Material dangers

It's unfortunately inevitable that a governing party which doesn't care about competence and is outright hostile toward honest communication will see that attitude spill over into nonpartisan parts of the public sector. And today, the Globe and Mail reports on just how thoroughly Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. has absorbed the Cons' governing philosophy:

Staff working for Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. lost a metal part they removed from a reactor at the Bruce nuclear power station in April, and didn't tell anyone until an employee from the station found it in June when it triggered the alarm on his radiation monitor...

Critics say the incident highlights a serious loophole in Canada's nuclear regulations. AECL is a contractor at the site, refurbishing the aging Bruce 1 station, and isn't immediately required to divulge when it loses track of highly radioactive materials pulled from reactors.

The missing part - a piece of metal about 10 centimetres in size - came to light only because a worker inadvertently received a radiation dose, which is considered such a serious incident that it must be reported to regulators either "immediately" or by the end of the next business day...

The missing piece was emitting high amounts of radiation, and would have given any worker holding it the maximum yearly allowed dose of this form of energy - feared because it can cause cancer - in only a few minutes...

The regulatory report filed by Bruce on June 24 indicates that AECL "became aware on April 23" that the piece was missing, but "they failed to notify" the station's radiation protection department. "The increased hazard would have existed from that time," it said...

Dale Coffin, a spokesman for Crown-owned AECL, played down the events, saying no one was harmed over the two-month period that the piece was missing because workers weren't in the area. Once it was found, the location, in the reactor vault, was safely cordoned off. "There is no requirement on our behalf to notify the CNSC because nobody was in there working," Mr. Coffin said.

This news follows on the heels of the news this week that AECL's regulatory reporting in the wake of the Chalk River fiasco focused entirely on meaningless communications issues rather than any explanation for failing to comply with the law. And from its response to today's revelations, there's no indication that AECL's priorities are doing anything but getting worse with time.

After all, AECL's statement is based solely on trying to minimize the incident. From my standpoint, any remotely responsible entity in AECL's position should be concerned with making sure similar problems haven't happened elsewhere and won't happen in the future. But AECL's response doesn't even hint at any interest in figuring out how the part was lost in the first place.

And the communications side only looks even worse for AECL. While the Globe and Mail's article points out a regulatory loophole which theoretically doesn't require that AECL inform the CNSC about incidents such as this one, that focus seems to me to miss the point entirely.

Regardless of what type of reporting is required by current regulations, anybody responsible for managing something as potentially dangerous as nuclear technology should recognize the need to mention a potential hazard. And whether AECL was completely unaware that it had lost the part or simply suppressed the information, the effect was to needlessly jeopardize the health of workers at the plant (not to mention others if the part had managed to find its way out of the facility).

Sadly, AECL looks to be more concerned with keeping a potential problem hidden as long as possible than with ensuring that its operations don't cause potentially serious harm to others. And for Canadians who don't want to see something far more serious suppressed until it's too late, it's long past time to replace the Harper regime with a government which doesn't encourage the practice.

On starting points

For all the talk about the upcoming federal byelections, I'm surprised that one piece of information from earlier reports hasn't received more attention as an indication of what the race in Westmount-Ville Marie will look like:

Although Westmount has been an unshakable Liberal bastion for decades, deputy NDP leader and Outremont victor Thomas Mulcair said his party's polling suggests that Garneau enjoys a meagre four-point lead over NDP candidate Anne Legace Dowson, a well-known CBC radio personality.

"Anne's numbers are the same as mine were" at the start of the Outremont campaign, Mulcair said in an interview. "We think it's takeable."

Let's leave aside the actual number for now. What seems most significant about the current state of Westmount-Ville Marie is that the NDP is already in what seems to be as strong a position as it was at the start of the Outremont campaign despite a couple of points of distinction which would seemingly give the Libs a far better starting point in Westmount-Ville Marie.

First off, Lib apologists looking to minimize the Outremont outcome have generally done so by suggesting that it was a one-time event based primarily on Thomas Mulcair's personal popularity and name recognition. If that were true, then one would expect the starting position of any non-Mulcair candidate in Westmount-Ville Marie to be far worse, rather than substantially the same.

Instead, all indications are that Lagacé-Dowson is doing at least as well as Mulcair out of the gate. And while that can be interpreted in a couple of ways (either that Lagacé-Dowson is no less strong than Mulcair as a candidate, or that the NDP has built up its standing such that she doesn't need to carry the party brand as far), it's hard to see how either can be reassuring for the Libs.

And the problems for the Libs are particularly obvious given the organizational differences between Outremont and Westmount-Ville Marie. Remember that another of the Libs' main excuses for their Outremont loss was that Dion appointed Jocelyn Coulon as the party's candidate relatively shortly before the by-election call, allowing Mulcair to build up his presence in the area and leaving the Libs to play catch-up.

In Westmount-Ville Marie, the dynamic is just the opposite. The Libs announced last fall that Marc Garneau would carry their banner, seemingly giving him plenty of time to get the jump on any of his competitors. Meanwhile, Lagacé-Dowson's candidacy was just announced earlier this month, which in principle would leave her with a significant deficit to make up.

Instead, Garneau doesn't appear to have been able to put any distance between himself and Lagacé-Dowson even with nearly a year's head start. And while it's arguable that some work during that time might still give Garneau some advantages at the ballot box which wouldn't show up in the polls (particularly if he's been able to spend more time on voter identification and organization-building), one still has to figure that if Garneau hasn't yet had any success in solidifying Westmount-Ville Marie for the Libs, he'll have an awfully tough time improving matters during the campaign.

On empty announcements

The Cons' announced infrastructure deal with the province of Ontario seems to be primarily a poor attempt to change the subject from Conadscam. But let's take a moment to look at why the latest photo op in fact means far less than meets the eye.

First, the money announced yesterday isn't new.

In fact, all of the federal money for which the Cons are once again trying to take credit was already part of the Cons' 2007 budget. What's worse, at that time the amount of investment was already insufficient to meet Canada's infrastructure needs, and largely reflected nothing more than an extension of existing programs with a slight twist to favour privatized projects.

Second, the money isn't primarily intended to be used on the projects most needed to improve infrastructure.

Instead, the Cons established their own Department of Pork last year to make sure that money is funnelled into "strategic" ridings. And while (as noted below) that effort apparently didn't succeed in getting things moving any faster, it reflects the reality that the main intention behind the funding is political rather than having any basis in intelligent federal planning.

Finally, yesterday's announcement wasn't necessary for money to flow.

Instead, it's the Cons themselves who imposed a requirement that provinces sign on to the type of "framework agreement" announced yesterday. And after establishing that requirement, it's the Cons who didn't bother to actually work out agreements with the provinces until this June or later (or otherwise convert their previous set of photo-ops into actual results) - with the result that not a penny of promised municipal funding had been paid out more than a year after the Cons started bragging about their dedication to infrastructure renewal.

While the Cons bleat about how infrastructure spending is overdue, the sad fact is that it's their negligence that has delayed the funding for the last couple of years. And that only ends up inflating the costs to other levels of government who have had to put projects on hold while waiting for the Cons to get their act together - ensuring that the already-meager level of federal investment puts even less of a dent in Canada's actual infrastructure deficit.

In sum, the Cons' established history shows that their spending announcements at best can't be taken at face value, and at worst may be worse than useless. And no matter how many times the Cons seek to take credit for the same proposed funding or proclaim their commitment to projects which they're holding up, their track record on infrastructure actually provides one of the best examples of just how unfit the Harper government is for office.

When in doubt, make it up

The CP's report on funding for social development offers another prime example of the Cons simply making up self-aggrandizing claims without any idea whether or not they're true. And this time, the offender is one of the few cabinet ministers who was once considered a relatively candid source of information in a time before the Cons took power:

Social Development Minister Monte Solberg says Ottawa is doing its share to address homelessness, despite claims by anti-poverty activists that more and more people are living on the streets while affordable housing disappears...

Solberg reiterated a claim that his Conservative government is spending more money on affordable housing than any government in Canadian history, but the Social Development department couldn’t provide data comparing spending with previous governments.

Of course, the "more money than ever before" is itself essentially meaningless given that the cost of accomplishing any particular task will itself have generally risen due to inflation. But in Solberg's case, even that facade isn't apparently backed up by the minimal amount of research required to assess its accuracy.

Meanwhile, let's not forget that while the Cons fabricate trivialities, the housing issue like so many others has real-world consequences for a large number of Canadians:

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities called earlier this year for a national, 10-year strategy to eliminate homelessness.

The federation estimated such a strategy would cost $3.35 billion a year, shared by all levels of government.

