Votes up for grabs

Over the last little while, there's been plenty of discussion about the possibility that the Rhinos (or neo-Rhinos, or Canadian Conservative-Rhino Alliance Party, or...) may rejoin Canada's political scene in the Outremont by-election. But there's been less attention paid to the fact that Outremont voters already had plenty of independents and small-party candidates to choose from in 2006. And in a race that figures to be extremely close, the votes which went to lesser-known candidates in 2006 may well be enough to swing the by-election result. So let's take a look at the parties aside from the main four which ran in the riding in 2006...and what their presence or absence figures to mean for the by-election.

I include the Greens in the "small parties" list based primarily on what seems to be a distinct lack of attention to the by-election through either their riding page or their calendar, which makes it appear likely that they'll get lost in the shuffle in a riding where the NDP, Libs, Bloc and Cons have all been off and running for some time. If the Green plan on putting as much emphasis on Outremont as they apparently did during the 2006 election, that could significantly reduce the pool of voters available to be won by the other parties.

Here are Outremont's 2006 results beyond the top four:
Votes - Party - Candidate
1957 - Green - Francois Pilon
101 - Independent - Eric "Roach" Denis
94 - Progressive Canadian - Philip Paynter
88 - Marxist-Leninist - Linda Sullivan
85 - Independent - Yan Lacombe
35 - Independent - Xavier Rochon
22 - Independent - Regent Millette

For those curious, the latter two vote totals were the lowest in Quebec in 2006. It appears that the high number of independent and small-party candidates resulted in extensive vote-splitting compared to other Quebec ridings...which may hint (not surprisingly) that most of the small-party votes will likely seek out another protest candidate rather than finding their way to the major contenders.

That said, a small percentage of the small-party votes could be enough to swing the by-election. Based on the above chart, 2382 Outremont votes went to parties or independents who haven't yet signalled their interest in the byelection. And there's plenty of room to speculate how those votes could shake out.

The Greens' 2006 candidate, Francois Pilon, was described as an independent businessman. On a fairly quick review, I haven't found much on his other background aside from some expected dedications to the Greens as a party (which has apparently continued into 2007 though some event organization), and his signing onto the Make Poverty History initiative at the time of the campaign.

Needless to say, the parties campaigning in the by-election have to be eager to win the support of Pilon's voters even if he himself is still solidly Green. And there's enough variety even from my limited view of Pilon's background to suggest that all of them may have some reason for optimism: while a focus on poverty and the environment would seem to fit the NDP best, the Bloc and Libs are presumably going after the same types of voters, and it's not out of the question that Pilon's business background could have helped him to win some votes which may otherwise have gone to the Cons.

Next up is filmmaker Eric Denis aka "Roach", who classifies himself as a "self-proclaimed Anarcho-punk". Naturally, that description doesn't lend itself to an affinity for any of the four main parties (especially with Myron Thompson retiring from politics). But a couple of the other individual descriptions among Denis' co-workers sound like relatively plausible target voters for the established parties.

Linda Sullivan and Yan Lacombe had both run previously in Outremont in 2004 (Lacombe for the Marijuana Party rather than as an Independent), and both actually backslid substantially in their vote totals between 2004 and 2006. It wouldn't be surprising for either of the parties involved to seek the media attention that would come with a by-election run. But Lacombe's voting bloc could be a particularly interesting one to watch, both because his 2004 vote total was a respectable 451, and because some of his past partymates have managed to find homes both in the NDP and among the Libs.

Xavier Rochon was a student at the University of Montreal. While I've heard of worse values systems than the one proposed on Rochon's site, there's little (aside from some mention of climate change) to suggest any great affinity for one party over another among Rochon or his voters.

Finally, Regent Millette had apparently run unsuccessfully in a number of previous elections after a career as a teacher. But given an apparently firm stand against parties in politics, one has to assume that none of the main contenders are expecting a boost (however slight) from his few supporters.

Again, it remains to be seen how many votes will shift from the smaller-party or independent candidates to the main contenders in the by-election. But the Outremont race figures to be one where no party can afford to leave any votes on the table - and when even the slightest added bit of organization could make all the difference, one or more of the riding's past candidates could put the eventual winner over the top.

On trade-offs

For all the effort by Jim Flaherty, Gordon Campbell and others to paint a cross-country expansion of the TILMA as the only acceptable outcome to deal with the grave threat to Canada's future prosperity posed by hay-stacking regulations, Ian Urquhart writes that Canadian premiers have agreed instead to add an enforcement mechanism to the Agreement on Internal Trade. And while that outcome may not be ideal, it's worth pointing out a couple of the key differences that make the AIT significantly less toxic than the TILMA.

