The other side

Lest anybody get the impression that the Vicq commission report is uncontroversial, a friend who writes for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives points out some problems:

First,...different tax reforms would achieve superior results at less cost than the Committee’s recommendations. Second,...the public funds raised by business taxes are needed for economic-development initiatives and other important social priorities...

Because Equalization could be important to Saskatchewan’s business taxes, the provincial government should not commit to specific reforms in its March 2006 budget. Instead, the Government of Saskatchewan should wait for the spring 2006 report of the Expert Panel on Equalization and the Government of Canada’s response to it. More fundamentally, the provincial government must question whether corporate-tax cuts, as opposed to tax credits or public programs, are the most cost-effective way to increase investment in Saskatchewan.

The entire article is worth a read, as it seems pretty clear that the Vicq committee didn't consider some important possibilities. That's particularly problematic with regard to the equalization issues when these were explicitly part of the committee's mandate.

It's easy enough to see where part of the problem lies based on the submissions heard by the Committee. On a very quick review, only CUPE seems to have addressed the possibility that social investment may be more important than tax cuts generally, and most of the submissions seem to have been to the effect of "lower taxes now!" without any significant discussion of the nuanced policy alternatives put forward by the CCPA. While more submissions from the CCPA and other organizations on the front end would obviously have helped matters, the committee itself should have been alive to some of the issues pointed out now.

So what to do now? More to come.

In questionable hands

The content of today's leaked Liberal memo discussing the lack of any hope in 45 Quebec ridings shouldn't come as any great surprise...although it should highlight the opportunities awaiting the other federal parties to make inroads in the riding the Libs have written off.

That said, can a party really be trusted to run the country when its top officials can't even handle a Blackberry?

Shady deals

Bushco and John McCain have apparently reached an agreement on torture which begs more questions than it answers:

After months of resistance, the White House has agreed to accept Senator John McCain's call for a law banning cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of foreign suspects in the war on terror, several congressional officials said Thursday.

Under the emerging deal, the CIA and other civilian interrogators would be given the same legal rights as currently guaranteed members of the military who are accused of breaking interrogation guidelines, these officials added. Those rules say the accused can defend themselves by arguing it was reasonable for them to believe they were obeying a legal order.

Just to set the record straight: Bushco supposedly does not torture people, and does not condone torture. So clearly nobody could reasonably conclude that the regime or its officials had authorized torture.

But just in case that wasn't so, anybody who happens to receive an order that can reasonably be interpreted as authorizing torture is free to act on that perception. And if supervisors happen to issue vague directions which lower-ranking interrogators reasonably misinterpret to allow torture, leaving nobody accountable for the activity...well, things happen, right?

The tone of the article makes it sound like the deal is a victory for McCain. But the reality appears to be just the opposite: the deal only highlights Bushco's determination to preserve at least some grey area to allow torture to occur without consequences. And Congress' willingness to go along with that tactic won't do anything to repair the U.S.' record on human rights.

Still not getting it

While Harper's now-infamous 1997 speech was the main story yesterday, there's little reason to think he's become much more tactful in the meantime in light of his impromptu scrum last night:

In the chat with the travelling media en route to Vancouver, Harper's main message was to sell the notion he would be comfortable at the helm of a minority government...

Among other things, Harper suggested most premiers "hate" Prime Minister Paul Martin, that Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty is untrustworthy, that stupidity caused the minority government of Joe Clark to fall in 1979 and that the Liberal campaign is playing into his hands.

It's bad enough for Harper to claim the right to speak for all Canada's premiers, and to cast judgment on both one of his predecessors (who at last notice held far more personal appeal than Harper himself ever has) and the premier of Canada's largest province. But even those gaffes pale in comparison to Harper repeating, in only slightly lesser form, his biggest mistake from 2004.

While Harper's main point seems to have been to demonstrate his willingness to work in a minority, Canadians are still likely to be awfully leery about letting Harper assume he's about to be given the PM job in any form. By claiming that the campaign so far has played right into his hands, Harper both appears to be out of touch with a mainstream perception of the campaign, and seems to be promoting the same internal sense of inevitability that forced so many voters to take a second look at just who was making plans to move into 24 Sussex last year.

Granted, some element of confidence is a plus during the course of the campaign. But Harper seems to be once again crossing the line from confidence into a sense of entitlement. And that's not likely to have any better effect now than it did last year.

Another star Dipper

The NDP is set to announce a surprising candidacy:

In what may be a political first in the British Commonwealth, former governor general Edward Schreyer will announce his candidacy Thursday as a New Democrat Party candidate in Winnipeg...

