Standing up against Saskatchewan

Shorter Darryl Hickie:

Of course we know Brad Trost and the federal Conservatives are completely wrong in their insulting portrayal of flooded-out municipalities as kids trying to avoid their homework. But who are we to try to set the record straight for our political bosses?

Cut Knife-Turtleford - Bernadette Gopher Nominated as NDP Candidate

The Saskatchewan NDP has added one more candidate to its 2011 slate even during the normally-quiet summer months, nominating Bernadette Gopher in Cut Knife-Turtleford:

Gopher, who is a member of the Saulteaux First Nation, currently owns and operates a small business just outside of North Battleford.

"Bernadette is precisely the type of candidate we want to represent the NDP in the next provincial election," Saskatchewan NDP Leader Dwain Lingenfelter, who was the guest speaker at the nomination meeting, said. "She comes from a diverse background, has strong roots in her community and is a small business owner. These are all factors that will help the NDP take back the Cut Knife-Turtleford seat and defeat the Wall government in 2011."

Importantly, Cut Knife-Turtleford looks to be the prototype for a rural riding where a strong NDP candidate with enough of a head start should be able to put some serious pressure on the Sask Party. Not only has the riding been highly competitive in the recent past (the NDP finished within 10 points in 2003, and held all of the territory now covered by the riding as recently as 1999), but Sask Party incumbent Michael Chisholm's impending retirement will mean a fairly level playing field for party organization. Which means that there's ample reason to look forward to seeing what Gopher can do to help bring the seat back into NDP hands.

Video of the day

Very nicely done:

The retreat begins?

We'll see how long the Cons stick with Tony Clement's latest census spin before moving on to another set of poor excuses. But it looks like they may be laying the groundwork to backtrack by (however implausibly) blaming Statistics Canada:

Industry Minister Tony Clement says Statistics Canada staff never told him it was a bad idea to make the long-form census voluntary.

In an interview with QMI Agency Friday, Clement said he couldn't say anything about the advice of Statistics Canada staff because advice to cabinet ministers is considered secret.

Media reports have said Statistics Canada staff oppose the change.

The department was due to have a meeting for all staff on Wednesday when chief statistician Munir Sheikh cancelled it at the last minute. He quit later that night, saying in a statement that a voluntary census can't replace a mandatory one.

But when asked about Statistics Canada opposition to the voluntary survey, Clement was terse.

“That is not what they said to me. I think I'll stand on my answer that they gave us options and we chose one of those options,” he said.

Of course, Clement's claim that he can't tell the truth about what advice he asked for and received from Statistics Canada is patently false. But if the Cons stick to the line that "they never told us there might be problems!", that would seem to both undermine their ability to stick with a decision made in the absence of essential information, and provide a convenient excuse to reverse it while casting blame elsewhere.

Mind you, Clement already seems to be spinning back away from the report. But the Cons may want to take another look at the easiest way out of an issue that obviously isn't going away otherwise.

Update: pogge reaches exactly the opposite conclusion based on the Cons' insistence on hiding the advice they received from Statistics Canada.

Musical interlude

Cerf, Mitiska & Jaren - Light the Skies

On notable omissions

For some reason, I was under the impression that the "backdrop" to the McGuinty government's sudden public-sector restraint included billions in corporate tax breaks that created most of the deficit they're now trying to rein in. But apparently the Globe and Mail has decreed otherwise.

(Edit: fixed typo.)

More and Better New Democrats: Peter Thurley for Kitchener Centre

As promised, let's kick off what I hope will be a successful More and Better New Democrats project with a prime example of a strong candidate whose voice can be significantly amplified with just a bit of support from across Canada. You may know Peter Thurley from his blog or from his active involvement on Twitter - but let's take some time for a closer look at what he's doing as the NDP's candidate for Kitchener Centre.

