Room for cooperation

The CP reports on the NDP's call to modernize the Canada Elections Act to account for the new fixed-election-date system. And based on the issues now in play, it's not hard to see where there's room for cooperation to fix some of the current holes in our electoral regime:

The NDP wants comprehensive electoral reforms before the next federal vote, not the "piecemeal" approach it says is being taken by the Conservative government...

New Democrat MPs Paul Dewar and Pat Martin say the Tories appear fixated with partisan concerns and not with a comprehensive overhaul.

Now that Canada is committed to fixed election dates every four years, the New Democrats believe electoral cycles will be fundamentally altered.

All parties will begin gearing up well before the writ is dropped, when current rules for campaign spending kick in.

So the NDP wants rules on political spending between campaigns. That way, they say, no one party will be able to dominate political advertising "just by virtue of the size of their bank account."

None of the issues appear to be particularly new ones. But the timing may be right to allow for far more progress than the other parties were willing to work toward last year.

On the issue of loans, the NDP has been calling for action for some time already. Which means that even if the Libs want to try to defend the system that effectively funded their leadership race, there's every reason to think that some needed controls will be put in place. At the same time, though, the NDP may need to team up with the other opposition parties to ensure that commercial loans remain an option, such that the Cons' cash-on-hand advantage doesn't translate into a radical difference in campaign resources.

As for non-campaign spending, it shouldn't be a particularly difficult job to sell the need for such reforms to the other opposition parties. Not only is the idea an easy one to support on principle once the election date is set in stone, but the Libs' and Bloc's self-interest will clearly dictate that the Cons not be allowed to spend at will in the months leading up to an election campaign.

In sum, the types of electoral reforms currently under discussion should allow the NDP to broker a number of different agreements. And even if neither the Cons nor the Libs are willing to work toward the most important possible reform (a switch to a more fair voting system), the end result will hopefully be an electoral system which better emphasizes ideas over dollars.

Stuck in neutral

Following up on last week's Star report, the Hill Times discusses the opposition parties' options in bringing the amended C-30 before the House of Commons. (See final headline link.) But unfortunately, it doesn't look like there's yet much commitment to move the issue forward:

Mr. Cullen said the Conservatives have lost credibility on the environment and will work to implement stronger targets. He said the NDP will negotiate with the other parties at the Environment and Sustainable Development committee and work through legal parameters to include parts of C-30 in C-377. "This one has been accepted by the House in principle and that allows us to have some certainty as to when it will be delivered back and compel this government who's lost what little credibility they had, [to act]. Canadians just don't trust them on this file. So that means we have to find another route to get there."...

Liberal MP David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Ont.), his party's environment critic, said the Liberals are also looking at possible ways to bring C-30 back to the House. "We will not let the government walk away from Bill C-30," he said.

Unfortunately, one of the more obvious possible routes - namely a private member's bill based on the agreed C-30 framework - still doesn't appear to have surfaced either before Parliament or in the discussion from either Cullen or McGuinty. And one would think that this and other possibilities would at least be worth mentioning as examples of the "routes" or "ways" which the opposition parties have presumably been looking for since C-30 was first amended.

Meanwhile, it also seems that the Bloc has already missed one opportunity to bring C-30 to the forefront, and nobody else has given any indication of doing any better:

The NDP wrote a letter to both the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois on April 27 asking them to use their opposition days to try to force the government to call the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-30 for debate. The Liberals had an opposition day last week, but used it to call on the House to apologize to aboriginal Canadians who suffered in residential schools. This week, the Bloc have their opposition day on Tuesday and will use it to discuss the rising gas prices in Quebec. Mr. Bigras said he had put in a motion to call on the House to debate the C-30 report, but the party chose gas prices as their supply day topic. The Liberals have a supply day on Thursday, but it's unclear what the party will choose to debate. Mr. Cullen said the NDP's opposition day is still too far away to commit to a topic.

None of the opposition parties said they were willing to use their opposition day to try to defeat the government on the environment.

The latter point is understandable given the potential for other means of getting results from the current Parliament. And indeed brinksmanship probably isn't the best way of moving the issue forward.

But even if a confidence vote isn't in the cards just yet, there doesn't seem to be much reason for any opposition party to hold off on a motion calling on the Cons to bring C-30 forward. And the longer the opposition parties let the issue slide without even a preliminary step toward keeping the environmental focus in Parliament, the more likely the Cons will be to get away with nothing more than their own sad excuse for a plan.

Poll error

Most of the discussion about the Cons' ever-more-rank stench of corruption has surrounded Jean-Pierre Blackburn's hidden airplane rentals. (Suggested motto: "Secret flights: not just for extraordinary rendition anymore!")

But the story which figures to be more interesting in the longer term is the news surrounding the Cons' multiple-language polling. And even there, I wonder whether the most important issue hasn't been missed in the discussion so far. From the CP:

(A) $117,000 research project completed for the Privy Council Office, entitled "Exploring the Views of Canada's Multicultural Communities," does not appear in public records. The report was issued last September, meaning it should have been publicly listed no later than March.

Asked about the non-compliance, a PCO spokeswoman said officials were working to fulfil disclosure requirements. No explanation was given for the delay...

Government guidelines only specifically prohibit polling subject matter such as voting intentions and perceptions about party leaders. Departments routinely do polls to gauge public reaction and knowledge as they move forward with their policies.

However, the auditor general reported early this year that there are still problems with departments failing to provide a rationale for the research they commission.

The main objectives described in the Ipsos-Reid research were "understanding the views of Canada's multicultural communities as to issues facing the country and immigrant communities," and "awareness of the government's agenda, their views on government's performance."

It's hard to see how a prohibition against polling on "perceptions about party leaders" would leave much scope for asking about "views on government's performance": surely polling doesn't suddenly move from being illegitimate to legitimate simply because it asks about only the governing party rather than all parties.

And indeed, in some ways it's even more objectionable to limit the polling to one party. In particular, it's worth wondering whether the poll amounts to a modified push poll by injecting the Cons' message into communities which otherwise don't seem particularly interested in listening to it.

That said, may be that the poll itself managed to remain within the strict letter of the existing guidelines. But even if the Cons didn't break the current rules, it seems glaringly clear that they're pushing as far toward using the government apparatus for party gain as they think they can get away with. And it shouldn't take much polling to figure out that few Canadians - whether or not within the Cons' targeted ethnic communities - want a government which thinks the public purse is nothing more than its own political research and development fund.

Message received

I've discussed on numerous occasions my theory that the Cons' supposed commitment to accountability was based their interpretation of the term as "inflicting punishment on one's political enemies". But even I didn't think the Cons would be crass enough to publicly (if implicitly) admit that definition:

An official from the Prime Minister's Office recently followed a journalist off Parliament Hill, then approached the reporter to challenge a story about the PMO's refusal to disclose how Harper's travelling hairdresser is being paid.

The official told the reporter three times that accountability measures are for crooks, not honest people.

I'll look at the substantive issues in detail later. But for now, it's worth emphasizing that all the visible cracks are nothing more than a symptom of the Cons' general belief in a divine right to avoid scrutiny of their actions, based on nothing more than their belief in their own rightness. And while the Cons surely aren't about to admit it, that kind of structure can only ensure that crooks are able to thrive in their midst.

Light blogging ahead

Expect few to no posts between now and Sunday - though hopefully the last one will give commenters ample material to chew on in the meantime. Enjoy the weekend, and I'll be back soon.

From principle to practice

As a follow-up to my suggested principles for cooperation among Canada's left-to-centre parties, here's my suggestion as to the type of deal I'd think would meet the principles. Once again, this is simply a personal take as to the type of deal which would be most palatable - and there are some significant caveats as I'll discuss below.

The Process

In keeping with the need for democratic approval, I'll start by setting out what I'd think each party should want to do in order to secure approval for the substantive terms.

Once a deal is reached, each party should submit the deal to as strong an internal voting process as is feasible - but in any event no less than required by any party's constitution to formally approve the deal. Once a party had signed on, it would be formally entitled to end its participation in the deal either through the same process by which the deal was approved, or by a vote of a specified number of riding associations as a measure of grassroots disapproval.

Electoral Cooperation

In order to maximize the possibility of reaching the core goal of toppling the Cons, here's the structure I'd suggest:

- One candidate in each federal riding would be designated the "preferred candidate" as among the participating parties.

