Impolitical

On nothing burgers

2012-02-01T08:26:00.000-05:00

Kevin Milligan, associate economics professor out at UBC is quoted again today on Old Age Security in another report on what experts are saying about the question of raising the age of eligibility. He reiterates the point that our spending on OAS as a percent of GDP is much lower than many countries. But today's CBC item has a little bit more commentary from him:

As a percentage of GDP, Milligan said the cost will grow from the current 2.41 per cent of GDP to 3.14 per cent by 2031. That increase would be equivalent to about $12 billion.

"There's a question about characterizing whether that's big or small," Milligan said. "That's not nothing. That's why it's reasonable to have a look at it."

A recent OECD study found that Canada has a "more favourable demographic outlook than many European countries. The analysis suggests that Canada does not face major challenges of financial sustainability with its public pension schemes."

Milligan pointed to Italy, which spends 14 per cent of its economy on public pensions.

"We're going from 2.4 to 3.1 per cent. Italy has that for breakfast," he said.

Milligan said he is more concerned about health-care costs, as they grow at rate of about six per cent of GDP over the next 20 years, and the stress they will impose on the system.

He said the OAS program could be on the list of some of the more pressing issues the government must deal with, but questioned some of the claims being made.

"I heard Mr. Van Loan comparing us to Greece, if we don't fix this problem. That's just an exaggeration. At the same time I'd ask some of the opposition leaders how you fund a $12-billion program. I haven't heard what taxes they will raise or what programs they will cut."

After his blog item in the Globe that raised doubts about the need to hike age eligibility to 67 and after having been quoted again, yesterday, in a Globe report as an expert saying there is no crisis in OAS, he seems to be ever so slightly changing his tune to position his view a little more evenly. Whatever, he's an academic not a partisan. The numbers he cites have not changed, however, and are left for observers to decide for themselves. Re-read his other two items as well.

As for what the opposition would do to fund the OAS program, that's not really a mystery if you have been following Canadian politics for the past few years. What's more important is that the government is still sowing doubt about senior's pensions and what they plan to do by being evasive in the House of Commons, as Harper continued to be yesterday. On a matter of trust, like pensions are, it's hard to explain such an approach.

More reading on OAS today:

Where’s the evidence for OAS overhaul?
Why raising OAS to 67 doesn't make sense

P.S. Blog post title is taken from the earlier edit of the CBC report. I swear Milligan said "nothing burger" instead of "That's not nothing." It was eye catching and drew attention to his commentary above. Google CBC.ca, nothing burger, over the past 24 hours. Should come up.

On the lighter side

2012-02-01T07:34:00.000-05:00

Yes, we all know that Mitt Romney won the big Florida primary last night. Hours of overhyped television coverage seeping on to our Canadian screens told us so. But did you know that Romney is a doppelganger for a certain aquatic species? Well, if you watch the above, then you will! The sound effects are killer. Quite well done.

One thing that was of interest last night, the Gingrich campaign's race baiting came under questioning on MSNBC, as well it should. Information here.

Reimagine CBC

2012-01-31T16:51:00.000-05:00

A new effort that coincides with the Conservatives' renewed attack on the public broadcaster as Parliament has resumed: "Reimagine CBC." Leadnow.ca is driving the idea:

From the digital revolution to political pressure and potential budget cuts, the CBC is under enormous stress and journalism in Canada is in crisis. (Just yesterday, four Conservative MPs tabled petitions in the House of Commons calling for an end to all public funding for the CBC.) [1]

The CBC is changing, and we all have a stake in the outcome. Good public media is good for our democracy and culture, and right now you have a chance to make it yours.

The CBC is unique. It’s the only major media network that is independent from the handful of private companies that control more and more of the content we see and hear. And, since the CBC receives public funding to meet its social mandate, we have a real opportunity to shape its future.

That’s why today we’re launching a new project to ask Canadians from across the country to “reimagine the CBC.” We’ll bring the best ideas to the CBC, and together we’ll work with decision-makers to turn your ideas into reality.

Go check both sites out. Instead of just complaining and reacting to the Conservative plans, this seems like an interesting way to create support for positive alternatives.

Juxtaposing Harper: OAS version

2012-01-31T06:01:00.000-05:00

Harper to the House of Commons, yesterday, when questioned on his proposed cuts to Old Age Security:

“Everybody understands that there are demographic realities that do threaten the viability of these programs over the longer term. We will ensure that these programs are funded and viable for the future generations that will need them,” Harper told the Commons.

Experts:

Expert advice commissioned by the federal government contradicts Stephen Harper’s warnings that Canada can’t afford the looming bill for Old Age Security payments.

...

But research prepared at Ottawa’s request argues Canada’s pension system is in far better shape than the Europeans’, and there’s no need to raise the retirement age. Edward Whitehouse – who researches pension policy on behalf of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the World Bank – was asked by Ottawa to study and report on how Canada stacks up internationally when it comes to pensions.

His conclusion: “The analysis suggests that Canada does not face major challenges of financial sustainability with its public pension schemes,” and “there is no pressing financial or fiscal need to increase pension ages in the foreseeable future.”

...

The government’s claims leave experts baffled. Thomas Klassen, a York University political science professor who co-authored a 2010 report on Canada’s pension system, said his own research concluded that the OAS program is sustainable.

“I haven’t heard any academic argue that there’s a crisis with OAS, which is why I was surprised a few days ago when the Prime Minister seemed to say there was a crisis,” he said. “Because I don’t know where that came from.”

...

Kevin Milligan, a University of British Columbia economics professor who co-authored another of the supporting research papers prepared for Ottawa, is also of the view that there is no OAS crisis. He says the government’s use of statistics showing the cost of OAS will climb from $36.5-billion in 2010 to $108-billion in 2030 is not very meaningful because of the impact of inflation. He notes the rise is less alarming when measured as a percentage of economic growth.

“As an economist, I would never characterize things in terms of nominal dollars in the future because it’s hard to put those in context,” he said. “I don’t know what we’ll be paying for a litre of milk then.”

Ignoring experts on an issue like OAS may not be the run of the mill ignoring-of-the-experts thing that Harper typically does. Making cuts to OAS is not axing the census. Pensions are real pocketbook attention getters of the first order with electoral consequences.

Pensions are an issue that Canadians instinctively understand, an issue that goes to the hearts of Canadians. Our pension programs speak to our national values, what kind of country we are, the things we do indeed value. It's not all logic and numbers. How you go about dealing with changes to such national programs matters.

That is why a smart leader would try to rally the nation and build consensus support for transformational changes to such things as our pension system, including OAS. And not pull a Gordon Campbell no-HST election promise when it comes to pension reform. The HST was nuked, despite its policy advantages, not for the logic of it. It was a pocketbook attention getter of the first order that was nuked mainly because its implementation was viewed as a betrayal to the electorate. You can see that element here in Harper's OAS move as well.

You're doing it wrong

2012-01-30T17:05:00.000-05:00

Newt makes another appeal today on Keystone:

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich spoke directly to Canadians at a campaign stop in Tampa Monday, vowing to kick-start the Keystone XL pipeline on his first day in the Oval Office.

“I want to promise Canadians on the very first day I will sign an executive order authorizing construction [of Keystone] as of that day,” Mr. Gingrich said at a rally here. “Canadians will know on election night they do not have to build a pipeline across the Rockies.”

We don't vote in your primary, Mr. Newt. And if we did, we surely would not be voting for you.

Oh, sure, probably a last minute jobs appeal he's making in Florida. With an international heft type thing he's invoking. Not sure the Floridians are big on this one though. It is another sign, however, that this issue is not going to be left to die due to Republican perseverance.

Onwards, Newt.

Friday night

2012-01-27T22:27:00.001-05:00

Haven't been listening to anything new this week so we go with a fave from the past year. This is kind of like two songs in one but sewn together so awesomely. New widget from SoundCloud too, fun!

The Scottish secession referendum question

2012-01-27T16:51:00.000-05:00

Isn't this a light Friday afternoon blog post? Well, we can't help what we are interested in and when.

Yes, the Scots are having one, in case you have missed this development. It's a few years away, incredibly, but things are taking shape now. Polly Curtis at the Guardian does a blog post checking in with various experts on the Scottish National Party's favoured wording for the referendum question on independence. Here is what they propose to ask:

Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?

While it may appear straightforward on first glance, what possible harm could there be in that, etc., there is much more to it. There is the presumptive framing, done by the Scottish National Party, that leads to a yes vote of agreement with the statement, for starters. People generally are predisposed to be agreeable so there is an issue of the yes side being favoured. That's what self-interested framers of referendum questions tend to do.

A second issue is that people may want a degree of greater independence but not necessarily full independence from the UK, so there is an issue of vagueness with what the term "independent country" means. Yet they must say "yes" or "no" in response to the question. There are other procedural issues too, in terms of whether an independent electoral body will have a final say over the choice of question. The Scottish National Party leader is playing nice, at this point, but we know how heated these things can get.

While secession rumblings in Canada have significantly waned, such a referendum is still something of interest to Canadians given the familiarity of the issues as a result of our own experience. Thankfully though, in contrast to the developing Scottish process, we have a Clarity Act that addresses how a secession referendum would be treated by the federal government. So while it's a compelling comparative exercise, the comparison only goes so far.

The Scots have a lot of time to deal with the procedure and wrangle over referendum details, the referendum is being held in the fall of 2014. Which is novel timing. The movement could dissipate or become old hat by then. Or, it could allow for a sustained building of support. I find this two year period interesting and, separate and apart from secession referendums, possibly a useful way to focus a country on a single major constitutional issue. Maybe a partial remedy for the complaint here.

Referendum fans, there you go, one to watch.

More on raising the Old Age Security age eligibility

2012-01-27T07:34:00.003-05:00

Update below.

A brief follow-up to yesterday's post on the possibility of a hike in OAS age eligibility here. Here is the first of many analyses likely to come along now that Harper has raised the issue of "major" reforms to Canada's pension system, namely the OAS: "Does Harper really need to raise the retirement age?" The upshot of the piece is that no, he does not.

On the other hand, Canada is different because, unlike most other countries, our public pension commitments are not a substantial threat to our public finances. The Canada Pension Plan is in long-run balance. Old Age Security currently takes only 2.41 per cent of GDP. Very few OECD countries have lower levels of public pension spending as a share of GDP than Canada. To take the extreme example, Italy spends more than 14 per cent of GDP on public pensions -- up from 10 per cent only a few years ago.

How will spending in Canada grow as the baby boomers age? By 2031 -- at the peak of the baby-boom retirement wave -- the share of GDP spent on Old Age Security will rise to 3.14 per cent, for an increase of 0.73 per cent over today’s level. Now, an increase of 0.73 per cent of GDP cannot be ignored, but neither is it disastrous. To provide some scale, David Dodge and Richard Dion project that spending on health will grow from 12 per cent to 18.7 per cent of GDP by 2031, for an increase of 6.7 percentage points. In the fight for government spending dollars in 2031, health is the elephant and the Old Age Security pension is the mouse.

Worth a read.

To be continued.

Update (4:20 p.m.): The PMO's talking points. Don't worry, we're going to phase it in, they say, to stave off criticism. Not dealing with substantive criticisms such as the above though. Yet.

Late night moonwalking

2012-01-26T23:13:00.000-05:00

Just too fun to resist. How the Gingrich moon base plan fared in the Republican debate tonight. Predictable responses from his fellow candidates, largely challenging the expense it would represent. Not so predictable, Newt's invocation of Chinese competition on the moon front.

Even as he spoke at the CNN debate, Gingrich's three rivals for the nomination seemed to be struggling not to burst into laughter. Ron Paul, when asked to weigh in on the question, dismissed the notion of colonizing the moon, quipping: "We should send some politicians to the moon."

To be continued, hopefully.

67

2012-01-26T16:39:00.001-05:00

Harper is talking pension reform in Davos and one big change could be coming:

In the wake of Harper's speech, it now appears that the Conservative government could be poised to gradually change the Old Age Security system so that the age of eligibility is raised to 67 from 65.

So Newt wants to build a moon base

2012-01-26T06:17:00.000-05:00

I don't know, these things never seem to end well. Always too many hatches and lasers and super villains around.

Where to start with Newt's big announcement yesterday? It is a very serious announcement made during a presidential nomination contest, after all, it deserves some kind of attention, at least.

So let's start here at this fun thread in the Guardian. Check out the 6 pm entry and others around that time for example. Wink, wink, we know why Newt's big on space travel. Seriously. Tourism to the moon for honeymooners. Come on.

As those items in the Guardian demonstrate, Newt's been lunar obsessed for over twenty years now. Some might even call him a lunatic, pardon the pun. So this is not exactly original stuff from him. Hard to imagine it didn't catch fire over all that time. And now, as Americans are still in recovery mode from their great financial crisis that impacted the world, we'll see how in touch with the electorate Newt is with his "let's build a moon base by 2020." Sounds kind of expensive.

Besides, if Newt really wanted to do splashy visionary things with science, it's not so hard to find more pressing issues on earth that could do with much more U.S. government public investment and attention. Climate change is this generation's JFK moon shot and it's right under Newt's nose. Promise to solve that and the world would take note. But that kind of thinking is just not on with today's anti-science Grand Old Party.

P.S. Newt-Harper 2012.

Taking yes for an answer

2012-01-25T19:36:00.000-05:00

A bunch of nice national headlines from the last few days.

"The Bob Rae bounce: Liberals continue to gain steam."

"Tories Lead, Liberals Gain But Remain in Third Place in Canada."

"Liberals’ momentum gets boost from lacking NDP leadership."

"Federal Vote Intention Tightens."

"New poll shows NDP support plummeting in Quebec."

Things are heading in the right direction. Good news.

Chart of the day

2012-01-25T06:54:00.000-05:00

On Obama's likelihood of re-election, as the red line goes up, the blue line goes up.

Fun with statistics:) (h/t)

Let's not be arresting bloggers in Canada

2012-01-24T17:16:00.002-05:00

Updated below.

There's a case going on in Fredericton, New Brunswick that deserves some attention: "Fredericton blogger's arrest attack on civil liberties." This blogger, Charles LeBlanc, who blogs here, was arrested last week on charges of criminal libel. His computer was seized in the course of a search warrant execution. Here's a good overview of the entire mess:

Note the legalities as described near the end of the video. I don't know how many online defamation suits there are in Canada at the moment but it is an extraordinary thing to be charged criminally for it and to have one's computer seized.

The Fredericton police and Crown deserve every scrutiny they get here.

P.S. Dude, lose the jacket.

(h/t)

Update: More on the law of criminal defamation, furthering the point on how rare the charge is.

Update II: Dr. Dawg had a post on this in September, writing about another recent charge of criminal libel emanating out of the G20. He sets out the principal criminal libel provision in the Criminal Code, section 298.

Note that in the case Dawg links to, the LeBlanc case above, and one other pointed out to me on Twitter this afternoon, there is a common thread. These rare cases where criminal libel charges have been issued all involve alleged defamation against police officers.

The coming public service job losses

2012-01-24T06:30:00.000-05:00

There's a new study out by the CCPA on federal public service job cuts. The study suggests between 11,000 to 22,000 jobs could be lost in the Ottawa area and between 60,000 to 70,000 jobs across the country. This would be done in the next few years and up to 2015. David Pugliese reviews a colleague's report on the study and notes this point: "Canadian Forces and RCMP Rank-and-File Spared the Job Losses That Will Affect Thousands of Government Workers, New Study Notes." Additionally, Correctional Service Canada is unscathed and is going to be adding jobs. Clearly, it looks like the government is picking and choosing winners and losers with these cuts, based on their political priorities. That suggests that the cuts are not all about austerity and budgeting.

