John Manley strikes me as a shining example of one of the great tragedies of the Liberal Party of Canada: a fine public servant blessed with good sense, but subsumed by the weird rituals of that odd cult. Over the years I’ve been shocked at how many really smart, well-meaning ex-Liberals I’ve met who left the party, and public service, because their skills and talent go thrown under the bus at some point by those hidden party puppet-masters we hear so much about, but so rarely show themselves (I assume they’re in some underground fortress in Rosedale) because it was what the party required.
Not being a Central Canadian lawyer, I don’t think I can ever understand the sort of strange grip the Liberal party in its prime once seemed to have on people, but it certainly appeared like it was, for a very long time, some kind of skull-and-bones society, promising Canada’s ambitious, young, bright men and women a route to power, but requiring their allegiance till death. I consider sharp, well-meaning guys like Manley, or former Indian Affairs minister Bob Nault, victims of a game they were obliged to play in order to achieve what they wanted. Until the Liberal party’s recent conversion into a yawning, smoldering crater, if you wanted to make an impact in Canada, especially through government, you’d be best to sell your soul to the Trudeausmen — which, ironically, often meant submitting principle, and logic, to the greater good of the party. I can see why Manley had to go along with the ritual, and retain his silence about the peculiar and problematic universe of mini-lobby groups that had grown like weeds within the party itself. Perhaps, like a befuddled Moonie, he couldn’t even see the problems until he broke free of the party’s hold. But then again, it’s also hard to sound credible complaining about structural problems in your party when it keeps winning election after election after election.
Kevin Libin, “Where was John Manley when the Liberals needed him?”, National Post, 2011-05-13
May 14, 2011
QotD: The Liberal Party as Canada’s “Skull-and-Bones Society”
May 12, 2011
Goar: Here’s why the poor voted Conservative
In another dispatch from an alternate universe where the Toronto Star isn’t the house newsletter for the Liberal party, Carol Goar tells poverty activists why the people they agitate for voted for Conservatives in the last election:
After being sidelined twice in the past eight months, anti-poverty campaigners need to figure out how right-wing cost-cutters connect with voters — especially low-income voters.
My soundings are limited, but a few themes keep popping up:
• People in low-income neighbourhoods are the biggest victims of the drug dealers and violent young offenders Harper is promising to lock up. They want relief from the violence they can’t escape. They want to rid their communities of the gangs that lure their children into gun-and-gang culture. Crime crackdowns make sense to them.
• What Canadians struggling to make ends meet want most is a job; not government benefits, not abstract poverty-reduction plans, certainly not charity. Harper tapped into that yearning, promising to stabilize the economy and create employment. The New Democrats, aiming to beat him at his own game, said they would cut small business taxes.
• It angers low-income voters to see secure middle-class bureaucrats getting pay hikes. Those trapped in entry-level service jobs seethe when public employees who earn far more than they ever will are rewarded simply for showing up. Those living on public assistance — employment insurance, welfare, old age security — dislike being treated with contempt by government officials. In both cases, cutting the public payroll has a lot of appeal.
Of course, her message not only won’t be heeded, it’s going to mark her as an apostate to be spurned and ridiculed by all right-thinking intellectuals — especially those in the poverty activist ranks. She may never lunch in this town again.
H/T to Elizabeth for the link.
Record gasoline prices drive journalists insane
Well, that’s the only way to explain the causes when the reflexively right-wing Toronto Sun starts frothing at the mouth about “unregulated derivative speculators” while the staunchly left-wing Toronto Star claims “The oil industry doesn’t like high gasoline prices any more than you do.”
Jon, who sent me links to both articles, titled it “Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!”
I think the election has unhinged people — or at least finally driven out the pins for those who were already well on their way to being unhinged. [. . .] Go to Google and search the Sun‘s site for “fat cats AND pigs” and you’ll find a Saganesque hyperbole of hits from just the last three days. And a similar number of calls for increased government regulation of the oil industry.
I’ll cut the linked Sun article above some slack, as the author does mention unwashed hippies as being part of the problem — the guy does just a little to maintain the Sun‘s conservative front — but the overall tone from the paper in the last few days has been just a little weird.
