On sugar-coating

We've seen this all before. When word about the TILMA first started reaching a national audience, every apologist for the deal managed to simultaneously develop a deep concern about hay-stacking and margarine regulations, an equally deep concern that other Canadians shouldn't bother worrying about matters as dull as hay-stacking and margarine regulations, and a devout belief that the TILMA would deal with only those regulations and nothing more. Which led naturally to a barrage of commentary questioning how anybody could possibly care enough to oppose the TILMA.

Of course, the whole argument was ludicrous based on the actual terms of the TILMA. Whatever the merits of dealing with hay and margarine alone, the fact of the matter was that the TILMA was designed with a scope wide enough to threaten literally any government action. And from a practical standpoint, the pro-TILMA argument was patently dishonest, as every minute spent trying to push the broad agreement was a minute which could have been far more productively spent actually reconciling non-controversial regulations.

Fortunately, both the text of the TILMA and the well-cooked evidence which supposedly supported it were both made subject to public scrutiny. And as a result, enough reality seeped into the discussion (at least in Saskatchewan) to stop the TILMA from spreading east of Alberta.

But if there's anything a Con won't do, it's to acknowledge that a strategy has failed. And so, when it comes to the Security and Prosperity Partnership, Deceivin' Stephen himself has taken on the role of pretending that the whole process is beneath any public attention or question, with an even more innocuous-sounding example:

Harper said it was important to work together, giving an example of a business leader who manufactured jelly beans but had to maintain separate inventories because the content rules were different in Canada and the United States.

"Is the sovereignty of Canada going to fall apart if we standardize the jelly bean? You know, I don't think so," he said.

Unfortunately, so far Harper hasn't faced even the slightest challenge in his attempt to minimize the SPP: even some columnists who should know better have accepted the spin without question rather than applying the tiniest bit of scrutiny to Harper's diversion.

Which is a shame, since Harper's attempt to characterize the SPP process is at best misleading. Surely even the most Kool-Aid-addled Harper supporter, if pressed, would be forced to acknowledge that Canada, the U.S. and Mexico haven't entered into an extensive, multi-year set of high-level meetings and consultations based on candy-related issues alone. Which means that Harper's decision to change the subject to jelly beans is at best a transparent attempt to deflect attention from the real issues - whatever those may be.

Of course, in the case of the SPP, there are plenty of questions about just what the real issues are. In contrast, the text of the TILMA was at least open for public analysis once it was signed by B.C. and Alberta - meaning that those concerned about the agreement could deal directly with what its proponents had actually developed. In contrast, nothing about the SPP process has been made the least bit accessible to anybody but the participants - which can only give rise to reasonable suspicions about what's going on that's being hidden from the public.

In that respect, it may well be true that the current SPP discussions aren't currently addressing the thorniest possibilities, such as currency integration and bulk water exports. But if the leaders were genuinely concerned about speculation about such talks, then the obvious answer is for the leaders involved to open up the SPP talks to demonstrate just what is going on - rather than to make obviously misleading statements about what's happening, and then blame the very people who are being denied information for not having concrete evidence behind their concerns.

So why haven't the leaders involved acted on the desire of even some SPP supporters to see the process opened up? As best I can tell, they likely see it as easier to cast aspersions against specific opponents rather than actually having to justify the process as a whole. As long as the main question is a matter of trust or distrust as to what's actually going on, the political fallout is likely to be negligible: those likely to be suspicious of the negotiators anyway may get all the more frustrated, but the lack of substantive information flowing either way ensures that the the battle is largely fought to a draw.

In contrast, there's substantially greater political risk if public attention instead narrows to the concrete issues. For example, Harper would face the task of trying to publicly defend policies which many Canadians - including those who might otherwise be willing to consider a Con vote - will have serious reason to doubt. And even the nearly air-tight SPP process has let out some major ones such as no-fly lists, weaker pesticide standards, and unquestioned acceptance of politicized data.

Unfortunately, mainstream coverage of the SPP has neither called out Harper for his diversion tactics, nor reported widely on the issues which have already been identified as part of the SPP process. Which may well be exactly the result the Cons have been counting on all along - but which only ensures that Canadians will have ever more reason to worry about what Deceivin' Stephen is hiding from them.

On pointless fights

The CP reports that the Cons have predictably chosen to respond to the Kyoto Implementation Act by serving up more excuses rather than any new ideas. But a more interesting report also went public today which confirms that the Cons have known all along just how implausible and misguided they were in criticizing the legislation:

A newly released federal analysis of the impact of Canada's international climate change obligations suggests senior government experts were at odds with Environment Minister John Baird's doom and gloom warnings that the Kyoto Protocol would provoke an economic disaster.

The four-page briefing note for the minister, a clause-by-clause analysis of legislation introduced by Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez, said that the Kyoto Implementation Act would be a "major challenge" that could also force massive federal investments overseas. But it said nothing to support Baird's warnings that the law could lead to massive job losses, rising energy prices and a recession...

The Environment Canada briefing note said the legislation included "useful" recommendations to ensure openness, by forcing the government to produce progress reports that would be reviewed by the federal environment commissioner, including an initial plan that would be due this week, 60 days after the legislation was adopted...

John Bennett, an environmentalist and spokesperson for ClimateforChange.ca, said the analysis demonstrates that the government may have forced its bureaucrats to help Baird produce a report to demolish the Kyoto agreement with statistics that were "made to order."

"They ordered the work done to prove their point," Bennett said in a phone interview on Tuesday. "Still, this government continued to ridicule this bill after they had received it, [when] they definitely could have worked with it."

Of course, John Baird figured to be even less likely than most of the Cons to actually work with a positive suggestion rather than staying in attack mode. And today's non-plan for non-compliance is less than surprising in reflecting the Cons' continued unwillingness to work with the Kyoto Implementation Act even now that it's become the law of the land.

But what the briefing notes make clear is that in this case, as in so many others, the Cons had far better advice in front of them than what they chose instead to follow. And their decision to continue kicking and screaming against even a bill based primarily on some measure of the accountability which the Cons once claimed to value offers yet another reason why the Cons' judgment can't be trusted.

Update: Steve has more.

Clement: Smoke More!

The Globe and Mail reports that Tony Clement planned to resuscitate a talking-down approach to addressing drug use while ignoring the plain truth that safe-injection sites are far more likely to actually solve part of the problem. And remarkably, Clement's justification is even worse than the planned policy:

Mr. Clement decried the fact that, in Canada, there are nearly as many people who smoke marijuana as ones who smoke tobacco, and blamed vague, ambiguous messaging from politicians and public-health officials.

So on Clement's terms, it'll be a success if more Canadians start smoking tobacco (such as to reduce the relative number who smoke marijuana). Now that's the kind of clear, unambiguous message Canadians need to hear...

Small consolation

Shorter Con sources on Minister of Unaccountability Michael Fortier's federal-building selloff:
Sure, we've sold our house in order to rent it back at a loss. But thanks to our shrewd negotiating, the buyer agreed not to make us change the drapes!

Warped incentives

The Globe and Mail reports that the Cons can't claim they weren't warned about the ineffectiveness of their vehicle feebate program:

Federal bureaucrats warned the Conservative government to keep it simple when creating an incentive program for purchasing a fuel-efficient vehicle because setting up different rules for different models would make it dramatically less cost-effective.

Yet that advice clearly went unheeded in the 2007 budget, which included an incentive and levy system with separate categories for cars, trucks and vehicles that could run on a rare form of ethanol called E85...

For years, civil servants have measured the effectiveness of such programs by measuring how much public money would be required to reduce one tonne of heat-trapping greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions.

“The key findings from the working group are that the cost per tonne of GHGs reduced is high for all options; ranging from $150 per tonne for a permanent incentive that rewards very fuel-efficient vehicles without distinguishing between technology or class; to $2,350 per tonne, for example, for an incentive that differentiates between passenger vehicles and light trucks and expires after four years.”

The second option is essentially what was announced in the March budget, with incentives of between $1,000 and $2,000 for purchases involving seven cars with four-cylinder engines, six SUVs and three mid-size cars with six-cylinder engines that run on E85 fuel. A small number of large vehicles would be slapped with a levy of as much as $4,000.

As alluded to in the article, the working group's findings suggest that none of the vehicle-incentive plans proposed would be particularly efficient at reducing emissions. But even if the Cons were bound to push forward with a vehicle incentive program of some kind, it speaks volumes that they didn't see any problem in choosing an option 15 times less cost-effective than another one readily available to them.