There is a bigger picture to consider as well. Conservatives philosophically distrust government. They don't believe in government the way that progressives do. It's not that far fetched with this government to speculate that these cuts are likely part of a dismantling agenda, making it that much harder for a future non-Conservative government to have an effective public service in place in order to help achieve progressive goals.

The cuts will no doubt be carefully messaged and massaged as sensible cutbacks following strategic operating reviews. But the alternative view should be considered as well.

You can call it what you like

2012-01-24T06:03:00.000-05:00

Fun exchange from last night's ~~train wreck~~ Republican debate. Newt looks like he wants to strangle Romney. Seriously.

Clement's G8 hangover continues

2012-01-23T18:01:00.000-05:00

A lot going on in this thorough Canadian Press story on the latest documents to be uncovered relating to the G8 spending in Tony Clement's riding of Muskoka. I'll just go with this excerpt as one that jumped out:

Mr. Dodds’ recollections also raise questions as to why Auditor General Sheila Fraser found no paper trail when she tried to determine how projects were selected. She was told no federal departments or agencies, other than Infrastructure Canada, were involved in the decision-making and could, therefore, provide no documentation.

The memo says FedNor compiled documentation on all 242 proposed projects, which it passed on to Infrastructure Canada.

How on earth does that happen, that the Auditor General finds no paper trail when indeed the paper trail is long. What is the penalty for that? Is the new Auditor General going to re-open this file?

Also appears that Tony Clement should, properly, be called back before that parliamentary committee to explain the discrepancies between what he testified and what the documents now show. What is said at parliamentary committees needs to matter and it should be pursued.

Questions, questions...that don't seem to be going away.

All the action is in Quebec

2012-01-23T06:42:00.003-05:00

If you're like me these days, when you see a story involving the Bloc, you might yawn a little bit and gloss over it. Is it more infighting in the sovereignty movement, things not moving fast enough, yadda yadda. But this one from the weekend could make waves: "Fonds publics: Gilles Duceppe dans l'embarras." (Translation) La Presse ran a blockbuster of a story, pardon the pun, which could prove serious.

Apparently party personnel were paid, over many years, with parliamentary funds that were not to be used for partisan purposes. The sum involved is said to be about $1,000,000. If the Bloc (or Duceppe) has to repay that sum, it's not going to be that easy. There is legal advice being sought at the internal Commons committee that governs these issues. It should also be noted that Duceppe states that everything was done properly, on advice.

Nevertheless, Duceppe has been forced to back away from any intention of moving in on the PQ leadership of Pauline Marois, something he had just stepped up in recent weeks. So what incredible timing that La Presse story on Saturday had. Can you say intrigue with a capital i?

What does this mean in Quebec? The Bloc might be in more trouble than they already are, financially. They take a real credibility hit due to the severity of these allegations. They always seem to have made a strong moral appeal to their cause and that is punctured. Further, there seems to be a rift in the party. Daniel Paille fired the Duceppe holdover staff at issue on becoming leader in early December and the La Presse report became public a month later at a very well timed moment.

This is more fuel for the anti-politician mood in Quebec. In the wake of the Charest difficulties, it will likely add to public cynicism.

Pauline Marois is probably left to solidify her PQ leadership now, but given how weakened she's become, her principal rival Duceppe exiting in this manner might not make a difference to her fortunes. Charest might benefit if the PQ continue to reel, particularly if it truly becomes a two way race toward a 2013 election now. The ADQ has just folded itself into the CAQ, showing that the forces of change are still on the move in the province, manifesting themselves in the form of the CAQ.

Federally in Quebec, we see these continued troubles for the Bloc, we saw the floor crosser from the NDP. Then, this week, we see the Conservatives doing a bit of a circular firing squad thing where a Conservative organizer decried the lack of attention by the party in the province and noted "...there is an opportunity for the Liberals to retake a fair bit of ground in the province,particularly if the party goes through with the democratic renewal measures under consideration at its convention." Well, Liberals have taken some of those steps, i.e., the supporters resolution and possibly with a few policy measures that will be of interest to Quebecers (marijuana legalization, preferential balloting).

So many moving pieces! Lots going on in that province, no easy answers or conclusions. Situation: fluid.

Inspirational

2012-01-22T18:10:00.000-05:00

Wow, what can you say about Giffords' spirit and recovery. She is truly inspirational.

Late night

2012-01-22T01:27:00.000-05:00

The victory speech by Newt Gingrich in South Carolina last night. If you missed it, there's a notable mention of Stephen Harper by Gingrich. It happens shortly after the 20 minute mark. You may wish to fast forward to that moment if your blowhard threshold is low.

Long story short, in the course of criticizing President Obama on his decision to nix the Keystone pipeline, Gingrich played up the point that Prime Minister Harper is a Conservative and is "pro-American." Thereby seeming to roll with the whole ethical oil position in doing so. Otherwise, why mention the political leanings of Harper?

It was an entertaining little spectacle of a moment. Gingrich embracing Harper is likely a turnoff to most Canadians. After all, to anyone watching, as a lot of Canadians were, elsewhere in the same speech, Gingrich tars Obama as the "food stamp" President with the obvious racial undertones accompanying that label. Gingrich also commonly refers to Obama as a radical and a Saul Alinsky organizer and he did so in this speech as well. Hard to imagine that this is the kind of embrace and speech the Harper communications types - who are so careful with the Harper image - wish to be associated with. Harper didn't appear in public the day the Keystone decision was announced, it was left to a statement for Harper's reaction and for Joe Oliver to speak in public about. Think Mr. Harper was pleased to see his name so clearly associated with the project in Gingrich's widely watched speech? Probably not.

As for the Republican race, what a disaster. Gingrich actually has a shot now, at least he does until people take their next close look at him. Will leave off here with Andrew Sullivan's take:

My take away? This is the Republican crack-up people have been predicting for years. Gingrich is on a roll. I think he can win this - and then lose this in a way that could change America history. That is a brief impression in one moment of time. But I cannot see Romney winning this at this point. They are just not into him, and he's an awful candidate.

Dr. Doom on Canada

2012-01-21T06:00:00.006-05:00

Nouriel Roubini in the Globe today:

What's your assessment of how well Canada is doing in the current global environment?

It's a mixed picture. The overall fundamentals are better than many advanced economies. The fiscal situation, the balance sheet, is better. The banks have been better regulated. But now, with weakness in U.S. and Europe, growth will be below trend. Household debt is rising. There is some frothiness in the housing market. I don't see a bust as in the U.S., but I would not rule out a 10-per-cent correction.

And at that point the Globe interviewer proceeds to ask Roubini about how many Twitter followers he has. I would have thought there would be a follow-up question on Canada's economy given what he said on the housing market but that's just me I guess. Plus this interview style just seems whack and a little off given the interview subject. For example, "Why have you never married?" Um, excuse me? Anyway, read on for Roubini's take that the European austerity push is wrong and for more dire economic predictions for 2013 and beyond.

All of which would have consequences for Canada's economy in the next few years and the political dynamics. Which parties are going to be the ones who speak credibly on economic issues in view of these uncertain times is a question for Canada's opposition political parties to step up and answer. We know that the Conservatives claim to occupy this space but it can't be ceded to them (and won't be, of course).

It's a tough road for parties of the center and left. In Britain, Ed Miliband is struggling to provide a credible alternative position to the coalition. Here, see Caplan today urging the NDP to start ramping up (last paragraph, although the CCPA doesn't align itself with partisans, come now). There's been little in the way of economic policy making a splash in the NDP campaign, not eye catching to the broader public that is.

And of course the Liberals will be conscious of this too and will need to develop economic policies as a party in the next few years, policies that were non-existent at the just concluded policy convention. It may be a prominent feature of the coming leadership race as well, at least, you'd think the smart candidates would speak to economic issues with a view to this backdrop.

Roubini's that guy who called the U.S. housing collapse so he's always a noteworthy commentator to take in and colour our worlds, doom and all. Happy Saturday!

Friday night

2012-01-20T20:49:00.005-05:00

"In anticipation for the release of the ‘Mpire‘ LP on January 30th, Moguai has released the first single coincidentally named, ‘Mpire‘ which is an effortlessly stuning powerhouse single! Moguai doesn’t disapoint, as it starts off very melodic, building and progressing into a high energy drop which is accomplished by two completely different, but equally engaging breakdowns! Electronic music lovers, you’re going to have to wait until the 30th to grab the full LP of ‘Mpire‘, but for now enjoy the tease :D"

Have a good night!

Rae on Strombo

2012-01-19T14:58:00.000-05:00

Rae's appearance from last night, done post-convention, post-recent positive polls, it's worth watching. Key question on everyone's mind, you know it, at 9:45. Size it up for thyself.

Getting back into the swing of things on the blog shortly, have been taking a bit of a break after overdosing on all things Liberal during the past weekend.

(h/t with reference to a shorter clip if you just want two minutes worth)

Another Summerville endorsement

2012-01-12T06:00:00.001-05:00

Well, I'm pushing it a little here. But there is an interesting endorsement of sorts for a constitutional amendment proposal co-authored by Paul Summerville, the removal of the leader's veto over policy, in the form of Andrew Coyne's positive citation of the proposal:

There are some exciting-looking proposals in this regard on the convention schedule: to base the party platform at election time on the policies approved by the members, rather than on the leader’s whims; to open all nominations to election, rather than giving incumbents a bye; to take away the leader’s power to appoint candidates.

This policy amendment proposal is one that could have a positive cultural effect within the party, to leaven the power structure in a way. To help ensure that the leader is in sync with the membership and vice versa when it comes to policy choices.

It's a real sleeper renewal amendment (#7) that I hope people give some good consideration to - along with Summerville, of course, favoured candidate for National Policy Chair around here. If members are interested in having their participation in the policy process valued, this amendment will help achieve that. If members are interested in renewal, this amendment speaks to that. This is a way that Summerville has distinguished his campaign during this policy chair race, by anteing up on both of those issues.

P.S. Yes, this could be what it's like at the blog through the weekend! Conventions happen but every few years, please bear with us, the politically afflicted of the nation as we plow through another one. Could be some interesting experiments here at the blog this weekend, we shall see, depending on the hurly burly and how things shape up.

A new Liberal MP from the NDP?

2012-01-10T06:00:00.002-05:00

That is what Le Devoir is reporting is the subject of a Bob Rae press conference this morning. If so, it's big news:

Le caucus du Parti libéral (PLC), relégué au rang de troisième parti aux Communes par la vague orange qui a déferlé aux dernières élections, pourrait bien avoir volé un député à ses rivaux, selon ce qu'a appris Le Devoir.

Un membre du Nouveau Parti démocratique (NPD) s'apprêterait à annoncer qu'il se rallie aux libéraux. Le vétéran libéral Denis Coderre a convoqué la presse ce matin à Ottawa, en compagnie de son chef intérimaire, Bob Rae. Et les deux hommes pourraient signaler la venue d'un néodémocrate dans leurs rangs, indiquent les informations colligées par Le Devoir. (translation)

It would also kind of explain the hullabaloo recently about the New Democrats and their floor crossing bill.

We shall see what the morning holds...

Update: It happened, as we all know by now. Lise St.-Denis is the new Liberal MP for Saint-Maurice-Champlain.

Team Summerville update: Great endorsement

2012-01-09T14:56:00.000-05:00

This is a notable endorsement for Paul Summerville and certainly a heartfelt one from MP Carolyn Bennett:

It is an honour to be supporting the candidacy of Paul Summerville for National Policy Chair of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Paul was the NDP candidate in St. Paul's during the 2006 election. Throughout that very long campaign, Paul was truly impressive. His values and vision for Canada eerily reflected mine and those of Liberals. His eloquent blog throughout the campaign reflected with candour the challenges facing St.Paul's and Canada.

I was absolutely thrilled when in 2006 he chose to join the Liberal Party and fight with us to earn back the respect and trust of Canadians. Paul Summerville understands that Liberal policy must be relevant and responsive to the real needs and values of Canadians so that we can become the obvious alternative to the Harper government.

He understands that success will require meaningful processes which engage the expertise within the grassroots of the Liberal party and all Canadians who care about building a more prosperous, sustainable and fairer Canada that can once again can be the envy of the world.

Paul will bring a truly professional approach to overseeing the Liberal policy process.

With his leadership, I believe we will be able to develop a system in which members will know that they've been heard. We will be judged not only 'what' is Liberal policy but also 'how' we develop it in a fair and transparent way that takes people seriously. Paul Summerville is the genuine article !

I believe Paul Summerville has the skills, the experience and the plan that will make us all proud Liberals.

Carolyn Bennett M.D.,
M.P. St. Paul's
Liberal Critic for Aboriginal Affairs

Onwards to the convention, looking forward to it!

Late night

2012-01-08T00:26:00.000-05:00

Well that should finish off Rick Perry. Amazing.

Here's Andrew Sullivan's liveblog and his sum of the reaction. Sounds like it was another Romney night by virtue of the other candidates not laying a glove on him or focusing elsewhere.

Memo to Dean Del Mastro

2012-01-07T14:52:00.000-05:00

Mr. Del Mastro has a flawed conception of who the "political masters" are in this country.

Not he and his pals. We are.

Telling use of terminology.

(h/t friend in Peterborough)

Friday night

2012-01-06T20:00:00.001-05:00

That's a free download. Nice. Recommend this one too.

Have a good night!

Update: Sorry, the song above reached its download limit of 1000!

Helmets to hard hats vs. battlefields to the boardroom

2012-01-06T17:22:00.000-05:00

I am just getting home from downtown where I had a quick meeting in an office building on University Avenue. In the elevator, there was one one of those mini-tv screens that gives you the latest headlines. This appeared on the screen: "Helmets to hard hats: Harper outlines job program for military veterans." So, me being me, I naturally had a spontaneous reaction in the elevator to the effect of who is he to say what kind of jobs the military should enter on transitioning, who says they want to be construction workers, etc. Needless to say, I was incredulous to put it mildly. A woman listening was smiling in reaction, so I was in good company. To her, at the end of the ride I said, "Not a fan," to which she replied, "Agreed."

Anyway, having a transition plan for military members reentering civilian life, if that's what they choose to do, is not a bad thing. But why is the government steering them into construction? No offence intended to construction workers, at all. Infrastructure is needed as an investment in this country, no question. But our military members are not, I'm sure if you ask them, necessarily interested in construction. Indeed, they are well trained and have leadership skills that might be better applied elsewhere.

Why not pay for their education or at least help in paying for it? Apprenticeships in building trades might appeal to some but why not broaden the scope of the educational offerings so that they can have more of a choice? We have a productivity problem in this country, so we are told, why not think about such situations in a more creative way?

If you scan the American scene, you will see how their transitioning of military to civilian life is framed. It's in the blog post title, from the battlefields to the boardroom. Here's an excerpt from an HBR item that gives you a sense of the possible contributions that ex-military can make based on their skills acquired in conflict:

So, what can the rest of us learn from our sober band of top military men and women? In this month’s Spotlight package we revisit a question that has fascinated generations of thinkers: What are the wartime leadership lessons that can be broadly applied to the world of management?