A federal program, called the Homelessness Partnering Strategy, is providing $270 million over two years, ending next March.

In B.C., a Simon Fraser University report released earlier this year pegged the provincewide homeless population at 12,000 — compared with less than 8,000 shelter beds.

And another count of Greater Vancouver’s homeless population by volunteers in the spring found nearly 2,600 homeless people — a 19 per cent increase over 2003 figures.

That count was conducted by the Greater Vancouver Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness, a group that represents dozens of agencies in the Lower Mainland and makes funding recommendations for the federal spending.

The group’s co-chair, Alice Sundberg, told Wednesday’s news conference that it received requests for more than $39 million to fund local projects, but could only hand out $12 million in federal money.

And Solberg's response to that need?

"We’re doing a lot in terms of providing resources, but I think there’s more that needs to be done. Part of the answer is expanding the number of partners," such as businesses and donations from the public.

That's right: while trying to trumpet his government's self-professed generosity (without any factual basis for doing so), Solberg is also actively trying to reduce its role in addressing housing issues. And that combination should make it clear just how little interest the Cons have in actually addressing the housing issues that have already worsened on their watch.

On spent forces

The Pundits' Guide offers a breakdown of party and candidate spending in last year's set of byelections. And the contrast between the parties which appear to have maxed out their potential and those which have room to grow may offer some important signs as to who has the best chance to improve its standing in future elections:

Only Conservative Party candidates spent > 75% of the candidate spending limits in each of the 3 ridings, and in total its candidates spent some 95% of the limit.

The Bloc spent >75% in 2 of the 3 ridings (total spending of 86% of the candidate limits), while the Liberals and NDP clearly concentrated on Outremont.

In addition to the $254,876 that could be spent by candidates across the 3 ridings, a registered party fielding 3 candidates in that set of by-elections could itself spend an additional $171,997 in support of those campaigns. The amounts spent are reported in Part 3a of the Registered Parties annual returns (you can find the details here, at the Elections Canada site, for the 2007 By-Elections; select the party you're interested in from their drop-down list once you get there).

Again, the Conservative Party spent 92% of its party by-election spending limit. However, interestingly it split the spending mainly between Roberval – Lac-Saint-Jean and Saint-Hyacinthe – Bagot, the two seats where they wound up being more competitive.

The Liberal Party spent just under half (46%) of its party by-election spending limit; and all but $3800 or so of that was put into Outremont.

The NDP spent 12% of its by-election spending limit, split equally between the three ridings.

Neither the Bloc nor the Green Party reporting (sic) any party-level spending on the three by-election campaigns.

So what do those numbers say about the parties' positions in Quebec? First off, it's worth noting that the Cons' reasonably strong performances in the two ridings previously held by the Bloc were both based on pouring in significantly more money than the Bloc did. And in Outremont, the Cons managed to see a drop in their share of the vote despite spending nearly as much as the other main parties. Which suggests that the Cons may have relatively little room for growth - particularly in a general election setting where the Bloc is better able to balance out the expenditures involved.

In contrast, the returns offer up what strikes me as a surprising fact about Thomas Mulcair's win in Outremont, as it was apparently achieved even at a financial disadvantage against his main competition. While Mulcair spent slightly more than Jocelyn Coulon at the candidate level, the Libs managed to outspend the NDP by tens of thousands of dollars of party money even while losing what was supposed to be a safe riding.

And that may be particularly significant based on the imminent by-election in neighbouring Westmount-Ville Marie. While the NDP once again faces the challenge of attacking a former Lib stronghold, the expense numbers suggest that the NDP actually has room to improve somewhat on its relative performance in Outremont - either if the NDP increases its own expenditures to match the Libs' level of spending, or if the Libs themselves can't afford to spend the kind of money they did in an effort to stop Mulcair.

Profiles in cowardice

Shorter Con communication policy on a Health Canada study discussing the harmful effects of climate change which was supposed to have been released this spring:
Suppress harder, dammit!

Noteworthy

Here's one more tidbit from the latest news about the form Conadscam took in Quebec which figures to take the Cons' defence from merely implausible to the point of being something that most people couldn't try to claim with a straight face:

Ms. O'Grady confirmed that Mr. Paradis was initially billed just under $30,000 for his share of the advertising by the party's ad-buying contractor, Retail Media, but the Conservative Party sent him a credit note deducting $10,000 on election day.

Mr. Nadeau, meanwhile, received an invoice for an additional $10,000.

Again, remember that the Cons' national defence relies on their claim that the Conadscam ad buys consisted of contracts solely between individual candidates and Retail Media. If that were so, then how precisely would the Cons' national party have been in a position to provide a "credit" capable of changing the amounts paid and owed at the riding level?

Unresponsive

The CP reports on the latest developments in the Chalk River reactor shutdown. And it looks like Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. responded to the situation by buying entirely into the Cons' philosophy of valuing message management over substance - even when it comes to nuclear safety:

Canada's nuclear safety watchdog rejected a preliminary report into last year's reactor shutdown that sparked a critical shortage of medical isotopes, say newly released documents.

In the wake of the medical isotope controversy, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. was supposed to explain why key safety measures were not in place at its research reactor in Chalk River, Ont.

But the federal Crown corporation's January report instead focused on the communications breakdown between AECL and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, say documents obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

"CNSC staff had indicated to AECL that the scope statement for the root cause assessment that was submitted on Jan. 7, 2008 was unacceptable," says a review of the report.

"CNSC staff is not sure why AECL changed its scope statement to focus entirely on communications."

The nuclear safety regulator wanted AECL to explain why an earthquake-resistant emergency power supply wasn't connected to the aging National Research Universal reactor's two most crucial heavy water pumps...

The scope of AECL's January report was agreed on in an email exchange last December, according to a briefing note for the then-interim head of the nuclear regulator.

But AECL broadened the report's scope without telling the nuclear safety regulator, the Jan. 24, 2008, briefing note says, and instead focused on communications problems.

"CNSC has done an initial review of this report and found it to be lacking in details and the scope was different than what was expected," it says...

AECL officials told the nuclear safety regulator at a public meeting held two days after the report was delivered that a second, more detailed analysis was forthcoming, Coffin said.

"As we started to do our root cause analysis, we started to identify new areas that we hadn't anticipated that should have been part of the scope. We broadened the investigation to include a phase two," he said...

However, AECL's second report, which recently appeared in media reports, doesn't seem much different than the first one. It also appears to dwell on the communications meltdown between AECL and the nuclear safety regulator.

Given that the core question that needed to be answered was that of why AECL had never complied with the terms of its license, it's hard to see how communications issues could be even faintly relevant. And it's thus hard to fault CNSC for rejecting the first report.

If anything, CNSC may in hindsight have been too generous in allowing AECL to divide its response into two reports rather than following through originally. But then the AECL/Con argument at the time about a need for increased cooperation would have offered some reason both to take a less confrontational stance, and to expect some reciprocation from AECL in actually delivering what it promised.

Instead, thanks to the combination of AECL's delay tactics and the Cons' war against the civil service, the main question surrounding the Chalk River shutdown still hasn't been answered. And the success of the diversion only makes it seem all the more likely that the lack of a backup power supply won't be the last serious substantive issue to be hidden from either the CNSC or the public.

Junk policy

The Libs aren't the only ones running into seemingly unintended consequences due to poorly thought-out policies, as Michael Geist points out that the Cons' anti-consumer copyright legislation could also do plenty of environmental damage:

Canadians trash an estimated 184,000 tonnes of old computers, cellphones, and printer cartridges each year, with many of containing potentially hazardous materials such as mercury and lead. In response, the Ontario government recently proposed a new electronic waste fee to encourage recycling of older devices.

Despite attempts to reduce e-waste, Bill C-61 establishes new barriers to the reuse of electronics. If enacted into law, it would prohibit the unlocking of cellphones, forcing many consumers to junk their phones when they switch carriers (there are an estimated 500 million unused cellphones in the United States alone).

Similarly, the U.S. version of Bill C-61 has resulted in lawsuits over the legality of companies that offer to recycle printer ink cartridges. In one lawsuit, Lexmark sued a company that offered recycled cartridge and though it ultimately lost the case, the lawsuit created a strong chill for companies set to enter that marketplace.

Bill C-61 also creates new barriers in the race toward network-based computing, which forms part of the ICT industry's response to the fact that it accounts for more carbon emissions than the airline industry.

Network-based computing – often referred to as "cloud computing" – benefits from the efficiencies provided by large computer server farms that are often situated in proximity to clean energy sources. Network experts argue that Canada could parlay its high-speed optical networks and environmental advantages in the north to become a global cloud computing leader with zero carbon emissions, yet the new copyright bill now stands in the way.