- Each incumbent MP from a participating party would be a "preferred candidate" by default. (This would both make sense in ensuring that the coalition doesn't go backwards from where it stands now, and would likely be an absolute requirement for current MPs to buy in - though I'd certainly be sympathetic to the idea of removing the default provision.) All other ridings would then be selected in turns by the participating parties.

*Based on Lib/NDP/Green cooperation with 85 incumbent Lib MPs (which I believe is close to the mark) and 28 incumbent NDP MPs, this would result in 150 seats having a preferred Lib candidate, 93 seats having a preferred NDP candidate, and 65 seats having a preferred Green candidate.*

- No party within the coalition would endorse any other coalition party to form government, or any other leader to be voted Prime Minister.

- No riding association would be prevented from running a candidate against a preferred candidate. However, the participating national parties would agree not to provide support to non-"preferred" candidates, aside from allowing them to participate in multi-candidate events and providing them with generic national materials.

- The participating parties would agree to coordinate messaging on a national level on the issues agreed to be addressed by the coalition government. In addition, the national parties and leaders would agree to avoid "low-blow" messages in opposing the other participating parties. This agreement would not be binding on individual riding candidates in establishing their own materials and messages, though they'd be encouraged to follow the deal's principles.

- The participating parties would agree to reassess whether any "preferred" designations should be changed to improve the chances of defeating the Cons. Any changes would be by agreement of all participating parties, and would be designed not to result in any one party forming a majority government (so as to ensure the deal remains enforceable).

Coalition Government

In addition to merely toppling the Cons, any deal should also include some discussion as to what party members (and Canadians at large) can expect. I'd see the following as the bare essentials for cooperation following an election:

- The participating parties would agree to form a coalition government. All coalition parties which win seats would receive cabinet positions in proportion to their number of seats won, in an arrangement to be agreed.

- The coalition's top priority would be passage of an environmental plan in substantially the same form as the currently-amended Bill C-30. Any further amendments would be only to strengthen the plan as agreed by all coalition parties. (This assumes of course that the efforts to pass C-30 in the current Parliament won't bear fruit.)

- The coalition would also immediately begin a Citizens' Assembly process to review possible federal electoral reforms. The parties would agree to maintain the coalition at least until this process is complete, such that a referendum on any selected change would form part of the next federal election.

- All budgets and similar general policy documents would be drafted by agreement among the coalition parties. At the time the deal is first reached, the parties would agree to baselines as to the minimum focus to be put into specific policy areas such as health care, child care, First Nations funding, education and social housing; these would be included within the coalition's budget and legislative priorities.

Comments

Beyond the questions of whether it's a plus for parties to be looking to make this kind of deal in the first place, there would still be serious issues about how the deal would be carried out. For one, I'm not sure what the parties' respective constitutions would require to allow for such a deal; I'm presuming that the voting processes would cover it, but it may be that there simply isn't a way to validly reach and approve this kind of agreement.

I'd also have some concerns about the effect of the Canada Elections Act on any type of substantial cooperation. Given the limit on party spending, there might be some argument that cooperation between parties serves as a wrongful means of getting around the spending caps. And I wouldn't want to see a deal either leave the parties involved on the wrong side of the law, or encourage a long-term adaptation from the Cons (either by taking up an NCC-style call to remove caps on spending, or by splitting into multiple linked parties to get full use out of their money each election.)

And, there's always the question of what additional details would be brought up which could undermine the purposes I'd outlined earlier. I won't speculate too much as to those, but please bring up in the comments any which seem obvious.

I'm not sure who, if anybody, would be prepared to push for this type of arrangement. And indeed, I can't say that I'd be at the point of supporting it immediately, even if I'd consider it about the best format for cooperation if any is to be found. But I'm interested to see how much taste there is among other progressives for something along these lines - or whether deals like the current Red Green deal (for all its glaring flaws) make for as much cooperation as others are prepared to stand.

A heritage embarrassment

There's another strong entry in the Least Competent Con contest, as Bev Oda manages to supply two highly dubious stories in one day.

First, the Globe and Mail follows up on last fall's story about a media-industry fund-raiser which was conveniently timed two weeks before a review of broadcasting rules. And while Oda was eventually pushed to cancel the event, it doesn't look like the money stopped flowing:

Heritage Minister Bev Oda cancelled a Bay Street fundraiser last November over bad optics, but new records show her riding association still cashed donations from a who's who of Canadian broadcasting executives.

Ms. Oda was accused last November of mixing government work and political fundraising because of a Nov. 15 event in the Toronto financial district that was to feature the Heritage Minister and Industry Minister Maxime Bernier.

Questions were raised because the invitations to the $250-a-head event were circulated in early October by Charlotte Bell, a long-time friend of Ms. Oda's who now lobbies Canadian Heritage on behalf of CanWest MediaWorks.

Critics also attacked the timing of the event, considering that it was two weeks before a major federal review of Canada's broadcasting rules. The minister cancelled the event "to avoid any negative perception," her spokesman said at the time, and the government promised that the fundraising cheques were returned.

However, newly released records from Elections Canada reveal that of 20 individuals who donated to Ms. Oda's riding association last year, at least nine have senior roles in Canada's broadcast industry. Eleven of the donations were made within five weeks of the cancelled fundraiser.

Among the names listed as individual contributors are Astral Media board chairman André Bureau, who gave $250 on Oct. 16; TVO CEO Lisa De Wilde, who gave $500 on Oct. 16; CHUM president and CEO Jay Switzer, who donated $500 on Oct. 12; Standard Radio president and CEO Gary Slaight, who gave $500 on Oct. 13; and Rogers Radio CEO Gary Miles, who gave $250 on Oct. 12.

While at least one of the apparent donors denies any link to the cancelled fund-raiser, it surely can't be a coincidence that so many donations in multiples of the fund-raiser's ticket price were received from exactly the people whose potential presence at the fund-raiser looked so suspicious.

What's more, Oda's office is seemingly trying to defend the concept of the fund-raiser as part of its claim that nothing was done wrong:

Ms. Oda's spokesman, Jean-Luc Benoît, insisted yesterday that none of the donations were related to the fundraiser. He added that the broadcast review was at arm's length from the minister's office.

It's hard to see why the latter part would be added in except to preserve deniability in case the first part gets proven wrong. But such a claim surely seems to contradict Oda's implicit acceptance of the fact that the fund-raiser was problematic to begin with.

If issues about Oda's honesty weren't enough, though, there's also reason to doubt whether she has even the most basic understanding of what her portfolio includes. The Ottawa Citizen reports on Oda's idea of a cultural event worthy of federal funding:

Heritage Minister Bev Oda came under fire yesterday for polling the town council in her riding for festivals eligible for $30 million in federal funding, and suggesting a "Midnight Madness" sale organized by area businesses qualifies as an arts and heritage festival.

At this point, it's hard not to wonder whether Oda's tenure in cabinet is itself an elaborate form of performance art - perhaps designed to show the absurdity of the political scene in general, and the kinds of defences that a government will put up with in particular.

But with so many of her colleagues seemingly matching her gaffe for gaffe, the more likely answer is that she simply reflects the general level of merit (or lack thereof) within the Cons' cabinet. And based on examples like these, the closing of the Cons' living museum of incompetence can't come soon enough.

Update: Oda's office's second response was apparently to plead incompetence. But while it's hard not to grant them a very high degree of cluelessness, surely it's still a problem when a cabinet minister isn't concerned with submitting accurate information to Elections Canada.

Double duty

The Ottawa Citizen reports that Lib MP Marcel Proulx has been named Stephane Dion's provincial lieutenant for Quebec. But it's worth noting that not only did Proulx only win Hull-Aylmer by the skin of his teeth in the 2006 election, but one of his new competitors in the riding is longtime NDP Quebec stalwart Pierre Ducasse. And of course the Bloc and Cons also figure to remain in the mix, especially with the added motivation of making Dion's life more difficult.

It remains to be seen how the riding will play out...and prior to 2004 Hull-Aylmer was a rather safe-looking riding for the Libs. But for now, it looks like Dion has given a major coordinating role to somebody who may need to use a large amount of resources just to save his own seat - which may toss one more monkey wrench into the Libs' attempt to rebuild their Quebec organization.

Now that takes nerve

After two separate missions to the Middle East at public expense, one would think Wajid Khan would at least have the sense not to direct attention toward his broken promise to make any reports public. But his statement in the House of Commons yesterday can't be taken as anything but a deliberate decision to do just that:

Mr. Speaker, I am dismayed by the accusations and innuendoes of the opposition parties about our mission in Afghanistan. It is time for them to stop using this mission for their own political purposes.

