In an interview with the CBC following the defection, riding association president Khalid Sagheer said Khan "is my friend, I support him and I will continue to support him."It remains to be seen whether Sagheer and others ultimately will follow Khan in his party switch. But if so, then the Libs now touting Mississauga-Streetsville as a cakewalk for a star candidate of the party's choosing may face a much tougher battle than they're anticipating. And if Sagheer's apparent views are shared by other Lib organizers, then the loss of a single MP could be the least of the Libs' worries going into the next election.
Asked whether backing Khan would mean switching party memberships himself, Sagheer said "that decision will come in due course."
"I agree with him and my own personal opinion is that the Liberal party has been taking us for granted — immigrants that have worked and supported the party so much, it's been so far only a one-way street," Sagheer said.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Continued loyalties
While Wajid Khan's defection has certainly received plenty of comment so far, one key element of the move seems to have slipped by unnoticed so far. Unlike his fellow Lib-turned-Con David Emerson, Khan appears likely to maintain at least some support from the organization that helped him to win his seat:
Let's make a deal
Much of Greg's analysis of the potential problems in any environmental deal between the NDP and the Cons appears to be spot on. But there is one area where there's more reason for hope than he seems to suggest:
Which could hint both at where there's some wiggle room in the NDP's current position, and where Harper will go with his budgetary policy.
It originally struck me as curious that Harper would distract from his cabinet shuffle by discussing the Cons' plans for future tax cuts. But it might serve the Cons well to play up that angle as the first message to its corporate base, with the "but..." yet to come consisting of the need to invest in serious greenhouse gas emissions reduction with part of the spoils.
Meanwhile, the NDP can easily enough place its focus on ends rather than means, and argue that however distasteful it may be to offer tax reductions or incentives to the oil patch and other big businesses, it'll be worth it if the result is a real reduction in emissions. Moreover, any general tax measures (as opposed to specific incentives aimed at emissions reduction) would likely be included in a budget where the Cons are counting on Bloc support, not in any environmental legislation - meaning that the NDP wouldn't even have to vote for the side of the equation which would be most distasteful to Dippers.
In sum, it's readily foreseeable how the Cons could commit to strong emissions reduction targets without either doing any substantial harm to their base, or demanding terms which the NDP couldn't accept. And given the track record of Harper's attempts to negotiate with Layton, it's not unlikely that Layton may get Harper to move from his current position without surrending much (or any) territory in the process.
Granted, it's entirely possible that the Cons will instead refuse to do anything more than try to win NDP approval for a plan just as pitiful as their initial Clean Air Act. And I'd agree entirely with Greg that if the Cons do take that position, there's no reason at all for Layton to play along. After all, the NDP would still have the opportunity to broker an opposition deal - and if the Libs continue to insist on doing nothing in the current Parliament, then the NDP will be far better served presenting itself as the lone party fighting for immediate and effective action than as a willing fig leaf for the Cons.
But while that looms as the downside outcome, there's no reason why the Cons couldn't sell a legitimate piece of legislation to their base. The only question is whether PMS recognizes that to be in his party's best interests - and proving that point may be the most important part of the NDP's sales pitch in seeking a deal.
NDP supporters are very suspicious of Harper's motives and his willingness to follow through on anything Layton can squeeze out of him. Without an iron clad guarantee that Harper will move and move hard on greenhouse gas emissions (which I for one do not see coming), Layton will face a revolt among his base and all this maneuvering will have been for naught. If, on the other hand, Layton does somehow get those guarantees from Harper and it looks like he might actually do something substantial on this file, Harper may face his own revolt from his base.In my view, it's far from clear that Harper would necessarily face much of a revolt based on an effective environmental plan. It shouldn't be hard for Harper to sell the position that the alternative to his taking action now would be a similar Lib move toward strict regulation after a future election. And if that message takes, then the question for the Cons' corporate supporters will be that of which of Harper or Dion will do more to counterbalance the perceived downside.
Which could hint both at where there's some wiggle room in the NDP's current position, and where Harper will go with his budgetary policy.
It originally struck me as curious that Harper would distract from his cabinet shuffle by discussing the Cons' plans for future tax cuts. But it might serve the Cons well to play up that angle as the first message to its corporate base, with the "but..." yet to come consisting of the need to invest in serious greenhouse gas emissions reduction with part of the spoils.
Meanwhile, the NDP can easily enough place its focus on ends rather than means, and argue that however distasteful it may be to offer tax reductions or incentives to the oil patch and other big businesses, it'll be worth it if the result is a real reduction in emissions. Moreover, any general tax measures (as opposed to specific incentives aimed at emissions reduction) would likely be included in a budget where the Cons are counting on Bloc support, not in any environmental legislation - meaning that the NDP wouldn't even have to vote for the side of the equation which would be most distasteful to Dippers.
In sum, it's readily foreseeable how the Cons could commit to strong emissions reduction targets without either doing any substantial harm to their base, or demanding terms which the NDP couldn't accept. And given the track record of Harper's attempts to negotiate with Layton, it's not unlikely that Layton may get Harper to move from his current position without surrending much (or any) territory in the process.
Granted, it's entirely possible that the Cons will instead refuse to do anything more than try to win NDP approval for a plan just as pitiful as their initial Clean Air Act. And I'd agree entirely with Greg that if the Cons do take that position, there's no reason at all for Layton to play along. After all, the NDP would still have the opportunity to broker an opposition deal - and if the Libs continue to insist on doing nothing in the current Parliament, then the NDP will be far better served presenting itself as the lone party fighting for immediate and effective action than as a willing fig leaf for the Cons.
But while that looms as the downside outcome, there's no reason why the Cons couldn't sell a legitimate piece of legislation to their base. The only question is whether PMS recognizes that to be in his party's best interests - and proving that point may be the most important part of the NDP's sales pitch in seeking a deal.
An implausible reaction
The Cons' Invisible Minister seems to be looking to make a name for herself in the government's ever-burgeoning spin department, as Carol Skelton is claiming to be happy to be on the receiving end of the sole unmitigated demotion in Harper's cabinet shuffle:
That said, Harper must surely be glad to know Skelton is such a loyal foot soldier as to take a strong public stand in favour of her own demotion rather than worrying about her province's loss of representation. Which means that if the Cons hold onto power long enough to shuffle their cabinet again, she figures to be in line to improve her position - unless, of course, she'd genuinely rather be demoted once more.
Update: Apparently Skelton is just as invisible in her own party as in the public at large.
Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar MP Carol Skelton, who remains Saskatchewan's lone representative at the cabinet table as minister of national revenue, loses the portfolio of Western Economic Diversification to Alberta's Rona Ambrose, who was demoted from environment to intergovernmental affairs.Naturally, there's no explanation as to why Skelton would prefer the national revenue position to one which would allow Saskatchewan's lone cabinet minister to at least have some say in regional issues. And the committee demotion also seems to signal Skelton's removal from the ongoing administration of the Cons' government in favour of a wider planning role whose work product doesn't seem likely to survive the next election.
In an interview Thursday, Skelton said she was happy with the move, adding it was unusual for the national revenue minister -- who oversees the country's tax system -- to hold another portfolio.
"I'm extremely excited about what the prime minister has done. When he appointed cabinet to start with, he gave lots of us two and three different areas of expertise to look at. We've done our job and they've decided that possibly it's time to move some of these around to different departments," said Skelton, who was also moved off of cabinet's operations committee -- which charts the day-to-day course of the government -- but remains on cabinet's Treasury Board and economic affairs committee.
Clay Serby, Saskatchewan's deputy premier and a member of an NDP government that has been embroiled in a number of disputes with the federal Conservatives and its 12 Saskatchewan MPs, said he's troubled by what he says is clearly a "demotion" for Skelton.
That said, Harper must surely be glad to know Skelton is such a loyal foot soldier as to take a strong public stand in favour of her own demotion rather than worrying about her province's loss of representation. Which means that if the Cons hold onto power long enough to shuffle their cabinet again, she figures to be in line to improve her position - unless, of course, she'd genuinely rather be demoted once more.
Update: Apparently Skelton is just as invisible in her own party as in the public at large.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
A taste of what's lacking
The apparent floor-crossing by Wajid Khan nicely highlights just how much the Libs have squelched anything resembling internal democracy, as multiple Lib partisans seem entirely happy to have an outlet for internal renewal which wouldn't have been available if Khan had remained a Lib incumbent. But for those who are so pleased with the opening in Mississauga-Streetsville, shouldn't it be a matter of real concern that none of the other ridings now held by Lib MPs will receive any such opportunity?
Shuffling the deck
A few notes on the Cons' cabinet shuffle:
- While John Baird will presumably hold up to questioning better than Rona Ambrose did in the Environment role, it's worth noting his own dubious record to date.
Baird's previous assignment likewise involved the Cons' signature piece of legislation for the year. But by the time the Accountability Act became law, it had been drained of many of the Cons' promises and had undergone major revisions to clean up serious drafting oversights...resulting in an awful lot of work for a very small increase in actual accountability. And while that kind of outcome may have been acceptable on a file where the Cons' main competitors genuinely preferred to see nothing done, it won't be good enough in an area where every other federal party has taken up the cause.
Moreover, it was Baird's stubborn refusal to acknowledge the realities of existing election law that exposed the Cons' convention fee scandal. And PMS surely can't relish the prospect of the Cons' similarly-flawed assumptions on the environment coming to light.
- With Wajid Khan apparently not crossing the floor (yet?), it's all the more odd that he wouldn't state any commitment to the Libs when asked about the possibility.
- But while floor-crossing may not be an issue this time out, PMS does seem to have managed to toss yet more cabinet responsibility into the Senate which he so decries - this time by making Marjory LeBreton the Secretary of State for Seniors (in addition to her previous role as Senate governent leader).
- Meanwhile, the streamlined Cabinet which Harper once boasted about seems to be expanding in a hurry with the addition of five new "secretaries of state".
- As for the ministers shuffled around within Cabinet, few of the changes appear likely to make much difference in substance. But it'll be worth keeping an eye out to see whether Rob Nicholson brings a less extreme stance to the Justice role than Vic Toews did - or whether he's simply seen as a more believable voice for the same reactionary policies.
- While John Baird will presumably hold up to questioning better than Rona Ambrose did in the Environment role, it's worth noting his own dubious record to date.
Baird's previous assignment likewise involved the Cons' signature piece of legislation for the year. But by the time the Accountability Act became law, it had been drained of many of the Cons' promises and had undergone major revisions to clean up serious drafting oversights...resulting in an awful lot of work for a very small increase in actual accountability. And while that kind of outcome may have been acceptable on a file where the Cons' main competitors genuinely preferred to see nothing done, it won't be good enough in an area where every other federal party has taken up the cause.
Moreover, it was Baird's stubborn refusal to acknowledge the realities of existing election law that exposed the Cons' convention fee scandal. And PMS surely can't relish the prospect of the Cons' similarly-flawed assumptions on the environment coming to light.
- With Wajid Khan apparently not crossing the floor (yet?), it's all the more odd that he wouldn't state any commitment to the Libs when asked about the possibility.
- But while floor-crossing may not be an issue this time out, PMS does seem to have managed to toss yet more cabinet responsibility into the Senate which he so decries - this time by making Marjory LeBreton the Secretary of State for Seniors (in addition to her previous role as Senate governent leader).
