib effort to win government will necessarily involve trying to expand their seat total beyond that from 2006 somewhere - and apparently the West isn't seen as part of that effort.

At best, one might look at the proposed numbers as part of a Chretien-style strategy of underpromising in hopes of overdelivering. But if Western Libs are actually listening to their party's plans, the effect would seem to be only to demoralize the supporters needed to improve on the Libs' current standing.

The road once travelled

Recently, I came across a copy of "Leaders & Lesser Mortals: Backroom Politics in Canada" by John Laschinger and Geoffrey Stevens - effectively an equivalent to Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics based on the tactics of the '80s and early '90s. And while much of the book fit with what had been my understanding of how Canadian politics had progressed during the time period, I'll take a moment to point out a few surprising tidbits - along with how they may affect some of my assumptions about the current state of Canadian politics.

First off, the major parties' campaign spending from the 1984 and 1988 elections (p. 138, via the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada):

	Con	Lib	NDP
1984 expenses	$6,388,941	$6,292,983	$4,730,723
1988 expenses	$7,921,738	$6,839,875	$7,060,563

Second, the parties' yearly fund-raising from 1979-1990 (p. 164-165, again from the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada):

	Con	Lib	NDP
1979	$8,375,716	$5,220,520	$4,741,281
1980	$7,564,120	$6,217,795	$4,920,447
1981	$6,949,797	$5,095,158	$3,855,812
1982	$8,193,660	$6,104,367	$6,984,881
1983	$14,108,012	$7,285,115	$8,590,942
1984	$21,145,920	$10,553,316	$10,371,018
1985	$14,565,652	$5,570,822	$6,284,316
1986	$15,117,750	$10,619,007	$7,795,658
1987	$12,761,155	$8,832,377	$6,697,083
1988	$24,542,036	$13,211,364	$18,754,770
1989	$13,801,368	$6,324,012	$13,864,694
1990	$11,046,654	$12,036,486	$15,438,908

And finally, some party identification numbers from 1991-1992 (p. 223, from Goldfarb Consulting):

	1991	1992
Con	19%	14%
Lib	30%	26%
NDP	22%	16%
Bloc	9%	9%
Reform	6%	7%
Other	6%	2%
None of the above	7%	24%

So what makes these numbers worth noting? From my standpoint, they suggest a rather different story from what seems to be the conventional wisdom about when and how the NDP enjoyed its previous best chance to emerge as the Official Opposition, and about what the default expectations should be among the three main federal parties.

My assumption, which seems to be in line with conventional wisdom, was that the greatest opportunity in the NDP's history came in 1988 - when Ed Broadbent was seen as the top choice among the federal leaders, and when the NDP had managed to take the lead in some polls during the 1986-1987 period. And the 1988 party spending numbers indicate that the NDP didn't lack for financial resources, as it managed to outspend the Libs and stay within striking distance of the Mulroney Cons.

Of course, it's worth noting that there were also millions of third-party dollars poured into the 1988 election on both sides of the free trade issue. Which means that the NDP's money likely didn't go as far as it would have in almost any other election cycle - and probably had plenty to with the fact that the NDP's lack of focus on the issue left it largely sidelined.

But contrary to what I'd figured, neither that electoral disappointment nor Broadbent's departure as leader in 1989 did anything to limit the NDP's national momentum. Instead, the NDP managed to build itself into Canada's top federal fund-raising machine in 1989-1990 after Audrey McLaughlin took the helm. And for a substantial period of time after the Ontario and BC elections which supposedly sapped the party's popular support, the NDP ranked above the Cons in second place, with a party identification level more than double its eventual 1993 popular vote. Which would suggest to me that 1993 may in fact have represented the NDP's best-ever opportunity to elevate itself to one of the top two positions - and raise significant questions as to what happened to turn that election into a disaster instead.

Turning to a more general analysis, the decade-long fund-raising numbers also bear mention. But first, take a look at the last four years worth of party fund-raising data by way of comparison.

From my perspective, the earlier numbers would pose a serious challenge to a couple of the default narratives around party fund-raising. For one, the Cons' current levels of fund-raising - rather than representing any new heights in party fund-raising - are really only around the Mulroney Cons' typical inflows even without adjusting for inflation. (Of course, that may require far more work in light of the current donation limits which weren't in effect during Mulroney's time. But the Cons don't seem to be that far beyond the number of donors either - as their 174,000 last year) barely exceeds population growth from their peak of 117,000 in 1983.

Meanwhile, the narrative that the relative parity in fund-raising levels for the NDP and the Libs should be seen as a new and surprising development - which I've bought into at times - doesn't seem to have much basis in the historical numbers. Indeed, it isn't even unprecedented for the NDP to out-raise the Libs while the latter hold office - and at its best, the NDP fund-raising machine has been able to go toe to toe with any in Canadian politics.

Of course, that reality also hints at how far the NDP also has to go in building from its current levels. But the fact that the NDP has managed to lead the pack before should make it clear that the task isn't beyond its reach now. And hopefully the result will be to build the party up to its 1998-1992 levels - and then to better take advantage of the resulting opportunities.

