No Canadian seniors for NDP ad?

Getting into trouble with stock photos in political advertising is not new; it seems they just never learn. The latest offender is the NDP with the new ad campaign they launched today.

In a scene where they're talking about seniors issues and family care (family care? there's a good idea) they show Jack Layton with a senior and his family. Unfortunately it seems no Canadian seniors were available, so they turned to stock photography from a Danish photographer.

Here's a scene from the NDP ad:

And here's the iStock photo by Danish photographer Jacob Wackerhausen (aka Yuri Arcurs, presumably taken in his custom-built stock photo studio in Denmark.

I guess the NDP couldn't find any Canadian seniors to put in their ad, but at least they're helping seniors, even if it is in Denmark.

Of coure, these are the same guys that, with their 2007 pre-writ ad campaign, hired a UK company to run the online video component.

UPDATED TO ADD: To my NDP friends who tut-tut the questioning of imagery in political ads, such short memories. You may recall your own party launched a web site and newsletter campaign in 2006 to mock the imagery in Liberal campaign ads. Called "Average Canadian or Liberal Insider" they attacked the Liberal for "not being able to find average Canadians for their ads" because they used Liberal Party members talking about Canada, and only identified them by name.

But that obsessing over ad imagery, complete with an interactive web site and graphics, no less, is completely different, I'm sure.

Somehow.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conrad Black thinks the Conservatives are wrong on marijuana, and dumb on crime

Perhaps Conrad Black's time in U.S. prison has mellowed his thinking on criminal justice. But when even the died in the wool conservative who poured millions into launching a national newspaper to cheer-lead for the Canadian Alliance and try to take down a Liberal Prime Minister (ok, and maybe also to gain a publication in the country's largest media market and allow his chain to offer a comprehensive national advertising package) thinks your criminal justice policy is, well, pretty dumb, then you may want to take note.

In a recent column in his old paper, Conrad harshly condemns Conservative policy on a national securities regulator, larger prison construction, blindly harsher sentencing and crime in general. He also offers a fiscally conservative argument for why increasing the prison population with non-violent offenders instead of rehabilitation/treatment is bad policy and speaks out against mandatory minimums; particularly for, believe it or not, marijuana possession.

The most recent leaps backwards have been on mandatory minimum sentences, harsher marijuana laws and extension of almost all sentences -- all bad, unjust and expensive mistakes. Mandatory Minimum Sentences deprive judges of any discretion and pre-sentence convicted people without regard to individual circumstances. It is a politically catchy method of avoiding the perceived problem of soft-hearted judges letting people off lightly. It has been a catastrophic failure in the United States, from which the designers of the Roadmap have cribbed it, and emulating it in Canada would be an outrage. This is especially true when minor marijuana offences are penalized doubly harshly, as is proposed, and addiction treatment is de-emphasized in the prisons. It costs $57,000 in the provincial systems and $88,000 in the federal system to house a prisoner for a year. There is no rationale or excuse for confining those who are not physically dangerous, nor for reducing their access to treatment, which is cheaper, more effective, and more humane than prison, though less likely to appeal to knuckle-dragging deadbeats of the jail 'em, flog 'em, hang 'em school.

He even goes on to echo Liberal talking points on Conservative crime policy, describing as "apt" Michael Ignatieff's characterization of Conservative policy as dumb on crime, and accuses the Conservatives of bad policy and shabby politics.

I've never found myself this much in agreement with something Conrad has written before. It's kind of scary. It should be for Conservatives too.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A new premier and a new dynamic in British Columbia

A big win last night on the left coast for Christy Clark, who scored a third-ballot victory in the BC Liberal Party race over Kevin Falcon and managed to get her victory speech in before the Canucks game started. Unfortunately the Canucks would fall to the Boston Bruins, but otherwise a pretty good night for British Columbia.

It was interesting watching the evening unfold from afar, as the media tried to figure out how to cover a (weighted) one member, one vote non-convention as opposed to the old-style made for tv delegated drama. The members voted across the province throughout the day Saturday online and on the phone with a single preferential ballot. More democratic than a delegated convention, but less for the media to do.

The party did try to squeeze what drama it could out of the system. Rather than just announce the winner straight-out, it announced the results of each ballot in 10-minute increments. Surprising the final result didn't leak to Twitter early. I thought it was a little surprising George Abbott didn't do better on the first ballot, but him and Kevin Falcon were fishing in the same pool. Not surprised Clark wasn't higher on the first ballot, everyone was trying to spin-up her numbers as part of the expectations game. What was surprising was that the rumours of Clark's lack of second-choice support were shown false. There was no anybody but Christy movement; Clark gained steadily as Mike DeJong and Abbott fell off the ballot.

