Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday.

- Jim Travers shares the theory that the Cons' anti-coalition spin has more to do with their own fears than public perceptions:

Voters have good reasons to be skeptical of Michael Ignatieff. They’re just not the same reasons Stephen Harper is rolling out in ads savaging the Liberal leader as a grasping prodigal son home to seize power in an illegitimate coalition with socialists and separatists.
...
Given the wealth of other available material, the current ads attacking Ignatieff are deliciously — if accidentally — self-revealing. Written between the lines are Conservatives’ fears that, after reflecting on Harper’s parochialism and the Conservative predilection for driving emotional wedges deep into national divisions, Canadians might just respond positively to a cosmopolitan leader committed to Commons cooperation.
...
Offshore coalitions are different from the successful minorities of Canada’s past; they are also no panacea. But as Harper accepted when he tried to topple Paul Martin by joining forces with the NDP and Bloc, coalitions are legitimate.

With another election looming, Harper is trying to turn Canadian sensibilities upside down. Conservative ads nastily argue that those who lug success home in their luggage can’t be trusted and that co-operation is punishable democratic behavior.

But of course, the Cons' odd choice of attacks stands a much better chance of succeeding if it's met with an equally derisive take on coalitions from the Libs rather than an effort to turn the coalition concept into a positive.

- Tasha Kheiriddin makes a point that's well worth keeping in mind (even if one understandably disagrees with her tedious anti-tax ranting):

In the end, you can shut out politics, but it won't shut you out. It will affect the taxes you pay and the schools that educate your kids. We can blame politicians for not knocking on enough doors, and our busy lives for leaving no space for political involvement. But ultimately, it is up to us to take personal responsibility.

Failure to act means leaving the fate of our cities, provinces and country in the hands of those who do take the time. Those people might as well be you.

- The safety of Canada's food is officially being decided by corporate actors, with no input from Health Canada. What could possibly go wrong?

- And finally, the Onion highlights the wealth gap between the rich and the poor as the 8th wonder of the world. But how long will it be before someone on the right actually starts asking us to celebrate and memorialize inequality?

Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your afternoon reading.

- Thomas Walkom notes the absurdity of the Cons' explanation for wanting to keep troops in Afghanistan:

Perhaps the most illogical element of the training argument is the premise. Afghans hardly need to be trained for battle. Since 1979, this has been a country consumed by war, where every male over the age of puberty is a potential fighter and where Kalashnikovs are common household items.

The problem with the Afghan army and police is not that they don’t know how to fight. It is that a good many don’t want to fight for a corrupt government propped up by foreigners. Condemning more of our own soldiers to death won’t solve that.

- But then, paying attention to the obvious consequences of war has apparently never been a strong point for the Cons.

- A question to ponder: exactly how far down the road toward outright cancelling all or part of the F-35 development program will the U.S. have to go before the Cons admit that staking Canada's ability to patrol its territory on the planes? I ask only because at this rate, we may soon get the answer.

- Finally, the Citizen reports on an effort to work across party lines to establish a set of "out of bounds" targets for the province's next election campaign. Which leads me to wonder: if the parties in Canada's most populous province are apparently able to discuss such an agreement for no reason beyond wanting to improve the level of debate, doesn't that tend to suggest it should be possible for federal parties to do the same with some more self-interested goals in mind?

On eerie parallels

The Harper Cons' attempt at damage control just last month after it was revealed that political staffers had deliberately chosen not to follow the law in suppressing information without a legal basis:

Federal ministers have been warned by their boss against subverting Canada's freedom-of-information law after a political aide at Public Works ordered a sensitive document withheld from a media requester.

But of course, that public statement bore absolutely no resemblance to the message sent behind the scenes:

(D)espite PMO statements that all staffers have been directed to abide and uphold the Access to Information Act, the PMO interference continues.

"This still continues and staff are told publicly to 'respect the process' but are expected to find ways to thwart the process," the staffer wrote. "Trust me—despite the public musings—political staff were told 'not to interfere,' nudge nudge, wink wink."

Staffers, another Tory staffer said, are very aware they are being "reminded of rules which they know they haven't been asked to apply."

Today, the Harper Cons' attempt at damage control after a second cabinet minister decided that ministers don't have to follow the law when it comes to air travel:

The PMO says Prime Minister Stephen Harper will issue an edict to his ministers, reminding them that they're not above the law.

So are there any guesses as to what the Con cabinet ministers are in fact being told behind the scenes?

Edit: fixed label.

The Pork Barrel Steam Train

Your latest example of the Harper government's patronage-first approach in action: at the request of one Con MP (Lawrence Cannon), another Con MP (Jean-Pierre Blackburn) rewrote the rules of an economic development program intended to develop infrastructure in poorer parts of Quebec in order to funnel $2 million to a steam train operator in Cannon's riding which wasn't included in the program's mandate.

No word yet about any response from the regions who were supposed to be on the receiving end of the money. Or from the Cons' Reform base which split from the Mulroney PCs over exactly the same type of behaviour. But it would seem to me to be worth the opposition parties' effort to make sure the Cons' latest example of putting political interests over proper administration of federal programs doesn't go unpunished elsewhere.