Once upon a time the takeaways might have focused on discipline, sacrifice, and team building. But our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have inspired fresh thinking. The lessons from them concern skills like adaptive leadership and navigating uncertain, high-risk situations. Here the military provides a model for business in several ways. Leaders in both spheres must deal with a world of 24/7 information and public scrutiny, cope with perpetual ambiguity, and adjust to ever-changing goals.

One might think that a standoff in Kandahar would have little relevance for a CEO in Omaha or Oman. But in our lead Spotlight piece, “Extreme Negotiations,” Jeff Weiss, Aram Donigian, and Jonathan Hughes show that the talents needed to pacify a war-zone neighborhood are ones all managers would do well to deploy. Even in a life-or-death situation, the authors argue, the only way to negotiate successfully is to use a reasoned, patient, empathetic style. The same is true in any high-stakes business situation.

Can former members of the military translate what they’ve learned to a business environment? Perfectly well, say Boris Groysberg, Andrew Hill, and Toby Johnson, the authors of “Which of These People Is Your Future CEO?” They find intriguing differences in style and effectiveness, though, depending on which branch of the armed forces those leaders served in.

Now granted, we're not talking about placing military members in boardrooms across the nation, that's not the point. The point is that there are skills our military have learned in theatre that could be amplified and applied usefully in our economy in many industries, beyond just the one, construction. So on first glance at this program, it seems to be giving short-shrift to our military, a missed opportunity.

Is this all there is is in terms of a Canadian government's vision in response to this transition? A catchy slogan with accompanying photo-op (see link above) does not a vision or optimal policy make.

Late night

2012-01-05T01:13:00.001-05:00

On the lighter side! A few fun moments there. Which we can now say are fun given that this candidate is in our rear view mirrors.

See ya!

Do the Harper wave

2012-01-04T20:21:00.000-05:00

Stephen Harper waves goodbye to the jobs in London, Ontario, pictured above. That's a nice shot. Really captures the sentiment well as an accompaniment to this article: "Tories mum on lockout at plant Harper used to tout corporate tax cuts." He's happy to show up for the glory and highly choreographed photo-ops, not so much when it comes to sticking up for the workers and jobs.

U.S. military to shrink

2012-01-03T06:19:00.000-05:00

The lead story in the New York Times today is about the U.S. reducing its military budget by at least $450 billion over a decade, part of the agreement reached at the time of the debt ceiling extension. Leon Panetta, the Defence Secretary is to outline plans this week on how they propose to go about shrinking the U.S. military. Among the possible cuts, you guessed it F-35 fans:

The chief target for weapons cuts is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, one of the most expensive weapons program in history. The Pentagon has plans to spend nearly $400 billion to buy 2,500 of the stealth jets through 2035, but reductions are expected.

The debate centers on how necessary the advanced stealth fighter really is and whether missions could be carried out with the less expensive F-16s. The main advantage of the F-35 is its ability to evade radar systems, making it difficult to shoot down — an attribute that is important only if the United States anticipates a war with another technologically advanced military.

“It would matter some with Iran, it would matter a lot with China,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution and the author of a recent book, “The Wounded Giant: America’s Armed Forces in an Age of Austerity.”

See that, the "debate"is American-centred, focused on what they need, whether they can make do with less expensive jets, what kinds of wars they anticipate. Or, if you're Canada under the Harper government, those are your acquisition considerations too.

So, "reductions are expected," and that may impact us in terms of cost and maybe how many we buy. Possibly why Julian Fantino's talking point lines were changing in December.

Panetta's announcement one to watch this week, along with all the other U.S. craziness.

Chart of the day

2012-01-01T15:50:00.000-05:00

It accompanies this good overview of the debate on continued corporate tax reductions by the Canadian Press.

That old adage about having only one tool in your tool box certainly comes to mind.

Friday night

2011-12-30T20:20:00.000-05:00

Something different, a departure from the house music tonight.

Have a great night!

2012 corporate tax cuts in the spotlight today

2011-12-29T17:58:00.000-05:00

Good question posed here: "Will 2012 corporate tax cuts fuel or weaken Canadian economy?" The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives says the cuts, which Flaherty's office claims will take most corporate combined tax rates down to 25% by 2013, will not help the economy nor is there evidence that reductions to date have helped:

Hugh Mackenzie, a research associate with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, argued that there is little evidence that corporate tax cuts have stimulated economic activity.

“In fact, the evidence suggests that the investment incentives that have been delivered through the tax system in the form of lower tax rates have simply gone into corporate cash flow and really had no economic benefit,” Mr. Mackenzie said.

He added that agreements between Canada and the U.S. require that American companies must pay federal and state governments in their home country the difference between any lower income-tax rate they are paying on their Canadian operations and what they would pay at home.

“When we reduce our tax rates below those of the United States, what we end up doing is transferring money to the U.S. Treasury,” he said.

Mr. Mackenzie acknowledged that the Canadian economy has performed better than other industrialized countries, such as the U.S., in recent years. But he credited that to tighter regulations in the banking sector — in effect before the Harper government came to power in 2006 — rather than tax cuts.

A Flaherty spokesperson responds citing business interest groups who, not surprisingly, like corporate tax cuts. But, Flaherty spokesperson, isn't the government supposed to represent the people, not business? That's a rhetorical question.

Glad to see an alternative voice being prominently featured and challenging the tax cut orthodoxy.

Related reading which is very informative but from a U.S. perspective, caution: "Mission Impossible: Cutting the Corporate Tax Rate to 25 Percent." [An excerpt: "But cutting corporate rates is much tougher. There, JCT finds there are simply not enough dollars in preferences to get the rate below 28 percent. But even getting to 28 percent is a huge political challenge: Many heavy-hitting businesses such as Google and General Electric already pay effective U.S. tax rates far below that—in fact many pay effective rates well south of 10 percent. They will not willingly give up the tax breaks that make this possible in return for a rate of 28 percent with no subsidies."]

Nothing to see here

2011-12-29T07:04:00.001-05:00

"All about the economy, says Harper." Yes, yes, what else would he say in an interview on what to expect in 2012. Anyhoo, this is an interesting reassurance being rolled out:

Harper said Canadians can expect modest cuts to federal spending in the budget to be tabled later in the year. But he says the impact won't be jarring.

"We're talking about maybe 2% or 3% of the federal budget ... not a drastic reduction," said Harper, who won his first majority government on May 2 after five years in minority power.

I don't know what he means, exactly, by 2 or 3% of the federal budget. But if the 2011 budget had about $250 billion in total program expenses projected for 2011-12, a 2 or 3% reduction would represent between 5 and 7.5 billion.

Not drastic he says. It will be interesting to see how this magic will be performed. A reduction of that order would not be so easy.

RIM takeover talk

2011-12-29T06:12:00.000-05:00

This is a very good overview of the prospect of a Research in Motion takeover by the New York Times' Ian Austen: "Despite RIM Takeover Talk, Hurdles Would Be High." The piece sets out the many variables, among them the suitors who might line up, RIM's adapting strategy and difficulties, the stubbornness of the co-CEOs who were named the worst CEOs of 2011, etc.

Interesting to note that apparently Microsoft approached RIM last summer but was rebuffed. Amazon and Facebook are also mentioned suitors as is a Chinese company, ZTE, the latter being viewed as a candidate who would raise the objection of the U.S. government.

If it does become a possibility, the piece suggests that the Harper government would nix a foreign takeover.

RIM is also a point of pride for the Canadian government, which has been increasingly reluctant to let foreign companies buy major domestic corporations. In a recent news conference, Stephen Harper, the Canadian prime minister, offered a note of support for RIM, saying “we all know this is an important Canadian company.”

Despite the many hurdles and considerations, it could yet become a political issue in 2012.

Today in nickelling & diming

2011-12-28T20:53:00.000-05:00

A news story tonight that will no doubt galvanize attention: "CBC’s 75th-birthday celebrations cost at least $6.6-million."

A news story earlier this month: "War of 1812 anniversary funding questioned." $28 million being spent on the 1812 celebrations.

So for those who are inclined to jump all over the CBC for the celebration of this milestone, that's some perspective on the issue. In proportion to the 1812 warfest, the CBC celebration costs seems like a bargoon to me.

The costs have been disclosed, it's open and accountable and entirely appropriate in this era. But it's important to see this beyond the dollar costs. CBC is part of our heritage and is a national institution that is an ongoing part of the Canadian identity. It's worth celebrating and supporting. We're not just a nation of bean counters, no matter how much many voices from the right would like us to be.

(Un)Lawful Access

2011-12-28T05:43:00.001-05:00

This looks like a great event for those in Vancouver on January 12th: (Un)Lawful Access: Premiere & Panel Discussion. It's a premiere of a mini-documentary on the Harper government's coming lawful access legislation. Additionally, the BC Civil Liberties Association is releasing a report they've done on the proposed law. Here's hoping that both will be widely available for sharing in the rest of the country too.

Great to see events and efforts like this drawing much deserved attention to this troubling legislation.

Tuesday drive-by blogging

2011-12-27T19:29:00.001-05:00

A collection of items noted in the past week or so.

1. Canadian Press had a good year end type piece on the 24th. It captured what was, to me, the quote of the year from Stephen Harper. CP used it as a metaphor and it does indeed work:

No simpler summary of Stephen Harper's style as majority prime minister was offered in 2011.

"It's time for the wheat board and others who have been standing in the way to realize that this train is barrelling down a Prairie track," Harper warned during an October stop in Regina.

"You're much better to get on it than to lie on the tracks, because this is going ahead."

The Canadian Wheat Board's seven-decade monopoly was indeed steamrolled, leaving behind a cloud of chaff and a spray of court challenges.

But the prime minister's locomotive imagery applied straight across his majority government's agenda. It was also an apt description for his Conservative party's persona.

A post-election statement that Harper never would have made in minority government days that signified the coming out of the majority era. Unfortunately for Mr. Harper, he's still going to have opposition. We just need to get creative about it.

2. I guess this is going to be a bit of a theme here, not surprisingly! This too was notable language from a Canadian Prime Minister:

“I am very serious about selling our oil off this continent, selling our energy products off to Asia. I think we have to do that,” Harper said in the Monday interview with CTV National News.

I can't recall a prime minister stepping so eagerly, personally, into the role of oil salesman or the salesman on behalf of any other industry, for that matter. He is very serious about selling oil. He and his team no doubt view it as a patriotic thing, in their own way. It does elevate certain interests over others, we know the choices that are inherent in such statements. Harper stepping up so personally seems to have been all prompted by the Keystone pipeline back and forth in the U.S.. Still, it was striking. Our oil salesman-in-chief.

3. One other item on the Harper watch, this little dropped item at the Harper Christmas party for the national media was insightful: "Harper said he frankly he doesn’t have a clue how to fix the health system, but believes that provinces do have ideas and many are already scaling back spending." Doesn't have a clue? That's quite an admission, some would even say abdication, on the part of a prime minister. Something to keep in mind.

4. Finally, two op-eds on Russia that are worth a read. Who knows, 2012 may see Putin's strongman days coming to an end: Jeffrey Sachs: Gorbachev and the Struggle for Democracy and "Vladimir Putin's world is falling apart."

Update: An afterthought here, reading number 2 & 3 above, together, gives a pretty good perspective on this Prime Minister's priorities.

Riley on marketing

2011-12-27T05:50:00.000-05:00

That little girl rocks. That is all.

It's falling apart! Yay.

(h/t)

The Nova Scotia tree for Boston 2011

2011-12-24T16:39:00.000-05:00

One of the best Canadian Christmas traditions:

Each year since 1971, Nova Scotia has sent Boston a large Christmas tree in gratitude for help Bostonians provided after the devastating Halifax Explosion of Dec. 6, 1917. Boston provided medical personnel and supplies to help treat explosion victims.

Here is one shot of the tree all lit up in Boston and one more:

Have a great night!

(h/t to my friend Grant in Boston)

On the lighter side

2011-12-23T16:44:00.000-05:00

Hope your holiday preparations are as exciting as this!

Harper government flips and flops on Europe

2011-12-23T06:43:00.000-05:00

Yesterday: "Canada could pay into IMF Europe fund, Flaherty says." Hmmm, maybe they should have been a little more open-minded initially. Here in early November was Harper's shortsighted message at the G20: "Harper says no Canadian money for European bailout." Harper was pretty definitive at the time:

"We see absolutely no reason why Canada, or frankly why any range of other countries, would need to contribute to such a bailout," he said following the conclusion of the two G20 meeting in Cannes, France.
"These are wealthy countries … who do have, and have got to have, the means of dealing with their own problems," Harper told reporters.

Was it so difficult to anticipate that this moment might come? Not really. Maybe if they tried some constructive international leadership and engagement on financial issues, their supposed strong suit, instead of waiting until they have to act, things might be a little different internationally. Maybe. Other countries, allies, might appreciate it a little more. But they seem to have staked us out in the role of the international scold instead.

One other thing, there's a crowd at the CBC site objecting to this or encouraging people to write their MPs and demand that no money go to Europe or the IMF. This reaction could have been a political motivation for Harper's initial position. But unfortunately, we're not a financial island, as much as those people would like us to be.

Team Summerville update

2011-12-22T19:29:00.000-05:00

Just a quick note here to highlight a positive development in relation to the upcoming Liberal biennial convention in Ottawa. Candidate for the National Policy Chair position, Paul Summerville, whom I am supporting, recently put forth a constitutional amendment proposal to the party to democratize a number of policy related elements in the party's constitution. These proposals were co-authored by party member Sheila Gervais.

Notably, items 12 (iii), (iv) and (v) of today's renewal document includes their proposals which will come before the convention for consideration:

The most important proposal being 12 (iii) which makes eminent sense in a democratic political organization. Encouraging member involvement in policy development should be an obvious goal and the removal of a leader's veto over the policy platform helps to remove a key item that has perhaps inhibited such participation.

Coincidentally, there is an op-ed in iPolitics today by Summerville and Gervais which provides a rationale for the proposals. A shorter rationale for removal of the leader's veto can be found here.

Such efforts indicate a willingness to identify obstacles to democratic renewal in the party and an ability to grapple with them head on by proposing solutions for the party to address. It's a key reason why I'm supporting Paul for Policy Chair.

Now it's up to members for their consideration of all of the proposals.

Merry Christmas Jean Chretien

2011-12-22T17:04:00.000-05:00

Continuing on in the festive spirit around here today, it's another pre-Christmas story to note:

Ottawa has to pay $200,000 in legal costs incurred by Jean Chrétien in his fight to restore his name after being blamed for the sponsorship scandal by the Gomery inquiry in 2005.

However, the Prime Minister’s Office called the ruling “disappointing,” and said the money rightly belongs to taxpayers.

...

Mr. Chrétien’s reputation was clearly tarnished by the final report of the Gomery inquiry, which stated he created a program that was secretive and circumvented normal administrative safeguards.

However, the former prime minister convinced the Federal Court in 2008 to strike out the negative findings against him, arguing that Mr. Gomery, through a series of public comments during the hearings, showed a clear bias. The Federal Court of Appeal later upheld the ruling, and last week, the Federal Court ruled in Mr. Chrétien’s favour on the issue of legal costs.

