Winning policy, winning strategy

As promised, I'll take a few minutes to discuss the NDP's plan to release a greenhouse-gas reduction plan this week:

Opposition parties will step up their attacks this week on the Conservative government's increasingly unpopular environmental position, with the pro-Kyoto New Democrats going so far as to release daily elements of a plan for the government to tackle climate change.

NDP Leader Jack Layton said this weekend his party will roll out "key elements" of that plan "virtually every day" this week...

"We can at least show that there are things that the government could be doing now as we head into smog season," Layton said at a conference of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in Montreal. "Are we just simply going to twiddle our thumbs for six months and reneg (sic) on commitments we've made to the rest of the world? It's not where Canadians want to go."

From a policy standpoint, obviously it's a plus to try to highlight the options available to address global warming, particularly at a time when the Cons are supposedly collecting ideas for their plan this fall. But the political reasons for the NDP move strike me as ultimately more important than the likelihood of any action being taken, or even the content of the plan.

After all, the NDP has had a thorough Kyoto strategy available for public viewing for ages already. It doesn't seem all that likely that the NDP's philosophy has changed too much since the existing plan was drafted, though a few new ideas may work their way into the mix. And while I'd like to think the current wave of Kyoto support will force the Cons into action, there still isn't much chance that a government determined to undermine Kyoto will adopt much of a platform explicitly aimed at meeting the Kyoto targets.

But as things stand now in Parliament, the NDP is making the right move in differentiating itself by promoting policy first, particularly in an area which has often been in the public eye. The Cons have the machinery of government to keep themselves in the news, hampered only by their ideological bent against government getting anything done; the Libs can count on their leadership race to draw media attention to at least the party's personalities. That leaves an all-too-typical void in the department of presenting innovative policy options, and it only makes sense for the NDP to fill in the gap.

Mind you, that always leaves the danger that the NDP may be seen as overly interested in developing policies for other parties to co-opt. But in the wake of the last election, there's a rare opening for policy to be seen as more of a strength than a liability. After all, much of the media narrative from the past election suggests that the Cons succeeded by putting their policies in the public eye early and often. And with that mindset dominating the current political CW, it can only help the NDP in the eyes of the punditocracy to get the jump in the midst of the perpetual campaign that is a minority government.

On external causes

Michael Byers theorizes that foreign policy will prove to be Harper's downfall in the next federal election:

It is a basic tenet of Canadian political science that foreign policy doesn't matter in elections. In fact, it hasn't mattered since 1988 when Brian Mulroney used the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement to drive a wedge between his Progressive Conservatives, on the one side, and the Liberals and NDP on the other. Foreign policy issues are usually too complex, under-reported or distant in their implications to register with most Canadians.

Stephen Harper adheres to the view that foreign policy lacks electoral significance and, for this reason, feels safe following the Bush administration's lead. He made a lousy deal on softwood lumber, allowing U.S. forest companies to keep $1 billion in illegal gains. He agreed to share surveillance information from the Northwest Passage with the Pentagon without receiving recognition of Canada's sovereignty claim in return. He has moved towards participation in missile defence, taken sides in the Israel-Palestine conflict, and failed to protect Afghan detainees from torture. But how many people know this? And how many really care?

Still, three foreign policy issues could soon achieve unusual degrees of prominence. When the "new" Stephen Harper lets the mask slip on these issues, exposing his neo-conservatism, Canadians will notice -- and they likely will care.

I don't share Byers' view that Afghanistan is likely to be one of the defining issues of the next campaign - with the most recent vote in Parliament there doesn't seem to be much prospect of Canada's role ending or changing anytime soon. But there seems to be at least a reasonable chance that global warming will be kept in the news enough to grow in importance and take a bite out of the Cons' support. And if the U.S. does decide to provoke a war with Iran, that could prove to be a back-breaking blow for Harper's government whether or not it actually declares public support for such a war (since the opposition parties will be able to easily point out the danger of an even more pro-Bush policy if Harper were to win a majority).

Mind you, the last time an election was decided primarily on a foreign-policy issue, it was a split vote that allowed Mulroney to remain in power. And depending on who becomes the next Lib leader (and whether the Canadian public decides to forget about the Libs' woeful record on global warming), a similar split might at least dampen the effect of the key foreign-policy issues next time out.

But it does appear clear that factors bigger than the usual domestic issues may have a huge impact on the next federal election. And Harper's attempts to micromanage everything taking place within Canada aren't going to help him in the least when it comes to what's going on outside our borders.

Heh

I'm curious to see whether Anonymous Law Firm LLP is funny only to lawyers, or to people generally. But for this lawyer at least, it's a classic.

Monitoring the revolving door

The issue certainly hasn't gone without discussion in the past. But the CP reminds us about Harper's about-face on lobbyists since he took power:

As the much-vaunted Accountability Act gets closer to passing the House of Commons, critics say Harper's disdain for lobbyists is really nothing more than an elaborate media line...

Indeed, lobbyists represent an important component of the Conservative political machine.

Consider a recent memo sent out directly from the Prime Minister's Office concerning the ongoing battle with the national media. It was sent to top party strategists, including members of the lobbying world who appear on talk shows, suggesting they portray the media as lazy when asked about the spat.

So clearly Harper is comfortable having lobbyists speak for his party - perhaps more so than some of his own MPs.

Meanwhile, in case there was any thought that Harper was doing all he can without a majority in Parliament, think again:

Harper has also repeatedly decried the "revolving door" between government and government consultants, promising during the last election to slam it shut. The Accountability Act proposes that public office holders be barred from lobbying government for five years after they leave office...

But that principle didn't seem to stand for Elizabeth Roscoe, a member of Harper's transition team following the election. She went on to become a vice-president of public affairs at the Canadian Association of Broadcasters.

Conacher said Harper could have prevented this by amending the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders, a set of rules that is under the immediate control of the prime minister and would have come into effect right away.

Again, none of this should come as too much surprise. But it's worth highlighting one more example of how Harper's message is directly contrary to his own actions. And I'll look forward to more members of the media proving Harper's talking point wrong by checking such hypocrisy at every turn.

On obstacles

I won't pretend to know exactly how to solve Canada's military recruiting woes. But I think we can safely assume that more intense fighting in Afghanistan won't do much to help matters.

A growing movement

Another influential group has thrown its weight behind the need for Canada to follow through on its Kyoto commitments and more, as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has committed to reductions far beyond those set out in Kyoto:

At its annual meeting in Montreal Saturday, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, representing 1,400 municipal leaders across Canada, adopted a policy statement supporting Canada's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

"Municipal governments commit themselves...to implementing policies and operational changes that will achieve a global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 30 per cent by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050, based on 1990 levels," the statement reads...

Lloyd Hines, chair of the FCM's standing committee on environmental issues, said the FCM hopes to be consulted on Harper's climate change plan, promised for this fall. He said FCM members are concerned about the environmental message the Harper government has sent so far.

"They are concerned that there may be some lessening of commitment on Kyoto and other environmental issues," Hines said.

For those wondering whether the mayors in fact receive the chance to make their concerns known to the federal government, rest assured that they'll get just as much direct interaction as most groups who inconveniently disagree with a Con position:

Environment Minister Rona Ambrose was to address the FCM's meeting today but has cancelled, citing a schedule conflict.

But even with the Cons trying their best to pretend that no meaningful action needs to be taken, the combined force of the FCM, the provinces who plan to meet or exceed their Kyoto reduction levels, and Canadians generally who recognize the need for action is something that the Cons will have trouble ignoring. Kudos to the FCM for keeping the momentum going.

Update: I'll deal with the substance of this article later, but take a look at the laughable excuse for Ambrose's cancellation:

Officials with Ambrose and in the Prime Minister's Office said her appearance was unnecessary after Prime Minister Stephen Harper decided to open the conference with a speech last Friday. They could not, however, explain why the official agenda had the two federal politicians speaking at different times.

Now, given Harper's commitment to stifling his cabinet ministers, it may well be true that Ambrose would have said absolutely nothing that Harper hadn't covered in his address. But even conceding that Ambrose had nothing useful to say, it would have made a lot more sense to plan for the consequences of a "one Con only" policy, rather than to leave the conference to deal with a last-minute cancellation.

On security needs

I don't have too much to add about the successful raid on an apparent terrorist cell that hasn't been discussed already. But it's worth noting that the issue had nothing at all to do with the immigration issues that CSIS is currently trying to push; and contrary to government plans last fall, it didn't require massive instrusions into Canadians' communications in order to enable CSIS to find and neutralize any threat.

