A steaming pile by any other name

A sneak preview of Barbara Yaffe's column for May 2, 2009:
So it turns out that renaming the SPP as the "North American Standards and Regulations Area" didn't manage to fool anybody. But I'm sure if we just rename the exact same type of integration as the Motherhood, Frolicking Puppies and Wealth Beyond Your Wildest Dreams Coalition, we won't have any trouble selling it.

Incidentally, with the SPP back in the news, it's worth drawing a contrast between the Cons' stance on deep integration and their obstruction against World Health Organization labeling requirements. Apparently they're all for setting international standards when it means avoiding democratically-made regulations to make sure that more goods get sent from country to country. But when it comes to actually allowing consumers to find out what it is they're buying, the Cons' appetite for cooperation disappears.

h/t to Alison and pogge.

On warning labels

Deceivin' Stephen's Conservative government: proudly fighting against the public's right to know relevant information around the world as well as at home.

A need for change

Following up on last night's post, I'll take a moment to respond to the commentators who seem eager to assume that Tom Lukiwski's views have changed in the past 17 years, such that his comments can't be held against him now.

Again, the problem is precisely the Harper strategy of gagging his MPs rather than allowing them to actually express their personal views in public. It might well be that Lukiwski's stance has changed in the meantime, and I'd be interested to see if there is a public record to that effect. But it's difficult to assume that Lukiwski actually has changed his mind without some evidence a bit less self-serving than anything he could say now. And it's the Cons' fear of having its MPs say something politically damaging that's made it impossible for their members to discuss gender and sexuality issues even where their views might have progressed with time.

Of course, the flip side is that a strategy of muzzling what candidates actually think also makes it plausible that bigotry can survive and indeed thrive, as long as its purveyors keep it out of the public eye. And based on the Cons' response to Lukiwski's comments (trying to claim the matter is "closed"), there's precious little reason to give the party the benefit of any doubt now.

Update: If we needed more reason to be skeptical about any supposed change, Lukiwski's comments on same-sex marriage provide just that.

Out in the open

I'll take a moment to toss in my two cents' worth on the Lukiwski/Wall scandal that's naturally dominating today's news coverage. But I'll take a different line than most of the commentary so far.

As problematic as the video is, the larger issue which it highlights is how little we're actually able to know about most politicians based on the high levels of coaching and scripting which underlie any public appearance. For all the media and citizen attention to political campaigns, the sad fact is that it's still relatively easy for political parties to hide their candidates behind talking points and "no comments", rather than allowing anybody to test what kind of judgment they possess. And indeed, both Lukiwski and Wall reached their current status as high-ranking politicians based precisely on "good campaigns" which involved their parties avoiding public embarrassment by going out of their way to say nothing.

Of course, there have always been suspicions about just what has been hidden from the public. But there's still been no concerted effort to actually push behind the facades put up to varying degrees by different parties. And as long as our political narratives continue to see a campaign that's free of "gaffes" as being the ideal even when that's achieved by hiding who candidates really are from public view, it can't come as much surprise when it turns out that our leaders do have something to hide.

On conditions

It's not as if there was much doubt that the Cons would find some excuse to extend Canada's combat mission regardless of whether or not the already-dubious Manley recommendations were met. But it's noteworthy that Deceivin's Stephen is now claiming that the extension is a done deal based on little more than wishful thinking when it comes to two of the conditions:

The key conditions laid down by Parliament for keeping Canadian troops in Afghanistan have been fulfilled, Prime Minister Stephen Harper declared Thursday...

His statement came half way through a meeting with NATO allies in this former Cold War capital. The certainty of American reinforcements for Kandahar, NATO's approval of a comprehensive political-military plan for the war-ravaged country as well as progress toward acquiring battlefield equipment gave Harper the confidence to state that Canada will remain in Afghanistan.

"Today I can report that we have met these conditions," Harper said...

Canada has made significant progress in getting helicopters and unmanned aerial drones to support Canadian troops operating in southern Afghanistan, he said.

It shouldn't take much effort to notice a significant difference between actually securing helicopters and drones, and merely proclaiming that some "progress" has been made.

