On shaping the market

Alexander Duncan discusses the unfortunate tendency on the left to assume that markets are the enemy rather than a potential force for positive as well as negative change:

Many financial planners, including myself, are inspired by a vision and a mission that, to us, seems personally empowering and socially progressive. To others, however, money making seems conservative and antisocial. I experience this attitude all the time. I find it disappointing though, because it means that those people have bought into the notion that they are oppressed and exploited and, by buying into that idea (even if true), they perpetuate the conclusion that they are powerless and can do nothing.

By eschewing active participation in the social economy that we all create we have turned the control of the economy over to the gatekeepers.

I don't agree with all of Alexander's analysis. But it's tough to dispute that there's plenty of potential to shape the economy through progressive investing - and that many of the opportunities are now missed, despite the massive investment clout wielded (for example) by pension plans whose owners may largely support progressive policies.

That said, I'll note that progressive investing isn't the only way to try to shape the market, and I'm curious to see to what extent readers of this site try to buy their own necessities so as to send a message to sellers and manufacturers. There are certainly some efforts in the U.S. to reshape purchasing patterns based on political donations. But I'm not aware of any similar movement in Canada, and the focus on political parties seems to miss the point in any event, as the largest influence held by most sellers has much more to do with corporate operations rather than political donations.

With that in mind, a few questions which I'd like to see people consider a bit more often in their personal purchasing decisions:

1. What is your standard for making a purchase to begin with? Do you buy based only on need, or do you spend significant amounts of money based on impulse or on replacing goods which are still useful?

2. Do you buy goods and services based solely on product and price, or do you also take into account other factors such as local ownership, treatment of labour or environmental reputation in your buying decisions?

3. Assuming that you do consider more than just product and price, which of the following statements accurately describes your buying habits? (More than one may be true.)
(a) I avoid sellers with the worst reputations, particularly where there's an organized boycott designed to bring attention to that seller.
(b) I consider the relative merits (to the best of my knowledge) of the available sellers, and consider that as one factor in my purchasing decisions.
(c) I buy only from the sellers with the best reputations, even if that means paying more for a product.

4. How much research do you do in determining how to evaluate sellers? Do you rely largely on news stories and word of mouth, or do you actively seek out information from consumer groups and the sellers themselves?

My own answers are rather middle-of-the-road: I plan to avoid unnecessary purchases, but can certainly find a good number that wind up being far from necessary; I do take added factors into account in buying; I try both to avoid the absolute worst corporate offenders and include corporate reputation as a factor, though I haven't yet taken the leap toward buying only with the absolute best corporate citizens; and I do a bit of research as to different vendors, though more out of general interest than as a precursor to a given purchase.

That said, it's clear that there's far more that I could do to direct my spending toward better social outcomes...and even the current amount tends to raise some eyebrows. Which speaks to the degree to which the current assumptions about when, what and how to buy go unchallenged - and the need to try to develop a deeper analysis of what effect our purchases have on the market generally.

Alexander rightly warns that one of the surest ways to ensure the success of conventional market wisdom is to act as if it were true. In contrast, a focus on progressive priorities (both in financial markets and in purchasing decisions) can work wonders in helping to modify corporate behaviour...so long as progressives recognize the opportunity to shape the markets, and are willing to put their money where their principles are.

On root causes

The Star reports on the (latest) arrival of the Guardian Angels in Toronto. But it gives rather short shrift to the main reason why there's any perceived need to have private citizens doing more police-type work:

By the 1980s, police brass and those who study them were realizing officers had to get to know their neighbourhoods again. A concerted push began to put more uniforms on the street, more offices in strip malls.

At the same time, police were supposed to take on a greater social role, promoting drug awareness, working with schools and implementing restorative justice programs.

Budgets didn't increase, though, and it became clear the police could not hope to play every role. That's why private security has exploded all over North America. And it's why Alberta is going to arm lesser-paid special constables to patrol highways.

It's fair enough that over the past couple of decades, citizens have thus played a larger role in the "eyes and ears" function of policing. But if we now lack enough officers to fully engage in community policing, that's a reason to ensure that we have enough police officers to perform what has to be the central feature of police work - not a reason to privatize or to turn over core policing functions to the Guardian Angels.

As noted in the article, Toronto's municipal structure recognizes the dangers of turning over community policing to the Guardian Angels. With that acknowledged, the onus then falls on the city to make sure that its police force includes enough officers to meet the city's needs - and to reject the neoliberal view (taken as a given in the article) that the force has to make do with less resources than are needed to keep the city safe.

Blind spots

The CP reports on B.C.'s proposed legislation to protect first responders by ensuring that a person exposed to bodily fluids in the course of their profession (or as a victim of crime) is able to seek a mandatory blood test from the source of the fluid. Unfortunately, the article is dead wrong on one point:

Similar legislation has been proposed in other jurisdictions but never proclaimed.

That may come as news to Saskatchewan's legislature, which passed the Mandatory Testing and Disclosure (Bodily Substances) Act on an uncontested basis last year. The legislation was then proclaimed in force as of last October.

The article does note that a similar bill was passed but never proclaimed in Ontario, so Saskatchewan can't claim to have been the first province to come up with the idea. But regardless of where the idea originated, one would hope that the CP would investigate whether any other provinces had passed similar legislation before flatly stating otherwise. And sadly, it seems to have fallen short of that basic standard this time out.

On working toward a deal

While far too many politicians and media figures (from both the Iranian camp and the Western camp) have gone out of their way to try to escalate conflict over Iran's nuclear power program, one of the countries with a veto over any UN sanctions is still pushing toward an agreed resolution:

During a visit to Iran, Rosatom chief Sergei Kiriyenko said resolving the persistent questions about the intent of Iran's nuclear program "within the framework of the IAEA is absolutely realistic," according to Russian news agencies...

Kiriyenko, who met Saturday with Atomic Energy Organization of Iran chief Gholamreza Aghazadeh, stressed that Iran has the right to a peaceful nuclear program but suggested Tehran must act to assure the world it is not seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

"The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is unacceptable and the international community must be certain that it does not occur under any circumstances," ITAR-Tass quoted Kiriyenko as saying.

"It is no doubt possible to satisfy these two demands."

As the article notes, any resolution will require Iran to accept that enrichment occur in Russia rather than on Iranian soil. But it should be obvious that there's little reason for Iran to make that type of concession if the only apparent gain to be made is a short delay in the U.S.' rush to create a new bogeyman.

Update: And the deal is done. Will that lead to any reduction in the rhetoric? Stay tuned...

Bad publicity

Will McMartin points out that the Gordon Campbell regime is happily using B.C.'s budget to help the Liberal party rather than the province - and defying the spirit of the party's accountability legislation in the process:

(A)fter last May's general election saw the BC Liberals' legislative majority cut to a much-tighter 46 seats to the NDP's 33, Taylor has decided that the government's advertising expenditures should be jacked up to a whopping $28.1 million. That's more than 100 percent higher than last year's allocation...

Readers will recall that the BC Liberal government went dramatically over-budget in 2004-05, as Victoria's pre-election advertising expenditures totaled $18,994,161. That figure was well in excess of the budgeted $12.1 million.

By sheer coincidence, four of the government's most costly advertising initiatives were under "The Best Place on Earth" (TBPOE) initiative and produced by the same agency that, during the election campaign, unveiled similarly-themed general election ads for the BC Liberal party...

The corollary to this partisan misuse of taxpayer funds was that despite drastically exceeding the government's advertising budget, neither Premier Gordon Campbell nor any of his cabinet ministers suffered the embarrassment or financial cost of losing part of their salary as required under the much-touted Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act.

That's because the Public Affairs Bureau (PAB), the government agency responsible for all government communications, quietly sent some of the invoices for costly ad campaigns to various line ministries.

Not that Campbell and company have ever shown much propensity for taking responsibility for their own actions. But this appears to be a particularly egregious example of the B.C. Libs' standard for ethical behaviour being bare adherence to the letter of the law, rather than anything based on upholding the principles which helped win them power initially. And the only solace for British Columbians looking for better government is that with the N.D.P. strongly on the upswing, no amount put into partisan Liberal publicity seems likely to win them another term.

Well said

Louise Arbour speaks out on the risks now facing the developed world:

"A country is as much at risk by the collapse of human rights laws as by terrorism," she told about 600 people at the London School of Economics.

Human rights represent a core identity of democratic societies, she said.

"The most profound insecurity does not emanate from foreign threats, but from internal temptations to let erode the foundations upon which national identity is built. This fear may not be as immediate and palpable as that triggered by a bomb, but it is perhaps deeper."