Update: See Rusty Idols and My Blahg for more discussion of how the operation represents a victory for law enforcement rather than extralegal intrusions into the lives of Canadians.

On favours

From Jean Charest's comments yesterday, it would appear that he's turned against the Harper federal government completely. But I have to wonder whether he's ultimately trying to force an election now for the federal Cons' benefit:

Quebec Premier Jean Charest challenged Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe on Friday to bring down the minority federal government over its refusal to pay its share of a made-in-Quebec program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Charest said if Duceppe is serious about defending Quebec's interests, the Bloc will vote against the federal budget.

"If Gilles Duceppe wants to ... criticize the premier of Quebec, I invite him to do what people have mandated him to do in respect to his responsibilities," a combative Charest told reporters after signing a series of new agreements with Ontario.

"He represents Quebecers in the House of Commons. If he believes in what he is saying, unless it is empty rhetoric, well then he will vote against the budget in the House of Commons. So we'll see who has backbone."

Now, I'll readily agree with Charest that the budget isn't one that Duceppe should be supporting without some serious changes. But considering the frequency with which Charest and Harper are allied on particular issues (not to mention Charest's need to secure federal support to try to stay in power), it would be surprising to see Charest calling for the federal government's head already without at least some implicit approval from the federal Cons. Which makes it seem rather likely that Charest's call is simply a first step in a movement by the Cons to try to force an election before the Libs can sort out their leadership mess.

On gift horses

I can understand the inclination to see an article on health reform in Alberta, and assume that something dubious must be afoot. But I can't see why there'd be too much concern about the province's decision to allow pharmacists to prescribe certain types of drugs:

Starting this fall, pharmacists who complete a training program will be able to give and refill prescriptions without a doctor's authorization for a wide range of chronic illnesses, such as high blood pressure and asthma.

They will also be able to administer vaccines.

Certain addictive drugs, such as narcotics, will still require a doctor's approval for prescription refills.

Now, I can understand the need to ensure that pharmacists don't start making difficult judgment calls where a doctor is better qualified to do so, and I presume the program will be monitored to that effect. But when it comes to repeated and/or routine prescriptions, the change looks to me like a win-win situation for patients. Those who only want to receive their usual refill will save possibly a trip to the doctor and at least some administrative wrangling in doing so, while still seeing a trained professional who can refer the patient to a physician if there's a need to do so. Meanwhile, those who genuinely need to see a doctor will have more opportunity to do so thanks to an incremental reduction in the doctor's workload.

Again, it's understandable to be suspicious of any Klein reform in health care. But this one looks like one which simply makes publicly-funded health care more efficient...and those of us committed to preserving a strong public system should be glad to see that kind of progress.

(via liberal catnip.)

Housekeeping

Template changes tonight to include a Progressive Bloggers vote link and Canadian Blog Exchange related topics link at the bottom of each post. Let me know if the new additions cause any problems.

On looking the other way

For those wondering how the Cons' undying trust in the responsibility of others is working out in Afghanistan, the predictable answer is "not well at all":

Canadian soldiers have intervened at least twice to prevent the summary execution of Taliban suspects captured on operations with the Afghan army, highlighting the moral murk confronting troops caught between government policy and the brutality of a still-violent country.

And the local representative of Afghanistan's independent human rights commission suspects that nearly a third of prisoners handed over by Canadians are abused and even tortured in Afghan jails...

Canadian soldiers have intervened at least twice to prevent the summary execution of Taliban suspects captured on operations with the Afghan army, highlighting the moral murk confronting troops caught between government policy and the brutality of a still-violent country.

And the local representative of Afghanistan's independent human rights commission suspects that nearly a third of prisoners handed over by Canadians are abused and even tortured in Afghan jails.

Unfortunately (for the Cons' position at least), international law isn't willing to look the other way to the same extent that Harper is:

Canada is also obliged under international law to ensure detainees are protected against torture and summary execution, even after they are transferred to Afghan custody.

Which means that Canada is at least in part responsible for the already-documented abuse, to say nothing of the potential for future (or undisclosed) escalation of what's known so far. And in the face of public information to the effect that the assurances received so far aren't accomplishing a thing, it's all the more negligent for anybody representing Canada to pretend that it's reasonable to rely on the same assurances in the future.

(Edit: cleaned up wording.)

Big Daddy to kids: "Go ask your mother"

Stephen Harper has declared his plan for helping cities, which consists entirely of making the issue the provinces' problem:

The federal government's commitment to tackle the fiscal imbalance with the provinces will ease the financial burden faced by municipalities, Prime Minister Stephen Harper says...

Harper has vowed to make solving the fiscal imbalance with provinces one of his key priorities. The provinces complain Ottawa retains too many tax dollars, leaving them struggling to provide services.

Harper said municipal and local officials must then work with their respective provinces on new funding deals...

Big city mayors arrived at the meeting armed with a report they issued on Thursday containing a number of recommendations, including (that) (t)he federal government should share revenue that grows with the economy, such as income tax and the federal goods and services tax.

It's questionable already whether whatever money gets handed back to the provinces through equalization increases will make up for funding lost on Kyoto, child care and other programs where planned federal inputs will no longer flow to the provinces. Now, Harper has made clear that the problem of municipal funding will also be left solely to the provinces to address from a pool of money that doesn't yet exist, and has largely already been spent to the extent that provinces follow through on their earlier plans.

Harper is quoted as criticizing the Libs' downloading as the reason why municipalities' debt and infrastructure difficulties. But it seems a rather curious response to the downloading problem to engage in yet another wave of it. And if the responsibilities downloaded exceed the resources provided by as wide a gap as appears likely, it won't be long before provinces recognize that any current imbalance has only become worse.

On reasons for opposition

Both Greg and Berlynn have already chimed in on this morning's report that some parts of the Accountability Act may be unconstitutional. But as far as I can tell, the issues surrounding this particular constitutional question seem to me to be less problematic than has been suggested so far.

From a foundational standpoint, I don't agree entirely with the implication that any statute which is of questionable constitutionality should be dropped by a government rather than pursued further. Prior to past decisions being released, it's been far from clear that current laws on issues ranging from tobacco control to political advertising would ultimately be upheld under the Charter. Similarly, the only reason why we now have a body of jurisprudence on the question of division of powers is the fact that past governments have decided to pass laws which were at least arguably subject to question.

This isn't to say, of course, that a law's constitutionality should be ignored. But in the case of all but the most obviously-unconstitutional legislation (of which a new ban on SSM may well be an example), it's generally worth examining whether the potential benefits of the law outweigh the risks of it being struck down.

With that out of the way, let's take a look at what constitutional issues seemingly raised by the Accountability Act. There appear to be two issues at stake: first, whether or not courts receive some authority to review some actions by cabinet ministers acting in their capacity as MPs, and second, the manner in which Parliament determines its voting procedures.

In each case, it's the affected group itself which will determine whether or not to pass the law in the first place, which eliminates the usual concerns about imposing a law on a group with no ability to fight it. The real issue is the extent to which Parliament has the ability through a majority vote on a bill to modify either the rights of a cross-section of its individual members, or the process by which parts of its internal procedure are determined. Yes, it is a constitutional issue, but more based on fine lines involving division of powers within the same body than on anything approaching important individual rights.

Moreover, future Parliaments will have the ability to restore the status quo ante in the future: obviously this Parliament couldn't bind a future Parliament which chose by a majority to pursue a different path. Needless to say, that ability to reverse the questionable statute isn't present for most people on the wrong end of a possible constitutional violation.

I'll grant that there's a serious need to look at the issues raised by Walsh (as well as other issues related to the Accountability Act) to determine whether the rewards do outweigh the risks, and in that regard the memos should be made available for review. But the presence of some advice to the effect that the legislation may violate traditional Parliamentary rights should be a much smaller issue than the substantive contents of the Accountability Act - both in terms of what the Cons have put in, and what they've omitted or planned to cut out. And if the Accountability Act does get shot down based to any substantial degree on arcane issues of Parliamentary privilege, that seems likely only to play into the Cons' hands when they claim that opposition obstruction is more of a problem than the potential for a Con majority.

(Edit: typo.)

A small step to nowhere

CanWest discusses the Cons' senate reform plan in a bit more detail. And it's worth noting that even the seemingly modest starting point is one which may not pass constitutional muster:

Several Liberal senators challenged the government's interpretation that the proposed constitutional amendment required to make the change does not require the approval of at least seven provinces, representing 50 per cent of the population.