The bill prohibits companies from taking advantage of cloud computing to offer network-based video recording services (as are offered by some U.S. based providers). It also stops consumers from shifting their music, videos, and other content to network-based computers, limiting these new rights to devices physically owned by the consumer. In fact, the bill even blocks consumers from using network-based computer backup since multiple copies of purchased songs or videos is forbidden.

Of course, having concluded that the drive for support from corporate media distributors outweighs the interests of Canadians at large, the Cons don't figure to let a few thousand tons of needless waste change their minds. But the prospect of easily-preventable environmental harm figures to offer yet another reason to rally against a bill which already isn't lacking for opponents. And if the public outcry continues to grow, then it shouldn't be long before it's C-61 that ultimately gets scrapped.

Cornered

Today's CP story about the latest developments in Conadscam may seem like a relatively minor one based on the wider scope of the Cons' electoral manipulations. But it may prove to be an extremely important one to the extent it may force the Cons' national party and their star Quebec candidates to make mutually contradictory arguments to try to avoid prosecution:

The Conservative party shifted thousands of dollars in advertising expenses from two of its top Quebec candidates to other Quebec candidates who had more spending room in their 2006 election campaigns, the lawyer for Elections Canada has suggested.

A former financial officer for the party confirmed last month in a court examination that expenses incurred by Public Works Minister Christian Paradis and former foreign affairs minister Maxime Bernier were assigned to other candidates...

(F)ormer chief financial officer Ann O'Grady said the expenses were "pro-rated" to the other candidates because the firm that placed the television and radio ads billed Paradis and Bernier for higher amounts than their campaign agents originally committed.

Elections Canada lawyer Barbara McIsaac probed O'Grady over records involving an eventual claim for $20,000 in radio and TV advertising by Paradis and $5,000 in advertising claimed by Bernier...

In the case of Paradis, O'Grady conceded the candidate had originally committed his campaign to a media buy totalling $30,000, was eventually invoiced $29,766 and subsequently received a "credit note" of $10,000 that was reallocated to another candidate, Marc Nadeau.

"Now, again, the reason for this was that Mr. Paradis had reached his limit with respect to spending as well, is that correct?" asked McIsaac. "He had to allocate some of his money to Mr. Nadeau, did he not, because he was close to his limit?"

"I would not know that," replied O'Grady, who replaced former Tory chief financial agent Susan Kehoe several months after the election.

McIsaac also questioned O'Grady over the fact that Bernier paid no production costs for his share of the advertising. Paradis paid only $233.93 for his share, even though McIsaac said other candidates paid $4,500 each for production costs.

So why does today's story matter? Remember that the Cons' defence on a national level is based on two arguments: first, that the it's the content of advertising rather than the process by which the advertising is purchased that determines whether that advertising is national or local; and second, that a candidate tagline is determinative as the type of content which establishes that advertising was in fact local.

There's plenty of reason for doubt that the Cons are correct on either of those points. But if they are, then today's revelations leave no room for doubt that both Paradis and Bernier must have violated the Canada Elections Act.

After all, consider the consequences if one assumes that candidate taglines that definitively determine responsibility for advertising. If so, then Paradis and Bernier - having applied their taglines to the Quebec advertising in question - must have been responsible for both the content and the cost of the ads. And that means that they must have been required to bear their share of production costs for the advertising done in their names.

To the extent Bernier paid nothing and Paradis paid far less than a prorated share of the production costs, then, they can only be seen as having falsely reported the amount actually spent in their names.

Conversely, the best defence for Bernier and Paradis to argue that one can't be so simplistic as to assume that the tagline alone tells the whole story, such that the intention of the agents who placed the ads has to be taken into account. But that would directly contradict the national argument, and provide implicit approval to Elections Canada's investigation of the intention behind the national scheme.

As a result, about the only consistent defence left for the Cons and their Quebec stars is to try to argue that they're entitled to spend what they like and report it (or not) as they see fit, with Elections Canada's role limited to paying the money the Cons claim to be entitled to. But while that may accurately reflect the Cons' view of the law, it doesn't figure to get them far either with Elections Canada or with the courts who figure to eventually rule on their behaviour.

(Edit: added labels.)

Shifty business

It's remarkable how virtually every Lib attempt to explain away a problem with their carbon tax plan either contradicts an argument being made to try to sell the tax to a different audience, or implies an even greater unintended consequence which the Libs apparently haven't considered. And so it goes with Ralph Goodale's explanation as to why Saskatchewan and Alberta shouldn't be concerned about the effect of the carbon tax on their oil and gas industry:

"A significant portion of our oil and gas production in this province will end up being exempt from a carbon tax because it is largely put into a pipeline and exported right out of the country without ever being burned on the Canadian side, so there are no emissions on the Canadian side and therefore about two thirds of our oil and gas industry would be exempt from a carbon tax proposal" Goodale said.

Which is well and good in terms of avoiding the effect of the carbon tax. But let's consider the implications of the Libs' plan if Goodale is right.

Remember that under NAFTA, Canada is prohibited from taking any steps to reduce the proportion of its oil and gas exported to the U.S. even in the event of an energy shortage at home. As a result, Canada is currently bound to make 63 percent of its production available to the U.S., up from 49 percent when NAFTA was signed. And the floor only rises as the proportion of Canadian production diverted to the U.S. market increases.

So what happens if a carbon tax is put in place? The effect would be to increase the price of oil and gas in Canada, but not in the U.S. - giving U.S. buyers a comparative advantage in buying oil and gas produced in Canada. That in turn would serve only to further drive up the percentage of Canadian oil and gas which gets exported - pushing the floor for U.S.-dedicated production even higher, and leaving Canada even more vulnerable to domestic energy shortages.

And to add insult to injury, the plan would do nothing to actually reduce emissions from the Canadian oil and gas industry to the extent it could avoid the effect of the tax by sending its production elsewhere.

As a result, if Goodale's statement can be taken at face value, then the Libs' carbon tax looks to do far more to harm Canada's energy security than it would do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And if not, then there will be simply one more reason to disbelieve the Libs in general as they try to sell their carbon tax scheme.

No justification

For the most part, the Montreal Gazette's editorial board is on target in discussing the secrecy surrounding the Cons' food safety sellout. But it's worth pointing out how part of the column seems to offer more cover than the Cons deserve based on their track record of cover-ups:

The plan, drawn up by the federal agriculture department and approved by the Treasury Board last November, has been held back owing to what the department calls "significant communications risks," which in bureaucratese means it is likely to incite a furious uproar.

The document spelling out the plan fell into the hands of Canwest News Service. The immediate reaction from food-safety experts fully justified the government's hesitation in releasing it. "A really dangerous thing," said Michael Hansen, a leading authority on BSE. "Unfathomable and potentially disastrous," said another academic expert, though on condition of anonymity. The general line of argument against the proposal is that it is the equivalent of putting foxes in charge of maintaining the nation's henhouses.

At best, one could say that italicized phrase merely reflects an inelegant choice of words rather than a form of direct approval of the Cons' information suppression. But in the face of a federal government so bent on obsessive secrecy, there's a need to be particularly careful about wording which could give the impression that a government can ever be "fully justified" either in enacting policy which can't withstand public scrutiny, or in hiding that policy to avoid deserved criticism.

On social visions

Gerald Caplan offers his suggestions as to how the NDP should look to position itself in the wake of the CCF's 75th anniversary. But while Caplan's points about policy choices are certainly worth considering, let's note that the U.S. netroots are currently setting the pace when it comes to the type of truly democratic policy-making which may offer the best foundation for the NDP's future:

this year's Netroots Nation marks the launch of a bold experiment in participatory democracy: together, the Netroots will craft our very own policy platform to be submitted to the DNC in advance of the Democratic Convention.

To ensure the final platform we submit to the DNC reflects the views of the entire Netroots community, we want this process to be as inclusive and democratic as possible - so we're not just limiting it to those who've made it to Austin...

We've divided the platform into 5 planks (foreign policy, economy, healthcare, etc.) and we may add others by popular demand.

Within each plank, the way it works is that people submit different versions of the plank, edit each other's versions, and mix and match from different versions to create new ones. People can rate each version, and the version with the highest average rating is the one we'll submit to the DNC.

Now, it makes sense that the idea is being pioneered within a subset of a party, since any unanticipated outcomes won't then make for a binding platform. And it would be entirely understandable if a similarly cautious approach were applied to any Canadian adaptation.

That said, however, the model is one that the NDP should be looking to apply as well as a means of encouraging grassroots involvement in the party's policy process. And the end result could be both to cement the NDP as Canada's people-powered party, and to develop a progressive vision which moves far past what the CCF's founders could have imagined.