Again, it's not clear whether the Cons will even bother paying out a cent under the program - meaning that the longer-term cost may be measured as much in the missed opportunity to get something done as in sheer dollars and cents. But it's once again glaringly obvious that the Cons' talk about reducing greenhouse gas emissions hasn't been backed by even remotely effective action. And when the Cons have failed so miserably even when it comes to seemingly obvious choices such as the better form of feebate program, there's ever less reason to think they can be trusted with more complex policy issues.

On recognition

It's already been noted (if perhaps not widely enough) that the SPP discussions this week will take place in almost total secrecy. But the CP reports on part of the agenda which the Three Amigos are willing to make public - and even that gives rise to reason for serious concern, as Deceivin' Stephen is apparently eager to have Canadian regulatory decisions made based on politicized data from Bushco's FDA:

The border announcement is one of several expected at the summit. The leaders also plan to announce that they will recognize the research of each country's food and drug regime in an effort to reduce costs and avoid duplication.

Now, the plan might not be such a dangerous one if there was any reason to think that the research itself would be equally accurate from country to country. But the recent history of the country whose research figures to be "recognized" the most often says otherwise.

Remember that Bushco's track record is one of constant political interference in the operations of the Food and Drug Administration, including:
- muzzling the Surgeon General to prevent him from even speaking about "stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education or prison, mental or global health issues";
- consistently demanding that scientists alter or suppress their work for political reasons, particularly in the area of drug research; and
- ordering that an application to make "Plan B" contraceptives available over the counter be rejected before a required manufacturer's study was even complete.

And of course the FDA examples are only part of a wider pattern of political interference with scientific research in areas ranging from global warming to abortion.

Until now, the U.S.' politicized research at least wouldn't have had a direct impact in Canada (though of course the shape of public knowledge on both sides of the border has surely been altered by the U.S.' anti-scientific sense of priorities). But if Canada signs on to an agreement to recognize fudged U.S. data without question, then every bit of flawed evidence coming from the U.S. will affect Canadian citizens no less than American ones.

Needless to say, Bush himself would surely be happy to spread the influence of his political appointees as far as he can. But for Canadians who want to see regulatory decisions made based on accurate data rather than Bush's political agenda, there's no benefit at all to be had from signing on to the planned deal. And if Harper is going to the bargaining table on Canada's behalf lacking either knowledge or interest about the serious problems with the FDA under Bush, then Canadians have yet another reason to think that the Cons can't be trusted with power.

On progressive choices

It's good to see some additional commentary on one of the less-noticed Quebec by-elections (that in Roberval-Lac St. Jean). But I have to question two conclusions seemingly reached by Uncorrected Proofs: that there's a significant threat that the Cons will unseat the Bloc in the by-election, and that a vote for one of the federalist opposition parties won't have a substantial impact.

On the question of which party holds the advantage going into the by-election, it's indeed true that the Conscame surprisingly close to taking the seat in 2006, and have a significantly higher-profile candidate for the by-election. But it's worth remembering that they may have alienated a substantial part of their existing base to do so - with the candidate who managed to pull them within 8% of the Bloc talking about an independent run, and a substantial chunk of the Cons' riding association switching its allegiance to the Libs.

With the only party within striking distance of the Bloc facing an uphill battle just to make up for lost support, the Bloc figures to be fairly safe in retaining the seat...particularly if they do indeed place their by-election focus on retaining their current seats rather than challenging Outremont.

While the party on top thus doesn't figure to change, though, there's plenty of room for movement in the relative strength of the challenging parties. And there's far more room for the parties to gain or lose ground than it would seem based on the 2006 results.

In fact, in 2004 it was the Libs who came in second, with more than double the Cons' vote total. Based on their having nominated a relatively high-profile candidate (in addition to apparently winning over at least some disgruntled Cons), it's fairly clear that they're looking to take back that mantle - and have at least some reasonable chance of succeeding.

Moreover, Roberval-Lac St. Jean isn't entirely barren territory for either the NDP or the Greens, even if it's hardly a strong pickup opportunity at this point.

In the NDP's case, its 2006 vote total of 2,151 was the Dippers' second-best ever in the riding (behind only 1988). Particularly based on the party's obvious focus in Outremont, it's probably unrealistic to expect the NDP to boost its share of the Roberval-Lac St. Jean vote much in the upcoming by-election. But with the NDP well-positioned among current Bloc voters, it could plausibly challenge for the seat an election cycle or two down the road if the Bloc does crumble - as long as it doesn't fall too far behind the Libs and Cons now.

Meanwhile, the Greens put up a respectable showing with 1,689 votes in 2006 - placing them within 3 percentage points of third place. And while the Greens too will face challenges in gaining any ground, they'd surely very much like to beat out one or more of the NDP and Libs for the first time in Quebec.

In sum, while the Bloc seems fairly likely to hold onto the seat, Roberval-Lac St. Jean offers another important opportunity for the federal parties to jockey for position now and lay the groundwork for future gains. And any progressive voter concerned about which party will have a leg up in the long run should be sure to vote for his or her preferred party now - lest it lose ground that can't be made up later.

Questionable assumptions

Shorter Gazette editorial on the Security and Prosperity Partnership:
If you assume that not a single important law can be changed without going through Parliament, and that we can count on philosopher CEOs to properly represent everybody's best interests, and that the word of government spokespeople about the process can and should be taken without question, and that Canada is the chosen country of the Flying Spaghetti Monster such that nothing we do can possibly have bad consequences in any event, then there's no reason at all to worry about the SPP.

An unwanted import

One more post on the Cons' efforts to hide the SPP's participants from protesters, as it seems to be confirmed that the media is giving the Cons a free pass on their means of shutting out protesters (as well as the likely source of the idea). From Sun Media's coverage:

Adding a truly Canadian flavour, police and government officials have designated two sanctioned sites outside the fenced compound where demonstrators can air their beefs. A closed-circuit camera and television will allow the leaders to flick on live images of the action from the comfort of their meetings.

Now, the implication of the Sun story is that the designation of a separate protest site is itself a Canadian idea. In fact, it's far from a new concept - and one of the SPP's participants has made more use of the policy than anybody in recent times:

When President Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up "free speech zones" or "protest zones," where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.

If there's any difference at all between Harper's means of suppressing dissent and that usually imposed by Bush, it's the existence of the video link which (in theory) makes it slightly more possible for participants to pick up on the messages of protesters.

But for the reasons I'd discussed in my earlier post, there's no reason at all to think that's a meaningful distinction. And sadly, the media's willingness to portray the effective caging of protest as something to be trivialized rather than pointed out makes it far too likely that the voices with reason for concern about the SPP will be heard even less.

Update: A must-see from Alison.

On bad-faith negotiations

Following up on this post, let's take a look at what the Cons have done to try to shut out any outside message while paying lip service to lessons from past protests:

The leaders of Canada, Mexico and United States have a novel option for dealing with protesters: flip the channel.

Canadian officials who briefed reporters Thursday initially said that protesters would be allowed close to the hotel conference site in Montebello, Que., and would be visible to the leaders attending the North American summit next week.

But when pressed, they acknowledged that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Presidents George W. Bush and Felipe Calderon would actually only be seeing those outside the security fences by video link.

Mr. Harper's director of communications, Sandra Buckler, later said she understood the video-link decision was “in compliance with the court's decision that protesters have a right to be ‘seen and heard'.”

It's worth noting to begin with that even the Cons' choice of standards is based on a lie. According to CanLII, there isn't a single reported Canadian case that has used the phrase "right to be seen and heard". And Can-West's coverage suggests that the actual requirement being referred to is something entirely different than the Cons are claiming:

Officials did not respond to a request to cite a specific ruling. But a four-year inquiry by Saskatchewan judge Ted Hughes into the RCMP’s pepper spraying, strip searches and other bad treatment of protesters at the 1997 APEC summit in Vancouver concluded RCMP (sic) must provide generous opportunity for protestors “to see and be seen.”

It should be obvious just how big the gap is between the actual standard suggested by Hughes J. and the one apparently being applied by the Cons. Instead of allowing for the two-way communication implied by allowing protesters to "see" as well as "being seen", the Cons are making sure that any information goes one way at most.

And even assuming a one-way flow of information were appropriate, the means chosen by the Cons promises to be ineffective to the point of being insulting. After all, there's virtually no reason to think that attendees will actually pay attention to the protests given the choice to simply change the channel - as the very need for protests is based on the complete refusal of those in charge of the SPP process to let anybody but the most like-minded participants in on the discussion.