Liberal Senator Percy Downe recalled that during his time working in the Prime Minister's Office under Jean Chretien, the Justice Department advised on more than one occasion that such an amendment would require so-called "seven-50" approval in order to be constitutional...

Liberal Senator Sharon Carstairs, whose father was also a senator, argued that eight-year terms should be considered a "fundamental change" to the chamber and require the approval of the provinces.

I presume some of the past advice will become public in greater detail as the Harper proposal gets debated; for now there are at least plausible arguments to be made on both sides, and it may well take a judicial challenge of a final bill (or, if Harper is thinking ahead, an SCC reference) to determine just what can and can't be done without provincial approval.

Also of interest is the fact that Marjory LeBreton, Harper's point person on Senate reform, apparently sees it as a selling point that current Senators and others could potentially be elected to the Senate long after the current age-75 limit for appointments. As I argued yesterday, the formal barriers to entry or continuation in the Senate seems like a good place to start, but dealing with the upper age limit alone seems like an odd way of going about it. After all, has Canada really been suffering for lack of Strom Thurmonds in our upper chamber?

On wilful ignorance

Diane Finley has claimed that no child-care spaces were created in her riding even though 100 actually were. Jim Prentice is now claiming that no money went to help rebuild Kashechewan after last year's rebuilding agreement, even though $9 million apparently found its way there. Are the Cons actually paying the slightest bit of attention to how the Libs ran the country (and how to improve on that standard), or are they merely reflexively denying that the federal government did anything but send troops to Afghanistan over the past 13 years?

(Edit: typo.)

On winning allies

Lorne Calvert has won a surprising convert to the cause of removing natural resource revenues from the equalization formula, as Dalton McGuinty has come onside with a position previously pushed only by Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Cons' federal platform:

After meeting with Saskatchewan Premier Lorne Calvert on Thursday, McGuinty said he won't oppose excluding non-renewable resource revenues for the complicated federal revenue-sharing formula.

"I've told Lorne that I certainly will not argue against that," McGuinty told reporters at the Saskatchewan legislature.

"I've come away today with a much better understanding of Saskatchewan's perspective and I also must say that I don't know how the prime minister is going to be able to move away from the commitment he made to exclude non-renewables from the calculations of equalization."

The move is particularly surprising in light of Harper's decision to reclassify the Cons' campaign promise as a "preference". With the Cons' position in doubt, it seems highly likely that a concerted effort from central and eastern Canada could have isolated Saskatchewan and Alberta on the issue. But it's a testament to Calvert that he was able to persuade McGuinty...and the effect is to send the ball back into Harper's court.

With one of the provinces which figured to be a major opponent of the cause now working with Calvert on the issue, Harper will face the choice of keeping his promise after all and losing some face with Charest and Lord, or utterly betraying his party's base solely in order to win favour in Quebec and the Maritimes. And with Ontario not taking a strong position one way or the other, that leaves a strong likelihood that this time Harper's desire to push further into Quebec won't be the deciding factor.

Getting nowhere

Despite Harper's best efforts to fabricate confrontation then stomp his feet while complaining that he can't get anything done in a minority Parliament, and despite the Cons' attempts to muzzle their less sane members, the Canadian public isn't any more eager to see a Con majority now than it was during the 2006 campaign:

Canadians may be willing to re-elect Stephen Harper's Conservatives but they're hesitant about a Tory majority, a new national poll suggests.

The Decima survey put support for the Conservatives at 38 per cent - slightly higher than on election day but lower than other recent polls. Forty-three per cent of respondents said they wanted to see the Conservatives win the next election, but just 30 per cent said they'd like to see Harper form a majority government.

Compare to the numbers from a poll taken December 29-31:

Nationwide, the poll found 52 per cent of respondents considered the prospect of a Liberal majority undesirable, while 25 per cent found it desirable and 23 per cent found it acceptable.

The results were almost identical for a Tory majority: 56 per cent found that prospect undesirable, 25 per cent desirable and 19 per cent acceptable.

In sum, the Cons' honeymoon period has done little to nothing to increase Canadians' confidence in Harper as a majority PM. And based on the Cons' meager record in government, it's hard to see how that confidence could possibly increase heading into the next federal election.

On upper-chamber renovations

A couple of thoughts on the Cons' bill on Senate tenure.

First, the bill scrupulously avoids imposing any new tenure limit on current Senators for now. But for the future, it still seem awfully likely that Harper will end up running into a roadblock of current Lib Senators...and once there's a precedent for setting term limits through legislation, it's not hard to anticipate Harper trying to apply it to existing terms in the future. Which means that it's understandable that the current Senate is being cautious about opening the door at all.

Second, it's interesting also that in making a small step to open up the Senate to institutional change, Harper isn't starting with the formal age- and property-related barriers to Senate appointment in ss. 23(1), (3) and (4) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Indeed, the current bill specifically maintains the application of s. 31 (which provides in part for removal from the Senate where a Senator falls below the initial property ownership requirement) to current Senators.

Of course, the greater potential application of the barriers would be in the case of people elected to a Senate position (whether through existing provincial processes or a future federal one), who could either be on the lower side of 30, or fail to meet the property ownership requirement. So it appears likely that the change would have to be made at some point in any event in order for the Cons to reach their final goal of an elected Senate.

The artificial barriers should be a less controversial point of attack if one wanted to try to make the Senate a more legitimate body than it is now, and it doesn't appear that there would be any more constitutional difficulty in changing them than in adding a future term limit. But instead of starting with the easier target, the Cons have chosen to pursue a reduction in stability for future Senate members without opening the door to anybody who's currently (arbitrarily) ineligible for the Senate. And it'll be interesting to hear their explanation for finding that to be a more worthwhile effort.

That wonderful Con consistency

So let's get this straight. According to Rona Ambrose and other Cons, the Kyoto Protocol is utterly useless because some of the world's largest emitters wouldn't face any restrictions until the second phase of the agreement. But when it comes to a "partnership" where the largest partner refuses to do anything...well, what could be wrong with that?

Nicely played

While the provinces make their case for child care funding, Olivia Chow highlights the taxbacks within the Cons' "child care plan":

At a press conference in Ottawa today, NDP Children and Youth Critic Olivia Chow (Trinity – Spadina), unveiled a giant cheque for $224 million, made out to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. This cheque - presented as a gift in the name of parents and kids who need child care - represents the government's windfall federal tax grab from working families who receive the so-called Universal Child Care Benefit, according to the respected Caledon Institute.

"A lot of families, who have already been left hanging on waiting lists for child care spaces, are in for another rude awakening next year when they see their tax bill,” said Chow. “They’ll be sending big cheques back to Ottawa, the overall total will mean $224 million in federal income tax on the Benefit. And the hardest hit Canadians will be single parents and working families, while the lowest taxes may be paid by the stay-at-home spouses in wealthier families.”

Chow says that rather than giving with one hand and taking with the other, the government should secure child care for those who need it, and transfer this $224 million tax grab to the provinces to create child care spaces.

Unfortunately, the limited request made by the provinces so far may make it difficult to secure an amount toward actual child care comparable to that implied by the NDP's stand. But then, the provinces' suggestion may also start to sound good to Diane Finley when compared even to the amount taxed back under the Cons' plan. It only remains to be seen whether Chow's position receives enough attention and support to force the Cons' hand.

On positions of convenience

With Gordon O'Connor now trying to claim that Canada's mission in Afghanistan doesn't involve a war, and the Cons arguing that the Geneva Convention is thus of no application, it's worth taking a look at whether that's been a consistent position for the Cons. And to nobody's surprise, the answer is...not so much.

For example, here's Stephen Harper a couple of months back:

When it was suggested that people oppose the mission because it's not Canada's war, Harper quickly interjected.

"But it is our war."

And lest this appear to be another difference of perspective between Harper and O'Connor, O'Connor himself has argued that Afghanistan is a "war" for the purposes of the Geneva Conventions:

We are quite satisfied with the agreement. It protects prisoners under the Geneva agreement and all other war agreements.

And for good measure:

I would imagine that we also keep track of the prisoners that we capture, that is, we know whom we captured by name, et cetera, and that there would be a way for us to check on where these prisoners are and how they are treated. Also the Red Cross can be sent in to check on prisoners in war zones.

In other words, in addition to being wrong on their face, the current word games don't reflect anything approaching a consistent Con position either. Which means that if the readily foreseeable results of trying to deny that a war is a war come to pass, the Cons won't even be able to claim to have stuck to any consistent principle other than a desire to maximize their own power.