Open questions

Following up on this post, I'll offer a bit of food for thought. As I note in the linked post, Elections Canada is likely to have ample reason to deny the Cons any party rebate if - as seems likely - they use the Conadscam model in the next federal election.

If that happens, and with the Cons both gleefully slamming the current system and holding a significantly larger advantage in individual donations than in public funding in any event, how likely is the existing campaign-finance system to survive a Con majority (or minority where the Cons think to take on public funding and spending caps directly)? And if Harper is likely to try to attack the current system, how should the opposition parties take that into account in making their own plans for the next election?

On points of distinction

In the wake of yesterday's discussion about what kinds of issues the NDP should be highlighting (however misguided it may have been), it's worth noting that the NDP is making a strong push on another issue where there's ample room for distinction from the Con/Lib corporate line. And Russell McOrmond looks to be taking the lead in highlighting the NDP's stance in defending Canadians at large when it comes at copyright issues, providing a brief history of how the NDP arrived at its current position, as well as Q&As with two of the party's star candidates on the subject.

It remains to be seen just how large a role the ongoing discussion about copyright will end up playing once an election campaign gets underway. But based on both the strength of existing movements such as Fair Copyright for Canada and the sheer number of Canadians who stand to be affected by draconian restrictions on their ability to access and share information, the issue looks to be one where the NDP can do plenty of good for the country as a whole and itself as a party by raising awareness. And there's plenty of reason for optimism based on the effort the NDP has put in so far.

Elite consensus-building

Shorter J.L. Granatstein:
If the Libs were to keep giving in to the Cons' every defence policy whim in the name of "bipartisanship" as they did on Afghanistan, just think how much more mature we could claim to be as a country!

On potential recovery

CanWest reports that 17 Con candidates received reimbursements from Conadscam expenses which may eventually be rescinded if the scheme is found to be illegal. But on a closer look at the Canada Elections Act, I have to wonder if there may be far more money at stake.

In particular, the Canada Elections Act's rules for national party reimbursements are found in section 435:

435. (1) On receipt from a registered party of the documents referred to in subsection 429(1), the Chief Electoral Officer shall provide the Receiver General with a certificate that sets out the amount that is 50% of the registered party’s election expenses that were paid by its registered agents as set out in the return for its general election expenses, if
(a) the Chief Electoral Officer is satisfied that the registered party and its chief agent have complied with the requirements of sections 429 to 434;
(b) the auditor’s report does not include a statement referred to in subsection 430(2); and
(c) candidates endorsed by the registered party received at least
(i) 2% of the number of valid votes cast at the election, or
(ii) 5% of the number of valid votes cast in the electoral districts in which the registered party endorsed a candidate.

(2) On receipt of the certificate, the Receiver General shall reimburse the amount set out in it to the registered party by paying that amount out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

All major parties received reimbursements under this section - with the Cons' ranking as the highest at over $9 million. But what happens if the Cons had never validly complied with section 435 when they submitted their election returns to Elections Canada?

The "requirements of sections 429 to 434" referred to in the above section include a requirement to accurately describe a party's expenses (s. 429(2)) and a requirement not to submit material that the party's chief agent "knows or ought reasonably to know contains a materially false or misleading statement" (s. 431). If the Cons end up losing their legal arguments regarding Conadscam, then there's little plausible basis for the Cons to argue that either of these requirements were met - such that they would never have been entitled to be paid the reimbursement amount based on the information submitted.

Which isn't to say the Cons wouldn't have at least some argument to keep the reimbursement money from 2006. There's at least a plausible case to be made that the purpose of s. 435 is to facilitate a final payment rather than permit later attacks, such that there's no ability to recoup the payment once the Chief Electoral Officer certifies the information required in the section.

At the same time, though, it's at least equally arguable that s. 435 is intended to reflect substance rather than form - in effect, that a party shouldn't benefit from successfully misleading Elections Canada into believing it had complied with the law. In that event, any party which was later found to have substantially failed to comply with its reporting obligations would apparently be disentitled to a refund (at least until it submits accurate information).

Needless to say, if that interpretation is accepted, then the Cons' financial risk arising out of Conadscam might well be large enough to put a serious dent in their much-trumpeted financial advantage over Canada's other political parties.

Moreover, the significance of the section may not be limited to the 2006 reimbursement. Even if Elections Canada doesn't plan on pursuing money which may have been wrongly paid to the Cons, the Chief Electoral Officer will have the ability to decline to certify any future Con election return which includes more Conadscam-style manipulations.

Which means that Conadscam has the potential to both take a bite out of the Cons' current bottom line, and prevent them from taking advantage of public reimbursements in the future if they insist on flouting the law. And that may explain why the Cons are so willing to launch kamikaze attacks on Elections Canada in hopes of avoiding the consequences of their actions.

Emblematic

The BBC's report about Colombia's misuse of the Red Cross symbol may be the most subtly surprising story of the day, if only because of the Colombian government's reaction. In particular, has Alvaro Uribe officially disqualified himself from the Bush/Harper circle of neocons by actually having some shame about violating the Geneva Conventions?

For the sake of consistency...

...it's surely only a matter of time before Jonathan Kay comments that the "day Ezra Levant had anything defensible to say about politics and world events seems to have come to an end", while a National Post headline writer describes Levant as "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's one-man fan club". Right?

On fabrications

The CP follows up on today's Ethics Committee proceedings. And not surprisingly, Pierre Poilievre and the Cons aren't going to let mere facts get in the way of their ever-less-plausible attempt to claim victimhood:

Conservative MPs Pierre Poilievre and Scott Reid testily pressed Mayrand about an internal review he conducted in response to Tory claims that the raid details were leaked in advance.

Mayrand said only he, four of his top officials, the office of the elections commissioner and the office of the director of public prosecutions were aware beforehand.

He said he was assured no one in his office talked to anyone outside Elections Canada before investigators from the commissioner's office, accompanied by RCMP computer specialists, arrived at Tory party headquarters.

The chief electoral officer surprised MPs by disclosing not only that he had opposed the raid's timing – because a Federal Court hearing on the case was scheduled for the next day – but that news reporters and photographers did not even arrive at the Conservative office until more than two hours after the raid began.

"I was not too enthusiastic," Mayrand said, adding his opposition to the timing led to a "difficult conversation" with election commissioner William Corbett...

Poilievre told reporters after the meeting that Mayrand's testimony has not allayed the Conservative contention that he and Elections Canada have it out for Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Though Mayrand – who was later appointed by Harper – was not chief electoral officer at the time, Harper battled Elections Canada all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2000 over a ban on advertising by third parties, including the ultra-conservative National Citizens Coalition that Harper led at the time.

Needless to say, it shouldn't come as any surprise at all that the Cons' strategy of stoking supporter outrage far outweighs any interest they might otherwise have had in dealing with reality. But Poilievre's shows just how ridiculous the Cons' facade of indignance really is - and offers another strong indication of why the Cons' public messages simply aren't plausible enough to be taken at face value.

Update: Of course, the Cons can always count on CanWest to report their absurd spin first and a watered-down counterargument second, while entirely omitting the facts which make the Cons' position as nonsensical as it is.

(Edit: fixed typo.)

Another great moment in accountability

Shorter Pierre Poilievre from this morning's Ethics Committee hearings as liveblogged by Kady O'Malley:
Elections Canada has some nerve offending the dignity of the Conservative Party by actually investigating its electoral activities, rather than simply taking its word that Conadscam was entirely legal.

For the long haul

I'll leave aside for now the merits of Michael Byers' proposal for an NDP name change, as well as the positive signs for the NDP pointed out in Lawrence Martin's column today. But it's definitely worth noting that just weeks after Byers chose the NDP over the Libs in the face of direct appeals from both, he's already publicly showing a strong interest in building the NDP in the long term - both in offering suggestions in how the NDP can brand itself, and in what sounds like a concerted effort to bring an increased activist base into the fold.

Of course, it remains to be seen both how Byers will fare in Vancouver Centre, and what role he'll end up playing in the longer term. But it does seem clear that the NDP's star candidates are focused on far more than merely getting into the House of Commons themselves - and that can only bode well for the prospects of building the party for the future.