And it's worth noting that Harper's stance today can only make it more difficult to finish the acquisition on reasonable terms. After all, without a final declaration that the preconditions "have been met", Canada would have the leverage of pointing out its intention to withdraw its troops if the equipment wasn't secured.

Instead, having already declared that the extension is a done deal, Harper doesn't figure to be willing to face the public embarrassment of rescinding that statement - making it more likely that Canada will end up either taking equipment on less favourable terms, or trying to fudge having met the preconditions at all. Which means that once again, Deceivin' Stephen has subordinated Canada's interests to his personal whims.

Strategic positions

It's been no secret that the Libs' sense of worth as a party has been (rightly) declining as a result of their strategy of non-opposition. But even I wouldn't have expected them to argue that being associated with the party could cause irreparable harm to the Libs' own candidates.

Promising nothing

There's certainly reason for concern about what the Cons would want to change about Canada's constitution given the chance. But it's worth noting that their current musings don't seem to involve any change at all to the status quo other than more Con seats in Quebec:

Emphasizing the Conservative receptiveness to “Quebec's historical demands,” Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn raised the possibility of winning 30 to 40 seats in the province, up from the current 11.

“The recognition of the Quebec nation within Canada allows us to think that we can put some meat around it, and that a majority government is more able to do a number of things, while being respectful of all of the provinces,” Mr. Blackburn said in an interview.

And as noted in the Globe and Mail's report, there's plenty of reason to doubt the Cons are doing much other than trying to posture for soft-nationalist votes while rocking the boat as little as possible elsewhere:

The Conservatives are treading carefully to manage expectations and avoid a backlash in the rest of Canada...

Mr. Blackburn spoke positively, albeit guardedly, of launching further constitutional talks with the provinces if the Conservatives form a majority.

A number of constitutional changes require the assent of all of the provinces, but leadership on the matter usually comes from Ottawa.

Mr. Blackburn said the Conservatives are “much more receptive to Quebec's historical demands” than the Liberals, using language from the days of the failed Meech Lake accord that described Quebec as a distinct society.

All of which suggests that the Cons are offering little more than fuzzy language to hide their future agenda from one or more of their targeted voting blocs. Which from a strategic perspective looks to be a sign of resignation that the Cons aren't about to pick up the seats they need to build a genuine seat majority anywhere other than Quebec, and thus have to try to sell different messages in Western Canada and Quebec in order to improve on their current Lib-supported pseudo-majority.

Of course, the problem with that plan is that there's an easy response from the opposition: force the Cons to explain what they mean by "receptive" and "historical demands", then highlight the gap between the expectations the Cons are trying to build and what they're actually willing to commit to. And if the opposition parties can succeed in generating outrage over the Cons' duplicity among groups of voters who have seldom stood for the same in the past, then Blackburn's gambit may do little more than seal the Cons' fate as a one-term government.

Gone private

Let's take note of one point from yesterday's Handard which doesn't seem to have attracted much attention: Lib MP Navdeep Bains' observation that the Cons decided to farm out their NAFTA scandal investigation to the private sector:

Last Thursday we learned that the Privy Council Office outsourced the investigation of sensitive diplomatic leaks to BMCI Investigations & Security Ltd. of Ottawa, a private company. Yet, the government never said a word about this decision.

If the government is incapable of conducting its own investigation, why did the Prime Minister not say so when he announced it in the House? Why was a private company chosen and, more important, what is its mandate?

Bains points out one question which deserves plenty of followup, which is what exactly BMCI was asked to do. But I'm equally curious as to what the farmout does to the results of the investigation: will the involve of a private third party be used as an excuse to keep the final report and (particularly) any explanation about the investigative methods out of the public eye?

In motion

With the NDP announcing its House of Commons motion for later this week, let's highlight two factors which seem to have largely been missed in coverage so far.

First, and most importantly, the motion looks to be the strongest statement from any opposition party that the Cons' tax slashing (and the concurrent damage to federal finances) doesn't have to be a permanent development. For all the justified complaints about the Cons prioritizing tax cuts over all else, this looks to be the first time the parties will be directly debating the need to reverse any of the cuts in the future.