Update: According to the latest O'Connor spin, the Geneva Convention is being applied in Afghanistan, even though it doesn't technically apply and Canada won't hold anybody to it. I'm sure there's no way that sort of confusion could go wrong.

On stonewalling

While the provinces are doing their best to propose a compromise on child care, so far Diane Finley is too busy ignoring the spaces already created in her own riding to listen:

The provinces and territories were rebuffed by federal Human Resources Minister Diane Finley as they presented a united front asking for the Tories to provide money to the provinces for child-care spaces.

NDP Learning Minister Deb Higgins said the provinces thought the Conservatives might be becoming more flexible on the potential use of the $250-million annually it has pledged for tax breaks and grants to create child-care spaces starting next year.

"The frustration for us was that it really provided no validation for the plans and the work and the experience that comes out of the provinces and the territories," Higgins told reporters at the legislature outside a meeting of the provincial cabinet Tuesday morning. "The big concern is that if they spend $250-million on developing spaces, who pays for the ongoing operations and how is that accommodated for? (Finley) again talked about these spaces being self-sustaining, which is pretty impractical when you're looking at lower or low-income families ... There was a fairly blunt meeting in the afternoon and I have to say a fair bit of frustration coming out of it."

If anything, the provinces' willingness to work with the $250 million as the guiding number for creating spaces is more of a concession than they should have had to make. As I've discussed before, a genuine compromise should involve enough funding going to the provinces to make up for the number of spaces which are planned for under the Con plan.

But even with the provinces asking for less than they could be reasonably seeking, the result so far has been a deaf ear from the Cons. And it's not hard to understand the provinces' frustration under those circumstances.

On vicious cycles

The CP reports that due to another anticipated hot summer, Ontario's government is once again planning to push back its target date to take Ontario's coal-fired power plants out of service. And with the country's largest emissions-reduction initiative once again put on the back burner, Ontarians may have all the more hot summers to look forward to in the future.

On slow progress

The Privacy Commissioner's annual report to Parliament was released today to little fanfare:

In her annual report to Parliament on Tuesday, Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart promised her office will be "more assertive ensuring all businesses are complying" with the five-year-old federal act protecting personal information.

"We are considering seeking amendments that would give the privacy commissioner the discretion to visit private sector entities and review their privacy management framework and practices," said the report, adding this power could be used "even when a privacy breach has not become public."...

(T)he privacy commissioner says her office needs stable, longterm funding and an increased budget - as well as more broadly defined powers - to carry out more privacy audits.

While it would certainly be a plus to see those types of changes, what seems more interesting to me in the report itself is that Stoddart appears mostly satisfied with the current enforcement mechanisms, under which the Privacy Commissioner is only able to make recommendations rather than binding orders:

As familiarity with privacy standards increases, so does the expectation that they will be observed. It is no longer acceptable that violations of personal information protection norms do not lead to direct remedial action. In 2005, I began asking organizations that are the subject of well-founded complaints to state the corrective measures they would take. I would then decide whether to seek a remedy for the complainant in Federal Court. To date, in the few situations where I have used this approach, almost all organizations have rapidly committed to providing redress and making systemic changes.

We continue to monitor whether the systemic changes we recommended have occurred in response to complaints made in previous years. Again, the overall compliance rate is high and, once we intervene following a complaint, the level of cooperation by organizations is generally commendable.

It's understandable to some extent that Stoddart's current priority is to secure enough funding and government support for the Privacy Commissioner to be able to exercise the office's current powers. But in the longer term, one has to figure that the current lack of "direct remedial action" will give rise to a need to extend the Commissioner's powers beyond merely making recommendations. And it's a shame that such a goal seems distant enough that Stoddart's current report doesn't make any significant push in that direction.

On appreciating one's benefits

David Himmelstein of Harvard analyzes data from the Joint Canada/U.S. Survey of Health and confirms the obvious: that Canadians pay less than Americans for better health care, but that Americans are for some reason happier with their worse and more expensive care. Funny how actually having access to care tends to lead to higher expectations.

A new voice

For now, health-care issues seem to be largely on the back burner. But next time they come to the forefront, there will be a new group of medical practitioners fighting to strengthen the public system:

"Canadians deserve and expect more," Doctors for Medicare said in a prepared statement, noting the endorsement last summer by a majority of CMA delegates of private health-care insurance for patients who don't get timely treatment through the publicly funded system...

The group cited concern about recent "close calls" with privatization in health-care proposals of Alberta and Quebec. "Both Quebec and Alberta have looked over the precipice and, fortunately, stepped back and made the right choices," said Dr. Tom Noseworthy, a Calgary critical-care specialist who chairs the Western Canada waiting-list project.

"But it's going to happen again and we should focus our energy and our efforts on a publicly funded universal system and stop believing in the myths that a private parallel system will make us better off, because it won't."

It remains to be seen whether the new group will receive as much press as is given to similar groups backing privatization. But it's still a plus to know there's one more organized ally in the fight to preserve a universal and public health-care system.

Opportunity and risk

Having gutted the existing Kyoto policy and pulled funding away from the development of alternatives, surely the Cons should at least be willing to put some money into one of the few environmentally-friendly developments that they're actually willing to publicly support, right? Sadly, not so much, as a Canadian ethanol innovator is looking at building in the U.S. for lack of Canadian government support:

Canada's Iogen Corp. is the best in the world at converting plant fibre into ethanol -- today's hot alternative fuel -- but the biotechnology leader could end up building its first commercial-scale operation in the United States if Ottawa doesn't match support offered by Washington...

(Iogen's) first commercial-scale plant would cost about $260-million (U.S.), and most of this would have to be borrowed if the project seeks private-sector lending.

But private-sector lenders are anxious about lending for a pioneering technology -- and require a government guarantee -- even though Canada and the United States are set to boost consumption of the biofuel. Ottawa and the provinces have agreed on a target to mandate that gasoline and diesel contain 5 per cent biofuel by 2010.

"Lenders are nervous of new technology -- mandate or no mandate. A mandate doesn't create a market for new technology. Somebody has to step up to the plate and share the risk of commercializing new technology with the private sector," Mr. Passmore said.

Note that the requested support isn't direct investment, only a guarantee against a private loan. Which means that at worst, the result could be an investment in a risk worth taking...and at best, a guarantee could wind up costing nothing while ensuring that Canada is home to an important step forward in ethanol production.

The article suggests that Iogen hasn't yet "had a chance" to discuss the matter with Harper's government. But it's hard to see how that would be the case if the Cons were giving serious attention to Iogen's efforts. It may soon be too late to enable Canada to take a lead role on greenhouse gas emissions even by the Cons' unduly narrow terms...and it'll take much more effective action than we've seen from the Con camp so far to get the job done.

On not wanting to know

CBC reports that in addition to cutting actual emissions-reduction programs, the Cons are also pulling funding for feasibility studies on future projects:

A Saskatchewan feasibility study on building a $1-billion "near-zero-emission" coal-fired electricity plant is on hold for now.

Ottawa is reviewing both the proposed study on the coal plant and a second proposal — a feasibility study on a "polygeneration" plant that would use gasified coal to power industry.

It's bad enough that the Cons have hacked away at programs which were going to make some progress in reducing emissions. But at a stage when the Cons are supposed to be developing their own solution, it's all the more inexcusable that they're shutting down research as to which projects will represent the best investment in the long run.

Questionable

The CanWest papers are trumpeting a poll reflecting Canadians' lack of knowledge about Kyoto. But it can't be helping matters that the poll itself seems to have gone out of its way to misinform those polled on the issue:

Guilbeault suggested some of the questions in the poll may have been biased, including one that asked whether people would support Kyoto if it resulted in 200,000 job cuts and $16 billion in economic losses.

"This is such crap," said Guilbeault. "The Quebec industrial sector reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by 9.9 per cent between 1990 and 2003, (and) increased production. So that's 11/2 times Kyoto, and I didn't see them laying people off and losing billions of dollars of money. This is ridiculous."

Funny how any question about whether people would support Kyoto if it prevents Canada's coastal areas from ending up underwater seems to have missed the cut, even though there's at least as strong a causal connection to be drawn to that outcome than to purely speculative job losses.

On divisive choices

Wouldn't it be ironic if the Cons' effort to cozy up to Bush by refusing to seriously challenge the impending border requirement ends up causing people from both countries to stop making the effort to deal with each other?