On mad government

Alison points out the connection between the ongoing reality of BSE in Canada and the Cons' choice to eliminate any federal testing as part of their compulsive attacks on government. But there's another part of the calculus which makes the Cons' decision all the more ridiculous (warning: PDF):

The economic implications (of BSE) for the livestock sector, meat and animal feed manufacturers, and the vast array of service sectors, such as trucking, sales yards and brokers, which provide support to the livestock industry, are
widespread. For the overall Canadian economy, it is estimated that for each $100 million in exports by the cattle sector, $80 million is added to the national gross domestic product (GDP) (at market prices), $228 million is generated in total output, $41 million is added to labour income, and 3,000 jobs are created. Therefore, the potential negative impact on the Canadian economy from a $2.5 billion loss in cattle and calf exports due to BSE translates into a $2 billion loss in GDP, a $5.7 billion decline in total output in the Canadian economy, a $1 billion decline in labour income and a loss of 75,000 jobs.

According to a report prepared for the Canadian Animal Health Coalition, the direct economic cost to the Canadian livestock industry by early 2004 was estimated at nearly $3.3 billion. An additional loss in equity to the cow-calf sector was estimated at $3.0 billion, for a total economic impact from BSE of $6.3 billion.

Now, it's precisely the testing regime now in place which has ensured that later cases of BSE haven't resulted in quite such severe consequences. And it's clear that the private interest in avoiding the worst possible results wasn't enough to ensure that similarly thorough testing took place before the 2003 outbreak.

But for the Cons, the danger of billions of dollars in economic damage is apparently seen as a small price to pay for being seen to hack away slightly at the federal government. And some of the rural voters who otherwise support the Cons ought to take a far closer look at how willing Harper and company are to jeopardize their well-being for a ridiculously small cost reduction.

On hidden dangers

Pogge and impolitical have already weighed in on the substance of the Cons' plan to gut food safety inspections. But there's an equally important story to be told in how and why the changes are coming about:

The new system, part of a push to trim the agency's budget by 5%, was approved last November, but a public announcement "has been deferred owing to significant communications risks," according to the confidential Treasury Board document obtained by Canwest News Service.

Just from this limited description of the process followed by the Cons, a couple of points stand out.

First off, let's note that while pogge is right to point out that the SPP-based push toward corporate regulation was supported just as much by the Libs as by the Cons, the picture is slightly different for this story. After all, this particular move is a direct result of the one of the Cons' policies which has received far too little discussion.

As noted in the article, the cuts to monitoring and regulatory changes are both an immediate consequence of the Cons' arbitrary demand for cuts in the federal civil service. And while the results in the case of food safety may have a particularly obvious effect on Canadians, the Cons' plan is to ensure that the same is done - with similar outcomes sure to follow - in other departments as well.

Mind you, the difference between the Libs and Cons in power doesn't reflect at all well on the Libs' actions in opposition either. From my standpoint, the story also offers an important reason why any strategy such as the Libs' which involves lengthening the amount of time Harper and company stay in power can only be considered a dangerous one in terms of policy as well as politics.

Moving on to the process that made the changes public, the article also highlights why some of the damage done by the Cons may not yet be known - and indeed may not become clear until long after they're removed from office.

It's bad enough that the Cons didn't bother to consult with affected parties before approving the change. But it's especially significant that eight months after the Cons actually made the decision to radically revamp food safety inspection, they still had no apparent intention of making that fact public based on the "communications risks" which would follow from having to actually defend their choices to Canadians.

As a result, but for a media inquiry into something which the Cons concealed, consumers who count on effective federal regulation as part of their assurance that food products are safe may have ended up making choices based on a system which the Cons had already gutted.

Faced with such a stark example of the type of decision which is verifiably being concealed because the Cons perceive the avoidance of "communications risks" as more important than actually allowing Canadians to be informed as to what the federal government has done, there's all the more reason for concern about what else the Cons have done in office which they see as too harmful politically to disclose. And the only way to push for a more reasonable standard from future governments is to make sure the Cons pay at least as much of a political price for their deception as they would have if they'd tried to push the same policy with appropriate public input and knowledge.

Silenced

Since the National Post's spin makes this sound far more significant than is actually the case, let's take a moment to set the record straight. Based on the text of the story, nothing actually suggests that the recording industry has "won" a disputed case, or that any court has "ruled" on peer-to-peer file sharing. Instead, Big Copyright is apparently trumpeting a consent injunction (i.e. one granted only because the other party chose to agree to it rather than even mounting an argument against it) as something that it isn't.

Which isn't to say there isn't one part of the story worth highlighting for its practical implications:

Mr. Brulotte, a 28-year-old resident of St-Jérôme, north of Montreal, is also ordered to refrain from making any comment regarding the dispute "that may be prejudicial" to the record companies that sought the injunction.

Can we count on Ezra, Steyn and their band of merry Human Rights Commissions haters to be the least bit interested in the freedom of expression implications of this order? Or is it only the opportunity to play free speech martyr - with the added bonus of slamming a moderately-resourced government entity rather than large corporate ones - that makes them the least bit interested in what speech is limited?

No cause for celebration

Shorter Benny Peiser:
Kudos to the G8 for playing chicken on greenhouse gas emission reductions rather than actually trying to work with developing countries. I only hope the two groups of countries are both reckless enough to follow through with a head-on collision.

So hard to say goodbye

Apparently at least some commentators just aren't quite ready to give up on Quebec's margarine colour regulation as their main argument to criticize the idea of active government based merely on the fact that it no longer exists. Shorter Colby Cosh (by reference to William Watson):

The margarine colour example serves as living proof that we need to be extra-suspicious of regulations to make sure corporate interests can't lobby for a regulatory philosophy which ultimately helps nobody but themselves. But don't take my word for it: ask the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. Or the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Or...

On budget busters

Sadly, the Sask Party's obsession with nuclear power hasn't yet led to much substantive debate as to why on earth Saskatchewan would want to bind itself either to privately-funded power generally or a nuclear reactor in particular. But Konrad Yakabuski offers a perspective from a province which should already know better on the latter point:

Okay, so nuclear plants don't produce greenhouse gas emissions. And their other advantages are what, exactly?

Well before any of the planned nuclear plants get built - but possibly long enough after it will be too late to stop them from going up - the economics and logistics of wind energy, solar power and carbon capture will have evolved favourably enough to have changed the game.

"Within three to seven years, unsubsidized solar power could cost no more to end customers in many markets, such as California and Italy, than electricity generated by fossil fuels or by renewable alternatives to solar," according to an article in the June issue of The McKinsey Quarterly.

So why bet on a horse - nuclear power - that eats budgets the way Homer Simpson downs doughnuts, and leaves behind the most deadly waste known to man - waste for which there is still no permanent disposal solution?...

That great sucking sound you hear is proposed or in-the-works nuclear plants blowing their budgets everywhere. Areva's first EPR project, in Finland, is two years behind schedule and at least $1.5-billion over budget. Its second, in France's Normandy region, is headed in the same direction, after construction stalled for several weeks recently.

It's not just the skyrocketing price of basic materials, such as concrete and steel, that's driving costs upward. So-called third generation reactors - such Areva's EPR and Atomic Energy's ACR-1000 - are still works in progress. And the two decades during which nuclear power faced desert-like prospects has left the industry grappling with a severe shortage of skilled workers.

In the United States, the escalating cost of nuclear power has led Warren Buffet to reconsider the idea. In January, Berkshire Hathaway-owned MidAmerican Energy Holdings suspended plans to build a nuclear plant in Idaho saying it "does not make economic sense." Still, Congress is offering loan guarantees and tax credits worth billions to electricity providers that take the nuclear plunge. If that doesn't work, Areva's running a television ad using the 1980 disco hit Funky Town to get North Americans to buy into a new nuclear age.

The ad may make some nostalgic, but it only reminds us that nuclear power, like our disco phase, may be a memory best kept repressed.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like many Canadian provinces have learned any lessons - either based on their own past experience, or based on a continud global pattern of nuclear power costing far more than originally claimed. And for Saskatchewan, the Wall government's determination to push a nuclear megaproject with no regard for the consequences can only bring back memories of a time slightly further on in the '80s from which the province has just recently recovered.

On selective division

Yessiree, I'm sure any day now Deceivin' Stephen will be proudly appearing at the grand opening of a moderate Christian church while an anonymous surrogate informs "militant Christists" that Harper is "fully prepared to ignore them" and side with other factions within the faith. After all, surely he wouldn't want to tip off any bigotry by blatantly discriminating among religions, right?

The end of an era

The National Post reports that Quebec has repealed its regulation on margarine colour. While the move may be a small one in its immediate effects, it may have far-reaching implications: now, those shilling for TILMA and other anti-government agreements will have to find an entirely different example to beat into the ground as a rare case of an internal trade barrier, rather than being able to repeatedly cry "margarine!".

The far end of the spectrum

Shorter Terence Corcoran:
It utterly baffles me why the federal government would auction off space on the wireless spectrum for prices which providers are more than willing to pay, rather than simply handing it to telecoms for free.