I'm not optimistic that the Cons' actions will be appropriately recognized as both dishonest and patronizing by Canada's media. But it appears that Montebello's organizers have offered yet more reasons for concern that the entire SPP process is being carried out in bad faith. And in the long run, that's the message which needs to find its way into public knowledge.

Now that says it all

Your transparent government at work:

Senior government officials — who reporters were not permitted to quote — insisted that there is nothing secretive about the SPP process.

I'll deal with the substantive part of the article later on - and indeed the gall of the anonymous senior officials is the least of the problems with the SPP process as a whole. But I've seen few better encapsulations than this of Deceivin' Stephen's obsession with secrecy - and complete inability to recognize how that runs contrary to his own hollow reassurances of accountability.

Limited credit

Shorter J.L. Granatstein:
If you pretend that Gordon O'Connor was nothing more than a defence industry lobbyist all along, he wasn't such a disaster as Defence Minister.

Lacking in judgment

The convention about giving party leaders a free pass into legislative bodies has always struck me as a bizarre concept - and based on how sporadically it gets applied, it seems that plenty of others agree. But while it's weird enough when parties voluntarily step aside in the first place, Jean Charest is taking the absurdity a step further by trying to score political points based on Mario Dumont's failure to follow suit in immediately standing down for Pauline Marois:

Premier Jean Charest says Action democratique du Quebec Leader Mario Dumont is being immature by trying to block the election of the Parti Quebecois leader to the legislature.

Charest has said he will not run a Liberal candidate against Pauline Marois in a byelection in Charlevoix riding and wants Dumont to do the same. Dumont has said he will leave it up to the local riding executive to decide, adding there is no precedent for allowing the leader of a third-placed party to run unopposed.

"He is lacking in maturity and judgment in wanting to block Mme. Marois," Charest said.

Now, there can be little doubt that the party leaders in Quebec are on the lookout for the slightest point they can make to improve their relative standing. But it still seems amazing that Charest is reaching as far as he is in order to find a difference to criticize.

After all, the aftermath of the last Quebec election was marked by talk of how the ADQ's opposition contingent included a large number of first-time members of the National Assembly (including many who may never have expected to win their seats) - raising the prospect of a regular stream of gaffes. And judging from the party's platform, one would think there's plenty of room for public criticism even when the ADQ stays on message.

What's more, while the issue of stepping aside for Marois is most likely one that people simply won't care about, I'd have to suspect that most voters who actually thought about the question of stepping aside in any depth would prefer to see a leader leave the decision to the riding level - rather than forcing his party to follow convention for the sake of following convention.

Again, the most likely result is that Charest's poor attempt to gain ground will be quickly forgotten. But it's hard not to see it as symptomatic of some serious problems within his government. And if Charest's party really doesn't have anything more to talk about than this, then it may soon be Quebec's Libs looking to extend the convention to their own new third-place leader.

Nothing to see here

Shorter David Emerson and Susan Schwab, trying to minimize media discussion about their NAFTA negotiations:
NAFTA is great - but too dull to be worth reporting on. So please go away and stop asking questions.

On cabinetry

Since Adam Radwanski didn't quite cover all the notes worth mentioning from the Cons' cabinet shuffle, here are a few more observations...

- The big news of the day was MacKay to Defence. But am I the only one who finds it the least bit surprising that Deceivin' Stephen's choice to try to clean up his party's political mess on Afghanistan is someone who's already contributed to the problem?

It seems beyond doubt that MacKay will find some way to run his mouth and make the Cons' public image on Afghanistan even worse. Which leaves only the question of which group will benefit more from MacKay's appointment: his House sparring partners (Dawn Black and Denis Coderre), or his riding challengers (Louise Lorefice and Elizabeth May).

- One of today's changes may help to signal just how much control is being exercised by the PMO rather than individual ministers. Industry goes from being run by one of the most rabid anti-government ideologues in Maxime Bernier, to a former Progressive Conservative in Jim Prentice - which would seemingly make for a strong chance of a far more moderate direction if the ministers have held any sway. But will anything actually change?

- Gordon O'Connor may have found himself shuffled into what seems to be the safest Cabinet position possible. But it's worth wondering whether the opposition parties find ways to keep holding his feet to the fire - if for no other purpose than to test what aside from a lack of political use (farewell to thee, Carol Skelton) is considered a removal-worthy offence for Harper.

- Speaking of Skelton, while I neglected to note it when she retired, her Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar seat figures to be another juicy target for the NDP in the next federal election - that is, if anybody notices she's gone.

- Finally, the Oda/Verner position swap may have been largely a matter of change for the sake of change. But I have to wonder if the switch is aimed in part at putting Heritage in the hands of a minister who's less susceptible to the (predominatly English-based) citizen media who managed to run Sarmite Bulte out of Parliament for her coziness with the entertainment industry, and figured to cause problems for Oda as well.

On productive discussions

Progressive commentators have been ready and able to debunk the right-wing claim that Canada's productivity issues can (and can only) be solved through yet another round of corporate tax cuts. But the National Post reports that one of Canada's most prominent economists is equally of the view that tax cuts, along with other seemingly favourable conditions, haven't done a thing to encourage corporate investment:

An influential Bay Street economist said Tuesday that corporate Canada is partly to blame for the country's dismal productivity record because companies have failed to take advantage of prosperous times to invest in machinery, training and technology.

Don Drummond, chief economist of Toronto-Dominion Bank, said the investment climate - with low interest rates, reduced corporate taxes and a Canadian dollar close to par with its U.S. counterpart - has never been better for companies to invest in the machinery and equipment needed to boost productivity growth.

"The short message is ... Canada is not keeping up," Mr. Drummond said in his report. "The performance of Canadian firms in fostering new investment is not impressive."...

nvestment in machinery and equipment, an important driver in boosting productivity, has also been lacklustre in Canada. As a share of profit, investment in machinery was at an all-time low in 2006, "suggesting that the high level of profits has deterred firms from pushing for productivity growth because the bottom line is already well padded," Mr. Drummond wrote.

High corporate taxes have always been cited as a main reason for companies failing to invest more in productivity-enhancing measures. But Mr. Drummond said the tax regime has had little effect on the corporate sector's after-tax profitability.

The current comparable rates of taxation, between Canada and the United States, suggest that "the corporate tax system can't be blamed for Canada's investment shortfall," the economist said.

Of course, facts have seldom stopped corporate apologists from insisting that the next round of tax cuts will be the one to suddenly spring corporate Canada into action.

But while corporations themselves may have a vested interest in ignoring reality to push for even more breaks, Drummond's report offers yet another important indication that nobody else's interests would be served by more corporate giveaways. And with Canada's lack of corporate reinvestment apparently violating the theoretical expectations which usually underlie the argument for government inaction, there's all the more reason to think that real capital investment and productivity gains will only be reached if Canada's federal and provincial governments are willing to act for themselves to create real incentives for productivity growth.

On fund-raising failures

It remains to be seen whether the much-speculated machinations against Stephane Dion's Lib leadership will amount to anything. But the Libs had best hope not, as all indications are that they're having enough trouble paying off the last leadership race without having to fund another one.

From the Hill Times, here's the Libs' explanation for their trailing the Cons' fund-raising totals:

Elizabeth Whiting, director of communications for the Liberal Party headquarters, told The Hill Times that one of the key reasons for the Liberal Party's low numbers in fundraising is that the former leadership contestants are also trying to raise funds at the same time. The Liberals raised $1.4-million in the second quarter of 2007.

"The second quarter results when you include leadership contestants for the Liberal Party of Canada totals $1.72-million. Elections Canada doesn't include the amount that's contributed to leadership contestants, which is about $257,000. When you include that in for the total amount including to candidates, to registered associations, to the party itself puts it at $1.72-million. That from about 11,000 contributors," said Ms. Whiting last week.

Leaving aside the wider fund-raising numbers, remember that the Libs' leadership candidates wound up with a total of roughly $4 million in debt. And with a total of 6 quarters in which to make up that amount, it seems fairly obvious that the Libs are far behind the pace they'd need to make up their leadership debts.

And it gets worse for the Lib leadership candidates, as it's far from clear that the contributions taken in actually paid down the Libs' leadership debts even to the small amount that the number involved would suggest. After all, the quarterly fund-raising figures to be a gross number which fails to take into account the negligible return on investment for events intended to help raise money for the leadership contenders.

All of which makes it clear that the Libs already have a remote prospect at best of paying back their existing leadership debts. And Libs otherwise inclined to challenge Dion's leadership status may want to think twice about whether the party can afford another leadership race even if it wants one.