- Meanwhile, the streamlined Cabinet which Harper once boasted about seems to be expanding in a hurry with the addition of five new "secretaries of state".
- As for the ministers shuffled around within Cabinet, few of the changes appear likely to make much difference in substance. But it'll be worth keeping an eye out to see whether Rob Nicholson brings a less extreme stance to the Justice role than Vic Toews did - or whether he's simply seen as a more believable voice for the same reactionary policies.
Eyeing the jump
It remains to be seen whether or not Wajid Khan actually will jump to the Cons as speculated by Susan Delacourt. But it can't be a good sign for the Libs that Khan himself doesn't even pretend to have a preference to stay in his current party:
Of course, the Libs were entirely willing to ignore their own member's nonexistent loyalty as a factor last time one of their MPs crossed the floor. But the more often Canadians see the apparent interchangeability between the Libs and Cons in the eyes of the MPs jumping back and forth, the less likely they are to believe the Libs' protestations that there's a real difference between the two.
(W)hether Khan intends to stay as a Liberal or cross the floor to the Conservatives became more of a mystery yesterday when neither he nor the Prime Minister's Office wanted to answer any questions about the political future of the MP for Mississauga-Streetsville.Mind you, it would have helped if the Libs had insisted on some of that discussion last summer when Harper first recruited Khan as an adviser. Instead, they've allowed the issue to fester for several months, offering PMS a prime opportunity to offer Khan whatever inducements he may want in exchange for a party swap. And Khan's public silence only seems to suggest a refusal to acknowledge any party loyalty - which has to call into question whether he really has any preference as between the Libs and the Cons.
"You are best to go to Khan directly on this," said Carolyn Stewart Olsen, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
"I will not comment on speculations and rumours," said Khan.
Nor would the PMO, on the eve of today's expected cabinet shuffle, answer questions about whether Khan had been approached to join the Tory caucus, as has been expected.
The mystery may not be allowed to last for too long, though. New Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion is due to sit down with Khan by the end of this week.
A spokesperson for Dion said yesterday that the discussion would include questions about the MP's future political allegiance.
"He is scheduled to come in and meet Stéphane later on this week. ... I'm sure it's something that will be addressed when they meet," said André Fortin, Dion's spokesperson.
Of course, the Libs were entirely willing to ignore their own member's nonexistent loyalty as a factor last time one of their MPs crossed the floor. But the more often Canadians see the apparent interchangeability between the Libs and Cons in the eyes of the MPs jumping back and forth, the less likely they are to believe the Libs' protestations that there's a real difference between the two.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Uncertain benefits
CBC reports that the Cons have managed to make their fitness tax benefit unclear enough to leave many parents (and others) with no idea which activities are included. Needless to say, the end result appears to be that sports associations will be forced to try to plead their case in court...which doesn't seem to be the kind of activity the Cons were supposedly trying to encourage.
An impending appointment
Carol Goar notes that it's only been through the efforts of several federal leaders - and without any single agreement to cooperate - that Canada's election laws have been revised to reduce the impact of big money. But the new laws will only be as effective as the agency which enforces them...which leads against to the question of who will become Canada's next Chief Electoral Officer.
And the intrigue in that department only seems to be beginning. As noted by Kady O'Malley, while an appointment may take place by a majority resolution in Parliament, all prior CEOs have in fact been appointed unanimously. And it would be difficult for PMS to justify any change from that precedent for the moment.
But it's worth watching whether Harper will offer up a strategic nomination based on the CEO age limit of 65. Presumably no party would bother opposing a well-respected, neutral nominee in his or her early 60s to act as a caretaker for the next federal election, particularly given that the ability to take over quickly is a must.
That could push the decision on a longer-term CEO off into a future Parliament. And if Harper is gambling on winning a majority in the next election, then it wouldn't be particularly surprising to see a Gerry Nicholls-approved partisan put in place over opposition objections at that point.
Of course, PMS may yet surprise by nominating someone who'll stay in the role for a longer period of time (though in that case the nominee's record would likely come under far more scrutiny). But given the Cons' obvious Republican influences, both the opposition parties and Canadian voters will need to be wary of the possibility of Harper stacking the electoral deck. And if PMS is able to force one of his allies into the CEO position, then it may not be long before all the good work that's been done to try to clean up federal politics will prove to have gone for naught.
And the intrigue in that department only seems to be beginning. As noted by Kady O'Malley, while an appointment may take place by a majority resolution in Parliament, all prior CEOs have in fact been appointed unanimously. And it would be difficult for PMS to justify any change from that precedent for the moment.
But it's worth watching whether Harper will offer up a strategic nomination based on the CEO age limit of 65. Presumably no party would bother opposing a well-respected, neutral nominee in his or her early 60s to act as a caretaker for the next federal election, particularly given that the ability to take over quickly is a must.
That could push the decision on a longer-term CEO off into a future Parliament. And if Harper is gambling on winning a majority in the next election, then it wouldn't be particularly surprising to see a Gerry Nicholls-approved partisan put in place over opposition objections at that point.
Of course, PMS may yet surprise by nominating someone who'll stay in the role for a longer period of time (though in that case the nominee's record would likely come under far more scrutiny). But given the Cons' obvious Republican influences, both the opposition parties and Canadian voters will need to be wary of the possibility of Harper stacking the electoral deck. And if PMS is able to force one of his allies into the CEO position, then it may not be long before all the good work that's been done to try to clean up federal politics will prove to have gone for naught.
Grudging progress
For those wondering what it would take for the Cons to at least pretend to listen to anybody who doesn't share their ideology, we now have an answer. After a year in power, an utter flop of a Clean Air Act which was itself delayed for supposed consultations, two leadership races and a byelection which made clear that the environment isn't going to be easily dismissed, and public prodding from the Cons' own party godfather, the PMO is finally willing to meet with environmental groups to discuss greenhouse gas emissions.
But in case there was any doubt whose interests the Cons have in mind, the explicit purpose of the meetings is to "beef up the government's record heading in to a key winter session". Which makes it all too likely that even these meetings will lead to more hot air from the Cons rather than any action which isn't forced on them by the opposition parties.
But in case there was any doubt whose interests the Cons have in mind, the explicit purpose of the meetings is to "beef up the government's record heading in to a key winter session". Which makes it all too likely that even these meetings will lead to more hot air from the Cons rather than any action which isn't forced on them by the opposition parties.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
On benchmarks
Jason Cherniak's position against a reasonable boost to Ontario's minimum wage has been rightly slammed today. But there's another point which seems to have been missed so far: even Cherniak's own precondition for the proposed raise is one that has been met if one looks at the issue fairly.
According to Cherniak:
That preface aside, let's look at how Ontario's minimum wage has changed compared to its corporate profit levels over the last decade for which data is available (1995-2005, since Ontario's economic data goes only to 2005). As inflation should affect both figures equally, I presume it doesn't need to be included in the equation. (But in case you were wondering, the consumer price index has increased by roughly 23% over the decade.)
The chart below includes four columns: the year, the actual minimum wage, the corporate profit level, and the minimum wage if adjusted to match the increase or decrease in corporate profit levels.
Year - Min(Act) - Profits - Min(Adj)
1995 - $6.85 - $33.1 Billion - $6.85
1997 - $6.85 - $37.5 Billion - $7.76
1999 - $6.85 - $49.7 Billion - $10.29
2001 - $6.85 - $49.3 Billion - $10.20
2003 - $6.85 - $56.9 Billion - $11.76
2005 - $7.45 - $64.4 Billion - $13.33
In other words, if the minimum wage had actually been adjusted by Cherniak's suggested benchmark over the past decade-plus, the minimum wage would have exceeded the $10/hr which Cherniak now considers unreasonable as early as 1999, and would currently be well in excess of $13.
Not that I expect Cherniak to continue referring to corporate profits as a measuring stick once the numbers show just how far behind minimum-wage workers have fallen. But the real numbers show clearly that there's an awful long way to go to make up the ground that Ontario's workers have lost. And if the Libs really don't see anything out of whack about a minimum wage that's still far below even inflation over the past decade (let alone corporate profit levels), then that should say all we need to know about their lack of respect for workers.
Update: And the goalposts have been moved.
According to Cherniak:
If you want to convince me to support an increase in minimum wage, then convince me that profits have grown by 25% without an equivalent growth in wages over the past year or two.Now, I presume that Cherniak is well-enough informed to know that the need for a boost in the minimum wage isn't based solely on the last two years. I presume further that Cherniak wouldn't much want to have to defend Mike Harris' record of inaction on the minimum wage. Of course, if that's wrong, then I'll encourage him to show just how little difference there sometimes is between staunch Libs and Cons when workers' interests come into play.
That preface aside, let's look at how Ontario's minimum wage has changed compared to its corporate profit levels over the last decade for which data is available (1995-2005, since Ontario's economic data goes only to 2005). As inflation should affect both figures equally, I presume it doesn't need to be included in the equation. (But in case you were wondering, the consumer price index has increased by roughly 23% over the decade.)
The chart below includes four columns: the year, the actual minimum wage, the corporate profit level, and the minimum wage if adjusted to match the increase or decrease in corporate profit levels.
Year - Min(Act) - Profits - Min(Adj)
1995 - $6.85 - $33.1 Billion - $6.85
1997 - $6.85 - $37.5 Billion - $7.76
1999 - $6.85 - $49.7 Billion - $10.29
2001 - $6.85 - $49.3 Billion - $10.20
2003 - $6.85 - $56.9 Billion - $11.76
2005 - $7.45 - $64.4 Billion - $13.33
In other words, if the minimum wage had actually been adjusted by Cherniak's suggested benchmark over the past decade-plus, the minimum wage would have exceeded the $10/hr which Cherniak now considers unreasonable as early as 1999, and would currently be well in excess of $13.
Not that I expect Cherniak to continue referring to corporate profits as a measuring stick once the numbers show just how far behind minimum-wage workers have fallen. But the real numbers show clearly that there's an awful long way to go to make up the ground that Ontario's workers have lost. And if the Libs really don't see anything out of whack about a minimum wage that's still far below even inflation over the past decade (let alone corporate profit levels), then that should say all we need to know about their lack of respect for workers.
Update: And the goalposts have been moved.
About time
Good on the CCPA for tracking the minute at which an average top-100 CEO earned as much as the average Canadian will this year - which for those paying attention took place before most Canadians took their coffee break this morning:
(For those wondering, yes, I have been looking forward to just this type of analysis for quite some time.)
(h/t to Indiescribe.)
By the time the average Canadian grudgingly drags his or her still-hungover body into work Tuesday, swaps holiday tales with the stiff in the next cubicle, and hunkers down to work, the country's highest-paid CEOs will have already earned the worker's annual salary.Of course, pointing out the problem is only a small first step. But it's still far too rare for the gaping chasm between Canada's highest-paid executives and the bulk of its citizens to be exposed this vividly. And the acknowledgement can only lead to important questions about how the gap has evolved, and what can be done to start narrowing it.
Minimum-wage workers would have barely rolled out of bed on New Year's Day by the time the country's top earners pocketed the $15,931 that will likely take the low-paid workers all of 2007 to make.