Internal considerations

There's been plenty of talk about the Cons' cabinet shuffle. But so far I haven't seen much more than hints at what strikes me as the most likely impact of the new structure: while the changes figure to do little to modify how the Cons govern, they may do plenty to consolidate Stephen Harper's hold on power within the party.

The most obvious example, picked up to some extent by the CP, is the decision to put Jim Prentice in Environment. But the story there isn't merely some slight perceived demotion for the most obvious heir apparent to Harper.

After all, the Cons have made clear all along that they don't plan on introducing anything but weak, loophole-ridden "intensity" targets as their means of dealing with greenhouse gas emissions. But it's Prentice who will not not only have to introduce the final regulations, but also take ministerial responsibility for the first couple of years when some targets actually take effect. And while the Cons' plans stood little chance of getting much done at the best of times, it's particularly improbable that Canadian industry will meet targets which are tied to output during the course of an economic downturn which will make it difficult to invest in new technology or increase production.

Which means that Harper has ensured that Prentice will spend the next couple of years under heavy opposition fire, and likely wind up personally wearing the failure of a policy which was never designed to succeed.

And that may not even be the most damaging effect on Prentice's future. While the Cons' plan is doomed to fail, it also needs to be presented to the public in a way which at least pays lip service to the reality of climate change. Which in turn will hurt Prentice's standing with the denialists who form so much of the Cons' western base.

So in one move, Harper has simultaneously ensured that both the opposition and a substantial chunk of the Cons' core support will end up turning against his most obvious possible successor.

Who else might otherwise have been able to launch a credible challenge to Harper? I'd think that next in line would have been Lawrence Cannon, who's likely the lone Quebec MP who might be seen as having the heft to potentially convince voters from the province to abandon the Bloc. But as has already been noted, Cannon has been moved against his will to a position which will keep him too focused on international affairs to focus on building a personal power base.

And as an added bonus, the MP with the next-best chance of making the same type of case, Jean-Pierre Blackburn, has also been shuffled out of a position which would seem to allow him to connect with voters to one which is seen as both a relative insult, and one which leaves little room to build any popularity.

So who ended up in the plum positions which would seem to offer a platform for advancement? Well, Jim Flaherty remains in Finance. But whatever his ambitions might be, any minister who's gone out of his way to insult his home province can probably be ruled out as a real leadership threat. And John Baird takes over the pork opportunities linked to Transport and Infrastructure - when he isn't busy accompanying the current leader's wife to social events.

Which means that it's a real challenge to try to figure out who might have the best chance of making a future case for leadership based on a current ministerial role. Rob Nicholson remaining at Justice? Tony Clement at Industry? Jason Kenney at Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism? Christian Paradis remaining at Public Works?

What does seem safe to say is that if those are Harper's biggest internal threats, then he can likely hold onto the Cons' leadership as long as he wants it. And considering how little impact individual ministers have been allowed to have in actually managing their portfolios, it wouldn't surprise me at all if that's the main reason why Harper set up the cabinet how he did.

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.

Dirty money

The Citizen reports on the latest developments in ConAdscam. And it looks like a number of the Cons' Quebec star candidates - including two cabinet ministers - may have joined the federal party in exceeding their spending limits through the scheme:

The dispute between Elections Canada and the party hinges on whether the ads were intended to promote local candidates, or whether they were part of the national campaign...

Another TV ad for the Quebec market features the party's star candidates in the province, Lawrence Cannon, Josée Verner, Maxime Bernier, Daniel Fournier and Jean-Pierre Blackburn. But small print on the ad says it was authorized and paid for by official agents for 12 other candidates, as well as agents for Ms. Verner and Mr. Cannon.

Now, there's probably a fairly strong argument to be made that an ad featuring the Cons' featured Quebec candidates should be viewed as promoting individual campaigns - making the ad one which may not count toward the federal party's spending limit. (Which would reduce the amount by which the Cons had exceeded their federal cap - though not likely far enough to bring the party below the limit.)

But that designation should equally plainly be directed toward the individual candidates featured prominently in the ad, rather than ones listed only in small print. And if so, then a number of the listed candidates look to have exceeded their riding spending limits if any substantial money was put into the ad.

Take a look at the candidates' actual expenditures compared to the 2006 limits:

Candidate - Stated Expenses - Riding Limit (Name)
Lawrence Cannon - $72,148.27 - $89,728.35 (Pontiac)
Josee Verner - $74,577.18 - $79,200.40 (Louis-Saint-Laurent)
Maxime Bernier - $79,344.54 - $81,496.69 (Beauce)
Daniel Fournier - $73,903.31 - $74,512.38 (Outremont)
Jean-Pierre Blackburn - $36,273.44 - $79,025.04 (Jonquiere-Alma)

It appears fairly safe to assume that Blackburn wouldn't have exceeded the riding limit based on his campaign paying a share of the expenses for the ad. Which would make his campaign at worst a facilitator of a scheme to evade the Canada Elections Act. And let's give Cannon the relative benefit of the doubt as well since his campaign both had some real leeway under the spending limit, and took on some of the cost of the ads.

