bob tarantino

What Is It With Globe and Mail Op-Ed Writers...

and their bizarre bloodlust?  Last year we had the sad spectacle of Canada's Worst Newspaper publishing Scott Reid's paean to the murdering of Stephen Harper.  Today, we've got Rick Salutin writing this (emphasis, bizarrely, in original):

No matter how often the economy crashes and shatters, [bankers] have no fear of being tried and executed for "economic crimes" - a rare feature of Soviet communism that one can actually feel nostalgic for.

Ah.  Thirty-three million Canadians, and this babbling old fool is the one Eddie Greenspon feels the need to give a column to.

Politics 03.15.09

When Liberal senators are the ones saying the smartest things coming out of Ottawa, there's a problem: This column by Colin Kenny, which was absolutely gratis advice to the Conservative government, was dead on:

What I find curious about the budget is that the government didn’t look to the huge gaps in Canada’s security matrix and take measures to fill them with what Canadian security agencies need so badly: people.

We’re short of soldiers. We’re short of cops. We’re short of spooks. We’re short of border guards. And we are also short of equipment for the military, much of which could be manufactured in Canada.

Yet the closest the government has come in recent months to making major investments in Canada’s security agencies was the announcement of a $274-million contract to purchase 1,300 military trucks from Navistar International Corporation. The company will build the trucks at its Texas plant, despite the fact that it has a plant in Chatham, Ont.

One can only assume, regrettably, that no one will pay any attention.

Who? Whom?  News that Ross Douthat is getting the "conservative" columnist slot at the New York Times prompted a variety of responses from Canadian commentators (from the positive to the, er, not quite so positive).  Unfortunately, what news of Douthat's ascension does highlight is the amazingly sclerotic state of conservative politics in Canada.  To recap: Douthat graduated from Harvard earlier this decade, began contributing to the blog The American Scene, was quickly identified as a thoughtful commentator and excellent writer, and his talent was nurtured and promoted through a variety of conservative publications like The National Review, The Weekly Standard and the Wall Street Journal.  And Douthat is only one of a number of young conservatives who are having an impact - can anything even remotely similar be said to have occurred in Canada?  If tomorrow the Globe and Mail or the National Post were to announce that they were opening up a new column on their op-ed page for a conservative commentator (stop laughing, you in the back), who would the possible candidates be?  Has the explosion of political blogging in Canada (which, for those taking notes, occurred at least as early as 2003), a process which effectively did the job for editors and publishers in identifying and promoting talent, resulted in any new voices being given prominence on the national stage?  And I don't mean getting posting privileges on Full Comment, or asking Chris Selley to offer a clever round-up of what other columnists are talking about.  A handful of conservative bloggers have placed an op-ed or two in the Post over the years, but that's the extent of the development of a new generation of talent (the same, of course, holds true for bloggers on the other side of the ideological divide, but they can complain on their own blogs).  The last time a significant new crop was sown was with the establishment of the National Post more than a decade ago, but those sinecures have been held pretty close to the chest (newsflash: Lorne Gunter still thinks global warming is a crock).  A few years ago when the Post opened up an ongoing columnist position, it gave it to... wait for it... Warren Kinsella.  Seriously.  A monkey could have predicted that would end up badly for both sides.  Guess what?  It did.  If not even the only nominally conservative national outlet in the country can be bothered to award column inches to conservatives, who will?  Adam Daifallah, the closest thing we have to a Douthat (in all the best senses, though Adam's rise preceded the rise of blogging) and Tasha Kheirridin wrote a book in 2005 which called, begged, for the development of a Canadian conservative movement rooted in think tanks and innovative funded media outlets - how's that worked out for us, especially considering we've had a (nominally) Conservative government for three frickin' years now?

"the authors played a similar game"

This is a decent example of why it's hard not to love Colby Cosh.

"the reason is simple"

My favourite thing about this 1,400-word article in the Toronto Star on the Khmer Rouge and their lunatic genocide against the Cambodian people is that it manages not to use the words "communist" or "communism" even once.

UPDATE: We get results!  Today's Star story (from the AP) calls the Khmer Rouge, in the first sentence no less, "ultra-communist".  (I was just kidding about getting results - nobody reads this blog.)

'left really with no other option"

An excellent illustration of just how tenuous the grip of "legislation" is on the behaviour of governments:

B.C. Liberals rewrite vaunted balanced-budget law

The B.C. Liberals returned to the legislature Monday to rewrite their championed balanced-budget law to clear the path for a deficit budget next week.

Yes - because when the law says something inconvenient, it's awesome to just, you know, change the law.  It must be nice to have the ability to alter the rules governing the performance of your job as you see fit and when you see fit.

"pander most cravenly"

Andrew Coyne pens a thoughtful lament for the nation:

I suspect a lot of Canadians might be interested in a party that was all of these things: liberal, democratic, free-market, federalist, with a sensible commitment to equality and environmentalism thrown in for good measure. Yet our political system seems incapable of producing it.

Yep.

Now I Remember

...why I largely stopped reading opinion columnists - because neither they nor their editors can evidently be bothered to indulge in the most rudimentary fact-checking exercises.  Linda McQuaig in today's Toronto Star:

This public obliviousness has allowed the Bush administration, with its disdain for disarmament, to keep expanding the U.S. nuclear arsenal, even openly defying the decades-old ban against weapons in space.

Say what you will abou the Bush administration, but they've done the exact opposite of "expanding the U.S. nuclear arsenal".  Don't take my word for it.  In 2002 the US and Russia signed the SORT treaty, which pledged both countries to the reduction of the number of their nuclear warheads to a maximum of 2,200 per state.  What does the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (the good folks who brought you the "doomsday clock", and who describe their mission as "inform[ing] the public about threats to the survival and development of humanity from nuclear weapons, climate change, and emerging technologies in the life sciences") have to say about Bush administration efforts vis-a-vis "expanding the U.S. nuclear arsenal"?  Well, let's look at their Nuclear Notebook - US Nuclear Forces, 2008 [.pdf]:

In 2007, [the US] restarted small-scale production of nuclear weapons for the first time in 15 years, though reduction of the stockpile continues...

The United States reduced its nuclear stockpile to 5,400 warheads.

The Defense Department removed an additional 5,150 warheads from the stockpile for future dismantlement ... An additional 15-percent reduction will be achieved by 2012...

Reduction of the Minuteman III missile force began on July 12, 2007...

Six years after SORT was signed, the air force is gradually reducing the number of warheads on ICBMs from roughly 1,600 in 2003 to approximately 764 today...

As the Bulletin notes, in 2004 Bush committed the US to a 50% reduction in its nuclear stockpile by 2012... a goal which was achieved in 2007, five years early.

Both McQuaig and her editor should be ashamed of publishing such an easily-disproved, incontrovertible lie.

"ensure that the present opportunity to become more seriously democratic is not lost"

As noted over at The Court, the question of the judicial appointments process to the Supreme Court of Canada will shortly be engaged yet again.

"[the] pertinent question is by what process will the selection be made? The answer could have a profound effect on the future of Supreme Court appointments in Canada, and more broadly on the relationship between the judiciary, the legislature and the public."

We should be so lucky.  To my eye, no one in Canada does a better job of articulating the deficiencies in the current appointments process, and explaining the fundamental democratic criteria which mandate an overhaul to make it more participatory, than Allan C. Hutchinson.  This piece, penned nearly three years ago when the appointments issue was being (badly) addressed by the Paul Martin government, is worth clipping and saving - read the whole thing, but here's a taste:

The Canadian process is much more low-key, bureaucratic and impersonal. The Prime Minister still has the final say, but, under the newly-reformed process, he or she has a limited list of candidates to choose from as a result of parliamentary and broader consultations. However, once a decision has been made, there is no opportunity for the public quizzing or rejection of the selected judge. It is a done deal with the empty and belated gesture of the Minister of Justice vicariously facing questions about the new judge.Yet the appearance of democratic input in the Canadian process is belied by the reality of the closed-doors decision-making which actually shapes the process and ultimately controls it.  It is thought that the dignity of the appointment and general judicial process is too seriously jeopardized by a more open process; judges and the legal system generally must be protected from a more robust and public scrutiny which the American appointees and courts must undergo.

This is a sad state of affairs by any lights, let alone in the actual conditions of the contemporary Canadian polity and the increasingly central role of its courts. If democracy is about anything, it is about increasing public involvement in the exercise of political power. While there are a few occasions in which confidentiality and even secrecy are justified, the appointment of powerful and unelected officials is not one of them. Democracy demands more and its citizens should expect more.

Despite Canadian contentions, the Supreme Court of Canada is as political and its decisions as controversial as those of its American counterpart. The divisions may not be as stark, but that is more a matter of style than anything else. Canadians, especially the judicial community, are much more polite and backroom in their disagreement; not washing dirty linen in public remains a guiding principle of too much Canadian politics.

"charged, convicted and sentenced"

The months since July 2007 have been among the busiest of my career, so I've been unfortunately unable to devote the kind of time I'd like to addressing various matters (legal, political and otherwise) on this blog.  In particular, the recent brouhahas over human rights commission complaints being filed against Maclean's and against Ezra Levant and the Western Standard engage free expression issues in which I have a particular interest, so it's been frustrating for me to be silent on the matters, but others have been doing a much better job of covering them then I'd be able to.  I have been, let us say, derelict in my duties as a member of the vast rightwing conspiracy.  Happily, others have been addressing the issues with much more eloquence and attention than I'd have been able to muster, so my voice has hardly been missed.  A couple of weeks ago I did find the time to pen an op-ed piece which the good folks at the National Post were generous enough to publish today.  It can be found online here, and on page A16 of the print edition.

