On political surveillance

The CP reports on some of the information-gathering currently undertaken by Canada's main political parties, leading naturally to questions about how political actors should be able to mine and apply data about voters:

(Conservative) Party sources say they are making personalized appeals to thousands of undecided voters in more than 40 ridings they hope to win. They're sending them letters, calling them, and setting up meetings with elected officials from nearby ridings.

It's all part of a data-gathering project that could be the most sophisticated of its kind in Canadian political history. The party has already compiled two million names in an electronic database that records the concerns and political opinions of voters...

Conservatives and opposition parties say they don't buy corporate information on individuals, which would be illegal under the federal Privacy Act. But they identify key neighbourhoods from public-opinion surveys and past election results from individual polling stations within a riding.

Then they can compile information for a single street by using publicly obtained and privately purchased information. Even people's Air Miles cards are used by ad companies and political parties to track their purchasing patterns and demographic data.

It's certainly not surprising that the parties are gathering as much information as possible in order to plot their strategies for upcoming campaigns. But it's worth wondering whether the political system is better or worse off for the strategy - and whether Canada's election rules should be changed to limit the ability of political parties to engage in the current degree of data collection.

Now, it's easy enough to argue that the data merely helps parties to create platforms which best reflect the desires of the targeted voters...making it little more than a more thorough form of canvassing voters for their views, which surely can't be considered a bad thing.

But then there's the problem that no matter how a platform or personalized message is phrased, it may bear little resemblance to the substance of how a party performs in government. And if intensive data mining enables a party to win votes by parroting narrowly-targeted issues and messages rather than by genuinely sharing and applying the same view of government held by constituents, it seems to be a potentially harmful influence on the electoral process.

For better or worse, there doesn't seem to be much prospect of changing the current law, since the current government seems to be ahead in data-mining strategies and since each party in Parliament is presumably leery of giving up information that it's been able to collect and use in the past. Which leads into the question of whether it'll be possible to move away from the demographic targeting model only by making laws to limit its application, or whether there's a real opening for a party to undermine the premise of the model by engaging in a less self-interested policy-making process.

Given what appears to be a great deal of (well-justified) public cynicism about the current system, one would think that the prospect of a party based more on substance than on gloss would hold a significant amount of appeal. But then there's no way to differentiate between the two types of policy based solely on the content of a platform...and any party which spends too much time boasting about its lack of message targeting might well come off as both implausible and naive.

For now, suffice it to say that while it's clear that some targeting is probably inevitable, it's hard to say whether the degree of targeting now taking place (along with any future expansion) is a positive either for the political system generally, or for the parties engaged in it. And since the parties are likely to hold the details and effects of their own strategies rather close to the vest, there doesn't seem to be much prospect of discovering the precise effects unless the targeted voters consider it worth their while to start analyzing political parties as closely as they're being analyzed personally.

Update: Note that the current talk about a voter ID plan could introduce another source of individual information into the mix.

An odd target

The Cons have done plenty that's worthy of criticism since taking power. But it's beyond me how Kevin Baker concludes that "encouraging constituents to stay healthy" ranks anywhere but the very bottom of the list.

Good times

The happiest day of the year offered plenty of good news for Saskatchewan. Not only is the economy projected to keep rolling for the foreseeable future, but the political scene is set to take a turn for the better.

Just wondering...

...but would Liberal leader Bill Graham bother responding seriously to the possibility of the NDP overtaking the Libs if there wasn't a real chance of it happening?

Pointless-3s

A couple of good articles on P3s in B.C. turned up today. First, from the CCPA:

Value for Money? Cautionary Lessons About P3s from British Columbia...examines how P3s have been used for public infrastructure projects such as roads, transit and hospitals in BC and internationally. It finds that:

- P3s are being aggressively pursued in BC in spite of a lack of evidence that they are a superior option.
- P3s are less cost-effective, timely and transparent than traditional government procurement.
- Partnerships BC, whose mandate is both to promote P3s and evaluate whether they are appropriate for use on specific projects, cannot adequately protect the public interest.
- Decision-making about infrastructure projects is being guided by “Value For Money” assessments produced by Partnerships BC that are so subjective, so complicated, and so consistently withheld from public scrutiny that they are not of legitimate use.

Stuart Murray, author of the study and the CCPA’s Public Interest Researcher, says “One rationale after another has been put forward by those who favour P3s, but the only rationale that stands up to scrutiny is that they generate profit for industry. That’s not a good enough reason to pay more for something than it’s worth.”

Meanwhile, the Tyee reports that at least one recent attempt by the Campbell government to strong-arm a municipality into a P3 has succumbed to local resistance:

The most recent round of the debate that's been running since 2001 happened on Monday night when Whistler council met to decide whether to take the proposed P3 to a referendum or cancel the project entirely...

On Monday night, Whistler Water Watch presented the ballots to council. The mayor, Ken Malamed, said was surprised at the (1800 signatures gathered in opposition to the P3 structure), and suggested council extend the vote by two weeks to give the P3 supporters more time to make their case. In the end, however, in a 4-3 decision, the council voted against the extension and also voted against continuing to a referendum. This effectively killed the P3 project.

So where does Campbell fit into the picture?

At the beginning of the debate about how to proceed, in 2001, Mayor Melamed and council rejected a P3 solution entirely. But on May 30, 2002, the B.C. Liberal government announced the creation of a new policy -- the Capital Asset Management Framework -- which requires that public sector agencies investigate alternatives for capital development, including the P3 option.

So after rejecting the P3 option, the province asked Whistler to revisit its decision. And on January 10, 2005, in a 5-2 decision, Whistler announced its support of the P3 option to "design, build and operate" the upgrade to the existing wastewater treatment plant. If the project were to go ahead, design, construction and daily operation would be handed over to a private company.

Fortunately, while Whistler's council was all too easily swayed during the interim, its citizens didn't stand to have a P3 imposed by the province...with the end result that the town should now be free to pursue another publicly-owned treatment plant which produces results as positive as the current one.

There's probably no changing the minds of Campbell and his ilk who insist on putting an end to public ownership of public works. But it's still a plus to know that the P3 movement is on the wrong side of both the weight of the evidence, and enough of the public's opinion to keep municipalities honest. And that should only encourage citizens to make sure that their interests, not those of potential P3 contractors, come first when governments decide how to provide needed services.

Impending delays

The Globe and Mail reports that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security will be forced to delay the first set of passport restrictions on Canadians due to take effect at the end of this year:

There are growing signs that the U.S. government will be forced to delay the Jan. 1, 2007, implementation of the passport requirement for air and sea passengers crossing back from Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean.

Officials of the Department of Homeland Security insist that their plans are still on track, but a senior Canadian official says federal bureaucrats have been told by their U.S. counterparts that there will be a delay.

The problem is that Homeland Security has still not published its detailed proposed rule, which must then be open for public comment and is subject to other legal delays before a final rule can be imposed by the end of the year.

Needless to say, the expected delays in this part of the U.S.' border scheme should only highlight the need for some more leeway in the current 2008 drop-dead date on land travel. Hopefully the Cons will for once be willing to push the need for a change in timing, rather than continuing to insist that Canada accept the current deadline when the U.S. department responsible is showing no signs of getting its act together in time.

Poker faces

When the Cons are obviously bluffing, the Libs fold. When the NDP raises the ante, the Cons get scared and leave the table. Now who do you want to bet will still be in at the end of the game?

A loaded invitation

Two Senators are daring Harper to open up the full constitutional can of worms by proposing a modest increase in Senate seats for the Western provinces:

Jack Austin and Lowell Murray served notice Thursday of their intention to introduce a resolution to amend the Constitution to significantly increase the number of western seats, particularly for British Columbia.

Under the proposal, B.C.'s Senate seats would double to 12, Alberta would get 10 and Manitoba and Saskatchewan would each get seven.

The proposal doesn't look like one which would leave anybody entirely happy: the West would still be somewhat underrepresented, the other provinces would lose some proportional influence in the Senate, and presumably the talk of opening up the Constitution under the seven-province amendment formula will lead to others presenting their constitutional wish lists.

