Dark Age Ahead

The title, borrowed from one of Jane Jacobs' last books, seems appropriate for the topic of the Conservative government's incredibly stupid decision to make the long form of the census optional, rather than mandatory.

For those who don't know anything about sampling, the problem with making the long form of the census optional is that the results will be biased to overrepresent the sorts of people more likely to complete the census form, and underrepresent the sorts of people who are less likely to complete the form. This may not sound like a big deal, but it is. The census data is some of the best, most fundamental data available for all sorts of important analysis and research done in all areas of life (setting electoral boundaries, municipal planning for roads and schools, analysis of the impact of economic policies, etc. etc.)

Credit to Stephen Gordon for initially bringing this to my attention.

The Pundit's Guide has an excellent summary of some of the uses of the census data in Canadian Elections here.

It's depressing to have this great country governed by morons, especially when they received less than 40% of the votes in the last election.

New Copyright Bill (C-32) Introduced into Parliament, But Will the American (Corporation)s be Satisfied?

The past few years have seen a number of attempts by the party in power (first the Liberals, now the Conservatives) to introduce a copyright bill in Canada that copies the American legislation.

In the debate there have generally been two sides. On the one hand, the Canadian public which supports a bill that won't make millions of Canadians into criminals just for acting like they own the things that they have bought. On the other hand, there are large American media corporations that want to squeeze as much profit as possible from their movies, recordings, etc.

Traditionally, the interests of the Canadian public (commoners) have been represented by Members of Parliament, who sit in the House of Commons, and legislation has been introduced in the House of Commons in recognition of this fact. But in the case of this bill, the government decided that rather than introduce it in the House of Commons, they would introduce it in the House of Large Foreign Corporations, specifically the offices of a large American media company. Just in case you missed that bit of symbolism of whose interests the bill (and the government) represents, Michael Geist refers us to a quote from the chief of staff for Maxime Bernier (from 2007 when Bernier was Industry Minister) saying that Harper's office told the ministers responsible for copyright that, "We don't care what you do, as long as the U.S. is satisfied."

I guess if you want American lobbyists to have strong representation in Ottawa, keep voting for Stephen Harper and his AmericaNorth party...

Money For Nothing

Personally, I thought $1 billion for security for the Winter Olympics was high. But spending over $1 billion to host a weekend G8/G20 summit is truly absurd. At some point the Conservative hide-under-the-bed-cause-the -terrorists-are-out-to-get-us security mania will have to give way to common sense. Right?

Instead of buying sonic cannons to attack protestors with, how about the leaders try a conference call next time and give us a transit line or a hospital instead - thanks in advance.

Unintentional Humour

Andrew Coyne quotes a speech from Maxine Bernier, discussing the notion of trying to freeze government spending in nominal dollars (i.e. the usual starve the beast routine),

"That would be quite a change, don’t you think? A commitment to Zero Budget Growth could become a powerful symbol of fiscal conservatism, just like the 'No Deficit' consensus was, to some extent, until the advent of Conservative government the global economic crisis."

Wow, this promise would be just as credible as the promises of fiscal 'conservatism' that we get from the party that trashes the finances of any jurisdiction unlucky enough to elect it and spent it's days in opposition bemoaning the overly large (in their opinion) surplusses run up by the Liberals - I'm convinced!


Anyway, go for it Mr. Bernier. Cut spending on the military (in real dollars), refuse to pay creditors any increased amount of interest owing on the debt, cut transfers for health and education funding, cut the old age supplement, cut child care benefits, cut spending on First Nations, cut spending on infrastructure. It all sounds very courageous.

You are (still) here

A follow-up to my previous post on the state of Canadian politics and the nation in general, via Andrew Coyne, here's a quote from the leader of the country:

As you know, as part of our economic action plan, one of the things we’ve of course done is to step up government advertising. One of the purposes of that has been to support media outlets during the recession that have been particularly hard-hit.

Seriously?

Still Operational

An email exchange between friends that I was cc'ed on...

"Is our government still operational? I know it is dysfunctional, but what is going on now?"

"Our government is extremely operational! We’ve shut down time-wasting debate so the government can get to its top agenda items faster, such as stacking the senate, and not be bogged down with the minutia of some brown people being tortured on the other side of the planet. Hooray for our government! Hooray for the Action Plan!"