Second, despite the narrative attached to the story by the Canadian Press, the motion doesn't put any particular pressure on the Libs to vote against their policy principles (as they had to do to avoid an election on the NDP's previous environmental confidence motion). Instead, the wording not only takes aim at the Cons' policies directly, but also allows the Libs to speak (and vote) for their own position on corporate tax cuts without triggering an election by doing so.

Of course, that doesn't figure to stop some Libs from criticizing the NDP for not putting forward a motion designed specifically to assist Dion. But the motion is nonetheless an important step both in leading the way as to what needs to be done to reverse Harper's regressive policies, and in differentiating the NDP's position from those of the other federal parties.

A cool reception

Shorter Terence Corcoran (2 for 1 special edition!):
I simply can't conceive of a value system which would prioritize the survival of half the species on Earth, along with a substantial proportion of humanity, over a cheaper supply of consumer goods.

-and-

Having successfully lobbied the Con government to thumb its nose at Canada's Kyoto obligations, allow me to lecture you on the sacrosanct inviolability of international trade agreements.

Playing defence

The Hill Times notes that at least some Lib MPs are finally raising a cry that it's time to go to the polls. But if there was any hope that the Libs were prepared to actually challenge the Cons even if they do force an election, the article offers yet another indication to the contrary:

Dion is intensifying his training for political debates (in fact he had always refused to participate to the training) and other activities to prepare for a federal election.

For example, last week the Liberals sent organizers from Ottawa to Toronto to coordinate electoral activities within ethnic communities, particularly Asian communities. The initiative was welcomed with some sarcasm by a Toronto Member of Parliament: "With all ethnic MPs in Toronto, the last thing we need is paid organizers from Ottawa."

While the Toronto MP's frustration is understandable from the standpoint of what's likely to be successful even in the targeted ridings, there's another more important point at play. After all, if the Libs are in such a state of disarray that they're just now getting around to organizing even their most solid bases of support, then there's virtually no prospect that they'll be in a position to go on the offensive against Harper.

Of course, the fact that the Libs seem to be planning only to cut their losses may explain their reluctance to face the voters. But if even the Libs themselves don't think they can stop the Cons, then it's long past time for Canadians to take a closer look at a party which aspires to do more than just save its own skin while allowing the Cons to keep imposing their reactionary agenda.

On available options

The Star presents an interesting point/counterpoint on the use of P3s as a means of deferring government expenses (at a high future cost). But while it's tough to disagree with the outcome of Thomas Walkom's piece against the use of P3s as a means of buying now and paying more later, it's Christopher Hume's column which actually raises the more interesting issues - both as to why P3s may be seen as needed by some, and what the public sector can do to minimize costs while potentially generating public returns.

Here's Hume on the background to why he sees P3s as inevitable for now:

In a perfect world, there would be no need for public-private partnerships. Government would have all the money it needs to pay for all we need, and everyone would be living happily ever after.

In the real world, however, government is chronically short of funds and we, the voters, aided and abetted by the media, would rather not pay the taxes we should. And so we elect leaders who tell us what we want to hear even when we know it's a lie.

And in these conservative times, not only are tax rates under fire; so is the very idea of government. Is it any wonder that the decline of the public infrastructure has reached the point where in Ontario alone it would cost $143 billion to bring it up to an acceptable standard?

Faced with such overwhelming need and a reactionary culture, government has little choice but to look to the private sector.

There's of course plenty of room for argument as to whether either commentators like Hume or governments themselves should be giving in to the assumption that voters prefer being lied to about the costs of providing needed services. And I'd strongly take the side that the most needed change is to counter the initial deception - not merely to look for some way of paying off the private sector to win its endorsement of government spending.

But whatever the proper response, the underlying premise is that any supposed need for P3s is itself based on incorrect assumptions. And that's surely a recipe for bad public policy.

Meanwhile, Hume does point out one means of bringing some benefit back to the public sector:

(I)n certain European countries, some government agencies and departments have themselves started to act as private companies, selling their expertise and services to the highest bidder, including government.