But from a political standpoint, the proposal will put Harper's back to the wall. After all, he spent significant time during the election campaign musing about how he'd like to see the West better represented. The invitation to move in that direction is one that he can only ignore at his own peril - and it'll be interesting to see whether the Cons see more danger in turning their back on increased Western representation, or in facing the full gamut of constitutional demands.

Globe cool to logical thought, poll analysis suggests

The Globe and Mail seems eager to interpret a new Leger poll as reflecting Canadian disapproval with immigration generally. But the poll itself doesn't support that conclusion at all:

While those polled showed substantial support for Canadian security procedures and multicultural policies, they seemed to be cooling to the country's immigration policy.

While the margin is slight – 33 per cent saying they were dissatisfied with Canada's immigration policy compared with 29 per cent that were satisfied – what becomes more significant is the decrease in positive attitudes from previous research, said Jack Jedwab, executive director of the ACS.

“My findings in the past have been that attitudes toward immigration have been quite positive,” Mr. Jedwab said, citing a recent Gallop (sic) International poll taken before the arrests that found 58 per cent of Canadians were satisfied with the level of immigration in the country.

It shouldn't take much examination to see that the two polls cover entirely different issues. While the latter clearly reflects public support for the number of immigrants accepted by Canada, the former can reflect a number of immigration issues which have received public attention. The issue of recognizing foreign credentials was a frequent topic of discussion in the past election campaign; the need for workers in Alberta has led to public debate over the importation of temporary workers; and even Canada's restrictive refugee appeal process could easily cause a person to disapprove of "immigration policy" without wanting to see the level of immigration changed. Moreover, one could just as easily be dissatisified with the level of immigration as being too low rather than too high.

Instead of taking any of the above possibilities into account, the Globe's article (based on Leger's analysis) instead assumes that any lack of satisfaction with immigration has to do with a desire to lower immigration levels, then makes a simplistic comparison to another poll which asked an entirely different question to suggest there's been some sea change in Canadian public opinion.

Fortunately, one isn't limited to speculation to see just how wrong the Globe's conclusion is. There's also evidence within the Leger poll to suggest that any concerns related to immigration don't correlate to a lack of security arising out of immigration levels:

More than twice as many people polled said they were satisfied (43 per cent) with Canada's multicultural policy than were dissatisfied (18 per cent)...

Roughly the same level of satisfaction came with Canadians attitude toward security – 47 per cent saying they were satisfied with the level of security in the country, compared with 21 per cent who were not.

Now, surely anybody who suddenly considered Canada's level of immigration to be too high based on the Ontario arrests would also flag that as a security issue. Instead, based on the difference between the two poll numbers at least 18% of Canadians are satisfied with the security situation, but unhappy with our immigration system for other reasons.

Sadly, both Leger and the Globe write that distinction off rather than drawing the link. But there should be no doubt that the weight of the evidence still shows Canadians recognizing the importance of immigration, even if our current policies can stand to be improved.

On the importance of showing up

Greg at Sinister Thoughts points out this Politics Watch article, featuring the Libs' poor excuse for the party's chronic absenteeism from Parliament:

The NDP fought back on Wednesday when NDP MPs Nathan Cullen and Brian Masse held a press conference on Parliament Hill to unveil a report card on the performance of the Liberals in this Parliament.

The NDP's report card was highly critical of the absenteeism of the Liberals in the House of Commons on a number of votes, and blamed the Liberals for allowing the government motion to extend the mission in Afghanistan to pass by four votes in the House.

"In this session of Parliament, the Liberals have had the worst record of attendance of any caucus," said Masse, noting the Liberals have had an absentee rate of 18 per cent in the 24 votes held so far in this session, including 11 Liberals who were absent for the Afghanistan vote.

"You can't stand up to a full-time Conservative government, with a part-time Liberal Official Opposition . . . We are in a minority Parliament and every single vote counts in the House of Commons and affects people's lives on a daily basis."

Sounds about right. Though in fairness it should be noted that even when they show up, the Libs have been doing more to act like Cons themselves than to hold the Cons to account.

But just what is it that the Libs have apparently found to be more important than serving the interests of their constituents in Parliament?

The Liberals suggested it was unfair to target their party for absenteeism when eight caucus members are running leadership campaign and many other MPs are involved as campaign managers or organizers.

In other words, a good chunk of the Lib caucus is too busy dealing with internal party politics to bother playing a role in the overall governance of the country, and hasn't apparently made much of an effort to strike any balance between the two. And the Libs' response is to criticize the NDP for pointing that fact out, rather than to admit that MPs should spend enough time in Parliament to represent their constituents.

Not that it should be too much of a surprise to see party interests placed ahead of all else in the minds of the Libs. The question now is how long it'll take for people to stop expecting the Libs to present a meaningful opposition, and to recognize that the NDP is already doing so despite its smaller amount of resources.

Expanding markets

SGI has taken up Ralph Klein's invitation to see how it can compete in Alberta's insurance market. Which will mean one more choice for Alberta consumers (who may well be familiar with how much better SGI's rates are than those of Alberta's private sector), and one more way in which Saskatchewan's provincial investments abroad help to pay for the costs of keeping the province running.

So that's how it works

It's been well documented that the NDP's policy proposals themselves can't break through the media's usual coverage of spin and pablum. But apparently a proposal released on the same day the NDP calls for a minister's resignation is seen as worthy of a mention in passing.

Update: Based on the CP and CTV coverage, even the concurrent release doesn't seem to lead to any mention of the policy. It's worth noting (via the CTV article) that the Libs in opposition seem to have adopted the same kick-the-can-down-the-road approach that helped them to accomplish so little while in government:

Godfrey said he agrees with the NDP view that Ambrose is incompetent; but said more time is needed to allow the minister to fully demonstrate her incompetence.

Manufacturing a crisis

The Globe and Mail reports on Harper's plan to import another of Bush's pet policies, taking a first step toward undermining the Canada Pension Plan:

Sources have told The Globe and Mail that Mr. Harper's efforts to fix the fiscal imbalance will become clear over the autumn months and that the government is looking at ways to reduce CPP contributions from both workers and employers.

The government is contemplating pouring some of its federal surplus into the CPP to accomplish this...

The fourth (Con proposal) would be the plan to use money from the annual surplus to top up the CPP. Ottawa hopes that doing so will allow it to cut premiums.

Needless to say, it almost certainly wouldn't be long after a cut in premiums before the federal government would plead poverty and point out how much money from general revenue was being eaten up by the CPP. Which could in turn be easily followed by cuts in benefits and talk of privatization due to the manufactured lack of public resources to meet the needs of Canadian pensioners...accompanied by assurances that the same businesses who are thriving at the current rates couldn't possibly abide an increase to the same rates in the future.

Canadians should rightfully expect that their pension system is self-sustaining, and hopefully won't buy Harper's claim that a temporary bump in take-home pay (in an already-overheating economy) is worth giving up the assurance that they can be secure in planning to receive the CPP upon retirement. It'll fall to public pressure (and to the provinces, who do have some say in the CPP legislation) to force the Cons away from imposing such a damaging tradeoff on Canadians.

Update: See My Blahg and blevkog for more.

New update: The C.D. Howe Institute has come out against any politicization of the CPP.

On networking

A Senate report recommends that CBC-TV become commercial-free. Of course, the recommendation will almost certainly run into serious opposition from both advertisers who want to continue to make use of the network, and competitors who won't want the CBC to receive the guaranteed funding which would presumably replace the current ad revenue. But the cause is still one worth taking up on the off chance that we could enjoy a national network that doesn't have to cater to commercial concerns.

On choices

There's been lots of talk about today's poll on child-care. But much of the discussion has entirely ignored the fact that the Libs' plan alone wasn't the most popular option:

Support for a national child-care system was high across Canada, in urban and rural areas and among families with a stay-at-home parent, said Derek Leebosh, senior associate with Environics.

“It shows that Canadians put a very high value on child care. They think it's important that it be available and accessible.”

A solid majority of those polled questioned why there can't be a family allowance and an improved child-care network, he said.

“A lot of Canadians feel like maybe they're being forced to make a bit of false choice. Why can't we have both? There's huge surpluses. It's not like we're in a deficit.

“They don't want to see [the $1,200 cheques] come at the expense of funding of affordable child-care programs.”