From bad to worse

While the headline focuses on the Libs' failings, a C.D. Howe Institute report highlights the fact that neither the Libs nor the Cons has anything to be proud of when it comes to dealing with greenhouse gas emissions:

The Liberals' $12-billion plan to implement the Kyoto Protocol over seven years would have been largely ineffective, says an as-yet unpublished report by the C.D. Howe Institute...

(According to the report, Project Green) would have reduced emissions by 175 megatonnes compared with a business-as-usual scenario, far short of the 230 to 300 Mt. reduction required to meet Canada's Kyoto target...

Prime Minister Stephen Harper could use the report to buttress his claims about the ineffectiveness of the Liberal plan, but he probably won't like the alternatives it recommends.

The most effective policy would likely be a gradually rising tax on greenhouse gas emissions, combined with reductions in other taxes to ensure no net tax increase, says the report.

The main Conservative response to climate change so far has been to make transit passes tax deductible, which experts say will have little effect on emissions.

As noted in the article, the most important lesson to take from the report is that voluntary standards are essentially doomed to failure. It'll take decisive action, not mere suggestion, to make any real dent in greenhouse gas emissions. And if neither the past government nor the current one has shown any willingness to consider the possibility, that speaks only to their lack of interest in doing more than giving the appearance of caring about the issue.

On dictating terms

Last night, I discussed Alberta's plan to regulate greenhouse gas emissions using an "intensity" standard rather than one which would actually result in emission reductions. I didn't deal with the curious argument that the standard would be the "toughest" in Canada, a claim which flies in the face of the stated intention of at least two provinces to meet the Kyoto standard. On further reflection, though, I have to wonder whether the claim is an attempt to set the terms of any harmonization of provincial regulations.

After all, I'd noted a few weeks ago that Alberta and B.C. are working toward an agreement which "forces both governments to harmonize rules and regulations to the higher of the two standards". Might Alberta be trying now to claim that its intensity-based standard is "higher" in order to avoid being bound by Kyoto-based regulations in a later expansion of the regulatory accord?

On unfortunate imitation

Alberta's provincial government is apparently taking up the strategy of the federal Cons, claiming to be dealing with global warming in hopes of winning praise, despite ample evidence that the effort is something less than serious:

Alberta says it will shortly clamp down on emissions of greenhouse gases -- perhaps as early as next year -- introducing regulations that the oil-producing province's Environment Minister claims will be the toughest in Canada...

Alberta has had climate-change legislation for two years, but Environment Minister Guy Boutilier said this week he aims to introduce enabling regulations by September. The details of the plan are still being formed, but this much is clear: Alberta's regulations will focus on heavy industry and they will require companies to do less than would be the case under Kyoto, over a longer period of time.

Environment Department spokeswoman Kim Hunt said the province is contemplating regulations that will set goals for reducing the emissions intensity in industries. Using such goals, a firm operating in the oil sands, one of the fastest growing sources of greenhouse gases in Canada, would be required to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases generated from each barrel of production. But overall emissions could still rise substantially as production increased.

Fortunately, neither environmental nor industry groups are rewarding the province with the press it wants just yet:

"The environment doesn't care about intensity targets," said Marlo Raynolds, executive director for the Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development...

Pierre Alvarez, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, said his industry has been working with the province on greenhouse-gas regulation for several years, but will need to see the specific regulations before voicing an opinion. Mr. Raynolds of Pembina echoed that view, saying it is difficult to know whether to praise or condemn Alberta's plan at the moment.

It's a plus to see that provincial governments in general are at least acknowledging the need for action. But we can't afford to have the jury out much longer while the effects of global warming continue to pile up...and it'll take a lot more willingness to genuinely address the issue (rather than merely pretending through "intensity" targets) before there'll be any chance of real progress.

On high-yield investments

For all the talk about the need to encourage research in Canada, shouldn't it be a no-brainer to spend the $30-40 million per year needed to keep federal research buildings from falling apart?

Well said

Randy Burton tears into Harper for his media policy:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he's not talking to the national press anymore.

Instead, he'll be taking his message on the road to local reporters across the country. They, at least, still want to know what his government is doing, or so he believes...

One can only hope that Harper will be more amenable to straying from the script than the last time he was here. That was in the midst of the 2004 election campaign, when he refused to answer any questions about agriculture in Saskatoon because his schedule dictated that he speak only about health care.

You can see the problem. Local questions are useless without local answers.

I don't agree with Burton's later discussion of whether media coverage of politics is needed at all; it would seem to me that a lack of reporting on politics in general would be the best-case scenario for a government looking to put one over on the public. But it's nonetheless great to see local media refusing to leap at the opportunity to act as Harper's mouthpiece.

Backtracking

It's only a start, but today's news stories have the Cons ceding to public pressure to at least some extent on both Kyoto and media access to soldier repatriation. While Harper and company naturally aren't admitting to having changed their position on either, it's fairly obvious that Harper is in retreat from his earlier attempts to dictate the interests of Canadians. And the door is now wide open for the child-care movement and the provinces, among others, to gain some ground as well.

Update: Politics'n'Poetry has more.

A needed complaint

While I don't agree with Democracy Watch that election promises should be enforceable through the Parliamentary Ethics Commissioner, it never hurts to point out the long list of Con promises which have already gone by the wayside:

The lobby group Democracy Watch has launched a formal complaint with the federal ethics commissioner accusing the Conservative government of breaking election promises...

Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch says Bill C-2 - the federal Accountability Act - breaks or omits 13 specific promises made by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in the run-up to the Jan. 23 vote.

Included on Conacher's list were Tory promises to require ministers to record all contacts with lobbyists, to protect all whistleblowers, to promptly disclose whistleblower complaints, to close conflict loopholes for ministers and to allow the public to launch ethics complaints.

Conacher says the new Accountability Act also deletes from the ethics code a clause requiring politicians, their staff and senior public servants to "act with honesty."

Of course, it's pretty clear that the lack of a public complaints mechanism itself undermines any chance of action on Democracy Watch's list. But with one of the groups which threw much of its support to the Cons last election now rightfully decrying Harper's broken promises, there should be plenty of opportunity for the opposition parties to find common cause with Conacher in holding the Cons accountable.

On message management

It was just a few weeks ago that Harper claimed that the public comments one of his more rabid MPs couldn't be taken to represent the views, or be the responsibility, of his government:

(T)he member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin has already said that these are his own personal views and that they do not represent the position of the government. They certainly do not represent the position of the government...

Mr. Speaker, as I just said, as the member himself said, his position does not reflect that of either the Conservative Party or the Conservative government.

But it hasn't taken long for the government to take full control over the message of its non-cabinet members:

The Prime Minister's Office has warned Conservative MPs not to comment on the marriage next month of two gay RCMP constables.

The gag order went to all MPs but was aimed at "the small minority who might say something stupid," said one caucus member.

In other words, the precedent has been set for Harper determining what may and may not be subject to a Con comment. Which means that next time one of the Cons goes off the deep end, it can fairly be said that Harper either wasn't paying enough attention to anticipate the comment in keeping with past practice, or didn't disagree with the message enough to try to stop it. Either way, the result should be all the more residual responsibility lying with the government as a whole.

Greg at Sinister Thoughts has more, including the exciting "guess who's being specifically muzzled" game.

On honest assessments

It remains to be seen what the Cons do with regard to foreign investment, but based on briefing notes of Industry Minister Maxime Bernier the operative principle seems to be a desire to make any review action less transparent and publicly accessible:

However, the notes point out that there are also a variety of direct and indirect barriers to foreign investment in other sectors of the economy, including broadcasting, entertainment, books and film, transportation, banking, and uranium production.

"While Canada has no general restrictions on the establishment of new foreign businesses, the Investment Canada Act allows the federal government to review large acquisitions for 'net benefit.'"...

"Most of our trading partners do not have a systemic screening process," the notes state, although they add that those trading partners use other less visible methods to screen out unwanted investments, including security measures.

So just how much investment has been kept out of Canada by the review process? By all indications, only investors who are utterly failing to pay attention to the facts could consider the Investment Canada review to be a significant obstacle:

The current rules for foreign investment in Canada are governed by the Canada Investment Act. Under this act, since 1985, a total of 10,928 foreign acquisitions were reviewed. Stunningly, 87% acquisitions were automatically approved without review and the remaining 13% were reviewed and approved. No proposals brought forward by foreign investors have been rejected.