Poverty, ethnic and racial hatred must all be addressed fairly and not in ways that could create more terrorist sympathizers, Arbour said. "The fight against terrorism ... will not succeed by the implementation of increasingly repressive measures."

I remain far from convinced that Arbour will join the Canadian political scene herself. But her message is one that needs to be heard more often in the public debate - and the NDP would do well to highlight Arbour's discussion next time the Libs and Cons get into an argument over just how many more intrusions Canadians should accept in the name of "security".

Coming around

The Cons have indeed reversed course from their Kyoto position of a week ago - but only in the sense that they're now planning to implement an emissions trading system as part of a Kyoto plan, and not based on any intention to dump the treaty entirely:

Environment Minister Rona Ambrose is jetting to Bonn this weekend to prepare for talks on extending the Kyoto Protocol, and will soon unveil an ambitious new plan for cutting Canada's greenhouse emissions.

Although the Conservatives opposed ratification of the climate treaty while in opposition, they appear to have undergone a conversion, promising to do a better job of cutting emissions than the Liberals ever did.

“There's an action plan that we are going to move on very quickly,” Ms. Ambrose said in an interview Friday. “I'm very committed. The prime minister has given me a very strong mandate.”

She said the action plan will include an emissions-trading system for large polluters and will try to engage the public in a new way.

It remains to be seen whether the Cons will actually follow through rather than merely talking about the importance of cutting down on emissions. (And sadly the Libs' record provides a disturbingly strong example of the latter course of action.) But it's certainly a plus that there's now a political consensus on the need to complete the Kyoto process. And with all national parties now in agreement, there's even less excuse for anything less than immediate action.

On the time to speak

Scott Piatkowski offers some help to Harper, pointing out the glaring problems with trying to carry the Cons' strategy of silence from the campaign into their tenure in government:

While politicians can't forget the lessons they learned on the campaign trail, they need to move on to a new strategy once they are elected. Any political strategist — except perhaps the ones working for Stephen Harper — will tell you that what works during an election campaign doesn't always work once you're in government. Once they get off the media campaign bus and get back to Parliament Hill, reporters are not as patient with anything that smacks of manipulation. And, with all of your MPs conveniently in one location, it's far less feasible to hide any of them in imaginary meetings in the kitchen or to have them be unavailable for comment...

The “shush up” campaign strategy worked because Harper was out there every day delivering an alternative message. If he's going to avoid the media entirely, and instruct everyone in his Cabinet and his backbench to do the same, the media will find something to cover — and the coverage is not likely to be too favourable to the Conservatives. And, if the ammunition that Harper handed to them with his Cabinet choices is any indication of the acumen that he'll bring to government, they'll have plenty of topics to choose from.

It may be this same realization that's caused a few of the Cons to start announcing their plans this week. But that too has run into a problem, as the announcements have ranged from the unpopular for good reason to the utterly vague.

It's looking more and more like the Cons had only a campaign's worth of material worth presenting to the public. And if they don't come up with both a lot more material and a lot more openness in the very near future, there may be no prospect of turning around the current tide of negative press.

On further eroding credibility

For those wondering whether the U.S. judiciary had fallen in line with Bushco after last week's Arar decision, there's some reassuring news today, as the black hole that is Guantanamo Bay is being pushed a little further toward the light of public knowledge:

A U.S. federal judge ordered the Pentagon on Thursday to release the identities of hundreds of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay to The Associated Press, a move which would force the government to break its secrecy and reveal the most comprehensive list yet of those who have been held at the U.S. navy base in Cuba.

Some of the hundreds of prisoners in the war on terror being held at Guantanamo have been imprisoned as long as four years. Only a handful have been officially identified...

Most of those who are known emerged from the approximately 400 civil suits filed on behalf of prisoners by lawyers who obtained their names from family or other detainees, said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, which represents about 200 detainees.

“They have been very resistant to releasing the names,” Ratner said.

“There are still people there who don’t have a lawyer and we don’t know who they are. They have disappeared.”

It shouldn't come as much surprise that Bushco opposed the application. But the argument made by the government as a basis to suppress the identities of those detained deserves some attention, if only for its sheer absurdity:

In his ruling last month, Rakoff rejected government arguments releasing the prisoners’ names from 558 transcripts should be kept secret to protect their privacy and their families, friends and associates from embarrassment and retaliation.

As much gall as it's taken for Bushco to push the "trust us" line, it's taking the claim several steps further to try to argue that the people forcibly removed from any contact with the world prefer being trapped in legal limbo to having anybody find out about their plight.

Fortunately, the argument to try to keep the detainees' names away from the press (like so many other arguments made by the Bush administration) has now been tossed in the dustbin. Moreover, the ruling will help at least to ensure that everybody being held is accounted for...and perhaps to allow those inmates not yet pursuing claims before the courts to start seeking some measure of review as well.

A win for the pharma team

I'm always glad to see progressive policies examined both for their economic merits as well as for their internal merits. And the National Health Coalition has done the job perfectly in its call for a national pharmacare program:

“Universal first-dollar coverage for cost-effective, safe drugs will save money and lives,” Kathleen Connors, chairwoman of the Canadian Health Coalition, said in a letter to new federal Health Minister Tony Clement.

“Canada has a big drug problem,” she said, citing the $18-billion in annual prescription drug spending and the large number of medical errors related to prescription drugs. (An estimated 12,000 deaths annually are attributed to the misuse and overprescription of drugs in Canada.)...

In its report, the Canadian Health Coalition argues that a national pharmacare plan would reduce costs for provincial health plans, but it would benefit employers even more, extending the “competitive advantage” that medicare already offers.

Currently, Canadian employers spend more than $6.7-billion annually in drug insurance premiums, but 42 per cent of workers are not covered by work-based plans, according to the report.

Of course, the CHC's logic probably isn't the type that the Cons are willing to listen to...regardless of how many lives and dollars may be at stake. But it's still vital to make sure that pharmacare receives its due attention in the lead-up to Canada's next election. And if Clement can be persuaded to classify prescription drugs as an area where even the Cons can acknowledge that government action will lead to positive results, then all the better.

On misdirection

It's already been pointed out that Lawrence Martin's bizarre comparison between Harper and Trudeau is way off base. But just in case there was any doubt, Gordon O'Connor undercuts one of Martin's key premises, ensuring that the Cons can't be plausibly seen as nationalists in any meaningful sense:

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says he's willing to re-open the debate on ballistic missile defence.

He says the Conservatives would be ready to re-consider the issue if the Americans once again invited Canadian participation in the plan, which is designed to use a limited number of missiles to screen against small-scale attacks from terrorists or rogue states.

O'Connor says the government would have to consider the benefits to Canada of joining the program, but the final choice would be made after a debate and vote in Parliament.

It's hard to see what O'Connor thinks the Cons stand to gain by bringing up the issue again. It's been well-reported that even key American figures have said Canada is better off to stay out of the program. And there's no reasonable prospect of any of the opposition parties supporting the program.

Yet O'Connor seems determined to carry forward the wrong side of a losing issue (both in substance and in likelihood of passage). And while one can find some Trudeau-style stubbornness in the Cons' refusal to acknowledge reality, the end result is again that Harper is more than willing to take directions from Bush rather than operating by his own compass.

Moving forward

Saskatchewan's child care plan may be slowed by Harper's unwillingness to fund the federal/provincial agreements past next year. But Deb Higgins made clear yesterday that it won't be stopped:

"The last two years of lots of work by many people in Saskatchewan most definitely hasn't been a waste," Higgins said Wednesday after meeting with early learning and child-care representatives from around the province.

"Will the enhancements be there as quickly as we would like? No they won't. But the plan is there; we can continue to work with our partners, and as finances are available we can move ahead."

Higgins said the comprehensive "made-in-Saskatchewan" plan aimed to implement universal pre-kindergarten for four-year-olds, substantially increases child-care spaces and included a number of other enhancements such as training for staff...

Higgins said the province will continue to urge the Tory government to keep the five-year funding deal in place. But regardless of what happens with the federal government, the province is still on track to meet its 2003 pledge to have developed 1,200 new child-care spaces over four years, and will continue with the previously announced wage increases for child-care workers, she said.

While it would still be far better to see the federal government take the lead in developing a national program, there shouldn't be any doubt that provinces still have the option of improving access on their own. And once there are a few more examples of how effective a provincial scheme can be, it'll be all the tougher to justify any future failure to make similar programs available to all Canadians.