In other words, respondents ultimately didn't buy the Libs' either-or claims any more than the Cons'. The preferred position was instead to recognize the need for increased resources flowing to parents as well as the need for government funding to generate child care spaces. Now if only more attention was paid to the fact that one party has been proposing just that all along...

Update: Based on the comments to blevkog's post, I'm not the only one to notice the omission.

Levelling the playing field

The Globe and Mail reports that several small Canadian political parties will be in court today arguing that the statutory minimum vote levels for federal campaign funding violate their Charter rights:

Since January, 2004, federal political parties have received $1.75 annually for every vote they received in the most recent election -- money that helps pay for campaign financing and other party expenses. That funding is restricted to parties that obtain at least 2 per cent of the national vote or 5 per cent of the vote in the ridings where they ran candidates...

But the small parties that exist today say denying them access to even a small portion of the federal funds given to larger parties is unfair and contravenes voting rights contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"The Supreme Court has ruled that small parties are equally deserving of respect as large parties and that voters have the right to participate in small parties," said Peter Rosenthal, the Toronto-based lawyer who represents the Marijuana Party of Canada, the Canadian Action Party, the Communist Party of Canada, the Christian Heritage Party of Canada and the Progressive Canadian Party, as well as the Green Party of Canada, which received money this year but was denied after the 2004 vote.

Even the Charter-based challenge may well have some real chance of success. But at the very least the small parties' effort, particularly in the cooperation among parties with such varied political philosophies, should highlight the need for a change in the current election law to encourage a more inclusive political system.

On the advance

The federal NDP continues to cast a wide net, taking on the Bloc for backing the Cons on the budget but not on accountability. It remains to be seen whether the Dippers can catch enough votes in Quebec to get into seat-winning range, but it's certainly a plus to see the party keeping up its efforts to do so...and pointing out how the Bloc has failed to represent progressives in La Belle Province.

Internal accountability

While Stephen Harper's decision to make sitting MPs subject to nomination challenges is certainly worthy of discussion, I have to disagree with Cowboys for Social Responsibility on both the merits and the likely outcomes.

It's a fair question to ask why Cons appear to have gone from being too busy to deal with potential nomination challenges while they were in opposition, to being able to do so once in government. But the problem isn't with the change, but rather with the previous policy which completed insulately MPs from the democratic will of their riding associations. The change may have taken longer than it should have, but that doesn't mean it's a bad one.

I note also that contrary to what's implied from CSR's post, the policy doesn't appear to be limited to backbenchers. As should be the case, each Con MP, whether or not appointed to a privileged position by Harper, looks to be accountable to his or her constituency. Granted, members of cabinet probably won't face particularly strong challenges...but it does appear that the process will apply to all MPs, and not only to the supposedly-expendable backbenchers.

So much for CSR's concern that this means that backbenchers in particular are disposable. But what about the practical effects within the Con party? In CSR's comments, Red Tory points out the possibility that social activists will use their ability to stack a nomination meeting to drive the Cons to the right:

(T)his opens up sitting MPs to pressure from social activists promoting a far right agenda who threaten to stack the nomination meetings with their supporters. The result is that the MP will either fold under this pressure and allow their views to be influenced (e.g., opposing SSM) or risk being defeated.

Of course, social activists aren't the only constituents who could see fit to shape the course of a nomination meeting. It could well be that the result would be instead for moderate challengers to mount successful runs against the Anders- or Vellacott-types who aren't likely to lose to another party anytime soon. And in those ridings where the social activists do outnumber all the groups with an incentive to keep the party moderate, that strikes me as more a necessary cost of an open policy than a large enough concern to justify a "get out of accountability free" card for sitting MPs.

Moreover, it seems likely that in any nomination race, the support of the party structure would tend toward more moderate nominees, providing a strong counterbalance to the possibility of far-right hijacking. Which means that while Red Tory's concern is a valid one, it's far from certain to reflect the end result.

I'll add that there is one more possible concern arising out of the policy. By opening up nominations, Harper may also be able to exercise more control over his sitting MPs by threatening to support an alternate nominee where an MP goes offside. It remains to be whether Harper would apply that type of threat. But any danger associated with increased top-down pressure on MPs would be more a symptom of Harper's own attitude toward his members than a problem with open nominations.

In sum, there are certainly ways in which an open nomination process could seem to go bad, both due to internal riding politics and central management. And those dangers certainly explain why the Cons and Libs apply such a process selectively rather than as a matter of course. But the rewards of a principled stance in favour of internal accountability ultimately outweigh the potential costs. And Harper deserves credit, not blame, for endorsing for once a policy which actually makes his party more accountable rather than less so.

(Edit: typo.)

Crazy 'bout that mercury

The Star reports on yet another negative consequence of Ontario's decision to keep its coal-fired plants open into the next decade, as the decision now appears set to torpedo a national effort to reduce mercury emissions:

Sources say the Liberal government's recent decision to break a 2003 cornerstone campaign promise and keep open the province's pollution-spewing coal-fired generating plants well past 2009 is behind the policy U-turn.

Canada's federal, provincial and territorial environment ministers were poised last Friday to announce a reduction in the highly toxic mercury emissions by 50 per cent from 2003-04 levels by 2010.

But in a letter to Saskatchewan Environment Minister John Nilson, president of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), Ontario Environment Minister Laurel Broten said the province is unable to keep the commitment.

While Broten claims Ontario is "the champion for mercury and air issues" among the environment ministers' collective, she offers no timetable for when Premier Dalton McGuinty's government could actually abide by standards approved by Ottawa and the other provinces and territories.

For now the end result is expected to be only a delay in the announcement, but Ontario's decision to back away from what was to have been a national commitment will do nothing but offer political cover for other governments who in turn repudiate either the mercury-emissions goal or other agreed environmental standards. And with the most powerful Lib government left in the country refusing to live up to even its existing environmental commitments, it'll be all the tougher for the federal party to plausibly claim interest in the environment as one of its core values, rather than a convenient campaign plank to be ignored after election time.

Make a note of the date...

...as Harper's honeymoon phase appears to be officially over. Or, to be more accurate, we now know that it ended some time ago:

Furious Canadians bombarded the prime minister with e-mail following controversial spring decisions not to lower Parliament Hill flags for soldiers killed in Afghanistan or allow the public to view their return to Canada, documents obtained by CanWest News Service show.

The letters, sent via Stephen Harper's Web site and obtained under the Access to Information Act, provide a glimpse into the public psyche during one of the first major missteps by the new Conservative government...

Of the thousands of e-mails that poured into Harper's office the day after he imposed a press ban on homecoming ceremonies in April, an overwhelming majority were highly critical.

For each positive endorsement of the policies, there were approximately 50 angry notes filled with words such as "disgraceful, shameful and cowardly."

While it shouldn't be surprising that the policies were unpopular, it is telling that the detractors outnumbered the supporters by such a wide margin - particularly over a policy which was supposedly implemented based on the interests of some of the same people who wrote in. And based on the reaction to this among other mistakes and broken promises, it's clear that much of the public long since concluded that Harper doesn't deserve a free pass.

On battle lines

The Globe and Mail suggests that Quebec's new carbon tax may ultimately win the approval of oil producers since it's relatively easily passed along to consumers. So far, the oil industry is still fighting tooth and nail against anything which could affect its profits rather than admitting to the preference. But if the debate shifts to one between measures which fall primarily on producers and ones that mostly hit consumers, it'll be interesting how the federal Cons choose between their financial base and their voting base.

More wasted space

pogge points out that the Con's announcement of security funding which has received mention in virtually every Canadian media outlet this weekend doesn't reflect a single new dollar. But by virtue of having come from the government, this too is apparently more worthy of widespread coverage than policy ideas which actually deal with widely-acknowledged problems.

On wasted space

The Star does its best to push toward an Ignatieff acclamation, shedding plenty of ink on the utterly unremarkable fact that Lib senator David Smith is supporting Ignatieff's leadership run.

It remains to be seen whether Smith's input in the leadership race will be as successful as it was in some of his prior efforts cited in the article, including his complete failure to bring the Chretien and Martin camps back together in 2004. But whatever Smith's impact on the race, surely some of the column space could have been better spent on a party which is actually introducing new ideas, rather than on the obvious back-room machinations driving the Lib leadership contest.