The Candidate

One of the keys to the "More and Better New Democrats" concept is to boost the campaigns of candidates who can bring strong progressive voices into play. And Peter offers an ideal track record on that point, having been named one of the Waterloo Region’s “40 Under 40” for his work in the community on poverty and housing issues - including both working to improve conditions directly through fund-raising and volunteering, and pushing to build awareness and support for Libby Davies' Bill C-304 to establish a national housing strategy.

But there's an added bonus for those of us looking at online organization as an integral means of building popular awareness, as Peter looks to be one of the strongest candidates in the country on that front. In addition to having an active website and Facebook page, he's also a prolific Twitterer - with his accomplishments there including getting the Con incumbent in his riding to agree that the effective goal in dealing with the Senate should be "as close to abolition as possible". (Needless to say, it may be worth pressing that point as the Senate Cons continue to hold up C-311 and other opposition bills.)

The Riding

From a strategic standpoint, the last few election cycles have seen the NDP running a moderately strong third in Kitchener Centre without putting in a lot of resources, with vote shares ranging from 18.1% to 19.3% since 2004. Which would seem to make the riding a prime testing ground to determine just how much better the NDP can do if it's able to raise and spend close to the riding limit. And there's plenty of reason for optimism there since the NDP has performed well in ridings in the area in the past, winning both Kitchener ridings provincially in 1990 and ranking a strong second both provincially and federally in elections before that.

But of course, Peter's focus on the riding is more than strategic:

Kitchener Centre is a very different riding from Kitchener Waterloo - everyone knows about the tech sector and higher learning in Waterloo, but Kitchener Centre has been hit hard with manufacturing job losses, increased overall unemployment, etc. One of the challenges of the riding is having a representative that will be able to ensure the City of Kitchener is seen as a good place for the Federal government to invest in re-education and job retraining, and that the city has a significant role to play in the Waterloo Region as a manufacturing and industry hub in Southwestern Ontario.

Needless to say, Kitchener Centre voters can't expect to see that kind of challenge met by an MP who's spent most of his time denying that there's any problem at all since that might mean taking some responsibility. Which brings us to...

The Opponents

The incumbent MP in Kitchener Centre is Con backbencher Stephen Woodworth, who won the riding with 36.7% of the vote while spending roughly the maximum in 2008. To his credit, Woodworth is a regular Twitterer himself - but like his partymates, he's used the medium and any other form of communication exclusively to worship Stephen Harper and spout the party line while making excuses for not acting on principle. And for added fun, check out his remarkable tweet that voters should prefer having an MP who disagrees with their values:

@RamaraMan Re next election,if I lose you might end up with an MP who always agrees w you, or who ignors you.Is tht wht you want?Or dialogue

Somehow, I suspect most Canadians would consider themselves better off with an MP who does actually agree with them, rather than one who offers only minimal "dialogue" to excuse a complete failure to meet the riding's needs. And I'm sure progressive voters would much rather be able to use Twitter to exchange ideas with Peter than to slam their heads against the wall trying to get through to one of Harper's cheerleaders.

The Libs' Karen Redman is also back in the Kitchener Centre race after holding the seat until 2008, when the combination of a fully-funded campaign, an incumbency advantage and a high profile as the Libs' whip wasn't enough for her to hold off Woodworth. Needless to say, there's little reason to think she'll be any stronger as a candidate in the next election.

The Plan

So what can we do to help Peter out? The obvious answers are of course:
Donate to the Kitchener Centre NDP - Contact the Kitchener Centre NDP to volunteer

But Peter recognizes that for a candidate going up against a current and a former MP, "the biggest thing people can do is spread the word" - which means reaching the widest possible audience in addition to making sure our own contacts in Kitchener Centre know about his merits as a candidate. So anybody interested in finding out more about Peter and getting the word out through their own medium of choice is encouraged to contact him.

(Edit: fixed typo.)

Friday Morning Links

- In case there was any doubt what the Harper Cons' primary goal has been while in office, pogge nails it:

What dominates conservative action is not a belief in the inherent inferiority of government but a radical, nihilistic desire to throw sand into the gears to assure it is inferior.