Update: In comments, Pundits' Guide notes a couple of glitches in the numbers above. First, the Cons' number of donors for 2008 is likely based on double-counting individuals who gave money in multiple quarters of the year - which would suggest that the Cons' number of raw donors may in fact be lower than it was in the '80s. Second, the NDP's fund-raising totals from the '80s may reflect provincial as well as federal donations. While that would certainly complicate the picture in assessing the relative fund-raising ability of the federal parties, it would still remain true that the NDP was able to spend to the maximum in 1988 and then increase its donations in some form after that.

A misplaced focus

A quick thought on the "Minister of Curry in a Hurry" designation which the Cons have apparently bestowed on Jason Kenney. Isn't the problem less the precise nickname chosen for Kenney, and more the fact that even the Cons recognize that Kenney's work involves wining and dining target groups rather than carrying out his ministerial responsibilities?

Lacking distinction

I noted yesterday that both Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff appear to have gone out of their way to emphasize bipartisanship in their meeting with Barack Obama. But let's look in a bit more detail at what Ignatieff had to say, and what it may say about the likelihood of the Libs reversing their current lack of effective opposition in the future:

Mr. Ignatieff spent a lot of time talking about the importance of bipartisanship in Canada on foreign policy and how they had made the decision to back the government on the deployment after the Manley Commission, and that they saw this as not a partisan issue; it was more important to get the country together on issues like the budget and on Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that this was a commitment that they were sharing across the parties, and that they wanted to work together with the United States.

Now, the first obvious point is that in emphasizing "bipartisanship", Ignatieff looks to have cut off a substantial portion of Canada's political spectrum for the purposes of his own analysis. In the U.S., the term can relatively plausibly be seen as encompassing the field of political debate (give or take a Bernie Sanders). But it would seem to me a clear misstatement to suggest that two-party agreement in Canada can be equated with the same type of across-the-spectrum consensus-building which would be associated with the term in the U.S. - much as Ignatieff and Harper may both wish it were so.

But then, it's true that a Con/Lib team effort can functionally impose its will on the country. And that's where it's interesting to note how Ignatieff described his party's actions and positions to Obama.

I've pointed out before that Harper's ability to strongarm the Libs into the most recent Afghanistan extension should be seen as a cautionary tale in which the Libs traded their support for nothing of substance. But apparently Ignatieff's view is just the opposite, as he both actively trumpeted the previous vote, and appears to see the issue as one where the importance of keeping the unwashed masses in line outweighs the need to actually act as an opposition party.

Perhaps even more significantly, Ignatieff appears to have looked at the budget vote as a similar type of result: rather than describing any need to put Harper on probation, he apparently described the Libs' support for the Cons' budget as being based on a similar desire to "get the country together" behind Harper's preferred course of action.

Of course, that runs contrary to the Libs' public message at home, which has involved putting as brave a face as they can muster on their lack of sufficient backbone to topple the Harper government. Which means that it's worth asking just who Ignatieff is trying to kid: Obama, the Canadian public, or maybe both.

Moreover, to the extent Ignatieff has signaled a continued intention to place bipartisanship and elite consensus at the top of his priority list, it's hard to see how he could justify taking any more of a stand in the future - meaning that we're all the more likely to be in for another series of Lib capitulations on the confidence votes they've put in place.

In sum, rather than using his time with Obama to lay the groundwork for any future improvement on Harper's vision of Canada/U.S. relations, Ignatieff has instead done little but to highlight the similarities between himself and Deceivin' Stephen. And Ignatieff's choice of message about himself and his party to our most important international partner should serve as a warning signal to voters at home.

Update: Impolitical challenges a few of the points made above. My quick responses:
- On the question of where the term "bipartisan" comes from, there would be a more plausible case to suggest it might be a matter of Obama's handlers' interpretation if it was a single reference rather than something which Ignatieff is described as spending "a lot of time" discussing. And it's hard to see what the term or anything like it could be referring to other than the Con/Lib team effort, since on both issues mentioned the NDP and the Bloc disagreed with the outcome.
- As for the rest of the post, Impolitical seems to nicely describe the Libs' current framing: that under Ignatieff they're basically just like the Cons, only with a less toxic leader, a bit more seriousness and a bit less tolerance for Bushco's worst abuses. It'll be for Canada's voters to decide whether that's what they're after, or whether they prefer a genuine change in outlook - but from my standpoint at least the Cons' actions in office cry out for far more change than that.

On selloffs

Shorter National Post editorial board:

Huzzah! We'll face much less resistance to Stephen Harper's fondest wish of selling out any Canadian independence now that the buyer is more popular!

Musical Interlude

Let's stay political for this weekend with some underappreciated Canadiana: King Cobb Steelie's "Rational".

On abolition

Shorter Harper Senate appointee Stephen Greene:

We'd get along much better with everybody if we could govern without having to answer inconvenient questions.