(Edit: corrected link.)

Forecasting a thaw

A U.S. think tank suggests that Harper's repeated attempts to ingratiate himself to Bushco are doomed, as it'll take a new U.S. president to improve relations between the two countries:

Christopher Sands told a security conference on Saturday that Canada has sent mixed signals to the U.S. on issues such as Iraq and missile defence. In both cases, Sands said Ottawa had considered joining U.S. efforts only to decide against doing so, which hurt relations...

U.S. President George W. Bush is constitutionally barred from running in the 2008 election, so a new president will take power the following year.

Canada would have a clean slate under a new president, Sands said.

It's hard to see why Bush would hold a grudge against Harper's government generally, but Sands' analysis appears right to a point. The two issues in question are obviously ones where the Cons can't afford to buck world opinion to side with the U.S. without paying a price at the polls...and they're plainly not ones where Bushco is about to change its position anytime soon.

All of which means that to the extent there is any need to repair the current relationship between the U.S. and Canada, the necessary precondition is a new U.S. administration which repudiates Bush's "with us or against us" stance. And no matter how much Harper pretends to have the ability to improve matters, nothing he does now can bring that about any faster.

Plausibility Freedom Day is here again

The Fraser Institute's tedious Tax Freedom Day concept is once again eating up far too many headlines (particularly compared to the potential alternatives which haven't been similarly publicized). But Bruce Johnstone points out one of the many reasons why even if one accepts the core assumption that taxes are somehow paid into a black hole with absolutely no redeeming return, the Fraser Institute's calculation does nothing but misrepresent the amount actually paid by Canadian (and particularly Saskatchewanian) citizens.

On branding

Greg rightly slams both the Libs and Cons for their transparent efforts to paper over weak spots by associating themselves with words which couldn't be a less accurate description of their underlying philosophies.

While the Cons and Libs go over the top with pretense, however, I wonder whether the NDP should be looking to expand on its brand from the past election as well - albeit with much more plausible language than Anne McLellan and Rona Ambrose are using for themselves. The "getting results" message from the 2006 has laid the groundwork for the NDP to be seen as far more than just a protest vote, but that leads naturally into the question of what kind of results the NDP will be looking for in the future.

So, up for discussion: what should be the NDP's next step in looking to expand the scope of its brand? A "responsible government" message, with frequent references to the fiscal success of NDP provincial governments? A "good for business" message focusing on how the NDP's policies can boost the economy? A "strong role in the world" message to counter the Harper/Ignatieff axis of machismo?

In any event, it seems clear that the NDP needs to go on the offensive to help shape its own reputation as well as keeping the Cons' and Libs' feet to the fire. And while it may take more work for the NDP to do that without the media attention that the Libs and Cons receive, it'll be worth the effort if it takes the NDP into the next election with a more positive public perception.

On poor recruitment tactics

A few choice quotes from Con MPs on one of the sitting Libs who was apparently on the receiving end of Harper's recent recruiting effort:

From David Tilson:

If I could have just one wish for Christmas, it would be a straight answer from the immigration minister.

The ever-diplomatic Rob Anders:

The minister is no longer just an international embarrassment, she is now a security threat...I would like to know what the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has planned for a New Year's resolution. Will she reduce the stress in her life and just resign?

Paul Forseth:

It seems the minister has compassion for cases that might help her politically, yet the minister or the system cannot help real refugees. The credibility of the minister is in shreds.

Peter MacKay:

The minister has abused her position, ducks accountability, refuses to answer questions, and now misleads the House. Having lost public confidence, will she now resign her post?

Jim Prentice:

The minister has been repeatedly misleading the House. This amounts to nothing less than contempt. When will this disgraceful minister resign?

Helena Guergis:

The immigration minister has shown time and again to both sides of the House and to Canadians across the country that she is completely incapable of running her own office, let alone a government department. When is she going to step down?

And a couple from Harper himself:

What is disgusting, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister will never answer a straight question until she is caught red-handed.

The immigration minister's indiscretions grow daily. Today we learn that she has been divulging confidential information on immigration files in order to save her career. In addition to information she has released in the House, she apparently has directed staff to discuss the stripper case with various members of this chamber.

This is completely improper. Will the minister do the honourable thing and resign?

Needless to say, it shouldn't be much surprise that Sgro apparently turned down the Cons' overtures. But it speaks volumes about the Cons' desperation to try to create a perception of positive momentum now that they'd have bothered sending out feelers to somebody who was on the receiving end of these types of Con attacks in the past.

A bit of relief

For all the disturbing similarities between the Bush and Harper administrations, we can take some solace in not being stuck with a John Bolton just yet.

Heh

Pope Awesome brings the snark over CBC's decision to pull Prairie Giant: The Tommy Douglas Story from all scheduled airings.

(Edit: typo.)

A lack of credit

From a substantive standpoint, it's a plus that the government is at least making an effort to determine whether it can get a better deal on RCMP headquarters than one which would have spent $600 million on a property which sold for only $30 million a few years ago. But would it really have been too much trouble for the Ottawa Citizen to mention the MP who got the ball rolling sometime before the third-last paragraph of its article?

Cause and effect

The Globe and Mail reports on an alarming drop in the proportion of women in the work force in Alberta. And the apparent primary cause isn't wealth, but a lack of child care:

Women in Eastern Canada are piling into the work force as never before, but in the West they are pulling out...

The pattern is particularly noticeable for women with children under six years old. In Alberta, the participation rate for this group dropped by a full percentage point in 2005, to 64.9 per cent. That's 10 points below the comparable rates in Quebec and Atlantic Canada.

If mothers of young children in Alberta and British Columbia had kept up with Quebec, there would be 30,000 women in the work force there — at a time when employers complain frequently of labour shortages.

And that's not because the mothers' husbands are rich from Alberta's oil and they choose not to work, Ms. Roy said. She found that family income levels made a difference for only 2,000 Alberta women.

Rather, she points to availability of daycare. Alberta has the smallest share of children in daycare — 43 per cent, Statscan said. Indeed, daycare capacity has actually fallen over the past decade, and now the province has fewer than 48,000 spots for 163,400 mothers of pre-schoolers.

It'll be interesting to see how long it takes the corporate sphere in Calgary and Edmonton to figure out that government investments in real child care (both federally and provincially) could do wonders to ease the province's labour shortage. In the meantime, the combination of both federal and provincial governments going out of their way to avoid providing the needed spaces is only hurting the financial base for both parties...not to mention the standard of living for those families facing little choice but to leave a parent at home.

Mission creep

A month after the Cons barely won a motion on Afghanistan in Parliament, Gordon O'Connor lets Canadians know that the Cons plan to ignore their own statements as to the meaning of the vote:

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says Canada will have to send more troops to Afghanistan if it takes command of NATO forces in the country.

O'Connor has formally told NATO that Canada is willing and able to take command of a larger military force in southern Afghanistan...

O'Connor says it will mean a larger commitment of troops - but only about 100 more than the 2,300 currently deployed in Afghanistan.

Most of the additional soldiers would likely be involved in non-combat roles.

The problem with today's position is that at the time of the motion, the motion itself made no mention of additional troop deployment, and the Cons suggested that there would be at most minimal further deployment to facilitate the leadership role.

From the actual motion:

That the House support the government’s two year extension of Canada’s deployment of diplomatic, development, civilian police and military personnel in Afghanistan and the provision of funding and equipment for this extension.

In other words, the motion as written involved support for increased funding and equipment, but merely for an extension of the existing deployment.

In fairness, the Cons did interpret the motion at the time to involve a small additional deployment, but only a minimal one based on sending one additional general and associated staff. In question period, Stephen Harper described the planned increase as follows:

One addition is being made to the military mission: Canada is requesting general command of the International Security Assistance Force, which requires the deployment of a high-ranking general and subordinates for one year, probably in February 2008. This is the only addition to our military mission.

And then during the debate:

(A)ll the engagements that we are asking Parliament to back, with the one exception of command of ISAF as I mentioned, are all engagements as undertaken at the present time. These are extensions to Canada's current involvement, not changes.