A study released Tuesday by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives says the 100 highest-paid private-sector executives will have earned an average Canadian's salary of $38,010 by 9:46 a.m. Tuesday...
Mackenzie crunched the numbers based on 2005 salary figures from Statistics Canada and Report on Business magazine's most recent listing of the 100 best-paid CEOs of Canadian publicly traded companies.
According to his figures, by the time Canadians flick on the 6 p.m. news Tuesday, the average CEO will have pocketed a staggering $70,000.
"I was kind of hoping it would get into the second week of January. As it turns out, it was not even close," Mackenzie quipped. "Once people get over how stunning the differentials are, I think it really raises a lot of questions in people's minds."
"How can somebody possibly be worth that amount in income and ... if those people are taking that much money out of the company or out of the economy, what does that mean for what's left for the rest of us?"
(For those wondering, yes, I have been looking forward to just this type of analysis for quite some time.)
(h/t to Indiescribe.)
On minor contributions
The Star points out just how little benefit there is to be had in relying on voluntary contributions to a government end:
Meanwhile, it also speaks volumes about Tory's mindset that he apparently hasn't learned anything from the fund's minor contribution under the Harris regime as well as the current one. Even if it's indeed true that the fund could be brought back to its original numbers through more consistent reminders, it's entirely likely that that amount could be recovered many times over by even a relatively minor crackdown on back taxes (or choice not to extend a single random tax benefit as Tory's federal cousins seem so eager to do). Which means that for a province looking to eliminate its deficit, the most important step has to be to empower a government with a better sense of proportion than Ontario's Cons past or present.
(W)hile (Greg Sorbara) still likes to blame former Progressive Conservative premier Mike Harris for leaving Ontario's finances in a mess after eight years of tax cuts, there is some money that keeps rolling into provincial coffers year after year thanks to Harris and his successor, former finance minister Ernie Eves.And lest anybody accuse Ontario's Cons of having figured out how insignificant any voluntary contributions would be:
It's the Ontario Opportunities Fund, where a few Ontarians – and few they are – contribute all or part of their tax refunds to defray the provincial deficit. There's a box to tick on the last page of the annual income tax form.
Last year, the fund raised $121,202 – not even enough to pay the $157,633 annual salary of a cabinet minister...
The fund was launched in 1996, the year after Harris surged to power with his Common Sense Revolution promising to cut taxes and slash government spending. In the end, that political formula left the province with an annual deficit of more than $5 billion when the Liberals took power in 2003.
Perhaps fittingly, that's also the year Ontario taxpayers – no doubt feeling flush with cash from all those tax cuts – ponied up $254,419 to the opportunities fund, a peak it hasn't reached since.
(T)he opportunities fund could bring in bigger contributions if the Liberals did more to make taxpayers aware of it, says Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory.In fairness, the fund certainly can't be seen as a bad idea in principle, and its participants deserve plenty of credit for their willingness to help out Ontario's financial situation. But the failure of the fund to have more than the slightest impact on the province as a whole should cast all the more doubt on any claim that voluntary participation is likely to be a viable means to any important end.
"If they bothered to promote it at all they could probably get the number up quite significantly and that would be good for Ontario as well."
Meanwhile, it also speaks volumes about Tory's mindset that he apparently hasn't learned anything from the fund's minor contribution under the Harris regime as well as the current one. Even if it's indeed true that the fund could be brought back to its original numbers through more consistent reminders, it's entirely likely that that amount could be recovered many times over by even a relatively minor crackdown on back taxes (or choice not to extend a single random tax benefit as Tory's federal cousins seem so eager to do). Which means that for a province looking to eliminate its deficit, the most important step has to be to empower a government with a better sense of proportion than Ontario's Cons past or present.
Unbalanced
The Cons' impending cabinet shuffle already ranks as one of the more overreported stories of the past month. But Jane Taber takes the reporting to new depths, combining an utter lack of meaningful information with a remarkable amount of pure Con spin:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper is wasting no time getting back to work, scheduling a series of meetings with senior ministers beginning Tuesday amid rumours of a pre-election cabinet shuffle.Now, it's debatable whether it's more problematic for Taber herself to be lavishing unvarnished praise on PMS and his cabinet (even Rona Ambrose is painted as a victim of circumstances rather than someone who's shown no qualms about simply making up false answers), or for her to give such prominent and uncontradicted play to the Cons' own self-promotion. But it does seem clear that the Cons are taking full advantage of those like Taber who are willing to act as stenographers for the government - which should only highlight the need for any self-respecting reporter to present something more than merely what PMS wants the public to hear.
Alberta MP and Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice, one of the Prime Minister's must trusted and top performing ministers, was scheduled to fly back to Ottawa Monday.
He is one of the ministers scheduled to meet with Mr. Harper, according to a senior Tory source.
“. . . [The meetings] suggest at a bare minimum a focused government carefully planning its way forward, whether or not a shuffle is in the cards. Though it seems more likely than not,” the source said about the individual meetings...
Like Mr. Prentice, Mr. Flaherty has been a key member of the Harper cabinet and seen as being able to deliver. So have Industry Minister Maxime Bernier and Treasury Board President John Baird.
Industry types such as Mr. Bernier would not want to see him shuffled.
However, there is some speculation that Mr. Baird, who is a bilingual, an aggressive performer in Question Period and a good communicator, could be moved to a portfolio that needs a greater profile.
Monday, January 01, 2007
A burning question
Erin raises one of the big questions about Stephane Dion which the Libs probably don't want to have to deal with anytime soon. Namely, is Dion anywhere near as progressive economically as his media image suggests?
There's no doubt that Canada needs a strong progressive voice to oppose Harper's attempts to first starve the federal government, then tie it down to keep it from recovering. But barring a major change from his past positions, it looks far too likely that Dion's views are disturbingly close to PMS' on both counts. And if so, then Canadian voters may only have one choice willing to stand up for a federal government which looks to act for the good of the country, rather than looking for excuses not to.
The only grounds for optimism seem to be that Dion has said very little about economics and some good things about the environment. However, unless Dion says something different about economics, we have to assume that he accepts the right-wing orthodoxy of the governments in which he was a cabinet minister. Dion’s legacy as environment minister was a bunch of bogus voluntary programs.In addition to this track record which doesn't seem to have been substantively challenged, it's worth again mentioning Dion's apparent position against any federal involvement in areas which could possibly be construed as provincial jurisdiction - even where the provinces are perfectly happy to see Ottawa involved.
There are significant grounds for pessimism. In the last three parliamentary votes on anti-scab legislation, Dion opposed it twice and did not vote once. During the Liberal leadership race, he sneered that “the NDP do not understand the market economy” and defended the “compassion” of Paul Martin’s 1995 budget cuts.
There's no doubt that Canada needs a strong progressive voice to oppose Harper's attempts to first starve the federal government, then tie it down to keep it from recovering. But barring a major change from his past positions, it looks far too likely that Dion's views are disturbingly close to PMS' on both counts. And if so, then Canadian voters may only have one choice willing to stand up for a federal government which looks to act for the good of the country, rather than looking for excuses not to.
Costs and benefits
The Globe and Mail reports on an effort to wring some extra money out of Canadian citizens living abroad:
On the question of treating citizens equally, the plan would appear to set up highly differential treatment based on relatively trivial distinctions. There's no apparent reason why a four-year degree abroad should have no impact on one's citizenship while a further year of work would render a person un-Canadian (subject to payment of a special levy). Meanwhile, a person could easily be resident elsewhere while still making substantial contributions to Canada over the course of visits - a factor which would go completely unaccounted for in an analysis based solely on residency. And the problems with those distinctions are all the worse where (as appears to be the case in the proposal) the effect of non-residency and non-payment is the loss of citizenship outright.
Of course, there is another possibility: that the payment (or non-payment) would affect only the citizen's passport itself, rather than citizenship status. But in that case, the plan either provides an excuse for Canada's government to utterly neglect Canadian citizens abroad based on their lack of a single document, or serves as nothing but a cash cow if Canadians abroad will still receive proper support from Ottawa in the absence of a passport.
Meanwhile, even if it could be assumed that there's a sound basis to divide up citizens based on their recent residency, the flat tax structure can only be seen as yet another attack on progressive revenue collection. Under the usual guise of labelling any analysis of ability to pay as too "cumbersome and bureaucratic" to be worth bothering with, the scheme would present a virtually nonexistent cost of business for anybody using Canadian citizenship as a commercial jumping-off point, while imposing a potentially serious burden on dual citizens living in poorer countries and/or living abroad for reasons other than profit. Which can only help to tilt Canada's already money-heavy immigration policy toward further prioritizing wealth over all other factors.
Accordingly, it'll be for the best if the proposal isn't taken more seriously than it deserves to be. But it remains to be seen whether the Cons will want to take the opportunity to move toward a couple of their ideological goals - regardless of the obvious problems with doing so.
As Ottawa finally begins to review Canada's citizenship policy -- one of the most generous in the world -- critics are calling for a special tax for overseas Canadians...It's obvious why the idea could be a winner among the Cons, combining a ready excuse to start cutting into the nature of Canadian citizenship with a flat-dollar tax system. But for those same reasons, the policy looks to have serious flaws from a less reactionary standpoint.
This summer's $94-million evacuation of 15,000 Lebanese-Canadians from war-torn Lebanon finally prompted Ottawa to announce a review of Canada's citizenship policy. Immigration Minister Monte Solberg won't divulge details about the review, but he has said it is time to review the obligations of citizens who live abroad while drawing on Canada's social programs.
Mr. Kurland advocates the introduction of a special new tax for non-resident citizens. Canadians who have been living overseas for more than five years should pay $500 for a passport, he said.
This idea has also been endorsed by John Chant, a retired Simon Fraser University economist, in a study titled the Passport Package, released this month by the C.D. Howe Institute...
Such a tax would raise about $200-million a year, based on the estimate that 80 per cent of the 2.7 million overseas Canadians would choose to maintain their citizenship.
The policy would be less cumbersome and bureaucratic than requiring Canadians living abroad to pay income taxes.
On the question of treating citizens equally, the plan would appear to set up highly differential treatment based on relatively trivial distinctions. There's no apparent reason why a four-year degree abroad should have no impact on one's citizenship while a further year of work would render a person un-Canadian (subject to payment of a special levy). Meanwhile, a person could easily be resident elsewhere while still making substantial contributions to Canada over the course of visits - a factor which would go completely unaccounted for in an analysis based solely on residency. And the problems with those distinctions are all the worse where (as appears to be the case in the proposal) the effect of non-residency and non-payment is the loss of citizenship outright.
Of course, there is another possibility: that the payment (or non-payment) would affect only the citizen's passport itself, rather than citizenship status. But in that case, the plan either provides an excuse for Canada's government to utterly neglect Canadian citizens abroad based on their lack of a single document, or serves as nothing but a cash cow if Canadians abroad will still receive proper support from Ottawa in the absence of a passport.
Meanwhile, even if it could be assumed that there's a sound basis to divide up citizens based on their recent residency, the flat tax structure can only be seen as yet another attack on progressive revenue collection. Under the usual guise of labelling any analysis of ability to pay as too "cumbersome and bureaucratic" to be worth bothering with, the scheme would present a virtually nonexistent cost of business for anybody using Canadian citizenship as a commercial jumping-off point, while imposing a potentially serious burden on dual citizens living in poorer countries and/or living abroad for reasons other than profit. Which can only help to tilt Canada's already money-heavy immigration policy toward further prioritizing wealth over all other factors.
