On negative inferences

As embarrassing as the Bernier report may seem to be, it's worth noting how useful some of its logic may turn out to be later on.

After all, the report's basis for assigning blame almost entirely to Julie Couillard was her refusal to be interviewed for the benefit of the investigation in the absence of any obligation to do so. Which lines up rather nicely with the tactic being taken by Con MPs caught up in Conadscam, who are apparently planning to refuse to appear before the Ethics Committee which is investigating the scandal (with its own report presumably to follow).

Like Couillard, the MPs under investigation are entirely within their rights to refuse to defend or explain their actions. But based on exactly the reasoning which the Cons apparently found to be entirely valid when it comes to Couillard, the MPs caught up in the scheme - including Stockwell Day, Lawrence Cannon, Christian Paradis and Josee Verner among others - can expect to join Couillard in facing a public inference of guilt until they do so.

Silver linings

Having noted this morning the downside of what the fraud charges against Con MP Christian Paradis' official agent Stephane Fortin may have in terms of any hope that the Cons would govern responsibly, I'll take a minute to point out that the charges against Fortin may have some upside when it comes to getting to the bottom of Conadscam. If Fortin wants to cooperate with the Crown, he'd be an obvious source of inside information about how the Cons' campaign finance manipulations took place - and having been cut loose by both Paradis and his father's law firm, Fortin doesn't figure to have much motivation to cover up what happened for the benefit of the Cons.

Mind you, Fortin's word would obviously be difficult to rely on in any prosecution. But to the extent he can point investigators in directions which might not have been obvious from the outside, Fortin may be able to bring even more of the Cons' actions to light than his money management has done already.

On flawed judgment

Following up on yesterday's news that Con MP Christian Paradis' official agent Stephane Fortin has been charged with fraud, let's note how embarrassing it is that the MP who chose Fortin to run his campaign finances has since been handed a cabinet position which requires exactly the kind of attention to detail and judgment which was sorely lacking in Paradis' choice of agents.

In effect, at the time of the campaign, the only judgment which Paradis apparently had to exercise was to find a single individual to serve as his official agent. His choice was somebody who on the Cons' own terms was fired for gross incompetence, and who according to the charges now filed against him was already falsely representing himself to be a qualified lawyer within Paradis' father's firm. And it's in part because Paradis' campaign required blatant manipulation of its campaign books to make up for apparent overspending under Fortin that Conadscam now holds the potential to bring down dozens of Con MPs, candidates and agents from the 2006 election.

For most of us, that kind of track record of decision-making would demand some serious explanation before a person would be allowed to decide anything more important than whether to order soup or salad with a restaurant meal. But in the Cons' desperation to find somebody from Quebec to replace Maxime Bernier in cabinet, they instead decided to hand Paradis responsibility for a department which proudly proclaims that it handles more than $1.3 trillion in cash flow each year. And all this despite what one can only assume to be full knowledge of Fortin's failings in the election campaign, and at least some knowledge of his problems with at least Paradis' father's law firm even as he was trusted with campaign funds.

Needless to say, if a single decision of Paradis' in his ministerial role proves anywhere near as disastrous as his choice of official agents, the result could be catastrophic for Canada as a whole, not only the Cons as a government. And whether the Cons' choice to put Canada's public works in his hands was based more on a genuine belief that the rest of their caucus was even more flawed or a bare political calculation that location matters more than competence, the result should have Canadians eager to take decision-making power out of the hands of Paradis and his party.

On well-founded suspicions

Shorter Tony Clement spokespuppet on the Cons' efforts to hide Health Canada's report on the effects of climate change:
I can't imagine why anybody would get the idea that this government might consider shunting unfavourable reports into a conveniently-timed news dump.

On incompetents

La Presse reports that the official agent for Con Public Works Minister Christian Paradis at the time of the 2006 campaign - who already figured to get plenty of unwanted public exposure due to his apparent role in Conadscam - has been charged with fraud for trying to pass himself off as a lawyer. No word yet on whether further action will be taken against the Cons for trying to pass themselves off as a competent government.