In other words, it could fairly have been assumed that any additional commitment of troops would reflect only the necessary staff to support the commanding general. And it would certainly be expected the increase would not encompass additional combat troops.

Today's message, on the other hand, makes clear that the increase in troops is a sizeable one in comparison to the scope of the mission (a boost by roughly 5% of the current deployment). And moreover, O'Connor is now qualifying the presumptive lack of additional combat troops with a declaration that "most" of the additional deployment would "likely" be for non-combat purposes.

In other words, the Cons are predictably using last month's motion as justification to extend Canada's involvement as much as Harper sees fit, with no apparent regard for what was actually voted on in Parliament. And while that only vindicates the concerns of those who chose not to follow Harper blindly, it'll take some quick public attention to make sure that the Cons' perceived authority to expand the mission ends with O'Connor's announcement.

Delay tactics

A white paper on the banking industry was released yesterday, with the recommendations including a range of new measures to ensure that consumers are better informed:

(The proposals) include:
Providing greater and more timely disclosure to consumers in areas such as deposit-type investment products and complaint-handling procedures;
Lowering the mortgage downpayment consumers are required to make to 20 per cent from 25 per cent before the law requires the purchase of mortgage insurance;
Encouraging the adoption of a voluntary consumer protection code;
Reducing the maximum time banks can put a hold on consumer and small business cheques to seven days from the current 10 days, and then reduce the holding period further later to four days;
Streamlining ministerial approval for a broad range of financial sector transactions, such as changes in the ownership or structure of financial institutions;
Making it easier for credit unions to establish co-operative credit associations as a means of expanding their business opportunities; and
Making it easier for some foreign financial institutions to set up shop in Canada.

Jim Flaherty is quoted as approving of the proposals. Which naturally means that rather than actually working to implement any of them, the Cons are holding off on any changes for as long as they can:

While the legislation to implement the proposals will be introduced this fall, the government has extended the sunset date for the existing financial institutions statutes by six months to April 24, 2007, suggesting it does not expect the legislation to pass before next spring, and possibly after the next election.

It remains to be seen whether the Cons' main intention is to avoid having any change in banking on their record, or to claim once again that nothing can be done in a minority Parliament. But it's absolutely clear that the Cons are more interested in making excuses in advance now than in passing needed legislation. And bank customers will have them to thank for half a year more of banking under the same rules which the report aims to improve.

On a loss of control

Think Progress reports on yet another shady side of the softwood lumber deal, as the money to be spent on jointly-agreed "meritorious initiatives" may find itself turned into a Bushco slush fund:

ThinkProgress spoke with a lawyer familiar with the case, who said the following about the agreement:
– The United States is requesting $480 million for “meritorious initiatives” and just $20 million of the joint initiative benefiting the North American Lumber market.
– The agreement contains a complicated escrow system that may allow the $480 million to be funneled from the Treasury Department to the White House.
– It is the position of U.S. negotiators that Congress does not need to have any involvement in the deal.

Now, I'm far from agreeing with Think Progress' take - both in its characterization of the settlement as "obscure", and its focus primarily on internal U.S. controls. From a Canadian perspective, it's hard to share the concern as to any lack of Congressional oversight when the intention of the fund was to allow for jointly agreed initiatives between the U.S. and Canada.

But the flip side is that Canada should have at least some meaningful ability to determine the eventual use of the money to be used for joint purposes. From the sound of things, the deal as structured will give Bushco total control over how the money is spent, and won't likely wind up benefitting the lumber market to any meaningful degree...presumably leaving Harper to beg for some input as to how the money is used, and then to claim victory if Bush so much as listens to Canada's suggestions.

Updates on the softwood lumber talks: the U.S. Commerce Department, apparently not having been told enough times that its tariffs are illegal, has issued a preliminary decision which could boost the tariff to 14% starting in December. Meanwhile, negotiations may soon break off now that the Cons have missed their own needless deadline.

On gestures

Two Con parliamentary secretaries have lowered the bar once again on parliamentary behaviour:

The opposition is complaining that two Conservative MPs who act as parliamentary secretaries to ministers made obscene arm gestures across the floor of the House of Commons.

Daniel Gourde and Pierre Poilievre made the gestures moments apart as MPs voted on a farm bill Tuesday evening...

Gourde is parliamentary secretary to Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl, and Poilievre is parliamentary secretary to Treasury Board President John Baird.

The arm gesture involves two arms crossed at the elbow, one moving upward.

I've discussed before how the Cons seem to interpret maturity when it comes to foreign policy. But at home, the Cons' plan to be "mature" must have a different meaning, referring to an effort to ensure that the political process is unfit for the eyes and ears of children. And with Poilievre as the point man, the Cons appear well on their way to winning a parental advisory for parliamentary proceedings on CPAC.

Minority support

The results from the Nova Scotia election have been well-reported so far, and I don't have a ton to add to some of the other commentary. But it's worth noting that the voters of Nova Scotia are proving wrong the conventional wisdom that a minority situation inevitably means legislative chaos which naturally leads in turn to a majority government. And if Nova Scotia's minority continues to produce good results for the province, then there'll be a strong counterexample to Harper's inevitable claims that he needs a majority federally in order to accomplish anything.

On needless giveaways

Predictably, the Cons are far more committed to rewarding supporters than to taking a sound environmental step, as Jim Flaherty has flatly rejected the idea of eliminating tax breaks to the oil industry:

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has rejected a request from environmental groups to end an estimated $1.4 billion in annual tax breaks to the booming oil industry.

In a seven-page response to the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, Flaherty defends special tax treatment for the resource sector noting its importance as a source of investment and jobs...

Albert Koehl of the Sierra Legal Defence Fund said the oil and gas sector - a major source of greenhouse emissions - is making record multibillion-dollar profits and should not be getting any subsidies at all.

"Subsidies are for industries in transition," he said. "This is an industry no longer in transition and it has gotten over the last three decades about $40 billion from the federal government."

So how vital is the preferential tax treatment for the industry?

Greg Stringham of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers denied the $1.4 billion tax-break estimate, which is based on research by the Alberta-based Pembina Institute.

He said the estimate is based on outdated information but couldn't provide a current estimate. The industry made $27 billion after taxes last year, he said, a return of 14 per cent.

One would think that returns of 14% would be incentive enough for future investment in the oil patch - particularly when the most recent estimates suggest that the current tax breaks represent roughly 5% of the total after-tax profits of the industry. But while the Cons have happily scrapped environmental programs pending an evaluation of their efficiency, today's announcement demonstrates their complete lack of interest in ensuring that corporate tax giveaways are serving any useful purpose. Which, I suppose, probably will ensure that all the more investors find their way into the sector to benefit from the Cons' continuing largesse.

On playing by the rules

NDP MP Pat Martin is calling for an investigation into the possibility that concerted political contributions by top executives of TD Bank may violate the Canada Elections Act. We'll find out soon whether any Libs and Cons are committed enough to electoral rules to join the call...or whether both will be perfectly happy with possible violations as long as they each benefit.

Update: Not surprisingly, the answer from the Cons so far is to change the subject.

The power to shift costs

Dalton McGuinty insists that nuclear power is the only way to add enough capacity to keep Ontario running. But at the same time, McGuinty's government is going out of its way to offload the costs and risks of any new plants:

In unveiling today its long-awaited plan to address the province's looming electricity crisis, Ontario will include measures to protect consumers from cost overruns associated with building new reactors.

As part of that plan, government officials have been in talks with the federal government about having AECL build the reactors for a fixed price and by a fixed date, government and industry sources said. The contract would include penalties for not meeting these performance guarantees.

The federal government has been involved in the talks because it would ultimately be on the hook for providing the guarantees as the sole shareholder of AECL, the government sources said.

Now, I recognize the value of government guarantees when it comes to minimizing unknown risks to create an incentive for new developments. But the nuclear industry should surely be well-enough developed by now for all parties to know the costs and risks involved. And it speaks volumes that the same premier who insists that there's no other option refuses to be stuck with the downside of nuclear development.

Ultimately, McGuinty's request begs the question of why the federal government would be willing to provide substantially more support for nuclear power than for any other type of power generation. And if the only way nuclear power can be cost-effective is for Ontario to offload a chunk of the costs, then surely it's worth seeing whether or not other forms of energy can do the job given the same level of support.