City planning services in Britain are an example, as are incineration plants in Sweden. They bid on public-sector contracts like any business, and when they make a profit, plough it into general revenues.

In Canada, public entrepreneurialism would be viewed as contrary to the ideals of public service.

Once again, it's not clear why we should take as a given that Canadians would disapprove of an effort to build public-sector capacity. And that's doubly so in the case of a development which would not only present the possibility of improving public services, but could also help bring in a return on investment which would help to bridge any gap between what voters want in services and what they're prepared to pay in taxes.

Ultimately, Hume is right to point out some of the options which have been wrongly excluded from Canada's public debate. But the fact that those possibilities are largely ignored offers a reason to bring them back to light and start making the case for more effective public investment, not a basis for accepting that governments have to pay more to get less for lack of any easy alternatives. And once the underlying assumptions are challenged, any case to funnel money into the private sector through P3s falls away in a hurry.

For a limited time only...

The Gazette introduces the Cons' apparent candidate in Westmount-Ville-Marie. But there's little reason to think that Guy Dufort will be allowed to hold the job for long - as even his first set of media coverage seems to show far more independent thought than the Cons have ever allowed from their candidates.

Dufort on the need for more infrastructure investment:

Guy Dufort, a Montreal lawyer, said big cities "won't be convivial places to live" unless they are given more help to tackle challenges such as crumbling roads and sewers. Infrastructure will go down the drain, transportation systems will become decrepit and more people will move to the suburbs, he predicts.

The party line:

Flaherty said the Tories have already given municipalities $33 billion in a multi-year package and he has rejected pleas for more cash.

Dufort on federal transfers to cities:

Dufort said the government has made some effort to address the problem by transferring a portion of gas taxes to municipalities. But they should also have access to a portion of income taxes or sales taxes, he said.

The party line:

SEAN MALLEN: As you well know the Mayor of Toronto, Mr Miller, joined by the Premier, have been calling for one cent of the GST to be dedicated to cities. Is that idea effectively dead?
Jim Flaherty: Yes.
SEAN MALLEN: Why?
Jim Flaherty: Well, it was a non-starter from the beginning.

Dufort on housing:

While Westmount-Ville-Marie has a reputation of being the home to some of Quebec's wealthiest residents, Dufort said it is also home to about 8,000 homeless people, and affordable housing is a priority for him.

The party line:

The federal Conservatives have ousted their candidate for Toronto Centre, 43-year-old international-trade lawyer Mark Warner, and he says it's because he wanted to play up urban and social issues that are at odds with the master Conservative campaign strategy...

Conservative officials have been actively resisting Warner's emphasis on housing, health care and cities issues, he said, even blocking him from participating in a Star forum on poverty earlier this year and pointedly removing from his campaign literature a reference to the 2006 international conference on AIDS in Toronto – which Warner attended but Prime Minister Stephen Harper did not.

And what's more:

Dufort, who describes himself as a "pragmatist," admitted that he personally only agrees with about 80 per cent of the Conservative Party's platform.

Now, we don't know for sure what's included in the 20% that Dufort disagrees with. But one has to figure the question will be brought up more than a few times during the course of a by-election. And there's no way for Dufort to answer without either giving the appearance of having been dishonest now, suggesting that Dufort has been brainwashed by extended reprogramming at the Cons' Hall of Harper, or angering his micromanaging leader.

One way or another, the gap between Dufour's more moderate stances and the Cons' governing principles can only make it all the more clear that the Cons can't offer a viable alternative to the Libs in Westmount-Ville-Marie. Which can only leave the door wide open for the NDP to pick up another Quebec beachhead in the riding once a by-election is called.

On motivation

There doesn't seem to be much doubt that the talk of an island being named after Deceivin' Stephen looks to be little more than an ego boost for Harper. But let's look on the bright side: while the Cons obviously can't be bothered to deal seriously with climate change based merely on the environmental, social and economic costs involved, might Harper at least give the matter a bit more thought if part of his legacy is in danger of being submerged?