Cut down to size

The Sierra Legal Defence Fund has released a report card on forestry management in Canada...and neither the five provinces studied nor the federal government have much to be proud of:

The group studied conservation laws in the provinces with the highest levels of commercial forestry - New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia - and found little to cheer.

"The analysis found that forest conservation laws and policies in all five provincial jurisdictions is pathetic," says the report, which gives Quebec the highest mark at 43 per cent, and Alberta the lowest at 24 per cent.

The marks are based on 21 criteria relating to land-use planning, parks and protected areas, endangered species, use of pesticides and respect for aboriginal rights...

The federal government got a passing mark of 54 per cent because its endangered species legislation is stronger than that of any province, she said. But only a small portion of Canada's forests are under federal jurisdiction.

Meanwhile, a study by Environmental Defence Canada and others focusing on endangered species in Ontario produced similar results:

Polar bears, barn owls, monarch butterflies and other endangered animals and plants and are in an alarming state of decline in Ontario, yet outdated provincial legislation is doing little to reverse the trend, according to an environmental study released today.
In fact, the analysis indicates more than three-quarters of species identified as endangered receive no legal protection in the province, while the law barely protects even those that it expressly acknowledges need help.

Environmental groups have rightly shown concern over the Cons' success in the federal election. But it's worth remembering how many environmental issues are under provincial jurisdiction - and noticing how poorly the provinces are doing. After all, it'll take serious improvement on both levels to start reversing the damage pointed out today.

Northern exposure

The Auditor General points out yet another element of DIAND's responsibility that's been mismanaged recently:

Nunavut continually violated federal and its own territorial laws by spending money that wasn't approved by the legislative assembly, says Ottawa's auditor general.

The territory has failed to put basic financial controls in place, making it vulnerable to mistakes, bad decisions and fraud, Sheila Fraser says in a report tabled on Tuesday.

The Nunavut government has more than 2,300 employees and $1 billion in assets, and spends more than $1 billion a year. Most of its funding comes from the federal government.

Yet some of the territory's accounting is done by hand rather than on a computer, said the report.

It's fair enough that Nunavut thus far doesn't have many professionals (including accountants) to make sure that its accounts are up to the standards expected in the rest of the country. But even so, it speaks poorly of Ottawa's management of an area within its responsibility that there hasn't been any support in place to help pick up the slack. And now that the weaknesses are publicly known, there's all the more urgency to fix the problems before the system gets misused.

On foot removal

The Cons go through another damaging rite of passage earlier on than one would expect, as Peter MacKay has apologized to the families of the Canadian hostages in Iraq:

MacKay told reporters on Monday he was confident the hostages were alive and would be released soon, and that he believed they had been moved several times.

The next day, he told reporters he had no new information since a video was released three weeks ago that indicated they were alive and well.

MacKay was criticized for speculating publicly about their welfare in a way that could raise the hopes of relatives of the hostages, and for making comments that might further endanger the hostages.

It may be the first time a Harper cabinet minister has had to apologize for simultaneously raising hopes and mismanaging a file...but there's plenty of reason to think it won't be the last. And enough gaffes are piling up early in Harper's tenure to suggest that the Con government may be be stuck with a lasting (and well-deserved) reputation for incompetence even before they face their first day in Parliament.

On distinguishing features

Gregory at democraticSPACE has an interesting discussion of what the NDP needs to do in order to be able to compete nationally, suggesting that the main way for the party to stand out is through process rather than through centrally-determined policy:

To be sure, the NDP suffers from the injustices of an electoral system that necessitates concentrations of support over broad-based support, and surely the NDP must continue to fight for electoral reform to redress how votes are translated into seats. Yet the NDP executive must also re-examine its own institutional structure and ask itself whether a more decentralized, regional, issue-targeted and bottom-up organization wouldn’t be more effective at electing members to fight for progressive values. In other words, the current top-down structure — where policies are set by a central executive (and voted upon by the chosen few delegates who are allowed to attend the party convention) — represents a significant departure from the grassroots movement that gave birth to the Party...

If the NDP is to differentiate itself from the other main parties, it will not be on the basis of policy; rather, it will be on the way that policies and strategies are formed. In this, the NDP has the power to control its destiny. A return to grassroots through a charrette process of policy formation and political organization will send a message of real change, creating a platform that is not only for the people, but crafted by the people.

What Gregory doesn't discuss, but also a point worth repeating, is that there are now easier ways to engage in a far deeper degree of consultation with all interested Canadians than there would have been when the party first formed. The NDP thus isn't limited to trying to match its historical structure, but has the opportunity to blaze new trails in creating effectively a publicly-accessible policy-development process.

The only question is whether the party is willing to take the chance involved in deviating from conventional wisdom. And given the NDP's historical and current role as the party most willing to hold itself to a higher standard, it's hard to see much reason not to set the trend.

A message worth repeating

While the Globe and Mail gave its front page to the continued demands of CEOs, Conservative Senator Hugh Segal delivered a message which far more Canadians need to hear...and which the NDP would do well to pick up for itself:

"The most important issue I think Canadians have to come to grips with is that two million of our fellow citizens in rural Canada are living in poverty," Segal told reporters following his presentation to the third annual Saskatchewan Institute of Public Policy luncheon in Regina.

These men, women and children, he said, are living without adequate shelter, access to needed medical and social services, and sufficient or wholesome food, and have little or no hope of finding meaningful employment without leaving their homes, their histories, their families and their communities.

"They don't have enough money for any kind of quality of life and there is no quality of opportunity," Segal said.

And Segal's statement wasn't limited to complaints without suggestions:

Segal suggests governments look at a cohesive national strategy aimed at decentralizing services to rural areas of the country to anchor rural communities and provide much-needed job opportunities.

"It is about an integrated policy focus that looks at and considers innovation, financing, tax, environmental and energy challenges in a co-ordinated and integrated way with an agricultural perspective," he said.

Segal also proposes the creation of a basic income floor that would ensure people living in poverty would receive sufficient income support to live with a measure of self-respect and dignity.

Now, some tradeoffs need to be made between a decentralization strategy and the efficiencies that may come from more centralized services. But in general, Segal's priorities reflect a worthy attempt to deal with issues which have been largely ignored in the public sphere over the past few election cycles - and which deserve far more attention than they've received.

I'm not optimistic that Segal's party leader will do anything to follow through on Segal's suggestions. But that doesn't mean there's no chance of making progress - provided that the NDP co-opts the message. A party message dedicated to fighting poverty in both rural and urban areas could potentially offer scope to cooperate with the Cons if Harper's willing to play ball...or more likely would offer a stark contrast against what seems likely to be a lack of focus on rural issues given Harper's apparent focus on appealing to bigger cities. And that could be just the ticket for the NDP to start winning back federal seats closer to its roots.

On promises

From CBC's headline, it would sound as if Jim Prentice had made a strong personal commitment to take action to improve water safety on First Nations reserves. But Prentice's own words appear to say something else entirely:

"I've had meetings with our officials," Prentice said. "I've indicated what I wanted to see – that I want the communities at risk identified. I've indicated that I want a proactive plan in place for each of those communities."

The problem is that Prentice's position doesn't do anything to specify who's supposed to do the planning...and there's at best an implied commitment to provide any financial support for the task. As a result, barring any further comment from Prentice, it appears all too likely that DIAND is merely imposing another obligation on First Nations without any resources to go with it.

In light of the poor results from past investments, it's tough to argue with the need for better planning as to how to spend money to improve on-reserve conditions. But that planning itself comes at a price...and if the Cons won't even meet that cost, it's difficult to expect any positive change.

Dog bites man

The Canadian Council of Chief Executives has released a typical call for the federal government to eliminate itself The report features such deep reasoning as "the amount of GST collected by the federal government looks sort of like the amount of money transferred to the provinces". Interestingly enough, the report doesn't seem to consider the Cons' campaign promise to cut the GST, particularly as the report alternatively recommends an official link between the GST and the transfers.

The report does get one point right in saying that it would take a brave government to implement the recommendations. But it misses the point that the government would also have to be blind to the reality that Canadians value their public social institutions far more than do the CEOs who want to privatize them. The CCCE has offered a choice between the corporate agenda and that of Canadian voters - and if Harper chooses in favour of the former, his misguided bravery will be cold comfort when the latter group sends him packing.

On trouble communicating

That certainly didn't take long, as the Harper administration has its first casualty:

William Stairs, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's director of communications, has been replaced about two weeks into the new government's mandate, CTV News has learned.

"Only a couple of weeks into the job and he is leaving already," CTV's Rosemary Thompson reported on Monday evening.

It's not clear whether Stairs has been terminated or whether he left of his own will.