The situation in Afghanistan is far more complex than is generally understood. The government is taking a realistic, multidimensional approach.

Let's note that responsibility for the statement doesn't lie with Khan alone. Remember that the Cons' Statements by Members are included in the materials which require preapproval from the PMO. As a result, the statement reflects a joint decision between Khan and Harper to complain that Canadians shouldn't discuss an important subject based on their refusal to provide background information about it.

Of course, if there really is something about Afghanistan and the region generally that's misunderstood by the general public, the logical way to fix that would be for Khan (and others) to deliver more information to Canadians...for example, any reports which Khan may actually have completed.

But apparently Khan and the Cons have not only bought into a Bush-style strategy of saying "we're right - and if we could tell you why, you'd agree", but see it as worth their while to actively turn discussion in that direction. Which, in light of the complete lack of a factual basis behind the similar claims of Harper's southern ally, offers just one more reason why the Cons shouldn't be trusted for a second.

All options

The Star reports that both the NDP and the Bloc are looking at ways to get the bulk of the amended C-30 to a vote in Parliament even if the Cons won't move the original bill any further:

Opposition parties are putting together a last-ditch effort to force the minority Conservative government into line with the majority of the House of Commons on the environment.

The New Democrats are quietly exploring whether they can make changes to a private member's bill on the environment introduced by party leader Jack Layton, known as the Climate Change Accountability Act. They want to include in that legislation some of the main features of the Clean Air Act, a government bill rewritten recently by opposition members on a parliamentary committee.

"The government is unwilling to do the right thing. They've brought forward their own plan and it's been derided by the people who follow this," said NDP environment critic Nathan Cullen (Skeena-Bulkley Valley). "They have no backing and we need to not throw away this Parliament in terms of doing something serious for the environment."...

Meanwhile, the Bloc Québécois is considering using its opposition day Tuesday to call on the government to bring the Clean Air Act before the House for a vote by all MPs.

Bloc environment critic Bernard Bigras (Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie) said a decision will be made today.

It'll only take one successful strategic move to ensure that a real emission reduction plan gets put into place - and the NDP's and Bloc's efforts each look to have a positive effect. But while the immediate efforts seem to reflect the best chance to pass the amended C-30 in the least time, I'm surprised to see that nobody appears to have yet introduced a new private member's bill consisting substantially of the amended C-30 as a backup plan in case the other processes don't work out.

That said, it's undoubtedly for the best that at least two opposition parties are working to win a Commons vote on a sorely-needed climate change plan. And hopefully the Libs will join in as well to make sure that an effective bill gets passed before the Cons are able to change the subject.

Your representative at work

I strongly hope this story merely came out a month late for April Fool's. But would it be much surprise for the Cons to be more interested in protecting mythical species than real ones?

Selective outrage

Shorter Rick Hillier on Canada's sad excuse for an Afghan detainee transfer agreement:
So you won't accept my non-answer as to why I approved signing the deal? In that case, you're insulting the troops by asking the question.

On misleadership

One has to figure Harper is now wishing he'd either cut Gordon O'Connor loose by now, or at least let O'Connor keep answering for his own department's failings rather than bringing himself and other Con figures into the issue. Today, word comes out that Harper himself has been caught making false claims in an attempt to defuse the Afghan detainee scandal - resulting in the spectacle of Harper trying to spin an offhand comment by Stockwell Day about leg irons as a full disclosure of the allegations of torture.

What's especially striking is that Harper managed to get caught apparently misleading Parliament despite how frequently he and the other Cons have failed to even pretend to answer questions lately. And while we can figure on seeing a lot more Con diversions as they try even harder to avoid issues where they're not willing to deal with the truth, there's now all the less reason to think the Cons can get away with pretending that the rot stops anywhere short of the top.

Reaching out

It's already been mentioned elsewhere, but I'll take a moment to point out the NDP's redesigned website - featuring what appears to be the only blogger-oriented resource page of any of the major federal parties.*

I've suggested before that the NDP should be the most eager of all parties to encourage its supporters in making their voices heard. And while I hope the page will build on its current base in the future, it's great to see the NDP taking the lead for now.

*This is based on a quick look at the "Multimedia" and "Take Action" sections of the Libs' site, the "Multimedia" section of the Cons', and the Greens' Blogs section which appears to be limited to blogs from party insiders. Let me know if I've missed something.

Distorting the story

The CP's story on federal party fund-raising has received plenty of attention. But one element that's largely gone unnoticed is that the article reflects an all-too-familiar example of the media focusing on the Con/Lib dichotomy even where the effect is to confuse how the story is reported.

After all, based on the actual fund-raising standings (which see the Cons well ahead of the pack, followed by the NDP, Libs, Greens and Bloc in that order), one would figure the NDP would receive the second mention within the article, along with at least as much discussion of its methods as is given to the Libs and Cons. But instead, the headline, lead-in and article text all give first priority to the Cons and Libs - with the NDP (and its total more than double the Libs') mentioned only as a relative afterthought:

Stephen Harper's Conservatives raised almost 10 times more money from 10 times more donors than the Liberals in the first three months of 2007.

Even the NDP — historically the poorest of the three main national parties — managed to raise twice as much money as the once-mighty Grits.

According to quarterly fundraising results, posted Tuesday by Elections Canada, the Liberals managed to raise only $531,141 from 4,365 donors.

By contrast, the Tories vacuumed up almost $5.2 million from more than 45,000 contributors. The NDP scooped up $1.2 million from almost 15,000 donors.

For those looking for another problematic part of the article, the same scenario arises between the Greens and Bloc - as the Greens' fivefold advantage in fund-raising still only earns them mention after that given to the Bloc's numbers.

Now, it would be fair enough to say that the amount of money raised in any given quarter likely won't have much direct impact on future election results. But rather than even making that case to justify the shape of the article, the CP seems to take as a given that the reporting has to reflect the media's usual order of party discussion - even if that order makes no sense in light of the issue being reported on.

And that only hints at just what both the NDP and Greens are fighting in their respective efforts to move up in the federal party standings...no matter how much money they can raise compared to their competitors.

More sorry excuses

Apparently the Cons are backtracking at least slightly from their insulting attempt to minimize the federal government's responsibility for residential school abuses. But they're seemingly moving instead to an utterly incoherent policy (and equally baffling explanation) as to who should apologize and under what circumstances:

Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice signalled a change in course on Tuesday when he expressed support for the idea of apologizing to residential school survivors.

A Liberal motion that calls on the House of Commons to apologize for the trauma suffered by aboriginal students at residential schools was debated for much of the morning and early afternoon and Mr. Prentice said the Conservatives would support it when it comes to a vote. The non-binding motion was expected to pass with or without the government’s support, but until now the government has been resisting all calls by the opposition and aboriginal groups for an apology.

“The House should apologize and I am confident at the end of the day that the House will apologize,” he said during the debate.

But Mr. Prentice did not issue an actual apology, instead suggesting that one might flow from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that is currently being established...

He said when South Africa completed its own reconciliation commission after apartheid ended, it recommended the government apologize, and Canada’s commission might produce the same result.

But Mr. Prentice insisted that Canada’s commission must do its work first and then the government will then review its recommendations.

“My hope is that through the work of that commission, we will better understand what needs to be done. The government will look forward to receiving the recommendations of those parties of the commission after they have completed their work, and to be fair, only at that time, once the full facts are known, can the full response from the government of Canada, at the executive branch, be offered,” Mr. Prentice said.

Mr. Prentice did not say whether the government would then issue an apology if that is what is eventually recommended by the commission.

Just so we're clear:

The Cons support, and have voted for, an immediate apology from the House of Commons.

And the Cons claim to support an apology from the government as well. But they want to avoid providing it until (and unless) a commission says such an apology should be given. And even then, they won't commit to acting on a commission recommendation...although a "full response" would presumably include at least some apology, unless the Cons want to revert to their previous excuses.

Hopefully, today's shift in position will ultimately represent the Cons' appropriate abandonment of those past attempts to minimize the harms of the residential school system. But it's hard to see the new delay tactics as any more plausible or reasonable. And residential school survivors will be entirely justified in continuing to hold the Cons accountable for looking to delay an eventual apology which now looks inevitable.

An inconvenient question

Alison has already brought the snark about the Cons' habit of blacking out documents. But yesterday's Question Period offered another revelation about a document which the Cons are refusing to release publicly - and this one looks to have the potential to add another front to the detainee treatment scandal:

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):...