That, and you could see the track marks all over yesterday’s Sunshine Girl. What is that paper coming to, I ask?
Update: On the other, other hand, here’s Stephen Gordon from the Globe & Mail‘s Economy Lab on why high gasoline prices are good for Canada:
If there is a proposition in economics that can aspire to law-like status, it is surely Easterbrook’s Law: “All economic news is bad.” This is a truly powerful insight, and it explains how phenomena that would ordinarily be seen as good news are generally portrayed as a problem demanding government intervention. And so it is with the recent rise in gasoline prices.
[. . .]
So how can higher gasoline prices be consistent with increased purchasing power? The answer is that we are observing a relative price shift. The prices of some goods — notably gasoline — have increased. But the prices of other goods have fallen, most notably imported goods that have been made cheaper by an appreciating Canadian dollar. The overall net effect on Canadians’ buying power is positive.
To be sure, there are some people for whom this shift is genuinely bad news: many with low incomes may not be able to easily reduce their consumption of gasoline. But the real problem facing these households is that they have low incomes.
May 11, 2011
Michael Geist: the “Lawful Access” legislation does not criminalize hyperlinking
At least, on a reasonable person’s reading of the proposed law, it doesn’t criminalize hyperlinks to material that “incites hatred”:
The source of the latest round of concern stems from the Library of Parliament’s Parliamentary Information and Research Service legislative summary of Bill C-51. On the issue of hyperlinking, it states:
Clause 5 of the bill provides that the offences of public incitement of hatred and wilful promotion of hatred may be committed by any means of communication and include making hate material available, by creating a hyperlink that directs web surfers to a website where hate material is posted, for example.
I must admit that I think is wrong. The actual legislative change amends the definition of communicating from this:
“communicating” includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means;
to this:
“communicating” means communicating by any means and includes making available;
The revised definition is obviously designed to broaden the scope of the public incitement of hatred provision by making it technology neutral. Whereas the current provision is potentially limited to certain technologies, the new provision would cover any form of communication. It does not specifically reference hyperlinking.
Michael is much more informed about this issue than I am, so I find his confidence as a welcome balm to all the concern raised about this issue. The bill itself, of course, remains a civil liberty disaster in other ways, even with this issue addressed:
As I have argued for a long time, there are many reasons to be concerned with lawful access. The government has never provided adequate evidence on the need for it, it has never been subject to committee review, it would mandate disclosure of some personal information without court oversight, it would establish a massive ISP regulatory process (including employee background checks), it would install broad new surveillance technologies, and it would cost millions (without a sense of who actually pays). Given these problems, it is not surprising to find that every privacy commissioner in Canada has signed a joint letter expressing their concerns.
May 10, 2011
“The recent recession was probably the last nail in the coffin of the proposal for a common Canada-U.S. currency. “
Stephen Gordon explains how the Canadian economy has benefitted from the independent Canadian dollar:
Let’s think about what would have happened over the past few years if a monetary union had already been in place. Instead of generating an appreciation of the Canadian dollar, the commodity boom would have drawn in larger and destabilizing flows of investment. As it was, the appreciation of the Canadian dollar tempered the flow of capital, and kept inflation under control.
When the recession hit and commodity prices fell, our floating currency gave us a 20 per cent exchange rate depreciation in the space of five months. This sort of stimulus would have been unavailable under a monetary union — as Spain is now finding out, to its great cost.
For reasons that Paul Krugman explains here, Canada has always been an interesting case study in international monetary policy. Canada’s decision to adopt a floating exchange rate in 1950 — several decades before the post-war Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates collapsed — was an unorthodox reaction to a situation with which we’ve become familiar: sharply fluctuating commodity prices.
May 9, 2011
Next federal election will include 30 new ridings in Ontario, Alberta, & BC
There will be 338 seats up for grabs in the next federal election, up from the 308 seats in this election:
Last year, the Mowat Centre for Policy Innovation at the University of Toronto examined the national parliaments and congresses in several major Western democracies. Of the 113 provinces or states examined, the aforementioned three Canadian provinces were all among the five least-well represented, when their share of seats in the national legislature was compared to their share of the national population.