On bogus governance

The Cons' apparent disinterest in the consequences of their actions is downright painful to watch based on its impact on the country at large. But CanWest reports that the same problem is apparently affecting their internal political calculations as well, particularly when it comes to their plan for yet another cabinet shuffle:

(R)ecent history shows that federal Cabinet shuffles have almost zero impact on the political fortunes of the governments that make them. If anything, shuffles are counterproductive in terms of popular support.

CanWest News Service and the polling firm Ipsos Reid have analyzed seven Cabinet shuffles in recent history dating back to 1989: three by former Tory prime minister Brian Mulroney, and three by former Liberal prime minister Jean Chretien, plus last January's shuffle by Mr. Harper himself.

In every case, public support for the government either dropped or remained the same in the months following the shuffles.

One reason is that Canadian voters see Cabinet shuffles for the public relations exercises they often are, says Omar Soliman, an Ontario Tory and a University of Toronto political science graduate who has studied the art of Cabinet making.

"It probably makes sense for polling numbers to fall or remain static following a shuffle," Mr. Soliman said. "The Canadian electorate has an almost 'antibiotic' tendency to spot bogus governance, and then reject it."

Now, it's worth noting that the study is probably a bit simplistic in its assumptions as to cause and effect. Presumably a government which feels the need to carry out a cabinet shuffle for no particular reason is already recognizing some serious threat to its immediate position - meaning that the shuffles may simply have failed to avoid the inevitable, rather than actually precipitating declines in popular support.

But then, it's telling that Deceivin' Stephen has already reached that point twice after barely a year and a half in office. And the more Canadians see that the Cons are already at the point of having nothing better to do than to rearrange their own deck chairs, the more likely the latest rearrangement is to offer yet another example of a government losing support after a shuffle.

Out in front

While the Outremont by-election race is only in its early stages, it's hard to see how the contest could have started off better for the NDP and Thomas Mulcair - with two mainstream media stories this weekend noting that Mulcair seems to have the early momentum on the ground. And the fact that Mulcair is appearing in the headlines as a favourite may be just as important as the internal strength the NDP is showing in the riding.

To see why, keep in mind that at the best of times, political perception tends to turn into reality awfully quickly. And the NDP's history in Outremont shows just how a wider media focus can make or break a party's chances of breaking through.

In 2004, NDP candidate Omar Aktouf apparently polled as high as 25% at one point (though I can't verify the number beyond one comment at Election Prediction)...but on election day, Aktouf dropped to 14% of the vote, seemingly in large part due to a spillover effect from the Lib/Bloc fight across the province. In 2006, Leo-Paul Lauzon was a higher-profile candidate than Aktouf and polled as high as 20% a week before the election. But even with the province-wide picture somewhat less clear - which I'd think played some role in his better vote retention - Lauzon's final total of 17% still left him a ways to go to catch up with the Libs and Bloc.

Of course, the Outremont by-election already figured to offer a bit of a different story, as riding-level news would inevitably be more prominent than would be the case under the usual general-election focus on national leaders and campaigns. But the NDP's strategy in Outremont still had to be to get Mulcair in the news early, and make sure to be included as one of the two main contenders for later "horse-race" coverage. And even Mulcair's name recognition may not have done the job in that regard if the he hadn't hit the ground running in the by-election.

Fortunately, though, all indications are that the press has placed Mulcair as at least one of the top two choices in the race (if not the outright favourite). Which means that if there's going to be a late-race polarization, the NDP figures to be on the right side of it for a change. And that can only further improve what already looked to be a strong chance for Mulcair to come away with the seat.

Underequipped

So much for my theory that even Gordon O'Connor wouldn't try to make the argument that Afghan troops don't need to be trained in order to take over operational responsibility in Kandahar. After all, word comes out today that any claim along those lines would only nicely match O'Connor's apparent theory that it doesn't much matter whether or not Afghan troops receive equipment promised by the Cons:

Toting obsolete equipment and an arsenal dating back to the Soviet era, the Afghan National Army says it’s waiting for modern weapons promised by Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor.

The Afghan army, which Canada is counting on to take over fighting against the Taliban in coming months, still has yet to receive C-7 assault rifles and ammunition the Canadian government pledged to deliver, said Lt.-Col. Sherinshaw Khobandi...

The C-7 delivery delay has slowed the preparation of Afghan recruits and stalled their takeover of combat operations against the Taliban.

For now, Afghan soldiers must rely on Soviet-era weapons, such as the Kalashnikov AK-47.

At best, the AK-47s are not as precise and have a shorter range than the C-7, which is the Canadian version of the American M-16.

Khobandi is waiting for the weapons with impatience.

"I’m hoping and waiting for that day (to) come," he said.

Needless to say, any anticipated change in equipment can only reduce the value of the training now being given to Afghan troops. Which means that the equipment problems make it even less likely that O'Connor's current spin about Canada's role in Kandahar could possibly bear any resemblance to reality.

Unfortunately, the Afghan army appears to be stuck "hoping and waiting" for competence which the Cons have shown no signs of being able to deliver. And now that it's clear that even the Afghan troops who are now at the centre of O'Connor's message are rightly impatient with the Cons' broken promises, there's no reason for Canadians to put up with Con government much longer.

Votes up for grabs

Over the last little while, there's been plenty of discussion about the possibility that the Rhinos (or neo-Rhinos, or Canadian Conservative-Rhino Alliance Party, or...) may rejoin Canada's political scene in the Outremont by-election. But there's been less attention paid to the fact that Outremont voters already had plenty of independents and small-party candidates to choose from in 2006. And in a race that figures to be extremely close, the votes which went to lesser-known candidates in 2006 may well be enough to swing the by-election result. So let's take a look at the parties aside from the main four which ran in the riding in 2006...and what their presence or absence figures to mean for the by-election.

I include the Greens in the "small parties" list based primarily on what seems to be a distinct lack of attention to the by-election through either their riding page or their calendar, which makes it appear likely that they'll get lost in the shuffle in a riding where the NDP, Libs, Bloc and Cons have all been off and running for some time. If the Green plan on putting as much emphasis on Outremont as they apparently did during the 2006 election, that could significantly reduce the pool of voters available to be won by the other parties.

Here are Outremont's 2006 results beyond the top four:
Votes - Party - Candidate
1957 - Green - Francois Pilon
101 - Independent - Eric "Roach" Denis
94 - Progressive Canadian - Philip Paynter
88 - Marxist-Leninist - Linda Sullivan
85 - Independent - Yan Lacombe
35 - Independent - Xavier Rochon
22 - Independent - Regent Millette

For those curious, the latter two vote totals were the lowest in Quebec in 2006. It appears that the high number of independent and small-party candidates resulted in extensive vote-splitting compared to other Quebec ridings...which may hint (not surprisingly) that most of the small-party votes will likely seek out another protest candidate rather than finding their way to the major contenders.

That said, a small percentage of the small-party votes could be enough to swing the by-election. Based on the above chart, 2382 Outremont votes went to parties or independents who haven't yet signalled their interest in the byelection. And there's plenty of room to speculate how those votes could shake out.

The Greens' 2006 candidate, Francois Pilon, was described as an independent businessman. On a fairly quick review, I haven't found much on his other background aside from some expected dedications to the Greens as a party (which has apparently continued into 2007 though some event organization), and his signing onto the Make Poverty History initiative at the time of the campaign.

Needless to say, the parties campaigning in the by-election have to be eager to win the support of Pilon's voters even if he himself is still solidly Green. And there's enough variety even from my limited view of Pilon's background to suggest that all of them may have some reason for optimism: while a focus on poverty and the environment would seem to fit the NDP best, the Bloc and Libs are presumably going after the same types of voters, and it's not out of the question that Pilon's business background could have helped him to win some votes which may otherwise have gone to the Cons.

Next up is filmmaker Eric Denis aka "Roach", who classifies himself as a "self-proclaimed Anarcho-punk". Naturally, that description doesn't lend itself to an affinity for any of the four main parties (especially with Myron Thompson retiring from politics). But a couple of the other individual descriptions among Denis' co-workers sound like relatively plausible target voters for the established parties.

Linda Sullivan and Yan Lacombe had both run previously in Outremont in 2004 (Lacombe for the Marijuana Party rather than as an Independent), and both actually backslid substantially in their vote totals between 2004 and 2006. It wouldn't be surprising for either of the parties involved to seek the media attention that would come with a by-election run. But Lacombe's voting bloc could be a particularly interesting one to watch, both because his 2004 vote total was a respectable 451, and because some of his past partymates have managed to find homes both in the NDP and among the Libs.

Xavier Rochon was a student at the University of Montreal. While I've heard of worse values systems than the one proposed on Rochon's site, there's little (aside from some mention of climate change) to suggest any great affinity for one party over another among Rochon or his voters.