First, unlike the TILMA, the AIT doesn't presumptively apply its blanket rules to every action by every level of government. Instead, its general requirements (which on their face are relatively similar to those contained in the TILMA) by default apply only to the issues specifically listed in the agreement. From Article 400 of the AIT:

The general rules established under this Chapter apply only to matters covered by Part IV, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement.

In turn, the Chapters in Part IV (dealing with procurement, investment, labour mobility, consumer standards, issues related to specific industries, and environmental matters) set additional reasonable limits on the application of the AIT's general rules. For example, under Article 600, the "no obstacles" rule does not apply to investment - meaning that while provincial governments are required to work together to harmonize investment standards and notify other provinces of changes which may affect investment, they aren't required to favour investors' interests over those of their own province in formulating policy.

And that leads into nicely into an even more important difference. Unlike the TILMA, the AIT explictly recognizes that other public policy concerns need to be balanced alongside trade and investment, and indeed favours effective government action where appropriate. Here's Annex 405.1, which governs the application of the AIT's "legitimate objective" exemption to regulatory standards:

For greater certainty, with respect to the application of Article 404(c), each Party shall, in ensuring that any standard or standards-related measure that it adopts or maintains is not more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve a legitimate objective, take into account the risks that non-fulfilment of that legitimate objective would create and ensure proportionality between the trade restrictiveness of the standard or standards-related measure and those risks.

For other examples, see Article 807 (under which consumer protection standards are to be reconciled to a "high and effective" level of protection), and Article 1505.4 (under which each province "shall ensure that its measures provide for high levels of environmental protection and shall continue to endeavour to improve those levels of protection").

In contrast, the TILMA as drafted goes out of its way to avoid recognizing that "risks" may develop as a result of a province's failure to act for the benefit of its citizens. The TILMA includes only one statement (Article 5.4) which hints at any recognition that other priorities also need to be taken into account. And even that statement utterly fails to suggest that the goals of facilitating trade and investment may validly be considered less important than those other priorities.

In sum, a comparison of the AIT and the TILMA suggests that there was always a readily-available device which could be used to reconcile regulatory differences and promote internal trade. What the TILMA added to the picture was simply a complete lack of balance between trade and other priorities - and it's for the best if that problem will be confined to B.C. and Alberta rather than spreading any further.

Again, the above shouldn't be taken to suggest that the AIT is without its flaws, or that the premiers' agreement is apparently pointed in the best possible direction. Indeed, the decision to tack the TILMA's remedy process onto the AIT will likely result in some unintended consequences. And it's far from clear that the provinces wouldn't have made better use of their time actually identifying and working with regulations which can be reconciled without much dispute, rather than again operating from the premise that they need umbrella agreements to get the process going.

But at the very least, the premiers' agreement (combined with TILMA's sudden halt at the Saskatchewan/Alberta border) makes it likely that any further talk about internal trade will be based on the AIT's much less dangerous framework, rather than the TILMA's skewed priorities. And that's undoubtedly a far better outcome than the one which the Cons and others seem eager to impose.

Northern exposure

It's a pleasant surprise to see that the Cons have taken at least a small part of Jack Layton's advice on developing the Arctic region and preserving Canadian sovereignty. But sadly, the Cons' announcement falls far short of what could and should be done:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced Friday the government will install two new military facilities in the Arctic to boost Canada's sovereign claim over the Northwest Passage and signal its long-term commitment to the North.

He said the Canadian Forces will build a new army training centre in Resolute Bay and refurbish an existing deepwater port at a former mining site in Nanisivik...

Harper, who made the announcement with Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, also announced an expansion of the Canadian Rangers by 900 members.

Again, the Cons' limited announcement is better than nothing. But it's striking how the Cons' idea of a vision for the North - like their willingness to spend federal money generally - involves a combination of an undue focus on military issues to the exclusion of any other priorities, and a propensity for false economies which figure to reduce any positive outcomes in the long run.

Of the three announcements today, only the Nanisivik port apparently has any apparent civilian application. And that impact is limited to a port which according to the article is "ice-filled during the winter", and which directly serves a population that has fallen as low as 77 people in recent years.