The piece doesn't begin to contain much of what I'd like to say about the matters, but I thought it might provide some useful context for at least part of the discussion.  I don't love the title ("The Free-Speech Myth") which was appended to the op-ed, but I wasn't really able to offer any better suggestions.  Of more concern, there was one paragraph which lost a sentence in the editing process, which I'd like to add back in because the nuance is important - the underlined portion was in the original but missing from the final version:

Canadians have long sought to define the proper limits of speech and expression: The government once banned the tracts of Jehovah's Witnesses, and pulled Witness children who refused to salute the flag not just out of school, but out of the home of their parents. When the Doukhobor religious sect staged events of public nudity to give expression to their rejection of secular authority, the government responded by amending the Criminal Code to add a specific crime carrying an increased jail term.  These days, and for many years now, various mayors of Toronto have happily participated in Pride parades which feature enthusiastic displays of public nudity.

I was trying to highlight the juxtaposition in how we respond to public nudity: it was once considered a threat dire enough to warrant parliamentary attention, but our concerns have sufficiently morphed over the years that leading public figures will happily associate themselves with it.  The point, and hopefully the theme which came through in the column, isn't the normative aspect of the behaviour, but that our responses to the behaviour are in a constant state of reassessment and revision.  Much the same with free expression: what is considered acceptable expression has rather radically changed over the decades, and will likely continue to do so.  This is all a political project, and should be treated as such.  As I wrote, "In short, the objects of our piety may have changed, but the inclination to government oversight of speech and expression isn't terribly different".

"balk again"

I've long-since given up expecting most media outlets to provide even a semblance of accuracy in either their news reporting or their opinionating, particularly on legal issues.  That doesn't mean I'm still not entitled to get a little cross when they just flat out lie, as the Toronto Star and its columnists are so often in the habit of doing.  Take the Star's huffy editorial today, which, improbably, chastises the Harper government for putting forth "security certificate" legislation which, you know, complies with a Supreme Court ruling (that the Star manages to avoid breathing even a whisper about the fact that it was a Liberal government which passed the original, non-Charter compliant, legislation, says most of what you need to know).  But the security certificate legislation isn't even what the Star is all worked up about (they grudgingly refer to it as "one step forward").  Let's look at what the Star has to say about what it calls the "two steps back" in which the Harper government is engaged [emphasis added]:

But after taking one step forward on the certificates from a civil rights point of view, Harper yesterday took two steps back by moving to reinstate "modified" versions of two draconian laws passed in haste after 9/11. The laws expired this year under a sunset clause.

One law, allowing "preventive arrest," empowered police to arrest Canadians and others and hold them for up to a year, without being charged, if a judge believed that will thwart a terror attack. The other law, on "investigative hearings," required people to give evidence about threats even if they were to incriminate themselves, though the testimony would not be used against them later.

These are police-state powers that restrict judicial oversight, override traditional rights against self-incrimination, and put the onus on detainees to prove their innocence. They were never needed, or used. Since 9/11 police have made many arrests without invoking them.

Parliament was right to let these measures lapse, given their threat to civil liberties. It should balk again at resurrecting anything similar.

Scary, huh?  Except for one small matter: with respect to the "investigative hearings" provisions, none of those statements are true.  I detect the dread finger of Thomas Walkom and David Olive in having written that editorial - both are vituperatively engaged with this issue, and seem to have only the most fleeting familiarity with what's actually going on.  It's fascinating that the Star editorial writers would substitute their unconsidered conclusion for that of the ultimate arbiter of civil liberties in this country, the Supreme Court of Canada.  I've explained all this previously (see here), but to recap: the "investigative hearings" provisions have been used, which led to the Supreme Court of Canada specifically considering them (in this decision), and concluding that the "investigative hearings" provisions were not draconian, were not "police state powers" and were not a threat to civil liberties.  The "investigative hearings" provisions were considered so benign that they did not violate the Charter, and hence, the "saving clause" found in section 1 did not even need to be considered (see para. 106 of the decision).  For the Toronto Star to say otherwise, as they have, is an utter falsehood.  Rail all they want against the "preventive arrest" legislation (which was never tested in court), but to use the same brush to tar the "investigative hearings" provisions, and to ignore the historical record on the matter, is both puerile and pathetic.

"obviously sent an important message"

The interview of Ontario Chief Justice Roy McMurtry conducted by Haroon Siddiqui is absolutely hilarious, not least for the fact that Siddiqui, being Siddiqui, manages to let the most salient points of the interview fly right his head.  Check out just the opening [emphasis added]:

In an interview in his chambers at Osgoode Hall, McMurtry, 75, talked about a range of issues.

He did so with more than his usual candour – a reflection, no doubt, of his impending freedom from the constraints of judicial neutrality on public policy.

Which raises a number of questions, not least among them: why then didn't McMurtry observe the conventions of the office which he holds and, I don't know, wait a week or two before talking "about a range of issues"? Of perhaps equal relevance, if McMurtry is going to insert himself into political issues even more fervently once he's retired from the bench, how would we possibly be able to tell the difference? Various of our chief justices seem incapable of understanding the most basic tenet which governed the public conduct of members of the judiciary for centuries: if you're going to whine every time someone criticizes a judicial decision don't, ferthaluvagod, flounce into the public sphere and open your big mouth and prove your critics right at every juncture.

Then there's this brilliant non sequitur:

What of the argument that such decisions go against the traditional and established views of a society?

"I don't think the traditional view or the majoritarian view is the correct view. The Charter is really a document to protect minority rights."

The interview is most helpful, though: now we know that the Chief Justice of Ontario thinks the function of judicial decision-making is to "send messages", and it just so happens that the messages to be sent correspond precisely to his own political preferences.  Whattacoinkidink!  Can't wait to read part two of the fluffing interview...

Sometimes You Flip, Sometimes You Flop

Warren Kinsella, May 14th, 2007 [www.warrenkinsella.com/musings.htm]:

May 14, 2007 – Your DAILY HILLIER!™:

"[Canada is a] police state"
Ottawa Citizen, February 6, 2007

Warren Kinsella, May 17, 2007, in re Randy Hillier [www.warrenkinsella.com/musings.htm]:

Wow. That's all you can say about this guy, sometimes. Just "wow."

Warren Kinsella, May 17, 2007, National Post [emphasis added]:

As one Ottawa columnist noted, "The Conservative promise of open and accountable government is fulfilled by RCMP goons slapping handcuffs on a young federal temp and hauling him off in front of his co-workers, all over a leaked piece of Tory propaganda ? [the] spectacle of Jeffrey Monaghan's arrest would have made any police state proud."

True enough.

It wounds me to no end to post this about a guy who likes Social Distortion and Rancid seemingly as much as I do...

"desperate, desperate"

Q: What kind of line would be written by a reporter who (i) has apparently never attended a soccer match, (ii) doesn't appear to know what "hooliganism" is, and/or (iii) evidently has a crush on one particular party in the legislature?

A:

The kind of hooliganism usually saved for soccer arenas swept across the legislature as critics took to banging on desks and stalling question period in protest that neither Premier Dalton McGuinty nor Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Mike Colle were around to answer questions. [emphasis added]

Maybe they need to start sending the Speaker in via helicopter...

"could not be reached for immediate comment"

I don't know quite why I find the following snippet from this Canadian Press story so funny, but I do:

Comuzzi is generally considered a soft-spoken, gentlemanly, perpetually tanned MP.

Two out of three ain't bad, I suppose.

"the analytical approaches"

There's an adage which gets thrown around in law school: the Supreme Court is not final because it is correct, it is correct because it is final.  They definitively pronounce on the laws, in other words, but they don't always get it right - reliance on their authority is a function of deference to the political order, not some sort of recognition that they are infallible (it isn't unheard of for a court to reverse its own prior decision, sometimes within the space of a couple of years).

Having now had a chance to review the Supreme Court's decision in the Bryan case (a searchable .pdf of the decision can be found here), the Court is certainly relying on the second portion of that adage: the majority decision in this case is, frankly, bizarre.  The "majority" actually consists of three separate decisions: those of Justice Bastarache (by far the longest at 53 paragraphs), Justice Fish (concurring with Bastarache in the result and providing his own 28 paragraphs) and Justices Deschamps, Rothstein and Charron, who split the difference and in one paragraph assert that they agree with both Fish and Deschamps.  Which is interesting, because it seems to me that Bastarache and Fish fix their decisions on very different rationales: for Fish, upholding section 329 of the Canada Elections Act turns on the fact that what is involved is a "brief delay ... of three hours' duration at most" - it is not the suppression of information, in short, it is only a deferral (para. 80).  For Fish, to the extent that there is an infringement on a guaranteed right, it is so minimal that it is permissible.  Bastarache, on the other hand, builds his decision on the hitherto unknown right of "information equality", the first glimmerings of which were created by the Supreme Court in the Harper decision, which upheld prohibitions on third party election advertising.

Referring to these as two contrasting visions of the case should not, however, be taken to mean that they are roughly equivalent in their intellectual robustness.  The Fish position at least presents a semblance of an argument, the contours of which are cognizable: in assessing the infringement on the right of free expression, Fish is determining that, because of such a short duration, it is not so grave that it requires remedial action by the courts.  That's a debateable conclusion, but it's at least debateable.  The Bastarache position is essentially that whatever the government says it is trying to accomplish is super-awesome and the court isn't going to get in its way.  That's not a "decision", that's a capitulation.

Andrew Coyne, in his column reflecting on the decision, aptly describes what has happened: the concept of "information equality" as given function via section 329 of the Canada Elections Act, a concept previously unknown and not expressly reflected in any previous decision or statute of which I am aware, other than some vague allusions in the Harper decision noted above where the concept is never actually articulated, has been held to override the Charter-protected right of freedom of expression.  But that ultimately is only half of the story, which can be best seen by the different coverage accorded the matter from the political/news perspective (see Gerry Nicholls' post) and the legal perspective (see TheCourt.ca) (to his credit, Coyne hits both aspects in his column).  Deplorable as the ruling may be from a freedom of expression standpoint, it is just as concerning from a government accountability standpoint: the Supreme Court has essentially ruled that, in some circumstances, the government needs to provide next to no justification of its aims or methods, forcing the onus onto those challenging government power.