Accordingly, it'll be for the best if the proposal isn't taken more seriously than it deserves to be. But it remains to be seen whether the Cons will want to take the opportunity to move toward a couple of their ideological goals - regardless of the obvious problems with doing so.
Happy New Year
Happy New Year to all, and to all a good year!
Note that to ring in 2007, I've switched Accidental Deliberations over to the new Blogger. I haven't noticed any problems so far, but don't hesitate to point out any issues which may turn up in reading it.
Note that to ring in 2007, I've switched Accidental Deliberations over to the new Blogger. I haven't noticed any problems so far, but don't hesitate to point out any issues which may turn up in reading it.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
2006: A Brief and Incomplete Look Back
A few notes on the Canadian political scene over the past year...
Story Which Deserved More Attention:
The TILMA (Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement) - which figures to become much more familiar over the next year if the federal Cons really do plan on pushing it across the country.
Story Which Deserved Less Attention:
The Quebec "nation" debate, which shifted from an internal Lib discussion to a multi-party strategic war to a potential albatross around the Cons' neck, all without any substantive contribution to Canadian public policy.
Story Which Should Have Developed Further:
The NDP's proposed tenant's revolt to take back House of Commons control over the use of the Parliament buildings.
Story Which Thankfully Received Little Attention:
Paul Hill's proposal for an "economic union" between Saskatchewan and Alberta - which would presumably make the TILMA look like a free-government agreement in comparison. (Though it's worth wondering whether this will resurface in Saskatchewan's upcoming provincial election campaign.)
Story Which Bears Attention in Early 2008:
The status of the candidate loans from the Libs' leadership race, and particularly whether any of them will decide to go the Paul Hellyer route. (Though we may know by the end of this year whether the Libs will have a realistic shot at paying off their debts.)
Least Catchy Chant:
“I was a Michael Ignatieff supporter, and I decline to cast my ballot.”
- Attributed to Bob Rae supporters at the Lib convention by Vijay Sappani
Most Excessive Feigned Outrage in Response to the Year's Least Catchy Chant:
"Rae organisers are bringing in the dirt from nasty NDP type politics to the Liberal convention...This is the problem we have with cross over dirty old experienced politicians who bring their baggage with them. Worse he has betrayed Ontario and his friend of three decades, what makes you think he will not betray the Grits and Canada?"
- Vijay Sappani
Least Newsworthy Scoop (tie):
In year-end interviews, two writers lavished credit on themselves: for getting Stephen Harper to "admit" that he's "having a great time" as Prime Minister; and for securing the "candid admission" that Harper prefers being in government to being in opposition.
- Licia Corbella and Bruce Cheadle, respectively
Most Gullible Journalist:
Any reporter who honestly expects to be "the first to know" about the Cons' much-rumoured cabinet shuffle based solely on Stephen Harper's word.
- The Star's Political Notebook
Easiest 2007 Prediction:
That the impending Ontario election campaign won't lack for negative advertising.
- Ian Urquhart
It's definitely been an interesting year in Canadian politics - but with surprisingly little long-term development to show for the intrigue, as it's entirely possible that the bulk of the Cons' attempts to change Canada's political landscape could be undone by this time next year. Which means that 2006 is more likely to be remembered for laying the groundwork for the future (either through the Cons' election, the NDP's change in focus toward pursuing government, or the Libs' election of Dion as leader) than for its actual substantive results.
Story Which Deserved More Attention:
The TILMA (Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement) - which figures to become much more familiar over the next year if the federal Cons really do plan on pushing it across the country.
Story Which Deserved Less Attention:
The Quebec "nation" debate, which shifted from an internal Lib discussion to a multi-party strategic war to a potential albatross around the Cons' neck, all without any substantive contribution to Canadian public policy.
Story Which Should Have Developed Further:
The NDP's proposed tenant's revolt to take back House of Commons control over the use of the Parliament buildings.
Story Which Thankfully Received Little Attention:
Paul Hill's proposal for an "economic union" between Saskatchewan and Alberta - which would presumably make the TILMA look like a free-government agreement in comparison. (Though it's worth wondering whether this will resurface in Saskatchewan's upcoming provincial election campaign.)
Story Which Bears Attention in Early 2008:
The status of the candidate loans from the Libs' leadership race, and particularly whether any of them will decide to go the Paul Hellyer route. (Though we may know by the end of this year whether the Libs will have a realistic shot at paying off their debts.)
Least Catchy Chant:
“I was a Michael Ignatieff supporter, and I decline to cast my ballot.”
- Attributed to Bob Rae supporters at the Lib convention by Vijay Sappani
Most Excessive Feigned Outrage in Response to the Year's Least Catchy Chant:
"Rae organisers are bringing in the dirt from nasty NDP type politics to the Liberal convention...This is the problem we have with cross over dirty old experienced politicians who bring their baggage with them. Worse he has betrayed Ontario and his friend of three decades, what makes you think he will not betray the Grits and Canada?"
- Vijay Sappani
Least Newsworthy Scoop (tie):
In year-end interviews, two writers lavished credit on themselves: for getting Stephen Harper to "admit" that he's "having a great time" as Prime Minister; and for securing the "candid admission" that Harper prefers being in government to being in opposition.
- Licia Corbella and Bruce Cheadle, respectively
Most Gullible Journalist:
Any reporter who honestly expects to be "the first to know" about the Cons' much-rumoured cabinet shuffle based solely on Stephen Harper's word.
- The Star's Political Notebook
Easiest 2007 Prediction:
That the impending Ontario election campaign won't lack for negative advertising.
- Ian Urquhart
It's definitely been an interesting year in Canadian politics - but with surprisingly little long-term development to show for the intrigue, as it's entirely possible that the bulk of the Cons' attempts to change Canada's political landscape could be undone by this time next year. Which means that 2006 is more likely to be remembered for laying the groundwork for the future (either through the Cons' election, the NDP's change in focus toward pursuing government, or the Libs' election of Dion as leader) than for its actual substantive results.
Truth suppressed
Not many in the corporate media seem to have been willing to consider any of the harms associated with Saddam Hussein's execution (aside from valid general concerns about the death penalty itself). But Eric Margolis recognizes what's now been lost:
No one can accuse me of sympathy for Saddam or his fellow thugs who terrorized Iraq. But I was thoroughly disgusted and ashamed by the kangaroo court created and stage-managed by the U.S. that condemned Saddam.Of course, there are other crimes in Saddam's past equally deserving of a full trial aside from the Iran invasion. But it's beyond doubt that the rest of his would-be rap sheet - along with the U.S.' strategic contribution to it - will now likely be ignored in the longer term for lack of the highest-profile defendant and most important witness. Which only makes it all the more likely that the same pattern will repeat itself under new Saddam figures in Iraq and elsewhere in the future...with the U.S.' involvement once again getting glossed over in the final account.
It was a disgraceful farrago of Soviet-style show trial and judicial circus. Washington, which claimed to be bringing the fruits of democracy to the benighted Arab World, put on a sinister legal farce worthy of, ironically, Saddam's courts.
Iraq's deposed president, whom Osama bin Laden called "the worst Arab despot" should have faced real justice at an international legal tribunal like the UN Hague Court. That would have served warning to other despots who violated human rights and committed aggression.
The United States did right to hand over Serb tyrant Slobodan Milosevic to the Hague. But Saddam had to be silenced before he told the world about his long collusion with the United States. Dead men tell no tales...
Saddam should have faced trial for his unprovoked 1980 aggression against Iran that ended up causing one million dead and wounded.
But in this crime, Saddam was covertly backed by his principal accomplices, the U.S. and Britain. Donald Rumsfeld even went to Baghdad to offer Saddam arms, finance and intelligence. Hanging Saddam eliminated the main witness.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Pushing the limits
It should have been safe to assume that the "success that hasn't occurred yet" line so thoroughly skewered yesterday would at least serve as the outer boundary of reality-averse spin for more than a day. But enter Jeff Goldstein (as pointed out at Lawyers, Guns & Money):
Needless to say, this is one piece of spin that's likely to be picked up even faster. After all, mucking around with "hasn't occurred yet" may imply some expectation that real positive results will actually turn up in the future. But if potential returns are to be tallied - even when the potential has in reality proven to be unfulfilled - then suddenly the most absurdly optimistic assumption about a given policy can be put forward as its real effect.
This is the point where I'd normally offer examples of just how ridiculously such a principle could be applied. But is there really a better indictment of the argument than the one already at hand, as Goldstein tries to claim that past "potential" for a miraculous outcome to a war should make the world grateful that thousands of lives have been poured (and are being poured) into a sinkhole?
Sadly, that extreme application of such a bizarre argument can only make less macabre uses seem reasonable in comparison. And we can only hope that the potential abuse of such an argument will end up as far from reality as Goldstein's pipe dream for Iraq.
(C)ontrary to received wisdom, (the U.S. invasion) has made Iraq a far better place, if only for the moment potentially.For reasons far beyond my comprehension given that the word serves only to highlight the sheer hilarity of the statement, the emphasis is included in the original.
Needless to say, this is one piece of spin that's likely to be picked up even faster. After all, mucking around with "hasn't occurred yet" may imply some expectation that real positive results will actually turn up in the future. But if potential returns are to be tallied - even when the potential has in reality proven to be unfulfilled - then suddenly the most absurdly optimistic assumption about a given policy can be put forward as its real effect.
This is the point where I'd normally offer examples of just how ridiculously such a principle could be applied. But is there really a better indictment of the argument than the one already at hand, as Goldstein tries to claim that past "potential" for a miraculous outcome to a war should make the world grateful that thousands of lives have been poured (and are being poured) into a sinkhole?
Sadly, that extreme application of such a bizarre argument can only make less macabre uses seem reasonable in comparison. And we can only hope that the potential abuse of such an argument will end up as far from reality as Goldstein's pipe dream for Iraq.
More selective openness
It's been well noted that PMS' personal refusal to cooperate with the press reached the point this year where Canadian media outlets were forced to get their information from the more-available government of China instead. But when it comes to alienating allies in order to try get the press closer to the military in Afghanistan, guess who's been leading the way.
On empty victories
I don't have much to add about Saddam Hussein's execution that hasn't been said already. But it's worth noting that while any prosecution of a leader deposed from the outside is bound to have some air of victor's justice, Hussein's trial and execution have always suffered from a deeper problem.
Unlike in the case of the Nuremberg Trials, the question isn't simply whether the defeated side is treated fairly after conflict has effectively come to an end. Instead, Saddam has served as a distraction from the real, ongoing civil war in which the U.S. can't plausibly claim to be achieving anything.
As a result, it's far too likely that the U.S.' goal in trying Saddam was to bolster the first half of the "victor's justice" equation rather than the second. The aim never was to accord remotely fair treatment either to the defendants themselves, or to those who suffered at the defendants' behalf - because for the U.S., any reasonable treatment of Saddam and his inner circle would have been seen as a sign of capitulation to the one group which it's managed to decisively defeat in Iraq. And indeed it seems all too plausible that the U.S. was happy to accept some of the more farcical elements of the trial as proof of just how thoroughly it had managed to win out over Saddam himself: surely the more glaring the injustices which don't go unpunished, the greater the victory the winning side must have achieved.