Finally, Regent Millette had apparently run unsuccessfully in a number of previous elections after a career as a teacher. But given an apparently firm stand against parties in politics, one has to assume that none of the main contenders are expecting a boost (however slight) from his few supporters.

Again, it remains to be seen how many votes will shift from the smaller-party or independent candidates to the main contenders in the by-election. But the Outremont race figures to be one where no party can afford to leave any votes on the table - and when even the slightest added bit of organization could make all the difference, one or more of the riding's past candidates could put the eventual winner over the top.

On trade-offs

For all the effort by Jim Flaherty, Gordon Campbell and others to paint a cross-country expansion of the TILMA as the only acceptable outcome to deal with the grave threat to Canada's future prosperity posed by hay-stacking regulations, Ian Urquhart writes that Canadian premiers have agreed instead to add an enforcement mechanism to the Agreement on Internal Trade. And while that outcome may not be ideal, it's worth pointing out a couple of the key differences that make the AIT significantly less toxic than the TILMA.

First, unlike the TILMA, the AIT doesn't presumptively apply its blanket rules to every action by every level of government. Instead, its general requirements (which on their face are relatively similar to those contained in the TILMA) by default apply only to the issues specifically listed in the agreement. From Article 400 of the AIT:

The general rules established under this Chapter apply only to matters covered by Part IV, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement.

In turn, the Chapters in Part IV (dealing with procurement, investment, labour mobility, consumer standards, issues related to specific industries, and environmental matters) set additional reasonable limits on the application of the AIT's general rules. For example, under Article 600, the "no obstacles" rule does not apply to investment - meaning that while provincial governments are required to work together to harmonize investment standards and notify other provinces of changes which may affect investment, they aren't required to favour investors' interests over those of their own province in formulating policy.

And that leads into nicely into an even more important difference. Unlike the TILMA, the AIT explictly recognizes that other public policy concerns need to be balanced alongside trade and investment, and indeed favours effective government action where appropriate. Here's Annex 405.1, which governs the application of the AIT's "legitimate objective" exemption to regulatory standards:

For greater certainty, with respect to the application of Article 404(c), each Party shall, in ensuring that any standard or standards-related measure that it adopts or maintains is not more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve a legitimate objective, take into account the risks that non-fulfilment of that legitimate objective would create and ensure proportionality between the trade restrictiveness of the standard or standards-related measure and those risks.

For other examples, see Article 807 (under which consumer protection standards are to be reconciled to a "high and effective" level of protection), and Article 1505.4 (under which each province "shall ensure that its measures provide for high levels of environmental protection and shall continue to endeavour to improve those levels of protection").

In contrast, the TILMA as drafted goes out of its way to avoid recognizing that "risks" may develop as a result of a province's failure to act for the benefit of its citizens. The TILMA includes only one statement (Article 5.4) which hints at any recognition that other priorities also need to be taken into account. And even that statement utterly fails to suggest that the goals of facilitating trade and investment may validly be considered less important than those other priorities.

In sum, a comparison of the AIT and the TILMA suggests that there was always a readily-available device which could be used to reconcile regulatory differences and promote internal trade. What the TILMA added to the picture was simply a complete lack of balance between trade and other priorities - and it's for the best if that problem will be confined to B.C. and Alberta rather than spreading any further.

Again, the above shouldn't be taken to suggest that the AIT is without its flaws, or that the premiers' agreement is apparently pointed in the best possible direction. Indeed, the decision to tack the TILMA's remedy process onto the AIT will likely result in some unintended consequences. And it's far from clear that the provinces wouldn't have made better use of their time actually identifying and working with regulations which can be reconciled without much dispute, rather than again operating from the premise that they need umbrella agreements to get the process going.

But at the very least, the premiers' agreement (combined with TILMA's sudden halt at the Saskatchewan/Alberta border) makes it likely that any further talk about internal trade will be based on the AIT's much less dangerous framework, rather than the TILMA's skewed priorities. And that's undoubtedly a far better outcome than the one which the Cons and others seem eager to impose.

Northern exposure

It's a pleasant surprise to see that the Cons have taken at least a small part of Jack Layton's advice on developing the Arctic region and preserving Canadian sovereignty. But sadly, the Cons' announcement falls far short of what could and should be done:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced Friday the government will install two new military facilities in the Arctic to boost Canada's sovereign claim over the Northwest Passage and signal its long-term commitment to the North.

He said the Canadian Forces will build a new army training centre in Resolute Bay and refurbish an existing deepwater port at a former mining site in Nanisivik...

Harper, who made the announcement with Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, also announced an expansion of the Canadian Rangers by 900 members.

Again, the Cons' limited announcement is better than nothing. But it's striking how the Cons' idea of a vision for the North - like their willingness to spend federal money generally - involves a combination of an undue focus on military issues to the exclusion of any other priorities, and a propensity for false economies which figure to reduce any positive outcomes in the long run.

Of the three announcements today, only the Nanisivik port apparently has any apparent civilian application. And that impact is limited to a port which according to the article is "ice-filled during the winter", and which directly serves a population that has fallen as low as 77 people in recent years.

As for the false economy issue, it appears obvious that the choice of Nanisivik as the sole deep-water port site is based on the fact that there's some infrastructure there to be refurbished - presumably reducing the up-front costs of developing a functional port. But it would seem obvious that if only one deep-water port is going to be developed (as opposed to the two suggested by Layton), then it would make sense to ensure that it serves as many people as possible for as much of the year as possible. And the Cons' choice to ignore those considerations in favour of the cheapest deep-water port design available only increases the likelihood that the site chosen will end up being mothballed again rather than helping matters much in the long term.

What's worse, with the Cons' announcement seemingly reflecting their plans as far off as the 2015 completion date for the port refurbishment, it's looking less likely that much more will get done (or indeed started) as long as the Cons hold power. And with a combination of UN deadlines and melting passages looming large, it'll take a quick change in government to ensure that Canada is anywhere close to ready before it's too late.

Lessons to be learned

The Globe and Mail comments on the Cons' cabinet-level attempt to cover up information from the final Arar inquiry report which had nothing at all to do with genuine security issues:

The next time the Canadian government tells you it has secrets it needs to keep to protect national security, feel free to laugh out loud.

Canada fought long and hard to keep 1,500 supposedly dangerous words out of the 1,400 pages of a judicial report into the disappearance of Maher Arar, a Muslim father of two from Ottawa who fell victim to the West's fight against terrorism. We now know what most of those dangerous words were. Here is one example. It's from the judicial report's Table of Contents: "Application for Telephone Warrant." (Cue the crack of lightning.) Also falling on the censor's cutting stone was the apparently unspeakable phrase "the CIA." As in, "The RCMP had periodic contact with the CIA at this time." Surprise, surprise. When an innocent Canadian Muslim was dispatched to Syria, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency was involved...

We also learned yesterday that information gleaned under severe abuse or torture from a Canadian, Ahmad El Maati, in Syria was used by the RCMP to persuade a judge back in Canada to let it tap someone's telephone. A gross deprivation of civil liberties in a part of the world where the rule of law does not prevail thus provided the basis for an intrusion into civil liberties here in a constitutional democracy. And no one questioned very hard whether the information obtained under such duress in Syria was solid...

(W)hen Judge O'Connor tried to get the truth out, the Canadian government fought him in court for a year to keep the lid on 1,500 words.

We now know that the public had a right to see those words. They remind us of how fragile our civil liberties can be in a dangerous time.

It remains to be seen whether mainstream media sources like the Globe will keep the heat on the Cons for their other attempts to suppress information as well. But now that it's clear just how flimsy the excuses have been even when it comes to an inquiry intended to reveal the truth to Canadians, there's less reason than ever to take the Cons' word as to any need for secrecy.

In other breaking news, the Cons have retaken the airport

Isn't it reassuring to know that however much the Cons' cabinet may be shuffled next week, Stephen Taylor's unofficial role as Information Minister is entirely secure?

Recognizing the damage

It's a plus to see the opposition parties criticizing the Cons' attempt to bury two reports on Canadian deaths in Afghanistan. But I have to wonder why the criticism is limited to the Cons' immediate effort at damage control, rather than including a wider view of the Cons' disregard for the well-being of Canadian troops.

Here's what opposition MPs had to say about the reports:

Opposition parties accused the Tory government Wednesday of delaying the release of the findings of military investigations into two incidents in which Canadian soldiers were accidentally killed by American firepower in Afghanistan.