In other words, the Cons' apparent goal of gutting the Investment Canada process wouldn't have the slightest effect on whether foreign investment is approved. The difference would be the lack of even a pretence of being able to evaluate investments...which would presumably leave Canada in the same position as other countries in having to make up reasons to reject deals if necessary.

From the article, it doesn't sound like there's any strong commitment one way or the other so far. But it'll be one more indication of the power hunger of the Cons if they end up going out of their way to create a less honest and transparent system to deal with foreign investment.

Just wondering...

While I can understand some of the motivations behind the bloggers supporting David Karwacki's campaign in Weyburn-Big Muddy, shouldn't it be a bit of a warning sign when a party's second-biggest issue is the script of a movie which has long since been filmed and aired?

An embarrassment to journalism

While Harper continues his hissy-fit over allegations of anti-Con bias in the media, Linda Frum goes out of her way to prove that ample space is already available for the most blatant of Con hackery. Among the questions from her Q & A with Gwyn Morgan:

Why not, though? If you lose the courage to point out the obvious -- who else will do it?...

So if revenge was part of it, and intolerance for the truth was part of it, do you have any sense that part of why you were shot down was because the Liberals were embarrassed about the very need for a public appointments commission?...

What was the political motivation of the Bloc members who voted against you?...

So once again, they didn't like your ideas. But isn't this the whole point? The Liberals, NDP, and Bloc shot you down not because you weren't qualified -- but because your personal political opinions do not reflect theirs. Weren't any of them embarrassed to be acting in such a partisan manner on an initiative that was designed to wipe out partisanship in appointments?...

As so many of the country's editorialists have pointed out, there is a fear that as a result of your experience, other highly capable, leading Canadians will look at this as one more reason to shun public service. And that's a terrible loss for a country that craves a higher calibre political class...

Well, I hope you won't give up on your vision because it's a good one...

But at the same time, I hope you will never be tempted to temper your remarks or refrain from telling the truth as you see it...

Not that the Frum name is generally associated with anything less these days. But suffice it to say that Harper's petulant attempts to work the refs can't hide the fact that the Cons are already on the receiving end of far too many puff pieces. And the willingness of some in the media to spout Harperspeak unquestioningly should only ensure that those media figures interested in being independent try all the harder to avoid allowing such a trend to progress any further.

On practical applications

Word comes out that scientists are working on an invisibility cloak. The article cites potential military uses as the current plan, with no word yet as to whether the Harper cabinet is also at the top of the customer list.

On targets

While Harper may yet believe he can win a large number of Canada's premiers to his side when it comes to equalization, at the moment he's losing provincial support by the day with his stubborn refusal to acknowledge the importance of the Kyoto Protocol:

Yesterday, Manitoba Premier Gary Doer said he has no intention of changing the province's commitment to its Kyoto targets, even if the federal government backs out of the agreement.

"I support Kyoto," Mr. Doer said. "We supported Kyoto before the Liberal government committed to it. We supported it after they committed to it and we support it now."

Mr. Doer said Manitoba will exceed the accord's emissions targets...

Quebec Environment Minister Claude Béchard said if Ottawa agrees to fund Quebec's emission-reduction targets, other provinces will demand the same treatment. "The first step is for them to give us the money. The second step will be for other provinces to demand equivalent amounts. That will make it difficult for Ottawa to reject Kyoto," Mr. Béchard told reporters yesterday.

Mr. Charest said Tuesday that Quebec would meet its Kyoto targets, regardless of whether Ottawa pulls out of the agreement...

"We are partially disappointed with the federal government's retreat on Kyoto, because we have been working on this for 10, 15 years. Many Quebec companies did the efforts to reduce emissions, and now it's as if we were being told that it was all for nothing," Mr. Béchard said.

It's particularly noteworthy that even as Harper tries to claim that the Kyoto targets can't be met, at least two provinces have made clear that they're under no such illusion, regardless of whether or not the Cons decide to direct federal funding to other priorities (or inefficient means of dealing with emissions). And if Harper decides to ignore the unanimous will of Quebec's National Assembly as well as the majority of Parliament, he'll look all the worse in the long run as his defeatist rhetoric is proven wrong.

Update: The CP goes into more detail about the existing agreements now being ignored by the Cons:

The federal government appears set to walk away from Liberal agreements that would have given the provinces millions of dollars to cut greenhouse gas emissions...

The Liberals had promised $538 million to Ontario and $328 million to Quebec for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Memorandums of understanding had also been reached with Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan.

Balanced arguments

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives offers an oft-neglected view on federal/provincial relations:

(The CCPA report) proposes that provinces relieve their cash crunch by actually ceding some powers to Ottawa.

Among other things, the report suggests Ottawa take over responsibility, and pay, for a national pharmacare program, social assistance and labour market training...

Lee contends the imbalance in Canada, one of the most decentralized federations in the world, is less than that of many countries.

He notes the provinces have access to all the same sources of tax revenue as the federal government, plus exclusive access to natural resource royalties and profits from lotteries, gaming and liquor. If they need more money, they could simply raise taxes, but instead provinces have cut taxes by an estimated $30 billion.

"To the extent that provincial finances are in bad shape, provincial governments deserve much of the blame due to tax cuts over the past decade," he wrote...

Lee argues that giving the provinces tax room "in the name of fixing a phoney fiscal imbalance would actually worsen regional inequalities." He points out that poorer provinces would have to raise their taxes much higher than rich provinces to generate the same amount of revenues.

Moreover, oil-rich Alberta might choose not to raise its taxes at all, putting pressure on other provinces to keep their tax rates competitive, even if it means shortchanging social programs.

Now, I wouldn't want to see the federal government starting up new programs as recommended by Lee without a large degree of provincial agreement. And it seems likely that with few exceptions (possibly including the drug-purchasing aspect of a pharmacare program), the provinces would prefer to see federal funding for provincially-controlled initiatives than new programs administered solely by the federal government.

That said, it's worth noting the degree to which provincial tax-cutting policies have exacerbating funding problems...and the strong likelihood that a tax-point transfer would do nothing but continue a vicious cycle. And Canada will be much better off in the long run to pursue an agreement which leads to direct federal funding for national priorities, rather than another round of passing the bucks without a purpose.

Escalation

Harper raises the stakes in the fight he can't win, declaring that he'll no longer speak to the national media. It doesn't look like the media side is upping the ante again just yet...but when it does, the logical next step is to extend the same treatment to (and about) Harper. And it's hard to see Harper managing to keep his pouty face on for long after losing access to the country's most visible media sources.

A fair request

Judy Wasylycia-Leis points out the costs to small businesses of the Cons' GST cut, and has a reasonable suggestion to put the cost where it belongs:

NDP Finance Critic Judy Wasylycia-Leis today called on the Conservative government to provide assistance to small businesses to relieve the financial burden of converting to the new GST rate.

“It’s unfair to expect small businesses, many with few resources and tight cash-flows, to pay hundreds of dollars out of their pockets to accommodate this Conservative policy change,” said Wasylycia-Leis. “The government has an obligation to provide substantial help to ensure that the cost of delivering this tax cut doesn’t fall in the laps — and on the books — of small businesses.”

A recent poll by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business found that 40 per cent of small businesses expect to pay outside firms to change over their accounting systems to the lower 6 percent GST rate announced in the recent budget. The average cost is expected to run between $500 and $600.

Considering the amount of money thrown around in tax cuts in this year's budget, it would seem a reasonable investment to ensure that smaller businesses aren't worse off as a result of the Cons' tax policy. We'll find out soon whether the Cons really are interested in enabling entrepreneurs to survive and thrive...or whether they're content making matters tougher for Canada's small businesses.

Heh

Declan at Crawl Across the Ocean puts anti-Kyoto sentiment in context.

Same old same old

So the much-ballyhooed Conservative plan on renewable fuels is to hold another meeting in six months, and to answer none of the questions from grain producers and owners of current ethanol-based stations who are ready to expand the industry now. And this is supposed to be a change from PMPM's proud tradition of dithering?

On minority rule

CanWest reported earlier today that both the NDP and the Libs have called Harper's bluff on a public appointments commission, and plan to vote to keep that commission in the Accountability Act.

Sadly, the Bloc doesn't appear to be onside, which should allow the Cons to pull the language from the statute (along with utterly cementing the Bloc's lack of interest in an effective and accountable federal government). But if the Bloc can be persuaded to work with the other opposition parties, a successful move to keep the provision in would put the Cons in a severe bind.

