This week's budget was a tour de force.  A blizzard of small details; a bonanza of talking points; a bathtub full of suds – but where was the substance?  Where was the overarching vision tackling the big issues facing Canada in this the second decade of the new millenium?   What, other than the polling booth, was the point of it all? 

Not one of the multitude of measures offfered up for consumption, nor even a combination of cash handouts, added up to a single significant contribution to Canada's future.  For all the talk about improving productivity, to take just one example, the government failed to extend valid and valuable rapid write-offs for technology purchases.  Instead it trumpeted tariff reductions which the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association called a "marginal benefit" ($300 million compared to industry revenues of $500 billion) and quietly raised the cost of labour by increasing employment insurance premiums.  This contradictory and ultimately self-defeating approach utterly fails to improve the overall competitive position of our manufacturing industries.

Innovation was another favourite buzz word in the budget.  Again, too many small handouts diluted any hope of making major gains in any one field.  One look at this government's track record in supporting Canada's research and development (R&D) efforts says it all.  Since 2005, the ratio of R&D to GDP (the standard measure of perfomance) has steadily dropped from 2.05% to 1.84%.  Yet the benchmark established years ago by Canada's Lamontagne Report is 2.5% and the official US target is currently 3%. Even if you add up all the so-called R&D expenditures in Mr. Harper's budget section devoted to innovation (pages 67 and 68), not enough was given to reverse Canada's downward trend.  Worse yet, we aren't even setting our sights on keeping up with competitors in the United States.

The same can be said for virtually every other subject (and there were many) addressed in the budget.  Yes, there were lots of treats – but Canada as a whole will suffer, slowly and almost imperceptibly, because we'll have been tricked into believing that a blizzard of small gifts equates to bona fide leadership.

The government's agenda is so old, it's rusty.  One hour listening to the dulcet tones of our Governor General failed to rescue today's Throne Speech.  It screeched and lurched and twisted like an old, tired barbed wire fence blowing in a desolate wind.  No new ideas, no strategy for the 21st century, nothing. Unfortunate, but there you have it. Amateur night at the hockey rink exhibits more originality and passion for outcomes than this sorry excuse for a "recalibrated" way forward.    

This morning I took the time to read Toward a Red Serge Revival, the "position paper" issued last Monday by Senator Colin Kenny (ON) and five of his colleagues.  Besides having followed the issue of RCMP reform for some time (see various articles archived under Police Tactics), I admit I was curious to see why the paper has attracted so much criticism from Senator Pamela Wallin (SK). 

Frankly, the paper seems pretty mainstream to me.   Its first three recommendations (for effective independent oversight of the Force) simply echo the words of David Brown, the government's own consultant whose advice was accepted by the Conservatives two years ago.  As to wearing mini-video cameras to enhance oversight capacity, the paper's fourth recommendation, the RCMP is already experimenting with them.  The paper then turns to the RCMP's recruitment program and its efforts to increase diversity.  It highlights the fact that its stated goals do not match its rhetoric.  Fair comment based on solid evidence.  Furthermore, Senator Kenny et al. clearly state "Neither women nor visible minorities should be recruited into the RCMP or promoted without evidence of merit – the same kind of evidence that must apply to all members of the RCMP." 

Recommendations nine through twelve urge the government to increase funding to allow the RCMP to hire up to 7,000 more police officers.  Again, the paper merely repeats what the government's own consultant is saying, and would seem to mesh well with a "tough on crime" agenda.  Next, the paper reiterates David Brown's call for post-secondary qualifications.  It then concludes by praising the appointment of the current Commissioner, William Elliott, advocating promotion from within the Force "when the process to replace him commences", and suggesting a modern leadership structure.

So, what's not to like here?  Senator Wallin appparently takes issue with recruiting women and minorities, for one thing, even though the RCMP has adopted diversity as one of its top priorities.   She opposes video cameras, saying education is better "because you want people not to engage in bad behaviour."  She thinks 1,500 extra mounties are enough, despite Canada's ranking third from the bottom compared to other OECD countries.  And she doesn't believe you can turn "a big bureaucracy" around within the two year time limit prescribed by David Brown.  Mind you, if the RCMP is nothing more than a bureaucracy, then we're all in trouble and might as well admit it.