If the average weight of a voter in such an international survey is taken to be 1.0, the weight of a vote in Quebec is 1.01, almost exactly what it should be. In Alberta, though, the average is just 0.92, in Ontario 0.91 and in B.C. just 0.90. Meanwhile, in Manitoba, each vote is worth 1.22. New Brunswick votes are worth 1.34, Saskatchewan 1.39 and P.E.I. votes 2.88. Far from there being one-person, one-vote in Canada, a vote in PEI is worth more than three times what a vote in B.C. is worth.
Put another way, the average riding in B.C. contains about three times as many voters as does the average riding in P.E.I. — which means B.C. votes are diluted by a factor of three vis-à-vis P.E.I.
The disparities are so large that the Mowat Centre warned “the situation as it now stands is seriously undermining the principle that all citizens should have an equal say in choosing their government.”
May 7, 2011
Bring Mad Max back into cabinet?
I admit I’m rather fond of Maxime “Mad Max” Bernier, so of course I’m in favour of bringing him back into cabinet:
Mr. Harper also needs to reach out to the inner conservative that lies dormant in the hearts of most Quebecers.
How to kill these two birds with one stone? Appoint Maxime Bernier as President of the Treasury Board.
The position is open, since incumbent Stockwell Day decided not to run in the May 2 election.
Maxime Bernier hails from Beauce, a fortress of entrepreneurship in the heart of the province. He is an efficient communicator who sticks to the message. He emphasizes fiscal conservatism and individual liberties, a stance that resonates with a core of enthusiastic supporters in the province. He preaches the entrepreneurial values that lie at the very centre of Quebec’s conservative past, but are too seldom celebrated nowadays.
Lorne Gunter: Give the new MP for Las Vegas a break
It’s inevitable that the election of Ruth Ellen Brosseau in absentia would be a cause for amusement, but Lorne Gunter makes a good case that we should cut her a bit of slack:
It is common practice across the country to dig up candidates wherever they can be found and plead with them to let their names stand in ridings where a party has no chance of winning. (Or almost no chance. Ms. Brosseau’s case proves there is never NO chance of winning.)
In a past life, when I used to be a devoted Liberal party worker in Alberta, during the height of the National Energy Program, we used to use this tactic all the time: Get some campus Liberal club member to let him- or herself be nominated in a rural riding where the Tory candidate was going to capture 80% of the vote anyway, just so the party could claim it had run a candidate in all X number of ridings in the country.
On this count, I’m willing to grant Ms. Brosseau a pass, as this is what every small party faces every election: the need to get as many names on to the ballot as possible. It’s tough enough for minor parties to get any press coverage, but it’s much harder if you are only running a corporal’s guard of candidates in the election.
That being said, however, even in the days when we only ran paper candidates (no signs, no brochures, no active campaigning), the candidate was at least in the riding during the election. She should have either cancelled her trip, postponed it, or declined the nomination if she couldn’t do either.
One NDP supporter in Ms. Brosseau’s new riding asked the other day whether he and his fellow voters where victims of some sort of scam. No, sir, not victims — participants.
Who votes for someone who was never seen in the riding during the election, someone who doesn’t live anywhere near the riding, doesn’t articulate any policies and doesn’t even speak French all that well, but who is seeking to represent a constituency in which over 90% of the residents list their at-home language as French?
It’s clear the voters of Berthier-Maskinongé were so eager to vote NDP — as were so many Quebec voters — that they didn’t care who the local candidate was, which is appropriate in this case, because the local candidate didn’t care either. Ms. Brosseau was doing a favour for a friend at NDP headquarters in Ottawa, now she’s going to have to uproot her life for the next four years and go be the MP for a riding where the voters know no more about her than she knows about them.
I wrote about the allegations of fraud in the nomination papers here.
May 6, 2011
CRTC: broadband decision now in government’s hands
Michael Geist sums up the CRTC’s universal service decision:
The CRTC issued its universal service decision this week, which included analysis of funding mechanisms for broadband access, broadband speed targets, and whether there should be a requirement to provide broadband access as part of any basic service objective. Consumers groups and many observers were left disappointed. The CRTC declined to establish new funding mechanisms (relying on market forces) or changes to basic service and hit on a target of 5 Mbps download speed (actual not advertised) to be universally available by the end of 2015. Critics argued this left consumers on their own and suggested that the targets were underwhelming, particularly when contrasted with other countries.