The Bastarache decision really should be read - since that's the only way you'll believe it.  As Justice Abella, writing for the dissent, described it, the government's argument (which was accepted whole by the majority) consists of "a combination of speculation and theory, unsubstantiated by cogent evidence”.  To properly describe the situation, note that the entire government argument rested on (1) a single survey from 2006 conducted by Decima Research/Carelton University School of Journalism and Communication, and (2) a Royal Commission (the "Lortie Report") report which is more than fifteen years old and which, and this is important, itself did not recommend a "black-out" of the type used in section 329 (the Lortie Report recommended the use of staggered voting hours).  Other than that (and we all know how exact opinion polls are), there is literally no "there" there.

The majority decision is so poorly reasoned it almost beggars belief.  The majority accepts at face value the Attorney-General's argument that "the mere fact that one voter could have general access to information about election results that another voter does not have is in and of itself problematic" [emphasis in original] (para. 12).  [It should also be noted that even this is undermined by Bastarache's later contention that he's not bothered by "a small number (less than 25 percent) of voters seeking out information privately" (para. 40).]  Also lending an air of unreality to the decision is that the majority repeatedly acknowledges that the law is unenforceable and ineffective (see, e.g., para. 79: "modern communications technology diminishes the delay's effectiveness ... [it] cannot and does not entirely prevent voters in central or western Canada who are determined to learn before casting their ballots what has transpired in the Atlantic Provinces from obtaining that information by telephone or e-mail, for example") - yet trundles forward despite that.

The Bastarache decision goes something like this:

• the government says "informational equality" is a "central assumption of electoral democracy" - and we won't question that assertion [para.12];
• section 329 of the Canada Elections Act protects "informational equality" - and we won't question that assertion [para. 12];
• section 329, and the protection of "informational equality", is a "direct result of the requirement that elections be fair" [para.22];
• courts should defer to the decisions of the legislature when it comes to how the legislature has erected the legislature framework for elections [para. 27];
• the objective of "informational equality", once asserted by the government, is "simply accepted by the Court as always pressing and substantial" [emphasis in original] [para.34];
• the government has this survey - therefore section 329 bears a rational connection to the "pressing and substantial" goal of ensuring "informational equality" [para. 40];
• in the aforementioned survey, a bunch of people said they would not seek out information about poll results if doing so was illegal - therefore, no one should be allowed to know this information [para. 40];
• section 329, based on the foregoing, has beneficial effects and no deleterious effects - and should therefore be allowed to stand [paras. 49-51]

Every time there is a gap in the reasoning (which is quite often), Bastarache invokes a totem: "logic and reason".  Can't quite see how we went from assertion A to conclusion B?  Logic and reason.  The phrase "logic and reason" is used eleven (11) times in Bastarache's decision, yet not once does he actually apply either logic or reason to the propositions set before him.  Instead, he takes the arguments of the government, says "I am applying logic and reason" and then jumps to the government's preferred conclusion.

What is truly bizarre is that section 329, over the course of the majority reasons, acquires the strength of, if not a Biblical commandment, then perhaps a law of physics: by paragraph 51 overturning section 329 apparently constitutes an assault on "the protection of Canada's electoral democracy".  For all the murmuring of deferring to Parliament, by paragraph 47 Bastarache seems to be implying that if section 329 is not kept in the Canada Elections Act, then the Supreme Court might just have to read it back in ("staggered hours, even if more extensive, as proposed in the Lortie Report, cannot alone perfectly address the problem of voter confidence. Informational imbalance remains if s. 329 of the Act is not retained").

There's really only one way around the decision: section 329 should be repealed by Parliament.  If there are concerns about poll results in the east materially affecting voting decisions in the west (something which is not supported by the evidence presented), then, as recommended by the Lortie Report, stagger voting hours or simply hold off on counting all ballots until all polls are closed.  But even doing that will not address the more pressing concern raised by the decision in Bryan: the dramatic lowering of the threshold when it comes to requiring the government to prove its case in relation to legislative action which affects our fundamental rights and freedoms.

The Sunset Lie

It's rather remarkable, really.  This past week, three Criminal Code provisions (sections 83.28, 83.29 and 83.3), referred to colloquially as the "investigative hearing" and "preventative arrest" provisions, respectively, expired in accordance with the "sunset clause" contained in section 83.32.  That, of course, is not the remarkable thing.  For that, one needs to examine the innumerable media reports which preceded and followed the expiration of the provisions, the non-sensical statements of Liberal leader Stephane Dion ("These two provisions were very harsh if you compare (them) with the Charter of Rights "), the opinion columns of those media pundits who have made a habit of commenting on Canada's anti-terror laws (like, say, here), the official position of the Liberal Party of Canada, the musings of the Liberal's water carriers, etc.  I could go on.

Wade through everything and you will not learn something that one would have thought would be rather important: two of the three provisions (sections 83.28 and 83.29) were specifically held to not violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Don't take my word for it: take the word of the Supreme Court of Canada.  They even helpfully named the case "In the matter of an Application under section 83.28 of the Criminal Code", just in case anyone wanted to, I don't know, do some research on the matter.

The Court concluded that the investigative hearing regime provided for in section 83.28 of the Criminal Code did not violate sections 7 or 11 of the Charter, nor did they "infringe the principles of [judicial] independence and impartiality".  (Although the Court did not specifically address section 83.29, it is functionally a subordinate provision to section 83.28, providing that an arrest warrant can be issued for a person named in an order issued under section 83.28(4) and who is not obeying the order.)

To draw the point a little more finely, for all the hue and cry about how draconian these provisions were, the legal authority with the power to decide whether they did or did not violate the rights of Canadians concluded that two of the three provisions did not.  I'm not arguing whether the preventative arrest should have been extended, I'm pointing out that the very reason which was cited by the parliamentary opposition and their supporters for allowing the investigative hearing provisions to expire was a lie.  Sections 83.28 and 83.29 do not need to be modified, because they are already Charter-compliant.

To draw the point most finely of all, the same Liberal party which not only drafted and enacted the investigative hearings in 2001 when it was in government, but then proceeded as government to argue the validity of the provisions all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, suddenly threw on its green scarves and decided that it would ignore not only its own previous position, but the guidance of the Supreme Court of Canada.  Which is odd, because some of the same people who erupted in cheeks-wet-with-tears joy over the SCC decision in Charkaoui studiously ignored the decision of the same Court in Application re s. 83.28 of the Criminal Code.  Odd, that.

"a tension that lies at the heart of modern democratic governance"

It's been a busy seven or so days, having spent a good chunk of last week in Ottawa attending a conference, and then this morning moderating a panel discussion about the CRTC's 2004 decision on whether to allow Canadian cable companies to carry al Jazeera.  All of which left little time for blogging.  Oddly enough, however, it left plenty of time for commenting on other people's blogs.  The comments revolve around the release last week of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Charkaoui et al.  I weighed in on the discussions over at Andrew's place and Dawg's place.  My bottom line?  I think the Court's decision is fair, considered and correct - and I think media coverage of the decision, particularly the Toronto Star's inexplicable Saturday edition which trumpeted the ruling as if it were the Second Coming, has been puerile and startlingly willing to disseminate flatly incorrect information.  The decision did not accomplish nearly so much as some of the coverage implied, nor was it as stunning a rebuke of the government position as some commentary seemed to wish.  TheCourt.ca, as is to be expected, has a great round-up post collecting informed commentary from a variety of sources, and anyone who is interested in the matter is strongly encouraged to peruse the links provided there.

"Problem is, it's mostly nonsense"

Innummeracy Innumeracy [spelling is a pretty good idea too - ed.].  It's a bad thing, I tells ya.  Especially when employed in the service of political rhetoric.  Try this on for size, courtesy of Michael Coren (hat tip - Shaidle):

A few examples: Those much-despised 1950s were, we are told, oppressive, confining and prudish. Yet since then the teenage suicide in North America has increased by 5,000%, which is a figure so extraordinary that some of you probably think it a misprint. No, five times one thousand. The allegedly dark days of half-a-century ago seldom saw young Canadians and Americans try to, and often succeed, in killing themselves. Not now. [emphasis added]

Um... no. 

On it's face, that statistic should have either stopped Michael Coren or his editor in their respective tracks - a 5,000% increase in teen suicide rates would have meant that if the rate in 1955 was 1 per 100,000, then the rate in 2005 was 50 per 100,000.  According to the US American Center for Disease Control, "From 1952 through 1992, the incidence of suicide among adolescents and young adults nearly tripled" - which would be an increase of, say, somewhat less than 300%.  Information on Canadian youth suicide rates is a bit harder to come by, but this StatsCan report from 2002 (start on page 22 of the .pdf), certainly reveals no increase of the magnitude which Coren is asserting.  This Child & Family Canada page asserts a four-fold increase for male teen suicide rates between 1960 and 1991.  This article (from the Harvard Institute of Economic Research) asserts a tripling in suicide rates for teens over the last fifty years.

I don't think the 5,000% number is a "misprint", I think it's a fabrication.  Why were neither Coren nor his editor willing or able to fact-check his rather startling conclusion?

a 'very dangerous game'

Would it kill certain media outlets in this country to, I don't know, accurately report the news every once in a while?

Take this Maclean's piece.  Please.  For context purposes, note that, according to the byline currently at the top of the report, it was filed on February 15, 2007 at 12:28pm EST.

The Harper government may be staring down the barrel of an unprecedented Constitutional battle if it goes ahead with its refusal to respect an opposition bill calling on Canada to respect its Kyoto engagements.