On connections

The Pundits' Guide offers up an interesting comparison of Facebook support among Canada's party leaders, as well as the candidates in the current by-election campaigns.

Now, I'll agree with PG that it's far from clear what exactly the numbers mean: they could conceivably reflect grassroots support, but could equally easily be based more on a concerted effort directed at Facebook in particular rather than other party-building steps which might not be se easily compared. And indeed I'd think that a party is probably at least as well served building its own online infrastructure (with something like Facebook considered primarily a conduit to bring in new supporters), rather than putting a long-term focus on a third-party site whose own impact is likely to wax and wane relatively quickly in political terms.

Whatever the ultimate impact of the Facebook support numbers, however, it's probably safe to say that a party is better off having more support rather than less in nearly any medium. And to the extent the NDP's candidates are ahead of all competitors both nationally and in the two most contentious by-elections, that may offer another measure of strong NDP support that hasn't yet surfaced in national polling.

Shut out

There was never much reason to think that a one-time consultation process would counter the obvious potential for abuse resulting from the Cons' immigration power grab. But the Star points out today that the Cons have started in with arbitrary preferences long before any immigration "instructions" are issued, as even the consultation process was set up to avoid hearing from anybody but the Cons' choice of stakeholders:

Immigration Minister Diane Finley has promised that implementation of her sweeping new powers under changes to the Immigration Act will be "fair, open and transparent."

But it doesn't bode well that the promised cross-Canada consultations she is just completing have been closed to the public, the media and a variety of concerned community groups who wanted to attend...

While some groups, such as the Chinese Canadian National Council and the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, were included in the list of "key stakeholders" invited to the Toronto consultation session, others were not.

These include the Canadian Arab Federation, the Workers Action Centre (a group concerned about a potential increase in labour rights violations under the government's expanded temporary workers program), and the United Steel Workers (the union that represents many vulnerable immigrant and temporary workers)...

The behind-closed-doors consultations will conclude with a round table involving "national stakeholders" in Ottawa in mid-August. Again, the session will be by invitation only. This is not a government that is open to conflicting views.

Again, the end result figures to be much the same in any event. Regardless of what's said in the consultation process, the Cons have shown a clear intention to prioritize corporate wishes first, potential Con voting blocs second, and anybody else to the smallest extent possible.

But it's still striking that the Cons can't even be bothered to pretend to care what groups on their political write-off list have to say about major immigration changes. And even among those who were granted an audience with Finley this time, the Cons' selective invitations have to be cause for concern for those groups whose votes might not be seen as so important the next time the Cons decide which doors to slam shut.

Can you feel the accountability?

Introducing your friendlier, more accessible Cons - where for once, Maxime Bernier is actually allowed to refuse to say anything of substance for himself.

Weaker in the world

Embassy's Michelle Collins reports on yet another area where the Cons' neglect is putting roadblocks in the way of actors who would have little trouble getting plenty done under a remotely competent government. This time, it's in the operations of international NGOs, who when they haven't been ignored completely have been told to base their funding proposals on standards which the Cons haven't bothered to announce:

While a change of government naturally results in a shifting focus and tweaking of priorities, actors within Canada's NGO community say that across the board, all are facing a much graver situation than in past years, and one from which it will take a long time to recover.

The culprits are strategic reviews of program funding at Foreign Affairs and CIDA, as well as an overhauling of their mandates and dramatic shifts in personnel, which has left organizations outside the government increasingly unsure of the government's changing priorities...

"There is a certain level of concern and a certain level of frustration at the lack of clarity," said Robert Fox, executive director of Oxfam Canada. "There's also a concern around the fact that given that lack of clarity, rumors abound and signals are not clear."

While Oxfam is blessed with strong public support, Mr. Fox said the current uncertainty has made a number of organizations "jittery."

Of its own international projects, Mr. Fox said he has been told by CIDA officials that when making proposals to be mindful of CIDA's "priority countries." However, CIDA Minister Bev Oda has yet to identify these countries of focus, as well as its long awaited new aid policy...