Would the Cons try to ignore the current bill and introduce a new act in order to avoid a vote to keep the current language? Would they torpedo the entire Accountability Act as a response to the opposition's attempt to pass this part of the legislation as the Cons originally wrote it? Or would Harper admit that Gwyn Morgan isn't the sole Canadian capable of heading up the commission, and put up a new nomination which at least one of the opposition parties could live with?

We may never know the answers. But it's not hard to see how much more interesting the current Parliament would be if we did get to find out.

First steps

It's well short of the outright blackout which seems to be required for Harper to really take notice. But nonetheless, kudos to much of Ottawa's press gallery for sending the message that it won't be taken for granted.

Unhealthy effects

CBC reports that crackdowns on illegal immigrants may be creating a major public health risk as undocumented residents avoid medical care for fear of being deported:

Some Toronto doctors are asking the federal government to ease up on deportations after recent high-profile removals have spooked many illegal migrants into cancelling appointments at clinics serving the uninsured.

"If they keep pushing these people further underground, it's going to be not just a tragedy for these people's health but a huge public health concern down the road," said Dr. Meb Rashid, of Toronto's Access Alliance Multicultural Community Health Centre.

"This population is most vulnerable to infectious diseases such as typhoid, malaria, tuberculosis and HIV. If an epidemic breaks out, there's no way we'd be able to control that."...

No statistics are available, but physician volunteers say they noted an increase in the number of medical cancellations after several high-profile removals precipitated rampant rumours about deportation round-ups in public places.

Whatever one's view on how best to deal with the presence of illegal immigrants, there shouldn't be any doubt that both immigrants themselves, and Canadians in general, will be worse off if medical problems go untreated due to fear of deportation. And it shouldn't be too much to ask that the federal government respond to the fear with assurances that that immigrants won't have to choose between their health and their presence in Canada.

Rewarding failure

I've already discussed Sheila Fraser's criticism of the Canada Revenue Agency's collection department. Now, CTV reports that rather than trying to make changes to an unsatisfactory system, the Cons plan instead to hand even more duties to the CRA, transferring responsibility for the collection of student-loan debt which currently lies with Service Canada:

The collection agency contracts were signed while the Liberals were in government. The Conservatives have taken steps to transfer responsibility for collecting the loans from Service Canada to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).

Diane Finley, the Minister of Human Resources and Development, says transferring the loans to the CRA will be more "efficient" and should cut down on the frequency with which the federal government has to hire collection agencies.

From a principled standpoint, I'd generally agree with a move to keep government functions within government. And based on the way private collection agencies have treated student-loan recipients quoted in the article, there are plenty of reasons to look for a better way to collect on the loans.

But while the general principle would support keeping the function in government, there's always the matter of who should perform the function and how. It doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to suggest that any reasonable mechanism for collecting debt should lie somewhere between merely writing letters then writing the debt off (as the CRA seems wont to do), and hounding debtors over matters as trivial as a changed phone number (as one private collection agency is noted to have done). And it's the government that has the capacity to ensure that such a mechanism is created - preferably by making needed changes to the CRA.

Unfortunately, the Cons' selective attention doesn't seem to have taken into account Fraser's actual criticisms...with the end result that they seem perfectly happy to reward a department which apparently hasn't done anything to fix its own decade-old problems. And that can only mean that the agency's current ineffectiveness will have all the more impact on government receipts in the future.

Fair deal, poor coverage

Last week, two columns addressed the recommendations on EI and other issues released by the Fair Deal Coalition. I held off on commenting at that time in hopes that more details (either in terms of the content of the report itself, or at least in terms of reaction) would go public in the meantime.

Unfortunately that hasn't happened, making it seem all too likely that the Coalition's apparent goal of turning public attention to the issues has already fallen by the wayside. (That's particularly a shame given how easy it would presumably be for the Coalition to at least make the report publicly available through a website.) But before EI reform falls off the radar once again, I'll take a quick spin through some of the key points from the columns.

First, from Thomas Walkom, discussing the difficulty in implementing many of the report's recommendations to stop asking Canada's less wealthy citizens to bear the brunt of as many policy choices as is currently the case:

Sometimes, it's important to underline the obvious. Unemployment insurance should be available to the unemployed. A minimum wage should bear some relationship to the cost of staying alive. Programs designed to reduce poverty should help the poor...

(T)he basic thrust of refocusing attention on poverty and income gaps makes sense. Exactly what will come of it though is unclear. Last year, Paul Martin's former Liberal government agreed to study tax-based wage subsidies, one of the task force's key recommendations. But there was no mention of the idea in this month's Conservative budget.

Other task force proposals will be equally hard political sells. The federal government is making good money from an employment insurance scheme into which almost everyone contributes and from which almost no one is able to draw. It's going to be reluctant to reform that cash cow.

So too with Queen's Park. The Harris government successfully downloaded much of the province's welfare costs onto municipalities. As the task force points out, that makes no sense. If the economy were to spiral into recession again, cities like Toronto could go bankrupt trying to pay their welfare bills.

But having managed to get rid of this cost, will any provincial government be anxious to pick it up again?

The task force says that if we don't act now, we're liable to get hammered later. In a reasonable country, that warning would be taken seriously.

Meanwhile, John Geddes noted that many of the planned program increases would be balanced out by an effort to turn EI into a true insurance program rather than a cash cow:

(A)n unusually wide-ranging alliance, representing everyone from hard-nosed Bay Street economists to soft-hearted social policy advocates, plans to try to make it hard for Harper to ignore (EI) entirely...While their recommendations will try to make sense of the whole ragged patchwork of income-support programs, the push for serious EI reform is the hottest hot button in the mix...

(T)he report's authors know they need to present their blueprint as one that could overcome stiff regional resistance. While they were keeping details secret last week, sources familiar with their proposals said they aim to make an EI overhaul saleable by at the same time calling for Ottawa to substantially boost its funding for other income-support measures. A key goal is to raise the incomes of the working poor, especially in big cities. When he was Paul Martin's finance minister last fall, Ralph Goodale summed up the problem when he noted that reductions in various forms of government assistance can cost an individual going back to work after a stint of unemployment 80 cents for every dollar earned in a new job.

Without seeing the report for myself, I don't have a ton to add to the commentary. It seems obvious enough that Canada would be better off taking the recommendations seriously, and at least taking a close look at the pros and cons of the Coalition's suggestions.

Unfortunately, based on the near-complete lack of coverage it doesn't look like that's going to happen anytime soon. And the result is that many of the Canadians at the base of the country's economic growth will continue to see few of the spoils in the foreseeable future.

A bizarre incentive

The CP follows up on the $18 billion in unpaid income taxes revealed by Sheila Fraser's report last week. And for a government supposedly committed to rewarding those Canadians who play by the rules, some of the problems seem relatively simple to fix:

A tendency in the Canada Revenue Agency to choose "what's easy" over "what's right" is to blame for $18 billion in unpaid taxes uncovered in the auditor general's latest report, some of its current and former employees say.

It's a system plagued by inefficiency, one that rewards managers with financial incentives regardless of whether debts are actually collected, a debt collector at the Toronto North tax office told The Canadian Press...

To meet the budget, collection agents must erase a pre-determined amount from their books. That number can be resolved in two ways - either the debtor pays their taxes, or the collector writes off the account by declaring it "doubtful" or "uncollectable."

"They have big pushes. We have weeks where everyone says there's a deadline coming, we have to write off as much as possible because they set a budget from headquarters," said the employee.

"Everyone goes nuts and writes off all these accounts. It's just weird."

So part of the solution may be as simple as not paying CRA managers to write off debts. Unfortunately, the article notes that some of the same problems have been constant for Canada's tax collectors since the Cons' godfather handed over power to the Libs over a decade ago...meaning that there's a substantial amount of inertia behind the current system, and that the Cons may well see the issue as one which they can ignore due to the Libs' failure to solve anything when they last gained the government benches.

Out of sync with reality

CanWest serves up some undiluted Harper spin in reporting on a new gun-registry poll. The national results:

Overall, the survey results show that 48 per cent of Canadians want the government to maintain a hand gun registry, but support plans to end the long-gun registry, while 47 per cent want to keep both the hand gun and long-gun registries, according to the survey.

Now, this would seem to be a fairly appropriate time for a headline along the lines of, say, "Country split on (gun registry)...". But then, that wouldn't do much to help the cause of forcing a change which would undo the current work put into the registry. So instead, CanWest ignores the general balance to try to make it sound like the provinces with a majority in favour of keeping the long-gun registry are a rare exception to a national consensus.