As a BCer at heart, I'm optimistic about Clark's victory.When I was still living in BC I let my BC Liberal membership lapse, disappointed that the Liberal/Conservative coalition (out there it's not a dirty word) had tilted much too right for my liking as the Campbell government went on. I'm hopeful that Clark can move the party and the government back toward the progressive centre. Time will tell, of course, but I'm hopeful.

The challenge, of course, will be holding that coalition together. Clark is seen by many as a "Liberal" candidate, viewed with wariness by some on the "Conservative" side of the party. There were abandon the party warnings by some if she won, and the upstart BC Conservative Party is waiting in the wings. I suspect many of the warnings were just electioneering, but the BC Conservative leadership race will be worth watching.

The other challenge for Clark will be uniting a caucus that, with one exception, supported other people. This, I think, will be less of a challenge than it has been hyped to be. It's one team now, and with the NDP soon to have a new leader, everyone knows where the focus should be.

Oh, and of course, Clark needs to find a riding to run in and get herself into the legislature.

So we'll now watch to see how Clark builds her cabinet and begins governing, while the NDP (and the BC Conservatives) continue their leadership races. Once we know all the players, and get a sense of how Clark will be governing (and how the HST referendum goes) we'll have a better sense of what the future holds. But always interesting times on the left coast.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Is it health care, stupid? The issues Canadians care about

With the caveat that all polling should be taken with grains of salt (particularly those with findings I don't like) Nanos has some interesting new numbers on the issues that Canadians are ranking as their top concerns.

He lists five that are at the top of the list, with the change from December 2010 in brackets:

Health care: 22.9% (+2.2%)

Economy/Jobs: 20.2% (-2.1%)

The environment: 10.3% (+2.3%)

Education: 5.4% (-)

Debt/deficit: 5.2% (+o.4%)

I'm going to focus on the top two, because I think they represent compelling choices for the Liberals and Conservatives.

It's widely-held (but unfortunate based on the historical evidence) that when economic management is the issue, the Conservatives tend to do better. It's not just in Canada, and it's just one of those things. Not saying we should cede this ground, just that we should start with that reality recognized.

That's why we see the Conservatives trying to shift the debate and discussion these days to the economy: if they can frame the debate on economy and jobs, they see that as ground on which they can succeed. If that's the ballot question, they feel Canadians will turn to them.

That's why we see statements chiding the opposition to focus on the economy, calling the recovery in jeopardy, warning opposition shenanigans could put jobs in jeopardy. They're folding corporate tax cuts into this as well: raising them will cost jobs, they warn. On the other side, there's last week's cross-country stimulus re-announcement tour, and the millions in PMO-directed economic action plan ads.

It's a simple recipe: stoke a little fear on the economy to make the issue of more concern to Canadians, then paint your opponents as dangerous on the issue and tout your own record of achievement, positioning yourselves as the logical, and safe choice. Clearly, the Conservatives want an economic debate: they feel on solid ground there.

But as the Nanos numbers show, the economy/jobs isn't the only issue that is of top concern to Canadians. Indeed, by just a few points, it's not even the top concern currently. Their top concern is actually health care.

Despite health care being consistently at or near the top of concerning issues for Canadians, you don't hear a lot of the parties in Ottawa talking about it. Certainly not the Conservatives, and with good reason: if the economy/jobs are a Conservative issue, health care tends to be more of a Liberal issues. Which means there is an opportunity here for the Liberals to seize the day by addressing the concerns of Canadians on health care, and highlighting Conservative inaction on the file (remember wait times, the infamously forgotten fifth Harper priority?).

We have seen some selected health-care relates initiatives from the Liberals so far. The signature Liberal policy proposal to date, the Family Care Plan, speaks to helping Canadians support ill loved ones. Also related are proposals around ways to attract more doctors and nurses to under-served rural areas, and a national food policy to promote healthy living.

It's a pretty good start. What's needed is unifying messaging around a vision for health care in the 21st century, analysis and criticism of Conservative failure on the file, and a concerted effort to elevate the profile of the health care issue in the national debate.

As I said, I'm not arguing we cede the economy/jobs issue to the Conservatives; far from it. We have a good story to tell on this issue, there are Conservative vulnerabilities, and our policy on corporate taxes is the right one for the times. Don't give them an inch.

But we should also try to raise the profile and shift the debate towards health care, an issue that isn't just a good Liberal issue, but also the issue Canadians are most concerned about. The Conservatives want to change the channel to the economy. Let's try to fight from what, for us, is a position of strength.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stéphane Dion speaks on clarity

He hasn't had a super high-profile since he resigned the Liberal leadership, but Stéphane Dion has been keeping busy working on and speaking about the issues he has been passionate about throughout his career.