The Harper government has never, not once, even insinuated that it will not abide by Bill C-288.  In fact, if you click through to the link with which Maclean's highlights "refusal", (see here), the first sentence of the Yahoo! report is "Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he'll respect the Kyoto climate-change legislation forced through by the opposition".  So, as evidence of assertion X, Maclean's is citing a report which states not-X.  [The entire media scramble over the purported "refusal" of the government to abide by Bill C-288 was started by this Toronto Star piece, which, as I explained here, is another example of horrendous reporting, since even though it repeatedly quotes a Liberal MP as saying that the Tories are on the verge of a coup d'etat, it provides no evidence whatsoever that the Tories are preparing to ignore the bill, and in fact is forced to admit that the Tories "did not explicitly say they would ignore the law").]

Back to the Maclean's piece.

"... The debate about whether Canada will comply with Kyoto is now over," Stewart Elgie, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, told the Canwest News Service. "Parliament has answered yes. The only question now is how we will do it."

No idea how Stewart Elgie is, but he may want to familiarize himself with how laws are passed in this country.  Canada's Parliament is a bi-cameral institution, meaning that it consists of two houses: the Commons and the Senate.  In order for a bill to become law, it must be passed in identical form by both houses, and then assented to by the Governor-General.  Thus far, of those three steps, only one has occurred: Bill C-288 has been passed by the House of Commons.  "Parliament" has not, in any meaningful sense, "spoken".  At best, the Commons have "spoken".  Whether Bill C-288 will ever become law, or the ultimate form of that law, is still an open question. [Of course, there is an alternative argument (one that is actually correct) that by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol in 2002, Canada's Parliament "answered yes" back then to the question of whether to comply with it, but that isn't what Elgie, or the reporters who are conveying his words, are getting at.]

Back to Maclean's.

But the Conservatives have hinted they’re considering ignoring the law outright and facing either the political or legal consequences that would no doubt follow.

They've "hinted" at this?  When?  Where?  Provide a quote, please.

"It's really a toothless tiger,” Environment Minister John Baird said. “All it does is talk about more plans and more studies … we need real action."

That's your quote?  Is nobody over there able to draw a distinction between saying "this bill sucks" and "if and when this bill becomes law we're not going to obey it"?  Seriously?

The Liberals, for their part, have said Harper’s refusal amounts to nothing less than the usurping of legislative powers by the government - a "coup d'état", as they've termed it.

Once again, where is this purported "refusal"?

"The prime minister can't act like an emperor and decide he'll respect one law but not another one he doesn't like," Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez, who introduced the bill adopted Wednesday, said. "He can't do that. This is a democracy. Democracy has expressed itself."

You don't say.  Didn't a single reporter think to say to Pablo Rodriguez, "excuse me, sir, but could you please point to an example of when the Prime Minister said he wouldn't respect this law?"  Did a single reporter think to themselves, "hey, what are the odds of this bill being passed by the Senate, at which point "democracy will have spoken"?"  People (not least among them members of the professional commentariat) often bemoan the supposedly disgraceful levels of political discourse in this country.  They should feel free to take a look at themselves first.

Whither Kyoto?

Over at Staples' place there's an interesting debate occurring in the comments to this post, which turns on the question posed by this Toronto Star piece, namely: what are the options of the Conservative government if Bill C-288 becomes law?

A bit of background.  Bill C-288 (the current draft of which can be found here) is a federal private member's bill introduced by Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez.  The Bill, which carries the title "An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol", has passed second reading in the Commons and gone through committee, and is scheduled for third reading on February 14, 2007.  Assuming it passes third reading (which is likely, since each of the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc support it), it will then go to the Senate, where its prospects remain uncertain (since the upper chamber is dominated by Liberal appointees, it would likely pass, but it's an open question how long it will be before the bill goes to a vote).

Before going further, I'll indulge in some political analysis.  I'll take the time to note that Bill C-288 is a startlingly cynical bill, coming as it is from a member of a party that did approximately nothing to implement the Kyoto Protocol.  As a result of the lack of efforts under successive Liberal governments, Canada was in violation of its obligations pursuant to Article 3, Paragraph 2 of the Kyoto Protocol (the full English text of the Protocol can be found here) - Art. 3, Para. 2 obliged each signatory to "by 2005, have made demonstrable progress in achieving its commitments under this Protocol".  As shown by this Sierra Club report from December 2004, the Liberal governments had made little to no progress.  I will also note that this is the kind of legislation which, if played correctly by the Conservatives, could be parlayed into a majority government.  The commercials practically write themselves: somber music plays as images of dreary, empty offices and shops flicker by, forlorn owners hungrily eyeing the vacant streets for customers; wide-angle shots of endless highways devoid of vehicles but populated by huge lines of shuffling pedestrians, prohibited from using their cars to get anywhere; fast-cut shots of masked and armed government agents storming factories as they nationalize polluting industries... and then the ominous voice-over: "the Liberals and NDP want to shut down more than 30% of the Canadian economy in order to meet the Kyoto targets, targets which no other country is close to meeting."  Close-up on a shivering, sad-eyed child, buried in blankets in a desperate attempt to stay warm after it has become illegal to heat your home.  "Choose your Canada - Vote Conservative".  I'm not saying it's accurate, but I'm sure it would be tempting for Tory strategists.  A six-week campaign of commercials like that, and Stephen Harper would be rolling into the Saddledome to celebrate his majority victory, heralded by Stephane Dion's yipping dog "Kyoto" and riding a bucking Mark Holland, while using Holland's eyebrows as reins.

Whatever.  What has prompted the debate is the intimation from the Star article that the government would not abide by Bill C-288 if it became law (even assuming it passes third reading in the Commons, it still would need to be passed by the Senate and then receive royal assent from the Governor-General before "becoming law").  It's a bit of spin by the Star, prompting Rodriguez to quail about a "coup d'etat" - if you read the article, though, even the Star is forced to admit that the Tories "did not explicitly say they would ignore the law", it's just taht some MPs have just called it "useless" and predicted that "their government’s fate was not bound to it", which is more of a political prediction than a proposal.  That didn't stop the Star from breathlessly repeating the "coup d'etat" line and calling up some law professors to get their reactions ("they'd be breaking the law"!).

But what does Bill C-288, as presently drafted (and it could still be revised by the Senate), actually require the government to do?  The answer ranges from "not an awful lot" to "it's not quite clear".

Sections 5(1) and 7 are really the heart of the bill.  Section 5(1) requires the Minister of the Environment to table a "Climate Change Plan" within 60 days of the bill becoming law, which is to include a "description of the measures to be taken to ensure that Canada meets its obligations under Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Kyoto Protocol".  Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Kyoto Protocol is the one which provides that signatories must reduce "their overall emissions of [greenhouse] gases by at least 5 per cent below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012".

Section 7 is the more bizarre section, so it warrants quotation:

(1) Within 180 days after this Act comes into force, the Governor in Council shall ensure that Canada fully meets its obligations under Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Kyoto Protocol by making, amending or repealing the necessary regulations under this or any other Act.

(2) At all times after the period referred to in subsection (1), the Governor in Council shall ensure that Canada fully meets its obligations under Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Kyoto Protocol by making, amending or repealing the necessary regulations under this or any other Act.

On its face, the section doesn't actually make much sense: how can the Governor in Council (i.e., the federal Cabinet) ensure that Canada "fully meets its obligations under Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Kyoto Protocol" within 180 days, when Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Kyoto Protocol doesn't require or measure results until 2012?  Is the country supposed to cut its emissions by hundreds of megatonnes in the space of six months?  How?

Setting aside any quibbles about the wording, though, let's say the Star's torqued description of the Tory reaction is accurate, and they simply refuse to do anything - they don't table a "Climate Change Report" or table one which is prima facie nonsensical (e.g., it consists of three words: "Go F**k Yourselves"), and explicitly say they won't do anything to abide by Section 7.  Can anyone do anything about that?

I'm not sure of the answer, but on first blush I don't think there's much that anyone could do.  The Star quotes University of Ottawa professor Stewart Elgie as saying "someone could take them to court and get a court order", but I'm not sure that's the case - I'm not sure what that court order could possibly say.  "Breach of statute" is not a cause of action under Canadian law (see the Supreme Court of Canada decision in The Queen (Can.) v Saskatchewan Wheat Pool).  If someone wanted to sue, they would have to argue that they had suffered damages arising from the negligence of the Cabinet (i.e., a tort claim) - but even on my limited knowledge of tort law, that seems like it would be a fantastically hard case to make.  What about a claim that the failure to abide by the act is a violation of someone's Charter rights?  The Operation Dismantle case (text of the Supreme Court decision is available here) would seem to be authority against the viability of such a claim.  Okay, sez you, but what about a "court order", pace Elgie, that instructs the Cabinet to abide by the law?  No dice: Section 22(1) of the federal Crown Liability and Proceedings Act provides that "a court shall not, as against the Crown, grant an injunction or make an order for specific performance" - in other words, a court can't force the government to do something or refrain from doing something (hat tip to "Alan", Staples' comments, who I assume is the ex-Occam).  Query whether someone can sue "Cabinet" or individual ministers as distinct from the Crown.

Of course, this is almost entirely speculation on my part since it is well outside my area of practice, but it's an interesting question: when can you force the government to abide by its own laws?  Absent any measurable damages or a violation of the Charter, I'm not sure you can.  Anyone out there have any other ideas on the matter?

"It can't be"

Whatever else you want to say about climate change, let's agree that the debate over it is resulting in acres of ink being spilled (please note I avoided the obligatory "hot air" reference).  Some of that ink is thoughtful, some of it isn't.  Some of it makes no damn sense whatsoever.  Take Richard Gwyn's column yesterday, which I think contains my favourite piece of muddled prose so far this year.  Poor Gwyn is hamstrung by his need to write honestly (whatever else I may think of him, I concur he is usually genuine in his attempt to put to paper his good faith convictions), and the need of his audience to hear what they want.  Herewith:

Contrarily, if responses of this kind aren't needed, then global warming can't be the kind of apocalyptic problem that it is being presented to us as.