He's writing about things like senate filibusters and the recent brouhaha surrounding former (and soon to be once again?) USDA employee Shirley Sherrod but it certainly rings true for Canadians as well when he writes:

...this is collective action to stop the government from working, and an attempt to drive competent individuals out of civil service.

I've seen alternative explanations for this government's insistence on crippling Statistics Canada but I would suggest that this is the fundamental motivation. This is what Conservatives have been attempting to do since they first wrote the infamous manual on sabotaging Commons committees: "throw sand into the gears."

- Meanwhile, Douglas Bell echoes the NDP's recent stance in noting another parallel with the U.S.:

The Tories ridding us of the long form census is a feeble attempt to gain political advantage by importing (a culture-war-style) backlash from the States. It’s dollar store demagoguery, pure and simple. Because putting the motto “live free or die” on a license plate was already taken, the Tories have to settle for Potemkin victories like scrapping the census, kicking ass at the G20, nixing affirmative action in the civil service, and building more prisons. Pretty thin gruel really. But you have to take what you can get in a country where only one in three voters really give a damn about your agenda.

- Of course, the latest in the Cons' is their attack on affirmative action. Needless to say, I share Scott's skepticism that the timing following a self-serving complaint from a Con supporter and blogger is a coincidence.

- Finally, Armine Yalnizyan is still optimistic that the Cons will eventually decide to back down on the mandatory long form census:

There are three possible openings for fruitful discussion in the immediate future:

Meetings with groups of reasonable people (i.e. including people who vote Conservative) can be held when Industry Minister Tony Clement returns from overseas. Meetings, such as the one requested on Monday would help save face and might help craft a way out.

The House of Commons Industry Committee is holding summer meetings, which is unusual but not unprecedented. If committee members agree to hear from some of the organizations that have requested standing, one or more witnesses could suggest an exit-strategy from this suicide mission.

The Council of the Federation (the Premiers of Canada’s provinces and territories) meets in early August. The Prime Minister has not yet played his hand. Stephen Harper could cast himself in the role of statesman, entering into negotiations with his peers and saving the day. (I know, I know) Even before this annual event takes place, the provincial and territorial Ministers of social services are meeting. Backroom discussions there, too, could identify or smooth the path forward.

Mind you, the fact that the Cons have only been getting more stubborn and less open to criticism with time doesn't look promising. But it's probably true that there's a reasonable chance of some of the summer's events - particularly the Council of the Federation meeting - resulting in a way out if the Cons decide they want one. And the perk for the Cons in senselessly sticking to a position that nobody much cared about in the first place is that they probably won't take much damage in the long run if they do reverse course.

The reviews are in

Saskatchewan's media has weighed in on Brad Trost's arrogant condescension toward municipalities whose infrastructure work has been delayed for reasons beyond their control. And perhaps not surprisingly, the reviews are less than positive. Here's Murray Mandryk:

(W)hat's more galling? Trost's stupidity in not understanding why the work isn't getting done? His condescension towards "low level" politicians who actually have real responsibilities? Or was it his single- and simple-minded devotion to the prime minister's dictates at the expense of the interests of the Saskatchewan voters that elected him? Is Trost reflecting the supposed sympathy and concern Harper offered flooded-out farmers and businesses when he came here two weeks ago?

Certainly, Brad Wall must be steamed. But any sympathy one might have for Saskatchewan's premier should be couched by the fact that he's allowed his backbenchers to act every bit as arrogantly over the hiring of a new chief electoral officer...

(T)his is an utter abuse of power. Like Trost, Sask. Party caucus members have lost sight of the fact that their job is to serve the public's interests -- not their own interests.

And the Star-Phoenix editorial board:

"I think people are just, you know, wishful thinking," Mr. Trost said. If Ottawa appears to be looking at facts, using logic and being reasonable, next thing one can expect is that "every municipality from one end to the other will have a reason why their deadline should be extended."

Those fabricated reasons, one supposes, includes the more than 43 days of rain since April that flooded every below-grade project in Saskatoon, forcing workers to pump out the worksites, add more shoring and still take greater risks if they are to get in the muck and try to work, rather than "play in the park."

