On keeping them honest

Phil Fontaine rightly tears into Harper over the Cons' unwillingness to commit to both the Kelowna Accord and the settlement reached on residential school compensation:

Given the complexity of the (residential school) Settlement Agreement, the great difficulty in achieving it, and the terms of the abeyance agreements of the class actions, even the slightest of changes will legally undo the Agreement and send thousands of cases and numerous class actions back into the courts. This will result in severe legal and financial consequences for Canada and untold social and personal consequences for First Nations communities and individual survivors...

(T)he Conservative statement (on the Kelowna accord) says that the Liberals have not budgeted for this expenditure. In fact, the full expenditure is budgeted within the Liberal plan as can be referenced in their platform released on Jan.11, 2006. Likewise, the New Democratic Party has identified how this money would be allocated within their plan. In contrast, when we examine the Conservative spending promises, there is not a single reference to spending for the implementation of the Kelowna agreement. This demonstrates to us that the only way the Conservatives could respect the Kelowna agreement would be to run a deficit.

The current Con position seems to be another manifestation of the party's view that any commitment entered into by the Liberal government becomes immediately void as a result of a change of government. (See also the Kyoto Protocol and the existing child care agreements.) And there shouldn't be much doubt that such a position can only cast suspicion on the Canadian government's ability to live up to its commitments through any transition of power - and thereby cast uncertainty on anybody wanting a fair deal from the federal government.

Fontaine's letter, however, highlights the fact that voters wanting to make sure those commitments are met have a choice. The NDP's platform, unlike the Cons', recognizes and budgets for the existing commitments. And an NDP balance of power could do at least as much to hold the Cons to the existing agreements as the NDP's deal-making ability did to keep the Libs honest during the last Parliament.

Filling in the missing pieces

A quick step away from campaign news for a moment to point out that David Milgaard has apparently agreed to testify at the inquiry into his wrongful conviction:

Hersh Wolch (Milgaard's lawyer) told The Canadian Press that he will ask Justice Edward MacCallum to make special accommodations to minimize any stress on Mr. Milgaard as he tells his story.

"We're just going to ask that David's story be before the commission, but not through him having to stand up in front of the cameras," Mr. Wolch said in an interview from his Calgary office late Friday afternoon...

Mr. Wolch said Mr. Milgaard is open to a number of options, including testifying in another room away from the glare of television cameras or answering questions put to him in writing.

We'll see if an agreement can be reached, and it may not be a good sign that the request has gone through the media first rather than directly to Justice MacCallum. But at the very least, it looks like there's now some reasonable prospect of finding a balance between the need to avoid further harm to Milgaard and the need to get at all the facts behind his conviction.

On beachheads

While CanWest naturally focuses on the Cons gains, the latest Ipsos-Reid numbers suggest that both coasts may hold fertile electoral ground for the NDP.

On the East Coast, Liberal support lost in Atlantic Canada has split roughly evenly between the Cons and the NDP...which means not only that plenty of seats are in play, but that the NDP appears to have the best chance of taking seats away from Harper:

The most dramatic gains for the Tories -- at the expense of the Liberals -- came in Atlantic Canada where they surged nine points to 42% while the Liberals lost their hold on the region plunging 16 points to 26%, since a Jan. 2-5 survey. The NDP also gained seven points at the expense of the Liberals, jumping to 30%, the party's highest showing in any region of the country.

In B.C., meanwhile, the Greens did surprisingly well in the poll, cutting down Lib and Con numbers and bringing the NDP on nearly equal terms:

In British Columbia, a tight three-way race was shaping up between the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP -- all because of substantial gains made by the Green party.

The Conservatives stood at 30%, with Liberals trailing at 28, and the NDP at 25. The Green party surged nine points to 16% -- largely at the expense of the Liberals and Conservatives, each of which dropped five points.

Now, the regional numbers are apparently based on small samples (even the national poll only included 1000 voters). But it's awfully hard to explain away the Libs' drop from virtually sweeping the Atlantic region with provincial numbers between 37% and 53% in 2004, to ranking in third place now. And likewise, the Greens' gains in B.C. look very likely to make more races competitive than might be assumed - even if those actual gains are less strong than those measured in the poll.

