That was fun

Some pics from the Rally for Canada at Queen's Park, Toronto:

The Green Grift

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation asks which came first, the SHIFT or the SHAFT? If Stéphane Dion gets away with this little confidence game, we'll be calling it the GRIFT.

A “carbon tax” in the style of Mr. Dion’s, which shields many people altogether from the price impact by various mechanisms, has nothing whatsoever to do with the Pigovian taxes economists favour as a response to negative externalities. It’s simply another way of picking and choosing.

What is more truly dear to Liberal hearts, we suspect, is the redistributive fashion in which the returned revenue from the carbon pricing will be used to re-jig the income tax system.

[...]

But the Liberals, in cutting the lowest tax bracket the most, and the highest not at all, are actually proposing to raise the already high marginal tax rates on upper-middle-class Canadians. And they’re not only writing cheques to rural dwellers to make sure they don’t belong to the carbon-priced class with us city folk; they’ll also be increasing the Northern exemption, creating another group that has non-negotiable “higher requirements” for pollution.

Will Canadians play willing marks to Stéphane's redistributive grift? Let's hope not.

In the service of the oil industry

The standard criticism of Conservative climate change policy is that Harper would never do anything that would hurt the Alberta oil industry. Hope this shuts them up:

Oil sands face tough environmental rules

Mar 10, 2008 04:41 PM
THE CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA–The federal government is laying out new rules that would force new oil-sands plants to capture and store carbon and would ban the building of dirty, coal-fired power plants.

The bans would be effective as of 2012.

Lost in move to 24 Sussex Drive

With Warren gone, let's hope Kathy Shaidle gets his columnist gig at the National Post:

When bloggers first heard of the accusations against Steyn and Levant, and began mounting campaigns to "stop the CHRCs" from further stifling freedom of speech, many were encouraged by a rediscovered, then widely circulated, quotation from future Prime Minister Stephen Harper, circa 1999:

"Human Rights Commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society … It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff."

Looks like Stephen Harper lost a few things during his move to 24 Sussex Drive. Namely, a principle or two.

Bullshit detector

Andrew Potter points to this little gem in the Globe and Mail:

Constitutional expert Errol Mendes of the University of Ottawa said he researched the issue yesterday and could find no similar examples of a confidence motion such as the one the Tories unveiled - one involving the unelected Senate. "This is insane," he said.

In quoting such an expert, it evidently did not occur to the Globe journalists, Brian Laghi and Jane Taber, that Professor Mendes might have a stake in the game:

Professor Errol Mendes was nominated to the Privy Council Office by the Prime Minister of Canada, Paul Martin.

I guess it also did not occur to them to ask how many times a Liberal-dominated, unelected Senate has blocked the legislation of a minority Conservative government?

An Honest Liberal?

I know, it sounds like an oxymoron.

More and more it looks like all Liberals are liars. It has gotten to the point where they even call each other liars.

But, I do not believe all Liberals are dishonest. These days, however, any Liberal who is fundamentally honest must feel awfully uncomfortable with Adscam and subsequent efforts of the Liberal Party to sidestep any responsibility for the scandal.

Consequently, it was with some relief that I read a letter from Beryl Wajsman, posted on Captain's Quarters last night. After having his name pop up in previous testimony at the Gomery inquiry, it seems Wajsman is chomping at the bit to tell his side of the story. As he puts it, “my story is one of a party reformer opposed, not a party consultant enriched.”

After a long talk with Wajsman this afternoon, I am more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I would encourage my readers to have a gander at some of his articles at the web site of the Institute for Public Affairs of Montreal, of which he is president.

What I find most impressive is that Wajsman believes so strongly in his cause he resigned in June 2001 from the very party that has been the vehicle for much of what he has accomplished in his political life. Unlike those who have preferred to remain quiet, however, we finally have a Liberal who seems to genuinely put integrity ahead of self interest.

There is little doubt that Wajsman is an unrepentant “liberal” who is passionate about his beliefs. He finds inspiration in Trudeau’s just society and envisages "a national political culture where victory is won on the battlefields of ideals and principles are never vanquished in the backrooms of deals."

One thing for sure, he is not one to acquiesce to authority. As he inveighs against the corporatism that permeates the Canadian state, he assures me, “we are going to expose who is running this country.” And by this, he does not mean the politicians. It should make for very interesting testimony at the Gomery inquiry, if he ever gets the chance.