As for the false economy issue, it appears obvious that the choice of Nanisivik as the sole deep-water port site is based on the fact that there's some infrastructure there to be refurbished - presumably reducing the up-front costs of developing a functional port. But it would seem obvious that if only one deep-water port is going to be developed (as opposed to the two suggested by Layton), then it would make sense to ensure that it serves as many people as possible for as much of the year as possible. And the Cons' choice to ignore those considerations in favour of the cheapest deep-water port design available only increases the likelihood that the site chosen will end up being mothballed again rather than helping matters much in the long term.

What's worse, with the Cons' announcement seemingly reflecting their plans as far off as the 2015 completion date for the port refurbishment, it's looking less likely that much more will get done (or indeed started) as long as the Cons hold power. And with a combination of UN deadlines and melting passages looming large, it'll take a quick change in government to ensure that Canada is anywhere close to ready before it's too late.

Lessons to be learned

The Globe and Mail comments on the Cons' cabinet-level attempt to cover up information from the final Arar inquiry report which had nothing at all to do with genuine security issues:

The next time the Canadian government tells you it has secrets it needs to keep to protect national security, feel free to laugh out loud.

Canada fought long and hard to keep 1,500 supposedly dangerous words out of the 1,400 pages of a judicial report into the disappearance of Maher Arar, a Muslim father of two from Ottawa who fell victim to the West's fight against terrorism. We now know what most of those dangerous words were. Here is one example. It's from the judicial report's Table of Contents: "Application for Telephone Warrant." (Cue the crack of lightning.) Also falling on the censor's cutting stone was the apparently unspeakable phrase "the CIA." As in, "The RCMP had periodic contact with the CIA at this time." Surprise, surprise. When an innocent Canadian Muslim was dispatched to Syria, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency was involved...

We also learned yesterday that information gleaned under severe abuse or torture from a Canadian, Ahmad El Maati, in Syria was used by the RCMP to persuade a judge back in Canada to let it tap someone's telephone. A gross deprivation of civil liberties in a part of the world where the rule of law does not prevail thus provided the basis for an intrusion into civil liberties here in a constitutional democracy. And no one questioned very hard whether the information obtained under such duress in Syria was solid...

(W)hen Judge O'Connor tried to get the truth out, the Canadian government fought him in court for a year to keep the lid on 1,500 words.

We now know that the public had a right to see those words. They remind us of how fragile our civil liberties can be in a dangerous time.

It remains to be seen whether mainstream media sources like the Globe will keep the heat on the Cons for their other attempts to suppress information as well. But now that it's clear just how flimsy the excuses have been even when it comes to an inquiry intended to reveal the truth to Canadians, there's less reason than ever to take the Cons' word as to any need for secrecy.

In other breaking news, the Cons have retaken the airport

Isn't it reassuring to know that however much the Cons' cabinet may be shuffled next week, Stephen Taylor's unofficial role as Information Minister is entirely secure?

Recognizing the damage

It's a plus to see the opposition parties criticizing the Cons' attempt to bury two reports on Canadian deaths in Afghanistan. But I have to wonder why the criticism is limited to the Cons' immediate effort at damage control, rather than including a wider view of the Cons' disregard for the well-being of Canadian troops.

Here's what opposition MPs had to say about the reports:

Opposition parties accused the Tory government Wednesday of delaying the release of the findings of military investigations into two incidents in which Canadian soldiers were accidentally killed by American firepower in Afghanistan.

"This is damage control, pure and simple," said Liberal MP Denis Coderre. "Let's call a spade a spade."...

Coderre said it's hard to believe that five months were needed to get Hillier's signature on the report and to liaise with American authorities...

NDP defence critic Dawn Black said she doesn't buy the explanation because the U.S. report into Costall's death was released a month ago in response to a freedom of information request by The Associated Press.

Releasing the Canadian findings in the middle of summer, when many are on holiday, virtually guarantees that the matter will be forgotten and swept under the rug, she said.

"It would work better for the government if they were more straightforward with members of Parliament and the Canadian public," she said.

"When information is held back -- rightly or wrongly -- it leads to a perception of coverup."

While the comments from Coderre and Black are reasonable enough, they fall far short of dealing with the larger issue raised by the Cons' consistent pattern of covering up key facts about Afghanistan. From hiding the caskets of troops to suppressing information about detainee transfers (which could expose Canadian troops to legal jeopardy due to their own government's negligence), the Cons have done nothing but try to paper over the real risks facing Canadian soldiers. And in consequence, Canadian troops will all too likely continue to face needless dangers which would be reduced if the country at large discussed them more thoroughly.