It is apocalyptic, most certainly potentially. Our responses so far, though, have been timid, conventional, banal, and self-deceiving. [emphasis added]

Six words, and it would take a book to unpack them.  The sentence begins with an assertion ("[global warming] is apocalyptic") which he manages to disprove not less than three words later.  Global warming is positively "apocalyptic", except that it is only "potentially" apocalyptic.  Certainly.  I think.  Poor guy sets up his own straw man and then manages to get bogged down in the hay as he attempts to lance through it.

"would've said no"

And so the worlds collide.

Conservative attack ads fired at Liberal Leader Stephane Dion may end up sideswiping the ruling party after questions were raised about possible breach of copyright laws.

Indeed.  The three ads (which can be seen here) each appear to use footage from the Liberal leadership debates which took place last year.  According to the Star story, "that footage belongs to a consortium of TV networks which pooled their resources to provide live coverage of the debates" (presumably the copyright of the networks arises under section 21 of the Copyright Act (Canada)).  It would appear then that, prima facie, the Conservative ads infringe copyright in the footage (should somebody be entitled to copyright protection just because they plopped a camera in front of some people and pressed "record"? from such questions are law schools essays spawned).

The Conservative response related in the report indicates that the party is, at this point, refusing to say how they obtained the clips.  It's raised as a possibility that a Conservative member filmed the debate(s) him or herself from the audience - unlikely, though, since the cameraperson managed to score a killer angle for most of the shots and kept an awfully steady hand while doing so.  It's also possible that the party obtained the footage from the "marketing or archival" unit of one of the networks involved - if that's the case, the question of infringement will be a function of whatever license was obtained in respect of the footage.

But as with so many things these days, this is an opportunity to reflect on a larger issue: should there even be a possibility of infringement in situations like this?  In Canada, as mentioned above, this appears to be a case of prima facie infringement.  American readers are likely thinking "this is a clear fair use example" - except that, as Canadians are wont to forget, we don't have the benefit of a broad and flexible "fair use" doctrine in Canada.  Instead, we are yoked with a limited, desiccated "fair dealing" concept.  The Copyright Act enumerates certain exceptions to infringement - and if you can't fit yourself into one of them, you've infringed copyright. 

As Michael Geist, who is quoted in the Star article, notes, there is a remote possibility that the use of the footage could fall under one of the "fair dealing" exceptions to infringement outlined in section 29.1 of the Copyright Act (Canada):

Fair dealing for the purpose of criticism or review does not infringe copyright if the following are mentioned:

(a) the source; and

(b) if given in the source, the name of the

(i) author, in the case of a work,

(ii) performer, in the case of a performer’s performance,

(iii) maker, in the case of a sound recording, or

(iv) broadcaster, in the case of a communication signal.

That would be a hell of an argument to make.  First, there does not appear to be any attribution in the Conservative ads to the owner of the footage, so the obligation to identify the source has not been met.  More fundamentally, however, is the matter of whether this is properly a case of "criticism".  If so, I think it would represent a novel expansion of the "criticism" concept.  Generally, the criticism has been understood to allow a reproduction in order to enable criticism of the work being reproduced - so, for example, if you're discussing a painting, you should be able to reproduce the painting in the context of your article/essay/whatever, in order to enable the readers to appreciate what it is you're discussing.  But in the case of the Conservative ads, they aren't engaged in a criticism of the work which is protected by copyright (i.e., the recorded footage itself), they're engaged in a criticism of a subsidiary element which is itself embodied therein (this "subsidiary element", i.e., the "performance" of Dion and Ignatieff is unlikely itself to be the subject of copyright protection, but I'm open to arguments to the contrary, which if correct would make the hypothetical Conservative position even more tenuous). 

Assuming the Conservatives could clear the (high, in my opinion) hurdle that their use in fact constitutes "criticism", question of whether the "dealing" is "fair" would need to be addressed.  Per the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the CCH case, they would then need to satisfy the following tests (see para. 53 of the decision):

(1) the purpose of the dealing;

(2) the character of the dealing;

(3) the amount of the dealing;

(4) alternatives to the dealing;

(5) the nature of the work; and

(6) the effect of the dealing on the work.

Item (1) is really just a reiteration of the question of whether what they are doing constitutes "criticism".  Items (3) through (6) would likely favour the hypothetical Conservative argument (being, respectively, minimal, none (or limited), largely irrelevant and none).  Item (2), however, could, in tandem with item (1), be fatal to the argument, since the Supreme Court expressly mentioned that "multiple copies of works ... being widely distributed" will "tend to be unfair"; it's an open question whether such an analysis merits application in a digital/broadcast context, but, again on it's face, it doesn't look good for the Conservatives.

Assuming you haven't started bleeding out the eyes from boredom at the foregoing, I'll leave the final word to Michael Geist, who I think get the salient issue exactly right:

"Frankly, it should be beyond doubt that they should be able to use short clips of these kinds of public political events that should fall under a fair use doctrine. I think it's unfortunate that under Canadian copyright law there is some level of uncertainty."

The Contingent Prime Minister

Just after Stephen Harper's Conservatives scored a marginal win in the 2005 federal election, I queried whether Harper would be Joe Clark or John Diefenbaker - would he, to simplify and exaggerate, guide his minority to an early ignominious end leaving the stage as a political footnote, or leverage his fragile government into one of the largest electoral majorities in Canadian history?  We still have no real way of knowing whether the Harper government is simply a Conservative interregnum or something more, but I think part of the difficulty in answering the question is that it is entirely an entirely mechanistic one.

The question concerns itself with the process of electoral results, but not the substance (or lack thereof) which impels them.  Which isn't to say it isn't a question worth asking - but it's an entirely separate question from whether Harper is or will be a good conservative prime minister on a substantive analysis, in the sense of having implemented conservative policies or effected a conservative torquing of the Canadian body politic.  But while the Clark/Diefenbaker question is separate, it is also primary, in the sense that it must be answered before the second question can properly be posed.

Andrew Coyne's latest column touches on the apparent malleability of Stephen Harper's politics:

For there isn't much left of conservatism nowadays, is there? Spending? The Finance minister's fall economic statement projects spending to rise to levels never approached by any Liberal government, and yes, that's after allowing for inflation and population growth. Taxes? The party that once campaigned on a flat tax, then on broad-based tax cuts, now sprays special-interest tax credits hither and yon, such as that for children's sports. (Which sports? Teams of experts have been retained to advise whether the kids are sweating enough to qualify.)

Corporate welfare? Once upon a time conservatives wanted to abolish subsidies to business. No longer. Agricultural quotas? No danger of any reform there. Privatization? Don't make me laugh. Much of this dilution took place in advance of the last election, notably at the party's triumphant founding policy convention in 2005. But the process has only accelerated post-election, in pursuit of the coveted majority.

The more the party has chased the middle, however, the faster it has seemed to recede; with each abandonment of its principles, the opposition and the media, those arbiters of the status quo, simply yawn and move the goalposts a little further down the field. [emphasis added]

I think the emphasized phrase is really the beating heart of the entire matter: absent a majority, we can't fairly ask the question of whether these Conservatives are sufficiently philosophically conservative.  It can't be emphasized enough that Harper is swimming against two tides: the entrenched hostility of the media and the fact that his party has no natural allies in Parliament.  A Liberal minority would have a much less difficult time cobbling together sufficient votes among Dippers and Blocheads (can we use that term now?) to pass legislation, since their broad policy and philosophical leanings are at least broadly in concert - it requires some deft maneuvering for a Conservative government to accomplish the same thing. 

Take a simple example: last year the Tories proposed legislation which would have ended the possibility of house arrest "sentences" for violent criminals.  The pro-crime elements of the Liberals, Bloc and NDP watered the proposal down so much that it essentially accomplished nothing.  Think about that: a fundamentally conservative proposal, one which would presumably have overwhelmingly broad support among the public (I mean, what voters, other than Liberal/Bloc/NDP MPs, would vote against a proposal that is trying to punish violent criminals?), and yet it couldn't make it through a divided legislature.  When such a basic, putatively uncontroversial policy can't get enacted, it's a bit much to ask the Conservatives to start effecting wholesale structural changes.

What kind of conservative is Stephen Harper?  What kind of conservatives are the federal Conservatives?  We can't really know.  That a Conservative minority isn't much different from what a Liberal one would look like is almost entirely a function of the structural impediments it faces (which, to reiterate, would be structural facilitators to a Liberal minority).  Small-c conservatives will need to countenance an awful lot of non-conservative politicking (see Coyne's column for more examples) in order to effect the gamble that a Conservative majority would be fundamentally different from a Liberal one.

"CBC News has learned"

As Staples pointed out today, it's an interesting late-breaking trend in reporting that news about the Conservative government must be accompanied by a comparison to the Liberals (usually in the latter's favour).  His example is more egregious, but this CBC story about tomorrow's environmental announcement(s) caught my eye for another reason:

And all are very similar to Liberal proposals in their so-called Green Budget of 2005. [emphasis added]

Now, while I still pay my share of attention to politics, I paid a lot more back in 2005.  And I can safely say that I never heard the Liberal budget of 2005 being referred to as the "Green Budget".  Not once.  Ever.  That is until seeing said CBC piece, wherein the reference to the possibly apocryphal "Green Budget" is made twice, including in the subtitle (or whatever you call it in a news article).  There's a Green Budget Coalition, but that has nothing to do with the Liberals or their 2005 budget.  A Google search on liberal + "green budget" + 2005 doesn't seem to turn up much of relevance.  So, I throw it to the legions of fervent readers: is the notion of a Liberal "Green Budget" in 2005 a smidge of the CBC revisionism?  Or has my memory gone all wonky?