Which means that in both regions, there's every indication that the NDP can hold its own with the other two parties...and that swaying just a few additional voters could push the NDP into more seats in B.C. and Atlantic Canada than would ever have been expected.

(Edit: typo.)

Big city lights

With the GTA looking like one of the most important battlegrounds in Canada, it may be a good time to point out the Cons' current position - or lack thereof - with regard to Canadian cities. Stephen Harper has made it clear that cities can't count on him for funding:

(Y)esterday, Harper suggested (any reliance on the existing child care deal) was the city's tough luck.

"I'm not responsible for the City of Toronto budget ... The agreements the federal government signed are only guaranteed funding for one year," Harper said.

Meanwhile, with civic leaders calling for stable funding, even the Cons sent into to try to undo Harper's damage won't do much more than to criticize the Libs:

(Monte Solberg) met with Mayor David Miller yesterday in an attempt to mend fences over the federal party's position on a new deal for cities...

The 45-minute meeting in the mayor's office was requested by the Tories, whose leader, Stephen Harper, has been criticized by Miller for not getting behind a new deal. Miller's office said the mayor had no comment on the meeting...

In April, Miller said the Tories had shown little inclination to adopt policies helpful to cities...

"We're just reminding the mayor that the government's been in power for 12 years, it's announced waterfront projects 20 times. Nothing's ever happened," (Solberg) said. "We're here to tell him we're not just going to commit, we're going to deliver."

It's well and good to point out the Libs' failings, but that doesn't mean the Cons have shown any willingness to commit themselves to the stable funding (as opposed to one-time project funding) that municipalities need in order to be able to plan their own operations. Now should be the time for the NDP to point out both which party did the most to get cities on the agenda in the first place, and who's committed to offering cities the certain funding they need in the future.

The pivot

Now that a minority government looks far less inevitable than through most of this campaign, the NDP's message has shifted toward a message of opposition rather than the balance-of-power strategy from most of the campaign. First, the deserved opposition to the Cons:

The Conservatives want to increase income taxes on people with low incomes, so that they can pay for a cut in the GST. That’s not a tax cut. That’s moonshine. And that’s always the way with Tory tax cuts. They put some dollars in one pocket, and then they pick your other pocket to pay for it.

The Conservatives want to wreck Canada’s chance to have a child care system. Instead they want to send parents with children under six a check for $3.28 a day...

Lest anybody think otherwise, this is far from the first time Layton has made sure to take shots at the Cons. If the new line seems a little better targeted than the earlier one, it's undoubtedly been helped along by some of the obvious drawbacks to the Cons' platform - and the apparent plan to recoup the amount of promised tax breaks is definitely a factor worth exploiting.

While the message toward the Cons has changed mostly based on a response to the Cons' announced policies, the one toward the Libs sees the NDP rightly fighting to be the main anti-Harper party:

More and more Canadians have come to the conclusion that Paul Martin has failed the test of leadership...

I respect some of the Liberal Party’s achievements in the past. Lester Pearson worked with our party to introduce public health care and pensions. Pierre Trudeau brought Canada our charter of rights.

But the Liberal Party under Paul Martin isn’t what it was.

Paul Martin’s Liberal Party needs a time out to heal itself, clean itself up, and decide what it believes.

So this time, in this election, I’m asking you to change your vote.

I’m asking you to vote for the NDP.

My one concern is that this message may give too much credit to the Libs. The message of allowing the Liberal Party to "heal itself" seems to buy into the idea of a natural governing party which will return as a stronger contender an election down the road, when the NDP's message should be designed to marginalize the Libs in future elections as well as the current one.

That said, it's great to see Jack now wielding past visionary Liberal leaders against the current myopic one. And the message should help to keep the NDP positioned as a positive choice for Canadian voters - even if it's less likely to hold the balance of power.