"Oh good, no reason to worry then. Sounds like everything's under control!"

Canada's Back

The Conservatives used to complain that the Liberals were hypocritical for talking a good game but not taking a lot of action on the climate change front. I guess we all knew that once in power the Conservatives would avoid this hypocrisy by refusing to talk a good game.

For example, see this Maclean's article headlined, "Suddenly the World Hates Canada" To be honest, I'm not sure how this means Canada's back¹, since I don't recall the world hating Canada at any point in the past, but I'm sure Harper can explain.

---
¹Harper, in a 2007 speech, noted that since the Conservatives had taken charge, Canada was 'back as vital player on the world stage'.

The Trouble With Normal...

..is it always gets worse.

Back in 2006, I wrote that, "one of the things which I find annoying about the 'right-wing' these days in North America, is an inability to distinguish being things which should be partisan, and things which shouldn't." and complained about, "the politicization of the Government of Canada webpage, which, since the election, has become an extension of the Conservative Party site."

Somewhat naively, I offered that, "Perhaps now that the Globe and Mail has picked up on this story, with a well-written article by Ivor Tossell, the Conservatives will be shamed into making the taxpayer funded website less of a marketing tool for one particular party."

So now we see that, far from improving, things have steadily deteriorated on the inappropriately partisan front. In addition to disproportionately funneling federal stimulus funding to Conservative ridings, Conservative MP's have been running around the country passing off taxpayer money as being provided by the Conservative party or its MP's.

With the instinctive 'yeahbuttheLiberals' response rising from the Conservative side, not to mention the recent stacking of the senate by Harper, it's a pity Arzt is no longer with us to point out that the pigs are walking.

You Are Here

From a recent interview with Stephen Harper,

"Reguly: Do you regret cutting the GST now?

Harper: No, not at all.

Reguly: No?

Harper: No, it's ... First of all, I believe cutting all taxes is good policy, okay? I... I'm of the school that... You know, there's two schools in economics on this, one is that there are some good taxes and the other is that no taxes are good taxes. I'm in the latter category. I don't believe any taxes are good taxes. It's important to remember when we cut the full two points of the GST, the budget was still in surplus. Anyone who says we put the budget in deficit by cutting the GST is wrong. I also think cutting the GST had some important effects. I think it's important to say why it was a good policy, besides fulfilling an electoral commitment to cut the GST, um... besides being a tax cut which as I say is good in and of itself.

...

Reguly: Good."

Apparently, there are two schools of economic thought. One believes that we are better off with some sort of government. The other is explicitly anarchist. Our PM has declared himself an anarchist. The charitable interpretation is that he was simply trying to say that all taxes are the same in their appropriateness but of course this a) doesn't really match what he said very well and b) is almost equally as stupid.

I'm not really posting too much on the politics these days, but I wanted to note this one down just as a marker of where we are now in our discourse on the role of government and the need to pay for it, just how far gone into childish ideology and delusion we really are when our Prime Minister says such things seriously and the only response from our media is 'good'.

Abdelrazik Update

Note: Previous post on this topic is here.

The Conservative party was smacked down pretty hard today by the Federal Court, which ruled that,

"Mr. Abdelrazik, who has been marooned in Sudan for nearly six years, “is as much a victim of international terrorism as the innocent persons whose lives have been taken by recent barbaric acts of terrorists,” Judge Zinn said."

...

"Judge Zinn found that while it wasn't necessary for him to determine whether the government has acted in bad faith to violate Mr. Abdelrazik's rights and thwart his return, the evidence supports such a conclusion.

“Had it been necessary to determine whether the breach was done in bad faith, I would have had no hesitation making that finding on the basis of the record before me,”"

...

"Judge Zinn's message was tougher. He ordered Ottawa to “take immediate action so that Mr. Abdelrazik is returned to Canada,” requiring the government to issue him an emergency passport, make travel arrangements within 15 days and get him home within 30 days. To drive home the point, Judge Zinn told the government to ensure that Mr. Abdelrazik appears before him no later than July 7."

Dr. Dawg has more.

Further into the Dark Ages

Via Pogge, I see that, against all odds, the federal government is digging it's hole of shame and embarrassment even deeper on the Abdelrazik story.