That's not so surprising at all and is a correct legal result. When you win in court in Canada, you win your costs too, generally speaking. The courts have discretion but this was a clear win for Chretien in the Federal Courts. So the griping from the PMO is not so classy, of course, but it's also off base on that count.

We also want our public figures, particularly those on the national stage, to have such legal protections given the nature of the business and what happened here with Chretien.

And I don't know what Mr. Harper et al. are complaining about. They extensively partake in taxpayer funds to litigate. They're the most litigious of the lot in recent years. Cadman, In-and-Out that is on its way to the Supreme Court, the Khadr litigation that went to the Supreme Court...and so on. Hopefully some day we have a total of their litigation costs paid for via the taxpayer, just for comparison's sake of course.

Merry Christmas Stephen Harper and Christian Paradis

2011-12-22T07:14:00.000-05:00

News today of a possible Conservative rebellion on asbestos:

Les députés conservateurs, en particulier ceux de l'extérieur du Québec, sont de plus en plus mal à l'aise de voir leur gouvernement défendre bec et ongles l'industrie de l'amiante.

Le malaise est tel que, si l'occasion se présente de nouveau à la Chambre des communes, plusieurs députés n'hésiteront pas à voter en faveur d'une motion interdisant la vente de ce produit que décrient plusieurs pays et organisations, a appris La Presse.

«Je ne comprends pas pourquoi on continue à défendre cette industrie. Tout le monde sait que l'amiante est néfaste pour la santé. On fait tout cela pour protéger une circonscription, mais sur le plan moral, cela va à l'encontre de nos principes», a affirmé un député conservateur qui a requis l'anonymat.

...

«C'est probablement l'enjeu qui crée le plus de division au sein du caucus à l'heure actuelle. Il y aurait pas mal de députés qui exprimeraient leur dissidence avec la position du gouvernement s'il y avait un vote aux Communes», a affirmé le député à La Presse.

Good for these anonymous Conservative MPs. Let's hope there are plenty of them, first of all, and that secondly, they don't lose their nerve if the opportunity presents itself to vote on a motion to ban the sale in developing countries. And irrespective of what might happen here, it's a nice little reminder to Mr. Harper that he has this possible additional check in his midst.

Love to see a little Conservative on Conservative turmoil in the morning. While they're at it, they might also want to take a look at this...

Not the Canada they voted for

2011-12-21T06:01:00.012-05:00

Sandy White, a former aide to Christian Paradis, writes in the Globe in opposition to the omnibus crime bill. While he or she (sorry, don't know Sandy's gender) still claims to support Harper near the end of the op-ed, these are the seeds of doubt about his agenda from within the Conservative base that need to be sown. It's very helpful for that reason.

White takes issue with the crime bill's emphasis on punishment over rehabilitation. The op-ed is framed in terms of values. The writer is questioning whether it sits well with the Canada they know:

With the government’s omnibus crime bill set to become law, a critical question we should ask is whether we are becoming a society that fosters hope or one that extinguishes it. While Canada is a country of promise in many ways, the government’s course of enacting legislation that favours incarceration and punishment over treatment and rehabilitation stands in conflict to the values that make it such a formidable nation.

...

I am a Tory, but like many others who cast their ballot the same way I did not vote for the draconian and misguided measures in this regressive legislation.

This suggests that on the crime bill and perhaps on other issues (the Kyoto withdrawal, for example), the Conservatives are interpreting their electoral mandate too broadly and may continue to do so. As a result, some of their own voters may question their support in coming years when they actually start to feel the difference between what they thought they were voting for and what they're getting instead. That's what is jarring about the White op-ed. This person is saying hey, I didn't vote to go this far and this is not what we do in Canada. The value system is being shaken up.

In this era of information overload and busy lives, getting more people to feel that difference and have it stick, something that has not happened to date, will be key.

Cooperative federalism in action

2011-12-19T19:02:00.001-05:00

Updated 8:15 p.m. below.

As exercised by one of our intrepid cabinet ministers:

Mr. Duncan described the provinces as being blindsided by Mr. Flaherty behind closed doors. “He put the document in front of us and said, ‘This is the way it's going to be,’” the Ontario Finance Minister said. “We all kind of paused; we all looked at each other.”

Oh to be a fly on the wall in that room. Welcome to the majority government roll out of Harper's federalism!

The health care deal from on high runs until 2024, when we may possibly be driving flying cars or commuting with jet packs, who knows.

Mr. Flaherty told reporters health transfers will continue to increase at 6 per cent a year until 2016-17 before moving to a system that ties increases to the growth in nominal Gross Domestic Product, which is a measure of GDP plus inflation.

Mr. Flaherty noted that nominal GDP is currently above 4 per cent. He also promised there would be a “floor” that ensures transfers will not fall below three per cent during the period of the agreement.

Dwight Duncan states in reaction that this means "removing $36-billion in national support for health care."

Wonder what else is going to be tied to GDP growth? This is a new formula that is being applied to how government services should be measured and something that deserves some scrutiny. We are, by many accounts, heading into a low growth era. While it may sound quite prudent, tying health care funding to economic growth might prove to be a flawed mechanism. It might make sense for more discretionary spending but not core government services.

Update (8:15 p.m.): From CBC's report:

The provincial and territorial ministers were informed of the new federal formula over lunch.

Six of them lined up to speak out against the decision, citing a lack of negotiation with two years left to reach a new agreement.

They also complained that they didn't expect to be handed the new funding arrangement at this round of talks — they thought they were going to touch on how the talks would be set up.

Flaherty said there was one hour set aside to discuss the 2015-24 health transfers.

It's hard to understand why the federal government would be so high handed with a few years to go before the present accord expires. One hour of discussion on such a major issue, practically cutting out the major stakeholders in the decision making, seems quite negligent.

The blogging life

2011-12-19T15:47:00.000-05:00

This confession comes from the brilliant Mark Thoma who writes Economist's View:

A recent email prompts me to explain something.

I post lots of excerpts from articles about economics, but one thing you can't read at this site is the stuff I write for other outlets, instead I mostly link (e.g. the links to CBS, The Economist, and FDL from the last day or so in the posts below, and there will be a link to a column tomorrow).

I should explain the reason, because it may not be what you think. It's not an attempt to send traffic to the other sites. It's because I am one of those people who never, ever thinks the things they write are any good. Thus, when I'm done with a piece I never think it is good enough to post here. So I try to hide behind links. And sometimes, I don't even link (occasionally I find the courage to post things, but mostly I don't, and I can hardly read the comments when I do).

Deep down I hope you'll click through and not hate what you read, and it's always a big relief when the response is positive. That keeps me going. But I always fear otherwise -- that the dumb-ass of the day award is surely coming my way (perhaps for this post).

Anyway, because of the email I thought I should explain why I mostly link to my own stuff instead of highlighting it on my site. It's just me and my silly self-consciousness -- me thinking my stuff isn't good enough to post on my site.

My reaction upon reading that is essentially: !!!!! I've never thought twice about Thoma's practice. I just assumed that he wrote elsewhere and he was happy to point others to the sites that he posts at and just didn't want to duplicate the exercise. To think that a respected economist who writes at the CBS site and The Economist site is so humble and self-critical about his writing is refreshing and admirable. He clearly cares about what he is doing and how it is received. Kudos to him.

If you don't read his site, I recommend it. One of my faves from 2011. The linking that he does is quite valuable in and of itself. Some of the best stuff on the web from a progressive economics perspective. I am also someone who subscribes to the view that blogging is free style. A post can be a simple link here and there, it can be highlighting material from elsewhere with interspersed commentary, it can be essay style. Andrew Sullivan is one of the best bloggers in the world, IMHO, and his blog is largely sharing information. I guess it depends on what you are interested in, what you like to see, but that's my view anyway. Thoma's blog is in that vein and is valuable for that reason. Almost 50,000 Google Reader subscribers can't be wrong!

And I share in his sentiment, by the way. I too am "one of those people who never, ever thinks the things they write are any good." True story. There are probably a lot of us out here!

Health care trial balloon

2011-12-19T06:00:00.001-05:00

I think that's what today's Ibbitson column on future health care funding must be, a trial balloon. It is probably positioning by the Harper pros in advance of health care discussions starting this week between Flaherty and provincial finance ministers and that continue early in the new year with Harper. This is hard line:

...finance ministers meeting in Victoria on Monday will receive a stark message from Finance Minister Jim Flaherty: The second decade of the 21st century is turning into a mess. Everyone is going to suffer; no government can afford to spend more money; every government must instead spend less.

...

The fact remains that Ottawa simply doesn’t have the money to continue funding health care at present levels. The Harper government now confronts projections of economic stagnation as far as the eye can see.

...

Provinces looking to fund health care while paying down their deficit before Moody’s comes knocking on their door should not look to Ottawa for help. The feds have got enough problems of their own.

Any provinces in particular he might be referencing there? Just screams kumbaya, doesn't it?

Coming from a government that is spending questionably, it's all a bit rich. We don't have to rhyme off the programs over and over, we all know them by now. They may claim they have a mandate for such spending given the election but in times of financial "mess," they can't have it both ways. It's not credible to carry on spending regardless with certain programs then ask others to suffer. It's certainly not going to be a winner to take this position on cuts to health care while the usual Conservative priorities blossom. Which is why it seems a little hard to believe.

It seems more likely that they're softening up the public for changes in health care delivery, and it's early in these discussions: "My hope is that we can actually get the next accord done by this time next year," Duncan said." So, factor that in to the view via Ibbitson.

Friday night

2011-12-16T19:09:00.000-05:00

Another good one: Guy J & Henry Saiz - Meridian (Pryda Remix). That should do it for anyone looking for their progressive house fix!

Have a great night!

Late night

2011-12-15T23:48:00.001-05:00

Here's one take on that Newt paper at Newt.org:

Ultimately, however, the most frightening thing about Gingrich’s proposal isn’t its direct conflict with the Constitution, but the implications of such a violation of the Constitution for a fair and impartial judiciary. The framers protected judges from exactly this kind of intimidation because they knew that judges cannot be trusted to enforce unpopular laws or to extend the law’s protection over unpopular groups if they constantly have to watch their backs. At the end of the day, Gingrich’s proposal is nothing more than another sign of the right’s utter contempt for the Constitution and the law.

Smartest-guy-in-the-room-itis. Look at him go.

Update (Friday a.m.): An excerpt from Jeffrey Simpson's column today, a fitting reminder of how such right wing hostility toward the courts is playing out here:

Speaking of judges, the Conservative chair of the parliamentary witch-hunt committee into the CBC and its expenses – a committee egged on by the ravers at Sun TV and its owner, Pierre Karl Péladeau – had the audacity, presumably born of a mixture of ignorance and arrogance, to insist that a judge whose ruling displeased him be hauled before the committee to explain the ruling.

There's open government & then there's not so open government

2011-12-15T18:40:00.000-05:00

So Tony Clement was on the Twitter this late afternoon, having his picture taken while at the keyboard, tweeting on the #opengovchat stream during a Treasury Board Secretariat sponsored chat on open government. Open government to the datafiles has a specific meaning, where the objective is to enable open access to government data, documents, proceedings, in order to encourage greater citizen oversight, participation and even to promote innovation in society. Where citizens can access troves of public data and create useful applications, for example. So there's that technical meaning.

Not surprisingly, the chat also prompted other perspectives on open government as practiced by the Conservatives. There's little doubt that they intend to play on the open government terminology, knowing their susceptibilities.

Case in point, this week, here's Ivison on the Conservative's latest parliamentary committee tactics:

The Harper government is even more arrogant and obsessed with control since it won its majority, according to Liberal House Leader Marc Garneau. “The Conservatives are relying far too heavily on moving committees in camera wherever possible. That means Canadians are being shut out of discussions about laws that affect them and their families. This is fundamentally wrong.”

Does he have a point? In this instance, yes.

There is no doubt the Conservatives are pushing for more in camera sessions during committee meetings, to determine which witnesses to call and what subjects to examine. The Tories hold a majority on all committees and can pretty much do whatever they please. They maintain that they want to ensure that they are not hijacked by the opposition and used as a platform to embarrass the government, as was the case during much of the past seven years. But it is not clear why they need to meet in camera to hammer out an agenda. It’s an unwelcome development and should be re-considered.

So there's one kind of technical form of open government, yet to be really put in practice by the Tories. Then there's the kind they live every day. We're not dumb, contrary to what their public relations machine thinks.

Late night

2011-12-15T01:12:00.000-05:00

What exactly is Fox News trying to say about Mitt Romney anyway? Another fine moment in journamalism.

(h/t to a little birdie)

In Camera government

2011-12-14T17:20:00.000-05:00

Beyond all the excitement on the Hill today, there is an important development that Kady O'Malley has noted at the parliamentary committee level that is worth a look.

Apparently Conservative MP Mike Wallace of Burlington has put forth a motion at the Government Operations Committee that would mean that all future committee business conducted there would automatically be conducted in camera. I.e., without public viewing. The Conservatives want this to be the operating presumption at that committee which is antithetical to what a parliamentary committee's operations should be in a, you know, democracy.

...while much of yesterday afternoon's Hill chatter was -- again, rightly -- consumed by the Cotler ruling, something else was going on at committee that, depending on the ultimate outcome, could have a far more profound effect on the ability of Members of Parliament to do their job, not to mention the ability of the voters they represent to watch them do it.

...

Now, it's worth noting that going in camera for all discussion of committee business would not necessary result in all future meetings being held behind closed doors. (I say "likely" because it wasn't clear from Wallace's motion, which was tabled without notice, and, as such, not available in written form.)

If passed, the Wallace motion would still allow witnesses to testify in public -- but all other proceedings, including but not limited to debate over all future motions, ad hoc or substantial, would be held in secret by default.

It would also prevent opposition members from distributing copies of motions, since any matter scheduled to be dealt with in camera is considered confidential.

...

As several procedural experts have pointed out, the minutes will only reflect motions passed during an in camera session, not those that are ultimately defeated, which means we'll never know just what motions may have been nixed by the government majority.

What on earth is going on?

Flaherty commits to 6% health care increases

2011-12-14T16:36:00.000-05:00

Look who's on SoundCloud! Excellent to see this use of audio media:

In light of Flaherty's musings this week on tying health care transfers to the umbrella and unrelated concept of economic growth, that promise is one to keep in mind.

Note also that Flaherty's musings came on the heels of Preston Manning and Tim Powers making noise about private health care.

(h/t 3mendous)

Cotler incident may harm Conservative case for lawful access legislation

2011-12-14T05:23:00.000-05:00

In the wake of the Speaker's privilege ruling yesterday, the Conservatives are saying that "there will be no more phone calls to voters in Cotler’s riding, spreading the word that he was about to step down." Take that for whatever it's worth from these Conservatives. Until they're caught in the midst of the next wonderful iteration of their permanent campaign.

So while this despicable little incident may be over, for the time being, one important point to keep in mind is that they've arguably harmed their case with the lawful access legislation that will be brought before Parliament in the near future. With that legislation, as we know, they are seeking enhanced powers to obtain online subscriber information of Canadian citizens, without a warrant. They've never demonstrated that they need those powers on a warrantless basis. There is a high degree of trust that goes along with that request. So their behaviour means that this legislation in particular requires a much harder look. As Bob Rae suggested in the Star piece, that behaviour raises serious questions:

“We rely on governments to respect information. We rely on governments to respect the due process of law. Citizens give up a lot of their rights in order to give information to people,” Rae said.