Saskatoon isn't alone in its challenge to manage the water. According to the Saskatchewan Association of Urban Municipalities, there are at least 33 projects across the province, worth at least $36 million, that have been delayed by weather. And one must assume that Alberta and Manitoba, which have also been hit with record amounts of rain, apparently are equally cursed with workers ready to leap on any excuse to goldbrick.

One shouldn't be surprised that Mr. Trost has such a disdainful view of his home province. After all, the entire batch of Saskatchewan's Conservatives has made it a practice of tossing local constituents under the bus in order to curry favour with the party leader.

Well said

While Con spokesparrots across the country try to pretend that the Harper government's choice to gut the census isn't worth talking about, Charlie Angus rightly recognizes which side is trying to make drastic changes based on a complete non-issue:

I’ve never gone into a Tim Hortons in Canada and had someone rail at me about big bad government spying on them with the census, but I am hearing this from Conservative cabinet ministers. I think the public is shaking its head.

The reviews are in

John Moore offers a reminder of which federal party and leader has had the right idea all along when it comes to the future of Afghanistan:

Afghanistan is not Europe. And the Taliban are not the Nazis. Afghanistan is a Godforsaken country of largely illiterate peasants loosely affiliated with rival tribes and gangs. If every last member of the Taliban was magically lifted from the land it’s possible nothing would change. This isn’t Holland waiting for western liberation. It’s a country so riven with violence and instability that citizens show loyalty to no one lest they find themselves on the wrong side should the fighting ever stop.

So yes, sometimes you have to talk to the enemy. In fact post-WW2 realpolitik has shown sometimes you even have to get into bed with the enemy.

So almost four years after Layton suggested talking with the Taliban the minister acknowledges this is now official policy. For a guy who was labeled a soldier-hater and a Taliban-lover Jack Layton is remarkably gracious about the turnaround. I asked him recently if he was planning to ask for an apology and he demurred. “As long as the right thing gets done I don’t really care”.

There’s another lesson the Conservatives could learn from the NDP leader. He’s man enough to set partisanship aside when his rivals are actually getting something right.

On partisan choices

Shorter Don Morgan:

Because it is essential that the province's Chief Electoral Officer have the full support of all MLAs, we plan to pick one unilaterally over the objections of the 20 who aren't in our caucus.

When in doubt, double down

Since Tony Clement apparently didn't win anybody over with his previous attempt to pretend that it's somehow a plus if Stephen Harper does all the thinking for the Cons' hive-mind, here's his latest:

Industry Minister Tony Clement has dismissed growing calls for him to reverse his decision to scrap the mandatory long-form census, saying he and Prime Minister Stephen Harper are on the same page on the issue.

Industry Minister Tony Clement acknowledges he would fill out a long-form census if he received one.Industry Minister Tony Clement acknowledges he would fill out a long-form census if he received one. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)"There's not a micron of difference of opinion between myself and the prime minister on this," Clement told the CBC's Rosemary Barton in an interview on Power & Politics with Evan Solomon.

I'm reminded of the saying of a politician slightly less blinded by desire to feign agreement on all things at all times: "If you agree with me seventy percent of the time, vote for me. If you agree with me one hundred percent of the time, see your shrink." And surely the corollary for anything but the most devoted of cults is "If there's not a micron of opinion between yourself and me, please let me know where to serve the restraining order."

Beneath consideration

Con MP Brad Trost offers a clear answer as to whether the Sask Party's choice to serve as Stephen Harper's lapdog has done anything to get the federal government to pay attention when Saskatchewan needs it most:

Saskatchewan Party Municipal Affairs Minister Darryl Hickie confirmed the province -- along with Alberta and Manitoba -- has asked the Conservative government to push back its March 31, 2011, deadline for the completion of stimulus projects because heavy rains on the Prairies have caused major construction delays.

Failing to meet the deadline would mean federal dollars wouldn't flow, leaving municipalities either to abandon projects or be forced to foot the bill on their own.
...
But Trost, the MP for Saskatoon-Humboldt, said pushing back the deadline would be a "massive headache" and "there's really been no consideration given.