Naturally Saddam's execution, like his capture and the toppling of his statue in the past, is already being seized on by Bushco as evidence of positive accomplishments in Iraq. And indeed for those who don't worry too much about fair trials or punishments that were long since outlawed by the civilized world, they're probably the most tangible scraps of success to be clung to in the sea of violence that is Iraq today. But now, they won't have Saddam to kick around anymore...and it may not be long before they're wishing he was around both to answer for his more severe crimes, and to offer continued distraction from the U.S.' own decisive defeat when it comes to improving the lives of Iraqi citizens.
Unlike in the case of the Nuremberg Trials, the question isn't simply whether the defeated side is treated fairly after conflict has effectively come to an end. Instead, Saddam has served as a distraction from the real, ongoing civil war in which the U.S. can't plausibly claim to be achieving anything.
As a result, it's far too likely that the U.S.' goal in trying Saddam was to bolster the first half of the "victor's justice" equation rather than the second. The aim never was to accord remotely fair treatment either to the defendants themselves, or to those who suffered at the defendants' behalf - because for the U.S., any reasonable treatment of Saddam and his inner circle would have been seen as a sign of capitulation to the one group which it's managed to decisively defeat in Iraq. And indeed it seems all too plausible that the U.S. was happy to accept some of the more farcical elements of the trial as proof of just how thoroughly it had managed to win out over Saddam himself: surely the more glaring the injustices which don't go unpunished, the greater the victory the winning side must have achieved.
Naturally Saddam's execution, like his capture and the toppling of his statue in the past, is already being seized on by Bushco as evidence of positive accomplishments in Iraq. And indeed for those who don't worry too much about fair trials or punishments that were long since outlawed by the civilized world, they're probably the most tangible scraps of success to be clung to in the sea of violence that is Iraq today. But now, they won't have Saddam to kick around anymore...and it may not be long before they're wishing he was around both to answer for his more severe crimes, and to offer continued distraction from the U.S.' own decisive defeat when it comes to improving the lives of Iraqi citizens.
Friday, December 29, 2006
Shifting goalposts
PMS continues the Cons' spin on equalization, backing away from his party's oft-repeated $800 million promise for Saskatchewan by claiming that it'll instead offer "the best deal for Saskatchewan it has ever had". Which leaves the question of whether the Cons' next move will be to claim that the mere privilege of basking in PMS' Big Daddyness is the best deal a province could ever ask for, or to offer whatever number Saskatchewan wants subject to the caveat that it won't have been delivered yet.
Past disputes, present actions
A couple more interesting tidbits surrounding the sudden resignation of Chief Electoral Officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley. First, the Ottawa Citizen points out some recent areas of disagreement between Kingsley and the Cons aside from the convention-fee scandal:
Returning to Kingsley's resignation, as Yvon Godin noted in the Citizen's article, the Cons would have had absolutely no way to push Kingsley out of office directly.
But it's worth wondering whether Harper may have made it clear that he'd make Kingsley's remaining time in office as difficult as possible due to his willingness to properly investigate the Cons rather than buying their transparent excuses. And it may not be beyond the realm of possibility that Kingsley in turn could have seen some value in stepping down in the midst of a minority Parliament - in part to help ensure that neither PMS nor any other future leader would get to choose a successor with as misguided a focus as Harper and the Cons seemed to demand from Kingsley.
Update: More from the CP:
Mr. Goodale, however, noted the government suddenly tabled a bill shortly before the Christmas parliamentary recess with a surprise proposal that Elections Canada would administer a companion plebiscite during federal elections to poll voters on their preferences for nominations to fill Senate vacancies.Then, as pointed out by Paul Wells among others, there's this gem from Harper's time at the NCC:
The Liberal MP questioned whether Mr. Harper had consulted Mr. Kingsley before drafting the legislation...
Conservative MPs were surprised during Mr. Kingsley's recent appearance at the Commons standing committee on procedure and House affairs, when he warned MPs Elections Canada would begin a complete overhaul of the computer system it uses to deliver elections by July.
Mr. Kingsley also told the panel he expected it would take Elections Canada up to six months to implement provisions in a bill the Commons passed earlier this month requiring all voters to present government photo identification or two other pieces of ID at the polls. Mr. Kingsley has long opposed a requirement for voter ID, arguing it could be a barrier for students, low-income voters and new Canadians.
The jackasses at Elections Canada are out of control...While many have pointed out the sheer tastelessness of the letter, it's worth citing as well as an example of just how little respect a supposed "law and order" leader actually has for the law, having no shame about unloading with both barrels on a non-partisan official merely trying to enforce the law itself.
This is not the first attack on freedom by Elections Canada. Its heavy-handed chief, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, has been an advocate of the most minute of controls and regulations - and stiff punishments - on every aspect of "free" elections...
I believe the Jean-Pierre Kingsleys of the world fear Paul Bryan. Or more to the point, they fear what Paul represents - a free, independent-minded citizen using technology to give power back to individuals. After all, information is power. The less control the government has over the flow of information, the less control it can exert over its citizens. So Elections Canada has charged him withbreaking a law that's as dangerous as it is ludicrous.
Of course, the attitude of Kingsley shouldn't surprise us. After all, he's the chief backer of Bill C-2 - that other election gag law - which makes it a crime for citizens to spend their own money to promote their own views during federal elections.
That too is another example of Kingsley trying to control information. Simply put, Kingsley is a dangerous man. It is appropriate that journalists have dubbed him Canada's "Chief Electoral Ideologue," and "Chief Electoral Nanny."
Returning to Kingsley's resignation, as Yvon Godin noted in the Citizen's article, the Cons would have had absolutely no way to push Kingsley out of office directly.
But it's worth wondering whether Harper may have made it clear that he'd make Kingsley's remaining time in office as difficult as possible due to his willingness to properly investigate the Cons rather than buying their transparent excuses. And it may not be beyond the realm of possibility that Kingsley in turn could have seen some value in stepping down in the midst of a minority Parliament - in part to help ensure that neither PMS nor any other future leader would get to choose a successor with as misguided a focus as Harper and the Cons seemed to demand from Kingsley.
Update: More from the CP:
Before becoming prime minister, Harper said Kingsley acted "more like a state policeman than a public servant" and on another occasion accused him of iron-fisted bully tactics...Indeed. The Chief Electoral Officer overseeing an election and prosecuting violators of the Canada Election Act - what could be more "garbage"-like than that?
Harper was equally scathing as Canadian Alliance leader, when two party workers were charged with breaking the Canada Elections Act on public-opinion polling.
Two workers were charged with placing a newspaper ad that claimed a local lead in an Ontario riding, without disclosing that their own party had conducted the poll. The elections act forbids publishing poll results without providing basic methodological details about how the survey was conducted - or by whom.
"This is the kind of garbage we're getting into - and more shockingly the kind of garbage that Jean-Pierre Kingsley and people at Elections Canada increasingly think is their business," Harper said in 2002.
Completing the purge
Apparently at least one part of the existing greenhouse-gas-reduction structure had managed to escape the Cons' axe...that is, until now:
If that's the case, the Cons seem to have succeeded for now. But in the longer term, one has to figure that the Cons' consistent pattern of duplicity will hurt their cause in the long run as Canadians realize that nothing they do can be taken anywhere near face value. Which will lead to nothing but rightful suspicion as the Cons start trying to claim credit for rebuilding what they've eagerly torn down since taking office.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has dismissed a special environmental adviser the former Liberal government named to kick-start Canada's attempts at curbing greenhouse-gas emissions under the Kyoto accord.It's far from clear how an order retroactively increasing an official's salary would "facilitate" his release. About the only way the strategy could accomplish anything is if the Cons' goal was to issue an innocuous-sounding order rather than one which revealed its true purpose at the time, presumably by including any planned severance amount in the increase.
Critics said the move torpedoes the Canada Emission Reduction Incentives Agency, also called the Climate Fund, and suggested Harper does not intend to soften his opposition to government funding for the reduction of greenhouse gases...
On Harper's recommendation, cabinet approved an order earlier this month that vaguely referred to fixing "the salary and other employment conditions" of Allan Amey, named by former prime minister Paul Martin in 2005 as the Climate Fund's designated president and also special adviser to the deputy minister of the environment...
The cabinet order disclosed no details other than specifying a slight increase in Amey's maximum salary to $200,000 annually, effective last April 1. But the chief press aide to Environment Minister Rona Ambrose, Bob Klager, later confirmed the order was "administrative, to facilitate Mr. Amey's release."
Amey declined to comment, saying he is bound by a legal agreement with the government. His term as president of the Climate Fund would have been five years once the agency began receiving federal funding to purchase emission-reduction credits, which has not occurred. Amey is a former vice-president of TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. who headed the Alberta government's Climate Change Central before his federal appointment.
NDP MP Nathan Cullen said the dismissal reflects the fractured approach the Tories are taking on global warming and greenhouse-gas emissions.
"It's very hit and miss, mostly a path of destruction, with the odd bone thrown out that might feed somebody somewhere."
If that's the case, the Cons seem to have succeeded for now. But in the longer term, one has to figure that the Cons' consistent pattern of duplicity will hurt their cause in the long run as Canadians realize that nothing they do can be taken anywhere near face value. Which will lead to nothing but rightful suspicion as the Cons start trying to claim credit for rebuilding what they've eagerly torn down since taking office.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Aiming for the top
He may have lost out to Jim Flaherty for the dubious "Business Newsmaker of the Year" title this year. But Conrad Black is apparently making a push to retake the throne for 2007 - and it may well succeed if the high-profile litigation surrounding the Hollinger empire manages to exert enough influence on Canada's business world.
Departure and arrival
It may be awhile before we know why Chief Electoral Officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley resigned abruptly last week in a move that just became public today.
But for those worried that the result could be PMS getting to hand-pick a successor, the good news is that a new CEO can only be appointed by Parliamentary resolution (or on an interim basis by the Chief Justice of Canada). Which may make for an interesting dispute if some consensus can't be reached among a majority in Parliament - but will at least ensure that the Cons can't mimic the U.S. tendency toward partisan election officials.
But for those worried that the result could be PMS getting to hand-pick a successor, the good news is that a new CEO can only be appointed by Parliamentary resolution (or on an interim basis by the Chief Justice of Canada). Which may make for an interesting dispute if some consensus can't be reached among a majority in Parliament - but will at least ensure that the Cons can't mimic the U.S. tendency toward partisan election officials.
Slight mitigation
The Comox Valley Record reports that thanks to plenty of media attention and the work of NDP MP Catherine Bell (among other factors), at least some of the damage of the softwood lumber capitulation was reduced in the final draft, as some Canadian remanufacturers managed to avoid paying tariffs on value added to raw lumber:
(h/t BC in TO.)
After fighting and fretting for months about the impact softwood lumber tariffs were having on his value-added wood-flooring manufacturing company, Roscoe has been given a break.It seems clear that the exemption was narrowly drawn for cases like Roscoe's, as there's no apparent reason why a single entity which both logs and carries out value-added operations should have to pay a tariff on its value-added component (as still appears to be the case). And of course the remanufacturing issue is dwarfed by the billion-dollar giveaway and the loss of sovereignty entailed by the larger capitulation. But at the very least, it's good news to see that some action was taken to ensure that the tariff system doesn't completely wipe out any prospect of value-added exports.
