Talk tough or be nice: Canada's China numbers grow no matter what

When the Conservatives formed a government under Stephen Harper early in 2006, the government's stance towards China was cool, to say the least. Concerned about China's poor record on human rights and democratic reform, the Harper government seemed to go out of its way to thumb its nose at China.  In October, 2007, for example, Harper posed in his office with the Dalai Lama (left, pic taken by PMO), which the government of China called “disgusting conduct.” Harper was one of the few world leaders who did not bother going to Beijing for the opening of the 2008 Olympic Winter Games, even though Canada would follow China as host of those games in Vancouver in 2010.

Then, in 2009, Harper went to China. He was dressed down publicly by China's number two politician, Premier Wen Jiabiao (a rebuke I took offence to as a Canadian). The following year, Chinese President Hu Jintao visited Ottawa ahead of the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto. Now, John Baird, in his first major trip as foreign affairs minister, is in China.

Some believed that the Conservatives shed their previously hawkish stance on China to better help Canadian firms win new business in China. Really? Let's take a look at the trade data:

Canadian exports to China grew by 8.2%, 21.9% and 10.1% in the first three years of the Harper government, when it was “talking tough” to China. Canadian exports grew 6.5% and 18.7%  in 2009 and 2010 respectively, when the Harper government decided to take a different stance. (Data source: Industry Canada) Now: Could exports between 2005 and 2008 have grown faster if the Harper government had “talked nice” during that period? Maybe. But export growth of 21.9% in the same year that Harper was committing his “disgusting conduct” of meeting with the Dalai Lama seems pretty good to me.

Moreover, Canada's exports to China grew relative to our overall exports. In 2005, our sales to China made up 1.65% of our overall exports. In 2006, 2007, and 2008 — the years when Harper “cooled” relations — Chinese exports accounted for 1.77%, 2.11%, and 2.17% of Canada's overall exports. Decent growth in every year. In 2010, exports to China now account for 3.31 per cent of overall exports, up from just 1.06 per cent a decade ago in 2001.

If I had to take any lesson from these numbers it might be this: Our exports are growing because we have stuff the Chinese want to buy. It doesn't much matter how our government behaves — they're still buying. And if that's the case, why not do more to stand up for human rights and democracy. We'll still get rich selling to the Chinese!

 

 

Ontario Tory ridings clean up on federal arts grants

In May's general election, the Conservatives, nearly ran the table in the south and southwestern Ontario. Liberals were left with just Frank Valeriote in Guelph; the NDP have pockets of support in Windsor and Hamilton and one seat in each of Welland and London.

So it's no surprise, I suppose, that when Heritage Minister James Moore announced earlier this week funding from his department for 51 arts and culture projects in that part of the province, ridings held by Tory MPs cleaned up. (See Press Release: Harper Government Invests in Arts, Culture and Official Languages in Southwestern Ontario )

Here's the breakdown:

  • The press release says Moore announced $1.93 million for “more than 50 projects” but I count $1.78 million for 51 projects in the backgrounder issued with the news release.
  • The feds are funding 36 projects in ridings held by Conservative MPs. The combined value of those projets if $1.17 million.
  • The feds are funding 8 projects in ridings held by NDP MPs. Combined value $206,300.
  • The feds are funding 1 project in the Liberal-held riding in Guelph. It's worth $159,000.
  • For six projects, we were unable to determine which riding the money would largely be spent in. Those six totalled $249,000.
  • Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, who represents the riding of Niagara Falls, is the big winner on the money side, scoring $316,648 in grants for two projects.
  • Stephen Woodworth, who represents Kitchener Centre will get the most photo ops. Five projects in his riding worth $282,108 got funding.
  • Other big winners: Larry Miller (Owen Sound) with 5 projects worth $48,300; Peter Braid (Kitchener-Waterloo) with 4 projects/$80,900; Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines) with 3 projects for $133,212 and NDP MP David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre) with 3/$38,000

These funds came out of the following Heritage Canada programs: Canada Cultural Investment Fund (Strategic Initiatives Component), Canada Cultural Investment Fund (Endowment Incentives Component), the Building Communities Through Arts and Heritage Program, the Canada Arts Presentation Fund, and the Cooperation with the Community Sector component of the Development of Official-Language Communities Program. Given the amount of time it takes for most funding applications to these programs to be processed, it's likely safe to assume that most applications had been with departmental bureaucrats since before the May 2 election.