A little too close to home

The big story today is the news that Liberal candidate David Oliver has been disowned by the party for allegedly offering to bribe NDP candidate Jeffery Hansen-Carlson to support the Liberals. It's too early to prejudge the outcome of the investigation (though the race between Oliver and the national party to drop him from the campaign may offer one signal), and at the very least Martin has clearly disassociated the national campaign from Oliver rather than deciding that a bare declaration of innocence should be enough to put the matter in the past.

But what's most interesting to me is context of the bribe: Oliver allegedly told Hansen-Carlson he would be a hero if he helped them stop scary Harper, and that the Libs would make it worth his while if he did. Last I checked, that same message (though with a little more emphasis on "scary Harper" and somewhat less guarantee of personal gain) wasn't all that far off of the Libs' general message for the campaign as a whole. Which begs the question: if sending such a message to an individual candidate forms a reasonable basis to boot Oliver out of the campaign, why would anybody trust a party which is going out of its way to tell the same thing to Canada as a whole?

(Edit: typo.)

Witness protection

I promised earlier this week to take a look at the NDP platform to point out issues where the Dippers set themselves apart from the other two main parties. Today, I'll start that effort with a look at the NDP's promise to ensure the expandsion of Canada's witness protection program.

The NDP has committed to:

Strengthen the RCMP’s Federal Witness Protection and Support Programs. With additional support, the program will encourage witnesses to step forward to put violent offenders behind bars. Such support is necessary to provide the security witnesses and victims need to see cases through the justice system effectively and secure convictions of violent offenders.

In contrast, the Cons' issue page on crime deals mostly with more severe policies toward those convicted of crimes, and doesn't even mention witnesses. The Libs' platform (at p. 63) briefly mentions witnesses, but only with regard to a past reform involving the act of testifying, not with respect to protecting witnesses outside the courtroom.

The NDP's promise fits neatly into Layton's debate commitment to get "tough on crime, (and) tougher on the causes of crime". It's obvious how the promise will get tough on crime itself, in that one would expect more actual crimes to be prosecuted based on witnesses stepping forward and remaining willing to testify. But perhaps more significant, if also more subtle, is the potential effect on the causes of crime.

Keep in mind the old quote that "(t)he only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" - then consider the incentives involved in a citizen making an effort to stop crime (and particularly gang activity). At the moment, it should be beyond dispute that gangs have managed to acquire ever-increasing amounts of control in many areas of Canada, and that such control is based at least in part on fear within the community that any attempt to speak out against the gang will lead to retribution. Putting more officers on the street may help somewhat, but there's only so much added patrolling can do when it only takes one moment for a person to be silenced permanently.

The problem is doubly clear when it comes to gang members who want to end their association with the gang, and might be willing to help the police if there was any chance of living to tell the tale. CBC reported recently on one ex-gang member who died just a week before his release from prison. While the Witness Protection Program may not have covered him in particular, the message that any attempt to act against a gang will be met with violence surely presents a strong incentive for gang members to maintain their affiliation rather than trying to make a change for the better.

As long as potential witnesses perceive that their reporting crime in general, and gang crime in particular, will be more likely to result in personal harm than any real good, it's highly unlikely that crimes will be reported, or that witnesses will come forward when needed to convict precisely the high-ranking gang members who pose the greatest threat. On the flip side, when the government makes a public statement of its commitment to ensuring that a person willing to come forward will be protected against retribution, then it becomes more likely that citizens will react to crime by reporting it and helping to prosecute the guilty party.

The NDP is the only party whose platform includes a necessary step to help both prosecute actual crimes, and to help set a community deterrent to crime once it's known that intimidation tactics will be less effective. While the Libs claim they've done everything that needs to be done on the issue, and the Cons pretend that higher sentences can be equated with better law enforcement, only the NDP has recognized the need to make sure that criminal acts are reported and prosecuted - and that the citizens who take those steps will stay safe in the process.