It'll be interesting to find out the precise reasons for Stairs' departure. But it certainly doesn't speak well to the Cons' planning that they're already losing key figures just a couple of weeks into their reign - and that message is equally strong no matter who's delivering it.

Another Bush success story

Sadly, the truly interesting part of this story is buried under Bush's usual self-aggrandizement. But anybody avoiding the article as a result is missing a fine example of Bushco in action:

During his visit to Johnson Controls' new hybrid battery laboratory, Bush checked out two Ford Escapes; one with a nickel-metal-hybrid battery, the kind that powers most hybrid-electric vehicles, and one with a lithium-ion battery, which Johnson Controls believes are the wave of the future. The lithium-ion battery was about half the size of the older-model battery. In 2004, Johnson Controls received a government contract to develop the lithium-ion batteries.

While Bush is highlighting his budget proposals to help wean America from foreign oil, the lab he visited is meeting a $28 million US shortfall by cutting its staff by 32 people, including eight researchers.

That's right: the Bush machine is running so poorly that it can't find a single example of environmentally-responsible industry which isn't shedding jobs. No wonder the Bush true believers are calling to extend Bush's bubble of yes-men from sea to shining sea.

A culture of indifference

It was surprising enough when Bernard Lord chose to go on the offensive over Michael Malley's departure from the NB Cons rather than doing his best to ignore the story. But Lord's sudden, public response seems all the more out of character in light of the conclusions from New Brunswick's ombudsman about Lord's government:

"Although it is my hope that our recommendations will be taken seriously by the government, based on last year's experience, I am not optimistic," Bernard Richard writes in the 2004-2005 report, released on Monday.

"We practically had to plead with departments to provide us with responses to last year's recommendations and, when some finally did send us their comments, they were, to say the least, disappointing, or to put it more mildly, perfunctory."...

"In the case of our right to information recommendations and our attempt to obtain all relevant information from the Department of Family and Community Services when investigating complaints there, no one bothered to respond."

Predictably enough, Lord hadn't yet responded to Richard's report by the time CBC wrote its story.

It's hard to blame Richard for his skepticism as to whether or not the province's Cons will break their pattern of unresponsiveness. If only Richard had the ability to directly shift the balance of power in the Legislature, maybe he'd at least be able to push Lord into an angry attempt to justify the government's lack of action.

Rights and wrongs

The Star reports that a government is planning to limit the scope of human rights investigations. It may sound like a Con effort to try to roll back federal human rights gains...but in fact, the culprit is Ontario's provincial government:

The provincial Liberal government will announce sweeping reforms to the Ontario Human Rights Commission as early as today, sources told the Toronto Star.

Among the changes expected are curbs on the rights body's role as a gatekeeper by limiting the need for it to conduct its own investigations. That would streamline the process and enable complainants to bring their cases directly to a tribunal...

Attorney General Michael Bryant, who was not available for comment yesterday, has been hankering to revamp the commission so complainants would have the same speedy access to a human rights hearing that they do at the labour relations board, small-claims court and other such tribunals.

Bryant's proposals will almost certainly be met with suspicion.

Already, labour leaders privately warn the Liberals are hell-bent on gutting the commission.

Now, it's fair enough to say that it's a plus to resolve human rights complaints more quickly. But that can readily be done by committing enough resources to ensure that the Human Rights Commission is able to investigate files with something less than the current 11-month turnaround period.

Instead, Ontario's government plans to turn human rights complaints into a do-it-yourself process - taking the responsibility associated with investigating claims away from the commission, and instead putting that burden onto the complainant. And while the effect may indeed be a reduced backlog, it's not a positive outcome if the waiting list is cut down due to the perceived futility of trying to stand up for one's rights.

On repopulation

Last year I noted that some towns in the American midwest have implemented programs where houses are effectively given away to potential residents. Now Yorkton mayor Phil DeVos is suggesting that the same be done in Saskatchewan:

The mayor of Yorkton and vice-president of the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association wants to see young families move out of the inner cities and fill up the empty two- and three-bedroom bungalows in small rural towns surrounding Yorkton...

"We have an abundance of little towns around us," he said. "So, we started doing an analysis of how many houses they had for sale. We have an abundance of nice little three-bedroom bungalows, 900 square feet, and nice little communities. These houses sell from $1,000 to $5,000.

"So, our idea is let's just say that we have 100 houses and let's say it is $1,000 for each house. For $100,000 we can go and buy all these houses. The plan is to go out to some of these areas around the world ... and resell these houses to people with families for a toonie.

"For $2, we aren't going to make any money off the houses. The reality is that you don't make the money off the houses. You don't make money off of property taxes. You sustain yourself. Where the money comes in is when you put somebody in the house, they get a job, and they pay your property taxes. They continue to contribute to your economy and then you get more taxes off the businesses."

I'd noted earlier that the idea may well be one worth pursuing here, and it appears that at least some people in a position to make the idea happen have caught on. As DeVos acknowledges, it'll also take added employment opportunities to entice a large number of people to move toward rural areas...but another step to make rural Saskatchewan all the more affordable has to be a plus in the effort.

On unwanted imports

Dave at The Galloping Beaver points out that fundamentalist Christian lobbying is apparently turning into a growth industry now that Harper's in power. And Dave nicely pegs the political ramifications:

Canadians need to be aware that there will be an effort on the part of these groups to suborn the federal government to their cause. Once that effort is underway the Conservatives need to be reminded that any involvement with these groups is flirting with political suicide. Should a dalliance with the religious conservative right become obvious, this current crop of Conservatives should be dispatched from office quickly and permanently.

Harper would be well advised to tell these groups publicly that he is not beholden to them and never will be.

Mind you, there are dangers for Harper on both sides, as any overly strong statement against the religious right could well force the movement behind the Christian Heritage Party. And if the Cons go into the next election losing those votes along with genuine reformist Reformers, there may not be enough centrist votes left for the taking to give Harper his desired majority.

That said, the lesser of the evils is indeed for Harper to make clear that the fundamentalist groups won't get to set policy for his government. And if he won't, then his government will likely be extremely short-lived.

On silver linings

It was certainly disappointing that Maher Arar's action against the American officials responsible for his rendition was dismissed last week, and I do hope that the decision will be appealed. But lest anybody think Judge Trager's ruling completely insulates Bushco from liability, a few passages from the decision are worth pointing out.

For example, Judge Trager made it clear at p. 23-24 that contrary to the defendants' arguments, a person who aided or abetted in torture rather than actually committing it cannot avoid liability on that basis:

The Torture Victim Protection Act does not specifically grant a right of action against those who aid or abet, or conspire with, primary violators. Noting this, defendants argue that only primary, not secondary, violators are liable. But every court construing this question has reached the contrary outcome, holding that the TVPA can be interpreted to allow claims for secondary liability.

At p. 47, Judge Trager refused to accept the defendants' argument that the action was barred since it arose out of a removal process which does not allow for judicial review:

(The statutory provisions in question were) intended to help restore order to the administrative process by preventing multiple lawsuits over claims arising from action involving the removal of an alien – not to foreclose bona fide legal and constitutional questions unrelated to the removal order by barring all federal court review.

At p. 58, Judge Trager rejected the defendants' claim that post-WWII precedents could be invoked to deprive Arar of any due process - and indeed hinted that some form of fair process must be available:

The Eisentrager petitioners had a trial pursuant to the laws of war. Although that trial might not have afforded them the panoply of rights provided in the civilian context, one cannot say that the petitioners had no fair process...Arar, by contrast, was held virtually incommunicado - moreover, on U.S. soil - and denied access to counsel and process of any kind.

This was followed at p. 79 by Judge Trager's flat rejection of the argument that Arar held no due process rights:

Arar's rights in the U.S. are by no means nonexistent. Although the federal courts have not fully fleshed out the contours an excludable alien's due process rights, certain developments since Mezei warrant mention...As already noted, Correa and Mezei are of questionable relevance to the case at bar because Arar was not attempting to effect entry to the United States. Regardless, the deprivations Arar alleges with respect to his treatment while in U.S. custody potentially concern the type of "gross physical abuse" that could trigger a due process violation.

And Judge Trager made clear at p. 84 that "gross physical abuse" will never be subject to the qualified immunity defence pled by the defendants:

Excluding the rendition aspect of the claim, the alleged "gross physical abuse" in the United States in Count 4 involved deprivations that would appear to violate clearly established rights. Such treatment, if true, may well violate the basic standards for a detainee in any context – civil, criminal, immigration, or otherwise – and possibly constitute conduct that a defendant could reasonably foresee giving rise to liability for damages.