Mrs. Armit said the Parliamentary Centre has been waiting a year to hear back from CIDA about renewing its nearly decade-old and highly-regarded parliamentary project in Cambodia, but that they are now losing hope.

Compounding the impact from the top-down, many are also pointing to an overwhelming sense among federal civil servants that ideas contrary to the political direction of the day could cause unwanted headaches. Others say the process of project approval has also become more politicized than in the past, noting that intervention by a politician has increasingly become the solution...

Ms. White said the situation risks bringing about a decimation of the whole sector.

"And this is a sector that gives an incredible return of investment to its country," she said.

In a global context, NGO leaders say that forcing them to the sidelines will have long-lasting consequences for the country's influence — especially at a time when Canada is facing increasing competition from developing nations such as China, India and Brazil.

Now, it wouldn't come as much surprise if the Harper regime is perfectly happy to weaken organizations which would tend to present independent Canadian voices abroad rather than being bound by the Cons' messaging rules.

But any harm done to NGOs today figures not only to limit Canada's ability to project its voice on the international stage in the short term, but also to make it far more difficult to recruit strong Canadian representatives in the future. And if the Cons aren't the least bit concerned about that outcome, then it's long past time for a change in government before the damage becomes irreparable.

On obstacles to change

Shorter Christian Conservative:
I'm deeply committed to fighting rampant political sexism by supporting a female candidate - with just a few exceptions like the two by-elections where non-Con parties have females running. Or the 83% of ridings nationally where the Conservatives' candidate is male.

An exit strategy

Both the Star's editorial board and Linda McQuaig are worth a read in discussing how the U.S. election may affect Canada's role in Afghanistan. But while both seem to look largely at the downside that an increased U.S. focus (particularly under an Obama presidency) might lead to pressure for yet another round of mission creep, it's worth noting that the possibility of the U.S. diverting a large number of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan also presents a significant opportunity for any Canadian government willing to take a stand to end the combat mission.

After all, there doesn't seem to be much disagreement among the NATO countries now involved in Afghanistan that Canada's combat role has left us taking a disproportionate share of the international burden. But the absence of anybody else apparently willing to take over the role now played by Canadian troops has been cited as one of the main reasons for extending the mission rather than seeking to disengage from combat and take on a different role.

From that starting point, a planned influx of U.S. troops which dwarfs what Canada could possibly contribute would seem to offer an ideal opening to ask the U.S. (and anybody looking to win favour with the new American regime) to take over. And while the Harper government obviously isn't about to go in that direction, a renewed prospect of ending the combat mission in Afghanistan might well be enough to help topple the Cons in time to take the opportunity.

(Edit: fixed typo.)

Ad nauseum

Sure, the untrained eye might see the Cons' typical one-two punch of doubling federal advertising spending then covering up that fact as a problem. But let's be fair: if the Cons keep suppressing enough reports which would inform the public about their own failings in office, the savings in printing costs can surely start putting a dent in the amount they've blown on self-promotion.

The hidden campaign

It's hard to say what's more disturbing about the Hill Times' latest report on the Cons' ethnic strategy: an apparent pattern of hiding Jason Kenney's interactions with community groups from public view, or the fact that Kenney seems to be downright proud to be blurring the lines between government functions and partisan campaigning:

Conservative MP Jason Kenney, secretary of state for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity, says he's attended more than 500 ethnic community events since his party took power in January 2006. And counting.

"I don't have an exact count, but personally it would be in the range of several hundred. I'm sure it will be north of 500," he said in an interview last week, adding that his busiest weekend was last year when he attended an estimated 24 events in three days in the Greater Toronto Area, which is crucial political territory for the Conservatives to win more seats in the next federal election.

A vast majority of the events he attends are not open to the media either on the request of organizers or his party's strategic reasons and therefore not listed on his ministerial website...

Right after the last federal election, Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) chose Mr. Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Alta.) as his point man to help woo ethnic minorities by first appointing him his Parliamentary secretary for multiculturalism and later secretary of state for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity...