In sum, the mere fact that the Cons are indeed carrying out political damage control is far less damning than the likelihood that Canada's troops will end up worse off as a result. And the more Canadians see how false the Cons "support" really is, the less likely the Cons are to hold the ability to keep our troops in harm's way for much longer.

On creative theories

I can only figure that the Globe and Mail's article on Deceivin' Stephen's theory of federal-provincial relations is a test to see whether anybody's paying attention, as it certainly doesn't seem to have any basis in either the Cons' actions in power or their well-known ideology:

A battle of ideologies is driving a rift between Ottawa and the provinces that is just a hint of what is to come, University of Ottawa politics professor Michael Behiels says.

In a stark depiction of current Canadian politics, while the 13 premiers of Canada's provinces and territories meet in Moncton for the Council of Federation, the Prime Minister is on the other side of the country touring the Northwest Territories.

Under the Harper vision of centralized power — with a stronger Senate and representation of regions by strong cabinet ministers — there is little room for the provinces, Dr. Behiels told The Globe...

At heart it is the battle of interstate politics – a decentralized system where power comes from agreements between provinces – and intrastate politics, where a central body dictates the rules from a centralized base.

The first has gained mixed success around the world, Dr. Behiels said: Germany is highly decentralized, Australia has managed to marry the two concepts, and South Africa “seems to be falling apart” under the interstate model.

The latter system is epitomized by the United States.

Canada has always struggled between the two, and now Prime Minister Stephen Harper is forcing the matter to a head.

Now, it's certainly difficult to dispute Harper's contempt for national agreements. From prescription drugs to the Kelowna Accord, the Cons have indeed shown that as far as they're concerned, cross-country provincial agreements which would lead to federal action can't be torn up fast enough.

But it's hard to see how that disinterest in following through on provincial agreements amounts to support for strong central government. After all, the Cons have also made abundantly clear that they don't have the slightest interest in following up on how federal money is spent by the provinces. Which, contrary to Beheils' theory, would hint that the lone change in Harper's previous pro-firewall position is a calculation that the Cons need to occasionally catapult some money over the walls for political benefit.

Not surprisingly, the additional examples put forward by Beheils are no less misguided. After all, any reform which managed to give extra power to the Senate would only be likely to cause added gridlock on the federal scene, diluting the ability of anybody to exercise federal power while pushing more action to the provincial level to compensate.

And the "strong regional Cabinet minister" theory couldn't be much further from the mark as to how the Cons' cabinet has actually operated. (Though in fairness Harper's refusal to allow any of his cabinet ministers to show any strength offers a better example of centralization - even if out of necessity rather than vision - than any put forward by Beheils.)

The real tension at the moment is between provinces which prefer for the most part to see a federal government which acts on their common concerns, and a federal government which would rather leave the provinces to their own devices. And while the Cons' position may indeed seem to render futile any agreement among the provinces now, the problem is with the Cons' contempt for the idea of effective national government, not some excess of Ottawa-based control.

Extreme views

Shorter Neil Reynolds:
If only people would stop disagreeing with my side, it would be possible to have a full and free debate about deep integration.

Open to question

The Cons are unsurprisingly looking to put as many decisions as they can in partisan hands while they still can, following up the embarrassing selection of Tom Long to head-hunt for the CBC by appointing Jim Flaherty's chief of staff to try to minimize the effect of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. But in appointing McLaughlin, the Cons are opening themselves up to some serious questions about subjects which they'd rather see forgotten:

The Harper government is dismissing accusations of patronage after naming one of its top political advisers as the president of an independent advisory body on environmental and economic issues.

David McLaughlin is leaving his position as chief of staff to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty to begin his new appointment today as president of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy...

The opposition parties said they plan to call McLaughlin before the Commons environment committee to answer questions about McLaughlin's relevant experience.

"It's supposed to be an arm's-length, advisory council reporting to the prime minister of Canada. The question now is whether Mr. McLaughlin will take his orders from the PMO (Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office)," McGuinty added...

NDP environment critic Nathan Cullen added that he'd have questions about McLaughlin's contributions to initiatives announced in the last two federal budgets for a tax credit for public transit passes and a fee-bate program to encourage the sale of efficient cars. Both initiatives generated controversy and mixed reviews from industry and lobby groups.