Cameron to force ministers to register media mogul contacts

In Canada, the first thing the Conservatives did upon getting elected was to set up the lobbyist registry. The thinking here is that a little sunlight on the on lobbyists — who they are, who they work for, who they used to work for — and their relationship with politicians will go a long way to making sure that the public interest is never betrayed by either a lobbyist or a politician wants to engage in some mutual back-scratching. The Conservatives eventually required lobbyists to file “monthly communication reports”, which lists any meeting a registered lobbyist or a registered organization has with a minister, his or her senior political staff or other so-called designated public office holders.

So, for example, we are able to know that, on June 29, Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz met with a representative of the registered lobbyist organization the Grain Growers of Canada. (Ritz and the GGC would both like to dismantle the monopsony of the Canadian Wheat Board). Reporters check these databases from time to time and notice trends or certain meetings which might spur further questions. Sunlight. A wonderful thing.

In the United Kingdom today, Prime Minister David Cameron announced a new type of registry today, a response to the growing phone hacking scandal that is not only threatening News Corp. but also Cameron's Conservative-led coalition government. Here's what he said:

I will be consulting the Cabinet Secretary on an amendment to the Ministerial Code to require Ministers to record all meetings with newspaper and other media proprietors, senior editors and executives – regardless of the nature of the meeting.

Permanent Secretaries and Special Advisers will also be required to record such meetings.

And this information should be published quarterly.

It is a first for our country, and alongside the other steps we are taking, will help make the UK government one of the most transparent in the world.

Cameron is doing this, presumably, because one of the issues that has emerged out of the phone hacking scandal is that politicians and the British press have had, in many instances, too cozy a relationship. Cameron believes a little sunlight on that relationship will be a good thing. (Question for my UK readers: Does the UK government required lobbyists to be registered and report monthly communications?)

In Canada, I should note, media organizations can be greated like ordinary, everyday lobbyists and must disclose their meetings if a media owner or proprietor wishes to meet with a minister for some reason other than the regular newsgathering/journalism process. Quebecor, the parent of Sun Media, is registered to lobby and you can review  Quebecor's disclosure of meetings with “designated public office holders” to see what our executives have been up to.

 

 

Regional developments ministers busy with cash in their own ridings

As we being to track government spending announcements since the election of the 41st Parliament, I thought it might be worthwhile to review my #ottawaspends database for some data on spending announcements during the 40th Parliament, with a particular focus on the spending habits of the country’s regional development ministers.

There are six regional development departments or agencies, one each for Atlantic Canada, Quebec, southern Ontario, northern Ontario, Canada’s north and the four western provinces.

Here’s some summary data from the 40th Parliament:

  • While Denis Lebel was minister for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Region, we tracked 39 announcements which put $24.5 million into his riding of Roberval-Lac St. Jean. Lebel is still the minister for CED.
  • While Keith Ashfield was minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, we tracked 28 announcements which put $20 million into his riding of Fredericton (NB). In the 41st Parliament, ACOA is now the responsibility of New Brunswicker Bernard Valcourt.
  • The minister responsible for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency during the last Parliament was Chuck Strahl and then John Duncan, both of whom represented B.C. ridings, neither of which are in CANNOR’s catchment area of the three northern Canada ridings. Nunavut MP (and health minister) Leona Aglukkaq is now responsible for CANNOR.
  • While Lynne Yelich was the minister for Western Economic Diversification, we tracked 10 announcements which put $16.8 million into her riding of Blackstrap (SK). Yelich is still the minister for WD.
  • While Gary Goodyear was minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, we tracked 3 announcements which put $3.8 million into his riding of Cambridge (ON). Goodyear is still still the FEDDEV minister.
  • While Tony Clement was minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Initiatives for Northern Ontario, we tracked 3 announcements from that department which put $1.1 million into his riding of Muskoka-Parry Sound (ON). Clement continues to be the FEDNOR minister.