Since 2003, Canada has been sending warships to the Arabian Sea to participate in the American-led Operation Enduring Freedom. We learn now, due to documents that we have obtained, that the government signed, on October 12, an agreement regarding the transfer of prisoners taken during these operations. We tried to find out what the terms of the agreement are but the Department of National Defence has blackened out all the terms.

Where are the detainees going, Guantanamo?

It's a sure sign of an unwanted question that Harper could only respond by changing the subject entirely in order to become the latest politician to claim his party has gained a meaningful advantage through the support of Buzz Hargrove. (And we all know how well that strategy has worked out for others.)

But the new Middle Eastern detainee question figures to be a source of major problems. After all, in this case, the agreement would lie on the Cons' shoulders alone. And the issue will be doubly damning if the Cons continue to try to hide the documentation - in contrast to the Afghan agreements, which were at least made public when they were signed.

We'll see whether Harper simply hopes to ignore the question going forward, or whether the Cons will at least offer some transparency to what they've signed onto. But either way, the answers figure to tie the Cons further into the U.S.' foreign policy, in addition to highlighting Harper's continuing culture of secrecy. And that building reputation figures to do far more damage to the Cons than almost anything the agreement itself would figure to contain.

On principled dealings

Elizabeth May has been in the news plenty the last couple of days over her weekend implosion. But while there's plenty to wonder about her leadership based on her newfound role as a prophet, she does seem to have managed to figure out at least some of the problems with the Red Green pact, suggesting in the Hill Times that any further decisions not to run Green candidates will originate at the riding level.

Needless to say, it's for the best that May now seems to realize that riding associations can't and shouldn't be taken for granted. But in the interest of seeing whether it's possible to reach some consensus on the principles which should apply to any cooperative electoral effort, I'll take a few minutes to suggest what principles would be needed for this Dipper (and this Dipper alone, as I don't purport to speak for anybody else) to back any formal deal involving the NDP.

1. Likelihood of success - Presumably the purpose of any arrangement among the Libs, NDP and Greens would be to ensure that Harper doesn't remain in power. With that in mind, any deal is a non-starter if it doesn't both involve enough seats to result in a change in government, and stand a strong chance of winning public support.

2. Democracy - While the leaders may well want to be on the forefront of deal-making, that doesn't justify their trampling on the interests of their riding associations and party members. No deal should take effect without formal approval from a party's national council, and any deal should allow both individual riding associations to continue to run a candidate (even if without the usual national-party resources), and a sufficiently large number of riding associations nationally to override the deal if they express disapproval.

3. Flexibility - In keeping with the purpose of toppling the Cons, any deal has to allow for multiple ways of accomplishing that goal - not focus on a single option as a replacement, which could then undermine the entire process based on a single party's failures.

4. Specificity - Any deal on policy in particular should set out specific areas of agreement as well as concrete measures to get there, rather than vague statements about potential cooperation which can easily be interpreted differently by different parties.

5. Enforceability - To the extent that any part of a deal involves policy agreement following an election, the deal should ensure that enough leverage exists to force the parties involved to live up to their commitments.

6. Reciprocity - Any deal should treat the parties involved as equals and provide substantially similar benefits to them, rather than resulting in any one party agreeing to make its interests subordinate to any other's.

To repeat in case there's any doubt, the above is purely my take on the principles which I'd need to see embodied in any deal that I'd be prepared to support personally. And even then it would depend on the specific structure of any deal (particularly since the principles may conflict in some cases), as well as some factors beyond the control of the parties.

I'll post later with a suggestion as to how these principles could be put into practice. In the meantime, though, I'm curious to find out whether other progressives would see this as a framework that can work in a joint effort.

On self-parody

The CP reveal the profound message sent from a spokeswoman for Gordon O'Connor - apparently reflecting the department's line sent to MPs discussing O'Connor's future:

"If any of you give credit to the rumour that MND (minister of national defence) will resign, will look studip (sic). It is not true he will NOT resign."

I can only presume that O'Connor has surrounded himself with such bright lights in an effort to seem more eloquent and competent than the people around him. But this may be the most frightening indication yet of just what kind of dull minds the Cons are happy to put in positions of responsibility if accompanied by fealty to the party line...and one more strong example of why they shouldn't be in a position to choose the people responsible for managing the country for long.

A lack of dissent

There wasn't much doubt going in that the NDP's Afghanistan motion would be defeated - and today that's what happened. But it's interesting to note the margin of the vote and what it apparently says about the other two opposition parties:

The House of Commons has overwhelmingly rejected an NDP motion calling for an immediate end to Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan.

Conservative, Liberal and Bloc Québécois MPs joined forces Monday to defeat the motion by a vote of 225 to 28.

New Democrats were alone in calling for an immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops from the counter-insurgency campaign in Kandahar province.

Now, I'm not sure whether the Libs and Bloc whipped their respective parties against the motion. But whether or not each did, there seems to be reason to wonder about how the vote turned out.

Remember how many MPs from the two parties voted against the 2009 extension in the first place: about 2/3 of the Libs and every Bloc MP were against the extension initially. Based on that track record, it would seem a huge shift in position for every single one of those MPs to see the earlier vote as completely precluding any earlier withdrawal.

At the same time, though, there wouldn't figure to have been much risk in a free vote given the likelihood of the motion being defeated (not to mention the lack of immediate consequences if it passed). And the political benefits to the NDP from the vote would presumably have been diluted if anybody from the other parties had preserved any opposition to the mission as it stands.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem likely that there will be much followup. But the vote figures to have said a lot about either the party leaders or the MPs for the Libs and Bloc. And while it'll be a shame if Canadian voters don't find out who's most directly responsible, both parties figure to have plenty to answer for from those who want to see Canada's combat role come to an end.

Decision made

As a follow-up to the question of whether or not to force an election now over the environment, let's note that Stephane Dion has also chimed in on the side of getting something done in the current Parliament rather than going straight to the polls:

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said he would do everything in his power to get the minority Conservative government to reverse course on its environmental policies, but he hoped it wouldn’t lead to an election.

"I hope the indignation from Canadians and the international community will be enough to get government to (fix) its plan," Dion said in a phone interview. "The reaction of Mr. Gore will be a reaction that will be very frequent, unfortunately."

If Dion is indeed onside and willing to put his weight behind a movement to pass the amended C-30, and with the Bloc both onside on the environment and too busy sorting out its identity crisis to want to face an election, the odds look good that the Cons will indeed face a push that they can't afford to ignore. And hopefully Dion's supporters will bolster the effort by joining in - even if their preference may be to go to the polls first.

Strategic decisions

I'll weigh in somewhat late on the question of how the opposition parties can best deal with the Cons' seeming repudiation of the rewritten C-30. From what I've seen, the debate has largely evolved into two camps: the "bring 'em down now!" camp, and the one looking to pressure the Cons into changing their mind; it shouldn't come as much surprise that I'm in the latter group.

But I'm not sure anybody's quite put into detail how the options break down. So let's take a few minutes to review the possible outcomes.

If the opposition parties team up to bring down the Cons immediately, the obvious result is to bring to an end the legislative process which has produced the current C-30. And what's worse, the election itself could also weaken the opposition's hand in trying to push for improved legislation: the Cons would far too likely simply declare the issue dead based on a claim that voters had endorsed their existing "plan".

So what about trying to work within the current Parliament instead? The best possible outcome would be for the Cons to decide to put C-30 forward in its current amended form. And while it's far from certain, such an outcome is easily more likely to come about if the opposition parties put up a united front as they did in agreeing to the bill to begin with.

Even if the Cons refuse to deal with all of C-30 as currently amended, there's also the option of working to try to win Con agreement on the most important parts of it. And the Cons are already sending some signals in that direction:

"Well obviously our preference would be to move forward with the clean air act. One of the challenges is that the Liberals put a plan, put an amendment in it that would basically allow industry an unlimited license to pollute," Baird said.

He hoped the government could work with the opposition parties and "salvage big chunks" of the bill.

Of course, this being Baird, he couldn't demonstrate any interest in cooperation without misrepresenting the nature of the opposition's existing work. But the opposition parties should be able to pressure the Cons to go public with the "big chunks" of the bill that they still agree with, and suggest wording to toughen the legislation if they honestly think genuinely tougher measures are needed.

It's worth noting the threat of an imminent confidence vote might eventually be needed to get the Cons to play along with either of the two above scenarios. And if the Cons refused to blink at that point, then the downside result would be exactly what the "bring-'em-down" side is advocating as the first and only option.