Negotiations with a two-by-four

Apparently Harper and company are still trying to keep relatively straight faces while claiming that the softwood lumber cave-in is really a great deal for Canada. But if it was, would the U.S. be making demands like the ones reported by the Globe and Mail?

First, there's the clause designed to ensure that future trade disputes are no more easily or successfully resolved than this one:

Ontario officials said Americans seek to set up a process for tackling future softwood battles that wouldn't return duties collected before those disputes are settled.

“That's a deal breaker as far as we are concerned,” Mr. Ramsay said.

And rightly so, given that the entire reason why Canada is now signing away its right to make forestry policy is the U.S.' insistence that it hold onto the proceeds of its theft. But apparently Harper has shown his cards around the table enough that the U.S. isn't the least bit embarrassed asking for Canada to consent to going through the same mess again in the future.

One would think it couldn't get worse. But then...

Ontario's second major concern is that the United States is pushing to divide Canada's export quota into monthly allotments, Mr. Ramsay said. If companies don't meet their monthly share of the cap, they would lose the unused quota room, unable to carry it forward.

So having successfully capped Canada's share of the U.S. market isn't enough: now the U.S. also wants to set caps within the cap, and ensure that Canadian producers can't make up for slow months or take advantage of positive market conditions. (Speaking of comical attempts at a straight face, keep an eye out for Bush's next admonition that the U.S. is trying to lead the way toward free markets.)

Mind you, the worst of the demands might well be only a way of making Canada's ultimate additional concessions look small by comparison. But the direction in which the final negotiations have gone should remove any remaining doubt about who's been pushing who around at the bargaining table.

Shirking responsibility

It's a plus to see the federal government finally doing something about payday lenders. But it would be all the better if the Cons were willing to do anything more than punt the issue to the provinces:

The Conservative government is preparing to introduce legislation that would finally rein in Canada's mushrooming payday loan industry, delegating power to the provinces to regulate the business and protect consumers...

Rather than tinker with the interest rate in the Criminal Code, the government will make an exemption from the law for provinces that come up with their own consumer protection legislation and interest rates.

Hopefully most of the provinces will follow Manitoba's lead quickly to try address the issue. But the need for a series of provincial actions could have been avoided if Harper was willing to confront a national issue (and one properly under federal jurisdiction, for those determined to draw the lines) rather than passing the buck.

On public will

One of Harper's more amusing actions after taking office was his call for people to write letters to MPs in support of the Con platform. Today, CanWest reports that at least based the comments received in response to the Cons' budget plan, Harper's request was something less than a smashing success:

A majority of citizens urged the new Tory government to abandon plans for a GST cut, in the first-ever Web-based consultations carried out before a federal budget.

More than 500 people -- responding to the Finance Department's call for submissions -- sent the minister e-mails commenting directly on Goods and Services Tax policy, documents obtained under the Access to Information Act show.

Of those, 239 people opposed cuts to the GST promised by the Tories during the last election campaign, while 209 said they supported them.

Another 72 people offered other suggestions, such as using GST revenue for highway improvements...

Finance Canada did not specifically ask for suggestions on spending increases, but people offered them anyway. Ignoring obvious write-in campaigns, only one area stood out clearly: the environment.

"If one discounts write-in campaigns, more Canadians supported increased funding for the environment than any other single priority," says one document.

Note that the listed results doesn't include orchestrated letter-writing campaigns (as identified by the reporter in any event). Which means that despite Harper's call for all the public support he could muster, the citizens who took the time to write in with their own views lined up generally against the Cons - particularly in the citizens' demand for action on the environment.

Not that Harper could be bothered to listen when it came time to put the budget together. But there should be all the less doubt that the Cons' priorities are far from reflecting those of Canadians generally. And contrary to Harper's presumed plan, the lesson to opposition MPs is that the public doesn't want to be subject to any more of Harper's budgetary choices than it can avoid.

Of like mind

Was there ever a chance that Ujjal Dosanjh wouldn't endorse Bob Rae for the federal Lib leadership? And could anything do more to help the NDP move past its also-ran status than to have the symbols of its two worst provincial electoral disasters now sublimated in the same Lib effort - whether or not it succeeds in winning the leadership?

On self-reinforcing bias

Robert commented a couple of days ago about the near-complete lack of media coverage of the NDP's Greener Homes Strategy. It's certainly outrageous that the plan received as little attention as it did, but put in context the media blackout looks even worse than at first glance.

After all, based solely on the lack of coverage of the article one could always argue that the NDP hadn't put the media on notice or highlighted the issue...if not for, well, the fact that such a view would be dead wrong. The NDP mentioned its impending series of proposals several days in advance, and followed up the release of the strategy with further measures to keep the party's proposal in the public eye.

But it gets worse. At the same time the media was happily ignoring or spinning the NDP's major policy announcement, the Ottawa Citizen's Susan Riley was complaining about a supposed lack of opposition in Ottawa, particularly based on the "fitful" work by the NDP and the Bloc on Kyoto. For those keeping track at home, the NDP's allegedly fitful work included
asking multiple questions about Kyoto during the week's Question Periods and commenting on both National Clean Air Day and World Environment Day, in addition to unveiling and following up on its own plan.

In other words, not only is the media utterly failing to pay attention to meaningful policy suggestions, but it's also blaming the NDP for that failure. And with that apparently happening at the same time as editors swallow without question Stephen Harper's editorial suggestions and the Libs receive daily attention for their leadership race, there shouldn't be any doubt which federal party is getting the short end of the stick.

More patriotism than brains

The Ottawa Sun reports on Con MP Guy Lauzon's warped sense of priorities:

Conservative Guy Lauzon hopes Stormont-Dundas-South Glengarry will leap into prominence as the federal riding which displays the most flags on Canada Day. If earned, the record would be for "most patriotic area in the world."...

Chairman of Cornwall's Canada Day celebrations for several years running, the second-term MP sees his flag effort as a way of building U.S.-style national pride and counteracting the recent wave of bad news in the riding, most of it surrounding job losses.

Among employers to bite the dust are Nestle Canada at Chesterville and Domtar of Cornwall, tossing hundreds of residents out of work. It's time to refocus with a dose of patriotism, the MP said.

It would seem fairly obvious that the top priority of an MP whose riding is losing jobs should be to try to actually turn the economic situation around. And it's not as if a government-party MP lacks the means to try to make that happen - whether that's through changes in general public policy to improve the competitive advantage of Canadian employers through improved health care and meaningful child care, or through more specific efforts to talk with potential employers and encourage them to set up shop in one's region.

But for Lauzon, the primary goal is to create some piece of good news on the assumption that it'll cancel out the economic problems. Which means that the MP is asking Cornwall's newly-unemployed residents to spend part of whatever resources they have left on a Canadian flag in order to prove their patriotism and help feed his ego.

Needless to say, Cornwall residents shouldn't be the least bit happy to be pawns in their MP's attempt to win attention. And that should lead them to push for a new MP who's willing to work to improve the lives of the riding's citizens, rather than using his pulpit to try to divert attention from the issues which ultimately matter to his constituents.

The stenography begins

It's tough to take Christina Blizzard's introduction entirely seriously in light of the rest of the column. But if Blizzard is right in suggesting that editors are telling columnists not to write about equalization because "no one cares", then it sounds like at least part of the media has gladly and unquestioningly accepted Harper's spin on the topic.

Important steps

CBC reports that Russia will write off $700 million in third-world debt. While reducing the debt load alone is only one element in what's needed to improve third-world living conditions, it's certainly a necessary part of the solution. Kudos to Russia for joining the other G8 states in the effort.

Meet the new ethical standard, just like the old ethical standard

Joe Volpe hands all the non-Lib parties an early Xmas gift with his response to calls that he drop out of the leadership race:

As he prepared for the latest Liberal leadership forum in Winnipeg Saturday, Volpe said he's setting a new ethical standard that others should meet "or bow out of the race."...

On Friday fellow candidate Michael Ignatieff came close to calling on Volpe to bow out of the leadership contest, saying he has hurt the party's reputation. Volpe responded, saying he doesn't need to take lessons from anyone on how to serve the Liberal party.