“If you condone telling lies and making phone calls into somebody’s riding and playing those games, what would stop you from being similarly abusive in situations where you’re keeping confidential information?”

Now to the eye-rolling crowd out there who are still ready to defend this government even after such tactics are exposed and are reprimanded, the ones who will say, well, this was only politics and all the parties do it, it's activity that's limited to this political sphere...no, not really. It's about the character of the Conservatives. Why would we believe that they would only behave immorally in the political sphere but morally in the governmental sphere?

Even before this incident it has been clear that the lawful access legislation should rightfully include a real system of checks to prevent potential abuses. One of those checks is the requirement that a warrant be obtained when online subscriber information is sought. That the argument for such inclusions may have been helped by this ugly political mess may be one lonely upside to take from it.

Late night

2011-12-13T00:08:00.000-05:00

"The decision to quit will not help Canada's international reputation...critics say is becoming a climate renegade."

Contrasts

2011-12-12T18:42:00.001-05:00

Here in Canada we have media reports on Rahim Jaffer breaking the lobbying rules but there being absolutely no consequences.

Shepherd says she sent the file to the RCMP because she had reasonable grounds to believe Jaffer and Glémaud broke the rules, and the RCMP decided not to proceed.

"The file was returned to me and I continued because I had sufficient grounds with the Lobbyist Code of Conduct investigation and as you can see I found that they had breached the Lobbyist Code of Conduct, which is why I am tabling this report today," she said.

So at least we get to read about it.

New kid on the Bloc

2011-12-12T08:31:00.008-05:00

Chantal Hébert had an interesting column yesterday. She raised the possibility of a future Quebec by-election scenario featuring new Bloc leader Daniel Paillé versus Brian "I'm a Quebec kid" Topp. Whoa. Which is why I won't be holding my breath. Not enough fun things happen in Canadian politics and that would be a fun one.

I agree with her analysis on the questionable strategy at play in Topp's decision to run in Quebec. Someone is going to have to step aside for him, barring any illness or retirements. Hébert is right that it won't be a cakewalk. Topp will be viewed as a Torontonian, IMHO. Not good! Anyway, he has a leadership to win and then seat considerations would follow, depending.

Now about this Paillé fella. He is an old school sovereignist. Not a good look in Quebec these days. Why I thought Maria Mourani might be an interesting and better choice for them. A young woman who is in Parliament and who had at least one interesting and possibly quite smart idea: "Mourani vows to distance Bloc from PQ if elected leader." Paillé's smarts may prove to be a force in any event. He did run circles around the Conservatives way back but times have clearly changed for the Bloc.

Renewal: Constitutional proposals on removal of leader's policy veto, etc.

2011-12-12T06:55:00.000-05:00

Time to provide a bit of an update on renewal matters. Specifically, I would like to refer you to a few constitutional amendment proposals that have been submitted to the party and will likely be before delegates for consideration at the upcoming biennial convention in January (the full slate of constitutional amendments will be posted on December 23rd according to the party website). These are significant proposals that speak to the democratic character of the party and are in keeping with one of the major themes/priorities expressed in the Roadmap to Renewal document: re-establishing a framework of organizational trust (1.1 (3)). These proposals are in relation to the policy development and implementation process in particular.

The proposals have been put forth by Paul Summerville, candidate for National Policy Chair of the Liberal executive and member from Victoria, and Sheila Gervais, member from Ottawa South. I would refer you to their websites respectively for both the text and background of all of their proposed amendments. The two principal proposals that I will refer to here are these:

Removal of the Leader’s veto over the Platform;

Altering the mandatory review of the Leader from occurring only after losing elections to occurring at each Biennial Convention of the Party;

If you have been following any of the renewal discussions, particularly pertaining to policy issues, you will detect an undercurrent of frustration from members that rings through it. I don't think it's a generalization to say that members feel that they’ve been left on the outside of the policy process looking in. Perhaps they have participated in good faith in the past but they haven't seen their participation come to any meaningful fruition. So they naturally wonder why they should continue to participate in the party’s policy process, something that should be part of the lifeblood of a political organization.

Part of the reason for that frustration is a quasi-presidential mechanism that exists in article 33(2)(e) of the party constitution. It permits the leader a line by line veto over the party platform. Such a veto seems strange within a functional democratic political organization. It may be one of those elements that has unwittingly fed a sense of leader-itis within the party.

The proposal to remove the veto provides an opportunity to reinvigorate a democratic sense within the party on policy matters. To do as the roadmap documents states in its invocation of organizational trust and allow for the “mass participation party” to be just that. Indeed, why would members participate in good faith in a policy process if they know their efforts may be for naught? Why would Canadians trust Liberals on issues of democratic reform, for example, if we don't live it internally?

In terms of the other principal proposal mentioned above, the leader's review being made to coincide with biennial conventions, that really goes hand in hand with the leader being in sync with the party's membership and particularly on the policy level. As the two movers of the proposal put it: "We believe that a review of the Leader's performance with respect to their ongoing role as Speaker for the Party should occur at the same time that the Party contemplates new policies and political directions."

For those wondering about the leader's role in the policy process in light of these amendments, and if it is being overly clamped down upon, there is a further companion proposal to add an offsetting power to the leader. That is, to permit the leader to "propose policy resolutions for consideration by the Party in accordance with Subsection 61(4)(d)." This would be a new addition to article 48 ("Responsibilities and powers of the Leader") of the party constitution. It is also noted in their background discussion that article 33(5) gives much weight to the leader as a part of the Policy Approval Subcommittee, further rationale for removing the line by line veto that the leader has over the platform presently.

Bob Rae said this, just over a month ago: "“A successful political party is not a debating society or a social club,” Mr. Rae told Liberals at a convention of the party's British Columbia wing in Victoria. He reminded Liberals that the purpose of their party is to elect enough MPs to form a government." That is true. And you can’t get elected if you don't have a strong foundation to stand upon, i.e., a vibrant policy process that is ongoing, that connects all stakeholders within (and outside) the party as an integral part of the getting elected equation.

I would encourage you to give their thinking and proposals a read for further explanation. They go into some detail but these are significant contributions to the party's debate that merit serious consideration.

Fun Saturday reading

2011-12-10T07:35:00.001-05:00

Update (6:30 p.m.) below.

This has to be one of the most epic smack downs of a politician in recent memory:

It may be months before the implications of David Cameron's Europe raspberry become clear; it may be days. Then again they may become clear before going fuzzy again, before suddenly crystallising six weeks down the line in horrifying or mildly encouraging detail. My gut instinct is that this is Not Good, and that Britain appears to have bolstered its lack of economic policy with a lack of foreign policy, but in truth I'm in many more minds than the Conservative party about it all.

Of one thing I can be absolutely sure, however, and that is that it doesn't look great for Mr Nicholas Clegg. How he and his pro-Europe party can remain in the coalition after this I do not know – and yet I feel absolutely sure that we shall discover it, in what will go down as his greatest feat of Quislingery yet. He may well be enabling the very destruction of Europe at the same time as remaining its most reedy cheerleader.

It is now clear that the tuition fees U-turn was merely the gateway drug to the big one. Clegg is now mainlining U. His story arc is like some Westminster version of Trainspotting, featuring grotesque scenes of personal degradation in pursuit of what must surely now be an ever-diminishing high. Perhaps a physicist would care to get in touch to explain whether there is a theoretical point at which a being has switch-backed on so many positions that he might simply atomise, leaving nothing but a thin coating of yellow dust and a pair of shoes he never grew into.

...

Recent history suggests that the next term in the sequence is an extended interview with Clegg placed somewhere or other, in which the deputy prime minister begins lots of sentences with "Look", and says "If you think I'm enjoying this" quite a bit, then explains about "incredibly hard decisions" that he "believes" in, before returning to the womb-like comfort of his ministerial car and shooting up some more U on the back seat.

...

This relationship dynamic may well have secured Britain's destruction in Europe, and it has almost certainly secured the Liberal Democrats' destruction for the foreseeable. Whether their MPs will be able to fill a taxi after the next general election is a matter of debate.

Of more ghoulish fascination, though, is the next Lib Dem manifesto. What could this document possibly include? There are whole areas that in any sane universe it would be literally too embarrassing to mention, and given that these include major planks of what used to be called Liberal Democrat policy, such as Europe and education, I've genuinely no idea where they'll go with this one. Blank pages? Something nice and inclusive about fish? The mere fact of something appearing as a Liberal Democrat manifesto pledge has come to symbolise that it is terminally doomed as an idea. Perhaps the best way to eradicate poverty would be to draft up a Lib Dem manifesto commitment to perpetuating it.

Ouch, ouch, ouch. Not much you can add to that and what a great piece of writing by Hyde.

The coalition was going to be hard irrespective of issues that came up and the Lib Dems are committed to the full term. But just what they are getting out of it remains unclear. See above.

As for David Cameron's keeping them out of the new EU treaty, while it's hard for anyone to say what's going to happen with the EU now that they've come to a new agreement, the move by Britain does seem to be going over for the most part like a lead balloon.

Update (6:30 p.m.): Nick Clegg gets it! Could be interesting times ahead for the coalition government in the UK.

Toronto-Danforth goings on

2011-12-09T18:15:00.000-05:00

The NDP candidates are lining up. There are two now, a former assistant to Jack Layton, Claire Prashaw, and as of today, an Osgoode Hall law professor, Craig Scott.

Not running, and really the big news of the day, is one Brian Topp:

NDP leadership hopeful Brian Topp has ruled out running in a byelection to fill the Toronto seat left vacant by Jack Layton's death.

Instead, Topp says he wants to run in Quebec, the province that delivered more than half the NDP's 103 seats last May and vaulted the party into official Opposition status for the first time in its history.

Topp, the presumed front-runner in the race to succeed Layton, had flirted with the idea of running in Toronto-Danforth, but the timing was always problematic.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper must call a byelection in the riding by Feb. 22, a month before New Democrats are to choose their new leader on Mar. 24.

Topp now says he wants to focus on the leadership contest until it's over.

After that, he says his strong preference is to look for an opportunity to run for a seat in Quebec, the province where he was born and cut his political teeth, although he now lives in Toronto.

Topp says he's chosen Quebec because maintaining the NDP's breakthrough in the province "is fundamental to defeating and replacing Mr. Harper in the next election."

Topp supports Craig Scott, a law professor and human rights activist, for the nomination in Layton's old riding.

I think this has come together nicely so that Topp doesn't have to run during the leadership. It does, however, make eminent sense for Topp to run in Toronto-Danforth. Topp lives in Parkdale-High Park, from what I understand. And since Nash is the MP from PHP, you'd think he'd want to run nearby, at least, not parachute in to another province where he will indeed be susceptible to the parachute argument. Guess someone has decided that they really need to concentrate on the leadership race a hundred percent at this point as front runner status-ish seems to have subsided.

Wheat Board update

2011-12-09T17:59:00.000-05:00

The latest on the Wheat Board issue: "The Canadian Wheat Board and its supporters said on Friday they may seek an injunction to stop the federal government's move to end the board's monopoly on sales of Western Canadian wheat and barley." It's like an economic action plan for lawyers, of sorts. Also quoted in that piece, Ned Franks:

"That ruling of the court stands, it's the law," said Ned Franks, professor emeritus of political studies at Queen's University. "As long as that appeal process is underway, the government cannot implement the provisions of the law."

Parliament has the authority to pass legislation without court interference, but there are a few limits, Franks said. In particular, it must adhere to "manner and form" - that is, the law currently in effect. The government failed to do that when it introduced its bill to break the monopoly without holding a farmer vote, Franks said.

Here's a little light Friday quote to round out the picture in view of the Harper government's reaction to the ruling, i.e., to carry on regardless:

“67 The consent of the governed is a value that is basic to our understanding of a free and democratic society. Yet democracy in any real sense of the word cannot exist without the rule of law. It is the law that creates the framework within which the "sovereign will" is to be ascertained and implemented. To be accorded legitimacy, democratic institutions must rest, ultimately, on a legal foundation. That is, they must allow for the participation of, and accountability to, the people, through public institutions created under the Constitution. Equally, however, a system of government cannot survive through adherence to the law alone. A political system must also possess legitimacy, and in our political culture, that requires an interaction between the rule of law and the democratic principle. The system must be capable of reflecting the aspirations of the people. But there is more. Our law's claim to legitimacy also rests on an appeal to moral values, many of which are imbedded in our constitutional structure. It would be a grave mistake to equate legitimacy with the "sovereign will" or majority rule alone, to the exclusion of other constitutional values.”

That's from the Secession Reference on the interaction between democracy and the rule of law, two of the principal underlying principles of our Canadian constitutional order. It was cited in paragraph 27 of the Federal Court ruling.

I also think people may be glossing over paragraph 28 of that ruling where the judge ties the democratic structure of s. 47.1 of the Wheat Board legislation to Canada's NAFTA trade obligations. It's not really fleshed out by the judge, but I would expect to hear a little more about that on appeal. Something to think about.

Hillary's historic speech

2011-12-08T21:37:00.000-05:00

You go, Hillary! You can watch the rest of her historic speech here and the transcript is here.

High times in Canadian politics

2011-12-08T19:02:00.000-05:00

This quote from a Liberal Senator goes to a key question with this government:

Liberal Senator Robert Peterson said he thinks the closure motion was brought in because the Tories feared an extended debate over the court ruling. But he saw no practical way to derail the bill.

“If they're going to ignore the law, then I guess they'll ignore it,” he said. “It's a matter of whether we respect the laws of the land or we don't. I guess if you want to pick and choose which ones you like, which ones you don't like, I guess you can do that.

“When a federal judge says you've acted improperly and you can't do this, what more can you do?”

I think there's a slight tone of resignation there that doesn't necessarily reflect what's going on in Ottawa in response to the Conservative push to carry on with the Wheat Board legislation. It's noted in this iPolitics report that Liberal Senators attempted to argue the Senate shouldn't be hearing the bill given the Federal Court decision yesterday. Further, Frank Valeriote and James Cowan, opposition leader in the Senate, have raised a question of parliamentary privilege as another route of opposition:

“The government can change the law, but can’t breach the law when it changes it,” Valeriote said. He accused the government of violating the rights of MPs by forcing them to debate and vote on a bill that the court has found to be illegal.

The issue comes down to the rule of law, he told Speaker Andrew Scheer, who earlier rejected opposition complaints about the bill’s legality. Valeriote wants the matter referred to a committee.

It's another one of the grey areas exploited by Conservatives. Where a choice is permitted, because it is technically not prohibited, but where the choice should not be prudently exercised. There is the possibility that the Federal Court decision may ultimately rule the day following all appeals. So there's doubt presently cast over the government's course of action. Prudent governments respect accountability mechanisms and such legal decisions. This one clearly doesn't. See prorogation, winter of '09. I honestly don't know where this goes from here but it can be said that they're showing themselves, boldly, and reactions will be spawned.

Trackable you

2011-12-08T06:13:00.000-05:00

Tell the kids to become experts in data management, more news in the form of yesterday's Canada-U.S. deal that says there's going to be a lot of use for the skill in the Canada of the near future. The tracking of exits from the country is a brand new feature we will be living with courtesy of Stephen Harper, making us less free:

Airlines in Canada will be required to divulge passenger lists to Canadian security agencies with the names of everyone leaving the country, a practice already in place in the United States. Information gathered in Canada will be shared with U.S. agencies even for flights bound for other countries.