“We actually got it pushed through,” said Roscoe about a new category that will protect a lot of his company’s value-added work from the tariff.
Under the heading of certified independent remanufacturer, Roscoe will now be charged softwood tariffs on only the raw wood he uses, not on the finished project as he was before.
“The certification is only available for independent lumber remanufacturers who don’t have tenures to log,” he said...
Earlier this year Roscoe got caught up in the softwood lumber debate when his products made of soft woods (even though it wasn’t purchased by the stumpage-fee lots of most concern in the trade debate) began being charged the same tariff being put to raw logs. The tariff was charged on all the value-added the small Comox company did as well — including staining, matching ends and more...
After Roscoe and Woodland Flooring were profiled in the Comox Valley Record, North Island MP Catherine Bell took up the cause, even speaking of it in the House of Commons. Roscoe said it was with her help that this category was made.
Despite the good news for one constituent Bell has said in her year-end report that the softwood lumber deal with the United States was a low spot she felt for Parliament’s fall session. For North Island communities as a whole, she said, the deal is bad news.
“We’re really pleased that there is some relief there, but we’ll continue to watch closely,” said Bell about other impacts of the softwood agreement. She said she remains concerned about the future of both small and large industry — and will be paying particular attention to raw log exports in the new year.
(h/t BC in TO.)
On newsmakers
The CP reports that Jim Flaherty has been named Canada's Business Newsmaker of the Year. But it's far more clear with this than with some other year-end lists that the designation is anything but a compliment.
After all, it's not as if Flaherty is following in any but the most dubious of footsteps, as the three-time defending winner was Conrad Black.
And more personally, the article discussing Flaherty's win describes his impact with anecdotes like this one:
After all, it's not as if Flaherty is following in any but the most dubious of footsteps, as the three-time defending winner was Conrad Black.
And more personally, the article discussing Flaherty's win describes his impact with anecdotes like this one:
To illustrate the extent of Flaherty's newfound infamy on Bay Street, his picture graced the cover of one investment firm's holiday card, along with the caption: "Merry Christmas to everyone else."Which leads to the possibility that Flaherty's newsmaking may have made him and his party enough enemies to keep him from being in a position to win the title again.
Contrasting strategies
On this week's Question Period, all three federal opposition leaders were given a chance to discuss how they'll handle the Cons' upcoming budget. And the answers may signal a key difference between their respective strategies going into the next year.
First off, Stephane Dion appears to be taking a solidly negative line on the budget, offering possible reasons why the Libs might vote against it but not providing any answer as to what could make it worth voting for:
Then there's the NDP, which will spend the month of January highlighting what should be in the budget before deciding how to handle the document the Cons put forward:
But from the standpoint of pushing for the best budget possible, it's surely a better step to put a set of proposals in the public eye and let the Cons try to justify any deviation from them, rather than simply sitting back and waiting to give a thumbs-up or thumbs-down to the final product while declining to influence its content. And if the Cons choose to ignore the NDP's proposals, then Layton will be able to vote down the budget in better conscience than those who haven't tried to shape it.
First off, Stephane Dion appears to be taking a solidly negative line on the budget, offering possible reasons why the Libs might vote against it but not providing any answer as to what could make it worth voting for:
Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said he has no plans to bring down the government over the 2007 Conservative budget expected sometime in the New Year, but at the same time said he can't in good conscience vote-in a fiscal plan he opposes.Gilles Duceppe doesn't appear to have addressed the budget directly. But then, his party's price on the budget is well-established in terms of a lump sum payout to the provinces rather than a federal governing strategy.
"If the budget is unacceptable for Canadians, I cannot stand up and vote for something that I think will not be good for the country," he told CTV's Question Period in an interview aired Sunday...
"Especially because this government is so right-wing that it's very likely that this government would be very frustrated by the incapacity which Mr. Harper has to fulfill his agenda. We never know what will happen. A budget is coming. Will he have the support of the House for the budget? ... It may be yes, it may be no."
Then there's the NDP, which will spend the month of January highlighting what should be in the budget before deciding how to handle the document the Cons put forward:
(Jack Layton) said the NDP will lay out its proposals for the Conservative budget in January, and will measure them against the final product when deciding whether to support the fiscal plan.Now, the approach has its risks politically, as it in turn gives the Cons a chance to affect the NDP's vote by choosing how many (or how few) of the proposals to include in their budget. And that won't be the case for the Libs, since Dion can easily afford to describe any budget in broad strokes as "right-wing" or "unacceptable" (or conversely as "moderate" or "acceptable" if the polls take a turn against the Libs) while making his decision based on other grounds.
If the Conservatives haven't made concessions on key issues, the NDP could bring down the government, he said.
"That's the way it works."
But from the standpoint of pushing for the best budget possible, it's surely a better step to put a set of proposals in the public eye and let the Cons try to justify any deviation from them, rather than simply sitting back and waiting to give a thumbs-up or thumbs-down to the final product while declining to influence its content. And if the Cons choose to ignore the NDP's proposals, then Layton will be able to vote down the budget in better conscience than those who haven't tried to shape it.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Lacking for buyers
The eBay bidding on Martha Hall Findlay's Big Red Bus has now ended with a grand total of zero bids. Which means that Hall Findlay will avoid the potential ethical minefield which would have accompanied a high bid - but also opens up the question of just how much else of the Libs' current sales pitch will similarly fail to inspire the buyers they're expecting.
On getting value
As a follow-up to yesterday's post, Ontario Energy Minister Dwight Duncan has joined the chorus saying that AECL won't receive any preference in the bidding to build the province's new nuclear reactors, and that he'll instead look to secure the best possible deal for the province. Which on its own would be a positive development. But wouldn't it be all the better if Ontario had applied the same principle to its choice of sources to begin with?
First shots
The good news is that it now seems clear that the TILMA's reach won't extend beyond B.C. and Alberta without some serious public debate. The bad news is that the National Post is now looking to hijack that debate by cheerleading for the agreement (or at least its own highly selective assessment of what the TILMA involves).
To see just how far off base the Post's coverage is, here's the article's take on what TILMA is supposedly intended to address:
But the reality is that nothing in the agreement itself limits its scope to commercial regulation. Instead, the TILMA presumptively classifies all government "measures" as illegitimate and subject to punishment to the extent that they could possibly affect interprovincial trade. Which makes it far more understandable if some provinces are "intransigent" (to use the article's ever-neutral wording) about the possibility of signing over their ability to govern.
Of course, there was never much doubt that any debate about the TILMA was going to include an awful lot of dubious information and obfuscation. And indeed, today's article only represents the second distinct type of spin that's been placed on the TILMA to mask its true contents (since apparently even the Financial Post wouldn't buy the initial claim that the TILMA would result in standardization to the higher applicable standard).
Which makes it essential that each new set of falsehoods be met with a strong dose of reality before it can spread too far as conventional wisdom. And hopefully, the end result will be to push Canada's less anti-government provinces toward agreements which produce all the benefits of the TILMA without the unnecessary straitjacket on government action.
To see just how far off base the Post's coverage is, here's the article's take on what TILMA is supposedly intended to address:
Interprovincial trade barriers generally take the form of non-tariff barriers. For instance, trades people in one province are discouraged from moving and working in another without passing through myriad hoops; out-of-province firms are often prohibited from bidding on contracts tendered by the provincial government, because the rules say governments can use only local enterprises; and beer and spirits from one province may not be widely available in another due to guidelines that favour local firms.Now, if the TILMA were in any way limited to such commercial barriers, there would be a far more reasonable case to be made for it. Though it hardly seems that margarine-colour regulations are a particularly pressing issue in any event - and as noted by the article, the labour-mobility issues included in the TILMA are already being addressed through another provincial process.
Perhaps one of the most notable barriers is the requirement in Quebec that margarine and butter cannot be the same colour.
But the reality is that nothing in the agreement itself limits its scope to commercial regulation. Instead, the TILMA presumptively classifies all government "measures" as illegitimate and subject to punishment to the extent that they could possibly affect interprovincial trade. Which makes it far more understandable if some provinces are "intransigent" (to use the article's ever-neutral wording) about the possibility of signing over their ability to govern.
Of course, there was never much doubt that any debate about the TILMA was going to include an awful lot of dubious information and obfuscation. And indeed, today's article only represents the second distinct type of spin that's been placed on the TILMA to mask its true contents (since apparently even the Financial Post wouldn't buy the initial claim that the TILMA would result in standardization to the higher applicable standard).
Which makes it essential that each new set of falsehoods be met with a strong dose of reality before it can spread too far as conventional wisdom. And hopefully, the end result will be to push Canada's less anti-government provinces toward agreements which produce all the benefits of the TILMA without the unnecessary straitjacket on government action.
On poor recruitment tactics
The CP reports on another possible casualty in the Cons' war on good government, as the CRTC is expected to have plenty of trouble finding a new chairman now that Industry Minister Maxime Bernier has shown his complete disinterest in listening to what the CRTC has to say:
The lineup of candidates wanting to fill the vacant position of CRTC chairman might be a short one this time around.Sadly, that may well be the Cons' hope in taking such an aggressive line from the beginning. Presumably if the new applicants are self-selected based on the same reckless vision that seems to drive Bernier, then not only will Bernier have an easier time imposing his ideology while the Cons are in power, but the new chair would also have some clout in preventing any future governments of different political stripes from taking a more responsible view. Which would likely suit the Cons just fine - but would be more than a bit problematic for those of us who would prefer to see effective and independent regulators stay that way.
The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission is an arms-length agency in an arm-wrestle with the Conservative government over the country's broadcasting and telephone regulations...
"I would wonder whose self-respect would be so low that they'd be willing to be CRTC chair?" asks industry analyst Ian Angus of Angus Telemanagement.
"Why would you want to be chair of an independent regulatory body when the government has made it clear it will override you when it disagrees, unless you're only taking the job because you agree with the government's direction."
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
A lawless retrospective
To follow up on this afternoon's story about Stephen Harper's apparent Canada Elections Act violation, let's take a look at just how sanctimonious Harper was while he himself was breaching the law.
Based on his accumulated donations including the convention fee, Harper went over the Elections Act donation limit on October 31, 2005 - and was accordingly was in violation of s. 405(1)(a) from then on. The very next day in Question Period (which happened to follow the release of the first Gomery report), Harper had this to say:
This was followed up the next day by a clear call for punishment of those responsible for breaking the law in the name of partisanship:
Fast forward one more day, and you'll find Harper criticizing the Libs for a belief that they're above the law:
Let's move ahead to November 21, when Harper asked how a party which itself had broken the law could claim to uphold it:
Once the campaign started, Harper was quick to promise that all wrongdoing by parliamentarians would be quickly and decisively dealt with by his government:
On December 3, Harper lumped crime and drugs together in calling for minimum sentences for drug offences:
Later on in the campaign, on January 16, Harper suggested that the Cons would be proactive in dealing with internal problems rather than letting them fester:
Not that this stopped him from closing the campaign with another declaration of the need to end the Libs' scandals:
Then, two days before election day, Harper pledged to be the driving force behind the enforcement of rules in Ottawa:
In sum, it's plain that throughout the past election campaign and ever since, Harper and his party were in violation of Canada's electoral laws in ways that fell within the culture that Harper was vowing to change. And rather than even trying to clean up their act after the fact, the Cons only admitted their wrongdoing by accident, then grudgingly tried to slip their "correction" into the news during the holidays - showing once again that from the beginning, Canada's New Government was nothing more than a hard-right version of the old one.