On half measures

While the Cons once again run around trying to take credit for supposed progress in G8 talks about greenhouse gas emissions, the Globe and Mail reports on what the agreed statement actually says. And like most of the Cons' claimed accomplishments, this one amounts to something between less than meets the eye, and nothing at all:

The G8 declaration itself, in fact, puts that goal in the strained and fuzzy language of bureaucratic negotiations.

It asserted the G8 would “seek to share” with all countries in UN climate talks “the vision” of achieving at least a 50 per cent reduction in emissions and “together with them, consider and adopt” the goal.

And it doesn't say what year the starting point is, so it's not clear what level of emissions they want to cut in half, and each country can choose their own start year.

In other words, the goal of a 50% cut in emissions by 2050 hasn't even been substantially accepted within the G8. Instead, the actual agreement is merely to put the number on the table in the upcoming Copenhagen talks - with an unstated implication that the G8 countries won't actually accept the number even at that time unless developing economies do the same.

In reality, then, it would be generous even to call the G8's statement as "aspirational", since there doesn't appear to be any agreement even to aspire to the goal. Instead, the statement looks to be better classified as a conditional willingness to agree to targets at the UN wrapped in a future hypothetical.

But rather than taking an even remotely plausible look at the statement, the Cons are now pushing the idea that such a feeble excuse for an agreement amount a group of the same countries which agreed fully on Kyoto over a decade ago should be classified as "big steps forward". And that should offer another strong indication of just how little distance the Cons are willing to travel to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Louder than words

Remember back when Stephen Harper was trumpeting his claimed commitment to Arctic sovereignty? Apparently word didn't make it through to anybody responsible for ensuring that sovereignty, as the Globe and Mail reports that both the Canadian military and the RCMP showed little more than total disinterest in an Arctic patrol exercise last summer:

The Canadian Forces have come under fire in an internal report highly critical of military leaders' lack of interest in an Arctic sovereignty protection exercise last August.
...
The report on Operation Nanook, obtained by The Globe and Mail under the Access to Information law, was written by a Forces directorate that helped organize the August, 2007, Arctic exercise.

It says Canadian military leaders didn't place a high enough priority on the operation, and it singles out for criticism Canada Command, the military organization given the task of defending this country.

The report says Canada Command failed to issue a set of orders that had been planned to help disseminate instructions on Operation Nanook.

“[It's] a sad testament to the lack of interest in this operation and its associated training events displayed by the superior HQ that directed it to be conducted in the first place.”
...
The report also complains about inadequate participation by the RCMP, which has policing responsibilities in Nunavut. The military was forced to use stand-ins for Mounties during part of Nanook, even though the RCMP is a key agency in fighting drug smuggling and this was one of the scenarios practised.
...
An RCMP spokesman blamed lower-than-normal staffing across Nunavut last August. “Human resources levels across the Division were 25 per cent below normal and ongoing operational issues and day-to-day community policing needs took precedence over the exercise,” Corporal Greg Cox said.

It's not clear how much input the Cons themselves would have had into the amount of effort put into the exercise. But it seems obvious that a government which saw Arctic sovereignty as something genuinely worth pursuing would have ensured that all parties involved recognized the importance of the patrol, rather than apparently showing no interest in the job (not to mention leaving the RCMP with insufficient resources to participate).

Instead, Canada's Arctic sovereignty looks to be just one more addition to the list of policy areas where the Cons' professed interest is flatly contradicted by their record in office. And that continued conflict between the Harper government's words and actions offers plenty of reason to continue to doubt any of the former.

Safe predictions

Shorter Bush/Baird tag team on the prospects for a common front on greenhouse gas emission cuts at next week's G8 summit:
Speaking as the parties who refuse to even consider any emission reduction targets, we have a crazy hunch that no unanimous agreement will be reached.

A deepening pool

Scott Piatkowski adds one more name to the list of star NDP candidates named this week. But what may be more interesting than the addition of actor/writer/producer David Sparrow to the slate is the type of riding where Layton has been able to recruit the latest wave of additions.

In particular, Don Valley West looks to make for fairly difficult terrain for any NDP candidate. Not only did the NDP rank third in 2006 with under 10% of the vote, but the history of the riding shows nothing but distant third- and fourth-place finishes. But even with that, the NDP has managed to recruit a candidate whose resume looks to stack up nicely against his competitors.

And while Edmonton East is easily the NDP's second-best target in Alberta (and a riding where Ray Martin managed to triple the NDP's general Alberta support in his last run in 2000), it's still probably not a riding which figured to be much of a magnet for a top candidate absent a strong recruiting effort.

Of course, the bigger-name candidates like Michael Byers and Anne Lagacé-Dowson will be making their runs in ridings with obvious pickup opportunities. But it isn't only the NDP's main targets that appear to be enjoying an influx of new talent. And as a result, if the NDP is able to move its national numbers enough to start putting more ridings in play, its candidates should be more than up to the task of making the most of the opportunity.

No improvement

Of all the criticisms levelled at Sandra Buckler during her stint as Deceivin' Stephen's communications direction, I don't recall "insufficiently partisan" ever coming up. But apparently that's the issue the Cons were most concerned with in naming Corn Cob Kory as her replacement and otherwise revamping the PMO:

Sources say Mr. Giorno has already promoted or fired some staff in an effort to gear up the PMO for the next federal election, which could come as early as this fall. The objective has been to replace "bureaucratic" aides with more overtly political staff, said one Conservative source.

The government is expected to be more proactive at hammering home its political message under Mr. Teneycke, who is believed to have played a major role in the government's recent attacks on Liberal Leader Stephane Dion's plans for a carbon tax. Relations with the parliamentary press gallery might not necessarily become more friendly, but reporters will no longer receive little or no response to requests for comment, said the source.

"The PMO's going to become a lot more political. It's going to be a lot more aggressive . . . Every single story, we're going to try to get our say in."

Now, there were certainly problems with the previous strategy of simply stonewalling any request for comment. But it's difficult to see how the new plan of attack will do much other than to make the Cons seem ever more petty and self-absorbed.

After all, if the media wanted the Cons' spin on an issue (as distinct from what would presumably be a more official response from the PMO), wouldn't it make sense that it would be seeking that information from the party office rather than Canada's executive branch? And does anybody but the most deluded of Harper cult followers think that the same old spin will be better received coming from the PMO instead?

Duly named

There's little reason to think Kory Teneycke's appointment as Stephen Harper's communications director will result in his being seen any more positively than the now-departed Sandra Buckler. But it would be a shame if his future battles with the press resulted in anybody forgetting about his stint lobbying his partymates on behalf of the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association.

So to ensure that his trip through the lobbying revolving door doesn't get lost as he takes up his new role keeping meaningful information out of the hands of the media, I hereby dub him Corn Cob Kory.

Worth a thousand words

The Ottawa Sun reports on the ridiculous degree of secrecy cloaking the selection of a location for the National Portrait Gallery. As noted by NDP MP Paul Dewar, the Cons have gone so far as to refuse to publicly name the members of the committee responsible for choosing a location - making for even more extreme steps than usual to ensure that nobody is able to get a word in other than the Cons and their hand-picked cronies.

Which isn't to say there's a total lack of good news: thanks to being unburdened with any need to deal with input from the public, the committee has also had time to put together the gallery's first special exhibit. Watch for A History of Conservative Transparency wherever the gallery ends up.

Spin cycles

It's been awhile since the NDP unveiled a high-profile candidate outside Quebec. But the news that Michael Byers will seek the NDP's nomination in Vancouver Centre offers yet another indication that Layton and company are doing extremely well in the candidate recruitment department - as can be seen from the Libs' desperate attempts to spin away its impact.

To listen to part of the Libs' response, Byers is a terribly controversial candidate who will prove toxic in Toronto if one takes a couple of lines out of context from a 2006 interview. Which is presumably why the Libs themselves tried multiple times to recruit him, including through a personal plea from Stephane Dion.

Mind you, the Libs do have an excuse up their sleeve as to why that effort failed: according to them, Byers wanted the Libs to "remove any competition" for a riding nomination. Which would be a heck of a lot more plausible if he hadn't chosen to run for a party which doesn't even have a candidate appointment process to offer that kind of non-competition.

In sum, while the Libs are trying to minimize both their previous desire to have Byers run for them and his future impact, it seems clear that Layton and the NDP have once again won out in a direct contest for a star candidate. And that success may only hint at the NDP's ability to similarly win over voters when the next election rolls around.

Predicting the inevitable

David Akin notes another interesting Con response to Henry Morgentaler's appointment to the Order of Canada, as MP Rod Bruinooge is complaining that he no longer wants to bother with the institution.