"an intriguing challenge"

Jeff Jedras has an interesting post about the positioning we're seeing on the environment:

Two interesting stories this morning seem to be setting up an interesting potential political opportunity for Steve: His Sister Souljah moment. ...

Using this desired five times production increase as an impetus (and Natural Resources Canada participated, so he knew it was coming) Harper has the opportunity to say this forces me to bring in tough measures to minimize the resulting environmental impact. If Baird's musings are any indication, he is prepared to give the oil industry some tough medicine. And with Harper's rumoured equalization plans he's already shown he's willing to trade Western votes for support elsewhere.

And by showing the rest of the country he's willing to stand up to his Alberta base, and on the environment no less, he will have established his centrist credentials in the minds of voters, not to mention taking the Green issue away from the opposition. [emphasis added]

Probably exactly what is needed to break into majority territory in the polls.  And the majority of voters, who don't pay all that much attention to politics outside of elections, will recognize the animating principle: even if a good policy is entered into for cynical reasons, it's still a good policy.  The trick, of course, is getting the "good policy" bit correct.

"others dispute such analyses"

On either side of the 49th, very different parties appear to be coming to somewhat similar conclusions:

The [Democrat-controlled] House of Representatives is poised Thursday to play Robin Hood with energy policy.

It aims to cut $14 billion in federal oil and gas tax breaks and other benefits over the next 10 years and give them instead to renewable-energy programs.

... Such a change would represent a noticeable trim in government support for the oil and gas industry at a time when it is trying to boost domestic production. It would provide a huge boost to renewable energy industries as they try to replace fossil fuels with cleaner energy that's also domestically produced.

Meanwhile, up north (hat tip - Staples):

Environment Minister John Baird questioned the wisdom of tax incentives introduced in the 1990s to boost production in Alberta's oilsands, and hinted yesterday the Conservative government might have more to say on the issue when it tables its spring budget.

... As he announced a $230-million investment over four years into research on clean technologies with Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn, Mr. Baird said he is puzzled by the federal assistance in the booming sector.

"I cannot explain why the Liberal government of [new leader Stephane] Dion made these changes," Mr. Baird said, speaking in French.

The approach is slightly different in either case - the Canadian government is talking about eliminating programs which "allow oil companies to write off their start-up costs with breaks on taxes and royalties", while what appears to be a similar program in the US ("the oil and gas percentage depletion allowance, created in 1916 ... allow[s] smaller, independent oil companies to deduct 15 percent of sales revenue to reflect the declining value of their investment ... [another tax break] permits big oil companies to immediately deduct 70 percent of their "intangible drilling costs," such as the cost of wages, supplies, and site preparation") will remain in place.

In any event, though, the existing breaks seem pretty difficult to justify in the current climate (pun unintentional).  Interesting as well is the attempt by the Tories to play against (incorrectly applied) type, and appeal both to the libertarian-inclined and environmentally conscious (not that those are necessarily mutually exclusive categories).  We can say that when such different parties are undertaking such similar steps we're getting awfully close to a consensus.

"he's gone and blown it"

Richard Gwyn does an amazing job of undercutting his own argument in his column today.  Here's his thesis:

It's that the treaty itself [i.e., the Kyoto Protocol] should be an international one that matters. This [i.e., the fact that the treaty is an international treaty] provides the mechanism by which, as public concern about the environment develops in this country, politicians everywhere will be put under increasing pressure to translate generalities into concrete action.

And this is happening.

Got it?  The "dynamic" (to use Gwyn's word) is that Kyoto will magically force the hands of politicians into doing something about "climate change".  "Canadians understand this", intones Gwyn, and for Stephen Harper not to, in Gwyn's locution, "understand that Canadians understand this", is, again in his words, "singularly stupid".  Fair enough.  But let's take a look at the examples which Gwyn provides of how "effective" Kyoto is (these are the examples which Gwyn uses to illustrate his "this is happening" declaration, noted above).

In China, it's becoming politically acceptable for people to complain about environmental pollution. The U.S. performance on reducing greenhouse gas emissions is probably now better than ours, if only because of actions taken at the state level rather than in Washington.

*ahem*

Notice anything about those two examples?  Here's a hint: the US has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and in Gwyn's own description, China, while a signatory, is entitled to a "free ride".  Whatever it is that is causing these beneficial changes in China and the US, it ain't Kyoto.  Should we clean up the environment?  Undoubtedly.  Is the magical totem of "Kyoto" the only, or even the best, mechanism for achieving that goal?  Unlikely.

It's Almost As If They're Speaking from a Script

To refresh:

...the NDP and the Conservatives will attempt to work together to pass some form of green legislation.  As speculated about here, perhaps this will end up looking something like this: in exchange for concessions on a relatively robust environmental bill, the NDP will support a Conservative budget.  This allows Harper to project a conciliatory image and Layton to continue to burnish his "we-get-results" persona...

And so (hat tip: Greg Staples):

Layton told CBC Newsworld today that he needs to see some "dramatic and significant changes in direction" by the Conservative government before he'll commit to any kind of co-operative arrangement with Harper.

The NDP leader says he wants to see some "tough-minded" emission and pollution controls in the automobile and industrial sectors before he'll even consider helping the Tories pass key environmental legislation.

Layton says Harper needs to demonstrate some humility and willingness to compromise... [emphasis added]

You don't say...

No Wonder He Gets Pride of Place on the Op-Ed Page

Jeffrey Simpson on Wajid Khan:

Jeffrey Simpson: Wajid Khan will disappear after the next election. He signed up several thousand Muslims and won the Liberal nomination in a safe Liberal seat. The Liberals will nominate another Muslim against him, and he will likely lose. It gives a government a visible minority presence that it lacks, so in the short term this is good, and it balances a little the optics of a government that had pretty much handed its Middle East policy over to the Canada-Israel committee. [emphasis added]

Eddie Greenspon, you gots some good thinkers working over there.

Over There

What with roadtrips, end-of-year "best of" list commentary, political happenings and various book developments, I have a glut of posts waiting to be written.  What with getting back to work, however, those will mostly need to wait.  In the meantime, a series of thoughts on various issues related to the international scene:

• A Norwegian hotel chain owned by Hilton is facing some kind of massive protest because the hotel has refused to allow a Cuban delegation to stay there, citing the fact that Hilton, as an American company, is subject to the US embargo on trade with Cuba.  In a move which some observers have described as "*cough* hypocritical *cough*", some of the largest trade unions in Norway (including the "300,000-member Norwegian Union of Municipal and General Employees" and the "830,000 member Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions") are now boycotting the hotel chain.  I assume we can all agree that the US embargo (fully imposed in 1963 by John F. Kennedy and subsequently continued and expanded under Reagan and Clinton) is moronic and should be done away with fortwith, but could people opposed to it at least get their facts straight?  The Norwegian Union of Municipal and General Employees issued a statement demanding that "the [Norwegian] government take steps so that companies ... which clearly abide by the United States' illegal boycott and blockade and not Norwegian law, are barred from doing business in Norway" (emphasis added).  The US trade embargo is not a "blockade", which would require there to be US ships surrounding the island and preventing any passage to or from.  Nor is the boycott "illegal" - a country can decide not to trade with another country without in any fashion violating international law (there may be a vague argument that there is some illegality in the purported extra-territorial application of domestic US laws surrounding the embargo, but I somehow doubt the NUMGE is quite that subtle in its analysis).  As you were.


• The Cato Institute published this interesting analysis of corruption in Venezuela.  Take away from it what you will, but it's interesting to note how endemic corruption has been in Venezuela since its independence in 1821 - it just seems that now corruption is more, er, "democratic".  And since corruption isn't a good thing, the fact that it is now more demographically widespread doesn't seem like much of an advance...


• There was an enormous amount of commentary surrounding Gerald Ford's death, and since he was US President for such a short period of time most of it revolved around the one dramatic incident for which he is remembered: the pardon of Richard Nixon.  Two things to note. First, here is the text of the actual proclamation which pardoned Nixon - which still leaves, for me, the unanswered question: how do you pardon someone of a crime which not only haven't they been convicted of, but they've never even been charged with?  Second, Christopher Hitchens, guy that he is, squawks at the funeral: How President Ford managed to go soft on Iraqi Baathists, Indonesian fascists, Soviet communists, and the Shah … in just two years.


• Finally, a couple of interesting pieces on the demise of Saddam Hussein: Anne Applebaum on Saddam's place in "the pantheon of modern dictators", and Efrain Karsh explaining why some Arabs are upset about Saddam's execution.

I'll Take Someone's Word For It

...but I have to admit I can't really see whose votes Stephane Dion is trying to leverage by coming out so strongly in favour of not just retaining the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly, but actually promising to restore it in the event it is ever rescinded.  In any event, here's something I find interesting about that Maclean's story:

Murray Downing, a farmer and former federal Liberal candidate, welcomes Dion's support for the wheat board.

But he said if the Conservatives aren't ousted from government soon, a future Liberal government would be hard-pressed to turn back the clocks and re-establish a grain monopoly.

... Daryl Knight, who farms near Decker, Man., said he was impressed by Dion's position on both agriculture and the environment.

"He seems like he wants the whole country to work together, and that's a refreshing change because agriculture was never mentioned in the past," said Knight. "Now we're part of the country, which makes me pretty happy and proud."

I'm bored, it's 10:10pm on your dial, so I figure, what the hell, lets Google Daryl Knight, since he seems to be the only non-partisan that Maclean's was able to find.  Huh.  Turns out that Daryl Knight, "who farms near Decker, Man.", is/was... Murray Downing's campaign manager.  Got it.  So, based on the evidence available, Stephane Dion has managed to sway to his side... a former Liberal candidate and his campaign manager.  Got it.

And So It Begins

Layton, speaking at a year-end news conference today, challenged the other federal parties to help him rewrite the Conservative climate-change bill that's currently before a Commons committee.  "This Parliament could completely reconstruct – in fact construct anew – legislation that would get the job done," he said.