Moreover, there's no reason why even a successful effort to pass C-30 (whether as currently or amended or with additional small tweaks) couldn't then be followed by a confidence motion on another issue. The result then would be to achieve every benefit of bringing down the Cons, with the added bonus that the opposition parties would have won a much-needed victory on the environmental front first.

Naturally, there's bound to be some difference of opinion on the left as to when it's most appropriate to bring down the Cons - just as different Cons presumably have differing calculations about when to seek a majority. But for those looking for the best option to get something done on the environment, there's no reason to throw out all the work that's been done on C-30 in order to roll the dice at the polls.

Somewhat short of ideal

Peter MacKay is claiming that now is an "ideal" time to talk with China about Huseyin Celil's life sentence among other issues. And it's hard to argue with the suggestion - after all, what reason would we have to believe that China is anything short of entirely pleased with the Cons?

Never enough now

Shorter Paul Jackson:
The only thing more unfair and devious than an opposition party not willing to cater to the government's every whim is one which actually helps to pass a government bill.

On opportunities

The Gazette discusses the NDP's push for a Quebec breakthrough, noting that Thomas Mulcair's arrival in the party may coincide with a particularly strong political scene for the NDP:

Once again there is a buzz of anticipation in the diehard ranks of Quebec New Democrats, a stirring of belief that this next election might be the one that ends differently.

The party got its biggest credibility boost in years April 20 when former Liberal MNA and provincial cabinet minister Thomas Mulcair announced he was joining the NDP and would run for the party in the coming election.

Getting himself dumped as Jean Charest's environment minister last year for standing against the Orford Park land selloff was perhaps not the worst of political career moves. Charest wound up looking like a heel and Mulcair came off as an environmental hero.

He brings to the NDP both experience in the corridors of power and street cred on the hot-button political issue of the day.

And now he's an NDP believer...

NDP hopes are fuelled by more than Mulcair's conversion.

They are in tune with majority Quebec sentiment on current wedge issues - Kyoto, gun control, Afghanistan - on which the Conservatives are offside. The Liberals are stalled under Stephane Dion's shaky leadership. Last month's provincial election put the separatist movement in limbo, making it much harder for the Bloc Quebecois to justify its existence.

Historically, the NDP's fundamental problem in Quebec has been that its inception coincided with the rise of the province's separatist movement. The clientele to which it appeals in the rest of the country, social democrats, unionists, environmentalists, economic nationalists and such are abundant in Quebec, but here they are typically sovereignist in the bargain.

As much as the party needs a Mulcair, it needs a Bloc meltdown.

Pierre Ducasse, another of the party's bright-hope candidates, believes that's coming about.

"The Bloc was a comfortable place for people to park their votes," he said. "It was in large part a protest vote, but I think people are ready for a change there. Quebecers today are looking more for solutions than for confrontation. That opens doors for us."

It's far from sure that the Bloc will indeed cede enough territory to make the NDP's road a lot easier. But it still bears mentioning that even in the last trip to the polls the NDP already managed to run third or higher in more than just a few Quebec ridings, and a strong fourth in numerous others.

As a result, even a Bloc collapse doesn't look to be a precondition to NDP success if the right dynamics play out between the Libs and Cons in Quebec. And while the NDP will certainly be looking to make Mulcair's arrival only one of many strong additions for the next election cycle, it doesn't figure to take much more to push the NDP over the top in a riding or two.

On irrational fears

Jonathan Chevreau (with thoroughly one-sided sourcing from Paul DioGuardi) launches into the most shrill whine imaginable about the Canada Revenue Agency - featuring such shocking horror stories as "the CRA actually allows people to report tax evasion!" and "if you get caught criminally evading taxes, you could go to jail!"

I'd be tempted to ask just how Chevreau and DioGuardi think a tax system should work. But considering how outraged they are by the mere existence of enforcement mechanisms, it doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibility that they'd honestly see an entirely voluntary system as more practical and fair than one that actually functions.

On deflection

It's been clear for some time that the Gordon O'Connor detainee fiasco would offer one of the strongest tests of the Cons' willingness (or lack thereof) to admit mistakes and create internal lines of responsibility. And not surprisingly, the Cons have responded exactly as would be expected from a party which thinks that accountability is something that only happens to Liberals...with the latest news being that they're trying to deflect blame from O'Connor by saying others should have started doing his job sooner:

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor feels he has been left to twist in the wind by his cabinet colleagues, senior federal sources said yesterday as finger-pointing burst into the open over the government's handling of the Afghan detainee crisis.

A senior defence official, seeking to present Mr. O'Connor's views as he fights for his political life, said the Defence Minister feels he has been shouldering the blame for Canada's policies toward Afghan detainees for more than a year.

It was only after Mr. O'Connor ran into trouble in the House of Commons this week amid new reports of prisoner torture, that other cabinet ministers were brought in to defend the government.

“He didn't have any support for a year,” the official said. “This week, [other ministers] started to stand up because the Prime Minister gave the green light. He had been alone for a year. ...The minister is a team player. If his job is to take flak for everybody, he will take it.”

The problem, of course, is that the problem has come up on a file while is supposed to be within O'Connor's ministerial responsibility. Which would make for a very good reason why O'Connor should indeed be charged with answering questions as to how the matter was handled, rather than diverting that task to whichever of the Cons' other ministers or parliamentary secretaries draws the short straw on a given day.

In fact, all the Cons' new strategy does is to try to pretend that a minister's missteps can be ignored if somebody else is left to answer for them. And sorely as O'Connor deserves to be fired for bungling his job, it's an more damning sign of a government which has no interest in individual accountability to simply remove responsible parties from the spotlight in the hope that others can better obfuscate over what was done wrong.

Micromanagement run amok

The Cons have rightly been receiving almost nothing but bad press this week for a particularly egregious combination of bad government and bad politics. But Tony Clement may have managed to beat out Harper, O'Connor, Baird and all the rest in both departments...albeit with much less fanfare:

Health Minister Tony Clement was put in a tight spot yesterday at a children's health summit in Ottawa where he was a keynote speaker.

After his speech, Mr. Clement declined an invitation to sign a document called "Canada's Child Health Declaration."

Fielding questions from reporters afterwards, Mr. Clement said it was his job to collect feedback and take it from there.

"I'm the messenger. So I get to take the declaration and, of course, present it to the prime minister," he said.

The declaration, three paragraphs long, states that children's health must be a national priority.

"While Canada offers outstanding opportunities for growth and development, children in Canada face many health challenges that threaten their ability to reach their full potential. Addressing those challenges and ensuring that the children of Canada have the best possible health must be a national priority," says the declaration.

"As Child Health Champions, we share a vision that all children in Canada have access to a safe and secure environment; opportunities for optimal health and development; and access to a full range of health services and resources," it continues.

"We, the undersigned, are committed to working together to realize this vision, so that the children of Canada will be among the healthiest children in the world."

It's hard to imagine a more innocuous or easily-supported declaration. But Clement's response seems to indicate that there's a need to "collect feedback" before the government could possibly consider signing on. Which would seem to reflect an assumption on Clement's part that there's an anti-healthy-children lobby which needs to have its voice heard as well.

Of course, the complete refusal to make a decision as a government representative can be taken as simply an abundance of caution on Clement's part. But on that level, Clement's action hints at the deeper problems within the Cons' internal structure, suggesting that Harper's micromanagement has reached the point where a cabinet minister can't so much as sign a non-controversial and non-binding declaration without getting a go-ahead from the PMO. And if PMS really can't stand to allow anything to happen within his organization without personal approval, then it's long past time to return him to the type of entity where that's at least reasonably possible.

A slightly adjusted diet

JimBobby is close to nailing the best analogy for the Cons' reliance on intensity targets. But it's worth noting that even he's a bit too generous, as the Cons' intensity targets won't even ensure that emissions growth slows down if industries decide they can more efficiently meet the targets through increased production.

So let's tweak JimBobby's analogy just a bit.

The Cons' plan is the equivalent of a man being told by his doctor that he's overweight, out of shape and needs to start unclogging his arteries immediately, and saying to himself: "I need to start eating healthier. So I'll count my cholesterol carefully, and make sure that I take in 20% less cholesterol as a proportion of the food that I eat."

But then, he decides that he enjoys his current diet too much to give up any of the foods he currently eats - and instead chooses to eat an extra meal a day of zero-cholesterol food. While he gets a few extra nutrients, his weight increases all the more, and his arteries continue to clog. And the end result is an even earlier grave than in JimBobby's analogy.