"I think people are just, you know, wishful thinking..."

Now, it's bad enough that the the Harper Cons aren't bothering to act on what would seem to be an obviously unforeseeable impediment to getting construction work done. But Trost has gone beyond mere neglect to offer up a direct slap in the face, stating outright that the Sask Party can't even get the Harper Cons to consider Saskatchewan's request.

That may come as a shock to a Sask Party government which has done little but hope that its legwork for Harper would be repaid with anything of substance. But it was entirely predictable for those of us who recognize that the real wishful thinking was the belief that Harper would ever do anything but take Saskatchewan for granted - and it looks to make for just one more abject failure for the Wall government.

Just wondering

John Geddes posts the reasonable explanation for including information about homes in Canada's long form census - which will of course be merrily ignored by the Cons as they continue to recite their reality-detached talking points. But let's note that the application of some of the data the Cons have criticized looks to have figured rather prominently in what the Cons have done while in office.

After all, wouldn't the most accurate available information about the state of repair of Canadian homes have been rather important in deciding whether and how to offer a home renovation tax credit?

Called out

It hasn't gone unnoticed that Munir Sheikh's resignation letter as Chief Statistician in the wake of the Cons' census fiasco is chock full of noteworthy jabs. But perhaps not surprisingly, my personal favourite is one which applies far beyond his own personal circumstances:

There has also been commentary on the advice that Statistics Canada and I gave the government on this subject.

I cannot reveal and comment on this advice because this information is protected under the law. However, the government can make this information public if it so wishes.

Of course, the most immediate question is that of what Tony Clement has to hide when it comes to the advice provided by Sheikh. But there's no lack of other issues where the Cons have similarly used cabinet confidences as an excuse to avoid accountability - and Sheikh's letter is no less relevant to those cases as well in making clear that the Cons' compulsive secrecy is entirely self-imposed.

Important answers to ill-advised rhetorical questions

Bob Rae:

If a voluntary census is ok, how about a voluntary income tax? Get rid of those obtrusive forms, and just send in dough if you feel like it?

Actually, Stephen Harper is in favour of that too. Which you'd know - and be countering - if you were paying attention.

Defining Progressivism

As promised, let's start looking at what exactly it is that Canadian progressives should be striving for. I'll start by noting a few current theories which seem to have some useful points to contribute, but which on their own look to fall short of a fully satisfactory explanation.

First off, Paul Rosenberg offers a rough definition that may find particular appeal as a Conservative government takes a wrecking ball to the most reliable source of information about Canadians:

I think that the primary difference between conservatives and progressives is that:

Conservatives believe in tribally-shared narrative myths that comfort them in perpetuating a world of inequality, while

Progressives believe in a universalist, critical-empirical approach to creating a world that works for everyone.

One can say that Rosenberg's definition makes for a useful inversion of the comedic trope that reality has a liberal (progressive) bias: can we get anywhere in making that true by definition by framing progressivism as the desire for policy based on empirical fact?

Not surprisingly, Rosenberg himself recognizes that this division doesn't tell the whole story. But I'd go a step further and note that it leaves the most important work undone: the question of how to define "a world that works for everyone" has to be the most important step in discussing progressive values. And indeed one of the greatest failures of the past few decades seems to me to have been progressives' willingness to accept conservative-friendly definitions of overall goals based on the availability of simple measuring sticks (e.g. prosperity defined in terms of total GDP) that's driven public policy in the wrong direction.

Which segues nicely into Alex Himelfarb's initial post on the nature of progressivism:

(M)y sense nonetheless is that the notion of “progressive” does have meaning, if only a belief that government’s role is not just to stop bad things from happening or to correct them when they do, but to help make good thinks happen, to promote human dignity, solidarity in diversity, and equality of opportunity, and to help ordinary people manage change in the face of broad global forces we don’t control. Progressives also give greater focus to government’s role in “correcting” the market, particularly with respect to the environment and poverty, and generally harnessing the market for people’s well-being, and are internationalists in the pursuit of Canada’s interests and committed to fulfilling our responsibilities as global citizens.