On imbalance

LKO points out Paul Wells' brilliant column on the Harper Coalition. But all skewering aside, the more important part of Wells' column lies in the recognition of just what Harper has done to the federal government - and what the Libs are in turn propping up:

(T)he current Harper-Dion government is presiding over astonishing changes to the shape of Canada's government. It's all in that February budget, which the Liberals all but ignored before voting against it — wink, wink — in small enough numbers to ensure its survival. The budget provides for provincial revenues to grow, while federal revenues as a share of GDP decline. "The gap has widened in recent years," the budget document says, and "will likely continue to grow over the coming years." The gap between provincial revenues and federal revenues — in the provinces' favour — has never been as great in more than 20 years. Federal transfers to the provinces, as a share of all federal spending, are half again as high as they were when Brian Mulroney took office a generation ago.

In 2000-2001, the gap between federal revenues and provincial-territorial revenues was $5 billion. This year — according to the innocuous-looking "Annex I" tucked at the back of the budget — it will be $36 billion. The Harper GST cuts, which the Liberals have done nothing serious to stop, will ensure that Ottawa can't grow its lost revenue back. Harper's growing transfers to the provinces, which Dion — true to his word — found a way not to defeat, ensure the provincial governments will be the only ones with the resources to undertake ambitious new projects.

What's particularly worth noting is that not all of the change described by Wells is attributable to the Cons. Indeed, the Libs held a majority government during the first wave of reckless federal tax cuts at the start of the period noted by Wells. Which means that their recent choice to egg the Cons on to provide more of the same - an invitation which the Cons were of course eager to take up - only represents a continuation of what the Libs were already doing.

What remains to be seen is whether Canadians will take the opportunity to stop the demolition of Canada's federal government before it really is too late. But it should be clear that both in government and in opposition, the Libs and Cons have consistently pushed further in that direction - and the current coalition is only the latest example rather than a particularly radical new development.

Excuses, excuses

Not surprisingly, the Cons are now having to retract their false claim that it was NATO (and not Deceivin' Stephen) who decided to uninvite opposition defence critics from the upcoming Bucharest summit. But the new explanation only invites more questions about what the Cons' strategy was to begin with:

The Star reported yesterday that Defence Minister Peter MacKay's office had invited opposition critics to go to Bucharest April 2-4, then rescinded the offer 24 hours later, saying, "NATO officials reduced the number of Canadian officials that ... will be allowed to accompany our minister."

Following inquiries to MacKay's office, director of operations Paul J. Throop sent another note to opposition parties "to clarify" why defence critics had been uninvited.

"I wanted to convey to you our directive on the NATO meeting that we do not require pairing, not that it was a NATO directive. Sorry for the confusion," Throop wrote in an email Wednesday.

Pairing is the parliamentary custom of matching a travelling government MP to an opposition member so that no one party is disadvantaged in the event of a vote in the House of Commons.

Now, it's embarrassing enough that the Cons seem to consider being caught in a lie as "confusion". But consider what the Cons' current message suggests about their reason for inviting the opposition parties.

After all, there's no particular reason why a pairing arrangement requires that opposition MPs be flown out of the country. Indeed, the same process is frequently followed by agreement between the parties when MPs aren't able to attend a vote.

But if one takes the Cons at face value, then they were originally willing to offer opposition critics a place in the Bucharest delegation - at public expense - solely for the purpose of getting them out of the House of Commons. And that's only made all the worse by the Cons now reversing course after apparently deciding they don't want any inconvenient reality coming from the Canadian delegation.

Needless to say, it doesn't look like the latest excuse will be the last one. But regardless of what explanation the Cons eventually settle on, the ultimate question once again is how anybody - whether reporter, pundit or mere observer - could justify believing a word from the Cons in the face of yet another set of contradictory and nonsensical excuses in the making.

For the sake of consistency...

I'll grant that don't see this column as evidence of much more than a need for John Ivison to recalibrate his personal laugh test. But shouldn't those who used supposed positive reinforcement from Deceivin' Stephen as an excuse to bash Jack Layton be attacking Stephane Dion with even more ferocity in the face of a story that the Cons are plotting their strategy to ensure he remains the Libs' leader?