While I sympathize with the frustration over the CRTC’s decision to essentially make broadband a “watching brief,” I wonder why Canadians should expect the CRTC to lead on broadband targets and funding. Universal access to globally competitive broadband (in terms of speed, pricing, and consumer choice) is a perhaps the most important digital policy issue Canada faces and it should not be viewed through a narrow telecom regulatory lens.
Chris Selley on those new “orange posts”
The new NDP youth wing gets lots of fun poked at it (some of it here), but Chris Selley has hopes that they may force the House of Commons to revisit the worst aspects of parliamentary behaviour:
Look. It’s easy, and frankly appropriate, to laugh at the gaggle of orange poteaux — “posts,” as Quebecers call cipher candidates — soon heading to Ottawa to take their seats as New Democrat MPs (and to move into their very first apartments!). But whatever their shortcomings, it’s safe to assume they’re full to bursting with idealism and self-esteem. Many of them aren’t long out of high school. Try to bully them and by God, they’ll probably call the police.
There’s 57 new NDP MPs from Quebec — almost 20% of the House of Commons. They have a real opportunity to make a difference in the way Parliament conducts its business. Jack Layton himself has said he intends to officially oppose the government in a more dignified manner. And it’s hard to think of anyone in a better position to hold him to his word than, say, a 21-year-old student with $600,000 or so coming to him over the next four years, representing a riding he’s barely visited (if at all) and constituents who didn’t (and don’t, and may never) really give a damn who he is.
The complaints of ex-MPs detailed in the Samara report go far beyond Question Period. One ex-parliamentarian said he profoundly regretted toeing the party line on an emotional issue — almost certainly same-sex marriage, although it’s not specified — and recalled colleagues weeping as they voted against their consciences. Another tells of being tasked, very early in his career, with delivering a speech on the mountain pine beetle infestation in British Columbia, which he knew absolutely nothing about, on 20 minutes’ notice.
One of the weaknesses of our system is that there are not stronger supports for MPs voting freely rather than following the direction of the party whips. The constituents are not being represented if their MP is not allowed to vote in line with their preferences but instead has to subordinate their concerns to that of the party. SSM and the long gun registry are recent examples where the outcome was dictated by party leaders refusing to allow their MPs to vote freely.
It’s good that MPs recognize, at least in hindsight, that partisanship fries their brains and makes them act like monkeys. But hindsight isn’t good enough. Unless MPs grow some … uh, courage, when it actually matters — refusing orders to act foolishly or speechify on subjects they know nothing about, or to waste hours filling chairs on “house duty” when they could be out doing something useful, or to vote against their own or their constituents’ beliefs — this is never going to change.
Rookie NDP MPs already triggering change in parliamentary procedure
From an email conversation with Jon, my former virtual landlord:
In other news, you heard about the proposal to change parliamentary procedures to accommodate the new Diaper Dippers? MPs will now be able to vote with —
- Aye
- Nay
- Like OMG, whatever.
I want to be a teenage MP — it’s like winning a lottery! I take it that these kids will get their $150K+ annual salary whether they attend parliament or not, correct? Or is an MP’s pay based on some sort of performance criteria?
I can’t believe I just asked that.
ROTLMAO.
May 4, 2011
Alleged forged signatures on NDP nomination papers
This is weird. It may just be a function of how little experience the campaign workers had in that riding — I know the NDP were a skeleton crew in Quebec for this election (which makes their huge haul of seats from the province even more amazing), but forging signatures? It just doesn’t add up at all. Why do I say that? Let me tell you a little story . . .
Oddly enough, I had a discussion with a Returning Officer (not the RO for my riding) a few weeks ago about nomination papers and the requirements for signatures. It was rather illuminating.