It's not the first time Schreyer has established political firsts. The former premier of Manitoba was the youngest member of the Manitoba Legislature when he was first elected in 1958 at 22, and he later became Canada's youngest governor general and commander-in-chief when he took the post at 43. He held the Rideau Hall position from 1979 until 1984...

Schreyer has been a strong environmental advocate throughout much of his career. As Manitoba premier his government produced legislation on sustainable energy and the environment, and he is said to still hold those issues close to his heart.

Needless to say, Schreyer's superb track record as a legislator and diplomat is one that the NDP will want to highlight at every opportunity. And the message sent on the issues is even better: the fact that a man appointed by Trudeau to be Canada's head of state is running under the NDP banner out of frustration with Martin's government should nicely highlight the rightward drift of the Liberals since the time when Schreyer last stood for election, and Schreyer's record as an environmental advocate will help cement the NDP's role as the party best equipped to stand up for the environment.

Kudos to Schreyer in getting into the race...and hopefully he'll be rewarded with a key role in an expanded NDP caucus for his efforts.

Interesting

The Globe and Mail offers the explanation as to why the NDP doesn't have an official party blog:

While some NDP candidates have blogs, the party opted against a general election blog, because it didn't want something that didn't look sincere, said party spokesman Brad Lavigne.

"The Web world is a particularly savvy one and I think visitors can smell bogus blogs a mile away," Mr. Lavigne said.

Which is fair enough to a point, particularly given the entirely justified criticism of the Cons' list of talking points masquerading as a blog. But then, there was no need to make a blog insincere in the first place. And it's a shame that it's the Libs who picked up on that fact first.

On white flags

CBC's coverage focuses on the withdrawal of the Green candidate from the Labrador riding. But more interesting to me is the lack of NDP and Con candidates so far - especially considering the significance the same riding was supposed to hold just a few months ago:

Labrador City Mayor Graham Letto represented the Tories in this byelection. With 3,415 votes, or 32 per cent of the total vote, Letto had the best showing by a Conservative candidate in more than two decades.

Calgary West MP Rob Anders, who was campaigning in Labrador last night, says a strong Tory showing in a safe Liberal seat can be interpreted as a sign of things to come.

"I think this means that what were formerly safe seats for the Liberals are up for grabs," Anders says.

From an NDP standpoint, it's disappointing not to see a candidate ready yet (especially given that there should seemingly be some structure left over from the by-election). But the utter lack of interest is a particularly huge change for the Cons.

Just last year, Harper and MacKay converged on Labrador based on the significance of the seat within a minority Parliament. And the result was a seemingly strong showing for the Cons, which one would think they'd want to build on. But now that there's a full election campaign, the Cons apparently can't be bothered to so much as nominate a candidate for a seat that they considered to be "up for grabs".

Not the intended message

According to one of the more amusing polls so far this campaign, it isn't just the ad execs who are less than fond of the Cons' TV spots:

A survey of 1,350 undecided voters who saw the Tory television ads were asked last week to pass judgment. Fifty-nine per cent said the ads would have no impact on their vote.

But 19 per cent said the spots made them more likely to vote Liberal, and nine per cent said the ads pushed them toward the NDP. In other words, more than a quarter said they were inclined to do the opposite of what the ads intended.

Only 12 per cent said the ads made them more likely to vote for the party that actually paid for them, raising questions about whether the Tory campaign has backfired.

Unfortunately, the article only lists results surrounding the Con and Lib ads, so we don't know just yet whether the NDP's boot is as popular among the general public as it is in the blogosphere. But if nothing else, the NDP's standing as a real alternative to PMPM has to look better when the Cons' own ads are pushing them further behind in the race.

Opening up

While far too many sites have moved toward requiring registration at least (if not payment) before making their content available, the Star takes a step in the right direction:

Visitors to the Toronto Star website will no longer have to register to peek inside, publisher Michael Goldbloom announced yesterday.

"Our online readers have told us that registration is an inconvenience," Goldbloom said.

"We listened to our readers, and we've removed mandatory registration from our site."

Particularly around election time with so many people looking for all the information they can get, it's a great sign to see one of Canada's top media outlets making theirs more accessible than it was before.

The impossible precondition

It's amazing to see a Liberal promise that's even emptier than most, but PMPM is apparently in favour of an elected Senate...just as soon as he can get the necessary constitutional agreement to change the current allocation of seats.

Of course, there's usually an implied "when pigs fly" after any Liberal campaign plank...but it's a first to make it an official part of the policy.