He recently gave a speech at a conference in Ottawa called "Secession and the Virtues of Clarity" where he gives an overview of international and Canadian law on succession, the examples of Kosovo and Sudan, and the way the way sovereigntist thinking in Quebec has evolved thanks to the 1998 supreme court reference, and the Clarity Act which followed.

Interesting stuff for my fellow political nerds. Click here for the text of the speech.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Buy your own iPad, Stockwell

Conservatives are telling Canadians we need to tighten our belts. Sure, there are billions for Cadillac stealth fighters, and billions more to give tax breaks to the big banks. But help families care for sick loved ones, put their children through college or university, or find affordable child care? Can’t afford it, the Conservatives insist. It’s time for austerity. Suck it up.

It seems though that for these Conservatives, austerity doesn’t begin at home. YOU need to tighten your belt. But Stockwell Day wants you to pay for his iPad.

The government allows cabinet ministers and senior staff to expense iPads. However, last November, Parliament’s Board of Internal Economy, chaired by Speaker Peter Milliken, decided that iPads should not be allowed as expenses covered by a members’ office budget.

Mr. Day indicated this week he disagrees.

If there’s any doubt that a Conservative culture of entitlement has taken hold, this should dispel it. Canadians need to tighten our belts and do without, but we should drop over $800 so Stock can play Angry Birds during question period.

Here’s an idea, Stockwell: buy your own iPad.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Thinning border, thinning sovereignty

This month will be a particularly busy one for me on the work front, with three trips to the United States: Santa Clara, Orlando and Savannah. I'm writing this blog from the Maple Leaf Lounge at Toronto's Pearson Airport as I wait for my flight to the West Coast of the United States, so it seems appropriate I weigh in on one of the current issues du jour: border security and negotiations over a Canada/US border agreement.

It goes without saying that I travel a lot, almost exclusively to the United States. It's been that way since I started my current job in 2005. So from the perspective of a frequent business traveler, I've seen first-hand the impacts of the thickening border in the post 9/11 era. I check all my liquids, have a mania for metal, and always have my belt and shoes off. I;m just the facts with customs & immigration agents. Really should get a Nexus card one of these days though.

Point is, a thinner Canada/US border would be a great benefit to me personally. I'd love a European Union-style open border, where the borders are thickened when entering the common zone and thinned within. It would be a big time savings.

I just don't think it's viable in the Canadian context, though. This negotiating process has been so secretive, and deliberately so, that we just don't know what's being proposed. That's a problem in itself. But we know the basics about how any sort of agreement of this sort would work. If you're going to streamline the flow of people and cargo at the Canada/US border, you need to thicken security and regulation at the international border. In essence, if Canada and the US are going to be a common zone, you need the same rules and security around entering that common zone from outside, whether your point of entry is Canada or the U.S.

Invariably, when it comes to harmonizing regulations, it's not going to be harmonizing to a lower standard. It will be harmonizing to the higher standard. And invariably, that will mean the U.S. standard. It would be negotiated but remember we're the mouse, not the elephant.

A thinner border will necessarily mean a dilution of sovereignty, as Canadians tend to have our own ideas about appropriate levels of regulation, but would need to trade that for harmonization. Now, on straight security issues, we could probably work most of that out. Inspection levels for cargo, no problem there. Airline security is already harmonized (to the U.S. standard) for transborder flights. The main driver for a deal is cargo and trade, not passenger traffic. But it's hard, if not impossible, to separate the two.

If it stopped at security screening issues, we'd be fine. But there's another aspect that will invariably be part of this: immigration issues. Any harmonization will likely need to involve changes around not just the movement of cargo, but people. Which countries are considered safe and which aren't, who needs visas and who doesn't, their terms and validity, and so on. Refugee policy could even come into it.

If someone is going to be more free to move once they're inside the zone, the rules to enter the zone need to be the same, or one point of entry will become a weak-point to be exploited. Again, the higher standard will prevail, and that will inevitably mean the U.S. standard. And I think that's a piece of sovereignty the Canadian public will be less willing to give up.

Now it could be Canadians are becoming more conservative on some of these issues. I think the Conservatives have been trying to prep the ground with their visa battles, and the manufactured crisis/outrage over Sri Lankan refugees. The strong negative reaction over the latter would seem to indicate a hardening attitude within the Canadian population.

I think though that if the government doesn't tread carefully, it runs the risk of running ahead of public opinion and triggering a backlash. Particularly if this is seen as a secretive process.