Admittedly, the paper pulls no punches in its discussion of issues.  Perhaps that's the real cause for contention.  But if the Senate can't talk truth to power, who can?  All in all, I agree with Lorne Gunter who exclaimed, in the National Post, "I can't for the life of me figure out why Conservative Senators would refuse, before prorogation, to endorse [this] report."

Women in Canada are not faring as well as many of us would like to think.  A refreshingly blunt report by the Feminist Alliance should set alarm bells ringing in all our ears.  In just five short years, we've tumbled from 7th to 25th in the World Economic Forum's global index of gender equality.   That's a shocking indictment for a country that wants to make maternal health the focus of upcoming G8 discussions.

What to do?  From a federal perspective, Canada needs to reverse a series of program decisions that have hampered our efforts to help women achieve the promise we made when we embedded gender equality in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  It's one thing to say we have rights (which we do); it's quite another to ensure we have the ability to exercise them.  Cutting funding for think tanks and advocacy, eliminating support for early childhood education, scrapping assistance for pay equity claimants in the public service, refusing to analyse potential program impacts from a gender perspective, failing to accelerate initiatives designed to address aboriginal education and violence realities – all these (and more) add up to neglect if not negligence in a modern democracy.

The Alliance called its report a Reality Check … a Canadian Civil Society Response.  Thank goodness there's still a civil society in this country that takes the time to set the record straight.  I hope all of you will take the time to read the report.  Then please do urge policy-makers to take stock of the disastrous results their short-sighted program decisions are delivering.

Now here’s a good metaphor for what passes these days as transparency in public affairs.  In response to outrage over the chain link fence surrounding our Olympic Flame, organizers “opened up” the venue.  How?  By cutting small holes in the fence!  Reaction has not been favourable, needless to say.

Similarly, the government’s announcement of a breakthrough on “Buy American” provisions in the US stimulus package only gives us a peek at the full picture.  “Canadian businesses will get to compete for no more than $4 billion to $5 billion (U.S.) worth of projects, amounting to less than 2 per cent of the $275 billion of procurement funded under the U.S. Recovery Act. The rest falls outside the scope of this deal,” according to one analyst who’s been following the issue closely.

Controlling the message, suppressing alternative voices, denying full support to women in need – these are tactics worthy of a closed society, not the open democracy we Canadians like to think we enjoy.

A new report by the Vanier Institute gives a much truer picture of how Canadians are weathering the current recession than various official accounts.  In truth, it’s hurting – a lot.  Average houselhold debt stands at record-high levels.  The number of mortgages and credit cards in arrears has escalated and personal bankruptcies have exploded.  Unemployment figures are still high, wages have shrunk and net worth fell steeply, although it has recovered somewhat on the strength of current housing prices. 

Perhaps the most revealing part of the Vanier report is its discussion of housing prices.  The author pulls no punches:  “Canada may already be in a housing price bubble”, he says at page 15.  He arrives at this conclusion by comparing historical price / income ratios, as follows: ”Average house prices in October-November 2009 increased to a new high of about $340,000. This is equal to five times the average after tax incomes of Canadian households (all in current dollars). This compares to only 3.2 times in 2000 and an average of 3.7 times over the two decades.” 

Contrast that analysis to Finance Minister Flaherty’s comment this morning that “There’s no clear evidence of a housing bubble.”  Nevertheless, he’s introduced new mortgage lending rules that require all home buyers to meet standards applicable to five-year fixed-rate mortgages, even if they want to borrow money at less expensive rates or for shorter terms.  The government is, essentially, making sure that average Canadians will buy cheaper houses and thus force prices down.  Mr. Flaherty’s policy will work even better if interest rates rise to pre-recession levels.  As the Vanier Institute points out, at 7.5% (the December 2007 mortgage rate), a “buyer could only afford a home worth $242,000 or 29% below the October-November [2009] price.” 

No wonder the banks wanted this policy change.  It looks very much like a recipe for increased bank profits on the backs of ordinary Canadians.  