Willing to listen

A Decima survey conducted last month asked whether people would accept a phone call from one of the current federal leadership contenders. And it shouldn't be a surprise which one the voters surveyed would be most interested in talking to:

A national survey by Internet phone service company Vonage Canada, conducted by Decima Research, found 34 per cent of voters would ignore a caller-identified phone call from Mr. Martin.

Conservative party leader Stephen Harper's call would be the second most ignored, followed by Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe. The New Democratic Party's Jack Layton would have the best chance of success getting on the horn: only one in four Canadians would ignore the NDP leader, and he'd be most welcome in Quebec...

Atlantic Canadians would be the most receptive, with more than 40 per cent answering any of the leaders' calls, while Quebecers would be least interested in political chit chat.

The numbers are too close to indicate a radical difference between the leaders, particularly given the unusual question. But the relative position of the leaders is still worthy of note - particularly in that Quebeckers surveyed were most willing to hear from Layton while being comparatively reluctant to answer calls from the other leaders.

It's tough to guess as to what proportion of the results is based on voters simply not having heard a candidate's message rather than genuinely wanting to hear more of it. But to the extent that the latter is in play, the survey could once again hint at more Canadians being receptive to the NDP's message than to that of any other party. The question now is whether Layton has managed to get through during the course of the campaign.

The better strategy

Hat-tip to Calgary Grit in pointing out the Democratic Space Strategic Voting Guide. What's most striking about the Guide is that even if one planned to vote strategically, the Guide doesn't suggest such a vote in more than 10% of Canadian ridings for voters of any party.

And even some of those very few are based on less-than-clear dividing lines. For example, take a look at the recommended strategic vote in Edmonton-Strathcona, where the third-place NDP (a) has projected ahead of the second-place Libs earlier in the campaign, and (b) is within two or three points of second place now, while the Lib candidate projects to be five-plus points behind the winner.

Obviously a project such as the Guide must be based on somewhat arbitrary distinctions as to who has a chance and who doesn't. But when the system recommends taking strategic votes away from a third-place contender projected to win 27% of the vote, it's apparent that the low number of strategic ridings is despite a system which fairly generously suggests strategic voting, rather than because of one that's biased against strategic votes.

The Guide is certainly interesting information, and I'm glad to see someone make the effort to try to give voters a better look at where their strategic vote might be needed. But more than anything, the Guide simply points out the futility of trying to project the current election based on past numbers - and the concurrent value of voting on principle rather than strategy.

Action and reaction

When a coalition of well-known actors went public to see which parties plan to defend Canadian culture, the NDP made sure to respond:

The NDP Platform includes measures to get results for artists, answering yesterday’s call by Canadian actors for parties to put forward their positions on arts and culture...

The NDP platform gets results for arts and artists by:

- Introducing fair tax treatment for artists through tax averaging and exemption of the first $30,000 copyright and certain royalty income.
- Providing increased funding for the Canada Council for the support of artists.
- Directing the CRTC to require clear, binding, monitored and enforced performance standards for broadcasters, including a significant increase in the production and broadcast of Canadian drama.
- Ensuring that Canadian television networks remain Canadian owned.
- Providing sustained funding for the Canadian Television Fund and Telefilm Canada.
- Enhancing federal film incentives to encourage film and television production and working with film distributors on a strategy to increase distribution of Canadian films.

There are plenty of other groups out there who can also look to the NDP as a party which has already taken into account views which are thought to be overlooked. (Shall we point out FemJEPP's call for "livable incomes, affordable housing, absence of violence, and the presence of quality, public services"?) And if the NDP can spend the rest of the campaign pointing how many of those groups are already included in its policies while the Libs and Cons race to the bottom, the Dippers could appeal to more than enough groups to overcome any concern about the party lacking a chance at government.

Of softness and power

The CP gives a striking example of why politeness and civility are lacking from Canadian politics by implicitly criticizing Jack Layton for sticking to a fair criticism of Stephen Harper rather than vilifying him:

On topics ranging from the Conservative candidate charged with smuggling to Tory positions on private health care and the right of prisoners to vote, Layton refused to take the bait and slam the Tories or Harper...