For added fun, the period reviewed also features Harper criticizing the Libs for refusing to extend the Access to Information Act to the Privy Council and failing to provide Saskatchewan with an equalization deal, demanding the formation of an Office of Public Prosecutions, and calling the possibility of a tax on income trusts a "a direct attack on the retirement incomes of millions of Canadians". Suffice it to say that clean government isn't the only area where PMS has happily repeated the Libs' actions which used to provoke his supposed outrage - and that ethics are far from the only reason for Canadian voters to send Harper packing from Ottawa for good at the earliest opportunity.
Based on his accumulated donations including the convention fee, Harper went over the Elections Act donation limit on October 31, 2005 - and was accordingly was in violation of s. 405(1)(a) from then on. The very next day in Question Period (which happened to follow the release of the first Gomery report), Harper had this to say:
Mr. Speaker, one would think there would be some element of shame from the Liberal Party regarding today's report but there is none whatsoever.We'll eagerly await Harper's shame for both his party's and his own breach of the law for their own benefit. But based on today's article, it looks like they're instead seeking to take credit for trying to cover up their tracks by changing the law.
I want to get past the bluster. The Prime Minister wants to take credit for the Gomery commission. Does he accept his part of the blame for the creation of the sponsorship program in the first place, yes or no?
This was followed up the next day by a clear call for punishment of those responsible for breaking the law in the name of partisanship:
As Gomery noted, not only were public funds wasted and misappropriated, but no one has been held responsible or punished.Of course, all indications are that nobody from the Cons has been held responsible or punished for their own misdeeds, even though the Cons' breach appears to have put illicit money in the Cons' coffers for a closely contested election.
The Liberal Party of Canada executed this scandal. It was executed by some of its highest officials for the benefit of the party. Why is the government not suing the Liberal Party to recover the millions that are lost and stolen?
Fast forward one more day, and you'll find Harper criticizing the Libs for a belief that they're above the law:
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party somehow believes it can make a plea bargain with itself. It is trying to be above the law.I'm not aware of Harper publicly commenting on whether he plans to try to plead his way out of his own apparent offence, but it's hard to escape the conclusion that the Cons are doing their best to try to have their own self-serving offences plea-bargained out of existence now by casually restating the numbers which they certified a year ago.
This scheme was not set up for the benefit of a few bit players or a few ad companies. This was a scam, first and foremost, by the Liberal Party, of the Liberal Party and for the Liberal Party.
Let's move ahead to November 21, when Harper asked how a party which itself had broken the law could claim to uphold it:
On another matter, a few days before an election is to be called, the Prime Minister prefers to criticize the leader of the Parti Québécois rather than work with the federalist Premier of Quebec. He is trying to pass himself off as the champion of federalism by citing the Clarity Act.How indeed, Stephen? (While in fairness Harper was only apparently acting illegally for roughly one year, there's no indication that he himself sought to rectify any violation before the Cons themselves took the initiative to send his excess donations back...making it rather difficult to credit him for any resolution.)
How can a party that has acted illegally for years now claim to be the guardian of the law in Quebec?
Once the campaign started, Harper was quick to promise that all wrongdoing by parliamentarians would be quickly and decisively dealt with by his government:
"There's going to be a new code on Parliament Hill: bend the rules, you will be punished; break the law, you will be charged; abuse the public trust, you will go to prison."Let's be generous and leave it open to Harper to determine whether he should more properly be "punished" or "charged".
On December 3, Harper lumped crime and drugs together in calling for minimum sentences for drug offences:
"Crime and drugs now reach places they shouldn't – our parks, our schoolyards, even our churches. Our values are under attack and we must take action to protect those values."...Apparently the "crime" part also reached Stornoway at the time, and moved into 24 Sussex Drive shortly thereafter. But hopefully some "tough law enforcement" will indeed loom ahead to address it.
He said while the Conservatives are in favour of prevention and treatment programs for drug addicts, these are "no substitutes for tough law enforcement."
Later on in the campaign, on January 16, Harper suggested that the Cons would be proactive in dealing with internal problems rather than letting them fester:
"Let's pledge to the people of Canada, not that we will be perfect, but that we will deal with problems before they become scandals and that we will always try and do the right thing," Harper said...If nothing else, the Cons can get credit for creativity in defining "doing the right thing" as feigning indignance while grudgingly giving back wrongly-received donations over a year after the fact. And indeed Harper had blood on his own hands even while he pledged to clean up politics.
"I will do everything in my power to clean up politics in Ottawa for good."
Not that this stopped him from closing the campaign with another declaration of the need to end the Libs' scandals:
"If the Liberals are re-elected ... we will not have any kind of direction for this country," the Conservative leader told a rally. "We will never find the money taken in the sponsorship scandal.In fairness, the Cons have apparently given rise to an entirely new set of investigations. But it's hard to figure that that's what Harper had in mind.
"The scandals, the coverups, the investigations will continue. We cannot have our country go forward like that."
Then, two days before election day, Harper pledged to be the driving force behind the enforcement of rules in Ottawa:
Harper reiterated that if elected, his first piece of legislative action will deal with federal accountability. "I will enforce the rules," he said.And with the campaign at a close, Harper continued that message:
Hours after winning a minority government, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper promised to get to work implementing his top campaign priorities.To nobody's surprise, Harper's self-righteousness only increased as he took power, as highlighted with his claim as to what would set his party apart from the Libs:
"We will honour your trust, we will deliver on our commitments," Harper said to a crowd of jubliant supporters in Calgary.
Mr. Speaker, as I just said, this party, the minister and all the members of the cabinet intend to obey the law. That is what sets us apart from the Liberals.In keeping with that position, I can only assume that Harper will soon announce that he in fact crossed the floor in 2005 without anybody noticing.
In sum, it's plain that throughout the past election campaign and ever since, Harper and his party were in violation of Canada's electoral laws in ways that fell within the culture that Harper was vowing to change. And rather than even trying to clean up their act after the fact, the Cons only admitted their wrongdoing by accident, then grudgingly tried to slip their "correction" into the news during the holidays - showing once again that from the beginning, Canada's New Government was nothing more than a hard-right version of the old one.
For added fun, the period reviewed also features Harper criticizing the Libs for refusing to extend the Access to Information Act to the Privy Council and failing to provide Saskatchewan with an equalization deal, demanding the formation of an Office of Public Prosecutions, and calling the possibility of a tax on income trusts a "a direct attack on the retirement incomes of millions of Canadians". Suffice it to say that clean government isn't the only area where PMS has happily repeated the Libs' actions which used to provoke his supposed outrage - and that ethics are far from the only reason for Canadian voters to send Harper packing from Ottawa for good at the earliest opportunity.
CPC: Harper Broke the Law
The Cons have tried to quietly reverse their implausible position that convention fees couldn't be considered donations under the Canada Elections Act. And in the process, they've effectively admitted that Stephen Harper himself violated the Canada Elections Act:
And the offence for breaching this section is as follows:
Regardless of what punishment Harper faces under the Canada Elections Act, though, it's the political outcome which seems to be more significant. It surely won't take long for Con MPs to be tested on their commitment to law and order, as Canadians see how quickly they look the other way when it's their leader who's acted illegally. And now that the Cons have admitted their wrongdoing, it looks like PMS will have the choice of either trying to fight against his own party in addition to Elections Canada to try to clear his name, or admitting his own offence and losing any remaining shred of credibility on the subject of clean and ethical government.
Having been forced to count convention fees as donations, the report indicates the Conservative party then discovered three delegates - including Prime Minister Stephen Harper - had exceeded their $5,400 annual limit for political contributions. As a result, the party refunded $456 each to Harper and the other two delegates.Just in case there's any doubt, the contribution limits within the Canada Elections Act apply to individuals attempting to make donations, as well as parties who receive them:
405. (1) No individual shall make contributions that exceedThe $5,000 number has changed due to an inflation adjustment, which accounts for the $5,400 current limit.
(a) $5,000 in total in any calendar year to a particular registered party and its registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates;
And the offence for breaching this section is as follows:
497(3) Every person is guilty of an offence whoNote that the offence is taken seriously enough to be dual-procedure (giving the Crown to proceed by indictment, which in turn provides for penalties as high as the five years imprisonment provided for in s. 500(5)(b)). That said, it seems unlikely that any prosecutor would pursue that option for a one-time violation.
(f.13) being an individual, wilfully contravenes subsection 405(1) (exceeding contribution limit);
500(5) Every person who is guilty of an offence under any of subsections 480(1) and (2), sections 481 to 483, subsections 484(3), 485(2), 486(3), 487(2), 488(2) and 489(3), section 490, subsections 491(3) and 492(2), section 494, subsections 495(5), 496(2) and 497(3), section 498 and subsection 499(2) is liable
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or to both; or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not more than $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years, or to both.
Regardless of what punishment Harper faces under the Canada Elections Act, though, it's the political outcome which seems to be more significant. It surely won't take long for Con MPs to be tested on their commitment to law and order, as Canadians see how quickly they look the other way when it's their leader who's acted illegally. And now that the Cons have admitted their wrongdoing, it looks like PMS will have the choice of either trying to fight against his own party in addition to Elections Canada to try to clear his name, or admitting his own offence and losing any remaining shred of credibility on the subject of clean and ethical government.
Calling the action
I've written before about the problems which arise when the media which is responsible for shaping perceptions of what's happening on the political playing field fails to give a complete picture. Now, Anonymous Liberal at Unclaimed Territory argues that the media needs to take an even more active role in order to ensure that substance wins out over spin:
It's debatable whether the media is better seen as referee within the political game itself, or simply the main filter for interpretation of that action. And I'd think the announcer role is a perfectly appropriate one as long as it's carried out to the fullest, since it too should involve some reasonable willingness to provide an accurate depiction of what's going on.
But however the media's role is best described, it can only bode poorly if the media's ability to watch the game is being curtailed just as thoroughly as its willingness to point out all of the action. And if the current trend continues, then the main question going forward seems to be just how much longer the media can continue to undermine its own place in politics before new actors step into the role for good.
(W)ithin the context of commerce and the marketplace, we long ago realized that the average consumer is generally not in a position to tell whether or not she is being lied to or misled, whether by way of an advertisement or an overzealous sales pitch. That’s why, over the years, we have put in place a complex array of overlapping laws and regulations designed to protect consumers from being misled. If a company makes a claim which is even slightly misleading, it will quickly find itself up to its eyeballs in litigation, whether in the form of government enforcement actions, lawsuits by competitors, or consumer class actions (often all three). There are also any number of tort and quasi-contractual claims that aggrieved consumers can bring against the individuals and companies who deceived them.Unfortunately, it appears that at least some in the media are looking to head in exactly the opposite direction. See e.g. Tony Burman's list of media outlets which have slashed their newsroom staff - presumably making it far more difficult for those sources to cut through any inaccuracy before reporting on any given story. Which seems to be an odd reaction to the increased amount of content available through other sources: surely any media entity looking out for its longer-term best interests should want to stand out as a particularly credible source of information, rather than being just one of many voices passing along spin without adding any substance.