Mr. Kenney denies his party is strategically targeting the nine ethnic communities.

"We work with all communities. I meet with a very wide array of communities. Essentially, any community group that wants to get its message across to the government, contacts me. I'm available to meet with them and our government is accessible to them. We don't exclude any group," said Mr. Kenney.

Putting together the pieces of the article, this looks like another prime example of the Cons using public positions and resources for purposes which are obviously subordinate to their partisan efforts. From what I can tell, Kenney's strategy for keeping contact with groups looks something like this:

1. Group contacts Kenney to invite him to participate in an event in his publicly-funded capacity as secretary of state.

2. Kenney's secretarial office uses public resources to plan his attendance at the event.

3. Kenney attends the event under rules established by the Conservative Party which not only prevent the media from attending, but also prevent the public from being informed that Kenney ever participated.

Now, there's probably some room for the public to find out just where Kenney has been despite his own lack of disclosure, as a past schedule would seem to be available through a well-targeted access to information request. And there's plenty of reason to think that some interesting stories may be found in such an investigation.

Most obviously, it's worth wondering just how far public resources have gone in supporting Kenney's attendance at these events. Con cabinet members have already been caught several times failing to report or misreporting their travel expenses - and Kenney's secrecy about the events attended might signal a strong likelihood that there's plenty more where that came from.

In addition, it's also worth wondering just what Kenney has been saying to the groups involved. And if word comes out that the Cons have been making private promises to targeted ethnic groups which differ from their public positions - or which misuse federal power such as their newfound ability to arbitrarily categorize potential immigrants - then there will be all the more reason for both the groups involved and Canadians in general to distrust the Cons.

On electoral calculations

For all the conventional wisdom about what the upcoming by-elections might mean to Stephane Dion's leadership, I'm not sure that any outcome would actually give the Libs much reason to change their apparent push toward a fall election. And what's more, the only outcome which might justify delaying the current conditions for an election would involve the Bloc backing down, rather than the Libs continuing to prop up the Cons.

Let's consider first what the Libs' results in the by-elections might indicate about the party's position. For all the talk about a loss in Westmount-Ville Marie being seen as a disaster, the reality is that the same factors which helped the NDP to win Outremont are still largely in play this time out - meaning that a loss shouldn't be seen as an unprecedented outcome for the Libs so much as the result of a support shift in a relatively distinct type of riding. And that shouldn't be the end of the world for Dion or his party, particularly since the Libs' national polling numbers seem to have bounced back since Outremont.

What about Guelph? It's true that the battle there may be more plausibly seen as a microcosm of what the Libs would face in a fall general election. But with the NDP and Cons both running seemingly strong campaigns and the Libs having fought through a contentious nomination battle, there's still reason to argue that its results wouldn't reflect national conditions. And to the extent those factors might not be in play in a general election, a strong could be made that a loss in next month's by-election wouldn't rule out the prospect that the Libs could Guelph and similar seats if they can run a strong national campaign.

As a result, the most important question for the Libs may not be whether they win any or all of the seats now in play, but whether they manage to drop off the radar entirely in one or more of the ridings. As long as they're within striking distance once the by-election ballots are counted, there may be every incentive for the Libs to figure that a successful national campaign will push these types of seats back into their column.

In contrast, if the Libs come in a distant third in both Guelph and Saint Lambert, then one could plausibly say that the party is in serious trouble. That would suggest that the NDP has managed to position itself as the main contrast to the Cons in parts of Ontario which which formerly served as the Libs' firewall, and that the Cons have fully taken over as the federalist alternative to the Bloc in ridings which were held by the Libs as recently as 2004 and which weren't yet within the Cons' area of strength. And that combination would call into doubt whether the Libs can bring enough ridings into play to have any real chance of winning a general election.

Such a result would thus give the Libs reason to think that the national conditions are such as to make a successful election difficult. But even then, delaying any further could still be seen as doing at least as much harm than good.