Waiting and waiting for Gomery

Andrew Coyne summarily dismisses recent speculation about “paragraph k” of the Gomery Commission’s terms of reference and the limitations it might impose on Gomery’s ability to assign blame in his blog yesterday.

On the surface, he appears right. But after a little searching, I discovered that the Krever public inquiry into Canada’s blood system provides a relevant precedent. Like other public inquiries, it would appear that the Krever Commission had a similar clause in its terms of reference regarding conclusions of criminal or civil liability.

What is interesting about the Krever case is that after years of legal wrangling, which went all the way to the Supreme Court, Justice Krever’s right to assign blame was ultimately affirmed (see Mapleleafweb for a useful overview of the powers of public inquiries and a summary of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Krever case).

But what the Krever case also shows is that if misconduct is found, named parties are prone to engage in legal tactics to prevent or delay the release of an inquiry’s report. The timeline of the Krever Commission is quite revealing:

• October 1993 – Krever Public Inquiry into the Canadian blood system established
  

• December 1995 – Krever gives notice to 95 persons, corporations and governments about possible misconduct
  

• January 1996 – a group of the named parties asks the Federal Court of Canada to prevent the Commission from making findings of misconduct
  

• June 1996 – Federal Court rules that the Commission may make allegations of misconduct
  

• January 1997 – Federal Court of Appeal upholds decision
  

• September 1997 – Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, affirms Krever’s right to make allegations of misconduct
  

• November 1997 – final Krever report released

The whole process took more than four years. So what are the prospects for similar legal interventions by named parties to derail the conventional view that Gomery will report this year, with an election held by March 2006?

Jean Chrétien is already challenging Gomery’s right to head the inquiry in Federal Court. As the report deadline approaches, you can count on other legal interventions by parties likely to be named in the report.

In my view, the conventional view of a winter 2006 election is looking like a best-case scenario. And Paul Martin knows it.

Nowhere to go but sideways?

I find the results of recent polls to be quite disturbing for the prospects of democratic change in this country. In effect, they signal that Conservative support has stalled, and may have nowhere to go but sideways. While Liberal support appears to be rebounding, Conservative support has slipped considerably, almost to levels existing prior to the juiciest revelations of the Gomery Inquiry.

A number of commentators have suggested that the rebound in Liberal support is largely due to the skilful way the Liberal spin machine has steered the public focus away from the corruption scandal to the possibility of a spring election that no one wants. That may be so.

But the interesting question is why does the Canadian electorate not want another election? Is it because they want to give Justice John Gomery time to report on the real culprits behind Adscam? That may be Paul Martin’s line, but I suspect not the real motivation for most people, who would rather see the whole thing go away.

Or is it simply that, remembering the all-out assault from their living room TVs during the last election, Canadians feel that the longer they put this thing off the better? Undoubtedly, that has something to do with the general distaste for a snap election.

However, I want to put forward another interpretation which, if true, does not bode particularly well for Canadian democracy. I think the Canadian public is simply leery about the prospect of a government headed by Conservative leader Stephen Harper. While they may be fed up and disgusted with the Liberals, they do not want to contemplate the alternative.

Now do not get me wrong. I admire Stephen Harper. He appears to me to be an honest, intelligent and forthright politician. But how else can you explain the fact that, in face of perhaps the worst corruption scandal in Canadian political history, the best the Conservatives can do is to briefly boost their support to a potential minority government, before retreating back to traditional levels of support?

Questioning the intelligence of the average Canadian voter is no help. Neither does blaming the media. Democracy may be hard to fathom at times, but it is the system we have. We have to make the most of it.

What it is about Stephen Harper that seems to irk many Canadians? For the most part, the Conservative platform adopted at the CPC’s policy convention in March is more in tune with the views of Canadians than the Liberal platform. Personally, I think Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party is getting a bum rap. Yet, it is the Conservatives that are accused of being scary and harbouring a hidden agenda.

One thing for sure is that the Conservatives are not getting their message out. It is almost as if people believe that the Conservatives’ preoccupation with the sponsorship scandal is merely a tactical device to draw attention away from their “real” agenda. Such a belief is a real obstacle to democratic change in this country.

Ironically, Quebec seems to get it. The Liberals are sure to be decimated in that province in the next election, although unfortunately to the benefit of the separatist Bloc Quebecois. But what does it say about the Conservatives – the only real alternative – that voters outside of Quebec are willing to give the Liberals another chance?