Let's see...right-wingers declaring that since an obviously apolitical institution fails to adequately reflect their prejudices, they plan to take their ball and go home. Can the Conservatorder of Canada be far behind? And will it manage to be even more entertaining than the last such effort?

Hypothetically speaking

Dr. Dawg points out that the list of Con MPs piping up about Henry Morgentaler's appointment to the Order of Canada includes Ken Epp. But it's worth noting just what Epp had to say:

However, Tory MP Ken Epp (Edmonton-Sherwood Park) said the pro-choice supporters have "gone too far."

"As far as I'm concerned it is indeed controversial," said Epp, who has a private member's bill before the House of Commons that would allow criminal charges to be laid in the death or injury of an unborn child when the child's mother is the victim of a crime.

Epp also questioned the objectivity of Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin as head of the Order of Canada advisory council. "Is she now totally out of impartiality because of the fact she has weighed into this? I am concerned about all of those things," he said.

Now, from my perspective Epp's argument raises a couple of fairly significant questions - which essentially need to be directed at Harper in light of his well-known message control.

First, is Epp really claiming that the mere fact that an Order of Canada appointee is associated with an issue renders the Chief Justice of Canada too biased to deal with that issue? If that interpretation is correct, then the full list of appointees would seemingly result in McLachlin C.J.C. being unable to rule on anything more significant than a parking ticket.

Of course, it doesn't stand to reason that Morgentaler's appointment affects judicial impartiality any more than Buzz Hargrove's appointment disqualifies McLachlin from hearing labour law cases. But even if one grants Epp the charitable interpretation that he knows he's wrong, it's still noteworthy that the Cons' message is once again centred on inflammatory and patently ridiculous arguments against the fairness and impartiality of independent bodies.

Second, and more significantly, there's the question of just when Epp anticipates a case which raises abortion issues coming before the Supreme Court of Canada.

I'll note in that respect that Dr. Dawg focuses in on how Epp's new message casts ever more doubt on his honesty in claiming that his C-484 has nothing to do with abortion. But let's take the analysis a step further and grant Epp his own claim for now.

After all, since there's currently no outstanding legal conflict involving abortion, the only way it figures to find its way in front of the Supreme Court of Canada is if new legislation is passed in the meantime. If Epp is right in claiming that C-484 doesn't actually involve abortion, then what do he and the Cons know about other plans for legislation that would bring the issue back before the courts?

Thoughtful

Shorter Gary Mason:
Don't let politicians do your thinking for you. After all, that's my job.

If you're after substantive discussion about the options available to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (in stark contrast to Mason's column), Devin has what you're looking for.

Simple answers to flawed questions, bargaining table edition

From Norman Spector:

Who best can defend Canadian interests in negotiating a successor agreement to Kyoto that would include China, India and the United States: hard-ass Stephen Harper (as Foreign Minister David Emerson has called him), or dreamy-eyed Stéphane Dion (who named his dog Kyoto)?

On behalf of those of us who are more interested in Harper's track record than the spin from his underlings, a hearty "neither of the above".

Building anger

Earlier this year, word came out that the Cons' much-ballyhooed infrastructure program was serving only to keep Regina's IPSCO Place renovations on hold, as the Harper government was evidently too busy trumpeting its own "accomplishments" to get around to actually funding projects once the photo ops were out of the way.

It took another month for the Cons to actually get around to approving that particular project. But today, the Star reports that every other municipality which has relied on federal funding is being punished even more for trusting the Cons:

In his 2007 budget, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty promised a windfall for Ontario towns and cities – $3.1 billion to help pay for highways, water projects and public transit.

Fifteen months later, municipalities have yet to see a dime.

The money, part of Ottawa's Building Canada Fund that earmarks $8.8 billion for infrastructure nationwide, has been tied up while the federal government negotiates the details with Queen's Park.

Ontario cities aren't alone in waiting. Money from the Building Canada Fund has yet to go to cities in Quebec, Alberta or Manitoba because Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon is still negotiating the required framework agreements with those provincial governments as well.

Municipal officials say they've now lost two construction seasons because of funding delays and some fear next season could be in jeopardy, too, unless hurdles are soon cleared. That's causing mounting frustration, as the backlog of work grows and project costs rise...

As best the Federation of Canadian Municipalities can figure, only one municipality in Canada has actually had a project approved for funding under the program – a $20 million commitment for an arena complex in Regina.

Consultations with the provinces and cities over how the fund should be managed actually began two summers ago, according to federal officials. And money for the fund, to be doled out over seven years, was formally announced in the March 2007 federal budget...

Pat Vanini, executive director of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, cautioned that even once the framework agreement is signed with the province, other sub-agreements must be hammered out as well, including deals on how funding will be split between big and small communities.

Obviously a significant part of the story is the Cons' continued devotion to government by press conference, with no interest in doing the work to actually deliver what they've taken credit for. And it's particularly striking that the IPSCO Place debacle itself apparently didn't push anybody to try to get anything moving elsewhere.

However, it's also worth noting how much of the delay seems to have been built into the process by the Cons themselves.

In principle, there's no reason why a province-wide framework to divide up seven years worth of funding would be needed before a dime can flow to a project which has already been agreed to by all three levels of government. But the Cons have instead chosen to hold each project hostage until far larger and thornier questions are dealt with. And that choice, combined with the lack of federal movement in resolving those same questions, virtually ensures that funding won't start moving anytime soon.

In addition, a process which requires a broad-reaching agreement with any province also invites the Cons to play favourites as to which provinces will see their agreements completed first...though at least one can largely say that nobody's yet receiving much preferential treatment.

It remains to be seen how long it'll take before frustrated provinces and municipalities start taking matters into their own hands and simply deciding that promised federal funding isn't worth waiting for. But for now, it seems beyond doubt that the Cons' refusal to make good on their promises and announcements is the single most important obstacle to much-needed infrastructure renewal.

Unpersuasive

Shorter Jim Flaherty:
If I'm willing to put my unprovoked attacks on Ontario behind us and pretend to be nice, surely that's a good enough reason for the province to take my orders now.

Open issues

The Globe and Mail's coverage of the latest shift in Strategic Counsel's poll of public concerns focuses on the problems caused for the Libs by the fact that the environment has dropped to #3 on the list of the most pressing issues facing Canada. But it's worth noting that the three main concerns seem to offer three different issues of roughly equal concern - each of which can easily be linked primarily to one of the national parties:

As the cost of filling the tank hits uncharted heights – and is predicted to go even higher – a wide-ranging survey conducted by the Strategic Counsel for The Globe and Mail and CTV suggests energy prices are on par with the sagging economy when it comes to Canadians' worries.

The environment, last year's top issue, has been pushed to No. 3, with just 16 per cent of Canadians surveyed saying they now consider it their primary concern...

In Canada, 18 per cent of respondents said the rising cost of gas was the most important issue. That was equal to the percentage in this country who named the economy as their No. 1 concern. In the past three years, gas prices have rarely been mentioned by people surveyed by the Strategic Counsel; the highest number was 4 per cent in July of 2006.

The article doesn't discuss the effect of gas prices and the economy taking over the top two spots. But the difference between respondents more concerned with one rather than the other might also track potential voter pools for the NDP and the Cons.

After all, the Harper government's declaration that it isn't interested in dealing with fuel prices and other increasing costs of living to the extent they're cause by "market forces" would seem to leave the field wide open for the NDP to win over voters who rank gas prices as the primary concern. And given that a similar focus seems to already be working for the B.C. NDP, there's every reason for the federal party to figure it's best served keeping up the same focus.

Meanwhile, all concerns about plausibility aside, the Cons have tried to turn economic management into an area of strength, particularly based on their choice of attacks on the Libs' carbon tax scheme.

All of which suggests that the current parity in the top three issues may be matched by a similar level of opportunity for each of the parties to grab hold of the issue which favours it most. And if we're indeed headed for a fall election, it wouldn't be surprising to see the party which most effectively carries out that task winning the most support as a result.

Mind you, none of the party links will go without at least some challenge. The NDP will of course point its comparative track record on the environment, the "Tory times are tough times" line figures to be a difficult one for Harper to answer in trying to run on economic management, and the Cons have tried at least somewhat to take on the NDP's concern with gas prices.

But there's little indication so far that any of the parties have managed to prevent the others from branding themselves based on the three top issues of concern. And from here on in, the smart play looks to be for each party to push its own issue to the forefront, rather than getting caught up trying to challenge opponents' credibility on the others.

Never enough now

Shorter Macleans response to the Canadian Human Rights Commission's dismissal of a complaint against it:
Sure, it's well and good that we were found to be on the right side of the law. But is it really too much to ask that someone declare us to be above the law altogether?