Again, the ultimate folly of intensity targets is in the "extra-meal" possibility - the scenario where businesses meet their targets - and perhaps even earn large quantities of credits by exceeding their targets - through ramped-up production rather than any conservation at all. Politically, it may be a smart play since it could encourage some businesses to increase production in the short term, with the need to actually reduce emissions left until far down the road. But the end result is nowhere near the diet that's needed for a healthy planet.

A limited partnership

Thanks to Peter Julian and the NDP, Canadians are in the midst of receiving a much better idea what's involved in the Security and Prosperity Partnership. But the CP reports that one of the few publicly-released details of the current discussions seems to confirm many of the worst suspicions about the process:

There's an outcry on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border over an abrupt move by American officials to drop plans to pre-clear travellers and reduce costly congestion at land crossings.

Many are viewing it as a major black mark on bilateral relations since a co-operative measure publicly championed by the White House has been unceremoniously dumped by the Homeland Security Department...

The main sticking point was Homeland's unwillingness to accept Canada's legal problem with having U.S. authorities take fingerprints of people who approach the border but decide not to cross.

Canadian law doesn't permit fingerprinting unless someone volunteers or has been charged with a crime.

Canada's assurances that it would co-operate in investigating any suspicious person who approaches the border weren't enough, said one Capitol Hill source.

"The Attorney General's office really just wants to grab as much biometric information as it can," said the source.

Canada won't consider any proposal that doesn't comply with Canadian law, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said Thursday in Ottawa.

But he's hopeful the U.S. will come back to the table.

Of course, it's for the best that Canada is publicly refusing to play along. But Day's supposed reassurance seems likely only to highlight the serious risks involved in continued discussions, rather than offering any indication that Canada will be able to maintain its sovereignty as the SPP process goes forward.

After all, it's hard to see how any government negotiating with the Bush administration could have expected anything other than a demand that Canada serve as an intelligence-gathering agency for the U.S. It's all too likely that the Harper government will eventually follow the same pattern it applied on softwood lumber, seeking to impose the U.S.' demands on Canada (by changing Canadian law to allow the demanded fingerprint collection) for the sake of getting a deal done rather than defending Canada's interests. And indeed the Cons' track record will likely provide a reason for the U.S. to think it can get away with making a firm demand of its every whim, no matter what Canadian law may say.

Needless to say, that's the kind of partnership that Canada is far better off avoiding. And hopefully the public airing of both the U.S.' current demands and the Canadian side of the story will make sure that the SPP process doesn't go any further in its current form.

On sycophants

Shorter Brian Laghi and sources:
Gosh, is Stephen Harper ever brilliant. He's so amazingly great and wonderful that I'm surprised he's losing any face over his government's incompetence and lies. Because that's not what a truly credible genius like Harper would normally do.

Not even close

If there was any doubt that the Cons' latest sad excuse for an environmental plan would remain a product of the Alliance anti-Kyoto legacy, consider this. After loudly trumpeting their belief in "Kyoto's principles" while (rightly) slamming the Libs for failing to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in 8 years after signing Kyoto, the Cons are not only tearing up the treaty from Canada's end, but also planning to delay for another 18 years before even meeting Canada's first-phase Kyoto targets.

And for all the Cons' talk about the Libs failing to take action for 13 years, even the first set of weak absolute emission targets isn't supposed to come into effect until 14 years after the Cons first took office.

In sum, the Cons have loudly unveiled yet another dud. And hopefully it'll be subject to enough rightful backlash to force the Cons to work with the real emission reduction plan agreed to by the other parties in Parliament.

On pre-electioneering

It doesn't appear to have received much attention in the midst of a busy week in Canadian politics. But Pat Martin's suggestion that Elections Canada regulate political party advertising outside of election campaigns as well as within them is one which deserves plenty more discussion (note: follow second headline link for article):

The Conservatives' spring offensive TV ads and the Liberals' recent radio ads are not considered election expenses, so the sky's the limit, but Canada's Chief Electoral Officer should finally impose limits on the amount of money registered political parties can spend on pre-writ campaigning, says NDP MP Pat Martin.

Mr. Martin (Winnipeg Centre, Man.) said political parties with larger campaign war chests have an unfair advantage over those that don't.

"Financing politics in Canada is a complete free-for-all. It's like the Wild West without regulation or limits where brute force wins the day and whoever has the bigger gun dominates, at least when you're outside the writ period, which is contrary to the stated objective of getting big money out of politics to create a level playing field. So, I think the new chief electoral officer should consider a spending limit on advertising in between elections..." said Mr. Martin in an interview with The Hill Times...

In light of the flurry of advertising this spring, Martin's idea will likely resonate with Canadians who are tired of constant campaigning. At the same time, though, there's almost certainly some room for refinement of the idea based on when the ad expenditures take place.

In particular, I wonder whether it's possible to distinguish between non-election advertising generally, and that which is timed to coincide with a planned start to a campaign (so as to serve effectively as election advertising). It would seem reasonable to make an effort to account for money spent on advertising in the week or month before the writ is dropped as an election expense - as the parties will presumably have plenty of knowledge as to when the election period is likely to start, and will gain just as much within an election from spending money a day before the campaign starts as the day after. Meanwhile, a separate limit on expenses which don't fall immediately before an election period could help to reduce public fatigue with political advertising.

Of course, there's another factor at play which may be easily overlooked based on the Cons' currently holding a resource advantage in party money and pressure-group support as well as the reins of power. If additional limits are placed only on political party advertising, then that could create an artificial advantage for both the governing party (which of course can effectively win advertising for itself through program announcements), and any party with relatively coordinated outside support which could engage in favourable advertising outside the writ period.

All of which means that there's plenty more that can be done to limit the pervasiveness of political advertising - along with many factors that need to be taken into consideration in shaping such a system. But it's definitely worth considering how it's possible to both reduce the influence of money in politics, and discourage political parties from taking as large a bite out of the airwaves as they do...and hopefully Martin's suggestion will help to get that discussion going.

Don't speak

Is there any more sure sign of a party with nothing useful to say than its own MPs giving a standing ovation to the idea of its members shutting up?

Update: Towards a Just Society points out that at least one Lib evidently wasn't swayed by the pro-silence rally. And it only seems likely that Lib dissent will become even more consistently anonymous now that there's been a formal warning against speaking out.

On cooperation

So much for the Libs' false attempts to claim that it's the NDP standing in the way of progressive cooperation. Blogging Horse points out that the NDP attempted to work out an agreed opposition motion on Afghanistan, both through party-to-party negotiations and through a proposed amendment. And it's the Libs who utterly refused - preferring their ill-advised attempt to corner the NDP over any attempt to work together.

Unfortunately, it looks like the new motion forthcoming from the NDP will now be targeted toward leaving no doubt about the NDP's current position, rather than winning support from the Libs and the Bloc.

But hopefully it isn't too late for the NDP to instead put forward on its own the compromise which presumably neither the Libs nor the Bloc would dare vote against directly - i.e. "withdrawal by or before February 2009", without any explicit approval or disapproval of the mission in the meantime. Which would put the Libs in an equally tight spot politically as the apparently-planned motion - while at the same time both sending Harper a clear signal that the Kandahar mission needs to be wound down, and building the NDP's credentials as the party able to build consensus against the Cons.

On rubber stamps

Following up on this post and the comments on it, let's go into a bit more detail about what yesterday's Afghanistan vote means for the Libs (not to mention the Bloc, though I'll focus on the Libs since they were already the party responsible for the Cons' Afghanistan extension).

For all the valid criticisms that exist about the Afghanistan mission and how the Cons have handled it, the Libs have bizarrely chosen to offer their unanimous support to continuing the status quo. While the Libs looked hypocritical enough in criticizing parts of the war which started while they were in power, they'll look even more ridiculous now that they've specifically approved of how the Cons are running it. And that goes doubly since it was the Libs themselves who chose their wording, and can thus be taken to task for what they needlessly included and left out.

For example, there's plenty of need to worry about whether Gordon O'Connor has anywhere near the basic honesty and competence that should be demanded of anyone responsible for the lives of Canadian troops. But the Libs have voted in favour of leaving the mission in his hands - and they've done so unanimously.

There's a genuine need for concern that Canadian troops may bear responsibility for war crimes or torture thanks to the Cons' neglect and/or incompetence. But the Libs have voted in principle to continue the situation which leads to those concerns - and they've done so without any safeguards.