Not surprisingly, CanWest is far too generous in describing the unmitigated disaster that is the feebate program in particular. But with McLaughlin facing public questioning over his role in the Cons' record of waste, the opposition parties will have a golden opportunity to set the record straight.

Of course, the Cons presumably figure they'll be better off in the long run trying to cut down on the NRTEE's valid criticism of their government. But particularly in light of the hard-right messaging coming out of their summer caucus meeting, it's looking entirely possible that the Cons could face an election before McLaughlin has the chance to influence much of anything in his new assignment. And if the Cons end up bringing their failures to the forefront in the short term, the result could be to remove them from power for a long time to come.

Light blogging ahead

I'm headed out of town tomorrow, so expect little to no blogging until next week. If you're in need of some way to spend the weekend in the absence of reading material, I hear Outremont is lovely this time of year.

Guarding the loophole

So much for the theory that it shouldn't be a problem to fix the multiple-riding-donation loophole in the Canada Elections Act. But while it's not entirely clear what may be motivating the Cons to take a stand against enforcement of the law, it may be worth highlighting one of the obvious possibilities: namely, that they don't want Canadians to be reminded that Stephen Harper broke the law by exceeding donation limits just a couple of years ago. (And if the Dear Leader did something, then it can't really be wrong.)

That said, let's take a look at the Cons' current excuse for doing nothing. From the Globe's story:

The Harper government rejected opposition calls yesterday to give Elections Canada new tools to detect multiple donations to a political party's riding associations that could cumulatively exceed the legal limit by more than $60,000.

"For God's sake, this loophole has to be plugged," New Democrat MP Pat Martin said. "We can't go into an election campaign with this kind of imbalance. It could be happening all over the place."

The Globe and Mail reported yesterday that Elections Canada cannot track or cross-check donations to riding associations of less than $200. As a result, a donor could send dozens of contributions to riding associations that, put together, widely exceed the legal limit of $1,100 a year.

With 308 ridings across the country, a series of $199.99 cheques to each one would total $61,596.92, and could go undetected.

Conservative House Leader Peter Van Loan issued a statement yesterday reminding Canadians that exceeding the $1,100 limit is illegal.

"This is no more a loophole than the fact that someone can break the law by fraudulently misstating their income on their income tax," he said. "In both cases the law is broken and individuals are subject to serious consequences for doing so."

Of course, another common thread in both cases is that some method is needed to catch those individuals who do choose to break the law. And in typical right-wing fashion, the Cons seem to think that mentioning the existence of potentially high sentences will somehow deter would-be offenders in the face of a public announcement that they won't be caught in the first place. Indeed, I'm slightly surprised that the Cons haven't come out swinging by calling for higher penalties to show their "seriousness" in dealing with an offence which they refuse to see prosecuted.

Fortunately, the Cons alone can't determine whether or not it's possible for Elections Canada to do its job in enforcing the rules. Whether or not the opposition parties can team up to plug the existing loophole, it still seems possible that an individual exploiting the loophole would leave some suspicious patterns in riding association filings which Elections Canada would find in any event. And in that regard, one has to wonder whether the Cons' trial balloons about provoking an election can be linked to their refusal to close the donations loophole as part of an effort to make use of wrongfully-collected money before anybody can track it down.

The incompetence continues

It's been well-known for some time that the Cons don't value intelligence in potential candidates. But is it really too much to ask that their cabinet ministers have at least enough basic understanding of logic to recognize when they're contradicting themselves?

Here's Gordon O'Connor today:

Mr. O'Connor said there is no discrepancy between his opinion and that of Gen. Hillier.

”I never said that the army units would be trained within six months,” he said. ”I said that over the next six months we will get four or five of these battalions to train. And if you check, my words, word by word, I said that at some time in the future we will be able to go into some reserve state. But we don't know how long that is.”

The Canadian troops are committed to remaining in the country until February 2009 and are shifting their focus to the training for the Afghan army, he said.

So what's the problem? (That is, aside from deciding where to start in finding the questions raised by O'Connor's new stance.) Let's go to the wayback machine to see just what he actually said a week and a half ago:

"Over the next four or five months were going to be picking up four or five additional Afghan battalions to train and mentor and get them out into the field," O'Connor said.

We're hoping by the end of this rotation that's going in now, the so called Van Doos rotation, we'll have about 3,000 Afghan army operating within the Kandahar province, and as we train more and more of the Afghan army to carry out their own operations we'll continue to withdraw, put more emphasis on training, and at some stage basically be in reserve."