Every candidate for parliament has to submit nomination papers to the constituency’s Returning Officer within a set number of days after the writ has dropped. Many would-be candidates for smaller or less well-organized parties have to depend on going door-to-door to gather signatures, as they don’t have enough party members in the riding to meet the requirement internally. I’ve done this for Libertarian candidates, and I’m sure most of the NDP candidates in Quebec this time around had to do the same thing. (Signing the nomination paper does not mean you’re a supporter of that candidate, it merely acknowledges that you have been informed that they are hoping to run in the election.)
So, a few bare minutes before the deadline, each of the candidates has to drop off their nomination papers with all of the required signatures. Elections Canada is not a huge organization (by government standards, they’re tiny). They don’t have the resources to do an instant check of the nomination papers. What they do is to verify that each of the signatories on the list is a registered voter in the riding.
Even this low barrier can be a problem, so Elections Canada recommends that candidates provide more than the minimum 100 signatures, as some of them may not be acceptable. Once all the names have been checked, if there are still not at least 100 acceptable signatures, then the Elections Canada folks do another pass through the list, and accept signatures from people whose addresses had registered voters in the previous election (the hurdle gets even lower).
Did you notice that last little bit? If you live at an address which had one or more registered voters living there in the last election, you are deemed to be a registered voter for the purposes of signing nomination papers. Is that not a low enough hurdle to avoid the need to submit forged signatures?
Update: Here’s the Globe & Mail story.
Update the second, 6 May: Elections Canada has declared the nomination papers to be valid. The other candidates still have the opportunity to challenge the result in court, although there may not much hope for them to succeed.
He comes not to praise Ignatieff
Colby Cosh, that is. He has a column up at Maclean’s which he admits “was prepared in a factory that manufactures gloating. Some traces may appear.”
When I argued that Ignatieff’s long absence from the country was a problem — very, very carefully distinguishing my own argument from the content of Conservative attack ads — I was greeted with a chorus of “How dare you?” I was told I had no standing to criticize a man of Ignatieff’s intellectual attainments; by that standard, none of those who have been living Canadian politics for the last quarter-century had any right to speak — so how’d that argument work out? I was told that I was engaging in a “personal attack”; how’d the argument that personalities have nothing to do with election success work out? I was told that love for Canada is all that matters, and you can love it just as much from a distance as you do from the inside; how’d the lovefest turn out? This is not just idle gloating — and even if it is, maybe it is about time for Liberals to stop obsessing over the psychological motives of commentators and start listening. This is about whether the Liberal Party is capable of making use of criticism, even unfriendly or biased criticism, as advice. This is the question, fundamentally the only question, that will determine whether it has a future, if it wants one.
But the point he’s trying to make, other than a quite understandable bit of back-patting for his prescience back at the beginning of Ignatieff’s short run as Liberal leader, is that the back-room handlers set this up:
… this election could have been avoided if Ignatieff hadn’t been allowed to commit to a “Not another second of Conservative government” position on the 2011 budget. I don’t know what story Paul Wells will tell in his sprawling Making Of The Prime Minister 2011 feature, and if he disagrees with me I would strongly encourage you to take his word over mine. My information is that the Liberal high command was playing a calculated gambit by leaving the go/no-go choice on Jack Layton’s desk. They thought that a spring 2011 election was better for them than an autumn one or a 2012 one. And they thought that Layton, in any event, would probably be too ravaged by illness not to support the budget — in which case they were prepared to go out and blame him for every jot and tittle in that document. This makes sympathy for the Liberal braintrust very, very difficult.
The NDP’s rookie class of 2011
Tamsin McMahon has a story about some of the (many) new NDP Members of Parliament from Quebec, including everyone’s favourite Vegas gambler, Ruth Ellen Brosseau:
At a news conference in Montreal Mr. Mulcair found himself defending the neophyte MP, saying that he would take responsibility for the riding while Ms. Brosseau brushed up on her French and that of all the NDP candidates elected in Quebec, she was the only one not fluent in the language.
Ms. Brosseau wasn’t originally chosen by the party to run in the riding. Elections Canada records show Julie Demers won the party nomination on March 23, but was moved to the riding of Bourassa, where she lost to Liberal Denis Coderre.
It must be odd enough for Ms. Brosseau, winning the seat despite being out of the country for a significant portion of the campaign, but you really have to feel sorry for Julie Demers!