And the Libs have talked for quite some time about the need to rebalance the mission. But they've now voted for two more years without an iota of change on the military side of the ledger - and they've done so of their own motion.

All this is bad enough for the Libs now. But even to the extent they think they've won cheap political points against the NDP in the short term, any gains are virtually certain to be wiped out in the very near future.

After all, does anybody think we'll get through the next two years without another motion going before the House of Commons which corrects everything the Libs ignored in theirs? It's virtually certain that a motion will indeed pass to end the mission (presumably with wording to the effect of "withdrawal no later than February 2009") - while the Libs will be on the hook, without exception, as having voted for whatever Harper does over the next two years.

Which means that every time there's a casualty in Southern Afghanistan, whether among Canadian troops or Afghan civilians...and every time the effect of the Cons' incompetence is to breach international law or make new enemies for Canada...the Libs have offered their endorsement - unanimously, without safeguards, and of their own motion.

And if the Libs really think they're better off ceding all that ground in order to argue over how far down the road to keep allowing the carnage, then there's just one more reason to doubt their judgment on Afghanistan and in general.

Just a thought

The Libs (or at least their blogging proxies) seem to think they've accomplished a lot by directing today's Afghanistan vote at trying to paint the NDP into a corner rather than doing anything to oppose the Cons. But how proud will they be when the NDP can point out for the next two years that the Libs' support for continued Con lies and mismanagement in Afghanistan is now unanimous?

Privatizing the border

Just in case the Cons weren't looking for enough ways to transfer money gratuitously from government coffers to big business, Stockwell Day suggests that one of the changes he plans to make in Canada's security policy is to try to funnel yet more business to Halliburton and other private security contractors. And the first area Day would like to privatize is the Canada/U.S. border:

Canada is considering greater use of public-private partnerships to help bolster security both in Afghanistan and here at home, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day told a counterterrorism conference Tuesday.

Already Canadian troops in Afghanistan are housed at the Kandahar Airfield base run by Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, the company U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney used to run.

Halliburton has been awarded close to US$10-billion in contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq.

Asked what partnerships the Conservative government is considering in Canada, Mr. Day said the controversial formula, granting turn-key contracts to private-sector companies, could be used for Canada’s border security.

Now, there may be some perverse logic to such a move as long as Bushco remains in power, as the current U.S. administration will presumably be far more willing to overlook any security issues as long as its favoured corporate partners are making money out of the deal.

But from the standpoint of both security and effective use of resources, it's difficult to imagine a more shortsighted and counterproductive move than to take Canada's border out of Canada's government's hands. Which offers just one more area where the Cons' interests seem to be directly opposed to those of Canadians - and one more reason not to leave them in power any longer than can be avoided.

Tales of the unexplained

Shorter Con position in their surprising vote on the Bloc's motion calling for the urgent implementation of absolute greenhouse gas emission targets:
Please ignore everything we've ever said about emission targets. In fact, make that pretty please.

(Mind you, I presume the Cons plan on claiming there's an out, perhaps by saying the absolute targets themselves don't have to be immediate. But the vote still seems to be in stark contradiction to the position the Cons have staked out ever since they took power.)

Continuing progress

Denise Savoie and Olivia Chow highlight what figures to remain one of the NDP's top priorities for the rest of the current session of Parliament, as the Early Learning and Child Care Act is set to go to committee:

Having passed second reading last fall, the NDP Early Learning and Child Care Act (C-303) will be studied by the Human Resources and Social Development committee beginning this week...

Over the next 3 weeks Savoie and Chow will champion the bill before the HRSD committee in hopes that the bill will receive speedy passage through the committee to return to Parliament for third reading.

“In this minority government, the three opposition parties have an opportunity to finally pass a child care act that will shape the future of early learning and development of Canadian children,” said Chow. “It’s long overdue.“

What's most interesting in tracking the bill's progress is that the NDP seems to have successfully navigated its way around what I'd assumed to be the greatest obstacle to implementation. While there was no doubt that the Cons would oppose any effort to ensure effectiveness and accountability for federal child care funds, the Bloc has apparently been brought onside thanks to an exemption for Quebec. And while that result is far from perfect in the bill as a whole, it looks likely to ensure that the legislation will find its way through the present Parliament (barring any snap elections before the summer).

Of course, it'll take another step entirely to replace the Cons with a government willing to provide enough funding to make the bill effective in ensuring the creation of sorely-needed spaces. But it's still a huge plus to see that a framework for such a program appears likely to pass into law before long.

On non-renewal

Remember back when a new leader, accompanied by a flurry of retiring MPs, was supposed to allow the Libs to modernize themselves by replacing the old guard (including the most notorious paleo-Libs) with more progressive candidates?

Suffice it to say that the plan doesn't appear to be working out. And in light of Dion's current stand on nomination immunity, Huron-Bruce Libs and other progressives will be stuck with Steckle-Lite indefinitely if they make the mistake of voting the Libs' new nominee into office.

Fortunately, there is some good news, as the NDP looks to have at least one far more progressive challenger at the ready. And hopefully a strong NDP campaign will both result in a Dipper breakthrough, and force the Libs to themselves demand something better than another wave of the same old reactionaries.

Authoritarians in waiting

Lately there's been no lack of Lib and Green bloggers trying to vilify Jack Layton and the NDP at every turn - and reality be damned in the effort. But the Blogging Tories have offered a couple of reminders that they're still without equal when it comes to fact-free demonization.

Last weekend, the outrage du jour was that the NDP's reporting of publicly-available documents allegedly constituted "sabotage". And today, the festivities included an attempt to classify Jack Layton's work to build alliances with international leaders as "illegal", "sedition" and "treasonous" - notwithstanding the fact that other opposition politicians, including Stephen Harper in his time on opposition benches, have (quite properly) engaged in similar efforts.

Of course, such overheated rhetoric is usually a sign that a party is doing something right. And indeed the NDP deserves full credit both for holding the Cons accountable, and working to build more effective links abroad. But it's still remarkable how many Con supporters would seem entirely happy to make "existing while NDP" (or presumably any other party which was managing to successfully oppose the Cons) into a capital offence.

A direct challenge

Since John Baird clearly hadn't created enough confusion about what the Cons have or haven't decided to do with Bill C-30, CanWest reports that Baird is trying to claim no final decision has been made while rejecting one of the amendments out of hand. But while Baird engages in the Cons' usual combination of delay and misdirection, Thomas Mulcair is taking the issue of climate change directly to the Cons:

Former Quebec environment minister Thomas Mulcair, who announced last week he would run for the New Democrats, said he was astonished Baird still hasn’t proposed any alternatives to make real reductions in pollution.

“I’m so tired of hearing the Tories complain that it’s the Liberals’ fault and that they can’t be held to account for that,” said Mulcair. “Well to a certain extent, they can be held to account for a part of it because they fought tooth and nail against every measure that the Liberals try to bring in.”

While it's certainly worth remembering the Libs' failures, the Cons remain (as their predecessors were earlier) the party going to the greatest lengths to avoid any action. And it's particularly important to keep that fact front and centre when the Cons now try to justify letting their own bill die on the order paper in order to keep the consensus climate change plan from passing.

On interpretation gaps

Others have noted what appears to be a backtrack from John Baird's position on C-30 as stated to environmental groups last week. But it could be that the problem was simply a difference in interpretation: the environmental groups in question may have assumed that Baird's words spoken behind closed doors had some meaning, forgetting that nothing that comes out of a Harper cabinet minister's mouth counts in the eyes of the Cons unless it's spoken in front of a duly authorized backdrop.

Of course, the Cons' theory does lead to some problems. And my suspicion is that the reason for Baird's delay on C-30 isn't that his mind isn't made up, but instead that there was an error in the backdrop design which is keeping him from going in front of the cameras.

Based on the Cons' track record of avoiding partisanship within their publicly-funded materials, I'm guessing the planned background is something along these lines:

Liberals Want You To
Freeze In The Dark

Suppose, though, that the last word were to contain a typo and come back as "dork". The Cons might, in the single most environmentally-responsible move of their tenure in power, decide to reuse the last line as their effort to brand Dion during the course of the next campaign. But the actual C-30 announcement couldn't be made until the background was fixed.

In other words, this may represent just one more cost of trying to operate a government on the Cons' plane of surreality, rather than one in which words and actions bear their usual meanings. But hopefully the extra time bought by the printing error will allow for another of the Cons' specialties, as they take one more grudging step toward the Canadian mainstream by deciding to let C-30 proceed.