Again: These amounts are funds that only came from the minister’s department. The famous $50 million G8 money that went to Clement’s riding, for example, came from another department for which Clement was not the minister.

Billionaire George Soros explains his philanthropy but leaves me with some questions

I rather admire George Soros for the fact that, like a handful of billionaires, he's putting lots of his money where his mouth is when it comes to trying to make the world a healthier, safer, more democratic place. (Bill Gates is a more well-known example of that; Canada's Jeff Skoll a slightly less well-known example.)

In a recent essay in The New York Review of Books (sorry: it's behind the NYRB' paywall), Soros talks about his philanthropy and engages in an interesting discussion of how his foundations/endowments will continue to work on his philanthropic causes after he's gone.

But up near the top of his essay, there's a couple of paragraphs that gave me pause:

I occupy an exceptional position. My success in the financial markets has given me a greater degree of independence than most other people. This obliges me to take stands on controversial issues when others cannot, and taking such positions has itself been a source of satisfaction. In short, my philanthropy has made me happy. What more could one ask for? I do not feel, however, that I have any business imposing my choices on others.

I have made it a principle to pursue my self-interest in my business, subject to legal and ethical limitations, and to be guided by the public interest as a public intellectual and philanthropist. If the two are in conflict, the public interest ought to prevail. I do not hesitate to advocate policies that are in conflict with my business interests. I firmly believe that our democracy would function better if more people adopted this principle. And if they care about a well-functioning democracy, they ought to abide by this principle even if others do not. Just a small number of public-spirited figures could make a big difference.

I, for one, would very much like an example where Soros' public and philanthropic interests where in conflict with his business interests. He does not give one on this essay though he may have elsewhere. What did he do in that situation? Did he divest of of the 'unethical' business interest or did he double down on the investment and make a killing? And, perhaps I'm naive, but why shouldn't business leaders and investors who are so inclined be able to invest and carry on business that is in line with their ethics and whatever it is they perceive to be the public interest? Just askin' …

 

A "Truthers" debunker resource kit

I most recently ran into some 9/11 truthers — three of them actually — at the NDP convention last month in Vancouver. I was among several hundred convention delegates outside the Vancouver Convention Centre on a beautiful summer's evening enjoying a cocktail and some nibbles at the end of a day filled with policy debates when one of them spotted my “Media” badge and we started chatting about the day's events. I can't recall how the conversation turned but turn it did and these three young men patiently explained to me why the attacks of 9/11 were an inside job and why I was complicit in the media conspiracy to avoid uncovering the truth.

I had certainly not done the homework that my conversants had done and found it difficult to hold up my end of the conversation. This morning, though, I ran across some excellent resources as I began reading Jon Kay's so-far fascinating new book Among the Truthers: A Journey Through America’s Growing Conspiracist Underground which should help me the next time I'm called upon to participate in a discussion about who was behind the 9/11 attacks and why.

Parks Canada to "invade" Canada's biggest cities with rock'n'roll

Betcha didn't know this but: it is Parks Day in Canada on July 16 and Parks Canada — which runs the country's national parks and historic sites — is putting on some free parties in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. Here's the press release:

Beginning at noon, Parks Canada will invade the heart of Montréal, Toronto and Vancouver to offer Canadian families and young people a program of events including free performances involving some of the most prominent names in the Canadian art scene.

In Montréal, the Lachine Canal National Historic Site will play host to the Québécois group Les Trois Accords, followed by singer Marie-Mai. In Toronto, Centre Island will be resonating to the sound of Toronto rock band Skydiggers, followed by the rhythm of tunes by singer-songwriter-composers Serena Ryder, of Toronto, and Sarah Harmer, of Burlington. Finally, at Stanley Park's Brockton Point in Vancouver, the young singer-songwriter-composer Kate Morgan from Kamloops, the Saskatoon rock band The Sheepdogs, and the Neo-Canadian hip-hop singer K'naan, a native of Somalia, will play back to back.