"This is damage control, pure and simple," said Liberal MP Denis Coderre. "Let's call a spade a spade."...

Coderre said it's hard to believe that five months were needed to get Hillier's signature on the report and to liaise with American authorities...

NDP defence critic Dawn Black said she doesn't buy the explanation because the U.S. report into Costall's death was released a month ago in response to a freedom of information request by The Associated Press.

Releasing the Canadian findings in the middle of summer, when many are on holiday, virtually guarantees that the matter will be forgotten and swept under the rug, she said.

"It would work better for the government if they were more straightforward with members of Parliament and the Canadian public," she said.

"When information is held back -- rightly or wrongly -- it leads to a perception of coverup."

While the comments from Coderre and Black are reasonable enough, they fall far short of dealing with the larger issue raised by the Cons' consistent pattern of covering up key facts about Afghanistan. From hiding the caskets of troops to suppressing information about detainee transfers (which could expose Canadian troops to legal jeopardy due to their own government's negligence), the Cons have done nothing but try to paper over the real risks facing Canadian soldiers. And in consequence, Canadian troops will all too likely continue to face needless dangers which would be reduced if the country at large discussed them more thoroughly.

In sum, the mere fact that the Cons are indeed carrying out political damage control is far less damning than the likelihood that Canada's troops will end up worse off as a result. And the more Canadians see how false the Cons "support" really is, the less likely the Cons are to hold the ability to keep our troops in harm's way for much longer.

On creative theories

I can only figure that the Globe and Mail's article on Deceivin' Stephen's theory of federal-provincial relations is a test to see whether anybody's paying attention, as it certainly doesn't seem to have any basis in either the Cons' actions in power or their well-known ideology:

A battle of ideologies is driving a rift between Ottawa and the provinces that is just a hint of what is to come, University of Ottawa politics professor Michael Behiels says.

In a stark depiction of current Canadian politics, while the 13 premiers of Canada's provinces and territories meet in Moncton for the Council of Federation, the Prime Minister is on the other side of the country touring the Northwest Territories.

Under the Harper vision of centralized power — with a stronger Senate and representation of regions by strong cabinet ministers — there is little room for the provinces, Dr. Behiels told The Globe...

At heart it is the battle of interstate politics – a decentralized system where power comes from agreements between provinces – and intrastate politics, where a central body dictates the rules from a centralized base.

The first has gained mixed success around the world, Dr. Behiels said: Germany is highly decentralized, Australia has managed to marry the two concepts, and South Africa “seems to be falling apart” under the interstate model.

The latter system is epitomized by the United States.

Canada has always struggled between the two, and now Prime Minister Stephen Harper is forcing the matter to a head.

Now, it's certainly difficult to dispute Harper's contempt for national agreements. From prescription drugs to the Kelowna Accord, the Cons have indeed shown that as far as they're concerned, cross-country provincial agreements which would lead to federal action can't be torn up fast enough.

But it's hard to see how that disinterest in following through on provincial agreements amounts to support for strong central government. After all, the Cons have also made abundantly clear that they don't have the slightest interest in following up on how federal money is spent by the provinces. Which, contrary to Beheils' theory, would hint that the lone change in Harper's previous pro-firewall position is a calculation that the Cons need to occasionally catapult some money over the walls for political benefit.

Not surprisingly, the additional examples put forward by Beheils are no less misguided. After all, any reform which managed to give extra power to the Senate would only be likely to cause added gridlock on the federal scene, diluting the ability of anybody to exercise federal power while pushing more action to the provincial level to compensate.

And the "strong regional Cabinet minister" theory couldn't be much further from the mark as to how the Cons' cabinet has actually operated. (Though in fairness Harper's refusal to allow any of his cabinet ministers to show any strength offers a better example of centralization - even if out of necessity rather than vision - than any put forward by Beheils.)

The real tension at the moment is between provinces which prefer for the most part to see a federal government which acts on their common concerns, and a federal government which would rather leave the provinces to their own devices. And while the Cons' position may indeed seem to render futile any agreement among the provinces now, the problem is with the Cons' contempt for the idea of effective national government, not some excess of Ottawa-based control.

Extreme views

Shorter Neil Reynolds:
If only people would stop disagreeing with my side, it would be possible to have a full and free debate about deep integration.

Open to question

The Cons are unsurprisingly looking to put as many decisions as they can in partisan hands while they still can, following up the embarrassing selection of Tom Long to head-hunt for the CBC by appointing Jim Flaherty's chief of staff to try to minimize the effect of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. But in appointing McLaughlin, the Cons are opening themselves up to some serious questions about subjects which they'd rather see forgotten:

The Harper government is dismissing accusations of patronage after naming one of its top political advisers as the president of an independent advisory body on environmental and economic issues.

David McLaughlin is leaving his position as chief of staff to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty to begin his new appointment today as president of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy...

The opposition parties said they plan to call McLaughlin before the Commons environment committee to answer questions about McLaughlin's relevant experience.

"It's supposed to be an arm's-length, advisory council reporting to the prime minister of Canada. The question now is whether Mr. McLaughlin will take his orders from the PMO (Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office)," McGuinty added...

NDP environment critic Nathan Cullen added that he'd have questions about McLaughlin's contributions to initiatives announced in the last two federal budgets for a tax credit for public transit passes and a fee-bate program to encourage the sale of efficient cars. Both initiatives generated controversy and mixed reviews from industry and lobby groups.

Not surprisingly, CanWest is far too generous in describing the unmitigated disaster that is the feebate program in particular. But with McLaughlin facing public questioning over his role in the Cons' record of waste, the opposition parties will have a golden opportunity to set the record straight.

Of course, the Cons presumably figure they'll be better off in the long run trying to cut down on the NRTEE's valid criticism of their government. But particularly in light of the hard-right messaging coming out of their summer caucus meeting, it's looking entirely possible that the Cons could face an election before McLaughlin has the chance to influence much of anything in his new assignment. And if the Cons end up bringing their failures to the forefront in the short term, the result could be to remove them from power for a long time to come.

Light blogging ahead

I'm headed out of town tomorrow, so expect little to no blogging until next week. If you're in need of some way to spend the weekend in the absence of reading material, I hear Outremont is lovely this time of year.

Guarding the loophole

So much for the theory that it shouldn't be a problem to fix the multiple-riding-donation loophole in the Canada Elections Act. But while it's not entirely clear what may be motivating the Cons to take a stand against enforcement of the law, it may be worth highlighting one of the obvious possibilities: namely, that they don't want Canadians to be reminded that Stephen Harper broke the law by exceeding donation limits just a couple of years ago. (And if the Dear Leader did something, then it can't really be wrong.)

That said, let's take a look at the Cons' current excuse for doing nothing. From the Globe's story:

The Harper government rejected opposition calls yesterday to give Elections Canada new tools to detect multiple donations to a political party's riding associations that could cumulatively exceed the legal limit by more than $60,000.

"For God's sake, this loophole has to be plugged," New Democrat MP Pat Martin said. "We can't go into an election campaign with this kind of imbalance. It could be happening all over the place."

The Globe and Mail reported yesterday that Elections Canada cannot track or cross-check donations to riding associations of less than $200. As a result, a donor could send dozens of contributions to riding associations that, put together, widely exceed the legal limit of $1,100 a year.

With 308 ridings across the country, a series of $199.99 cheques to each one would total $61,596.92, and could go undetected.

Conservative House Leader Peter Van Loan issued a statement yesterday reminding Canadians that exceeding the $1,100 limit is illegal.

"This is no more a loophole than the fact that someone can break the law by fraudulently misstating their income on their income tax," he said. "In both cases the law is broken and individuals are subject to serious consequences for doing so."

Of course, another common thread in both cases is that some method is needed to catch those individuals who do choose to break the law. And in typical right-wing fashion, the Cons seem to think that mentioning the existence of potentially high sentences will somehow deter would-be offenders in the face of a public announcement that they won't be caught in the first place. Indeed, I'm slightly surprised that the Cons haven't come out swinging by calling for higher penalties to show their "seriousness" in dealing with an offence which they refuse to see prosecuted.

Fortunately, the Cons alone can't determine whether or not it's possible for Elections Canada to do its job in enforcing the rules. Whether or not the opposition parties can team up to plug the existing loophole, it still seems possible that an individual exploiting the loophole would leave some suspicious patterns in riding association filings which Elections Canada would find in any event. And in that regard, one has to wonder whether the Cons' trial balloons about provoking an election can be linked to their refusal to close the donations loophole as part of an effort to make use of wrongfully-collected money before anybody can track it down.