Kicking and screaming

One of the less-reported stories surrounding this year's federal budget was the lack of meaningful investment in environmental programs: most media reports seemed to pick up on the one project funded by the Cons (being a small contribution to a clean coal plant in Estevan) and assume that this would somehow make up for nationwide neglect. But now, Deceivin' Stephen is complaining about doing even that much:

Cutting Canada's greenhouse gas emissions will mean cost increases in the short term for consumers and businesses alike but such costs are manageable, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Tuesday.

But Harper also said he would not commit the federal government to covering potential cost overruns beyond its $240-million share of the recently announced $1.4-billion clean coal project at nearby Boundary Dam.

"All the cost pressures on energy, including admittedly cost pressures of environmental regulation, are likely to lead to upward pressure on power prices across this country in years to come," Harper said when asked about what impact the clean coal project might have on consumers.

The Conservative prime minister said the federal government is trying to help spur on the development of new technology from which energy-producing provinces such as Saskatchewan can benefit over time.

"But there would be no kidding you ... that in the short term enhancing environmental protection, reducing greenhouse gases will cost consumers money, will cost business money. That's just the reality," he said...

SaskPower is putting an additional $758 million into the project, in which industry will also participate. The carbon dioxide stored underground will be used in enhanced oil recovery.

When fully up and running, the project is expected to produce 100 megawatts of power with near-zero greenhouse gas emissions. It would reduce SaskPower's emissions by one megatonne a year.

Mind you, it's not as if the Cons didn't have other choices as to what to fund. The article itself notes a valid critique of the Cons' choice to put their money toward a project which is primarily aimed at continuing the use of fossil fuels. And of course it would be been equally possible to encourage not only cleaner forms of energy, but also conservation measures which would reduce consumer costs.

But rather than taking more positive steps, Harper seems determined to do as little as possible, while grumbling about being forced to do anything at all. And Harper's choice to push the downside of his own government's environmental plan offers yet another indication of the Cons' insincerity in tackling environmental issues.

On astroturf

Shorter Ryan Sparrow:
Sure, Con supporters are utterly incapable of thinking and speaking for themselves. But we believe they're much happier that way.

On missed opportunities

If there was ever any doubt that the Libs took the wrong side in choosing not to vote non-confidence over the Cons' environmental mismanagement, a new survey reported by CanWest should put that to rest:

Four of five Canadians disagree with the Harper government's approach to protect economic growth in Alberta's oilsands sector while allowing its annual global warming-causing emissions to triple over the next decade, a new survey has revealed...

Overall, 79% of Canadians and 81% of Albertans said that greenhouse gas emissions from the sector should be "capped at current levels and then reduced" because of the impact on global warming, according to the McAllister Opinion Research poll. Only 12% of respondents, both in the province and in the country as a whole, said that emissions from the oilsands sector should be "allowed to exceed current levels" so as to encourage economic growth...

(W)hen asked about new projects, 52% of Canadians said they should not be approved until "environmental management issues are resolved," versus 32% who said they should be "permitted so as not to curb economic growth." In Quebec, 59% wanted to suspend new projects to resolve environmental issues versus 24% who said they should be allowed to continue to protect economic growth.

The numbers were closer in Alberta where 48% supported a suspension of new projects versus 40% who did not...

Meanwhile, Canadians are not worried about increasing tensions between the federal government and Alberta because of new regulations, according to the poll. Seventy-two% of respondents said that they supported a "more active role" in managing the environmental impacts of the Alberta oilsands versus 17% who did not.

Based on the survey's results, it seems clear that the Cons have failed miserably in their effort to defuse the environment as an issue. Not only did the survey's respondents disagree with the Cons' choice of targets by an overwhelming majority, but even faced with a tradeoff between environmental protection and oilsands growth the Cons are plainly on the wrong side of public opinion.

Unfortunately, though, the Libs still appear determined to prevent the Cons from answering for their unpopular choices. Which is why on the environment - as well as far too many other issues - the Cons don't apparently see any danger in pushing forward with plans disapproved of by most Canadians.