"I think I've been crystal clear just about everywhere I've gone across this country, in fact everywhere, that we disagree fundamentally with the policies and ideas of Mr. Harper," Layton told reporters.

"We think the values he's bringing forward and on which he bases his policies are not the values of the majority of Canadians."

Granted, Layton's refusal to compare his opponents to bloodthirsty dictators, whether explicitly or implicitly, differentiates him clearly from the other two federal parties and their supporters. But it's certainly not as if Layton failed to oppose Harper; he merely framed that opposition in response to the Harper that Canadians have seen throughout the campaign, not some fabricated caricature like the one the Liberals are apparently campaigning against.

The problem is that in the CP's view, that makes Layton's position "soft" rather than, say, "honest" or "realistic". And as long as the media rewards those who stay above alarmist personal attacks by presenting that fact as a fault rather than a virtue, there's no reason to think the tone of Canadian politics will ever take a turn for the better.

Making the case

Kevin Brennan at Blogs Canada E-Group makes the case for an NDP vote as part of their ongoing series:

In this election, the NDP probably is the party that best represents the views of a majority of Canadians.

Canadians want a united Canada, where the federal government plays a real role. They want a health-care system that will remain publicly funded and provide first-class care. They want a Canada where we have a positive view of the future, not one that's cramped, narrow, and fearful. Most of all, they want to be proud to be Canadians. And we mustn't forget that they were the only party to actually try and accomplish anything useful in the last Parliament. When the other parties embarrassed the country, the NDP reminded us that public service can be something to be proud of...

If Trudeau Liberals have a home today, that home is the NDP. The NDP is the only party left that will stand up and say that the federal government can actually make Canada a better place. We cannot simply rest on our laurels, believing that we've accomplished everything worth doing.

I'll be very curious to see the anticipated rebuttal. The campaign itself certainly doesn't seem to have provided any particular case against the NDP, and the comments on Kevin's post so far don't offer anything other than the usual false claims of fiscal irresponsibility.

But then, the problem for the NDP has never been any genuine reason to vote against the party rather than a lack of public attention to the good reasons to vote for it. Like the debates, the E-Group series of articles helps to make sure that the case at least gets heard. Now if we can just make sure it isn't forgotten 12 days from now...

Costs and benefits

Based on the press yesterday, it's no wonder the NDP (and Libs) waited so long to release a full platform, and it'll be tough to blame the Cons if they decide never to release one. After all, one would think that the full platform would give rise to some focus on the substantive contents - yet CanWest's coverage talks more about price tags than about any of the NDP's or Libs' actual platform planks, while the headline to the CP/Canoe article presents the NDP platform as nothing more than the cost of already-released promises (though the article itself at least deals with some of the policies involved).

While there were obviously other events going on yesterday which were bound to steal some headlines, that's no reason why the actual coverage of the released platforms had to be in such negative terms. And the result could be a perverse incentive for the Cons to avoid releasing the same information in hopes of thereby avoiding similarly-negative coverage - which could send Canadians to the polls without full information about the cost of electing the heavy favourite.

A little reminder

Lest anybody think PMPM has done anywhere near as much as he could have to stop private health care so far, think again:

A private health clinic plans to open for business in Toronto, Ottawa and London this summer, while critics call for government to stop the company.

Copeman Healthcare clinics work on a membership basis. A one-time enrollment fee of $1,200 plus $2,300 per year will provide members with access to family physicians and experts in areas such as cardiology and sports injuries...

A first Copeman clinic opened in Vancouver in Nov. 2005. The company chose Ontario to open in because they expect to receive provincial government approval for the clinics...

Provincial New Democratic health critic Michael Prue said Copeman's clinics will lure resources and physicians away from the publicly-funded system...

Later on Wednesday, Prue told CTV.ca that Copeman Healthcare is exploiting a loophole in federal legislation to make $14 million in membership fees.

Prue said he is "appalled" because Copeman's physicians will still be able to bill the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP).