But for the Cons' other star candidates - including two current cabinet ministers - any substantial investment in the ads would have put their own campaigns over the spending limit. And even for those whose campaigns wouldn't have exceeded the spending limit, their apparently willing participation in the shell game demonstrates a flagrant disregard for the Canada Elections Act.

In sum, today's information suggests that the Cons' latest scandal goes even further than expected. And now that the Cons' most prominent Quebec figures themselves apparently have dirty hands when it comes to the party's electoral violations, there's ever less reason for Quebeckers to believe that Deceivin' Stephen will offer any improvement on the scandal-ridden Libs in the province.

On mixed messages

CSR points out some interesting comments from Jean-Pierre Blackburn on the Cons' plans surrounding Canada's combat role in Afghanistan. But there are a couple of additional points worth discussing within Blackburn's message.

First, as CSR notes, Blackburn's quoted passages suggest that the Cons are planning for an extension vote in February 2008. And that would likely be the time where the Cons would most likely manage to eke out a majority vote for an extension.

But there's little reason to think the opposition parties will want to play along by abandoning the issue in the meantime. After all, with the Van Doos headed to Kandahar before long, this fall figures to be the time when the Cons can be portrayed as most out of step with the desires of Quebeckers in particular and Canadians concerned about the mission in general.

While the opposition parties unfortunately let their Afghanistan motions this spring get sidetracked, it seems entirely likely that they'll be able to agree on a motion this fall when the result is to leave the Cons defending continued involvement when public opinion is most strongly against that position. And a united opposition vote against any extension in 2007 would make the Cons look like sore losers at best if they tried to reverse that outcome in 2008.

Meanwhile, Blackburn's comments also retreat noticeably from Deceivin' Stephen's recent talk of a "consensus". Instead of continuing with the idea that a relatively united stance among multiple parties would be needed, Blackburn's message is based on the premise that the Cons' planned "vote" will determine whether or not any extension is approved as a "choice of the House of Commons".

Of course, it could be that the Cons are simply trying to send different messages to different audiences. But it also seems entirely possible that Harper's initial comment was simply a trial balloon to test whether Canadian pundits were prepared to play the same cheerleader role played by their counterparts to the south. And if so, Blackburn's change of pace may reflect an attempt to change course now that the "consensus" comment has instead come to be interpreted as evidence that Canada's combat role will end in 2009.

Accountability at its finest

Shorter Jean-Pierre Blackburn responding to the latest revelations about his office's dubious contracting pattern:
If I broke the rules, then the rules are wrong.

Blackburnt

The CP reports that Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn's office has again been caught trying to pretend that it isn't subject to federal contracting rules:

Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn granted a $25,000 contract to a staffer in his riding office who was already a full-time employee on the federal payroll, documents show.

The government paid Daniel Giguere $24,804 over a six-month contract as a speech writer while Giguere was employed as an adviser with an annual salary of $35,000, according to the documents obtained by The Canadian Press.

Giguere, a defeated Liberal candidate, left his job at Hydro-Quebec to become an adviser in Blackburn's riding in the winter of 2006. He remained on the job until last April.

Giguere received an annual salary of $35,000 for his work in Blackburn's Quebec riding of Jonquiere, according to Blackburn's spokeswoman.

Documents show the government also paid him $24,804 to edit speeches "on a contractual basis" at the request of the minister.

Federal law clearly forbids granting contracts to people who are already on the federal payroll, as in Giguere's case...

Giguere delivered about 10 speeches for events such as local chamber of commerce dinners and parish breakfasts.

The speeches cost between $1,750 and $3,000 under the contract but many of them contained striking similarities.

The minister described the evolving economy of Quebec and the programs of the federal Canada Economic Development agency for Quebec regions in identical sentences.

It's not the first time Blackburn's human resources management has been called into question.

Last October, Blackburn was criticized for giving a $24,000 contract to an adviser who was then hired to work in his office.

Blackburn also made headlines recently after The Canadian Press revealed that he failed to account under his name for air travel totalling $150,000.

NDP MP Pat Martin says it shows Conservative negligence in managing public finances, even as they brag about transparency and accountability.

"These are small things that can bring down a minister," Martin said.

Surprisingly, the Libs' response from Marcel Proulx has been to claim that the issue is simply one of Giguere's expertise or contribution in return for the extra money. But that reaction fails to take into account that there are two independent problems at play - and it's hard to see what defence the Cons could possibly mount against either.

After all, if the italicized statement quoted above is right, then Blackburn couldn't legally hire Giguere on a contract regardless of his level of expertise or his contribution. Yet even if Proulx were right in claiming that the issue was one of Giguere's contribution, it would then defy belief that any real value could have been added in re-editing the same speech 10 times over.

Any one of the seemingly questionable activities emanating from Blackburn's office could perhaps be minimized on its own. But the developing pattern should only raise many more questions: both about Blackburn's office itself, and about how many of the activities are known to higher-ups in a notoriously micro-managed government. And the fact that this much of a sense of entitlement to public money appears to be building up even in a shaky minority government would offer a stark warning about how public finances would be handled if the Cons were to reach majority status.