Unfortunately, Himelfarb is probably dead on target in trying to describe how progressivism is perceived. But there are two problems with the definition as a matter of setting out durable progressive ideals.

First off, there's the acceptance of global market trends as primary and all other matters - including democratic government - as being merely a means of tinkering around the margins to mitigate its worst excesses. That strikes me as conceding far too much in theory to the notion that citizens lack power to chart their own course, both individually and collectively. But perhaps more importantly (particularly to the extent it's intended as a response to what is rather than a definition of what might be), Himelfarb's definition also seems to present a rather weak defence of government, and a nonexistent defence of other forces needed as a matter of political realism to counterbalance the massive corporate power that actually does exist.

Second, there's the incrementalist nature of Himelfarb's definition which leaves out any particular end goals. If the nature of progressivism is to be slightly more concerned with the environment, poverty and other issues than the alternative, what exactly do we hope to accomplish on those points? (And I consider this more than just a theoretical exercise: in order to actually inspire public support, I'd argue that we need to be able to set out a long-term vision as to where we want to end up, not limit ourselves to fighting defensively on the current political landscape.)

A third effort at framing the political ideal (and last one I'll deal with in this post) is that of George Lakoff, contrasting a "strict father" conservative worldview with a "nurturing mother" progressive one. And there isn't much doubt that Lakoff's language looks to be a useful tool in linking progressive ends to familiar concepts.

But while Lakoff's framing is valuable in putting together talking points to discuss progressive policies, it looks to fall somewhat short in defining what those policies ought to be.

Again, part of that stems from the lack of specificity in Lakoff's framework. "Nurturing" is as much a means as an end, and like Rosenberg's focus on empiricism Lakoff's frame leaves open the question of what ends we're supposed to be pursuing. But there's also some conflict between Lakoff's and Rosenberg's respective priorities where the former would seem to lose out to the latter in a way that illustrates the limits of the "nurturing" model where the state is concerned.

For example, while I'd think it can safely be said that progressives don't agree with the gratuitous incarceration of criminals where the cost to society outweighs the benefit in doing so, I'd think it's equally fair to say that we want our levels of law enforcement and punishment to be based on evidence as to how to balance the costs and benefits of incarceration, not an overarching principle of attachment to the convicted individual as might be associated with an actual "nurturing mother". In effect, even if we see "nurturing" as a plus generally, the state can't be expected to develop and administer the level of attachment with each of its citizens that a mother would with her child - and that limitation needs to be considered when we decide how far to take the theme in defining ourselves as progressives.

So if it isn't enough to classify progressives as skeptical, nurturing incrementalists, what more do we need to add or take away from that picture to get to the right definition? Stay tuned...

The reviews are in

Dan Gardner compares the Cons' feigned concern over the long form census with their complete lack of interest in actual privacy issues surrounding financial reporting:

(L)et's compare and contrast:

One mandatory reporting system is extremely intrusive and burdensome. The privacy commissioner has expressed serious concerns about this system. And there is no evidence it delivers significant social benefit.

Another mandatory reporting system requires some people to spend a few minutes filling out a form once every five years at no cost to them. The privacy commissioner has not expressed concern about this system. And there is voluminous evidence that it delivers enormous social benefit -- indeed, that it is essential to public policy, social science, and business.

The government is scrapping the second system. But it fully supports the first.

Isn't that odd? I can only see two possible explanations.

One, those highly principled Conservatives had no idea what the financial reporting system actually entails. This column will shock them into action and the whole thing will be junked forthwith. Expect an announcement by Friday.

If there is no such announcement, we will be left with Explanation Two: The government's highly principled stand against mandatory reporting is nothing but a post-facto rationalization of a decision made for a different reason.

Memo to Murray Mandryk

"It's always good news for Brad Wall!" is a form of mockery, not a challenge. I trust this clears up your mistaken impression.