“Canadians are changing and no longer have the same connection with nature as their parents and grandparents once did,” explained Mr. Alan Latourelle, Chief Executive Officer of Parks Canada. “Parks Canada is adapting by going into the very heart of cities to make Canadians more aware of the beauty of these historic, natural and cultural sites that comprise our collective heritage, and which we are protecting on their behalf.”

Some questions for the (inevitably underpaid and over-stressed) Environment Canada bureaucrat (for Parks Canada is an agency of Environment Canada) who wrote this press release:

  1. “Parks Canada will invade the heart of ..” Invade? Really? Like a noxious weed? That's the verb you wanted to use? Memo: War of 1812 celebrations are next year.
  2. What does it mean to be “Neo-Canadian”?  Couldn't we just call K'Naan “a Canadian”? Or a Somali-Canadian? What's a Neo-Canadian?
  3. Much as I'm happy to see these artists get some great exposure, I'm not sure I connect this “invasion” of three Canadian cities by some cool indie bands to a greater appreciation of Canada's National Parks. Looking forward to hearing more about that! I'm guessing Sarah Harmer — who I associate more with Kingston, ON where she went to university and got her musical start than her hometown of Burlington — may use the stage to talk about the importance of preserving chunks of the Niagara Escarpment and how Parks Canada has only one National Park in this region, the beautiful Bruce Peninsula National Park of Canada. Plea to Sarah: Press the feds to somehow designate the entire Bruce Trail as a national park!)

In the meantime, the Parks Canada press release is as good an excuse as any to play some music video from these bands. So here's one of my fave Canadian acts, The Skydiggers (whose original lineup included one Peter Cash on guitar who happens to be the brother of one Andrew Cash, the newly elected NDP MP for Davenport) with what I think is their biggest hit, “I Will Give You Everything”:

 

Why Rob Ford won Toronto: Car lovers

Long plane rides can be a drag — I'm on one as I type this between Ottawa and Vancouver en route to cover the NDP convention this weekend — but having a few political science papers on the ol' hard drive to pass the time with sure helps.

And so it was that I finally had a chance to read a fascinating analysis of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford's electoral success by Zack Taylor, a doctoral candidate in the department of political science at the University of Toronto. Taylor presented a paper [pdf] this spring to the Canadian Political Science Association annual conference and, while he cautions that the techniques he uses are “exploratory” and his analysis “preliminary”, it all smells about right to me.

Taylor is the first to use what he calls an “ecological” analysis of a municipal electoral event. Rather than take ward-by-ward or census tract data and match that to how the votes went, Taylor breaks it down further on a poll-by-poll basis and then uses GIS software to match poll data with a variety of economic, social, and geographic data to try to find some common characteristics about the kind of voter that swept the populist, small-c conservative Ford to victory over the big-name, big-spending, Bay Street favourite George Smitherman.

Taylor's conclusion:

Perhaps the most important finding is that location of residence — urban versus suburban — is the strongest predictor of Ford support. The underlying factors driving this effect only partially conform to expectations. The propensity to commute by automobile is a strong predictor of Ford support, while property-oriented variables (the home ownership rate and percentage of housing in detached form) are shown to have a negligible influence on candidate support.

That last bit — whether you owned a home or not didn't have much to do with how Torontonians voted for mayor — seems an interesting bit. I'm no political scientist but I think there is an assumption out there that those who own homes, as oppose to rent a residence, tend to vote in higher numbers for conservative candidates. If that is the case, that rule wasn't in effect for Toronto's last municipal election.

Taylor finds that there was a strong connection between Ford support and automobile use. Indeed, Ford explicitly campaigned on ending the “war on the car”, which included cutting support for some big public transit items. (By contrast, Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi — another out-of-nowhere candidate like Ford — triumphed in Calgary with a platform that included more public transit support, particularly for that city's light rapid transit service)

Now, as Taylor himself mentions, his analysis is “preliminary”. Nonetheless, I thought it noteworthy first for his approach — poll-by-poll analysis seems more “real” to me — and because his research finds some neat new stuff. But, as he notes at the end of the paper, “A useful next step would be to increase the explanatory power of the models by adding other variables shown to be influential in other studies: size of age cohorts, educational attainment, and immigration, religiosity, and employment by sector.”