After all, any possibility that a scandal might explode in the meantime to improve the Libs' position would be at least counterbalanced by the Cons' certain ability to use their financial advantage to blitz the airwaves in advance of a fixed election date - particularly with the Libs demoralized enough for the financial gap to get even worse than it currently is. And a movement to push Dion out the door resulting from also-ran finishes might well see an immediate election as the best way of removing him.

From my standpoint, then, virtually all roads for the Libs lead to their having ample reason to vote down the Cons.

However, the same may not apply to the Bloc. While the Libs (and indeed all of the national parties) can point to the possibility of potential gains in other types of ridings as reason to minimize any disappointing results in these ones, a party whose focus is inherently limited to a few dozen ridings can't help but to see Saint Lambert as a relatively accurate reflection of the type of challenge it will face in seeking to defend its territory.

As a result, if any of the other parties manages to pull out a surprise win there or even make the seat competitive, then the Bloc - which has seemingly relied more on its ability to exploit the scandal of the moment than on more stable factors for its support - figures to be awfully tempted to roll the dice on the possibility that something might stoke the anger of its historical voters over the next year, rather than walking into an ambush this fall.

Which means that much of the current conventional wisdom may well be off not only in terms of how the Libs might respond to any by-election losses, but also in its assumption that the Libs control the timing of the next federal election. And it'll be interesting to see both how the parties' by-election strategies turn out, and how they react as a result.

The mission creep continues

I noted yesterday how the Cons' Afghanistan mission creep is based on dishonesty with the public when it comes to the terms of motions in Parliament. But let's note that the Cons have been equally deceptive when it comes to justifying increased troop levels based on Canada's actual operations, as the Cons' planned numbers run contrary to their own stated reason why the number of Canadians in combat was increased from 2,300 to its current level of 2,500:

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

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

Given that Canada increased its troop levels for the specific purpose of supporting its command role, one would expect that the numbers would then drop back down when another country rotates into the command responsibility. And that's due to take place this November.

But based on David Emerson's comments yesterday, the Cons don't have any intention of reducing the current contingent of 2,500 troops by the first part of 2009, even though the reason for the previous increase will have ended months earlier. Instead, they're apparently planning on ignoring the possibility of reducing troop levels at the end of the command stint, using the 2,500 level as the new baseline, then adding to that in order to reach 2,700 troops in combat in 2009.

All of which goes to reinforce a couple of points which are far too familiar based on the Cons' stay in government. First, the Cons' strategy in Afghanistan is simply to be seen expanding Canada's military role, with no regard for whether there's any link between military commitments and end goals. And second, the Cons still can't be trusted to provide honest information about the mission - which should make it all the more obvious why it's long past time for both Canada's Afghanistan combat role and the Cons' stay in power to end.

History repeating

In the wake of David Emerson's declaration that the Cons plan to increase the size of Canada's combat contingent in Afghanistan by another 200 troops, let's note is that this isn't the first time the exact sequence of events has played out. Indeed, the first extension to 2009 similarly involved no mention of increased troop levels, but was followed quickly by an announcement that more Canadians would be sent into combat.

Now, if the Libs wanted to, they could point out that the motion they agreed to also suggested that development work should be proportionally increased to change the balance of the mission. But it seems far too likely that they'll let the whole matter slide to avoid any reminder of just how irresponsible the Libs were to put their desire to be seen as "bipartisan" ahead of any effort to extricate Canada from Afghanistan combat.

As an aside, a quick trip in the wayback machine turns up this from the time of the first extension:

There have been suggestions Canada might play a role in an eventual international effort in the Darfur region of Sudan, but O'Connor says the military already has its hands full with Afghanistan.

He told a Senate committee that the Afghanistan operation can essentially be maintained at the present level (then 2300 troops) forever, but there's nothing to spare for any other deployments.

Does anybody else find it interesting how the Cons have stuck to the position that Canada's can't spare military resources for any other international mission, but apparently haven't had any trouble rounding up enough additional troops to expand combat operations in Afghanistan by nearly 20% in the meantime?

(Edit: fixed wording.)

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.