Healthy move

The NDP's health care plan shouldn't surprise anybody, but it will nicely point out the contrast against the Libs' refusal to take serious action against privatization:

The NDP will defend public health care in the next parliament by:
- Refusing to permit the dismantling of Canada’s single-payer medicare system;
- Prohibiting the use of federal transfers, directly or indirectly, to subsidize a new, profit-making private insurance system covering medically-necessary services;
- Ensuring that no federal money be used to cover the salaries or costs of doctors and any other medical personnel involved in a new, separate, profit-making private insurance system; and
- Tough monitoring and enforcement of these rules.

About the only problem with the plan is that since the existing rules have been so poorly enforced, it may be too late to keep private medicine from taking a larger role even if better rules are more thoroughly enforced in the future. But then, that's more a problem with the Libs' record than it is with the NDP's policy...and it's certainly not a basis for preferring the complete neglect of the other two parties.

Great accomplishment

Kudos to the leaders of Ontario, Quebec and eight U.S. states for reaching agreement on a deal to protect the Great Lakes:

Political leaders from Ontario, Quebec and eight U.S. states will sign a new deal Tuesday aimed at banning large-scale water diversion projects from the Great Lakes...

The agreement is also expected to call for new measures to prevent invasive species from entering the lakes, and reducing the levels of PCBs, dioxin, mercury, pesticides and other toxins.

I'm not sure how much authority the states have to make such agreements binding on themselves. But at the very least the deal shows a strong intention on both sides of the border to ensure that the Great Lakes will be safe for the foreseeable future - and all involved deserve credit for that.

A poor approximation

Saskatchewan officials point out the problem with the newly-announced federal health benchmarks:

Dr. Mark Ogrady, head of the surgery department for the Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region and chair of the sub-committee on surgical services for the Saskatchewan Surgical Care Network, which tracks wait times in the province, said any attention on wait lists is a good thing but the national framework should have been focused on more than just a few areas of care.

"The minute you target five things, what happens to the rest of them?" he said...

Saskatchewan's plan breaks down every area of care like the national plan does for heart bypasses and has resulted in wait time reductions already.

Health Minister John Nilson said the province's plan will be to meet its own goals but they'll also be comparing wait times with national standards.

"With what's set out nationally, you only work in narrow little bands. And what we've tried to do in Saskatchewan is say, 'Every person that requires surgery should have some ability to be compared to everybody else,' "he said.

Note that Saskatchewan's current numbers already reflect what seems a fairly sensible prioritization. The province is well ahead of the benchmark for bypass surgeries, and well behind for knee and hip replacements...and that relative priority level seems a far more accurate reflection of the urgency involved than prioritizing both equally as the federal benchmark appears to do.

Of course, it's still necessary to try to improve in those areas where a province is currently behind, and Saskatchewan's plan should enable it to meet all the benchmarks by 2007. But the numbers set in yesterday's agreement shouldn't override common sense in managing health priorities...and the obvious gap between the two has to lead to questions as to how useful the benchmarks really are.

The fun continues

While Canada's challenges to the U.S. completely fail to change anything in the longer term, UPS is arguing its own challenge which could result in major changes at Canada Post:

UPS, the world's largest package delivery firm, first filed a claim for $160 million US against the Canadian government in April 2000 under the North American Free Trade Agreement. A decision from the tribunal could take more than a year once the hearings end.

Other American firms have successfully challenged Canadian policy decisions.

But the UPS case represents the first time Ottawa is being pressured to withdraw from an established government program or service, said Joseph Zebrowski, spokesman for the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, representing 56,000 people...

One of the great questions in the operation of NAFTA has always been how far the tribunals would go in limiting the freedom of action of Canada's Crowns. And while those results haven't been too harmful so far, the UPS action could both undermine Canada Post's current financial standing, and open the door to future claims any time a Crown doesn't go out of its way to avoid making use of the efficiencies available to it.

Based on the article, Canada seems confident about its position in the UPS claim. We can only hope that confidence is justified...since if it isn't, the same agreement that's so often failed to secure our access to the U.S. market could do serious damage to our own institutions.

More fun with NAFTA

Softwood lumber isn't the only area where the U.S. has gone out of its way to acknowledge its being completely wrong. Just look at the record on the Canadian Wheat Board, which secured another victory today:

The Canadian Wheat Board says it has won a final decision from a NAFTA panel which will allow the free movement of spring wheat into the United States.

According to the wheat board, the North American Free Trade Agreement decision amounts to the last hurdle in removing a tariff that has virtually closed the border to Canadian spring wheat exports since 2003...

An official with the wheat board says the Americans have launched 14 challenges to Canadian wheat imports since 1991.

So far, none have been successful.

Just one more example of how NAFTA eventually protects Canada's trade interests a couple of years too late, and only until the next frivolous American claim to shut down the border.