We'll find out soon whether or not to add McGuinty (for all his tough talk) to the all-too-long list of premiers failing to do anything to stop privatization. But whatever decision McGuinty makes on licensing, there's no doubt which federal party is responsible for the decay in the public system that has allowed Copeman to set up shop. And likewise, on both the provincial and federal levels, there's no doubt whatsoever which party is working to save the public system before it's too late.

How the NDP overtakes the Libs

Having apparently decided that alienating any voters even remotely concerned with honesty or civility in politics hasn't given him a steep enough hill to climb, PMPM adds to his challenge by making sure that no voter who cares about public health care will vote Liberal:

Question (Gloria Galloway, Globe and Mail): What are you going to do if the Supreme Court decides that you have to set up a parallel system [of health care] to protect security of the person?

Prime Minister Paul Martin: I think that quite clearly one is going to fight very hard in front of the Supreme Court...

Question: With all due respect, I don't think you answered my question. If the Supreme Court ruled you had to do that and you have no notwithstanding clause, are you going to do it?

Prime Minister Paul Martin: with all due respect, I have answered your question. If the notwithstanding clause does not exist then the decision of the Supreme Court and its interpretation of the charter is the one that will stand. I can't be much clearer than that.

Now, over the past decade-plus the Libs have done a masterful job of claiming to be defenders of public health care while actually doing nothing at all to preserve it. But today, Martin's position became absolutely clear: in no event will collective values (of which the health-care system is a prime example) ever be allowed to trump an individual court decision - no matter how many individual Canadians stand to lose out from any resulting policy changes.

And in the case of health care, which is already subject to a shot across the bow in the form of Chaoulli, Martin has given Canadians a concrete example of the type of popular and necessary national program which, in his view, is less important than the political ramifications of contradicting a single court decision.

Martin has clearly made his choice out of the options I discussed this morning. And he's squarely on the side of both ignoring the inherent limitations on one Parliament's ability to restrict the freedom of action of future ones, and using that ignorance as an excuse to let important programs die.

Needless to say, Martin's position shouldn't and won't go unopposed. Layton now has his opening to stay in the headlines on the NDP's strongest issue, armed with powerful new evidence that the Libs' policy is radically different from the Dippers'. Which should both give the NDP an unprecedented number of seats after January 23, and help ensure that future Libs don't go as far off the rails as Martin in trying to vilify their opponents.

The stage is set

It may be that policy will be completely ignored the rest of this campaign now that the Libs and the Cons are locked into hysterical accusation mode. But just in case that doesn't happen, the NDP released its full platform today:

Layton, if he is influential in a minority Parliament, is vowing to push for legislation to protect public health care, improve government ethical standards, reduce pollution, set child-care standards, guard workers’ pensions, and protect Canadians with tougher anti-crime measures.

"It's affordable, it's responsible, it fits inside a balanced budget each and every year," Layton told supporters at a rally here.

In addition to previously announced vows to boost spending on child care, health care and seniors, Layton is proposing a $250-million, five-year national cancer strategy, $400 million to fight the Mountain Pine Beetle in Western Canada, a new $50 million fund to compensate Chinese-Canadians hurt by the racist head tax of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and $100 million for a “victims of terror” fund."...

More than half the surplus will be used to pay down the employment insurance fund debt, and to a national infrastructure fund and four (sic) co-operative housing.

I'll take a closer look at some of the individual planks as the campaign continues. For now, the platform (which is available online) reflects a solid balance between current areas of need while keeping spending at a sustainable level. It may have been all the better to see the platform sooner - but the NDP's plan appears to have been worth the wait.

(Edit: Posted too soon; modified first paragraph.)

Nicely put

Idealistic Pragmatist nicely summarizes why the Libs' policy promises aren't enough to deserves another term in government. While I'd put the broken promises first on the list (and possibly second and third as well), the content is well worth a read.

(Edit: typo.)

About that "safeguard"...