As a result, companies take great care to ensure that their statements are truthful, and consumers can be reasonably confident that advertisers are not lying to them.
The same is not at all true in the realm of politics, where candidates and interest groups can pretty much say whatever they want and voters are generally left to fend for themselves. Lies and misleading claims are commonplace, if not the norm. The perverse result is that most Americans are far better informed (or at least far less misinformed) when they step into the mall than when they step into the voting booth...
For reasons that I don’t understand, our mainstream journalists and media figures always seem to operate under the assumption that the average person is capable of sorting through all the political information they’re bombarded with and reaching an informed decision. This despite the fact that half of our laws are premised on the exact opposite assumption, i.e., that people are easily misinformed by those with an incentive to do so.
I remember, for example, that in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, the media made a habit of noting that most Americans supported the invasion. Rarely, however, did anyone mention the fact that nearly 70% of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 or the fact that the Bush administration had been going out of its way to foster that misperception.
As I’ve observed before, when it comes to covering politics, journalists today are much more like play-by-play announcers than referees. They no longer see it as their job to step in and call fouls, i.e., to call a lie a lie. This is a pity because--for the reasons explained above--it is in the arena of politics where we are most in need of referees; it is in the arena of politics where the normal referees (government officials, judges, private litigants) cannot operate effectively.
It's debatable whether the media is better seen as referee within the political game itself, or simply the main filter for interpretation of that action. And I'd think the announcer role is a perfectly appropriate one as long as it's carried out to the fullest, since it too should involve some reasonable willingness to provide an accurate depiction of what's going on.
But however the media's role is best described, it can only bode poorly if the media's ability to watch the game is being curtailed just as thoroughly as its willingness to point out all of the action. And if the current trend continues, then the main question going forward seems to be just how much longer the media can continue to undermine its own place in politics before new actors step into the role for good.
On non-competition
Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn apparently thinks he's doing Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. a favour by declaring that the federal government wants to see AECL win a contract to build new nuclear reactors in Ontario - and preparing to use the federal nuclear regulatory process to make that happen:
Of course, there's plenty of doubt as to whether or not the idea of building new nuclear facilities is a good one in the first place. But even leaving that larger issue aside and operating on the terms of those who would see nuclear power as a viable energy source, there's no apparent benefit to be had by undermining the fairness of the regulatory process involved. And by declaring his desired end result of what's supposed to be a neutral process, Lunn has only helped to ensure that AECL isn't seen as meaningfully competitive at home.
Federal Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn says it is "imperative" that Crown-owned Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. be awarded the multibillion-dollar contract to build Ontario's first new nuclear reactors in more than two decades.The problem, if course, is that it hardly helps AECL's reputation if any success in "competing" in Canada arises only by fiat from the federal minister responsible. Which leads to the odd result that even AECL itself is contradicting Lunn in emphasizing that nothing has been predetermined in AECL's favour:
"I'm quite prepared to say on the record that we are not technology neutral," Mr. Lunn said in an interview. "We are very favourable to the Candu technology."...
The federal government appears willing to circumvent the regulatory process in the interests of protecting Canada's nuclear industry just as nuclear energy enjoys a renaissance internationally.
"We must build the Candu technology at home," Mr. Lunn said. "It's imperative for the Canadian nuclear industry. If we can't compete at home, I would suggest it wouldn't look very good for our technology elsewhere around the world."
AECL spokesman Dale Coffin said the company could have an advantage over other bidders because the regulator is familiar with its technology. "Other than that, we're subject to the same review as everybody else," he said. "We have not publicly stated that we think we have a fast-track advantage here."It also can't hurt AECL's cause in the Ontario contract - or help it worldwide - that the CNSC apparently doesn't have enough resources itself to thoroughly evaluate any other bid. As a result, the "familiarity" factor might well be decisive regardless of the merits...which plainly won't serve as a meaningful vote of confidence in AECL when other countries decide who should be given the responsibility to build their reactors in the future.
Aurèle Gervais, a spokesman at the (Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission), said no decision has been made regarding the licensing of any reactor design.
Of course, there's plenty of doubt as to whether or not the idea of building new nuclear facilities is a good one in the first place. But even leaving that larger issue aside and operating on the terms of those who would see nuclear power as a viable energy source, there's no apparent benefit to be had by undermining the fairness of the regulatory process involved. And by declaring his desired end result of what's supposed to be a neutral process, Lunn has only helped to ensure that AECL isn't seen as meaningfully competitive at home.
Monday, December 25, 2006
Central benefits
One of the questions which arose in the last federal election campaign was that of whether any party was really standing up for the place of a strong federal government. While I'll stand by my view that the NDP at least implicitly made that case, Michaelle Jean offers the basis for a much more explicit position:
(Jean) says independence would weaken Quebec.While Jean's quote arises in the context of Quebec's choice to remain within Canada, it should resonate equally well when applied to the question of whether or not issues should be shunted to the provincial level at every opportunity. And with a popular and respected GG taking the message public, it shouldn't take long for federal politicans to tie the call into a vision for a strong federal government to better serve as a force for shared strengths and creativity - leaving only the question of who will take the opportunity to pair a platform which implicitly applies the principle with an explicit message as to the value of federal action.
"We live in a world where large alliances are important. I'm among the Quebecers who feel that way," she said.
"I believe in the federation. The very definition of federation means coming together. I like that idea, of coming together. To bring together your strengths, your imagination, your ideas, your creativity.
"That's how I want to live."
Trigger-happy
The CP reports on the RCMP's ongoing income trust investigation, and notes that at least one prominent Lib seems to have reacted to this year's election loss with a view that the party needs to be quicker to take revenge on nonpartisan officials who publicize bad news:
Moreover, it's not as if Easter's current suggestion would have made any sense politically. Can Easter really believe that the Libs would have improved their public perception by firing the RCMP commissioner for announcing an investigation into a matter which was already in the public eye? Would he really expect the result to have been anything but Harper painting any dismissal as an attempt to halt the investigation itself? And do any of us want to know what the electoral results would have been in that event?
I have to assume that Easter would have enough political acumen to know the realistic answer to all of these questions has to be "no". But if so, that only signals that Easter is entirely willing to take a completely implausible stance in an effort to both tie Zaccardelli to the Cons, and keep deflecting blame for the 2006 result. Which offers just one more example of the Libs having seemingly learned nothing - and one more reason not to reward them with the opportunity to put ideas like Easter's into effect in the future.
Update: The Tyee points to this story with a few more details from earlier this month - featuring Irwin Cotler apparently siding with Easter (without going specifically saying that firing was warranted), while Anne McLellan focused solely on the political issue while stating that she would have ordered a review after the campaign.
Wayne Easter, who was once political master of the Mounties as Liberal solicitor general, argued the Martin government should have given Zaccardelli the boot as soon as his letter (mentioning the RCMP's income trust investigation) was made public.As noted in the article, it seems fairly clear that the decision was at least a reasonable one within the scope of the commissioner's duties. After all, the calls for an investigation had been made publicly, meaning that there was some need to respond publicly but cautiously - which Zaccardelli plainly did.
"In an election campaign you don't call an investigation unless you have absolute substance for that investigation," Easter said the day Zaccardelli finally resigned.
Moreover, it's not as if Easter's current suggestion would have made any sense politically. Can Easter really believe that the Libs would have improved their public perception by firing the RCMP commissioner for announcing an investigation into a matter which was already in the public eye? Would he really expect the result to have been anything but Harper painting any dismissal as an attempt to halt the investigation itself? And do any of us want to know what the electoral results would have been in that event?
I have to assume that Easter would have enough political acumen to know the realistic answer to all of these questions has to be "no". But if so, that only signals that Easter is entirely willing to take a completely implausible stance in an effort to both tie Zaccardelli to the Cons, and keep deflecting blame for the 2006 result. Which offers just one more example of the Libs having seemingly learned nothing - and one more reason not to reward them with the opportunity to put ideas like Easter's into effect in the future.
Update: The Tyee points to this story with a few more details from earlier this month - featuring Irwin Cotler apparently siding with Easter (without going specifically saying that firing was warranted), while Anne McLellan focused solely on the political issue while stating that she would have ordered a review after the campaign.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Restarting the cycle
The Financial Post reports that in a matter of two days after the Con released their draft legislation on income trusts, it's already come out that at least one existing trust may be able to avoid the impending tax based on dividends having been paid at one point in the flow of money from the company to its investors:
But regardless of whether Cinram is already set up to avoid the impact of the Cons' move to close the income trust loophole, the apparent discovery only highlights the certainty that new tax dodges will emerge to take the place of income trusts. And the controversy which surrounded income trusts over the past few years should make it glaringly clear that future governments need to be far quicker to address those dodges than past ones have been.
Cinram International Income Fund may turn out to have an advantage over other income trusts when the four-year tax holiday for companies using this popular structure comes to an end.It's not entirely clear from the article how Cinram is currently structured, and whether the result will be for the fund to escape the combination of corporate and trust taxes that most actors would face.
Draft legislation on taxing income trusts, released late on Thursday, could favour the DVD maker because most of the money it pays its investors is made up of dividends, not distributions. As expected, the draft legislation outlines how distributions to unit holders will be taxed at the trust level, but leaves dividends alone.
Cinram could end up with little tax on its payments to investors because of the way it is structured. Most of the company's earnings come from the United States, and Cinram's U.S. company pays Cinram's Canadian company a dividend, which it passes on to its unit holders. Because investors are receiving a dividend that has moved through the company's financial structure, observers say it will be treated as a dividend by the taxman, rather than a distribution.
If so, Cinram won't incur a tax on its distributions to unit holders, like other trusts will have to pay in 2011, when the Conservative government's plan to tax trusts like corporations takes effect.
But regardless of whether Cinram is already set up to avoid the impact of the Cons' move to close the income trust loophole, the apparent discovery only highlights the certainty that new tax dodges will emerge to take the place of income trusts. And the controversy which surrounded income trusts over the past few years should make it glaringly clear that future governments need to be far quicker to address those dodges than past ones have been.
Listed
In case anybody thought it was a fluke that Don Martin had so much trouble finding five Con cabinet ministers worthy of approval, Politics Watch's list manages to reach that number only by including both David Emerson and Vic Toews. Yes, that Vic Toews.
Meanwhile, in other year-end lists, the NDP manages to place two MPs on a top-five list (Pat Martin and Peter Stoffer), without a single placement on the under-performing MP list - which is a direct reversal of the Libs' numbers. It's remarkable that the largest opposition party managed to avoid having a single member worthy of the top list for MPs, but somehow the Libs pulled it off.
Meanwhile, in other year-end lists, the NDP manages to place two MPs on a top-five list (Pat Martin and Peter Stoffer), without a single placement on the under-performing MP list - which is a direct reversal of the Libs' numbers. It's remarkable that the largest opposition party managed to avoid having a single member worthy of the top list for MPs, but somehow the Libs pulled it off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)