The incompetence continues

It's been well-known for some time that the Cons don't value intelligence in potential candidates. But is it really too much to ask that their cabinet ministers have at least enough basic understanding of logic to recognize when they're contradicting themselves?

Here's Gordon O'Connor today:

Mr. O'Connor said there is no discrepancy between his opinion and that of Gen. Hillier.

”I never said that the army units would be trained within six months,” he said. ”I said that over the next six months we will get four or five of these battalions to train. And if you check, my words, word by word, I said that at some time in the future we will be able to go into some reserve state. But we don't know how long that is.”

The Canadian troops are committed to remaining in the country until February 2009 and are shifting their focus to the training for the Afghan army, he said.

So what's the problem? (That is, aside from deciding where to start in finding the questions raised by O'Connor's new stance.) Let's go to the wayback machine to see just what he actually said a week and a half ago:

"Over the next four or five months were going to be picking up four or five additional Afghan battalions to train and mentor and get them out into the field," O'Connor said.

We're hoping by the end of this rotation that's going in now, the so called Van Doos rotation, we'll have about 3,000 Afghan army operating within the Kandahar province, and as we train more and more of the Afghan army to carry out their own operations we'll continue to withdraw, put more emphasis on training, and at some stage basically be in reserve."

About the only way one could possibly reconcile O'Connor's current position as to the timing of any "reserve status" with his past one is to assume that there's absolutely no relationship between the training of the promised Afghan troops and the reserve status of Canadian troops. Which in turn would of course make the earlier statement misleading in linking the two.

And O'Connor's rationalization that he never stated that the Afghan troops would be trained within six months seems utterly bizarre given his plain statement that the troops would already be operating by that time. Though I suppose if O'Connor wants to defend the position that Afghan troops should be operating without training by February, he'll likely find an eager opposition ready to tear him apart even more.

It remains to be seen just how much longer Deceivin' Stephen stands behind his embarrassment of the Defence Minister in light of this and other PR disasters. But any faint hope the Cons may have held that O'Connor would figure out how to handle his department has to be diminishing by the day - and at some point, the spillover effect of O'Connor's incompetence has to be seen as more harmful to the Cons than grudgingly admitting defeat.

A simple fix

The Globe and Mail reports on another serious loophole in election financing enforcement. But it seems like there should be some relatively simple solutions if Parliament is willing to deal with the issue constructively:

Any Canadian could exceed by more than $60,000 the legal donation to a political party under a loophole discovered by The Globe and Mail.

Elections Canada confirmed yesterday that an individual could theoretically contribute $199.99 to each of the party's 308 riding associations across the country - a total of $61,596.92 - without attracting anyone's attention.

That's because parties are required to inform Elections Canada only of individual donations of $200 or more. Smaller donations to riding associations are lumped together, with no breakdown for cross-checking...

John Enright, a spokesman for Elections Canada, said the agency cannot keep track of donations below $200 because "we do not get the receipts" from the individual riding associations...

Mr. Enright also insisted that making donations beyond the maximum limit remains illegal.

"Anybody who gives over and beyond [the limit] is breaking the spirit and the letter of the Canada Elections Act," he said.

Mr. Enright said that riding associations must keep the receipts they issue for all donations over $20 and would have to provide them to Elections Canada in the event of an investigation into a donor's activities.

This particular loophole is strictly one of enforcement rather than legality: for the moment, the data actually provided to Elections Canada doesn't provide it with sufficient information to determine what donations have been made between $25* and $200 in most cases. In principle, though, a systematic set of donations of $199.99 to each of a party's riding associations would hopefully set off some alarm bells (e.g. through a regular .99 showing up in total donations to a disproportionate number of ridings). And I presume there are also some circumstances where Elections Canada would end up reviewing a riding association's receipts for other purposes, which would also offer a strong hint if anybody was circumventing the donation limit.

That said, there's no reason why the issue shouldn't be fairly easily corrected. After all, with every riding association required to keep receipts for all donations over $25 anyway, it wouldn't seem particularly difficult from a legislative standpoint (or onerous for a riding association) to require all those receipts to be submitted to Elections Canada even if the donations don't then form part of the public donor database.

It's worth noting as well that another loophole exists for donations under $25: a party or riding association is required to track only a general description of the event where such an amount is received and the total amount donated, meaning that an individual can conceivably give an unlimited number of $20 donations without anything being traceable. (In principle, a $20 donation in each riding would put an individual well over the annual donation limit - though the more likely scenario would naturally be an individual donating multiple times at a single event.)

And of course, there's also the equally gaping (if more often discussed) loophole surrounding supporter loans.

Unfortunately, the area of political donations is one where both the Cons and Libs have seemed more interested in sniping at each other than in actually fixing obvious problems. But with so many obvious frailties in the current enforcement regime - and with all parties claiming to want to clean up Canadian politics - it will hopefully be possible to agree on how to improve the current system.

*Based on s. 404.4 of the Canada Elections Act as currently posted at CanLII. The Globe's article seems to hint that the standard has been moved to $20, but that change wouldn't affect the issues with the level at which anonymous donations are permitted.

On reprieves

I'm seldom as glad to be wrong as I am when it comes to the Federal Court's decision striking down the Cons' attempt to abolish the Canadian Wheat Board's single-desk status over barley by regulation. While I'd worried before before that the language of the Canadian Wheat Board Act on its face seemed to leave open the possibility of change by regulation alone, Hansen J.'s decision makes plenty of sense when those words are put in context.

Of course, the Cons don't figure to take the ruling lying down...and an appeal could always go the wrong way. But for now at least, the Cons' attempt to undermine the Wheat Board have been stopped in its tracks. And as long as the decision is in the hands of the House of Commons, the odds of the Wheat Board surviving the Cons' attacks are looking very strong.

Weak on defence

Today's news saw another flood of commentary - including some from usually-reliable Con hacks like David Bercuson and Tom Flanagan - calling either for Gordon O'Connor's ouster as Defence Minister, or at least some major rethinking of the current mixed messages on Afghanistan.

Now, one would have to figure that the Cons would want to put forward as credible a figure as they could find to defend a minister whose past lobbying on behalf of the defence industry made him a controversial figure even before he started his mismanagement. So what does it say about O'Connor's future that the only voice apparently willing to try to back him is a current defence lobbyist?

Fuelling distrust

One can always count on the Cons to find some way to make a bad idea worse. And so it is with their laughably inefficient slightly-greener car strategy, which due to the government's incompetence has yet to pay a cent to eligible purchasers:

More than four months after announcing rebates for those who buy fuel-sipping cars and trucks, the federal government has not paid a cent to buyers of 2006 and 2007 models that qualify, and automakers are voicing complaints as 2008 models flow on to dealers' lots.

The ecoAuto feebate program set up in the March federal budget, offers rebates of up to $2,000 and also slaps a maximum levy of $4,000 on gas guzzlers. But it is angering consumers and growing increasingly messy for the auto companies, associations representing the major automakers operating in Canada say in a letter to Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Environment Minister John Baird.

“Our members report they are already receiving numerous letters of complaint and frustration over the fact that no process to apply for the rebate has been established,” David Adams, president of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada and Mark Nantais, president of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association , said in a letter to the federal ministers.

No money has been paid out to buyers of 2006 and 2007 models that qualify for the incentives, Transport Canada spokesman Robin Browne confirmed Monday from Ottawa...

(C)onsumers kicking tires on 2008 models, assuming they will get a rebate, may be out of luck because Transport Canada still hasn't announced what vehicles from the new model year are eligible.

No date is set yet to publish the list of which 2008 models are eligible, Mr. Browne said.

“The government has established a program that continues to be bereft of critical details for both manufacturers and consumers,” Mr. Adams and Mr. Nantais said in their letter.

The article doesn't make clear whether the Cons have been as slow in imposing the new tax on less efficient vehicles. But from the Cons' complete failure to put a rebate in place more than four months after it was announced - not to mention to take any steps to include 2008 models in the program - it's obvious once again that Deceivin' Stephen and company see any real accomplishment as secondary to the PR generated by making an announcement in the first place.

Because the program was so poorly designed to begin with, the environmental costs of failing to follow through with the rebates figure to be minimal. But there's still a serious danger that examples like the nonexistent feebates and the painfully ineffective home-inspection regime will serve the Cons' longer-term ideological goal of eroding public trust in the federal government's ability to get anything done - when all indications are that it's Harper's government alone that's the problem.