About the only way one could possibly reconcile O'Connor's current position as to the timing of any "reserve status" with his past one is to assume that there's absolutely no relationship between the training of the promised Afghan troops and the reserve status of Canadian troops. Which in turn would of course make the earlier statement misleading in linking the two.

And O'Connor's rationalization that he never stated that the Afghan troops would be trained within six months seems utterly bizarre given his plain statement that the troops would already be operating by that time. Though I suppose if O'Connor wants to defend the position that Afghan troops should be operating without training by February, he'll likely find an eager opposition ready to tear him apart even more.

It remains to be seen just how much longer Deceivin' Stephen stands behind his embarrassment of the Defence Minister in light of this and other PR disasters. But any faint hope the Cons may have held that O'Connor would figure out how to handle his department has to be diminishing by the day - and at some point, the spillover effect of O'Connor's incompetence has to be seen as more harmful to the Cons than grudgingly admitting defeat.

A simple fix

The Globe and Mail reports on another serious loophole in election financing enforcement. But it seems like there should be some relatively simple solutions if Parliament is willing to deal with the issue constructively:

Any Canadian could exceed by more than $60,000 the legal donation to a political party under a loophole discovered by The Globe and Mail.

Elections Canada confirmed yesterday that an individual could theoretically contribute $199.99 to each of the party's 308 riding associations across the country - a total of $61,596.92 - without attracting anyone's attention.

That's because parties are required to inform Elections Canada only of individual donations of $200 or more. Smaller donations to riding associations are lumped together, with no breakdown for cross-checking...

John Enright, a spokesman for Elections Canada, said the agency cannot keep track of donations below $200 because "we do not get the receipts" from the individual riding associations...

Mr. Enright also insisted that making donations beyond the maximum limit remains illegal.

"Anybody who gives over and beyond [the limit] is breaking the spirit and the letter of the Canada Elections Act," he said.

Mr. Enright said that riding associations must keep the receipts they issue for all donations over $20 and would have to provide them to Elections Canada in the event of an investigation into a donor's activities.

This particular loophole is strictly one of enforcement rather than legality: for the moment, the data actually provided to Elections Canada doesn't provide it with sufficient information to determine what donations have been made between $25* and $200 in most cases. In principle, though, a systematic set of donations of $199.99 to each of a party's riding associations would hopefully set off some alarm bells (e.g. through a regular .99 showing up in total donations to a disproportionate number of ridings). And I presume there are also some circumstances where Elections Canada would end up reviewing a riding association's receipts for other purposes, which would also offer a strong hint if anybody was circumventing the donation limit.

That said, there's no reason why the issue shouldn't be fairly easily corrected. After all, with every riding association required to keep receipts for all donations over $25 anyway, it wouldn't seem particularly difficult from a legislative standpoint (or onerous for a riding association) to require all those receipts to be submitted to Elections Canada even if the donations don't then form part of the public donor database.

It's worth noting as well that another loophole exists for donations under $25: a party or riding association is required to track only a general description of the event where such an amount is received and the total amount donated, meaning that an individual can conceivably give an unlimited number of $20 donations without anything being traceable. (In principle, a $20 donation in each riding would put an individual well over the annual donation limit - though the more likely scenario would naturally be an individual donating multiple times at a single event.)

And of course, there's also the equally gaping (if more often discussed) loophole surrounding supporter loans.

Unfortunately, the area of political donations is one where both the Cons and Libs have seemed more interested in sniping at each other than in actually fixing obvious problems. But with so many obvious frailties in the current enforcement regime - and with all parties claiming to want to clean up Canadian politics - it will hopefully be possible to agree on how to improve the current system.

*Based on s. 404.4 of the Canada Elections Act as currently posted at CanLII. The Globe's article seems to hint that the standard has been moved to $20, but that change wouldn't affect the issues with the level at which anonymous donations are permitted.

On reprieves

I'm seldom as glad to be wrong as I am when it comes to the Federal Court's decision striking down the Cons' attempt to abolish the Canadian Wheat Board's single-desk status over barley by regulation. While I'd worried before before that the language of the Canadian Wheat Board Act on its face seemed to leave open the possibility of change by regulation alone, Hansen J.'s decision makes plenty of sense when those words are put in context.

Of course, the Cons don't figure to take the ruling lying down...and an appeal could always go the wrong way. But for now at least, the Cons' attempt to undermine the Wheat Board have been stopped in its tracks. And as long as the decision is in the hands of the House of Commons, the odds of the Wheat Board surviving the Cons' attacks are looking very strong.