Only two days after a man on the no fly list is flown home to Britain over the airspace of many countries without gaining permission, our Federal government, claims that "every country he might fly over on the way home from Khartoum needed to give explicit permission." Is there no lie too obvious or too ridiculous for this government? Have they no shame at all?

Given that they are willing to make a mockery of our Constitution - "It [the Government's court filing with respect to Mr. Abdelrazik] claims the right to return to Canada, enshrined in the Charter, applies only to citizens who present themselves at a border post." - I guess the answer is no.

Contact info for Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon here

Conservatives Will Screw Us Over, As They Always Do

Via pogge, a story on how the Conservative government is likely to sell off government assets, no doubt figuring that a global crash in asset prices is a great time to unload them. Not that selling things like the Mint or Canada Post is ever a good idea. Sigh.

It's bad enough that we have a major political party whose main goal is, apparently, to screw up the country, the fact that so many people regularly vote for them is just depressing.

Ideology

One of the primary problems with having politicians, such as Stephen Harper and the federal Conservatives, that are driven by ideology rather than by careful consideration of each situation is that inevitably they make serious errors trying to make things fit their ideology that just don't fit.

One example was their move to increase competition in the market for providing mortgages to people who can't afford houses. While in many situations, increased competition is a good thing, in this case, not so much, as the government and CMHC will learn to its dismay as the Canadian housing market continues to unravel.

Another example of the same blind adherence to a 'more competition is good' ideology is the attitude of the Conservatives towards the Canadian Wheat Board. While competition between farmers will help lower prices for their products, allowing Canadian farmers the freedom to compete with each other by undercutting the prices they sell their products to foreigners for will not benefit Canadians at all, and will only end up hurting those same farmers who are currently protected from their 'tragedy of the commons' predicament (many small sellers all with the incentives to undercut each others pricing) by the single desk wheat marketing board.

Dave, at Galloping Beaver has more on how, when it comes to ideology, the Conservatives refuse to take success for an answer, and will insist on ideologically pure failure, much like the Soviet communists, instead.

CAtO vs. the Globe and Mail

The Globe and Mail, before the election, endorsing Harper:

"Indeed, the most important characteristic Mr. Harper has shown over 33 months in office is a capacity to grow. There is no reason to think he won't continue along the same trajectory if re-elected — a good thing, too, since there is much more for him to learn.

Instead of carping about a dysfunctional Parliament, for which he holds much responsibility, Mr. Harper should throw out his previous playbook and try making the institution work. It would mean displaying the confidence to operate outside his comfort zone of near-absolute control, but it is a mission built for a true conservative. And, no, Senate reform is no substitute for getting the House of Commons operating well."

Me, before the election, not endorsing the Conservative party:

"in my opinion, the Conservative party wishes to remake this country into one much more similar to the U.S., as opposed to the 'second tier socialistic country' (in Harper's words) that it is now (in their opinion).

But in pursuing this goal the Conservatives see the traditional institutions, the checks and balances as things that stand in their way. So, far from wanting to reinforce the strength of Canada's independent institutions that check the government's power and to work within the system, the Conservative's want to weaken those institutions and remove anything that prevents them from remaking the system as they wish.

In government we have seen the Conservative party at war with the media, at war with Elections Canada, in a battle with the nuclear energy safety regulator and further Conservative government will lead, in my opinion, to more attacks on and more weakening of, the independent institutions that provide a check on the government."

So here we are, faced with a serious economic crisis, and Harper decided that it was a good time to try and weaken some of the institutions (unions and opposition parties) that keep the Conservatives from unfettered rule, and now, when he has obviously lost the confidence of the House of Commons as a result, Harper vows to 'use all legal means' to resist bowing to the will of the majority of our elected representatives, and we see newspapers articles seriously considering having Harper fire the Governor General rather than give up the reins of power.

I'd score this CAtO 1, Globe 0.


--
On the other hand, when I wrote that, "Harper has a de facto majority for at least the next two years since nobody will want to trigger another election." I wasn't predicting that Harper's second vote would be a confidence motion on bankrupting all three opposition parties, so I missed that one.

About Those Bad Ideas

I alluded to the other bad ideas the Conservatives came up with today, aside from anti-democratic campaign finance reform. For a good take on some of these ideas, see Andrew Steele here and here.

hat tip Greg.

One wonders what the Conservatives would do differently if they were trying to damage the country on purpose.