Naturally, there are also many disappointing elements to the ruling as well - particularly Judge Trager's willingness to grant the benefit of the doubt to the defendants on national-security and foreign-policy concerns even on a motion where the facts as pled by Arar were presumed to be true. But even within a decision that foreclosed some grounds of relief, Judge Trager both left Arar with some means to bring the case back before the court, and made clear that that torture victims and foreigners on American soil have more rights than the defendants tried to claim.

All of which is to say that unlike Congress, the American judiciary at least hasn't completely given up its role overseeing the activities of the U.S. government. And hopefully both Arar and others will be able to use the openings left in Trager's decision to shed more light on Bushco's darkest secrets.

On neglect

The coroner's jury reviewing the death of Sherry Charlie joins the chorus pointing out the problems with Gordon Campbell's slashing of government:

An inquest into a toddler's death has recommended that B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell reinstate the office of the children's commissioner, which his government abolished in 2002.

The coroner's jury issued the recommendation and 18 others shortly before midnight Friday in Port Alberni after a 10-day inquest into the death of Sherry Charlie.

And even the current minister responsible isn't so much defending the current system as trying to deflect blame:

The minister of children and family development, Stan Hagen, said on Saturday that he had read the inquest's recommendations. But he said he wasn't going to decide what actions to take until he receives several other reports into the Charlie case, which he expects by June.

"It is important to note that we have made a lot of changes in practice in the ministry over the last four years."

Of course, part of the problem was based on the Campbell government's original unnecessary changes...which results in plenty of reason to be suspicious about Hagen's claim that matters have improved in the last few years. But whatever has been done since, the example of the Campbell government's neglect should be a warning sign to Harper as he contemplates how much of the federal government to axe in order to meet his own tax-cutting goals...as he surely doesn't want to be on the wrong end of similar judgments in the future.

On clear opportunities

Radio Shack CEO David Edmondson is in trouble for misrepresenting his credentials. But there may be good news as well:

Earlier this week, Edmondson admitted that he "clearly" misstated his academic record and that his resume was wrong. While he originally said he received a Bachelor of Science degree, he now says he believes he received a ThG diploma, awarded for completing a three-year degree in theology, but adds that he cannot document that.

Not there's anything positive for Radio Shack as a company in the news. But Deutsch personally may have timed his embarrassment just right, as at last notice NASA had a vacancy for someone whose job is to blur the difference between theology and science.

A natural progression

John Tory wants to send Ontarians an invoice for the cost of all health-care services. Can a bill be far behind?

On fair-weather friends

The Cons may be doing their best to avoid promising any added money to the provinces. But Quebec's government made clear today that a cash injection just in time for a provincial election next year may be too late...apparently setting the stage the province to start making immediate demands:

Finance Minister Michel Audet said at a Liberal party general meeting here Saturday that pay increases to public-sector workers had diminished his fiscal breathing room and that he would need an extra $1.3-billion to make his next budget work...

Asked if he would raise hydroelectricity rates or increase the 8 per cent provincial sales tax to create a special fund to pay down the debt, Mr. Audet would only say that he was looking at several options and that it was too early to make any announcements.

“We have to pay our bills, that's the first thing. We have to balance our budget,” Mr. Audet said.

The article discusses a mostly internal debate as to whether the Charest government will push forward with planned tax cuts when the result would be a deficit that large. But particularly now that the federal Cons are making new demands of Quebec's provincial government, it won't be long before Charest needs to start pointing fingers to explain his province's fiscal situation. And there shouldn't be much doubt that Ottawa will be Charest's main target in the process...no matter how friendly Charest and Harper may appear for the moment.

On the indefensible

A former adviser to several U.S. presidents has encouraged Canada to stay away from any involvement in U.S. missile defence:

A military adviser to three U.S. presidents says the cost of the missile defence plan is climbing and Canada should not get involved.

Philip Coyle, who was an adviser to presidents Jimmy Carter, George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton, says cost and reliability are two reasons to stay out.

Coyle says the U.S. has spent $100 billion US on missile defence since Ronald Reagan introduced the "Star Wars" program.

The article cites the Cons' promise to "take another look" at missile defence. But there shouldn't be any doubt that the program looks no more sensible now than it ever has...and that there's no point in Canada throwing its own money after the U.S.' based on the off chance that the program will suddenly cease to be the failure that it's been so far.

On predictable results

The CEO of Eli Lilly complains that pesky regulators have actually started doing their jobs in evaluating the side effects of new drugs:

The side effects of new drugs are receiving more attention than they deserve, said Eli Lilly & Co. Chief Executive Sidney Taurel on Thursday, unnecessarily delaying the regulatory approval process.

Asked in an interview why regulators have slowed down the approval of new drugs, Taurel told Reuters there was too much emphasis on drugs' side effects, as opposed to their benefits.

So where did that movement toward actually addressing side effects come from? One of the pharmaceutical industry's top lobbyists provides the answer:

"We've created an impression with the American public that when a drug is approved, it's perfectly safe," said Billy Tauzin, president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a lobbying organization for brand-name drug companies. "We have not done a good job about educating the patients of America that all drugs come with significant side effects."

Mr. Tauzin said the industry was "beginning to make progress and turn things around." He said it was addressing its image crisis by being more careful with its advertising, by pledging more disclosure of clinical trial results and by working to make low-priced drugs available to poor and uninsured Americans.

To summarize: pharmaceutical companies admit to having wrongly created an expectation that consumers could trust that medicine on the market would be safe, based in large part on the role of regulators in granting approval. But in acknowledging that fact, the industry never expected regulators to try to give some legitimacy to the expectation. And now that actual regulation is taking place, the industry is crying foul and demanding that the balance be shifted back toward favouring approval with less consideration of side effects.

There probably is a strong case to be made for a relatively streamline system to get drugs to market - provided, of course, that approval accompanied by reason to believe that the side effects are receiving due attention at some point in the process. But since it's hard to have any confidence in that prospect for now, nobody should be able to blame regulators for approaching new drugs with caution. And that goes doubly for the pharmaceutical companies whose actions led to reasonable suspicion in the first place.

Supreme vindication

Word finally comes out as to the process that'll be applied in the selection of Canada's next Supreme Court justice. And for all Harper's bluster about the courts, there doesn't seem to be too much reason to think the new choice will be a radical shift from the current justices, as the Cons will work from the list drawn up under the Libs:

Justice Minister Vic Toews will announce on Monday that he will set up an ad hoc committee of parliamentarians and hold a public hearing by the end of the month, a source confirmed.

The prospective judge, to be named from one of the Prairie provinces, will be chosen from a short list of three contenders that was submitted to the former Liberal government just before the election was called in November.

While the new judge will be questioned by a committee, the members will not have veto power, as they do in judicial confirmation hearings in the United States.

Unfortunately, the continuation of the rest of the existing process apparently won't prevent Toews from subjecting the new nominee to partisan questioning. But at the very least, the fact that Toews will choose from the nominees already approved by both the previous Lib government and an all-party committee highlights the fact that the system already places its emphasis on merit rather than partisanship. And that fact should be kept in mind next time Harper decides to complain about the judicial check on governmental power.

More would-be equals

The Cons' task in trying to please everybody with a new equalization deal just got even tougher, as municipalities have chimed in seeking more money in the "fiscal imbalance" negotiations:

A letter addressed to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities during the campaign identifies the fiscal imbalance as a priority for Mr. Harper, who vows immediately upon being elected to "begin consultations with both the provinces and municipal representatives" with a goal of reaching a long-term agreement addressing the fiscal imbalance.

(The members of FCM's Big City Mayors Caucus) said they fully support the Prime Minister's priority. They announced an internal working group comprising the mayors of Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton, London and Halifax to study the question of the fiscal imbalance as it relates to cities. The working group will report back in early June.

"Mr. Harper's focus on the fiscal imbalance is a significant development," said Montreal Mayor Gérald Tremblay. "The cities need modern fiscal tools to play their role fully as engines of economic growth and prosperity, while respecting the jurisdiction of all orders of government."...

"Cities were successful in achieving funding for public transit and infrastructure because we worked closely with the federal government," said Toronto Mayor David Miller. "We need to continue that partnership and we have the perfect opportunity to make it happen. We're looking forward to working with Mr. Harper to fix the fiscal imbalance so our cities' needs can be met."

Suffice it to say that given the Cons' well-known promise not to leave any province worse off than before a new round of negotiations. And with cities now also seeking a substantial piece of the pie, there's no way for the Cons to get any deal done with the pittance budgeted for the "fiscal imbalance".