Weak on defence

Today's news saw another flood of commentary - including some from usually-reliable Con hacks like David Bercuson and Tom Flanagan - calling either for Gordon O'Connor's ouster as Defence Minister, or at least some major rethinking of the current mixed messages on Afghanistan.

Now, one would have to figure that the Cons would want to put forward as credible a figure as they could find to defend a minister whose past lobbying on behalf of the defence industry made him a controversial figure even before he started his mismanagement. So what does it say about O'Connor's future that the only voice apparently willing to try to back him is a current defence lobbyist?

Fuelling distrust

One can always count on the Cons to find some way to make a bad idea worse. And so it is with their laughably inefficient slightly-greener car strategy, which due to the government's incompetence has yet to pay a cent to eligible purchasers:

More than four months after announcing rebates for those who buy fuel-sipping cars and trucks, the federal government has not paid a cent to buyers of 2006 and 2007 models that qualify, and automakers are voicing complaints as 2008 models flow on to dealers' lots.

The ecoAuto feebate program set up in the March federal budget, offers rebates of up to $2,000 and also slaps a maximum levy of $4,000 on gas guzzlers. But it is angering consumers and growing increasingly messy for the auto companies, associations representing the major automakers operating in Canada say in a letter to Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Environment Minister John Baird.

“Our members report they are already receiving numerous letters of complaint and frustration over the fact that no process to apply for the rebate has been established,” David Adams, president of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada and Mark Nantais, president of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association , said in a letter to the federal ministers.

No money has been paid out to buyers of 2006 and 2007 models that qualify for the incentives, Transport Canada spokesman Robin Browne confirmed Monday from Ottawa...

(C)onsumers kicking tires on 2008 models, assuming they will get a rebate, may be out of luck because Transport Canada still hasn't announced what vehicles from the new model year are eligible.

No date is set yet to publish the list of which 2008 models are eligible, Mr. Browne said.

“The government has established a program that continues to be bereft of critical details for both manufacturers and consumers,” Mr. Adams and Mr. Nantais said in their letter.

The article doesn't make clear whether the Cons have been as slow in imposing the new tax on less efficient vehicles. But from the Cons' complete failure to put a rebate in place more than four months after it was announced - not to mention to take any steps to include 2008 models in the program - it's obvious once again that Deceivin' Stephen and company see any real accomplishment as secondary to the PR generated by making an announcement in the first place.

Because the program was so poorly designed to begin with, the environmental costs of failing to follow through with the rebates figure to be minimal. But there's still a serious danger that examples like the nonexistent feebates and the painfully ineffective home-inspection regime will serve the Cons' longer-term ideological goal of eroding public trust in the federal government's ability to get anything done - when all indications are that it's Harper's government alone that's the problem.

It's all about E-Me

For all the talk about how self-absorbed Elizabeth May's leadership has been so far, I'm not sure anything can make the case better than the Greens themselves. From their main fundraising page, here's how the party is presenting the options of would-be donors:

Giving to the Green Party is a great way to leverage your money, as the tax credits for donating to a federal political party far exceed those for charitable donations. A $200 donation, for example, only costs you $50. And you can give up to $1,100 each to both the federal party and a local riding association (perhaps Central Nova?).

That's right: rather than trying to encourage donors to build riding associations across the country, the Greens are using their limited fund-raising ability solely to push money toward their leader - who of course is the sole party candidate who doesn't figure to need much financial help in building her profile. (Though in fairness, the recently-deregistered Central Nova riding association does figure to have at least as desperate a need for investment as most Green ridings.)

At best, one could speculate that the Greens are gambling on having a better chance of attracting donations by highlighting the Central Nova race. But even that would be an entirely short-sighted strategy since it's based on the theory that the next election is everything, rather than an effort to actually encourage sustainable and broad-based fundraising for the longer term.

Yet even that seems too generous an interpretation. Instead, it seems more likely that the fund-raising scheme merely matches the party's spending strategy. And indeed it hardly seems matter whether money gets put toward the national party or the Central Nova riding association when it'll all be used for the greater glory of May in any event.

Unappetizing

Not surprisingly, I'm no fan of the Cons' plan to move Parliament's food-preparation operations to a privately-constructed site. But based on one Con MP's response, the plan may serve as an effective litmus test as to whether politicians who see no problem in outsourcing and privatizing functions which affect Canadians as a whole are willing to tolerate the same for themselves:

Ottawa Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre, like other MPs, had no idea the plan was in the works.