On secrets and lies

Shorter Maxime Bernier, trying to explain how a minister responsible for some of Canada's most sensitive information could possibly be ignorant of Julie Couillard's past:
Infiltrator? Why, I hardly even knew 'er!

On notice

Talking Points Memo's David Kurtz points out the latest sign of the Bush administration's habit of running the U.S. government like a small-time scam operation. This time, the White House decided to avoid an analysis which the Supreme Court ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to provide by refusing to open the e-mail which enclosed it - leaving the message in "e-mail limbo, without official status".

What I have to wonder is just how much further Bushco will travel down that path by the beginning of next year. Will attempts to serve habeas corpus applications on behalf of Guantanamo detainees be met with "We're sorry, the United States of America moved and didn't leave a forwarding address"? Or will Bushco decide that its "inherent jurisdiction" includes the ability to refuse to receive news that it's time to leave office in 2009?

A well-defined role

As part of her entertaining live-blogging of the Cons' latest Cabinet shuffle, Kady O'Malley wonders whether James Moore's promotion to a Secretary of State position means that he'll no longer be the Cons' attack dog on the Cadscam file. But I'd think that his new responsibility for Official Languages is entirely in keeping with his Cadscam role. After all, what position could possibly give Moore a better platform to continue his longstanding push to drain the words "financial considerations" of their normal English meaning?

On soft support

For all the discussion that the Harris-Decima poll on Canadian attitudes toward a carbon tax has spawned, I'm surprised one point seems to have slipped through the cracks. Based on the poll's party breakdown, the second-lowest support for a carbon tax was found...among Green Party voters, with under half indicating their approval.

This after the Greens have been flogging the carbon tax issue for years, and with Elizabeth May calling for three times the level of tax being pushed by the Libs.

Now, I'm not aware of any particular groundswell among the Greens' candidates or supporters to reverse course on the carbon tax itself. So the issue doesn't figure to be one which will actually tear apart what party structure May may have cobbled together.

But it's still striking that the Greens' current "supporters" aren't any more likely than voters in general to agree with its signature policy. And that has to offer reason to think that the Greens' current support levels are based more on vote parking than on any agreement with (or even awareness of) the party's direction.

Worth debating

In the wake of Stephane Dion's challenge to Stephen Harper to a debate over the Libs' carbon tax proposal, it's worth wondering whether the same thing will happen as did last time a similar one-on-one challenge was issued - and if the NDP is developing its reponse accordingly.

Remember that in the 2006 election campaign, Gilles Duceppe demanded a debate with Paul Martin over Quebec sovereignty. But when Martin refused, Harper offered to debate Duceppe instead...which sapped much of the momentum which Duceppe figured to have won from his initial challenge, and likely formed at least some of the basis for the Cons' eventual gains in Quebec.

In that case, I criticized Harper for fanning the flames of separatism - and that assessment holds true even though the greatest downsides of the offer didn't materialize. But on an issue which doesn't carry the same danger of blowing the country apart, there's every reason for Jack Layton to look to take his role in the discussion by offering to speak on behalf of Canadians who don't support the carbon tax in a debate against its leading proponent.

Of course, Harper hasn't yet provided a direct response to Dion's challenge. But Harper hasn't shown any interest in the concept of "adult" debate in any event, and there isn't much reason to think he'll want to take on a debate where he - like Martin during the election campaign - would have virtually nothing to gain and everything to lose by accepting the offer. Which means that the hints that Harper isn't interested figure to accurately reflect the likely response.

In contrast, if Layton were to offer a debate with Dion, both parties would obviously have plenty to gain. The Libs would win public exposure for their policy centrepiece, and indeed be able to do so in a debate against an opponent which wouldn't tend toward the Cons' strategy of distortions and distractions. And Dion would also receive sorely-needed training for election debates to come.

Meanwhile, the NDP would both get to defend its own environmental bona fides against the current wave of Red Green attacks, and receive an ideal opportunity to contrast itself against the Libs as the main opposition to Harper. And of course the media attention surrounding the debate wouldn't hurt either.

But what if the Red Greens tried to turn the tables on Layton? Even if the Libs declined and the Greens were to try to take the same process a step further by offering up their own challenge, that could well be something the NDP will be willing to accept to win some media coverage for its policies which don't often receive the attention they deserve.

Of course, there are risks involved in any debate. But for the NDP, this looks to be an example where the upside would far outweigh the dangers...making this one challenge that Layton should be eager to present.

Update: As Cameron points out, Dion has pre-emptively declared that he isn't interested in debating anybody other than Harper. While Cameron describes it as a sign of arrogance, I'll suggest it's more a matter of weakness: apparently Dion doesn't think his green credentials can stand up to a challenge from anybody but a party where climate change denial is still probably the majority view.

On dangerous mining

The CP reports that as part of their effort to challenge a salary increase for federal judges, Rob Nicholson's Justice Department required the Canada Revenue Agency to provide tax return information about judges appointed since 1995. But while today's story is disturbing enough on its own, I have to wonder whether this is anything but the tip of the iceberg in what information the Cons have squeezed out of the CRA to further their political agenda.

The CP describes the Cons' rationale for demanding the information as follows:

To buttress its position that salaries for federal judges are generally higher than the income they earned as lawyers in private and public practice, the Justice Department took the unprecedented step of giving the Canada Revenue Agency a list of the names of 627 judges the federal cabinet appointed to the bench between 1995 and 2007.

The agency was able to match 567 of those judges to their tax records as lawyers, and provided the Justice Department with an aggregated version of the information, with no names attached. A consultant used the data to calculate what the department claimed was an indication of the average increases in salaries and benefits lawyers received after they became judges.

Darren Eke, a spokesman for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, issued a brief statement Sunday insisting the government had done nothing wrong.

"Our government respected the independence of the commission in its work and surely did not interfere at any point," said Eke. "To imply otherwise is simply false."

The conclusions reached by the federally hired consultant who analysed the tax information were vociferously challenged by Bienvenu and the judges' data expert.

In letters and submissions during the final stages of the salary deliberations, prominent lawyers the Justice Department retained to settle the conflict argued it was impossible to link the aggregated version of the tax data with the identities of judges whose income was scrutinized.

"The government, outside of CRA itself, and in particular the Department of Justice for purposes of this commission, had no access to the underlying data (the income tax returns)," wrote Neil Finkelstein and Catherine Began Flood.

They acknowledged access that could identify taxpayers is "prohibited by law." The two lawyers, and assistant deputy attorney general Donald Rennie, argued CRA routinely provides anonymous information about professional groups or occupations of taxpayers on an aggregated basis.

From the story, it seems clear by implication that the Cons don't see any problem at all with ordering the CRA to provide them with aggregate information. But let's consider how that kind of information could be misused.

Even to the extent that any request is limited by profession, it's not hard to see how the Cons could use information about income levels to their advantage by similarly demanding aggregated data. Think how useful it might be for the Cons' political operatives to target their fund-raising drives with insider information about which professions are seeing increased income, or a drop in average political donations which might signal room to donate more money.

And the problem only gets worse if the Cons see themselves as entitled to submit any list of names to the CRA for a similar aggregate report, rather than being limited to professions. Want to know whether patronage in a riding is hitting the mark? A simple printout of aggregate income information for all party members within that riding would answer that question in a second. Or aggregate reports could work wonders in further refining a set of demographic classifications - while again providing far more relevant information about who has money available, and who's most likely to be interested in contributing to a political party.

What's worse, it's worth being at least somewhat skeptical as to whether personal information in general - or particularly the type of information being dealt with in this case - is necessarily as anonymous as it seems. While the CRA's data wouldn't itself disclose names or even individual data, it's not at all unlikely that the information can be linked to other data to identify the individuals involved.

For an obvious example in this case, consider what would could be done with aggregated information about how much money the judges in question donated to political parties. The Cons would be able to cross-check the donations by those same judges which have been publicly disclosed against the total amount reported by the CRA to figure out with at least some certainty which ones were - and weren't - included in the report. And enough linked requests using some or all of the same pool of names could theoretically enable a party to reverse-engineer the full tax returns involved without ever technically receiving "identifiable" information in a single report.

Of course, it's not clear that the Cons have indeed crossed the line between information being used for governmental purposes and that which is made available for their partisan use. But in light of their efforts to get there in the past, it's awfully difficult to give them the benefit of the doubt. Which means that both the affected judges in particular and Canadians in general may have yet another reason to worry about how the Cons are using the trappings of power.

On national interests

Shorter John Ibbitson:
As far as I'm concerned, Canadians should see a third Bush term as the best hope of reducing the border paranoia stoked by Bush and his party during the previous two.