Finally, Taylor writes: “This paper was completed prior to the May 2, 2011 federal election. It will be interesting to see to what extent the spatial distribution of the Ford vote is mirrored by the Conservatives in the imminent federal election and October’s provincial election. If so, it would add strength to the argument that urban and suburban voters possess divergent political values that transcend the municipal level.”

Indeed it would, Mr. Taylor! Someone get that man an SSHRC grant so he can present that paper at next year's political science convention.

 

Day one done at the NDP convention: Avoiding pitfalls, sticking to pocketbook issues

The first day of the NDP convention  since the party hit its historic high of 103 seats in the House of Commons was, I'd say, a good day for those within the NDP who are looking to set themselves up as a “government-in-waiting” when the next general election is held in 2015. The sense I get here here in Vancouver is that policies or proposals that might alienate the broad swath of Canadians whose political leanings might go slightly right-of-centre or slightly left-of-centre on any given day are not the views of a healthy majority of delegates here. For example, there were some New Democrats pushing what could be described as an anti-Israel line but delegates rejected even talking about those policies in any forum that might be captured on live television.

Outgoing NDP president Peggy Nash told me that the key to the party's success in the May 2 election was, among other things, a focus on so-called pocketbook issues. Canadians are concerned about their pensions and retirement, she said. They're concerned about their household finances with the arrival of the HST in BC and Ontario (but notably, not so concerned in Nova Scotia where NDP Premier Darrell Dexter, slated to speaker here tomorrow, is fine with the HST).

NDP national director Brad Lavigne talked about the party infrastructure now in place to achieve electoral success. Among other things, the party had 30 field agents spread across the country and 12 new field offices to support their work. Lavigne spoke about the importance in the last election campaign of the NDP's decision to support “local campaign capacity” and to build a national infrastructure to “better challenge the Conservatives.”

In the last election, the NDP focused heavily on the Conservatives, with leader Jack Layton reminding voters on a daily basis that only the NDP, not the Liberals, were the ones who could beat Conservatives. On May 2, 4.5 million Canadians voted for that pitch.

And that's one of the reasons this weekend's NDP convention is more important than last weekend's Conservative Party convention. The Conservatives have reached their promised land — a majority government — and are now looking to sustain that success. The NDP, on the other hand, wants to remain on its upward arc. It has not reached its goal of forming the first-ever national NDP government. The decisions the NDP makes this weekend may not make the Conservatives quake with fear but it ought to concern the Liberal Party of Canada. Much of the language on several, but not all, policy proposals up for debate could have been lifted out of any number of Liberal platform documents. And indeed, if the NDP want to be considered as a “government-in-waiting”, it must prevent any resurgence from the Liberals. (The party will vote later this weekend on a proposal that would prohibit any merger with the Liberals, incidentally.)

Canada's political centre, where majority governments are made, was largely the domain for much of the last century of the Liberal Party of Canada. Now that centre is up for grabs. On May 2, one could make the argument that the Conservatives did best at winning the centre.  That was helped by the fact that many 'blue Grits” voted Tory on May 2 to avoid any chance of a Layton-led minority government.

But many “orange Grits” voted for Layton because they didn't like Michael Ignatieff or they believed that a Layton-led government would be progressive enough for their liking. Many in the NDP are keenly aware that many voters — mostly Liberal but also some Conservatives — looked at the post-May 2 political landscape and are now ready to think about some new options. The senior leadership of the NDP wants those Liberal voters who are looking for a home to come to their party and this convention is an important first step towards that goal.

And so, on day one, here is the NDP press release which, it is impossible not to notice, continues to focus on the pocketbook issues — a chief issue for the political centre — that won the NDP so much success on May 2:

NEW DEMOCRATS FOCUS ON SPARKING ECONOMY
Members adopt policies to create and defend family-supporting jobs
VANCOUVER – On this opening day of their national convention, New Democrats passed a number of resolutions aimed at jumpstarting Canada’s economy in the wake of a job-killing recession. “Canada’s job-supporting industries need to be fostered,” said New Democrat Leader Jack Layton. “Our recovery from the this recession is still fragile and we need action to reward job creators and support investment here at home.” One successful resolution calls for targeted tax incentives to encourage job creation and job-supporting investment. Another calls for an overhaul of the Investment Canada Act to prevent corporate takeovers that result in quality jobs being shipped overseas.