I noted yesterday that Martin's attempt to reinforce the notwithstanding clause is ultimately of no effect, since if Parliament holds the power to change its own authority in one direction, it must also hold the authority to reverse the process. But last night, Layton pointed out why it's a good thing that's so...and why we want Parliament to retain some power over the courts:

Oops. It looked like a good idea Monday night when he sprung the idea of eliminating Ottawa's recourse to the notwithstanding clause on an unsuspecting public. Martin portrayed himself as the defender of basic rights. Why give Parliament the chance--the real implication: why give a Conservative Parliament the chance--to override Supreme Court decisions on issues like abortion or same-sex marriage. But in the cool light of the next day, with his opponents given a comeback in tonight's French language debate, the idea loses some of its sheen...

But what if we get a conservative court decision, Layton asks, one that takes away rights. What if a court denies women the right to a safe abortion. Or rules that publicly-run medicare is an outdated concept. Shouldn't Parliament have a voice, a powerful voice if it chooses to override that type of judgment.

An excellent point. And it presumably leaves Martin either feigning defenselessness against such decisions (which again would be wrong in any event) and claiming that's somehow a good thing, or trying to claim that the reversibility of his "safeguard" is really a plus just a night after pretending the change would be permanent.

Of course, Martin seems to have merely changed the subject within the debate itself rather than dealing with the obvious flaws in his big idea. But now that the Libs' ultimate bombshell idea has been exposed as a dud, it's tough to think Canadians will see much reason to pay attention to what's left in PMPM's arsenal.

(Note that I haven't seen a full transcript of this portion of the debate yet, but CBC's coverage seems fairly thorough - if anybody has the full details of Layton's answer, please pass a link along.)

Martin's crumbling base

Before PMPM can make any claim at all to try to win swing voters, maybe he should work on getting his own supporters to agree with his policies - as the Charter bombshell from last night hasn't gone over well even in the Liberal camp:

"Nobody discussed it with me prior," said Toronto MP Derek Lee, the longest serving member of the Commons justice committee.

Other Liberal MPs and senators whose support would be necessary to amend the constitutional clause complained that Martin's debate pronouncement "came out of left field," as one MP put it privately.

They were confused about how such a change could be implemented and a number of MPs made it clear they'd oppose it.

"I would support retention of the notwithstanding clause," said Mississauga South MP Paul Szabo.

Lee said he's open to debating the idea but, in general, his view on constitutional matters is: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."...

Senator Jim Munson, Chretien's former communications director, said he couldn't speak for the vacationing former prime minister.

But Munson said his own view is that the clause is "a safety valve and I don't quite understand why we are fiddling" with it.

It's amusing enough to see the policy go over like a lead balloon within Martin's party. But it's all the more striking that the supposed reformer of the Liberal party is now imposing major policy announcements with no notice even to the Liberal MPs most familiar with the topic.

Mind you, there is some good news for Martin now. Any lack of internal consultation shouldn't be much of a problem for him from here on in, as Lib candidates hoping to have a political future have to be positioning themselves as far from PMPM as they can in the weeks leading up to election day.

The Mounties go private

As if there wasn't enough truth to the charge that Harper's platform matches Martin's record, Kelowna will soon have three privately-paid RCMP officers:

Private funds will pay the salaries of some RCMP officers in a B.C. city, in what is being billed as a national first.

The program is being set up in Kelowna, where Crime Stoppers is raising $240,000 a year to pay the salaries of three new officers.

Crime Stoppers says it's a stopgap measure to deal with a critical shortage of police in the Central Okanagan, which left the force unable to follow up on many tips called in to the organization's anonymous hotline...

Kelowna RCMP Supt. Bill McKinnon said that, as far as he knows, it is the first time private funding from companies and individual donors has been used to pay for general duty RCMP officers in Canada.

Needless to say, any claim on Martin's behalf to be able to defend against creeping privatization - in health care or elsewhere - should take a major shot from this news. Nothing against Crime Stoppers as an organization, but there's no excuse for the government to have dropped the ball on public protection to such a degree. And all the ranting in the world about an imagined need to re-ban handguns won't help to make up for the lack of resources that's led to today's announcement.