Thus, the NDP and the Conservatives will attempt to work together to pass some form of green legislation.  As speculated about here, perhaps this will end up looking something like this: in exchange for concessions on a relatively robust environmental bill, the NDP will support a Conservative budget.  This allows Harper to project a conciliatory image and Layton to continue to burnish his "we-get-results" persona ("I think we have a bit of a reputation for being able to work with just about anybody that's willing to try to get some results on the key issues").

Oh, and if there's any residual doubt about that scenario, let's allow Mr. Layton to lay them to rest:

Layton repeatedly insisted he's not interested in striking a deal to win Tory support on the environment in exchange for the NDP giving the government an easy ride on the budget.

"We want to see brand new climate-change legislation (and) we want to see the gouging of people's pocketbooks stopped," he said.

"We'll work on all of these issues simultaneously. It's not a question of trading one for the other."

Bless him, but he's a politician - trading one for the other is exactly what we're going to see.

Lions and Lambs, Hugging

I am currently more sick than I ever thought it possible to be and still be functioning.  But I've purchased and consumed my Buckley's, so hopefully I will be out and about soon enough.  In the meantime, the coherency of this post might be a little lacking - bear with me. 

In the midst of one of my fever dreams, I recalled that about a million years ago, on a different blog, I threw out the idea that what was really needed at the federal level was a formal governing accord between the Conservatives and the NDP.  Since we are entering some sort of bizarre silly season for political speculation (exemplified by this Star article, which posits, on the basis of a single aberrational by-election result in a riding held by the Liberals for the last twenty or so years, that we "could see Liberals helping Greens, and vice-versa, to block the Tories and NDP in ridings all over Canada in the next election" - a notion which requires the Greens to magically vault into second place in election results across the entire country), I figured it was time for another go at it.

"utterly unsurprising"

So the polls in Quebec aren't looking good for the Conservatives.  I have an aversion to polls and commenting on polls (for reference, during the last election, there was one poll (by SES) that relatively correctly reflected the actual outcome, out of dozens, if not hundreds of polls published - that should provide some indication of how useful they are), but commenting on commentary on polls I figure is fair game.  Hence, Paul Wells:

Tories at 12% in Quebec ... We now see, for approximately the fifty jillionth time, precisely what a historic gesture of reconciliation with Québécois nationalism is worth, in electoral terms.

Entirely correct, as far as it goes, but I think it miscasts what was happening - the Harper "nation" resolution was not a gambit to obtain support for the Tories, it was a gambit to forestall an increase in Bloc Quebecois support (recall that the Tory motion was in response to a Bloc-announced motion which would have called Quebec a "nation", no qualifiers) - which it seems to have accomplished.  That the motion has not translated into an increase in Tory support in the province of Quebec is worth noting, but it's hardly dispositive of the question of whether it was worthwhile or achieved its intended goal.

We should also note just how drastically the tenor of the conversation has changed: when the resolution was being debated and passed, pace Andrew Coyne, it was being commented on as if it were the end of the federation.  A few weeks later, and it is being, correctly, recognized as what it was - essentially meaningless, and nothing more than fodder for some inside baseball comments on poll numbers.

"you get what you pay for"

Further to this post which talked about the need for an increase in MPP salaries, Ian Urquhart has a column which gets into some further details on the matter.  But buried at the end is something I hadn't heard before:

Conservative Leader John Tory has been pressing the government to address this concern with a better compensation package for MPPs, and there are cabinet ministers who privately agree with him.

But as long as the New Democrats stand opposed, the Liberals are not going to take the risk of implementing a significant pay hike in an election year (2007).

Post-election perhaps, but not even then if, as seems increasingly likely, the election results in a minority with the NDP holding the balance of power. [emphasis added]

A minority government in Ontario?  Really?  First I've heard of the possibility, but maybe I haven't been looking in the right places.  Can anyone point to other speculation of this sort?

"cited poor hygiene"

So you may, or may not, have heard that a thirteenth person has died at a Montreal-area hospital after succumbing to a c. difficile infection.  This comes around two years after the virus was "blamed directly or indirectly for more than 200 deaths in 10 hospitals in Montreal and Sherbrooke, Que., in the first six months of [2004]".  Pure speculation on my part, but I'm assuming that if a cost-cutting Conservative government had been in power when, oh, more than two hundred people had died from infections in public hospitals, coverage would be slightly more hysterical.

"political hot potato"

Here's one of those issues that is increasingly difficult to parse through a purely partisan lens:

Ontario politicians need a pay increase or the provincial legislature runs the risk of becoming a "farm team" for the better-paid House of Commons, the province's integrity commissioner said in a report today.

There's a competitiveness issue that's being brought to bear: Ontario MPPs "earn a base salary of $86,860 while Ottawa backbenchers earn $147,700 and Toronto city councillors earn $95,000 a year".  Things don't break down how I would have predicted: the article describes current (Liberal) cabinet ministers as being non-committal on a pay increase (presumably over concerns of a voter backlash), provincial Tories as being willing to "explore the issue", and only the NDP as being willing only to countenance a 3% pay increase (according to Howard Hampton: "There are a lot of people out there that are working harder for less" - which is true as far as it goes, but there's also people working less for more, one supposes).

Arguing against pay increases for politicians isn't particularly easy (well, it's easy, but not to do it in a consistently thoughtful way): we allow the market to set wages and salaries in so many other areas of endeavour, surely the onus should be on those who think that political salaries shouldn't be competitive to attract candidates to explain why.  Keeping the salaries artificially low doesn't seem to serve anybody's interest: there's some salary level at which you'd just end up with a population of willing participants consisting solely of some combination of incompetents and well-off dilettantes (assuming, of course, that's not what we have now).

"We've been vindicated"

Excellent news:

The Conservative government's showpiece accountability legislation has finally cleared the Senate and been returned to the House of Commons.

With all-party support in Parliament, the sweeping act is expected to be swiftly passed into law before the Commons rises for the winter recess next week.

This, however, is a bit ridiculous:

For instance, the Senate failed in its bid to raise the amount of legal costs the government will cover for whistleblowers, which the act sets at $1,500.

Day said that's not enough to "open a file" at a lawyer's office and wanted the limit raised to $25,000.

If the goal is to encourage civil servants to report fraud and abuse, and to give them the job-protection and other security necessary to incentivize them to do so, then a $1,500 cap on legal fees (which is meant, remember, to reimburse a whistleblower who has had to fight against the essentially unlimited resources of the government) is patently absurd.  If anything, Senator Day understates the matter: $1,500 will barely get you a kick in the pants in comparison to the kind of legal fees that can be run up in defending yourself against vindictive management.

So... moving to strategy for a moment - if the Accountability Act is going to be passed next week, on what pretext can the Tories engineer a vote of no confidence (assuming they want to)?

Steady

So, I'm zipping through Paul Wells' Right Side Up: The Fall of Paul Martin and the Rise of Stephen Harper's New Conservatism (review forthcoming), and, in a coincidence of truly cosmic proportions, I came across this passage yesterday (from p. 115 of the hardcover):

Within days after the leadership vote, Harper was back in Ottawa demanding that the Liberals refrain from calling a snap election.  He did his best to make it sound like a principled argument, but he was transparently trying to save his own skin. ... Harper, who had learned a thing or two about taking advantage of an opponent's weakness, expected Martin to do that to him now.

In the end, battered by the polls in the Fraser audit, Martin did delay - not from spring to autumn, but from early April to late May.  To this day, Harper tells close associates that Martin's biggest tactical mistake was to give the Conservatives that time. [emphasis added]

Oooooh, so, perhaps a bit of foreshadowing of what we can expect from Harper now that the Liberals have just completed their own leadership hootenanny?  Warren Kinsella comments thusly:

Harper will do what we did to his team in 1993 and 2000 - call an election when we aren't ready. Why wouldn't he? I mean, giving your opponent time to rest, recruit and renew is never a good idea. So March for April, or April for May. He has the winning edge, at the moment.

Not sure the dates are correct (the timing of the 1993 election would have been determined by Kim Campbell - perhaps he means 2000 and 2004), but the point remains: all things being equal, it makes sense for the party in power to replicate the strategy of Jean Chretien in 2000 and catch the opposition flat-footed (off their feet? on the wrong foot? with one foot in the grave? feel free to add your own) - but that means campaigning on nothing more than (a) "we're not those guys" and (b) "those guys" not being ready to campaign.  That strategy paid off in spades for Chretien in 2000, resulting in an increased majority.  And we can see the outside contours of a similar campaign in the offing: both Harper and Dion have begun to and are likely to continue to draw sharp contrasts  between their approaches to governance and policies.  But all things are not equal, and for one simple reason: unlike Chretien, Harper won't have the media on-side.

As conservatives we can make too much of media bias, but it's out there and it has to be factored into any calculations about election timing.  Helpfully, for those who might still question whether the media can have a bias against the Conservatives, Jeffrey Simpson (for whose column-writing and analytical skills I have nothing but the lowest imaginable esteem) inadvertantly helps us out:

I'm not going to comment on other observers — except to say that certain of my good francophone media friends have been bathing in the bathwater of their own narrative about [Dion] for a long time and need to have a good shower. ... Never underestimate the determination of the Quebec media and the political class to keep the narrative going — and that narrative will be affirmed by the Charest Liberals who, as their provincial election approaches, will become even more nationalist and assertive.

If you're so inclined to read the rest of Simpson's responses to reader questions, you'll note that Simpson was talking about the ability of the Quebec media to determine the "narrative" of Dion's coverage within that province, and thereby affect his political fortunes.  Which is great - we have the ultimate old boy media insider admitting that the media (a) has the capacity to construct its own narrative about political persons and subjects, (b) actually engages in making use of that capacity and (c) is not often easy to dislodge once its pet narratives have been adopted.  And if that observation applies to the Quebec media, then it applies equally to the national media commentariat (of which Simpson is an integral part).