Here's how the Star puts it:

And personal information on a Canadian or anyone else flying out of a Canadian airport — regardless of destination — will be made available to Canadian authorities by the airline and can be obtained by the Americans on request.

So if you fly Toronto to Europe, or anywhere of a non-U.S. destination, the Canadian government will know about it, something that is new. Americans will know about it too, despite your Canadian citizenship and despite the fact you won't even be landing there.

To track this information along with the border exit-entry information, apparently a gigantic new database is going to be required:

"Ex-diplomat Colin Robertson told the Canadian Press this week that implementing the data collection for the entry-exit system could cost Canadian taxpayers up to $1-billion."

...

Right now there are many unanswered questions about how the entry-exit data of individual travellers would treated. How much will police get to tap into what are, migration databases? Will tax collectors get access? How far could U.S. agents reach into Canadian systems and vice versa? Will the data exist permanently? None of these details are clear at this time.

Here's a few more questions: On what basis is this sweeping new exit-entry database being justified? What is the threat that requires us to give up our freedom to be just that, free, to come and go as we please without our governments prying down our necks? Are these measures proportional to the threat? Or are we giving up our individual freedoms for the sake of eased border controls for business?

And why don't Conservatives track the things that they should?

I'm sure there will be lots more questions to come...

Judge says Ritz breached Wheat Board Act

2011-12-07T17:34:00.000-05:00

Marking the moment here with a bit of the media coverage and some highlights from the judgment.

"Judge says Ritz breached wheat board act."

"Government broke the law when dismantling Wheat Board: Federal Court."

You can read the decision of the Federal Court judge here. The order states:

The Minister failed to comply with his statutory duty pursuant to section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, RSC 1985, c C-24, to consult with the Board and to hold a Producer vote, prior to the causing to be introduced in Parliament Bill C-18, An Act to reorganize the Canadian Wheat Board and to make consequential and related amendments to certain Acts

While the government has said it will appeal this decision, it's clear that their course of action has been rebuked and they should listen by taking that judgment into account. A court order declaring that a Minister of the Crown has breached his duty under the law is a serious matter. A halt to their legislative process should be undertaken until this court proceeding is finished.

In terms of the judgment's highlights, the court was clear with its characterizations of Ritz's actions:

[1] The present Applications concern the rule of law and the disregard for it by the Respondent Minister of Agriculture (the Minister).

[2] The law concerned is s. 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, RSC 1985, c C-24 (the Act) which requires the Minister to engage in a consultative process with the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) and to gain the consent of Western Canadian wheat and barley producers with respect to proposed changes to the currently well-established process of marketing the grains in Canada. At the present time, contrary to the requirements of s. 47.1, the Minister is unilaterally proceeding to revolutionize the process by securing the imminent passage of legislation.

[4] The Applicants each request a Declaration that the Minister’s conduct is an affront to the rule of law. For the reasons that follow, I have no hesitation in granting this request.

You don't get much bolder than that. Unilaterally revolutionizing the process.

See also paragraph [9] as one that goes to the core of the problem for the government here. Professor Hogg is cited for the principle that "manner and form" limitations that a Parliament places on a future Parliament's actions are perfectly legitimate in law. Parliaments can't bind future Parliaments on substantive legislative choices. But they can bind a future Parliament on "manner and form" aspects of future laws. The 1998 amendments to the Wheat Board regime were essentially changes of the "manner and form" variety. The court reviews the statements made on intent at the time those changes were made. The law was changed then to assure farmers certain participatory rights under section 47.1 of the Act.

In paragraph [30], the judge points out the lunacy of Ritz's argument in steamrolling those participatory rights:

By construing the liberal interpretation of the Act which best ensures the attainment of its objects, I find that the Act was intended to require the Minister to consult and gain consent where an addition or subtraction of particular grains or types of grain from the marketing regime is contemplated, and also in respect of a change to the democratic structure of the CWB. As the Applicants argue, it is unreasonable to interpret the Act to conclude that while the Minister must consult and gain consent when extracting or extending a grain, she or he is not required to consult or gain consent when dismantling the CWB..."

In other words, you can't give farmers the right to say how they'll sell their grain, then just repeal the entire act and say you're not making a change to those consultative rights. It's absurd.

The judge's conclusions are also worth a look, not just for what they say about this case, but for what they say about the state of democratic governance under the Harper government:

[33] The Minister argues that the declarations should not be granted because their effect would be meaningless. In response, I say that there are two meaningful effects of granting the Breach Declarations.
[34] The first effect is that a lesson can be learned from what has just occurred. Section 47.1 speaks, it says: “engage in a consultative process and work together to find a solution.” The change process is threatening and should be approached with caution. Generally speaking, when advancing a significant change to an established management scheme, the failure to provide a meaningful opportunity for dissenting voices to be heard and accommodated forces resort to legal means to have them heard. In the present piece, simply pushing ahead without engaging such a process has resulted in the present Applications being launched. Had a meaningful consultative process been engaged to find a solution which meets the concerns of the majority, the present legal action might not have been necessary. Judicial review serves an important function; in the present Applications the voices have been heard, which, in my opinion, is fundamentally importantly because it is the message that s. 47.1 conveys.
[35] The second and most important effect is that the Minister will be held accountable for his disregard for the rule of law.

Lesson: Don't tell courts that their orders may be meaningless!

From the Wheat Board this afternoon:

"We argued strongly that farmers should have the final say over changes to their grain marketing agency," Oberg said. "As farmers, we pay for the CWB, we run it and we should decide what happens to it. We are pleased the court has agreed that the Minister acted in violation of laws created in 1998 to empower farmers and give them a direct say in any changes contemplated to the CWB's marketing mandate. In light of this ruling, the government should stop steamrolling over farmers' democratic rights.

"The Minister now needs to do the right thing, obey the law and hold a vote - as he should have done from the beginning."

Oberg and CWB farmer-elected director Stewart Wells appear tomorrow morning before a Senate committee considering passage of Bill C-18. Oberg said the court ruling brings additional impetus for senators to reject the Bill.

Stay tuned!

Security perimeter deal day

2011-12-07T06:00:00.000-05:00

The Harper era, with its formative markers being laid down, continues to roll on through the fall of 2011. Today is border perimeter deal day, negotiated in secret without public input and without parliamentary debate. It all seems to be premised on the principle that what's good for business is good for the country, kind of like the old saying that what's good for GM is good for America. Yes, it does appear to be a guiding principle for the Harper government's approach to the border: "New border deal will change how Canada and U.S. trade goods." We hear lots of talk about how great it is going to be for business to have one inspection point, say, instead of two. But ever more inspected, possibly, will be the Canadian citizen. Biometrics abroad anyone?

A central feature of Wednesday’s agreement will be a pledge by both governments to share far more information between government agencies in an effort to improve North American security. But Canada’s Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, has laid out several concerns given the two countries’ very different privacy laws.

Ms. Stoddart recently warned of drawing “ever closer to the bleak reality of a surveillance society” if the collection of Canadian biometric data – such as iris scans or fingerprints – end up being stored in U.S. databases.

Guess we'll have to wait and see on that special privacy landmine. In addition to the expansive new surveillance powers Harper et al. will be giving police here in Canada to access online activities, this possible sharing of biometric data with the U.S. will compound the new era of privacy invasions courtesy of the Harper government. The long form census intrusions that they manufactured were piker's play compared to all this.

Also amazing to read Canadian industry groups wishing to "ultimately see Health Canada opting to rely more on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to approve new food products rather than studying them independently." Yes, why have two separate national departments doing approvals after all when you could just use one? With the scale of lobbying that occurs in the U.S., such a thought is incredible. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

The elevation of business/market interests above the interests of the citizenry as a central theme of the Harper era has begun...

December 6, 1989

2011-12-06T17:17:00.000-05:00

Never forget.

Vic Toews will get way more than your phone number

2011-12-06T06:09:00.001-05:00

John Ibbitson had a piece last week, Tories Have Yet to Prove Case for E-Snooping, that raised the temperature on the lawful access debate. A key excerpt was this quote from the federal Privacy Commissioner: “there is not even a requirement for the commission of a crime to justify access to personal information – real names, home address, unlisted numbers, e-mail addresses, IP addresses and much more – without a warrant.”

In response, on Saturday Vic Toews wrote a letter to the editor of the Globe. He compared the amount of information that could be obtained without a warrant from internet service providers to that you would find in the phone book:

We will allow police to access “phone book”-type information from Internet service providers. If it becomes necessary to find a suspect's name, address, phone number or other similar identifier, ISPs will be required to disclose that information. ISPs will be required to have the capacity to allow police to investigate – strictly with a warrant – all communication methods.

Let me be clear: No legislation proposed will create powers for police to read e-mails without a warrant. Our proposed approach of linking an Internet address to subscriber information is on par with a phone book linking phone numbers to a residential address.

The public relations framing they have going is clearly meant to minimize the amount of information they will obtain. People will get a visual of one phone number in a phone book and think it's harmless enough. Except they're wrong.

Law professor Lisa Austin takes on Toews' argument in a Globe op-ed today: "Stop hiding behind the phone book, Mr. Toews." She gives an account of what she did on the internet this week versus what she did on the phone to illustrate the difference between the two: "This is why the digital trail I leave, the one Mr. Toews wants access to, is highly revealing, even if he never reads the content of my e-mail. This is private information and deserves protection through our existing standards of oversight and accountability, not something less." Worth a read. And the title of the op-ed isn't bad in terms of creating a visual to push back against Toews' argument.

Even more successful in demonstrating the falsity of Toews' phone book comparison is the information here: "The Anatomy of Lawful Access Phone Records." There the author breaks down the "eleven descriptively rich fields" in an internet "phone record" that Toews and the government will be able to access without a warrant. It looks like this:

After explaining each element of the subscriber information data, the author explains how those numbers can be used to put together a profile of the user:

Not all telecommunications service providers could make available a full post-lawful access legislation “phone record.” However, once authorities have a single piece of information they can then move to other service providers to develop a full record, one that could subsequently be used to map a person’s presence on the Internet, their habits, and their activities. Using open source intelligence, the email address can be employed to determine what other services are attached to that email address, and using the IP address authorities can determine where a person is accessing the Internet from (i.e. was the IP address leased to a cafe? to a home? to a business? to a mobile network?) and the billing records associated with that IP address. If browsing from Starbucks, the cafe might be able to turn over a log of users who used their wireless network during the time authorities are interested. If browsing from home, or your own mobile device, then the subscriber records associated with that billing address might be available. And, if browsing from a friend’s phone or computer, then their information might be given to police regardless of your friend’s interest to the police.

Remembering back to the discussion of traditional phone records, it is possible that multiple people share the same account and thus what turns up in the phonebook remains somewhat ambiguous. This may remain so when dealing with communal Internet connections but is far less true when dealing with mobile devices. Phones have, for many people, become fetishes that are carried on one’s person and jealously protected from third-party intrusion. Thus, the ability to ascertain who owns, and is using, a particular mobile device is far less ambiguous than who subscribes to, and uses, a landline phone. Using contemporary policing technologies such as IMSI catchers, authorities can de-anonymize a crowd by catching the IMSI associated with each phone and immediately requesting subscriber data from mobile phone providers. While it may not be legal for authorities to engage in ruses to compel individuals to identify themselves when those individuals have done nothing wrong, with IMSI catchers no ruse is needed for the identification process to occur. The term “papers please” is a distinctly analogue notion, one that can be abandoned by authorities in possession of IMSI catchers and lawful access powers.

The information that can be obtained without a warrant is much more extensive than that found in your typical phone book. Online subscriber data creates a living, breathing, ongoing information trail and a profile, all trackable courtesy of the lawful access legislation and all obtainable without a warrant.

The phone book nonsense needs to be thrown right back at the Conservatives. They're not just getting a phone number, they're getting a whole book.

Word of the day: "retasked"

2011-12-05T18:37:00.000-05:00

From the annals of great usages of "r" words by the federal Conservatives to haul themselves out of quagmires, joining recalibrate of prorogation fame is "retasked" now of helicopter limo service fame. Say hello to the latest in obfuscatory doublespeak courtesy of Peter MacKay: "Peter MacKay says no helicopter 'retasked' to fly him."

Defence Minister Peter MacKay says it's not true that a search and rescue helicopter was retasked to pick him up at a fishing resort and drop him off at a Gander, Nfld., airport in 2010.

Facing renewed questions in the House of Commons Monday, MacKay repeated his assertion that he left a vacation to go to work. Emails released last week show MacKay's staff requested the helicopter flight to get him to the airport in Gander faster than the two hours it would have taken to travel by boat and car.

"Any suggestion that there was a retasking or a diversion of search and rescue aircraft from their actual tasking is simply untrue," MacKay said.

So why is this little rewording worth paying attention to? It suggests that MacKay et al. are sensitive to the charge that his sweet ride diverted a Cormorant away from its principal search and rescue tasking. As we saw in some coverage on the weekend, MacKay's helicopter limo ride is not going over well in Newfoundland. There, search and rescue operations are taken quite seriously and the issue is doubly sensitive given that they are being cut back in some respects by the Harper government. For a minister to be using a helicopter that has a search and rescue designation as a taxi to the airport embodies optics of the worst kind. It's a poke in the eye to Newfoundlanders in particular. And it's not just optics, really. It looks bad, sure. Because it is bad, in and of itself. Diverting a search and rescue helicopter for ministerial scheduling ease is right up there in the ranks of offensive perks that a minister could possibly pursue.

MacKay's use of retasking is not helping him either. No, he didn't snag a helicopter away from an imminent rescue mission. But it was a search and rescue helicopter he was hoisted into. The helicopter was retasked away from its search and rescue work which is to stand by for search and rescue missions.

Perhaps hoisting a federal minister who is on a fishing getaway is now to be classified as search and rescue work. Maybe that's what MacKay is suggesting by saying the helicopter wasn't retasked. And who knows, maybe in MacKay's case, that is true.

The use of the word retasking is also a helpful reminder that there is a certain someone who deserves to be retasked just about now...

Opposition MP part of official delegation in Durban

2011-12-05T07:01:00.000-05:00

Yep, Green Party MP Elizabeth May is an official delegate for Papua New Guinea. It's another bizarre moment on the world stage brought to you by the Harper government. It means that in addition to the Canadian government officials who have delegate status, May will also be able to access the major discussions, etc.

As the linked item mentions, apparently beyond the delegate accreditation issue, things are otherwise carrying on: "She was however welcomed by the Canadian delegation at the international conference centre and met with the government officials after arriving on site." It's the new Canadian normal that is not so normal at all.

Delegation accreditation should have happened for all opposition parties, of course, based on precedent. Precedent and the way Canada has typically conducted itself on the world stage, where we include the range of our political parties and viewpoints at such events as the mark of a supposedly mature democracy. Moving on...

In other news, also mentioned at the link, Peter Kent will be making an announcement today about our contribution to developing country funds for climate change adaptation. While clearly much more needs to be done, particularly by countries like Canada, some are saying that short-term goals like "creating the framework for helping developing countries actually meet their voluntary targets through better financing mechanisms, technology transfer arrangements, and programs to prevent deforestation" might be considered a "success."

So while on the world stage our government acts pettily on politics and intransigently on working toward a new binding agreement, at least there's that. Assuming we don't throw any wrenches into the works on it, that is.