The online dictionary defines “carnival” as a travelling amusement show.  A “carney” is someone who works for a carnival.  Tom Korski has come close to putting Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of Canada, in this category.  “Carney's mediocre forecasting record speaks for itself,”  he says in today’s Hill Times. “The governor has betrayed less insight on the economy than farmers and plant managers who reply to StatsCanada questionnaires for periodic outlooks. At the very moment manufacturing was collapsing in 2008 Carney told reporters, ‘The sky is not falling. The sky is still there. The sun is still coming up every single day.’  It was excellent material for a Japanese haiku or kindergarten singsong, but not the calibre of analysis Canadians expect when the bailiff shutters the factory gate.”

Two large retail outfits in the US have declared they will not buy oil products from Canada's oil sands.  Easy for them to say.  Harder to implement.  As Whole Foods' spokesperson said, "the company will continue to use fuels derived from Alberta tar sands (sic) in the Rocky Mountain region because as of now there is no alternative source."

Nevertheless, these new position statements from consumer-oriented retailers indicate that a broad swath of the environmental movement is gaining ground over governments in Canada and Alberta, not to mention the oil companies themselves.  ForestEthics, for example, is taking credit for the retailers' move – I'm guessing they feel they're on the winning side and so have branched out beyond what their organization's name would otherwise suggest to be their mandate. 

Perhaps that's why Environment Minister Prentice was uncharacteristically critical of the oil patch last week.  Speaking at various functions on campus in his home town of Calgary, he pointed his finger at oil companies, saying "we need to up our game."  True enough.  But in the next breath he declared that the "challenge has … only just begun .…"   Whew!  Maybe he didn't recognize just what a slippery slope his government's been on for the past two years.  Or maybe he did, and simply hoped he'd be shuffled out of the environmental portfolio by now.  Whatever, I take it as an encouraging sign that he's finally coming to grips with it.  Hope springs eternal, as they say ….

I've been sitting here trying to think of something positive to say about the government's decision to appeal BC's Insite judgement to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC).  The best I can come up with is that the SCC will at least give us a ruling that binds all governments in the country … a last word, one would hope.  Too bad, though, that the Justice Minister hasn't read (or, if he did read it, is ignoring) the World Health Organization's 2008 report.

In his preface to the World Drug Report, Antonio Maria Costa, Executive Director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, gives this sage advice:

Progress is needed in three areas. First, public health – the first principle of drug control – should be brought back to centre stage. Currently, the amount of resources and political support for public security and law enforcement far outweigh those devoted to public health. This must be re-balanced. Drug dependence is an illness that should be treated like any other. More resources are needed to prevent people from taking drugs, to treat those who are dependent, and to reduce the adverse health and social consequences of drug abuse.

It's been said before, but can't be said often enough (in my view).  The Senate has not been "obstructing" government legislation.  One look at the Activity Index on my website tells that story.  In the meantime, many thanks to David Akin, Harper Bizzarro and Hill Queeries for helping set the record straight.

Now, here's a sound-bite worth listening to.  It's Senator Abbott putting out a call to action directed at his fellow senators:

"Let us take care that no temporary fit of prejudice or passion, injurious to our country or disadvantageous to our interests is allowed to force a measure through this Parliament without giving to the people a further opportunity for considering it..."

Well said, indeed.  All the more enchanting since Senator Abbott spoke in 1890.  Some things never change (nor should they ).   H/T Scott Ross for sharing the speech.

If your thumb is hurting this morning, maybe it’s because the hammer missed its target while we’re all focused short-sightedly on the latest opinion polls.  Up a percentage here, down a smidgeon there … and in the meantime our government fritters its time away on positions instead of policies.  Sheer madness at a time when the world is shifting inexorably towards a new economic balance of power.

Jim Travers hits the nail on the head again this morning in the Star:  Law and order, reforming the Senate and sticking to the big tax lie are all about votes and power. They have nothing whatever to do with building a national consensus on the best way forward.

At this rate, Canadian electric utilities, mining companies, oil sands and others won’t ever have to worry about curbing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.  The latest reduction target, announced Saturday of all things, actually reduces Canada’s commitment from 144.2 megatonnes (Mt) of GHGs down to 124.8 Mt.  Keep those goalposts moving, Jim!  You’re on a roll …. (downhill).

Perhaps it's the coffee jitters, or the fact that experts in weapons of mass destruction are meeting in Ottawa (see G8 photo on the right). But I'm having a bit of a Four Non Blondes - "What's Going On" moment over this week's headlines.

To re-cap, an estate lawyer is now the new complaints commissioner for the RCMP; CANWEA is advertising on full page spreads asking for more money for wind and renewable energy; tens of thousands of Canadians are protesting to save democracy; and if you caught Rick Mercer, apparently we're no longer purchasing new military carrier vehicles.

While I'm happy to see our government responding so swiftly to Haiti, I am not prepared to give them exceptional kudos for the gesture because, well, I wouldn't expect anything less of any government. Frankly, it's what people in that position should do.

What I would expect; however, is for the government to keep the eye on the ball. But with the Cons hedging their bets on emissions targets, I'm doubtful there is a ball to watch in the first place these days.  Mind you, we have new senators to help catch it if a ball ever does reappear.

Things are peculiar right now, as the songstress would say.  And I'm not just talking alien life in the skies over Newfoundland.  The good news is that Canadians are demanding more.  Maybe, just maybe, they'll get it.

It's one thing to stop debate in Parliament, it's quite another to stop public debate altogether.  Yet that's what's been happening over the past few years, slowly but surely.  Take the case of CPRN (the Canadian Policy Research Network).  CPRN is just the latest in a series of organizations dedicated to fostering public debate that's been closed because the Harper government stopped funding it.

Here's how it happened.  "In April 2006, the newly elected Conservative government approved a new four-year grant based on a solid positive independent evaluation. But only five months later, the government turned around and cancelled the CPRN grant as well as the funding for the Law Commission of Canada, the Canadian Labour and Business Centre, the Court Challenges Program, Volunteer Canada, the Centre for Research and Information on Canada and two policy units within the federal government."  (page 9, CPRN Annual Report)

OK, so what?  Here's what: Democracy depends on open debate.  Without debate, we quickly descend to doctrine (we call it "spin doctoring" these days).  Informed choice then becomes a fiction and democracy a façade.

It gets worse.  Public policy stagnates as well, held hostage by ruling authorities.  Instead of richly nuanced policy responses to complex social and economic challenges, we get government by press release.  If citizens are consulted at all, the only call they get is from a pollster.  But polling, as CPRN points out, asks for "top of mind answers", gives "scant background information" and allows no discussion. "It’s a one-way conversation, with no time for reflection." (page 14)

CPRN was one organization that offered a viable alternative for Canadian policy makers.  Its demise is symptomatic of a deeper malaise in our country.  By all means, let's get parliamentarians back to work.  Once they're there, however, we must also demand their support for sustained and lively public debate.  We deserve no less.

* Note: Anatomy of Power #1 can be found here.

Imagine this:  a Parliament where civility is expected, cheap shots scorned, and respect is based on the power of ideas and the willingness to cooperate to achieve consensus; where decisions are not made on the basis of whether something is merely politically expedient and whether the people can be made to swallow it; where facts, reason, experience and values count for more than a party leader's opinion and the whips of party discipline.

How?  Read this … and dream!

Proud to be Canadian.  That's how I felt when I watched the anti-prorogation rallies roll out across the country and elsewhere last Saturday.  Twenty-five thousand citizens took to the streets demanding MPs walk the talk when it comes to practising democracy.  Well done, Canadians!

The pundits are active as well (see, for example, Impolitical's post today, and the latest column from Travers).  Provocative questions are being asked.  All in all, a healthy dialogue is emerging (h/t Scott's Diabtribes).    Now all we need to do is focus on the right question.  Which is this:  Why does the Prime Minister have so much power?  Answer:  Because the House of Commons no longer holds the PM to account.  Next question:  What should be done?  Answer: Insist that MPs take orders from their constituents, not their party leaders.   Question: What is the likelihood of this change happening?  Answer: Not any time soon.  Conclusion?  Perhaps, as hinted at by govloop [dot] ca, an independent, appointed Senate is, after all, Canada's last best chance for democracy.  Food for thought, eh?

Energy policy very obviously ranks low on the Prime Minister's agenda.  Why else would he give the Natural Resources portfolio to someone who has (as far as I can tell) not one whit of experience in the oil patch, nor even a jot of familiarity with the nuclear or hydroelectric industries?  No doubt Christian Paradis is bright (he earned a master's degree in law from Laval, after all), but what other relevant qualifications does he demonstrate?

The Star calls him "one of the prime minister's favourite Quebec lieutenants."  Perhaps Mr. Paradis' home town helped him skate into the inner circle.  Thetford Mines, a town of just 25,000, was one of the top five finalists in last year's Hockey Day in Canada.  (Apparently it's also where Governor General Michaele Jean lived when she first emigrated to Canada, but somehow I think that factoid would hardly enchant Mr. Harper.)  Whatever, Mr. Paradis' favoured status has very little, if anything, to commend itself in terms of energy policy, either domestically or internationally.  If Mr. Harper is ever to make good on his overblown claim to being an energy superpower, he needs to do more than make nice with Quebec's premier.  All in all, today's entire cabinet "shuffle" strikes me as a great waste of energy.

I was delighted to hear that the BC Court of Appeal has supported InSite's right to operate in Vancouver.  "In this province, there is no longer any serious debate about the need for Insite as a health care facility... All of the provincial authorities, including the Attorney General of British Columbia and the Vancouver Police, agree that Insite is a necessary component in dealing with the scourge of addiction in the (Downtown East Side)," said the judges in their decision.

The bigger issue, of course, is how we deal with drug use overall.  The US experience should be taken as a model of how not to do it.  " The war on drugs is really a war on people," says Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance.  It's not working.  With only 5% of the world's population, the US has almost 25% of the world's prison population.  Truly a staggering number.  If you have a moment, do read Mr. Nadelmann's op-ed at change.org. We would do well to learn when not to emulate our neighbour to the south.

As Prime Minister Harper continues to flog his canard * about the Senate blocking his legislation, one wonders what his true aspirations might be.  Zero opposition?  Leader for life, even?  Perhaps he's been studying the life and times of Prince Giorgio I, elected prince of Seborga, who recently passed away.  Known as 'His Tremendousness', Prince Georgio reigned supreme for 46 years.  Quite an attractive role model, for those inclined to complain about dissenting opinions.

In fact, Prince Giorgio I started his own country.  He minted money emblazoned with his own image, issued stamps (also in his own image), mustered a standing army (of one) and wrote his own constitution.  It was a sort of Italian version of the firewalls so beloved of the former Reformer, Stephen Harper.  Only one person challenged him during his entire reign (Princess Yasmine von Hohenstaufen Anjou Plantagenet) and that fizzled out quite quickly.  An ideal modern state, some might say.

But now there's a vacancy.  Who will start the newest Facebook campaign – Stephen for Seborga?  It certainly has a satisfying ring to it, I'm sure you'll agree.

* For the record see here, and here, and here.

We've been blogging Bill C-6 live over the past couple of weeks.  If you're interested in seeing previous posts on this subject, check out our Archives under the Consumer Products Safety category.  UPDATE: As most of you know by now (January 4, 2010), Bill C-6 died when the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament.

Hard to believe, isn’t it, that Albertans have spent at least 25 years pursuing senate reform without getting anywhere? We’re no closer today than we were when we started in 1983. That was the year that Premier Lougheed created a Select Committee of the Legislature to consult with Albertans and other Canadians to design a Senate that would effectively protect regional interests.

Protecting regional interests is one of the Senate’s primary functions, explicitly mandated by our constitution (another is protecting minority interests). Many Albertans will remember our collective disappointment when the Senate failed to protect our interests while a majority of Canadian representatives imposed the NEP (1980), and our discomfort when the constitution was repatriated without Quebec’s signature (1982). We diagnosed the problem as a power failure in Ottawa.

A Triple-E Senate was our solution. First and foremost, equality. Secondly, effectiveness. And thirdly, provincially elected senators because that would ensure loyalty to regional interests. One of the things we didn’t want was a selection process dominated by the Prime Minister or federal political parties.

So, what are the current proposals? Bills S-4 and C-43 will, if passed, effectively concentrate power in the PMO and federal parties. They fail to address either equality or effectiveness. The result? A power grab.

Alberta’s fundamental interests are still being shortchanged.