Astute observation

No comment necessary. Though a comments section attached to the original would be nice for content that would fit so readily on a blog.

A beacon of something

Dubya earlier this year:

America's mission in Iraq is to defeat an enemy and give strength to a friend -- a free, representative government that is an ally in the war on terror, and a beacon of hope in a part of the world that is desperate for reform.

Syria today:

Ask everyday Syrians where their country is headed and you immediately sense the bleakness of the moment. The most hopeful answer is "nowhere." The alternatives, they say, are worse. Catastrophically worse...

However much Syrians despise the bare-knuckle corruption that passes for national leadership, it is clear that fear of becoming the next Iraq trumps all. They will suffer onward in lockstep, offering Pavlovian support for their defiant young President Bashar Assad, even if it means enduring UN sanctions. Because really, what choice do they have?

"It sounds sick to say it aloud, but Syrians would rather die of hunger than from civil war or conflict. They want reform, but if reform means Iraq, count them out."

One-sided information

Armine Yalnizyan points out that the same network which considers the Tommy Douglas Story too political to air during an election campaign has aired a show cheerleading for private health care during the same time frame:

When I first read about the CBC decision not to air the Tommy Douglas documentary, I could see a certain logic to that position, though I didn't agree with it.

But the CBC's subsequent decision to run Medicare Schmedicare is worse than irrational and incoherent. It is an utter repudiation of its very reason for existence: a voice for the public interest, across the whole country, and for the majority of the public.

Obviously, nobody expects the CBC (or any other news source) to completely avoid providing content which may take a side on a given issue. But there needs to be some balance to ensure that all sides of the story are told...and unfortunately, it looks like the CBC is willing to tell only the wrong side of the Medicare issue.

Best of both worlds

It figures that the NDP's child care policy announcement is apparently getting buried under this weekend's polling numbers - especially when the NDP's policy so neatly combines the best both the Cons and the Libs had to offer:

The NDP plan to improve child care and fight child poverty has three main elements:

- A Child Care Act to ensure that federal funding for child care is targeted at licensed, high-quality, non-profit child care.
- $1.8 billion invested in child care next year, with annual increases of $250 million for the next three years. This would create 200,000 additional spaces in the first year, with another 25,000 spaces annually after that.
- An increase in the federal child tax credit of $1,000 phased in over four years in order to help lower-income families cover child care costs and meet other essential expenses.

In other words, the NDP is not only joining the Libs in promising a public child-care system, but it's also taking the radical step of offering enough funding to make that system viable. At the same time, the bump in the child tax credit offers effectively the same added opportunity to make other choices (whether based on a parent staying home, on paying for private child care, or on other priorities) as that promised by the Cons.

That leaves both parts of the dichotomy the choice of either explaining why parents don't deserve the range of choices offered by the NDP, or trying to ignore the question entirely. It's a shame that the latter strategy seems to have worked so far, but hopefully that will change when Layton gets his chance to make his case within the debates.

Poor protection

It's a plus to see Canada finally considering some available options to try to protect Canadians' privacy against the terms of the Patriot Act. But there's a problem that receives far too little attention in the story:

A federal proposal would allow government departments to immediately cancel a contract with an American firm if it hands personal information about Canadians to U.S. anti-terrorism investigators...

While the federal guidelines will be helpful, they might not be watertight, Lawson (executive director of the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic) suggested.

The contract cancellation proposal could leave American firms with the choice of respecting either U.S. or Canadian statutes, she said.

"They're going to have to break one law or the other. And I'm sure there are going to be cases where the business decides it's least costly to them to comply with the American law and breach the Canadian law."

It would be a serious enough problem if firms faced a mere choice between prosecution in either the U.S. or Canada. But keep in mind that under the terms of the Patriot Act, not only would an American firm with control of data be required to disclose it, but it would also be required not to inform anybody (including the government department in question) that a request had been made:

`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director...may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities...

`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.

Under the proposed contract structure, a firm's choice would be between:

(a) violating Canadian law, secure in the knowledge that any person who disclosed that violation would be subject to U.S. prosecution, or
(b) violating U.S. law, with absolutely no chance of avoiding prosecution since any refusal to comply would itself be a contempt of court.

Needless to say, there isn't much reason to be confident that any firm would choose to protect Canadian information under those circumstances...no matter what the contract contains.

The article fairly points out that risk under the Patriot Act is a relatively minor issue...and that's particularly so compared to other privacy concerns of the Liberals' own making. But the proposed contractual changes are at best an incremental change in incentives. And that small change isn't likely to keep any information from being disclosed.

(Edit: cleaned up wording of last paragraph.)