Friday night

2011-12-02T21:59:00.000-05:00

Bluesy techno goodness with excellent vocal.

Have a good night!

Party like it's 1812

2011-12-02T19:30:00.000-05:00

Can you feel the 1812 commemorative vibe, people? It's coming, get ready. A Conservative MP, Gord Brown, on his riding's 1812 re-enactment plans, somewhat lacking in specificity:

Here's a description of some of the plans, from his release:

The Lions Club of Gananoque will present a community commemoration of the first battle that took place in Gananoque on September 21, 1812. Activities will include historical re-enactments, music and theatre performances, and a heritage walk by local artists and historical heritage performers.

In addition to this celebration, the Lions Club has also undertaken the development of Joel Stone Park into an 1812 heritage park that will feature, among other elements, a bronze diorama representing the town as it was in 1812, an amphitheatre for small theatrical events, and the beginning of a one kilometre heritage trail.

A commemoration of the first battle, interesting. As noted later on in the pesky blog item, however, it may be more interesting than is let on by said Conservative MP:

The St. Lawrence War of 1812 Bicentennial Alliance website describes the event that actually happened at Gananoque this way:

An incursion of regulars and militia led by the Captain Forsyth of the 1st US Rifle regiment made an attack here (September 1812). A detachment of the 2nd Leeds militia, under Colonel Joel Stone, offered some resistance, but withdrew its force of two subalterns and about 40 soldiers. American forces seized the stores, burned the government depot, and withdrew.

A fine moment to re-enact. Look forward to the burning amidst the period costumes et al. Surely it will be toned down for the kids, think of the kids.

And whatevs. As long as $28 million can be sprinkled around Canada, commemorating war-like events, it's all good. I mean, what better to spend $28 million on anyway?

The PM's not so bold meeting announcement

2011-12-01T19:31:00.000-05:00

From the PM's site: "PM announces meeting with First Nations early in new year." Looking like an executive in charge, scheduling a major meeting to respond to the unfolding crisis in Attawapiskat. Except the word Attawapiskat doesn't appear in the PM's press release. Strange. Why not?

As noted by the Globe, this meeting was scheduled last year, in any event. It will only be his first meeting with first-nations leaders:

The Prime Minister and the head of Canada’s largest aboriginal group have agreed to sit down together in late January to discuss ways to increase the social and economic participation of first-nations members in Canadian society and to improve living conditions on reserves.

It will be the first time that Stephen Harper has met officially with a gathering of first-nations leaders since his Conservative Party took office in 2006. The long-expected announcement comes as the eyes of the nation are turned on an impoverished Ontario Cree reserve that declared a state of emergency over the deplorable state of its housing.

...

Although the situation in Attawapiskat, and the other reserves that are in similar condition, will undoubtedly be raised, the meeting – which Mr. Harper agreed to a year ago – is expected to take a hard look at on-reserve education, one of the Conservative government’s top priorities.

“I look forward to meeting with first nations representatives early in the new year to determine how we can work together to further improve the quality of life and long-term economic prosperity of Canada’s Aboriginal peoples,” Mr. Harper said in a statement.

Come back in January everybody.

Looking at Harper's performance in the Commons today and his photo-op (pictured at Globe report), this is clearly not an issue that sparks much passion in the man. Not like this for example: "It’s an absolute disgrace. It’s the single biggest moral issue we face as a country,” he said."

Harper's response is all too clinical, like the response of the managing partner of an accounting firm. Which is likely the strategy, when emotional issues present, bland and bore it all away.

Late night

2011-11-30T23:34:00.003-05:00

Great message.

Update (11:55 p.m.): Also a great message.

Update (Thursday 6:20 p.m.): For more context on this issue, there is a good post at Xtra that provides all the nuances and what the issue is exactly. The wording of the proposed bill is being interpreted by the president of the Ontario Catholic School Trustees’ Association as permitting Catholic schools to prevent the terminology choice by students of "gay-straight alliance." Laurel Broten, Ontario Education Minister specifically denies that is the intent of the legislation.

Education minister Laurel Broten tells Xtra there is “no more debate” on GSAs. “If students want a GSA, it must be provided.”

Until now, most Ontario Catholic schools have banned GSAs. Broten says Bill 13 will require school boards to allow students to start queer support groups and name them whatever they wish, including, "gay-straight alliance,” Broten vows. A “general equity group,” which is what some Catholic schools have offered students, is not sufficient, she says.

“I’m confident our Catholic schools will work with students on this,” she says. “’Gay-straight alliance’ is language and terminology we all understand and support. Students will call the groups what they want.”

This is the provision that has caused the controversy with its inclusion of "or another name" at the end of subsection (d):

303.1 Every board shall support pupils who want to establish and lead,

(a) activities or organizations that promote gender equity;

(b) activities or organizations that promote anti-racism;

(c) activities or organizations that promote the awareness and understanding of, and respect for, people with disabilities; or

(d) activities or organizations that promote the awareness and understanding of, and respect for, people of all sexual orientations and gender identities, including organizations with the name gay-straight alliance or another name.

Broten's words indicate the intent of the legislation is to require the gay-straight alliance name and that's what the statute says.

Update (Sunday a.m.): One last update here. I may have overstated in my last sentence above on Broten's words and what they meant. Re-reading what she said in combination with s. 303.1, it's the club that is required by the statute, first and foremost, not the name. But, I don't see how the schools can get away with denying the students their name choice. The statute is mandatory in its language, requiring that "Every board shall support pupils" who want to establish and lead organizations including those that have the gay-straight alliance name choice. The government's intent is clear as to what they want to see the schools do, i.e., work with and let the students have the group that they want, including under whatever name they choose.

Canadians support carbon tax

2011-11-30T19:04:00.001-05:00

That's what a new Environics poll finds, well-timed as a backdrop for the Durban climate change conference: "Support for climate action still strong in Canada, poll finds." See near the end, 57% of British Columbians support the carbon tax, where they actually have one, which is important. The poll finds majority support for a carbon tax in the rest of Canada as well. It shows that there is opportunity to pitch a carbon tax, if parties decide to be bold, as economically beneficial in a time of economic uncertainty as well.

I would take issue with the way the Globe frames their reporting of this poll though. This part in particular which suggests Canadians are aligned with the government on their environmental views:

Mr. Kent insists Ottawa would support a new treaty that includes commitments from the United States and large emerging countries such as China and India to reduce emissions. However, negotiators have failed to make much progress on a new deal. And emerging economies and poorer ones want Kyoto principles to form the basis of any successor treaty.

While critics say the Harper government is retrograde in its climate change policy, the Conservatives have balanced their opposition to Kyoto and backing for the emissions-intensive oil sands with support for a new global deal and promised regulatory action at home.

It’s an approach that appears to resonate with Canadians, Mr. Neuman said.

“It is not clear to Canadians what the right treaty is or what the right approach is, but they want something done,” he said in an interview.

That latter point is the key. Canadians want something done. They want leadership. It's not that surprising on an issue like this that they don't know what the right treaty is or what the right approach is. That's where a government that is committed to getting something done steps in.

What's not clear here is whether the notion of doing little to nothing for years while you wait for the big emitters to sign on to a new global deal is acceptable to Canadians. Presumably not if they "want something done" and are expressing support for mechanisms like a carbon tax which has been, ahem, highly controversial in our recent past. So to say Canadians are aligned with the government is not necessarily the case. There may be agreement with the apple pie goals, but not how the government is going about doing it.

At least the strong support for action on climate change that appears to be in this poll is a good counter to the Harper government's intransigence on the file and their international retreat. That's the strong takeaway that is well-timed.

Update (7:40 p.m.): I should clarify one part of this post. I take issue with the way the pollster frames the results of the poll, more so than the Globe.

Harperized

2011-11-29T06:03:00.000-05:00

Canadian Press follows up on its ongoing reporting of the use of the "Harper Government" moniker in government communications. The government is shown to have lied about its denials that a formal directive on the use of "Harper Government" existed.

Industry Canada's emails and edited releases from autumn 2010 make a mockery of Conservative government denials offered when The Canadian Press first published reports of the name-change orders last March.

"The directive we have from the (director general's office) is that if PCO adds the Harper Government reference, then we leave it in," says an email to communications officials at Industry, dated Oct. 5, 2010. "Please proceed with this approach. Sorry — it is what PCO has instructed."

An editor responded: "Given this directive, and with mild distress, I have reinstalled the phrasing."

"French release harperized and good to go," quipped another.

Excellent reporting from Canadian Press, must read. Civil servants have objected and are apparently still objecting to this bizarre, egomaniacal, blatantly wrong re-branding of the government. This practice is in breach of "both communications policy and the civil service ethics policy." So who will stop it? Anyone?

Lawrence Martin has more on this theme today as well.

Late night astroturfing

2011-11-29T00:53:00.000-05:00

This Topp team member should probably have been identified as such on Sun News' report from this evening. At the end of a report which featured David Akin interviewing Brian Topp on his tax plan, and following an interview with Mike Moffatt, Akin read off some comments received on Facebook. Among them, one Erin Sikora. But Sikora works on Team Topp and is explicitly identified as such on BrianTopp.ca. The point, she was represented to be just a random commenter when clearly she was not.

Screenshot of the comment from Erin Sikora on the video:

Screenshot of BrianTopp.ca:

Screenshot of tweet:

It doesn't appear that Akin was aware of her official status with the Topp campaign.

Heads up to the news departments of the nation...

A new poll

2011-11-28T06:00:00.052-05:00

"Federal Liberals gain on NDP, Conservatives, poll finds."

Let's fight the "it doesn't mean anything" meme before it starts, shall we? I will venture to say it means something. It's a psychological boost, let's not kid ourselves amidst all the Liberal party is dead doom and gloom. It's also a reflection of a decent spell for Liberals, more on that below. So it's a pleasant surprise to see a poll that reflects a bit of movement:

The federal Liberals have picked up support from both parties and are now in a dead heat with the NDP, a new poll shows, as concern over the economy returns to the fore for Canadians.

The Nanos Research Poll, conducted for The Globe and Mail and CTV, shows the Liberals with 28.1 per cent, up from 23.4 per cent last month.

The Liberals were bolstered by added support in vote-rich Ontario, where the party is now in a statistical tie with the Conservatives, the poll shows.

The Tories, meanwhile, edged down to 35.6 per cent from 37.7 per cent in last month’s poll, and the NDP dropped to 27.3 per cent from 30 per cent.

What might have contributed to the spike in Liberal numbers? Is it all just a question of gaining by default, as Nik Nanos puts it? Or, maybe Liberals actually deserve a little bit of credit?

There was Rae's speech in Toronto that was well-received and spoke directly to economic issues. The poll was taken a week after that speech. Rae himself has been a bright likable light in drab, negative Ottawa. He is doing yeoman's work as interim leader and media coverage has been favourable for the most part.

The poll notes the issue of primary concern among respondents is the economy. Canada's relatively good economic performance as compared to the rest of the world is frequently tied during such discussions to the economic stewardship during the Chretien/Martin era. That gets a lot of play as conditions worsen around the world and you have to wonder about residual good will for Liberals being in the Canadian psyche and coming to the fore as they think about economic questions. If there's anything to that thesis at all, it's not good news for the NDP who face a climb in proving themselves as economically capable at the federal level.

Not coincidental to the mid-November poll time, but from earlier in the fall in October was the unanimous agreement in the Commons to a national suicide prevention strategy. It was a good moment that surpassed partisanship. That day struck an emotional chord with me, I wonder how many Canadians felt the same and whether a bit of good will may have taken root.

Regarding the NDP, their higher profile MPs vacating the scene for a leadership race has likely had some impact here. Nycole Turmel has not been strong as opposition leader. And, as noted above, economic issues might be more of a hurdle for the NDP. The fact that the Liberals are strong in the poll in Ontario where there is a Liberal government who are trusted more on the economy may have something to do with it too.

A little bit of fun in the mix. Not a bad way to start the week at all.

Alberta Tories talk taxes

2011-11-27T05:40:00.000-05:00

Very interesting debate going on in Alberta: "Alta. Tories defend talk about provincial sales tax." The Alberta PCs are finding themselves in a budget bind, with dwindling revenues from energy sources and are looking for new ones. Yes, they are looking at increasing revenues. It sounds as if they are getting the predictable push back, with the Wild Rose Alliance waiting in the right wing to pounce.

This could be good news. It would be a positive development in Canada for a PC government to get this done, to either implement a health care premium (that was removed by former premier Stelmach) or whatever other form of tax they're eyeing, although the health care one seems to be most likely based on this read. I wouldn't say Nixon to China, let's not get carried away, but it's that kind of feel. Times are tough and yes, all measures need to be on the table for a responsible government. Redford should stick to her guns in saying so.

What's a little funny is the language being used as they contort themselves away from the "t" word. They're using clinical words like "attachment" and "connection" which are a little weird and are not going to convince anyone. They seem to be more concerned with minimizing the discussion rather than saying the right things to convincingly win the argument, and they can:

Liepert said his government will not bring back health-care premiums as they existed before, but perhaps Albertans should have “an attachment” to health-care costs.

“What we heard and what I think we have to discuss at the caucus level is, is there a way that we should have an attachment to the cost of health care. And that’s all we’re talking about,” Liepert said on Friday.

Municipal Affairs Minister Doug Griffiths also said last week that many jurisdictions outside of Alberta are trying to build a “connection” between the taxation system and the provision of services.

“They have a health tax to pay for health care, or an education tax to pay for education — to try to get people an idea of why they’re paying those taxes,” Griffiths said this week.

“It makes it more meaningful. They realize that this is for a service, this isn’t just the bad, old government taxing me.”

They should try talking about investments in health care, health care being a necessity, the province's wealth not just being monetary but about the well-being of their citizens, hence the need for investments in the health care system, etc. They seem defensive in the piece, only Redford seems firm. If they believe they're doing the right thing for their province, they need to convince the people in a much better fashion than they're demonstrating here.

It's a tough environment in Canada to make these arguments right now. People are feeling stretched, worried about the economy here and in the rest of the world and how that might affect us. In Alberta's political climate, the opposition and media are all over this, the Wild Rose with a view to a fall election. Further, as we well know, the federal government is leading the way in establishing a Canadian anti-tax orthodoxy. Yet when revenue shortfalls produce deficits, something has to give, even in Alberta it seems.

This is something to watch, let's see if one party in the Canadian conservative family can break the mould on taxes.

Saturday night

2011-11-26T18:18:00.000-05:00

Missed last night's music, so here it is, Chris Lake's "Sundown."

Have a good night!

Housing bubble for Canada?

2011-11-26T06:27:00.000-05:00

The Economist thinks Canada is vulnerable:

To assess the risks of a further slump, we track two measures of valuation. The first is the price-to-income ratio, a gauge of affordability. The second is the price-to-rent ratio, which is a bit like the price-to-earnings ratio used to value companies. Just as the value of a share should reflect future profits that a company is expected to earn, house prices should reflect the expected benefits from home ownership: namely the rents earned by property investors (or those saved by owner-occupiers). If both of these measures are well above their long-term average, which we have calculated since 1975 for most countries, this could signal that property is overvalued.

Based on the average of the two measures, home prices are overvalued by about 25% or more in Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, New Zealand, Britain, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden (see table). Indeed, in the first four of those countries housing looks more overvalued than it was in America at the peak of its bubble.

...