"What?" he asked, surprise written all over his face.

Mr. Poilievre, upon hearing a description of the journey Parliament Hill meals will eventually take from the kitchens in the food plant, expressed diplomatic skepticism about taste and quality upon arrival.

Naturally, Poilievre soon changed the focus to cost (though as he notes, the construction of a new facility and added transportation of food may itself make the plan all the worse). But it still says plenty that at least one relatively prominent Con can see the problem with sacrificing quality in order to privatize when he himself stands to be affected by a change. And if a few more within the pro-privatization crowd start to see the same issue for themselves, the less strong the push figures to be.

A continued embarrassment

The CP reports that Jim Prentice is pushing forward with plans to keep the Kashechewan reserve on the flood plain where the federal government first forced it to move half a century ago, rather than moving it to higher ground:

Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice will sign an agreement Monday toward rebuilding, but not moving, the flood-prone Kashechewan First Nation, The Canadian Press has learned.

The remote northern Ontario reserve, near the coast of James Bay, is on low-lying land that has flooded twice in the last three years.

Residents were also evacuated in 2005 because of a dirty water crisis that made international headlines.

A report produced by consultants hired by Kashechewan to survey the community said most people want to move to higher ground within their traditional territory. They say it's just a matter of time before their homes flood again.

The former Liberal government promised to relocate Kashechewan over 10 years, at an estimated cost of $500 million. The Conservatives said the Liberals never officially budgeted that cash, and that it's too expensive to move the reserve.

Instead, sources say the new agreement will establish a working group to assess the First Nation's long-and short-term needs, but will not move it off the flood plain.

It's especially rich that the Cons will go to the trouble of trying to "assess (Kashechewan's) needs" in a way that deliberately rules out the most obvious one - that being some reason to believe that the community won't wind up getting flooded yet again due to federal negligence.

If there's any reason for hope, it's that the working group itself sounds like a classic delay tactic - which could well put off any definitive action until after the next federal election. And if that happens, then there's a strong chance that the Cons will be replaced with a government which wants to do more than the bare minimum (or less) before anything gets finalized.

On mixed messages

Impolitical theorizes that the effect of a few recent statements on continued combat in Afghanistan is to isolate Rick Hillier against military and civilian leaders. But while I'd agree that there are some mixed messages on the future of Canada's stay in Afghanistan, the split looks to me to be somewhere else entirely.

Specifically, in the public appearances cited by Impolitical, Hillier, Lt.-Gen. Michel Gauthier and Brigadier-General Tim Grant all take the position that there's little prospect of training Afghani troops to take over the combat role now occupied by Canada. It's only the consequences of that premise which are in dispute among the military officials who have commented publicly: Hillier takes a strident "Canada must stay" position, compared to Gauthier's message that "troops from other countries" can handle Canada's current role and Grant's openness to reshaping Canadian involvement.

Now, I certainly don't agree with Hillier's attempt to spin the lack of progress to date as reason to stay in combat indefinitely. But at the very least, all three military officials appear to want Canada's debate about Afghanistan to be based on a realistic assessment of how much slack can be taken up locally over the next year and a half.

In contrast, Deceivin' Stephen and his embattled lackey are claiming that Afghani troops can be trained to be just as effective as Canadian ones over the next year and a half (and indeed sooner in order to enable Canada to take a "reserve" role in the meantime). Once again, the message is "as they stand up, we'll stand down", accompanied by a claim that a substantial number of Afghani troops will have "stood up" on those terms by 2009.

Now, I don't think for a second that the Cons actually believe the claim. Instead, they likely figure that they have a better chance of winning an extension vote which supposedly involves only training and reserve status, rather than one which is premised on continuing combat as a first option. And once they have that vote to extend the mission, they can claim that the scope of the extension includes the ability to continue combat as usual, based on the shocking realization that the training hasn't gone as "planned".

In sum, the real difference in message right now is between honest military officials who are willing to acknowledge the implausibility of the government's plan, and Con partisans who see the truth as an acceptable casualty if it means furthering their political goal of winning an extension vote. And in that contest, it's the Cons who deserve blame for undermining both the troops and the truth.

Update: The Globe and Mail discusses the Cons vs. troop split as well. But it looks like the Libs are being far too generous to the Cons, as Ujjal Dosanjh is merely talking about a "need to know who's in charge" rather than the sheer implausibility of the Cons' position or its likely strategic purpose.