It happens, it happens often, and it happens egregiously.  And were Stephen Harper to call an election any time soon, he would need to confront the media narrative about him that he is scary, that he is extremist, that he is a bully, and that he is in serious need of being taken down a peg or two by... why, by just the sort of earnest, jovial, aw-shucks idealist like the Liberals have managed to recently elect leader.  It's obviously possible for the Conservatives to get fair coverage, and even to win in the face of biased coverage, but if you're going to choose the timing of your fight, you'll likely want to choose a time when you have a few more arrows in your quiver.  And right now, in the wake of the "nations" brouhaha, in the wake of the income trust decision, in the absence of a budget, I'm not sure that the Tory brand, unlike the Liberal brand in 2000, has enough media backers to get them through an election.

(One aside.  I quote: "True confession: I almost never watch television so I had never heard [Dion] in English."  That's Jeffrey Simpsons speaking.  One of the most prominent (if inexplicably) political commentators in Canada, given pride of place on the Globe and Mail's opinion pages and... he almost never watches television.  He almost never watches the dominant communications medium of our time.  To the point where he had not ever heard the eventual winner for the Liberal leadership, a man who had been a Cabinet minister for the better part of a decade, speak in English.  Ponder that for a moment.  Then realize why he gets so much so wrong.)

Experience Counts for Something...

but not for all that much, evidently.  Via Adam Daifallah, the most interesting take on the weekend's events I've yet seen:

Of all the sweaty palmed shakedowns, the not-so-secret pacts and the unseemly convention floor shoving matches, the most pivotal turned out to be a whimsical decision late Friday by a half dozen or so of Gerard Kennedy's ex-officio delegates to loan their support to last-place contender Martha Hall Findlay on the first ballot.

They felt confident Kennedy could spare a few votes and hoped they might be able to boost the lone female contender ahead of seventh-place Joe Volpe.

But those few votes made all the difference. Kennedy wound up slipping into fourth, just two votes behind Dion. The psychological impact of those paltry two votes on the 5,000 delegates turned out to be huge.

Huh.  So whatever else might be said about Dion's ability to appeal across factional lines, about running a competent, understated campaign, the necessary condition was some ex-officio votes.

Just because I like picking on Bob Rae, I think I'll highlight this particular passage, as well:

Rae was dumbfounded by Kennedy's swift endorsement [of Dion]. After telling his key supporters to "be modest in victory" at a 7 a.m. meeting before the second ballot, according to La Presse, Rae was so stunned by Kennedy's early move to Dion that "he shook uncontrollably for an hour." [emphasis added]

Oddly, I recall that he had that same effect on people every time he made a move during his term as premier...

Everything You Needed to Know About Bob Rae...

helpfully encapsulated in one sentence:

A dejected-looking Rae declined to say later if he would run for the Liberals in the next election, saying "there's lots of time" to make that decision.

Bob Rae: sufficiently devoted to the party to allow them to let him act as leader, but not so committed that he'll actually follow them anywhere.

Not a Bad Place to Be

Good for the Liberals.  Good for all of us, actually.  (Best of all, perhaps, for Stephen Harper's Conservatives, but leave that aside for the moment.)  The party managed to elect the best candidate in the field, avoiding the obvious buffoons (Dryden (whose campaign as near as I could tell consisted largely of his alternately between being shocked, saddened and furious that more people weren't supporting him), Brison and Volpe (about whom the less said, the better), the difficult to fathom (Ignatieff) and the completely nonsensical (Rae - as one measure of his candidacy, it should be noted that the big argument supposedly in his favour was his "experience" - a guy who hasn't been an active politician in nearly a decade, and whose last tour of duty witnessed him being run out of office as one of the most incompetent and reviled premiers in Ontario history - this is the guy you're turning to for "experience"?  His vaunted experience couldn't even assist him in convincing his own party (for those keeping track, that's currently the Liberals) to support him).

Anyways, look where we end up: an intelligent leader, whose personal integrity is, certainly compared to others who populated the Chretien/Martin years, beyond reproach, and a guy who, to all appearances, actually stands for something principled and is prepared to make the case for it.  I don't get the sense from listening to Dion that he doesn't believe a word coming out of his mouth, or that his belief therein is a momentary, transient matter which is subject to change with the next poll. He comes across, as I think Andrew Coyne once noted, as a thoroughly decent man - and that's not something you could say without significant temerity of the last few Liberal leaders (whether interim or permanent). 

He and his party have virtually no chance of getting my vote, but it's heartening to see that, at the federal level, each of the major parties is now lead by guys who don't seem to be there simply for the purpose of self-aggrandizement.  We now have an opportunity at the luxury of listening as very different visions (well, within certain parameters) of how to govern Canada are presented to the electorate by intelligent, committed people.  The Liberals have done themselves, and us, a favour by electing Dion.  We're in a good spot.

"Graham’s nonsensical comments"

Andrew Mitrovica has an interesting article in The Walrus (discount for political bias as you see fit) on the Maher Arar saga, with particular reference to how the media and journalists handled the matter (hat tip: Daimnation!).  He names names, accusing some journalists of what I suppose is the equivalent of professional malpractice.  Over the course of a couple of thousand words, however, what I find most interesting is who he spares from any venom: namely, the Liberal governments and ministers of the Crown who were ultimately responsible for what happened to Arar.  Oh, he mentions that Bill Graham carried water for the dictatorial Syrian government when he went on the record and said that  “he personally totally rejects all allegations of torture” (which serves the caveat audiens purpose of confirming that we can completely ignore everything that Bill Graham ever says about anything); and he obliquely avers that Jean Chretien stonewalled on any calls for an inquiry; but, really, there's very little anger or even questioning directed at the government of the day.  Not once is any member of the Liberal government (other than the journalists! - shush, ed.) unequivocally condemned for their actions or inactivity on the file (compare this to the treatment of reporter Juliet O'Neill, who, it is strongly hinted, deserved what she had coming to her).  "Protecting scoundrels", intones Mitrovica, "is no substitute for journalism" - undoubtedly true, but then, which scoundrels are being protected, and why?

"within hours, he was replaced"

Permit me a few comments on last night's Parliamentary motion recognizing "les Quebecois" as a nation within a united Canada.  On my way to work this morning, I noted that the war headline on every single paper was something to the effect of "Harper loses Cabinet minister - pwned!" (somewhat bizarrely, even the Toronto Sun went with "Revolting", implying a caucus rebellion).  Let's take a moment to observe two things: one, when Joe Comuzzi quit Paul Martin's Cabinet in order to vote against Martin's same-sex marriage legislation, it was not treated by any newspaper as the most important thing that happened on June 28, 2005, to say nothing of ever-in-the-history-of-the-universe - the disparate media treatment between the two Cabinet losses is instructive for those paying attention; two, the papers, in their perhaps bovine assessment of what happened yesterday of importance, have managed to buttress the argument that some of us have been making over the last few days: the resolution itself is almost entirely meaningless, and will have somewhere south of zero impact on any "rights" given to les Quebecois, Quebec or any combination thereof.  The most important thing that happened yesterday was that some Cabinet minister you've never heard of quit so that he could abstain from a vote?  Sounds good to me.

"jubilant at the effective nullification"

I always hesitate to point out the obvious, but the various purveyors of histrionics about Stephen Harper's motion to recognize "that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada" (note, not "Quebec", but the "Quebecois"), would be well-served by recalling that, just after he nearly lost the country in the 1995 referendum, Jean Chretien introduced the following motion in Parliament (that's the best source I can find at the moment):

Whereas the People of Quebec have expressed their desire for recognition of Quebec’s distinct society;

1) the House recognize that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada;

2) The House recognize that Quebec’s distinct society includes its French-speaking majority, unique culture and civil law tradition;

3) the House undertake to be guided by this reality;

4) the House encourage all components of the legislative and executive branches of government to take note of this recognition and be guided in their conduct accordingly.

The motion, on its face far more dangerous and a complete and utter abdication to the separatist demands then extant, resulted in... well, nothing, really.  Which is likely what the current motion will result in.  As you were.

"None of this, of course, is being put forward for purely altruistic reasons"

I'm happy to admit that at around 2:05pm today, I was gamely clicking on garth.ca, eager to see what kind of dirt Garth Turner was going to be dishing.  No pictures of politicians with bewildered-looking goats, no copies of letters threatening excrutiating tortures to be visited on family members for failing to toe the party line.  All a bit disappointing, really.  But I wholeheartedly agree with these sentiments from Kady O'Malley at Maclean's:

... some of the ideas that Turner put forward on making the House of Commons more friendly to independent MPs might actually be worth examining in more detail.

For one thing, he's absolutely correct when he points out that independent MPs are out in the cold when it comes to much of the business of the House. On House committees, for instance, seats are allotted according to how many seats a party has in the House of Commons; no party, no spot on the committee. And in the chamber itself, any independent MP who wants to grill a cabinet minister during Question Period depends on the discretion of the Speaker, who decides whether or not to officially "see" that frantically waving hand in the backest of benches. ...

... He also wants changes made to the electoral process itself, to level the playing field between party candidates and those who want to go it alone. Under current election finance laws, independent candidates aren't allowed to offer tax receipts to campaign donors, putting them at a definite disadvantage when it comes to campaign fundraising; Turner plans to introduce a private members' bill to even things out, and he also plans to seek "expert legal advice" to look into ways to loosen the chokehold that political parties have over the democratic process.

Yep.  I can't begin to imagine what sort of "expert legal advice" he's hoping to receive, but all of the items mentioned in there merit further attention.  The fact that independent candidates can't issue tax receipts is unconscionable.  Mavericks are good - here's hoping he can effect some changes in the system for the better.