Now, there's certainly reason to doubt that some of the other remaining candidates are also above criticism for their fund-raising and staffing so far. But the longer Volpe continues the Libs' tradition of dealing with dubious situations only grudgingly, after the fact and without admission that anything should even have been questioned, the less likely any eventual winner in the leadership race will be able to overcome the Libs' reputation once a general election rolls around.

Rank decisions

The Cons' full flag-lowering protocol has now gone public, and it's interesting to note just how much the Cons appear to think the Canadian public will value the lives of different people:

"Given that such flags are recognized as paramount symbols of their nations, the act of half-masting is a dramatic visual statement that speaks to the sense of loss that is shared by all their citizens," state the new rules...

The new protocol effectively limits full half-masting honours to the Queen, her immediate family and her representatives in Canada, sitting and former prime ministers, sitting cabinet ministers and the chief justice of the Supreme Court.

Privy councillors, sitting MPs, sitting senators and top foreign diplomats get the Peace Tower flag lowered only on the day of their funeral, rather than from the time of notification of death until the service...

The Canadian Heritage website noted that the Peace Tower flag was lowered to half-mast on Monday morning, from 9 a.m. to noon, "to honour former parliamentarians who passed away in the last year."

There are also special days honouring workers killed on the job, police and peace officers killed on duty, Remembrance Day, violence against women and Vimy Ridge day.

The prime minister maintains broad discretionary power to have the Peace Tower flag lowered "in exceptional circumstances," say the new rules, including the deaths of foreign leaders, prominent citizens at home or abroad, and federal employees.

In other words, the Cons apparently consider the loss to Canadians as follows. If Bev Oda has a fatal allergic reaction to caviar at a CRIA fund-raising dinner, the protocol will reflect a greater loss than if every MP in Parliament aside from the current Cabinet and ex-PMPM were to perish at once. And if Maurice Vellacott chokes on his own bile, the Cons figure the country should mourn that event more personally than if Canada's entire military contingent in Afghanistan is wiped out by a surprise attack.

Of course, there's always the PM's discretion. But then, we know that the Cons have no tolerance for ad hoc decisions. So if you want to hold your breath waiting for the PM to take such an action, at least do so at work so you can share in one of the days seen as worthy of mourning.

On failed plans

The theory once went that the Cons' plan to win a majority was to be seen as an effective government that could be trusted to keep its promises. Needless to say, if that was the Cons' theory, they're headed in the wrong direction due to Harper's newfound contempt for his party's commitments on equalization:

During the last election, Harper promised to remove non-renewable resource money from the equalization formula, a change that would have added hundreds of millions of federal dollars to Saskatchewan's coffers.

However, during an interview with Calgary radio host Dave Rutherford on Friday, Harper described his election pledge as a "preference."...

Harper also disputed the notion that Conservative MPs were elected on the promise to take non-renewable resources out of the formula.

"I think what MPs have been elected on in places like Saskatchewan is to improve the functioning of equalization and of the federal government for the province of Saskatchewan," Harper said...

A number of Saskatchewan Conservatives talked about changing the equalization program during the federal election campaign earlier this year, including Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre MP Tom Lukiwski.

"If we are elected into government, we will be revising the equalization formula, remove the non-renewable natural resources, which would result, of course, in Saskatchewan retaining 100 per cent of its oil and gas revenues," Lukiwski said Jan. 6.

It's hard to say which is a worse excuse: to say that the promise is irrelevant because Harper is entitled to tell voters they shouldn't care about it, or to blatantly ignore the facts as to what was promised in the first place. But neither one is anything close to a reasonable backing for the Cons' new stand.

Interestingly enough, now that King Steve has taken his current stance, I'm not sure that it matters at all if Harper eventually decides to turn around and remove non-renewable resource revenue from the equalization formula after all. It's now glaringly clear that what the Cons have promised directly can be reclassified as a "preference" or as completely irrelevant based on Harper's whims. And knowing that the Cons couldn't make it through a single session of a minority Parliament without pretending never to have promised what they promised, voters have plenty of reason to make sure Harper never gets a longer leash in the future.

Making a bad deal worse

The Globe and Mail has an update on the Cons' softwood lumber capitulation, featuring two new details. First, Canada's concessions apply to some productions which were never subject to an export duty even when the U.S.' illegal tariffs were at their worst:

(L)umber remanufacturing companies who make everything from siding to flooring are upset that some of the products previously exempt from duties are now captured by the agreement.

“This deal is a terrible deal,” said Michael Wiggin, who operates century-old Wynndel Box and Lumber Co., a family-run sawmill and remanufacturing operation in the southern B.C., Interior.

“There has been virtually zero meaningful consultation with industry. They're hanging the remaners out.”

Second, having already sold out once, the Cons are now trying to push to impose another artificial deadline this Sunday which should lay the groundwork for even more concessions:

Sources say Ottawa has told the U.S. government it wants the text in hand by Sunday because it needs to pass legislation enabling it to impose a border tax on lumber exports destined for the American markets before the House rises June 23...

One source said the Canadian timetable plays into U.S. hands, allowing American negotiators to hold out until Sunday, then make some last-minute concessions on marginal issues so Canada can argue it got the best deal it could.

To the extent that the Cons are using the end of the legislative session as such a deadline, it's not hard at all to call BS for a couple of reasons: first it surely shouldn't be much tougher to pass a bill enabling the government to set any relevant terms through regulation later on rather than having to pass the specifics immediately, and second because it shouldn't be the end of the world to extent the Parliamentary sitting long enough to avoid any additional giveaways.

But then, it's been clear all along that the Cons are more interested in being able to claim they've brokered a deal than in getting a reasonable outcome for Canada. And it shouldn't be much surprise that the excuses are no better now than they were than when the first agreements were reached.

Great stuff

For those not yet acquainted, Alison at Creekside is perfecting the art of snark.

A continuing culture

So much for the Libs trying to clean up the party after the sponsorship scandal, as the CP reports that multiple Lib leadership candidates are using their publicly-funded MP offices for the leadership race:

Supporters of at least eight of the 11 leadership candidates have used MPs' offices on Parliament Hill to distribute partisan campaign material, according to e-mails obtained by The Canadian Press.

During parliamentary business hours, offices have churned out invitations on campaign letterhead to meet candidates, attend leadership launches, or get together with campaign staff.

One Liberal MP called the practice unethical and said it runs deeper than just e-mails.

"This is the tip of the iceberg," he said. "There are interns being used to do (campaign) work, there's the odd phone call to twist a colleague's arm.

"But that's not traceable."...

A spokeswoman for Elections Canada said MPs' staffers are ineligible to work on campaigns while being paid for their time from the public purse...

"If a member of an MP's staff engages in leadership campaign work for the MP or for any other leadership contestants during normal working hours, then a proportionate share of that person's salary . . . must be included as a leadership campaign expense," she said.

"The same applies to the use of the member's office facilities or supplies."

In fairness, an MP could theoretically comply with the Elections Canada requirements by tracking all use of the office and reimbursing the public purse for the difference. But given last week's report that leadership candidates appear to be anticipating that Elections Canada won't enforce provisions requiring repayment of candidate loans, it seems all too likely that the same type of attitude will prevail when it comes to the use of MP offices for the leadership race. And even if the plan is to try to fix matters later, it's hard to see how any advantages to using public resources outweigh the damaging perception that the Libs haven't changed a bit.

Whatever the reason

John at Dymaxion World points out the bad news that Canadians as a whole have a poor understanding of Canada's fuel situation. But the good news is that whatever the public's knowledge level, Canadians consumed less fuel last year than the previous one:

Canadian gasoline sales decreased last year for only the second time since 1994, likely thanks to surging pump prices, Statistics Canada reported Thursday.

Canadian drivers purchased 39.8 billion litres of gasoline in 2005, down 1.4 per cent from 2004, according to preliminary data.

It was the first decline since 1994, except for a marginal 0.1 per cent reduction in 2001 when terrorist attacks on the United States disrupted the transportation industry.

It remains to be seen whether the drop will be a permanent effect, or simply a one-time reaction to higher-than-usual prices. But it's still a plus to note that consumption levels at least started heading in the right direction last year...whether or not the drop is based on a full appreciation of where Canadians gas comes from and what we pay compared to the rest of the world.