Dumb, dumb, dumb (did I mention dumb)

From the Star, I see that the Conservative Party is willing to support the NDP brokered budget (with $4.5 billion in extra social spending vs. the original Liberal budget) in return for a delay on passage of same-sex marriage legislation.

Says house leader Jay Hill, "(One) primary concern of ours is that we get out of the spring session with C-38 [the gay marriage bill] not progressing further,"

I have this memory, from not too long ago, of Stephen Harper referring to the budget amendments as a 'deal with the devil'.

And I believe the Conservatives support civil unions with equal rights for gay couples.

And it seems to me that gays are already getting married in many provinces.

So it is so vitally important for the good of the country to prevent the federal government from formalizing the already widely existing ability of gay people to use the word 'marriage' when describing their civil unions that it's worth supporting a 'deal with the devil'?

This is their number one priority?

I had originally figured that, based on their actions, the Conservative party slogan for the next election was going to be: 'Vote Conservative - We Dare You'. But maybe instead they are going to go with: 'Gay marriage: Worse than a deal with the devil' -
It's kind of catchy...

And I Thought Danny Williams was Childish...

The Conservatives joining up with the Bloc to shut down parliament because they aren't willing to wait one week for a non-confidence vote on the budget is bad enough*. But this:

"the Conservatives will continue to attend at least one Commons committee: the one debating same-sex marriage, to which they are adamantly opposed."

is really nuts. The one thing more important in their mind than ensuring that parliament does nothing between now and next Thursday is making every last possible effort to prevent gay people from getting married?

I guess it all makes sense when you consider the Conservative Party slogan for the next election: "Vote for a Conservative Government - We Dare You".


---
Side note: Danny Williams is still childish.

---
* For the record, I think Martin should have held the vote on the budget this week. But I think it would have been wiser and more impressive for the opposition to let the public be the judge of his decision to wait, not trying to sit in judgment themselves.

This is Just Too Much Fun

PolSpy and Cathie from Canada (among others I'm sure) have already commented on this, so there's probably no need for me to pile on, but as a former Prime Minister once said, it's just too much fun.

Ay any rate, during a discussion with the Toronto Punjabi media last month, in an event which I'm assuming was part of the 'Gays Don't Have Any Rights Back Where You Come From, Right?' Conservative multicultural media blitz, Calgary MP Jason Kenney is quoted as saying, "Marriage is open to everybody, as long as they're a man and a woman. ... It doesn't say you can't marry if you're a homosexual. The fact is that homosexuals have been married and do marry."

So I guess if the Conservatives stage a coup and hold some token one-party elections, we can count on Jason being there to reassure us that we all have the freedom to vote as long as we vote for the Conservatives. One wonders how Kenney would feel if the situation was reversed and he was told that nothing was stopping him from getting married, he just had to marry a man.

You know, some days I feel like the Conservatives are just daring people to vote for them.

---
Update: more piling on at Lotusland and Sinister Thoughts

Did it Go Something Like This?

I'd been avoiding commenting on the whole same-sex marriage debate since it seemed like it was already getting more coverage than it merits, but the more I thought about the Conservative plan to target 'multicultural' groups with ads opposing same-sex marriage, the more I realized I had to post something.

Not being particularly multi-cultural myself (as these things go), I may never get to see the ads, but in my mind, I see the message going something like this....

-----
Dear Sir or Madam,

If you are receiving this message, you have been identified as a member of a homophobic 'multicultural' group who may be receptive to our message. As you may or may not be aware, the Conservative Party of Canada counts among its members a number of people who both fear to see society change and are suspicious of those who are different / abnormal / unnatural.

Now I know what you're thinking, if it had been up to those people, we never would have let you in to this country in the first place but - given the magnitude of the potential crisis we are facing - we need to bury the past behind us, and look to the future. We need your help to fight the greatest current threat to the well-being of Canadians - the prospect that gays would have the same legal rights to form unions as normal folk, and that these unions could go by the name 'marriage'.

Note: Members of 'multicultural' groups who support polygamy, please skip the following paragraph - thanks.

If we let the 'traditional' definition of marriage be changed in this way, then at any moment, the dreaded specter of polygamy could be next.

We invite you to join us in defending the traditional definition of Canada in its darkest hour.

This message has been brought to you by the Conservative Party of Canada - the party that shares your values
------