American prices fell sharply, even though homes were less overvalued than they were in many other countries, because high-risk mortgages and a surge in unemployment caused distressed sales. In most other countries, lenders avoided the worst excesses of subprime lending, and unemployment rose by less, so there were fewer forced sales dragging prices down. America is also unusual in having non-recourse mortgages that let borrowers walk away with no liability.

An optimist could therefore argue that our gauges overstate the extent to which house prices are overvalued, and that if markets are only a bit too expensive they can adjust gradually without a sharp fall. It is important to remember, however, that lower interest rates and rising populations were used to justify higher prices in America and Ireland before their bubbles burst so spectacularly.

Another concern is that Australia, Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain and Sweden all have even higher household-debt burdens in relation to income than America did at the peak of its bubble. Overvalued prices and large debts leave households vulnerable to a rise in unemployment or higher mortgage rates. A credit crunch or recession could cause house prices to tumble in many more countries.

In other financial news this week, Jim Flaherty imposed new requirements on the banks, saying it was just prudential and part of a normal review, which caught the banks totally by surprise. "Move to have more power over banks ‘prudential:’ Flaherty": "Under the proposed legislation, any bank or insurance company that increased its consolidated assets by more than 10 per cent through an acquisition outside Canada would need the minister’s approval." "Flaherty sets updates to financial laws": "As well, the government proposes to increase the threshold that requires large banks to be widely held to $12 billion in equity from $8 billion." Pretty big moves for a normal or "prudential" review, no?

Can't help themselves

2011-11-24T18:27:00.000-05:00

This says so much about the modern day Conservative Party of Canada.

Res ipsa loquitur.

November 22, 1963

2011-11-23T07:51:00.000-05:00

Yesterday was the anniversary of JFK's assassination. This short video by acclaimed film maker Errol Morris is at the New York Times' site as part of their commemoration of the day: "The Umbrella Man." It's the story behind the man holding the black umbrella on that sunny fateful day in Dallas. A great little history lesson that also makes a good point about speculation.

(h/t)

Auditor general's report on federal tobacco program

2011-11-22T21:49:00.000-05:00

The 2008 era $284-million federal tobacco program designed to transition farmers out of tobacco growing was reviewed by the Auditor General. Looks like it was a total failure.

A $284-million Agriculture Canada program to change the Ontario tobacco industry and encourage farmers to leave the business was poorly planned and ended up falling short in some of its goals, says a new report.

...

More than half the people who received money weren't active tobacco farmers at the time, although they were entitled to grow it under the quota system run by the provincial Tobacco Marketing Board.

...

Some farmers ended up taking money to get out of the business, then shifted their land and equipment to relatives who kept on growing tobacco.

Tobacco production doubled the next year.

"Design of the Tobacco Transition Program was rushed, making its delivery challenging," Wiersema said.

"In some cases, recipients who received money for exiting the industry continued to produce tobacco, undermining one of the program’s objectives.

"This underscores the importance of sound program design, including considering what could go wrong and how to prevent it."

They doubled tobacco production! That's a remarkable achievement.

As for what drove the poor program design, whatever could have been the causes of that?

Nonsensical defence of the program as well. That anyone entitled to grow tobacco, but not growing it, should have been compensated because they had the right to grow it. Those people clearly didn't need transitional help.

Seems like those who have received money for exiting the industry, but who continued to produce tobacco, should be made to pay back the funds. But maybe that's not possible due to the poor program design done within a "short time frame."

Infighting

2011-11-22T07:35:00.000-05:00

A rare occasion where I'll agree with John Ibbitson today. He goes at both Liberals and NDP, so I'll just point out the Liberal part I agree with:

Someone should tell these malcontents that the one thing the Liberals absolutely cannot afford is a divisive, faction-ridden convention in January. Either the third-place party unites, or it dies.

Fair enough. I don't know if it's come to Jesus time yet or not, but it's a good phrase to keep in mind.

Hey, we're not overtaxed

2011-11-22T07:08:00.000-05:00

Came across this chart posted on Henry Blodget's blog as he made a comparative point to Americans that their tax revenues could stand to be raised. As Harper et al. push their tax cutting philosophy to the nation, it's helpful to see exactly where Canada ranks among western nations in terms of the taxes we pay as a percentage of our GDP. The U.S. is at just over 20% while we are at just over 30%. Look up the row above us and you'll see the U.K., Germany, France. Look below and you'll see some of those problem nations, Spain, Greece, Ireland and then, again, the U.S.

Facts to note for austerity and tax debates to come. And you go, Denmark. Woot.

Worth noting

2011-11-21T19:14:00.000-05:00

A view on Liberal renewal from Andrew Coyne:

How then to carve out a distinctive case for the Grits?

The answer will lie as much in the way the party develops policies as in the policies it ultimately adopts. On both scores, it will need to capitalize on its own misfortune—to seize the opportunity that defeat affords. Parties that are in close contention for power tend to have little room for dissent, or for that matter democracy. The Liberals, being nowhere near power, have an opportunity to build a truly grassroots, democratic party, one that holds its leaders closely to account, and to let its own example serve as a model of democratic reform for the country.

With emphasis on the last clause of the last sentence in particular.

He was a skater boy...

2011-11-21T18:23:00.001-05:00

24 hours in the life of Tony Clement. Let's see how it shapes up these days. First, there's more bad news on the G8 file:

The Canadian Press came out with new revelations Monday detailing the $2-million spent to renovate Deerhurst Resort, the venue for the summit. This included $3,000 to raise a large chandelier and $1,600 to move a king-sized bed.

But it's no worry for Clement:

The Treasury Board President does not answer questions related to the G8. Rather, he sits in his seat while Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird stickhandles the issues. (Mr. Baird was infrastructure minister at the time of the summit and so was responsible for approving the spending.)

Nope, no questions answered there. What he will do, however, is a spiffy 15 minute webcast with a media outlet tomorrow. Smartly giving the appearance of accessibility via social media, which we know Clement loves, to counter the lack of responsiveness in the House of Commons. Good luck to the participants in their efforts to penetrate the expert talking points that will likely ensue, particularly on the G8!

Check in there tomorrow to ask your pesky questions and to see if anything newsworthy occurs.

Update: I should add that yes, Clement appeared before a parliamentary committee early this month. That was a one-timer. There remains no day-in-day-out responsiveness as should be the case in the House of Commons when a question is asked of a minister.

The dollar costs of lawful access

2011-11-21T07:50:00.000-05:00

"Surveillance law could close small ISPs: Lawyer." The ISP operators of the nation are concerned about the impact of the coming Harper government lawful access legislation. Most are assuming it will be similar to previous iterations and we shall see. Here are some of the latest comments from those in the industry. Small and large operators are worried about the costs:

Assuming it will be the same act introduced in the last Parliament, “this isn’t going to be sustainable,” Chris Tacit, who acts for the Canadian Network Operators Consortium (CNOC), said Wednesday during a regulatory panel discussion at a conference in Toronto for independent ISPs.

“If a smaller ISP has to make major network changes it could be game over.”

...

Jonathan Daniels, vice-president of regulatory law at BCE Inc., which owns Bell Canada [TSX, NYSE: BCE], said the carrier wants to see the final act and the accompanying regulations, which might outline government compensation for complying with the act. Regulations weren’t published when the proposed act was introduced in the last parliament.

“We have big concerns about the capital requirements” for equipment, Daniels, said as well for possible high annual operating costs of maintaining a real-time data surveillance system across the country.

Lawful access is not just bad for privacy right violations reasons, it's bad for business too.

The HGRCMP

2011-11-21T06:57:00.000-05:00

A new public relations protocol comes into being for the RCMP and it is leaked to the Toronto Star: "Government puts tighter leash on RCMP public statements." So what are the Harper government inappropriately up to with the RCMP? A lengthy excerpt but warranted:

The Star obtained a copy of a new communications protocol that requires the RCMP to flag anything that might “garner national media attention” to Public Safety Canada.

Everything from “media advisories, news releases, background info, media lines and talking points for spokespersons and senior officials/members” must be vetted.

Statements by RCMP members who appear before parliamentary committees would likely be massaged by the federal government beforehand, as the document clearly defines a “major event” as “an incident, event, announcement, and/or speaking engagement likely to garner national media attention.”

Signed Sept. 20 and effective immediately, the policy says the Mounties must consult and get approval from Public Safety for communications regarding non-operational matters “PRIOR (emphasis in original) to public use” for almost everything.

On “major operational events,” all communications need to be shared with Public Safety Canada officials “for information only” prior to public use.

According to the document, the goal is to ensure advance notice of “communications activities,” “consistent” interdepartmental co-ordination, better “strategic” communications planning, and more “integrated Government of Canada messaging.”

“The circulation of the information provided will be treated with sensitivity and, as appropriate, will be limited to a select few senior officials at Public Safety Canada.”

So there seem to be two strains of communications dealt with in this wonderful new policy, RCMP communications on "major operational events" and RCMP communications on non-operational matters. In the case of the major operational events, the government will be tipped off in advance by the RCMP, albeit for "information only" purposes before any public communications take place. In the case of non-operational events, the government will be vetting everything! Imagine. The government is overreaching here and should not be inserting itself into police communications in any respect.

For one thing, in democratic countries, the police are independent entities from government, albeit subject to proper civilian oversight. But proper civilian oversight is carefully limited. It surely does not involve the elected branch of government writing federal police communications. Yet that's what it looks like the Public Safety department will be doing in all the instances cited above on non-operational matters. Correction, have been doing, since this has been in effect since late September.

This will detract from the RCMP's credibility as it speaks to the public. Not what that embattled agency needs to begin with, but adding this political element of communications vetting is not going to help at all. It'll be as if the government is speaking.

Now how might these rules apply to a situation where the government itself is being investigated? I assume such an event would be a major operational matter. If such situations arise, and they do, why should the government be tipped off by the RCMP "for information only" prior to the public being alerted? Their rationalization seems to be that it's for a strategic communications purpose. But how are we going to know what information is passed on to the government, internally? How are we to be assured that this information passing won't compromise the investigation?

There also seems to be the opportunity here for the government to pursue their tough on crime political agenda by capitalizing on police investigations as they are announced. It's as if the business of government, policing included, is one giant public relations opportunity for this government.

The principal point here is that policing matters, operational or non-operational, are not political matters. The government should be keeping their nose and hands out of all of it.

No wonder someone has leaked the policy and various RCMP officials are anonymously speaking to the media. There are red flags here and it is something the public needs to know about. During a majority government, public opinion and media are key countervailing checks on such blatantly wrong developments.

The #OWS bat signal

2011-11-20T19:07:00.000-05:00

This was one of the best things of the week, the projection that was done on to the Verizon building in New York City on Thursday night while Occupy Wall Street protesters were crossing the Brooklyn Bridge. This was the message flashed over the span of a few minutes:

"99% / MIC CHECK! / LOOK AROUND / YOU ARE A PART / OF A GLOBAL UPRISING / WE ARE A CRY / FROM THE HEART / OF THE WORLD / WE ARE UNSTOPPABLE / ANOTHER WORLD IS POSSIBLE / HAPPY BIRTHDAY / #OCCUPY MOVEMENT / OCCUPY WALL STREET / list of cities, states and countries / OCCUPY EARTH / WE ARE WINNING / IT IS THE BEGINNING OF THE BEGINNING / DO NOT BE AFRAID / LOVE."

A few great pics and an interview with the creator of the bat signal message at BoingBoing.

Really stunning and memorable. Technology is enabling creative and impactful forms of political action that we have not seen before.

Saturday night

2011-11-19T20:26:00.001-05:00

To make up for having missed music posting time last night. Going with another Deadmau5 because funnily enough, my mother emailed me after I last posted one of his tracks to say that she really liked it. My mother the hipster! She was sick this week with the flu so I thought I'd post another one to see if she'll like this one too. I think this is one of his best, I hear Mozart when I listen to this! That's right, not kidding.

Have a good night.

Update: The verdict is in, Mom liked this one too. Said it reminded her of "Yanni at the Acropolis." Yikes.

Elizabeth Warren and leaderitis

2011-11-19T17:40:00.000-05:00

A very intelligent piece in the NY Times on Elizabeth Warren's run for Senate and in particular the expectations that are being placed on her: "Heaven Is a Place Called Elizabeth Warren." I liked this part at the end that is a fair description of an affliction that happens in politics, too much investment in one person and not enough in the surrounding political structures:

Having the right person in the room can mean something. It just doesn’t change everything.

It’s not that Warren’s supporters shouldn’t get lathered up about her. Staid appreciation for competent candidates has never made ballot boxes burst, and political dedication by its nature requires a degree of magical thinking: a privileging of optimism over lived experience.

But many of the people looking to Warren, as they did to Obama before her, are expecting material things — like readable credit-card pitches or safe bridges or jobs or a vote on a bill to create jobs — that are, at the moment, figments as imaginative as dragons and their slayers. And that’s dangerous, because when the person we decided was going to fix it all isn’t able to change much, it’s not just that we get blue but also that we give up. We mistake the errors of our own overblown estimations for broken promises. And instead of learning, reasonably, that one person can’t do everything, we persuade ourselves that no person can do anything.

The key is not just emotional investment in election-year saviors but also an engagement with policy. A commitment to organized expressions of political desire — like those that have been harnessed so effectively in recent years on the right — have been absent for far too long in Democratic politics. Now, with labor protests, campaigns to block voter suppression and personhood measures and the occupations of cities around the nation, there seem to be some small signs that liberals are remembering that politics requires more of them, that they need movements, not just messiahs. But their engagement must deepen, broaden and persist beyond last week’s elections and well beyond next year’s elections if there is any chance for politicians like Warren to succeed.

Because while she might provide her supporters and her constituents a voice that, if properly tuned, will rattle doors that are now gummed shut, what Elizabeth Warren cannot do is fix this mess herself.

This was her ad released this week, to counter the Karl Rove guided attack on her candidacy:

(h/t)

Speech of the week

2011-11-19T07:04:00.000-05:00

A must see speech from the European parliament, November 16th. It's Nigel Farage a member of the UK Independence Party who holds nothing back. It's entertaining, sure, but they're not laughing much in the EU these days.

It is a good point that he raises, about the democratic legitimacy of the successors installed in both Greece and Italy. Will they have support in coming months as austerity measures start to really hurt? Can professors run a government? That will be an interesting experiment in Italy, for sure.

(h/t)

Optimistic enthusiasm

2011-11-19T06:34:00.000-05:00

Optimistic enthusiasm as a form of realism:

How does your organization respond to new opportunities?

Most companies launch new things, try out new initiatives, brainstorm new approaches. The internal response (or reaction) to these ventures is a cultural choice, one that often turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If your organization is both pessimistic and operationally focused, then every new idea is a threat. It represents more work, something that could go wrong, a chance for disaster. People work to protect against the downside, to insulate against the market, to be sure that they won't get blamed for anything that challenges the system. In organizations like this, a new idea has to be proven to be better than the current status quo in all situations before it gets launched.

On the other hand, an organization filled with people who are rewarded for shaking things up and generating game-changing products and services just might discover that outcomes they are dreaming of are in fact what happen. The enthusiasm that comes from believing that this one might just resonate with the market is precisely the ingredient that's required to make something resonate.

One more thing: outsiders are way more likely to approach your organization with fabulous projects if they think they're likely to both get a good reception and succeed when they get to market.

Does business guru advice apply to the political world? It's possible.