“More than a decade of reckless, across-the-board corporate tax cuts have failed to create or even protect decent jobs,” Layton said. “I’m proud to see New Democrats adopting 21st policies to spark our economy with real, family-supporting job creation.” Delegates also resolved to protect farmers’ rights to determine the Canadian Wheat Board’s direction, and to strengthen Canada’s shipbuilding industry through fair procurement policies. The resolutions were part of the first of seven blocks of policy to be debated by 1,500 delegates at the party’s national convention, which comes six weeks after the party’s most successful federal election ever.

The Conservatives turn their guns to the socialist hordes

During the last Parliament, the Conservatives adopted a rather noxious strategy of trying to derail then Opposition Leader Michael Ignatieff in Question Period by putting up one of their MPs to deliver a variety of personal or harsh partisan attacks just before Ignatieff's first question. They did this using what is known on the Hill as an “S.O. 31”, short for Standing Order 31 or “Members Statement”, a 15-minute period just before daily Question Period during which MPs are free to stand up and say just about anything they want on any subject so long as they don't speak for longer than 1 minute. Very often, MPs use an S.O. 31 Members Statement to acknowledge important events or people in their riding; point out anniversaries, celebrations, memorials or simply make a point about policy. They can be quite touching. Conservative MP Harold Albrecht used an S.O. 31 to pay tribute to his wife who collapsed as they were to head out to an election celebration party on May 2 and would die days later. Liberal MP Bob Rae was teary-eyed himself in this tribute to Toronto Star columnist Jim Travers, who passed away earlier this year.

But the Conservatives, alone among the parties in Parliament, often used the 15-minutes of Members Statements to systematically attack their opponents. More specifically, they would use the final Members Statement prior to the beginning of the Question Period — and the first speaker in Question Period is always the Leader of the Official Opposition — to attack the Leader of the Official Opposition and/or the Official Opposition with over-the-top verbiage. And remember: SO 31s are not debates. You cannot respond to one if you or your party is attacked. That's one of the reasons I find this tactic to be particularly un-Parliamentary.

Here's a good example delivered on March 24, the second to last day of the last Parliament by Conservative MP Terence Young; here's a hit by Conservative backbencher Robert Sopuk on March 21; Dean Del Mastro did the honours on March 9; Randy Hoback on March 8;  James Lunney here … I could go on. The themes were monotonously similar: The Liberals lie; they have a secret plan; Ignatieff is just visiting, it's all part of a Liberal culture of deceit. Etc. Etc.

Now, though, with the Liberals largely vanquished, the Tories need new enemies apparently. We, the media, continue to be a chief target. And so now is the “NDP radical left”. So, despite a commitment to a new spirit of civility in the House of Commons,  the Conservatives lined up a backbench hitter to rail away at Jack Layton and the NDP just before Layton's first question in the Question Period. The hit — the first S.O. 31 of its kind in this Parliament I'm aware of — was delivered by Kootenay-Columbia rookie MP David Wilks who, as it turns out, is one of a handful of Conservative MPs that, because the majority Conservative government overflows with members, has had to find a seat next to the NDP. And so as Wilks railed away (See below), we could see the NDP caucus and Layton turn and look at Wilks with a great deal of amusement. Here's the hit as recorded by Hansard:

Mr. David Wilks (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, the NDP of the radical hard left do not know the first thing about governing. Ask a British Columbian or Ontarian who had to put up with its members in power. While Canadians remain concerned about jobs and the economy, the NDP is having a gut-wrenching debate about whether or not it should remain committed to its reckless, hard left, high tax, socialist principles. The NDP radical left remains committed to pro-drug policies and anti-trade policies. The NDP opposes Canada's leadership as a clean energy superpower. It even questions its commitment to federalism, with calls to repeal the Clarity Act.  The NDP proposed child care from birth to age 12, a 45-day work year and a 50% hike in the pension plan, policies that would cost billions. The radical hard left NDPers should stop and think about the real priorities of Canadians: jobs and the economy.