The most egregious spin is in the headline ("Ont., Que. out of sync on gun registry"), but the article itself also spends more time discussing the provincial divide than noting that there's nothing even remotely approaching a national consensus either for or against the registry.

Another interesting tidbit: take a look at the second question in the poll:

The survey also found there's widespread support for the idea of dismantling at least part of the gun registry and funnelling more money into hiring more police officers.

Nearly half, or 49 per cent, of those surveyed said they want the government to maintain the hand gun and long-gun registries and put more money toward hiring police, while 45 per cent said they want the long-gun registry dismantled and greater funds put toward hiring more police officers.

It's not entirely clear how the two issues are supposed to relate to each other, as it should be obvious that maintaining the gun registry and funding police officers aren't mutually exclusive. Indeed, the only people who seem interested in trying to conflate the two are the Cons. But despite the Cons' effort to link the two, when police funding is brought into the picture, public support for Harper's position actually drops.

Based on that result, it seems that hiring more police officers is a higher priority for most Canadians than scrapping the registry: when it's recognized that it's possible to fund both police officers and the long-gun registry, that position wins more support than either of the options involving the registry alone. With that prioritization in mind, a fair poll surrounding the Cons' plan should also consider whether Canadians want to see RCMP resources used up running a revamped registry. And it seems highly likely that presented with an accurate portrayal of the Cons' plan as opposed to the status quo, a majority of Canadians would support the latter.

A rush to judgment

CTV reports on the latest attempt by the Cons to pick a fight with Canada's judges:

Canadian judges will not be getting the 11 per cent pay hike an independent commission recommended two years ago, CTV News has learned.

Justice Minister Vic Toews will ignore the recommendation -- something he attacked back in December 2004...

Constitutionally, judges aren't allowed to negotiate their salaries, which is why the commission was set up in the first place...

Since the commission reported, the judges have been waiting for the federal government to act.

On this file like so many, some responsibility clearly lies with the Libs for sitting on their hands for a year after the commission reported back. But it apparently isn't taking Toews long to take ownership of the problem by permanently junking the recommended result.

It doesn't seem likely that such a decision will go unchallenged: even if judges themselves would prefer not to see the issue brought into court, a previous set of disputes over judicial compensation led to a wave of applications to have criminal prosecutions dismissed on the basis of compromised independence. In that regard, it's worth noting that the article seems to imply a standard different from the one set out by the Supreme Court of Canada (emphasis added):

25 The government can reject or vary the commission’s recommendations, provided that legitimate reasons are given. Reasons that are complete and that deal with the commission’s recommendations in a meaningful way will meet the standard of rationality. Legitimate reasons must be compatible with the common law and the Constitution. The government must deal with the issues at stake in good faith. Bald expressions of rejection or disapproval are inadequate. Instead, the reasons must show that the commission’s recommendations have been taken into account and must be based on facts and sound reasoning.

The test for judicial review of the government's decision is then as follows (see para. 31 of the linked case, emphasis again added):

(1) Has the government articulated a legitimate reason for departing from the commission’s recommendations?
(2) Do the government’s reasons rely upon a reasonable factual foundation? and
(3) Viewed globally, has the commission process been respected and have the purposes of the commission — preserving judicial independence and depoliticizing the setting of judicial remuneration — been achieved?

It remains to be seen what public justification will be advanced for the Cons' decision to scrap the Commission's recommendations. But based on Toews' comments at the time the commission first reported, it doesn't seem out of the question that the decision could face a serious challenge even on the question of whether his reaction to the recommendation fails as a "bald expression of rejection". And even if the Cons can clear that hurdle, given the well-known antipathy that Harper and his inner circle seem to have for the judiciary, it seems highly likely that the Cons could lose out on the question of whether the process has been unduly politicized.

Of course, it's not hard to see how the issue might appear to be a political winner for the Cons. At the very least, it will presumably help to stir up some parts of the rural base. And it may well succeed in picking a fight which could harm the judiciary more than the Cons. After all, most Canadians won't have considered the inputs before the commission which led to its recommendations. As a result, it may sound to a lot of people as if judges are unfairly demanding a pay hike, when in fact their sole role in the process is in ruling on whether the federal government has met its obligation to be reasonable in rejecting the commission's report.

But then, there's a difference between an issue with political benefits and one worth pursuing in the interests of the country. The Cons' apparent willingness to undermine one of the fundamental pillars of a democratic society for their own personal gain only helps to highlight their disinterest in governing in the best interest of Canadians. And in time, the Cons too will face judgment for that kind of mismanagement.

Question and non-answer

Even by Question Period standards, Rob Moore has set the bar for sheer lack of content - and on a question where one would expect at least some type of prepared answer:

Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on Monday the United Nations will release a report on Canada's human rights record. In recent years Canada has done more to ignore its human rights commitments than it has done to honour them. It is time to end the Liberal legacy of inaction and start complying.

What has the government done to conform with the recommendations that will be made on Monday and what measures has it put in place to ensure an open, transparent and publicly accountable process for coordinating the implementation and compliance of human rights in Canada?

Mr. Rob Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this party and this government support human rights. We support human rights in Canada and we support human rights throughout the world.

It's certainly reassuring to see the Cons taking such a strong stand in favour of the right to say absolutely nothing. But it has to be a concern that they haven't apparently shown enough interest in either the U.N. report or anything else to do with human rights to be able to name a single positive initiative. And as poor as the U.N. report promises to be, matters can only get worse with a government in power so unwilling to pay attention to the problem.

All for show

In case anybody is still under the illusion that John McCain would represent a meaningful upgrade over Bushco's utter contempt for human rights, his comments on Guantanamo should put that to rest:

Senator John McCain agreed that the U.S. should ensure that no prisoner at Guantanamo is subjected to torture. But, he said, closing the prison is premature without a legal resolution to the prisoners' cases.

"I don't think they deserve a fair jury trial, but there should be some sort of adjudication" to decide whether detainees are held for life, executed or released rather than held indefinitely, Mr. McCain said.

In other words, McCain seems to think that a good old-fashioned kangaroo court, with no need to be "fair" to the accused, should resolve all concerns about the way the Guantanamo prisoners have been treated. And moreover, by virtue of having fallen on the wrong side of Bushco, the detainees apparently can't "deserve" anything better.

Sadly, the suggestion is all too likely to eventually find its way into practice, as it would provide a convenient way to deflect some responsibility away from Bush himself while still assuring that the status quo wouldn't change. But for those who think the U.S. should respect the rule of law sufficiently to avoid show trials, it's clear that McCain holds his country to a significantly lower standard.

On just choices

The Edmonton Journal reports on a criminal justice program that's working wonders for the Alexis First Nation. And not surprisingly, it's flexibility and rehabilitation, not blanket sentencing, that's getting the job done:

When an offender comes before the court in Alexis, (Judge Peter) Ayotte and the other three provincial court judges will usually refer the offender to a justice committee, made up of 12 to 16 Alexis community leaders.

If the offender is willing to admit his crime and wants to change his life, the justice committee will set up a rehab program.

The offender will then face the judge again, who will put the offender on probation, rather than send him to jail. Only in the most serious and violent cases do the judges send an offender to jail without input from the justice committee...

"We give people this opportunity, and we are prepared to be as flexible as possible, but (offenders) know, and I say it on the record all the time, 'If you don't comply with the direction of the court that has given you a break, I will ask for jail, and it won't be 14 days, it will be a real jail sentence.' And we do that."

The process has transformed many lives and led to fewer criminal cases at Alexis, (prosecutor Wes) Dunfield says. Court days are not nearly as long as they used to be.

The article notes that similar systems are now being contemplated by several other First Nations reserves. What's less clear, though, is why a similar model couldn't be applied on a much wider basis.

So far the program appears to have reduced both costs and crime, which should surely be positive signs for the system as a whole. And if the program is predicated on close connections between prosecutors, police officers and the community, then that should be a reason to try to build a more community-based model where it doesn't exist now - not a reason to assume that similar initiatives can't be undertaken elsewhere. Indeed, at least some commentators have already suggested wider application of a similar principle.

Of course, the Cons almost certainly won't be interested in a criminal justice system that defines justice in terms of positive post-offence outcomes rather than anger and vengeance. But it'll be worth watching how the Cons' plan for stricter sentencing compares to the Alexis principle of giving a second chance combined with an assurance that any non-compliance will be caught. And based on the results so far, there's every reason to think the Alexis model will come out ahead.