Just wondering...

Due credit to those in Iraq who managed to hunt down Al-Zarqawi. But does this mean we'll never find out who his top lieutenants really were?

A strong debut

While the CMA continues to insist on health-care privatization, the newly-formed Canadian Doctors for Medicare points out just how far off base the CMA is:

(W)e face challenges similar to those in many, if not all, developed countries, whatever their mix of public and private health care. Most of these countries are struggling to ensure that their citizens have better access to primary and preventative care (including a family doctor), and to improve wait times for diagnostic tests and treatment.

Vocal advocates of privatization use these challenges to advance their views that private insurance will somehow make things better. That couldn't be further from the truth...

Health care is expensive, and it's going to get more expensive. But if we follow the private insurance road, we'll end up losing the efficiencies that make our single-tier system more cost effective than the two-tiered alternative, not to mention the higher quality and accessibility of our single-tier model.

It remains to be seen whether the new group will be able to cultivate as high a public profile in the debate as CMA has received. But if nothing else, it's a boost to all Canadians who want to see a universally-accessible system to know that a movement of doctors shares their view. And if the CDM is able to help sway the debate, then maybe we can get past the "gridlock" of perpetual talk of privatization in order to shift the discussion to policies which actually help the health-care system.

On ill-fated plans

Michael Wilson apparently has some time to kill as he waits for the U.S. to get back to him on border security. And after his suggestion that top Canadian officials go on a "myth-busting" tour through the States, I'll suggest that he spend at least a bit of that time studying the American political scene enough to know just what kind of treatment any dose of reality tends to receive.

On bad investments

Let's check in on how the Cons' closer ties with the U.S. are working out these days:

The American government wants anyone crossing its border to carry a secure piece of identification by the end of next year, but Canada's ambassador in Washington says he still doesn't know what that means.

Michael Wilson told a Senate committee Wednesday that despite the looming deadline, there is no information about what Washington wants when it comes to identification.

"There is a sense of frustration at not being able to find out information," Wilson said. "We don't know how much has been done. Some of the questions might have moved past what we think the answers are."...

Wilson repeatedly had to tell senators with questions about the law that he didn't have any answers.

In other words, the Cons' plan to put Canada/U.S. relations on "a more mature wavelength has predictably resulted in nothing more than static headed Canada's way, despite our modest billion-dollar investment in the U.S. softwood lumber industry. And it appears the Cons' current idea of maturity is simply to grin and bear a complete lack of cooperation from Harper's ideological allies, even as other American politicians (largely made up of Bush's opponents) are also doing their best to deal with the border.

Ever changing

At least a few MPs have an excuse for not being particularly focused on the budget, as the CP goes into more detail about the number of possible amendments to the Accountability Act:

A special legislative committee is embarking on a virtual rewrite of the Conservative government's centrepiece Federal Accountability Act today with plans for more than 100 amendments to the bill.

By the end of a line-by-line review of Bill C-2, almost one in three of its 370 clauses are expected to be altered by an ad hoc committee dominated by the opposition parties.

Major amendments expected from the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois include the elimination of a proposed $1,000 reward for whistleblowers, stricter limits on political donations from minors, a ban on corporate loans for candidates, a floor-crossing law allowing for the recall of politicians and even altering the French title of the proposed law.

It doesn't look like the bulk of the proposed amendments should be overly controversial. But I still wonder whether the Cons will follow through on passing an opposition-influenced Accountability Act and which can be seen to embarrass at least a couple of high-profile Cons, rather than using the number of amendments as an excuse not to do anything without a majority in Parliament.

On unintended consequences

The CP reports on the latest machinations surrounding the Accountability Act. Most of the changes seem relatively minor: the floor-crossing provision sounds sufficiently watered-down not to have too much effect (though it is news to have the Libs onside), and the NDP's call to combine contribution limits between parents and children doesn't seem likely to have too strong an effect on anybody besides Joe Volpe. But a much larger potential amendment is buried at the bottom of the coverage:

One element of the act requires anybody who lobbies the federal government to file reports every time they meet with public office holders. The Canadian Society of Association Executives has called on the government to exempt charities and non-profits from the requirement.

"We are also concerned that increasing this compliance requirement will prove to be a more onerous, time-consuming burden that will result in a loss of productivity for many not-for-profit organizations currently facing resource constraints," the society said in its submission to the Commons committee.

On the surface, this would seem to be a reasonable suggestion - and certainly it's tough for any party to be seen taking a stand against non-profits and charities.

The only problem is the small matter of what would happen if such a rule were to pass. It's not hard to see that the exemption of charities and non-profits from lobbying rules would offer a ready opening for astroturf groups to lobby on behalf of anybody based on a single step worth of separation. Not only would that utterly undermine the purpose of imposing greater transparency on lobbyists, but it could also easily result in the newly-formed astroturf groups using their organizational resources to shape the political playing field when they're not busy lobbying.

The article doesn't indicate which parties (if any) are looking to include the exemption. But hopefully enough MPs will recognize the dangers behind the seemingly innocuous suggestion, and ensure that an act which is supposed to improve transparency doesn't instead spur the promulgation of artificial interest groups.

On mistakes

Needless to say, this is an embarrassment for the opposition parties.

Assuming a Con would bother showing up when scheduled to speak? What could they have been thinking?

A credit-worthy idea

The Daily Bread Food Bank has made its suggestions on how to put an end to hunger in Toronto and elsewhere:

The plan, which was outlined in the agency's annual profile of hunger in the GTA, recommends the creation of a new Ontario Child Benefit up to $92 per child per month for low-income families. It also suggests Ottawa establish a new refundable tax credit for the working poor and low-income earners.

That federal credit would consist of two parts – a working income benefit of up to $2,400 a year or $200 a month for the working poor and a basic refundable tax credit of $1,800 a year or $150 a month for all low-income earners including the working poor...

Other highlights of the action plan include: a request that all levels of government to continue to invest in affordable housing and rent supplement programs and the federal government reverse its decision to end the national learning and child care program.

The report provides a stark snapshot of poverty in the GTA. Thirty-eight per cent of people relying on food banks are children. A total of 894,017 people used food banks in the last year. That’s up only slightly — 1.3 per cent — from the previous year, but up a whopping 79 per cent since 1995.

The annual report also found that 22 per cent of children go hungry at least once a week while 45 per cent of adults say they go hungry at least once a week. And 24 per cent of households using food banks have at least one person working. The median income of food bank households is $954 a month. The net income of the average size family is $11,448 a year.

While the suggestions on housing and child care don't appear likely to be positively received by the federal government, it's worth seeing whether Harper will consider extending his favoured tax-credit idea to the task of helping Canada's poorest workers. Such an idea could be a winner from both a political and a policy standpoint, likely softening up the current and well-deserved perception that Harper isn't interested in helping Canada's worst off while helping to alleviate poverty in a cost-effective way.

But if (as seems all too likely) Harper isn't interested, then it'll remove all doubt that his concern isn't so much with relieving harmful tax burdens as with buying votes. And even those who are currently benefitting from the Cons' largesse shouldn't have much trouble seeing the longer-term problems with that type of mindset.

On growing recognition

An AP/Ipsos poll suggests that despite apparent crackdowns against immigrants (accompanied by inevitable anti-immigrant rhetoric) in the U.S., Canada and elsewhere, public acknowledgement of the contributions of immigrants has in fact improved over the past two years. And Canada leads the way in its enthusiasm for immigration:

Public acceptance of immigrants has grown in Canada, the United States and several European countries over the last few years despite outbreaks in some countries of immigrant riots and heated debates aimed at limiting migration.

AP-Ipsos polling found more tolerance for immigrants now than two years ago in the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain.

In the U.S. and Australia, just over half said immigrants are good for their country. In Canada - where immigrants are actively recruited - three-fourths said immigrants are a good influence.

Of course, the nearly-even splits in most of the countries aside from Canada suggest that there's still a lot of nationalist sentiment in play. But the wider trend is at least headed in the direction of recognizing the important roles immigrants play in any country's well-being...and Canada should be proud to be leading the way.