Conservative vs. consensus

The CP reports that John Baird has told environmental groups that his government doesn't plan to do anything to try to move the amended Bill C-30 (the climate change bill) through Parliament. But it's worth pointing out that Baird is again trying to frame the issue as one solely between the Libs and the Cons - and that any opposition party wanting to actually pressure the Cons to act on the bill should be quick to correct the record:

Environmentalists say Environment Minister John Baird told them in a private meeting that he will abandon the bill because he can't accept sweeping amendments put forward by the opposition.

The clean air act was the centrepiece of the Conservative environmental agenda but the opposition parties drastically changed it during committee study to incorporate the targets of the Kyoto Protocol.

In Friday's meeting, Baird reportedly described the rewritten legislation as a Liberal bill and said he would never bring it forward, said John Bennett of ClimateforChange.

Now, there's every reason why the Cons would want to claim that the amendments were merely a Lib creation - both to help them pretend the amended bill has less support than it does, and to allow them to frame the issue in terms of perceived Lib weaknesses rather than the content of the legislation itself.

But Baird's attempt to portray the other side as consisting of the Libs alone, like so many of the Cons' claims, simply doesn't stand up to reality.

All three opposition parties - who of course represent far more combined votes and seats than the Cons - contributed to the final bill both by offering amendments, and by teaming up to provide the votes necessary to adopt those amendments over the Cons' protestations. For good measure, the Greens endorsed the final product as well. And based on yesterday's Earth Day rallies, it's clear that a good chunk of the Canadian public is also voicing a direct demand for the kind of real action toward Kyoto that the amended bill represents - rather than still more attempts by the Cons to pass off intensity targets as progress.

In other words, the amended C-30 is far more than just a "Liberal bill". And it's by calling attention to the fact that it's the Cons who are alone and isolated in their stubborn refusal to act on C-30 that other parties (and the environmental movement generally) have their best chance of getting a real climate change plan put in place in the foreseeable future.

Still unresponsive

During the 2006 campaign, Greenpeace surveyed Canada's political parties to give voters some idea where they stood on key environmental issues. While the other parties offered detailed responses, the Cons couldn't be bothered to submit any answer at all, and were rightly criticized for that failure.

One might think that with the emergence of the environment as the leading issue in Canadian politics, the Cons and their leaders would at least have changed their mindset enough to be willing to answer a few simple questions - this time about their own personal environmental practices. But based on Sun Media's efforts, one would be wrong.

A long way from reform

It's some progress that, in contrast to the immediate aftermath of the formation of the Axis of Ego, Stephane Dion is now talking publicly about electoral reform as a possibility. But there's still an awfully long way from his current position to anything that could be construed as support for any change:

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion has agreed to explore reforms to Canada’s electoral system as part of his non-compete agreement with Green Leader Elizabeth May.

However, it’s unlikely Liberals, who’ve long benefited from the first-past-the-post system, will endorse the kind of proportional representation championed by many Greens as a means of finally gaining a toehold in Parliament.

“Our party is open to discuss electoral reform. We’re not sure where it will lead us, but we agree that the current system has some shortcomings,” Dion said in an interview.

But he added: “It’s very unlikely that we will conclude that pure PR makes sense, because pure PR is only applied in Israel, not necessarily with good results.”

He said there is “a panoply” of other possibilities.

Note in particular that Dion doesn't bother to name a single possibility out of that "panoply" that he'd consider worthy of his support or even specific attention. Instead, he appears to have specifically discussed only the most extreme possible form of PR which (to my knowledge) hasn't been seriously demanded by anybody - which serves to present a distorted view of what PR options exist and what pro-PR parties might want.

It'll certainly be for the best if Dion is planning to advance the issue of electoral reform. But a move from silence to largely negative lip service doesn't advance the cause any...and too much spin accepting this as success can only help let Dion off the hook for a failure to push for real change.

If we can sell it, it isn't endangered

CanWest reports on a new study which suggests that both Lib and Con federal governments have based decisions about proposed endangered species classifications on how profitable a type of animal may be, rather than the risk actually faced by the species:

SFU Biologist Arne Mooers and his colleagues at the Vancouver based university looked at 30 species rejected for endangered-species protection by the federal government from 2003-2006, and compared them to 156 species listed as endangered.

"Listings under the current law seem to discriminate against the fuzzier, tastier endangered species," Mooers said. "The decisions make it look as if Canadians value milk snakes and dromedary jumping slugs more than they value polar bears, beluga whales and coho salmon. That's hard to believe."

While all 12 endangered birds and all 26 at-risk reptiles and amphibians received protection under the Species at Risk Act, only one of 11 imperiled marine fish and 12 of 30 mammals were listed, the scientists said...

The reason for the "bias" against mammals and marine fish comes down to human use, said Mooers' colleague, University of B.C. biologist Laura Prugh.

"What I saw as the most striking difference between the protected and unprotected species was whether or not they're harvested," Prugh said. "Economic reasons are often cited."

Protection of harvested species would require restrictions on hunting and fishing, she noted.

Federal authorities appeared keen to grant protection to species already protected by provincial authorities, Prugh said.

"It seems as though if listing the species was going to require new effort to actually protect them, it would be denied," Prugh said...

The federal government did not list the northern cod, despite a 99 per cent population decline, or the porbeagle shark, which has suffered a 90 per cent decline, Mooers and his colleagues wrote in the international journal Conservation Biology. Listing the shark may have led to the loss of eight jobs, the article said. Keeping it off the endangered list, according to Mooers and the other scientists, reflects "an implicit policy not to list any marine fish perceived to be of economic value, no matter how small."

It shouldn't come as much surprise that both of the past two governments have disproportionately favoured short-term economic considerations over longer-term environmental issues. (And let's be clear that even the longer-term economics presumably favour a management regime which helps to replenish the affected species, rather than one which preserves incentives for continuing to harvest species which are genuinely endangered.)

But it's still striking that the result of current practices is to exclude from Canada's endangered-species management both the species most often put forward as mascots for environmental considerations, and the ones whose population decline has already had the most measurable impact on the lives of Canadians. And that can only have the effect of minimizing the positive impact of the Species at Risk Act, as well as the public's familiarity and sympathy with the need for protection.

Money talking

Good to see I'm not the only one taking an interest in the financing behind Canadian politics, as Greg Weston discusses the parties' current funding levels (including details on the parties' 2006 individual donations):

Preliminary fundraising figures for the past last year at least help to explain why the Conservatives can afford to blow a fortune on Stephane Dion attack ads with no election in sight.

According to information filed with Elections Canada, the Conservatives last year raised more than $19 million from 160,000-plus relatively small personal donations...

The figures for 2006 show the Liberals raised $11.2 million from roughly 38,000 individual donations, a bit more than half the Conservatives’ tin-cup take.

But there’s a hitch: sources tell us over half of the Grit total was to support the Liberal leadership candidates, and to pay the bills of their December convention that crowned Dion.

Take the leadership accounting out of the equation and the Conservatives are raking in roughly three times what the Liberals have been collecting...

Finally, the New Democrats aren’t exactly rolling in dough, but never have been.

Last year, even without the unions, the party collected about $4.5 million in donations from over 50,000 contributors...

It's particularly interesting to note that even the Libs' leadership campaign, which presumably brought a reasonably large number of people into contact with the party who hadn't been there before, couldn't bring the Libs' total number of individual donors up to the NDP's level. Though presumably the Libs aren't complaining about their donors seemingly having plenty more money to offer on average than those from the other two main federal parties.

While the party donations certainly make for interesting reading, it's worth noting that Weston largely goes off course in pretending that the Cons' advantage in cash on hand figures to give them a substantial advantage in any election campaign. Indeed, it's only in the absence of a writ period that the disparity means anything.

After all, based on the combination of federal election reimbursements and per-vote funding, both the Libs and NDP should be sure to raise close to the amount they plan on spending over the life of a new Parliament. Which in turn means that it should be a fairly easy matter for each to take out loans (if preferably commercial ones) to fund an election campaign at or near the maximum.

Of course, each would presumably prefer to have ridiculous amounts of cash on hand as the Cons apparently do. But while the other parties may not have the same amount of mad money to spend on gratuitous ads or show off war machines in the absence of an election campaign, the spending limits will ensure that the Cons can't outspend their rivals to any meaningful degree once the writ is dropped.