It's all about E-Me

For all the talk about how self-absorbed Elizabeth May's leadership has been so far, I'm not sure anything can make the case better than the Greens themselves. From their main fundraising page, here's how the party is presenting the options of would-be donors:

Giving to the Green Party is a great way to leverage your money, as the tax credits for donating to a federal political party far exceed those for charitable donations. A $200 donation, for example, only costs you $50. And you can give up to $1,100 each to both the federal party and a local riding association (perhaps Central Nova?).

That's right: rather than trying to encourage donors to build riding associations across the country, the Greens are using their limited fund-raising ability solely to push money toward their leader - who of course is the sole party candidate who doesn't figure to need much financial help in building her profile. (Though in fairness, the recently-deregistered Central Nova riding association does figure to have at least as desperate a need for investment as most Green ridings.)

At best, one could speculate that the Greens are gambling on having a better chance of attracting donations by highlighting the Central Nova race. But even that would be an entirely short-sighted strategy since it's based on the theory that the next election is everything, rather than an effort to actually encourage sustainable and broad-based fundraising for the longer term.

Yet even that seems too generous an interpretation. Instead, it seems more likely that the fund-raising scheme merely matches the party's spending strategy. And indeed it hardly seems matter whether money gets put toward the national party or the Central Nova riding association when it'll all be used for the greater glory of May in any event.

Unappetizing

Not surprisingly, I'm no fan of the Cons' plan to move Parliament's food-preparation operations to a privately-constructed site. But based on one Con MP's response, the plan may serve as an effective litmus test as to whether politicians who see no problem in outsourcing and privatizing functions which affect Canadians as a whole are willing to tolerate the same for themselves:

Ottawa Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre, like other MPs, had no idea the plan was in the works.

"What?" he asked, surprise written all over his face.

Mr. Poilievre, upon hearing a description of the journey Parliament Hill meals will eventually take from the kitchens in the food plant, expressed diplomatic skepticism about taste and quality upon arrival.

Naturally, Poilievre soon changed the focus to cost (though as he notes, the construction of a new facility and added transportation of food may itself make the plan all the worse). But it still says plenty that at least one relatively prominent Con can see the problem with sacrificing quality in order to privatize when he himself stands to be affected by a change. And if a few more within the pro-privatization crowd start to see the same issue for themselves, the less strong the push figures to be.

A continued embarrassment

The CP reports that Jim Prentice is pushing forward with plans to keep the Kashechewan reserve on the flood plain where the federal government first forced it to move half a century ago, rather than moving it to higher ground:

Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice will sign an agreement Monday toward rebuilding, but not moving, the flood-prone Kashechewan First Nation, The Canadian Press has learned.

The remote northern Ontario reserve, near the coast of James Bay, is on low-lying land that has flooded twice in the last three years.

Residents were also evacuated in 2005 because of a dirty water crisis that made international headlines.

A report produced by consultants hired by Kashechewan to survey the community said most people want to move to higher ground within their traditional territory. They say it's just a matter of time before their homes flood again.

The former Liberal government promised to relocate Kashechewan over 10 years, at an estimated cost of $500 million. The Conservatives said the Liberals never officially budgeted that cash, and that it's too expensive to move the reserve.

Instead, sources say the new agreement will establish a working group to assess the First Nation's long-and short-term needs, but will not move it off the flood plain.

It's especially rich that the Cons will go to the trouble of trying to "assess (Kashechewan's) needs" in a way that deliberately rules out the most obvious one - that being some reason to believe that the community won't wind up getting flooded yet again due to federal negligence.

If there's any reason for hope, it's that the working group itself sounds like a classic delay tactic - which could well put off any definitive action until after the next federal election. And if that happens, then there's a strong chance that the Cons will be replaced with a government which wants to do more than the bare minimum (or less) before anything gets finalized.

On mixed messages

Impolitical theorizes that the effect of a few recent statements on continued combat in Afghanistan is to isolate Rick Hillier against military and civilian leaders. But while I'd agree that there are some mixed messages on the future of Canada's stay in Afghanistan, the split looks to me to be somewhere else entirely.

Specifically, in the public appearances cited by Impolitical, Hillier, Lt.-Gen. Michel Gauthier and Brigadier-General Tim Grant all take the position that there's little prospect of training Afghani troops to take over the combat role now occupied by Canada. It's only the consequences of that premise which are in dispute among the military officials who have commented publicly: Hillier takes a strident "Canada must stay" position, compared to Gauthier's message that "troops from other countries" can handle Canada's current role and Grant's openness to reshaping Canadian involvement.

Now, I certainly don't agree with Hillier's attempt to spin the lack of progress to date as reason to stay in combat indefinitely. But at the very least, all three military officials appear to want Canada's debate about Afghanistan to be based on a realistic assessment of how much slack can be taken up locally over the next year and a half.

In contrast, Deceivin' Stephen and his embattled lackey are claiming that Afghani troops can be trained to be just as effective as Canadian ones over the next year and a half (and indeed sooner in order to enable Canada to take a "reserve" role in the meantime). Once again, the message is "as they stand up, we'll stand down", accompanied by a claim that a substantial number of Afghani troops will have "stood up" on those terms by 2009.

Now, I don't think for a second that the Cons actually believe the claim. Instead, they likely figure that they have a better chance of winning an extension vote which supposedly involves only training and reserve status, rather than one which is premised on continuing combat as a first option. And once they have that vote to extend the mission, they can claim that the scope of the extension includes the ability to continue combat as usual, based on the shocking realization that the training hasn't gone as "planned".

In sum, the real difference in message right now is between honest military officials who are willing to acknowledge the implausibility of the government's plan, and Con partisans who see the truth as an acceptable casualty if it means furthering their political goal of winning an extension vote. And in that contest, it's the Cons who deserve blame for undermining both the troops and the truth.

Update: The Globe and Mail discusses the Cons vs. troop split as well. But it looks like the Libs are being far too generous to the Cons, as Ujjal Dosanjh is merely talking about a "need to know who's in charge" rather than the sheer implausibility of the Cons' position or its likely strategic purpose.

The other battle

Most of the talk about Quebec' impending by-elections has focused on Outremont based on how competitive the riding looks to be. But with Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot also going to the polls, there's another opportunity for each party to try to show that it's improved its standing since the 2006 general election. So let's take a look at where the parties now stand, and what they may hope to accomplish.

In 2006, the Bloc's Yvan Loubier won the riding with 56.02% of the vote, with the Cons' Huguette Guilhaumon ranking second at 24.8%. Stephane Deschenes of the Libs came in third at 9.83% of the vote, followed by the NDP's Joelle Chevrier at 5.48% and the Greens' Jacques Tetrault at 3.87%.

The riding doesn't seem to have been a target of much investment from any of the parties: the Bloc spent roughly $41,000 defending it, and the only other expenditures reported so far were those of the Libs who spent less than $15,000.

From the above, it's easy to see why nobody seems to expect the riding to change hands. Not only did the Bloc win it handily last time with a candidate whose personal appeal wasn't enough to win him a provincial seat, but they also left plenty of room for added spending if they need to invest more to hold the seat. But that doesn't mean the other parties don't all have some potential to make a statement in either direction depending on the byelection results.

As focused as the Cons are on short-term political calculations, they surely have to have at least some interest in improving their long-term chances as well...which could be boosted immensely if they can get within striking distance of the Bloc in seats like this one.

In contrast, the Libs will surely be looking to reclaim their mantle as the main alternative to the Bloc. And since the Libs managed to double the Cons' vote total in 2004 (with the vote percentages roughly flipping in 2006), it's far from impossible that the Libs could push their way back into second place.

Yet they can hardly be sure of holding their ground either. The NDP in turn would surely see an opportunity to make up the few points now separating it from the Libs, and perhaps eat into the Bloc's left-wing support to position itself as a longer-term option in the riding.

And finally, the Greens could see a chance to capitalize on the attention paid to other ridings by seeing if a concerted push can get them past any of the other federalist parties.

What'll be most interesting to see is how the parties choose to allocate their resources - and whether it leads to unexpected results in Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. Might the Bloc pay so much attention to defending Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean as to put its lead in jeopardy, or at least let another party within striking distance? Will the Cons hold their vote, or the 2006 result this an example of some of the Libs' election machine having put its weight behind Harper solely out of spite against PMPM? And if the Libs and/or NDP put their focus almost entirely on Outremont, do the Greens have a realistic chance of passing one or the other in Quebec for the first time?

Based on the lack of attention paid to Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot so far, I don't expect these stories to be the subject of much media attention. But they may certainly lead to at least some party bragging rights. And even if none of the parties puts its full effort into Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot based on the outcome seeming to be preordained, that may in turn only make the riding a key barometer of the parties' baseline support in Quebec.