Harper's choice now is between turning prominent provincial and municipal politicians against him, or blowing a massive hole in the federal budget to try to keep everybody happy. And either way, equalization looks like it's going to be a disaster for Harper's effort to portray his party as a responsible government.

The unrealistic target

The Tyee suggests that a movement to draft Louise Arbour as the next Lib leader may be afoot. And if Libs are looking to pull Arbour into the position, I can't blame them for the effort. There shouldn't be much doubt that Arbour's background would make her both the immediate favourite, and the best of all possible choices for the Libs if she were to run for the post.

But the one question the article can't answer is why Arbour would leave her current position at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to weigh herself down in Canadian politics. And the more energy the Libs put into trying to draft candidates with Arbour's credentials, the worse they'll look when the actual winner of the post is measured against the ones who got away.

A curious comparison

So let's get this straight. According to the Cons in general and Stockwell Day in particular, the gun registry is inefficient, useless, and an infringement on the privacy rights of law-abiding Canadians. But a person registry, featuring the costs (in money and privacy) of biometric imprinting, is such a great idea as to be inevitable.

More progress

The provincial government releases more good news about Saskatchewan's fiscal situation - and there's even more reason to be optimistic than there's been over the past couple of years, as the increase in revenue has a broader base:

The province's third-quarter financial report released Thursday shows another $144.5 million in revenue since mid-year, putting the government $987.9 million over its budget projections.

But a big change from the mid-term report is that the extra cash is coming not from non-renewable resource revenues but primarily from tax revenue -- with an additional $69.6 million in corporate income tax, $66.3 million in corporate capital tax, $48.6 million in personal income tax and $30 million in sales tax.

The government's projections for potash, oil and natural gas revenue actually dropped by $96.3 million since mid-term although they are still $539.1 million higher than in the budget.

In other words, there goes the usual Sask Party argument that the NDP should get no credit at all for added resource revenues: the increase is coming purely from increased economic activity. And while I don't doubt Wall's ability to complain about that as well, the whining is ringing awfully hollow these days.

Heh

From Layton's statement on David Emerson:

What Mr. Emerson fails to realize is that the people of Vancouver Kingsway have a seat in the House of Commons as a means through which their voices will be heard, not as a means to ensure that he gets to keep his limousine driver.

I for one eagerly await Emerson's response that PMPM "left him in the lurch" by no longer having limos to offer, contrary to the promises that "dragged" Emerson into politics.

Priority #1: Train the seals

The Cons may not have yet run into a problem with their socon backbenchers piping up and ruining Harper's pretended moderation. But they're now facing a second message problem to go with last week's grassroots anger, as the Cons' anonymous spokespeople apparently haven't been properly briefed on the party's platform:

The Conservative government's spring budget will not include a major cash transfer to the provinces to fix the so-called fiscal imbalance, officials said today.

The Tories will make good on their multibillion-dollar promise only in next year's budget after reaching a deal with the provinces over the coming months.

"It won't be addressed in the first budget," one federal official said...

(The Cons) see the fiscal imbalance as an ideal re-election trampoline for both them and their federalist cousins in Quebec.

"It could help Charest. And it's one more check mark next to our five priorities," said the federal official.

Now, it would be bad enough if the Cons really were holding off on their important priorities (and indeed the ones they'd promised to implement immediately) based on the potential for political gain. But when one takes a look at the Cons' five priorities, the fiscal imbalance is nowhere to be found.

And that leaves two possible interpretations. To be generous, it could be that the federal official quoted merely has an unusual affinity for placing checkmarks next to random policy documents as a means of celebration. But it seems more likely that even the people now speaking for the Cons don't really know what the party stands for. And if that's the level of competence that the Cons are bringing to government, all the well-timed policies in the world won't keep them in power past the next election.

On bluffs

So the Liberals claim they aren't afraid to fight another election. Based on what appears to be a strong case of Lib-voter remorse, there's every reason to think the NDP will be all the more more glad to go back to the polls:

Thirty-five per cent of respondents (in a poll taken February 9 to 13) said they would vote Conservative, compared with 36 per cent who cast ballots on election day.

The poll put support for the Liberals at 25 per cent, down five percentage points from Jan. 23.

Twenty-four per cent of respondents backed the NDP, up from 17.5 per cent election day...

In Ontario, the poll suggests the three main parties would be in a virtual dead heat, with 31 per cent supporting the NDP, 30 per cent backing the Liberals, and 29 picking the Conservatives.

If those numbers hold to any meaningful degree, one has to think we'll see a lot more praise for Harper by Graham over the next little while, and a lot less threats to force another election anytime soon. And the current numbers may be only the beginning of an NDP rise if the Libs' policy and leadership processes lead more to internal dissent than to consensus.

On poor opposition

Bill Graham claims that the Libs will vigorously oppose the Cons during the next Parliament. And it's hard to argue with that sentiment given his tough response to Harper's appointment of Michael Wilson as U.S. Ambassador:

"I think I would say this is a very good choice, if that's Mr. Harper's choice. I think Mr. Wilson will bring a lot of integrity and be a great representative for Canada," said Mr. Graham, who noted that Washington is one of the foreign posts where a political appointment can be helpful.

Okay, so maybe Graham isn't exactly holding Harper to account for the choice. But could that be because Wilson speaks to the values that Graham would want reflected as an opposition leader in any event? Well, here's Wilson's position on the Iraq war:

Mr. Wilson suggested the Canadian government's position could have been: "We did our best [to achieve United Nations' support] in the Canadian tradition, but in the end we have to back our friend and the country on which we rely the most."

Although Canadians strongly supported Canada's decision not to join the war, Mr. Wilson said governments driven by polls are abrogating their leadership responsibilities.

In sum: Harper has appointed as Canada's lead envoy on U.S. relations a man whose idea of "leadership" is to do what Bushco says, even if that's contrary to both the will of Canadians and an international consensus. And in Graham's role as leader of the Official Opposition, he considers that a "great" choice.

In the article on Wilson's past positions, Jack Layton is cited as the only leader looking to get some answers from Wilson before he's sent to represent Canada. And judging from the Liberal response, Graham has no less explaining to do than Harper as to why Wilson is supposed to be a "very good" choice to defend Canada's interests.

Trade-offs

It'll be awhile before we know what precisely the Cons plan to do when it comes to the environment. But Rona Ambrose sent an interesting signal yesterday, rejecting emissions credit trading while at the same time staying mum on Kyoto as a whole:

Canada's new environment minister says she won't support trading emissions credits with other nations or any other international deal that does not have a "direct environmental benefit to Canadians."

Rona Ambrose said she does not see the trading of emissions credits with other countries as being a high priority in her mandate of "cleaning up the air Canadians breathe."...

"On Kyoto, I will say that our government will not be shipping hot air credits overseas. Our focus is on a domestic solution," Ambrose told reporters Wednesday following a one-hour meeting with Alberta Environment Minister Guy Boutilier...

But Ambrose refused to discuss specifics of what will happen to the Kyoto accord or whether the Conservative government will scrap the deal to reduce Canada's emissions.

I won't wade too far into the middle of the emissions credits debate. But based on Ambrose's position so far, as well as her apparent mandate, it doesn't appear entirely out of the question that the Cons could keep Canada within Kyoto while ensuring that all emissions cuts are made domestically. And if the Cons were to follow that route, the political benefits to the Cons could match the environmental benefits to Canadians, as Harper would be seen taking a surprising direction toward David Cameron's "green politics" strategy that's worked so well in the UK.

Not that I ultimately expect the Cons to go that way, as it's tough to see them implementing a tough set of industrial regulations that's likely the only other means of achieving the Kyoto-mandated cuts. But if even the party which wouldn't answer Greenpeace's questionnaire during the campaign is making an effort to meet Canada's Kyoto commitments rather than rejecting the global action off hand, then there may be a strong opportunity for serious environmental progress during the upcoming Parliament.

On topics best avoided

Others have wondered why David Emerson won't shut up about the floor-crossing issue when he'd apparently be better off personally to let the matter die. But I have to wonder whether it's simply a matter of Emerson (and other politicians) needing to let out some politically counterproductive, "off-message" thoughts after the election. And if so, it looks like Emerson has been joined in that pastime by the man who recruited him:

Paul Martin has broken his post-election silence to blast former Liberal star recruit David Emerson for defecting to the Conservatives...

"To date, neither has been willing to subject themselves to an appropriate level of scrutiny on this matter - a decision that I believe robs Canadians and the people of Vancouver Kingsway of a deserved explanation," Martin said Wednesday in a statement from Europe, where he is on vacation.

Martin said he was "astonished" when Emerson - the man he personally recruited and named to cabinet - showed up Feb. 6 to be sworn in as the new Tory trade minister just two weeks after being elected as a Liberal.

"As we have seen, members do switch political parties when they feel their values are no longer welcome in the party they ran in. My government was the beneficiary of that phenomenon on a couple of high-profile occasions. But this situation is without precedent."

Now, I'm not entirely sure how Emerson's constant presence in the media falls short of any standard for scrutiny...and even if Emerson weren't going to the media at every opportunity, there can be little doubt that his constituents aren't about to let the issue die. But surely Martin and his party would also be best served if the Emerson controversy were to die down. And that's not only due to Martin's action in recruiting Emerson to begin with and in his apparent failure as a leader to keep his caucus and cabinet prepared for the possibility of defeat, but also in the fact that Emerson's defection helped prove that the Libs' entire campaign strategy was based on a false portayal of the Liberal party.

Mind you, I certainly won't complain about Martin keeping Emerson in the news. (And with any luck Martin's outburst will lead Emerson to continue a sniping match between the two in the press.) But it's hard to see how he or his party stands to gain anything by highlighting either Martin's poor leadership or the willingness of star Liberals to break ranks.

Feet to the fire

Taking the helm as the true opposition to the Cons, the NDP reminds Stephen Harper of one of his opposition commitments:

NDP Leader Jack Layton is calling on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to show his commitment to more foreign aid by setting specific goals in legislation.

Layton says Harper has previously supported setting aside 0.42 per cent of the value of the GDP by 2010 and should increase that goal to 0.70 per cent by 2015.

NDP foreign affairs critic Alexa McDonough says increasing foreign aid would be Harper's opportunity to show how different he is from former prime minister Paul Martin.

Sadly, there's not much reason to think Harper wants to differentiate himself too much from Martin given his immediate turn toward Liberal-style cronyism. But at the very least, it's a plus to highlight the gap between the Cons' opposition rhetoric and their actions in government. And if raising the issue of foreign aid leads the Cons to at least pay some attention to Canada's low current contributions when it comes to creating their first budget, then all the better.

The benefit analysis

The Caledon Institute for Social Policy makes its case to have the Cons look at boosting the Child Tax Benefit rather than trying to implement its "child-card program" as planned:

The (Cons') proposed child-care allowance favours one-earner couples over single parents and two-earner couples. One-earner couples do well at higher income levels, and better than modest- and middle-income single parents and two-earner couples.

But families with modest incomes, in the $30,000 to $40,000 range, are especially penalized by the taxback on other benefits. Only at very low income levels do all types of families get close to the advertised $1,200...

Luckily, there is a straightforward solution: Ottawa should deliver the allowance through the tried and true Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB).

The maximum CCTB for a young child will reach $3,426 this July. Adding $1,200 to the CCTB would boost this amount to $4,626 - close to the $5,000 target for an adequate child benefit. The full amount of the allowance would really go to all families -- single parents and one-earner and two-earner couples -- with incomes less than $100,000, with gradually diminishing payments above that level...

The child-care allowance will never be a substitute for a solid, high-quality, child-care system, but it can at least be transformed into a sensible and equitable child benefit that will reduce child poverty and help families meet the costs of raising their children. Delivering the allowance through the Canada Child Tax Benefit will be more faithful to the Conservatives' promise of $1,200 a child under 6 than stealthily taxing much of it away for the families who need it most.

It's tough to argue with the article's reasoning, and for that reason one would think that a public debate on child care would tend toward the CCTB as a compromise measure. But there may be only one way to get to that result from the status quo...and it'll depend on Harper's government making the first move.

The problem is that given the Cons' insistence that their plan is really a child-care measure rather than a tax cut, both national opposition parties have plenty of reason to criticize the absence of any new child-care spaces (or reasonable expectation thereof). And in turn, if either of them took the step of publicly proposing a plan based solely on the CCTB, the other would get plenty of mileage criticizing the failure to propose any answer to actual child care needs. Supporting a perceived compromise may be another story, but neither opposition party can afford to stick its neck out if a deal is anything short of certain...lest that party be left subject to attack from both sides.

That leaves the possibility of the Cons making the first move toward a CCTB-based benefit. And it's here that we'll really see to what extent the Cons are determined to engage in social engineering by offering disproportionate benefits to families with stay-at-home parents.

It's not unrealistic to think that one of the opposition parties (most likely the Libs given the NDP's public commitment to introducing federal child care legislation in Parliament) could play along with a CCTB-based benefit once the Cons take the first step. But it'll be up to Harper to demonstrate first that he's willing to work toward better policy even if his socon supporters don't approve. And if he won't, then the result will either be a benefit which is wide open for justified criticism during the next election, or a failure to pass any child-care measure at all.

Win some, lose some

The good news: the content of the NDP's announcement as to the party's new shadow cabinet.

The bad news: choosing to make the announcement on Valentine's Day. I'm not sure whether the party sees room for growth among the "Unmarried. Unattached. No commitments" demographic, or whether it's banking on a lot of candlelit conversations turning to what Jack and Olivia are up to now...but those are the best explanations I can come up with for choosing to make a political splash on a day when there's even less interest in politics than usual.

Questionable politics

More fun with David Emerson, as the ex-Lib, newly-minted Con blames ex-PMPM for causing his party switch:

Under mounting fire for defecting to the Conservatives, Trade Minister David Emerson is suggesting that Paul Martin forced him to run in the election and then left him in the lurch when the Liberals lost.

"Paul Martin dragged me in to work for him on a series of economic issues. I was loyal to him to the very end. He left," Emerson said of the former Liberal prime minister, who has said he will not lead his party into the next election.

Emerson's new excuse leads to a few questions.

For example, is Emerson right to place the responsibility on Martin for stepping down when he did? Or was PMPM right to make his announcement immediately, leaving the blame for Emerson's party switch with the man who suddenly lost his enmity for Stephen Harper when the right job came along?

How many other current "Libs" (whether in Parliament or not) are really only PMPM loyalists who would gladly switch to the Cons if offered a suitable reward for doing so? Would they too be justified since their loyalty is purely to the power promised by PMPM, rather than to any principle?

Will the outflow of Martin loyalists match the inflow of Chretien loyalists who lent their support to the Cons this time out to seek retribution against Martin?

And most importantly...why would any voter who's actually concerned with progressive values want to support a party whose actions give rise to these kinds of questions?

Fighting the power

The Ontario Power Authority may have gone out of its way to avoid heading anything but the message it wants to hear...but even its negligible amount of public consultation has been enough to produce little doubt as to what Ontarians think about increased reliance on nuclear power:

A plan that recommends $40 billion worth of new nuclear power for Ontario was slammed at public hearings last night in Toronto and Mississauga.

At the Toronto meeting more than 250 people appeared just as angry about what they described as a sham three-day consultation process that continues today and tomorrow across the province...

Jeff Leal, parliamentary assistant to Energy Minister Donna Cansfield, however, suggested last night that the plan's hostile reception might delay a final decision.

Speaker after speaker last night argued nuclear power is expensive, unreliable and dangerous to the environment and human health.

It's a shame that the case against nuclear power apparently isn't one that had received much previous attention from the Authority. But one night's worth of public backlash has apparently had some impact. And if the continued consultations are along the same lines, then maybe there will be some hope for Ontario to make a move toward more positive energy sources, rather than relying on highly dubious assumptions as to the efficiency of continued nuclear development.

What's allowed and what's right

Another amusing turn in the Emerson saga, as Emerson himself now says that he's willing to vote to prevent MPs from crossing the floor without a by-election if the issue comes up:

A defiant David Emerson said Monday he would support legislation forcing MPs who switch parties to run in a byelection.

But without a law, the Vancouver MP said he's not willing to face voters in his riding who are upset he defected from the Liberal party to become international trade minister in Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet.

Angry residents of his blue-collar Vancouver-Kingsway riding, where no Conservative has won since 1958, turned up at two weekend protests organized by the NDP and have been signing a petition demanding he step down and run in a byelection.

But Emerson said he sees no reason to resign without a law.

"I'm not opposed to a byelection," he said during an appearance on radio station CKNW's Bill Good open-line show. "All I'm saying is let's have a set of rules that applies to everyone.

Now, it's well and good that Emerson would respect a by-election law if it was passed. But based on today's comment, Emerson isn't even sure that what he did should be legal. And particularly in light of a campaign that was based on largely on questions of ethics in government, voters should be able to expect something more from the new government than the bare minimum of behaviour that isn't yet prohibited by law.

Emerson's complete refusal to hold himself above the letter of the law is in stark contrast to the the NDP's willingness to hold itself to a higher standard of accountability in the political realm than the other federal parties. And if there's going to be any hope of having a cleaner Canadian political system in the future, that's going to have to be based on voters rewarding those who are determined to set a genuinely positive example - not those who believe that when it comes to politics, anything above the letter of the law is good enough.

The false economy

After years of Liberal bragging over how great the Canadian economy is allegedly running, it's not too surprising that the Cons have started claiming the same now that they're in power. But while the weaknesses in Canada's economy may not be evident from anything the two main national parties have to say, more evidence comes out today that Canada's "strong economy" has created a precarious situation for most Canadians:

One thin dime isn't much but it's how little the real hourly earnings of Canadians have increased over the past decade and a half, suggests a new report that warns cash-strapped and deeply indebted families had better tighten their belts...

Average household incomes are now about $55,000 a year, roughly the same as at the start of the decade and up only one per cent, or about $500, from 1990.

In contrast, average household debt now stands at about $70,920, up 16 per cent from 2000, and 40 per cent from 1990.

And as bad as the debt situation appears for Canadians generally, Macleans points out that it's all the worse among young adults:

Time, they say, is on their side. They have years to start saving for marriage, kids and mortgages, let alone retirement. They have low inflation and interest rates to enjoy, and the federal surplus means that even if they aren't saving, the government is -- which economists say gives them a sense of security. They are better educated than previous generations and will earn more at a younger age than their parents did. Maybe most importantly, they can take advantage of easy access to credit. "Today, it's not the Gretzky model -- work hard as a child, play hard as an adult," surmises Pedro Antunes, director of national forecasting at the Conference Board of Canada. The "celebutante" lifestyle of Paris Hilton prevails: live like a young heir, whether or not you are one...

While all Canadians are feeling the pinch of rising debt levels, young people are being squeezed hardest. A recent report by the Vanier Institute for the Family shows that average net worth (assets minus debt) for those under the age of 25 dropped by an astonishing 95 per cent between 1984 and 1999. And consumer borrowing has only accelerated since.

It's particularly worrisome to think that more responsible government is considered a cause of less responsible consumer behaviour. While I'd be surprised if there is a direct connection between the two, it does seem clear that the example set by a good number of governments is one that far too many Canadians (especially younger ones) have ignored.

Meanwhile, it should be noted that Canada's economic growth on paper can itself be traced in part to the influx of debt-fueled spending. Yet even with consumers spending at unsustainable rates, that hasn't been enough to allow the benefits of economic growth to make their way down to Canadian workers.

In other words, Canada's economy is a lot less strong than the two main federal parties want to claim. And matters are only going to get worse if that fact isn't noticed and dealt with before consumer debt becomes completely unmanageable.

On allowing for exceptions

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association suggests a more flexible alternative to strict minimum sentences:

Canada's premier civil liberties group is urging Justice Minister Vic Toews to reconsider plans to expand the use of mandatory minimum sentences, calling them "dangerously simplistic" solutions bound to produce "grave injustice."

(I)n its letter, the association urges Toews to consider instead "presumptive" minimum sentences, now in use in Britain. Under such an option, judges would be expected to impose a prescribed minimum punishment, but would retain the power to deviate from the minimum in exceptional circumstances.

It's difficult to see how there could be much of an argument against the CCLA's proposal on principle. But unfortunately, it looks like politics will easily trump policy when it comes time for the House of Commons to make its choices on the issue.

After all, there's little reason to think that Toews will be swayed by the harsh consequences which result from mandatory minimums. And in light of the consensus that formed around strict minimums in the past election, any opposition party which takes up the CCLA's call is bound to face calls of being soft on crime.

As a result, we're all too likely headed toward mandatory minimums for at least a few more criminal offences. And it'll probably take a fresh example of a minimum-sentencing regime in action, rather than a hypothetical application to past events, to change both public opinion and party lines on the issue.

On lose-lose situations

The problems surrounding the results of Haiti's election shouldn't be much of a surprise given the months of delays and suspicions that preceded the vote. But however the results of the first round of voting turn out, there'll be plenty of reason for many Haitians to be suspicious about the results:

A member of Haiti's electoral council said results of the presidential elections were being manipulated, echoing complaints by throngs of supporters of Rene Preval, who poured into the streets Sunday with angry allegations of fraud...

"According to me, there's a certain level of manipulation," Pierre Duchemin, an electoral council member, told The Associated Press, adding that "there is an effort to stop people from asking questions" about the counting process...

Suspicion has risen among many Haitians that the results were being manipulated in the five days since voters turned out in droves to elect a new government. It will replace an interim government installed after then-President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was ousted in a bloody rebellion two years ago.

Jean-Henoc Faroul, the president of an electoral district with 400,000 voters northeast of the capital, accused the electoral commission of trying to force a run-off, saying tally sheets from Preval strongholds have vanished...

Preval was leading 33 candidates with 49.1 per cent of the vote, short of the 50 per cent plus one vote he needs to avoid a March 19 run-off with the runner-up. Leslie Manigat, also a former president, was second with 11.7 per cent of the vote.

There's already been ample reason to wonder whether the "caretaker" regime would ever cede effective control over the country, particularly given its efforts to set irreversible policies before Haitians received another chance to vote. And the contrast between an unaccountable, foreign-imposed regime and a democratic leader is all the more stark now that an official from the temporary regime seems to hold unilateral control over the question of when any transition takes place.

But then, it would be tough to describe a late shift toward Preval as a particularly positive outcome either. Even if a late shift does occur based on a genuine vote count, opposition forces may well claim that it was the post-vote rallies that pressured the electoral authorities into that outcome. And the rivals of Haiti's democratically-elected leaders haven't shown much of a history of respecting even results that were beyond doubt.

Unfortunately, every outcome now looks far worse than the result had the countries currently involved in Haiti (Canada included) used their influence to allow the last democratically-elected Haitian leader to complete his term of office. And whatever the outcome of the election, it's clear that there's an awfully long way to go in trying to build a stable Haitian democracy.

A change would do you good

A strong majority of Canadian voters went into the past election looking for change. Unfortunately, it looks like the attempt has failed on two fronts. It should be no secret that Stephen Harper is all too happy to continue with entitlement politics as usual. But today, we find out that rather than taking some lessons from the past election, key Liberals are determined not to learn a thing after being removed from power:

Liberal officials are being urged to hasten the selection of a new leader so that the party can be ready as soon as possible for an election.

"We are, I would say, reinvigorated and energized," interim Liberal leader Bill Graham said in an interview at the end of Harper's controversy-plagued inaugural week...

"That's the shortest honeymoon of any government in Canadian history," chortled former deputy prime minister John Manley in brief remarks to the assembled aides.

"David Emerson really is a great Liberal. In one move, he united the Liberals and divided the Tories."

Manley joked that "every once in a while we have to let the Tories take over so that Canadians remember just how good a Liberal government is."

Indeed, the Libs are so unconcerned with the shenanigans of Harper's first week that it took the NDP to organize a rally where Emerson's voters could show their frustration with being lied to over the course of the campaign. The Liberal riding association got into the act somewhat, but the national party has been happy to largely accept Emerson's betrayal as politics as usual - as long as that leads to positive results for the Libs in the end.

In fairness, the Libs' power structure has at least shown more consistency than those who have tried to find differences between the respective defections of Emerson and Stronach. But that consistency puts the Libs squarely on the wrong side of a Canadian public which wants to see a country run with more ethics and less cynicism. And the more both the Libs and the Cons go out of their way to show that they couldn't care less about respecting the voters, the more opportunity there'll be for the one party which has consistently advocated for keeping MPs accountable.

Keeping up the message

I mentioned last weekend that it's disappointing not to see the NDP keeping up more of an online presence on its main site in the time since the election. With that said, let's give due credit to Paul Summerville, who's kept his site updated with a steady stream of interesting news items. If the NDP is going to position itself in creating an interactive model in dealing with voters, Summerville looks like he'll be leading the charge.

Getting rid of that annoying Buzz

It's now official that the Ontario NDP has revoked Buzz Hargrove's party membership. But lest anybody think the party unduly dumped Buzz without any opportunity to make amends, the NDP offered Hargrove a fairly simple term to regain his association with the party:

(Hargrove) can regain his membership if he writes a letter indicating he would not endorse candidates for other parties again. But in a Toronto Star interview, Hargrove said "that won't happen."

That's at least one more added chance than Hargrove deserved after his actions in the last campaign. But fortunately, even the requirement that he not undermine the party in the future was too much of a constraint for Hargrove's ego.