Just how much sovereignty are Canadians willing to trade for a smoother border? We may soon find out.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

More stupid on crime policy from the Conservatives

I've written regularly on the Conservative government's stupid on crime policies, and the unwillingness of all parties to risk the wrath of public opinion by calling BS on so-called "tough on crime" policies that are expensive, ineffective, and designed only to score headlines.

Well, we saw more dumb on crime policy from the government this morning:

The Harper government wants a four-fold increase in the cost of applying for a pardon in Canada.

Saying it will not subsidize criminals, the government is proposing to charge $631 to study a pardon application, up from the current fee of $150.

Sounds great in theory, right? Who wants to subsidize criminals? And with public outrage over the Graham James pardon, the Conservatives are eager to jump on that bandwagon and been seen to respond toughly.

When you look deeper though, this is just more Conservative dumb on crime policy. So, you hike the fee from $150 to $631. Who will suffer from this? For your corporate fraudster, your retirement fund charlatan, an extra $500 is peanuts. They'll get their name cleared and their slate whipped clean.

But what about the single Mom on the poverty line who shoplifted to feed her family, or passed bad cheques to keep a roof over their head? She won't be able to come up with another $500. So she'll continue to be burdened with a criminal record, making it harder to get a job and support her family, while the wealthy mutual fund shyster gets a second chance.

And it's also worth noting that those eligible for the pardon program have already served their sentences, so unlike the Conservative soundbite, these people have been held accountable.

Look, if you want to reform the pardon program, and make them harder to get, that's a legitimate debate. Tighten regulations about who can qualify, the time periods, what crimes aren't eligible, and so on.

But just raising fees and pretending you're being tough is neither tough nor smart on crime. It's just stupid.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

How about a citizen's arrest of politics trumping rational debate?

So often when it comes to crime policy, politics seems to trump parliament’s role of examining legislation to ensure it will truly be effective and will meet the intended goals without unintended consequences.

We’re about to be hearing a lot in parliament about citizen arrests.

The recent debate was sparked when a shopkeeper in Toronto's Chinatown, David Chen, was charged with assault and forcible confinement after he and two of his employees confronted a man who had stolen plants from the store an hour earlier, tied him up and threw him into the back of a van. Current law allows a citizen to make an arrest only while a crime is in progress.

Chen was ultimately acquitted of the charges, but the fact that he was charged at all upset fellow store owners and politicians.

Chen’s case captured public and media attention, and all the federal parties were quick to rally to the cause and propose legislative changes to make citizen arrests easier. Liberal and NDP MPs introduced private members bills, and the Conservatives are set to introduce government legislation

While I’m sympathetic to Chen’s cause, and I’m pleased with the outcome of the case against him, I think we’re treading on dangerous ground here. Changing criminal law and writing legislation in response to single incidents that garnered lots of media attention may be good politics, but it’s not the best way to design a justice system.

Already, we’re hearing lots of concerns raised about the proposed changed to citizen arrest laws:

"The traditional policy of the law has been to try and leave arrests up to the professionals -- the police -- wherever possible," said Jonathan Dawe, a criminal lawyer and adjunct professor at the University of Toronto.

"There is a concern that untrained citizens might arrest in situations where it isn't really justified, and a further concern about citizens putting themselves in dangerous situations where someone -- themselves, the person they are arresting or innocent bystanders -- might get hurt."

Now, in theory, the role of Parliament is to examine and vet proposed legislation. The Conservative bill would go to committee, where people like Dawe would be invited to testify and be questioned by the committee members, possibly leading to amendments to improve the legislation and raise concerns addressed.

How likely is that to happen here? Not likely; not when all three parties (don’t know about the BQ) want to ride this bandwagon.

This is likely to be a microcosm of everything that’s wrong with how Parliament deals with crime legislation today. It will likely be pushed through quickly and with minimal examination. No one will want to object too strongly, lest they find themselves on the wrong side of a PR disaster.

Everyone is so dammed afraid of being tagged with the dreaded “soft on crime” label that flawed legislation isn’t challenged anymore. And never mind a comprehensive approach to crime, such as harm reduction, prevention, youth programs, and so on. It’s flawed put politically popular “get tough” measures that are usually more show than substance, and almost invariably have been proven ineffective.

Maybe it’s a product of our perpetual minorities. In a four-year mandate, I think everyone would be more willing to take a long-term approach and make politically unpopular but correct decisions. But when you could be heading to the polls at any time, no one wants to be caught offside.

Whatever the reason, it’s an unfortunate trend that, ironically, is only preventing actual, meaningful and effective crime legislation from being passed.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers