Angry in the Great White North

My prediction for a difficult fall for Michael Ignatieff

2009-06-27T08:19:54-05:00

Michael Ignatieff's retreat from his election threat has put him on a path that is likely to mean a very difficult autumn.

Or that's what I think.

Sorry about the long stretch between postings, but things have been busy for me at work.

But in this case, I'm glad for the delay. It prevented me from jumping the gun on analyzing the aftermath of the election showdown. As you recall, Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff promised to bring down the government unless, among other things, the Employment Insurance system was dramatically reworked to set a new national standard threshold of 360 hours of work to be eligible for a year's worth of premium.

Indeed, Michael Ignatieff had been demanding this change for weeks.

And so the showdown happened, and faced with the government falling (assuming the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois joined the Liberals) and potentially losing an election, or saying "No" to Michael Ignatieff, Stephen Harper said "No".

And Michael Ignatieff beat a hasty retreat.

To be fair, Michael Ignatieff wrang out a concession. Instead of simply accepting Stephen Harper's plan to roll out an extension of the EI system to cover self-employed workers in the fall, as well as other tweaks, a blue ribbon panel was formed.

The panel would study EI, and then report back in the fall on how best to extend the EI system to cover self-employed workers in the fall, as well as recommend other tweaks.

So Michael Ignatieff got nothing. The punditocracy laughed at him, and many Liberal apologists did not even bother trying to spin this.

At the time I thought, as many, that the summer would see a major shift. The resurging Liberals would stall and fall back. They would be hurt by Michael Ignatieff's performance. They would be hurt by the accumulating effect of the attack ads. But mostly they would be hurt by a recovering economy. The Conservatives would fan out across the country with stimulus checks, and that coupled with brighter economic news would work in favour of the Conservatives.

But then this is not a surprise. Many people predicted this back in the early spring, long before this showdown began to even take shape, arguing that if the Liberals allowed the Conservatives to govern through the summer, these trends would mean the the Liberals would have squandered their best opportunity.

After a week of just reading the news (when I could), there seem to plenty of signs in polls that this is exactly what is happening. The Conservatives are moving back up the polls. Slowly, but a solid trend. The first positive articles are appearing in local papers about infrastructure spending. The backlash against the attack ads never materialized, and instead when people did voice an opinion with regards to the ads, it was to say the ads were having the intended effect. Economic news is Canada continues to be positive, both from domestic and foreign analysts.

I didn't end up making a prediction, but if I had, it would have been right. There seems to have been a window that has closed for the Liberals.

So I'm going to make a prediction now. If by the fall the Conservatives have opened up a polling lead that is measurably outside the margin of error (not the case today), then we will witness the first leaks concerning serious discontent in some circles of the Liberal Party, aimed directly at Michael Ignatieff, and that these comments will echo the Conservative attack ads -- Michael Ignatieff doesn't understand Canadian politics, he spent too much time out of the country, he should have been forced to fight to become party leader instead of being handed the job like a visitor being given a gift.

I would not put money on this prediction. But let's see what happens in September.

Michael Ignatieff continues to be vague, undercutting his own EI panel appointees, and threatening nothing in particular

2009-06-21T16:59:37-05:00

Michael Ignatieff doesn't have what it takes to deliver a credible and meaningful threat. Instead, he just yaks on and on, expressing doubt that his people can achieve results, and then threatening to do...well...nothing in particular.

Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff continues to talk. He isn't really saying anything. He just talks. A lot.

In this case, he tells Canadians what he expects of the blue ribbon panel that will review Employment Insurance:

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says he cannot promise sweeping changes to the employment insurance system, despite an agreement earlier this week with the Conservatives to review the program -- a deal that averted a summer election call.

"We're working towards a solution," Ignatieff said Sunday on CTV's Question Period. "I'm going to try in good faith to get there. I can't give you any guarantees we're going get there, but I'm going try."

In case you are confused by the use of the first person pronoun "I", Michael Ignatieff is not actually on the panel. Three of the six members of the panel have been appointed by the Liberal Party, and they are MP Michael Savage, MP Marlene Jennings, and Liberal Party Director of Policy, Kevin Chan.

Nope, Michael Ignatieff is not on the list.

Of course, he wouldn't be. It would be silly. But for some reason Michael Ignatieff can't help but talk as if he was the only member of the Liberal Party, and everything that the Liberal Party does happens because he does it, personally.

Well, for the sake of clarity, Michael Savage, Marlene Jennings, and Kevin Chan are going to be working in good faith.

It's too bad for them that Michael Ignatieff has so little faith that they will be able to achieve anything.

And if this committee can't come up with something "sweeping" that Michael Ignatieff can accept? What then?

Ignatieff warned that if that there aren't sweeping changes to the system, the Liberals will be forced to "reconsider our options."

"We're not going to go on and on forever here," Ignatieff said. "This thing has a fixed deadline. We must achieve results for the Canadian people. If we can't then we're going to have to reassess the situation."

Normally that would me a vote of non-confidence and an election. But then why not just say so? I suppose it's because it doesn't necessarily mean non-confidence and an election. It might mean another news conference announcing a move to force an election, followed by numerous news leaks and media interviews pulling back from the brink by reinterpreting the statements of the news conference, and ending with a some excuse to hold off until the signs are more auspicious for the Liberals.

And in the mean time to just sit there in opposition, thinking and making vague threats.

I wonder how many Liberals are wishing they had been allowed a chance to actually vote for this guy to be the leader.

The Liberal riding service package: A bag of pure magic

2009-06-18T14:46:24-05:00

It looks like Elections Canada is checking into the mandatory riding services package bought by every candidate during the last election. Elections Canada is concerned that this package of buttons and posters isn't worth the $2,500 charged by the party, and that this is a scam designed to hide the transfer of money from the ridings to the party.

I don't know about that, but I want to point out that whatever was in that bag, it was pure magic. It seems like the candidate could use to contents to do anything -- from decorate the office to running surveys.

That is one magical bag of electoral tricks.

The Liberals might be in trouble with regards to their election expenses:

Elections Canada is scrutinizing almost $800,000 worth of expenses filed by Liberal candidates in last fall's election campaign, The Canadian Press has learned.

The elections watchdog has asked the Liberal party to produce detailed invoices and documentation to prove that a mandatory riding services package was actually worth the $2,500 each candidate was required to pay for it .

Until Elections Canada is satisfied that the packages aren't really a thinly-veiled donation to party headquarters, the candidates won't receive their election expenses rebates, worth a total of about $3.5 million to the cash-hungry party.

"Until that's resolved, then it's holding the process up somewhat," Liberal party national director Rocco Rossi confirmed in an interview Wednesday.

The riding services packages included buttons, posters, brochures, photos of the leader, and templates for lawn signs, web sites and letterhead.

So the question Elections Canada wants answered is whether this package is worth the $2,500 per riding charged by the party.

I decided to check all 307 returns myself. As a result, I've got a few extra questions to add to those being posed by Elections Canada.

First of all, it doesn't not look like every riding was compelled to pay for this package. I counted about 50 returns in which I could not identify this $2,500 charge to the Liberal Party or to the Federal Liberal Agency. In the rest, there was one specific line item for exactly $2,500.

Of these returns, just under half allocated the entire $2,500 to the column on the return labelled "Miscellaneous expenses (including non-candidate travel)". Given the nature of the package -- website templates and buttons and such -- this seems reasonable. Most of the big name candidates like Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae allocated this $2,500 in this way.

Thirty more candidates, including Joe Volpe and Peter Milliken and Marc Garneau, allocated the $2,500 against "Advertising (Other)". I suppose it's a matter of interpretation about the roles of these buttons and posters, but it doesn't seem like a significant difference.

What about the rest? Now it gets interesting.

I counted 43 returns in which the $2,500 was allocated in the same way every time: $2,479 to "Miscellaneous expenses (including non-candidate travel)" and $21 to "Amounts not included in election expenses". That latter column is used for expenses incurred outside of the election period. The classic example is the post-election audit that is required by Elections Canada.

So how is it that 43 candidates each found exactly twenty-one dollars worth of something inside this bag of buttons and brochures that was "spent" outside of the election period? Perhaps there was a voucher for an audit. But then why isn't every return filed this way?

But it gets better.

There are 34 candidates who allocated the $2,500 worth of material they bought from the Liberal Party in the opposite manner. They allocated a mere $169 to "Miscellaneous expenses (including non-candidate travel)" and the remaining $2,331 to "Amounts not included in election expenses". This is a real head-scratcher. How do you "spend" buttons after the election is finished?

But it gets better.

There are 10 candidates who allocated the whole $2,500 to "Office Expenses: Other (including telephone)". The candidates include Denis Coderre, Jim Karygiannis, and Garth Turner. Apparently their mandatory riding services packages had free cell phones or calling cards. Or maybe they used the contents for decorating the office. I suppose that means never giving away the buttons.

But it gets better.

There are four candidates who allocated the whole $2,500 to "Election surveys or other surveys or research". Candidates like Keith Martin and Myra Sweeney must be counted as the most clever candidates in the election, figuring out how to make a Stephane Dion button spit out local riding polling numbers.

But it gets better.

One candidate, Michelle Simson, found $2,310 worth of survey and research material in her package, as well as $169 of miscellaneous election expenses, as well as $21 worth of material not included in election expenses. In other words, she hit all the columns with those magic numbers.

But it gets better.

One candidate got it backwards. When Maurizio Bevilacqua looked in his mandatory riding services package, he did not find $169 worth of "Miscellaneous expenses (including non-candidate travel)" and $2,331 worth of "Amounts not included in election expenses", like 34 of his Liberal colleagues. Instead he recorded $2,331 under "Miscellaneous expenses (including non-candidate travel)" and $169 under "Amounts not included in election expenses". The same values, but inexplicably switched columns.

I suppose it could be noted that about 50 candidates have not actually paid the $2500, but have allocated the amount in the "Unpaid claims" column. But then I'm not certain what they paid for. This magic bag of buttons and posters seems to be all things to all people.

The choice that dooms Michael Ignatieff

2009-06-17T05:43:57-05:00

There is a choice people are making that will doom Michael Ignatieff's leadership of the Liberal Party. It is a choice of what story to believe.

Let's go back to Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt's recorded conversations (all but forgotten, it seems). Raitt explains why there was no election soon after Michael Ignatieff deposed Stephane Dion and took over the Liberal Party leadership:

Later in her conversation with Ms. MacDonnell, Ms. Raitt tells the man driving them around Victoria that Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff had backed down from defeating the Conservative government on a budget a few days earlier because he got a message from Canadian bankers.

"They did it at the Canadian Council of (Chief) Executives, there was three presidents of major banks who stood up in the room - and this is not from cabinet so I can talk about it - stood up and said, 'Ignatieff, don't you even think about bringing us to an election,'" said Ms. Raitt.

"'We don't need this. We have no interest in this. And we will never fund your party again.' That was very powerful. So he heard it from very powerful people in the industry. He was definitely muzzled."

Now the Liberals denied this happened, so it comes down to who you choose to believe. There is no recording of the meeting with these bank executives (that I know of) to prove this point one way or the other. If you are a fan of Michael Ignatieff, you chose to believe that the story is a fabrication. If not, you chose to believe that Michael Ignatieff was slapped around, and is still being slapped around, by bankers who have the power to deny the Liberal Party loans that are critical to running an election campaign.

So I find it very interesting that key people are choosing to believe that Michael Ignatieff is no true leader. These people are key because they represent voters who ought to despise Conservatives, but need to convinced to vote Liberal instead of NDP. Toronto Star columnist Linda McQuaig is one of those people. She mourns the passing of the Liberal-NDP coalition:

It wouldn't have exactly brought the Canadian Establishment to its knees. But late last fall, the Liberal-NDP coalition did briefly seem poised to become the most progressive Canadian government in a generation, possibly ever.

Then before you could say "corporate welfare bums," it was all over. The Conservatives had mounted a hysterical campaign, the media had joined in trashing the coalition, and the Governor General had shown it no more mercy than she would a tasty seal.

Michael Ignatieff killed the coalition. His path to power, therefore, is to convince NDP voters to strategically vote Liberal (a coalition is no longer an option). But with his lack of platform, his consistent support of the Conservatives (including on the mandatory sentencing bill), and his bizarre game of election brinkmanship (threatens an election then spends the day denying he issued an ultimatum), NDP voters are not happy.

That unhappiness is reflected in what they choose to believe. Linda McQuaig chooses to believe Lisa Raitt. After recounting the story of the tape, McQuaig concludes that the Liberal denials are insufficient, and that we have to pose serious questions about the Liberal Party's true loyalties:

It's hard to know what to make of Raitt's comments. She wasn't at the meeting, which suggests she may have heard about it from the CEOs - possibly from bankers boasting they had Ignatieff on a tight leash?

Liberal finance critic John McCallum, a former chief economist at the Royal Bank who was at the meeting along with Ignatieff, firmly denied the bankers made any threats. "There was not even a hint of a veiled threat by any CEO," he said yesterday by phone.

McCallum acknowledged that some CEOs at the meeting had opposed the Liberal-NDP coalition, as well as opposing an election. And he also acknowledged that it was likely the Liberal party borrowed money from the banks, although he said he didn't know any details.

The taped comments raise questions about what role the banks may have played in nixing the coalition, and also what power they wield over the severely financially strapped Liberal party.

Linda McQuaig chooses to believe that the story is credible. Many other NDP voters are choosing the same thing (the online forums support this). That means they are looking for any excuse to avoid voting for Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals, even if that means Stephen Harper and the Conservatives remain in power.

Unless Michael Ignatieff can somehow convince these people to chance their choice, he is doomed, and the Liberal Party is doomed along with him.

I choose to believe that it's probably too late, and when Michael Ignatieff votes to support the Conservatives after the ultimatum nonsense, it will certainly be too late.

Liberal Senators and the suspicious Voter Activation Network software

2009-06-16T13:58:40-05:00

The Liberal Party announced that they had purchased the software package from Voter Activation Network to run their next campaign.

A judicious use of party funds, or so the Liberals are hoping.

But then, as it turns out, only six weeks earlier, the Liberal Senate Caucus had applied for parliamentary funds to buy the same software package, under a licensing agreement that does not seem to preclude the use of the software by MPs for electioneering.

So I have to ask myself the obvious question. Did the Liberals buy their nice new shiny database package using taxpayer funds?

The Liberal Senate Caucus is buying the same software that the Liberal Party is buying to managing voter contact, as revealed by fildebrandt. The package from Voter Activation Network, the same outfit that has provided software to the Democratic Party in the United States.

According to the Memorandum of Understanding, there seems to be few limits to what the data will be used for:

A: Purpose

The purpose of this MoU is to begin a business relationship between LSC and VAN. VAN shall license to the LSC an integrated database and interface application software that will, as set forth herein, enable LSC and an unlimited number of its authorized users to maintain, host, access, and generated lists, data, analyses and reports from Senator's case work and other lists.

The problem here is that Canadian taxpayers are paying for this software. That's fine if the Liberal Senate Caucus is planning to use this exclusively for Senate functions, but the MoU makes it clear that there is nothing that prevents the Liberal Senate Caucus from expanding access to the software to include Liberal Members of Parliament, and to allow them to use the software to generate partisan election lists using information generated from MP constituency databases.

In fact, why would the Liberal Party buy this software at all if the Senate Liberals can buy it using taxpayer dollars, and then use it for whatever they want?

The request for funds from Senator Grant Mitchell, addressed to the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Internal Economy, makes mention that the software will be used for Senate purposes, but there is no promise that it will be used exclusively for such purposes:

I want to emphasize that the priority of the website and database is to solicit the views of Canadians. This represents very important research for supporting Senators in their work representing Canadians' interests.

Senator Mitchell never makes mention of excluding Liberal MPs from using accessing this database, of excluding Liberal MPs from feeding data into this database, or of restricting the use of the database to Senate functions, and in particular not using it as a partisan electioneering tool during a general election.

Most tellingly, the letter never makes mention of the fact that the Liberal Party is supposed to be buying this software too. The documentation makes great effort to justify the reason for buying this software from the United States. You might think that the Liberal Party was also leaning in this direction after its own evaluation would be justification for the Liberal Senators to buy their own separate copy.

But the letter is silent on the matter of Liberal Party interest in the software.

Indeed, the letter was dated March 16.

It was only six weeks later, on May 1 at the Liberal convention, that the Liberals announced that the party had acquired this software, so clearly their evaluation must have been taking place at the same time as the Liberal Senators asked for senate funding to buy the same software.

So where is the assurance that there were two separate purchases? Where is the assurance that $60,000 of taxpayer money was spent on buying the software for Liberal Senators to use to do their work, and that the Liberal Party purchased a separate license for a separate installation running on a separate database using separate party funds?

Call me paranoid, but I think these are fair questions to ask. After what seemed to be an attempt to encourage Liberal donors to donate twice their allowed yearly limit to the party, I think a certain level of suspicion is justified when it comes to how the Liberals raise and spend party funds.

More at Canadian Taxpayer's Federation blog.

Update: A comment from fildebrant on the CTF blog says that the request from the Liberal Senate Caucus was turned down. But I'd still like to know if this was an attempt to save the party $60,000 by having Canadian taxpayers buy the software instead. I suppose we can start by asking to see the MoU between VAN and the party for the current purchase, see if it was prepared after the Senate request was turned down, and if the party was charged $60,000 for the package.

Michael Ignatieff: A man of answers?

2009-06-15T11:27:17-05:00

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but Michael Ignatieff will trigger an election unless he gets answers on four questions.

Not action on those issues. Just answers.

Does Michael Ignatieff really think the real world is just a classroom and he's the professor?

So Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff won't push for an election this summer as long as Prime Minister Stephen Harper provides some answers:

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says he won't introduce a non-confidence motion that could trigger an election, so long as the Conservatives give in to some key demands.

Ignatieff said Prime Minister Stephen Harper must provide answers about Employment Insurance, stimulus spending and the growing deficit, and share his plans for dealing with the shortage of medical isotopes.

He said he wants to co-operate and make Parliament work, but it's ultimately up to Harper.

"That's the choice of the prime minister in my view. We've asked some questions that require an answer. If he wants Parliament to work it's very easy for him to answer positively. But he must understand that I am prepared to vote against him," Ignatieff said.

Now in a quick scan of the coverage, there seems to be some confusion. Some reports suggest that Michael Ignatieff is demanding action here. That he is demanding changes.

He isn't. He just wants answers.

Question: Are eligibility requirements for Employment Insurance going to be lowered to 360 hours across the country?

Answer: No.

Question: How much infrastructure funding is being spent, not just announced?

Answer: 30% (just a number I guesstimated from this Toronto Star report)

Question: What is the plan to dig us out of deficit?

Answer: Keep infrastructure spending under control (see previous answer) and grow the economy and so increase tax revenues without raising taxes. Oh, and not to break the bank with crazy spending schemes like a 360 hour threshold for EI benefits.

Question: What is the plan to deal with the isotope crisis?

Answer: Fix the reactor and work with international partners.

Here's the thing. All these questions have been asked and answered, with the possible exception of the second one, but then maybe it has too, just buried somewhere in a budget update.

Is Michael Ignatieff going to force an election if he doesn't like the answers?

He doesn't actually say that. [Update: In the Q&A that followed, he does say he would vote down the budget bill or move a motion of non-confidence, but judging by the number of times he is asked the same question, the media is skeptical.]

Is Michael Ignatieff demanding particular actions?

Not at all. He just wants answers.

Does Michael Ignatieff even have a timeline for these answers?

No!

If Harper needs more time to provide those answers, Ignatieff said he would go along with extending the current session of Parliament, which is scheduled to end for summer break this Friday.

So all Stephen Harper has to do refer Michael Ignatieff to the appropriate sections in Hansard, and we're done?

Maybe I'm being too literal here, but then I think the Michael Ignatieff is a very precise guy. If he wanted to, he could have said that he wanted very specific actions to happen.

But he has left it open-ended. No specific actions, just "positive answers".

Whatever that means.

My guess it means whatever it has to mean to avoid an election.

We've seen this before. Michael Ignatieff is falling back on the report-card/probation position.

My prediction? Stephen Harper gives the same answers he's given before.

Nag nag nag: Just a thought, but didn't Michael Ignatieff set the conditions for supporting the government already? The quarterly reports, right? Well, he got it. Now he wants another report. And if the Conservatives blow him off, then an addendum, then an appendix, then a supplementary tract, followed by a brochure.

For crying out loud, just vote down the budget bill or go home already!

Was CityTV tricked by Liberals over Ruby Dhalla exclusive?

2009-06-15T07:33:18-05:00

Every once in a while, a media outlet has to pull a story when they realize they got ahead of the facts.

In this case, though, CityTV out of Toronto seems to have been fooled by someone into thinking that Ruby Dhalla, who is in trouble over allegations of mistreating illegally hired live-in caregivers, was exonerated by a parliamentary committee examining those allegations.

The truth is that the Liberal minority on the committee issued a report dismissing this as a witch hunt, while the majority has recommended multiple formal investigations.

How did CityTV get this so wrong? I am speculating that Liberals tricked CityTV ahead of the report being issued by the committee.

After trumpeting an exclusive, CityTV had to pull the story once they realized the story was wrong. I wonder if the people in the CityTV newsroom feel that they've been burned by Ruby Dhalla and the Liberals.

Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla is facing serious allegations of having mistreated illegally hired live-in caregivers.

She has denied the allegations.

A parliamentary committee reviewed the allegations. The majority report recommended a formal investigation by federal and provincial authorities (covering immigration and labour issues, respectively). The minority report written by Liberal Party members concluded the entire business was a political witch hunt.

CityTV, which broadcasts throughout the 416 and 905 areas, originally reported an exoneration. Then the newsroom realized that the Ruby Dhalla is nowhere near out of the woods, and revoked the stories.

Here is a screenshot of the Google index of the exoneration story:

Follow that link, and you get a 404 Page Not Found.

CityTV also pulled the Tweet for the story, but you can still find the original reference in a search for the article:

Perhaps more embarrassingly, there are links from three other tweeters to this pulled story - Liberal bloggers excited that Ruby Dhalla had been "exonerated".

But then she hadn't. CityTV's exclusive was just Liberal spin.

How did this happen? I can only speculate, but the "exclusive" tag suggests a timeline, since it points to CityTV getting information ahead of everyone else. I think that it is possible that one of Ruby Dhalla's people, or perhaps a Liberal Party staffer, contacted CityTV ahead of the publication of the committee's findings. This person showed a portion of the minority report, neglecting to mention that the majority of the committee was recommending that Ruby Dhalla be subjected to formal investigations by multiple agencies. CityTV excitedly published the news of Ruby Dhalla's exoneration.

Then the real story came out. Ruby Dhalla was hardly exonerated, except by her fellow Liberals. CityTV had to pull the story. But then who knows how many people saw it?

Perhaps CityTV can follow up with a more expansive explanation, instead of simply removing the story.

If my interpretation is correct, then I would guess that people in the CityTV newsroom aren't too happy with the Liberals.

Update: A look at the timeline.

Thanks to reader Dirk, here is a link to the original CityTV story published in June 10:

A few weeks ago, an indignant Ruby Dhalla faced reporters and cameras and flatly denied having anything to do with allegations made by three former caregivers who once worked for her family.

Now an Immigration and Citizenship Committee has agreed with her, finding she had no part in whatever happened to the trio in question. In a CityNews exclusive interview, Dhalla told Political Specialist Richard Madan that she was bothered by how the ordeal affected her family.

The story is attribute to CityTV news staff.

The story does reference follow-up investigations:

The committee has asked the province to further investigate the claims made by Dhalla's caregivers but it's not a binding request and it's unclear if Ontario will follow up.

Here is a different report, also from June 10, from CBC News:

A parliamentary committee looking into accusations that Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla and her family mistreated live-in caregivers has recommended that provincial and federal authorities look into the allegations.

The 30-page report by the standing committee on citizenship and immigration focused mainly on the plight of live-in caregivers in general, mentioning Dhalla briefly and making no conclusions on the allegations against her.

But it did recommend "that the authorized bodies in the provincial and federal governments investigate the allegations of the former live-in caregivers in the Dhalla residence and take measures as appropriate. Further, the committee requests that these government bodies, upon completion of their investigations, sent the result to the committee."

Clearly CityTV had gotten it wrong when it reported that Ruby Dhalla had been exonerated. So the question remains, who spun the CityTV report in the first place to make it sound like the committee had given Ruby Dhalla a pass?

Liberals continue to execute their retreat plan

2009-06-14T14:09:55-05:00

I have no particular insight into the what is happening in the Liberal Party leadership, but the signs continue to point to the Liberals backing down and holding off attempting to force an election until at least the fall, and possibly beyond.

Ralph Goodale's interview today continues in that trend.

For weeks we've been building up to the big report card. It was delivered by Stephen Harper, and immediately dismissed by Liberals.

So that means an election, right?

Not necessarily.

Though the report is clearly inadequate, or so say Liberals like John McCallum, Michael Ignatieff is going to spend the weekend reading it over to make certain it is bad enough.

At 234 pages, he'll need the time.

So the only thing between us and an election is Michael Ignatieff finding the time to read this report, right?

Not necessarily.

According to Ralph Goodale, there is another reason the Liberals might not push for an election:

Goodale said Liberal MPs have been consulting their constituents to gauge their support on the issues.

"They'll be listening to their constituents very carefully over this weekend as they have been doing for the last many weeks," he said. "And they'll be bringing that advice back to Mr. Ignatieff tomorrow and next week. They'll be weighing all of this very carefully and very conscientiously."

And there it is. Another excuse.

So I wonder how many constituents are actually going to be consulted at the last minute on a Saturday in June?

But that's not the point. The Liberals will say consultations are taking place, and then conveniently report that Canadians don't want an election.

I can see it now. There is Michael Ignatieff delivering his decision in front of the microphones:

The report card is unrealistically optimistic, but Canadians have made it clear they want more time before being asked to deliver a judgment. And though I am certain that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are out of time, I will reluctantly extend their probation to the next scheduled report in the fall, as Canadians have asked me to do. But I want to make it clear that I will not stand idly by blah, blah, blah.

On Thursday, there was no mention of consultations with constituents. It was just about whether Michael Ignatieff felt that the Conservatives were managing the economy properly.

On Friday, there was no mention of consultations with constituents. It was just about whether Michael Ignatieff felt that the Conservatives were managing the economy properly.

But on Sunday, it has changed. The Liberals are setting up the situation in which Michael Ignatieff can continue to state that the Conservatives are mismanaging the economy but without forcing an election.

And who knows? It might be enough to placate some Liberal apologists. It certainly will cause gales of laughter from the ranks of the Conservative and NDP caucuses.

Forgotten: I don't know why the economic report card even matters. I thought the fact that Stephen Harper refuses to implement the Liberal demand that Employment Insurance qualifications rules be changed to a universal 360 hours was reason enough to force an election:

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has threatened to topple Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government unless the Conservatives reform the EI system to make it easier for workers who lose their jobs to access insurance payments.

It would have been enough if the Liberals actually wanted to fight an election. But they don't. Obviously.

According to script: In response to a comment from Gerry Nicholls, who thinks I'm too quick to dismiss the possibility of an election, I wrote the following:

Thanks for the compliment. But consider this. When you are on the attack, you don't play for time. That's a defensive posture. Michael Ignatieff won't come back with an answer for a day or two? Why? Because he wants to get in one more fundraiser before an election call? No, because he knows he's going to take a pass on the election, and that's really unappealing. So he's delaying for as long as possible before calling a retreat. It'll take that much time to prepare talking points, to brief spokespersons and MPs on what to say to reporters, and to make appointments for Michael Ignatieff to be at so he doesn't have to be in front of microphones.

So now he can say three days was spent consulting with Canadians. Just as I predicted.

eHealth consultancy fees out of whack

2009-06-12T14:03:25-05:00

At eHealth, the scandal continues to grow over the consultancy fees and bonus payments being lavished while regular folks worry about their jobs.

Though much of the criticism seems well-founded, I did take issue with the complaint that the $2,700 per day charged by a consultant was excessive.

My defense was conditional, and it looks like those conditions weren't met, so I have to agree with the critics on this one.

At eHealth, the scandal has claimed another victim:

An eHealth Ontario consultant who was paid $2,700 a day - and still charged taxpayers $1.65 for Tim Hortons tea and $3.99 for Choco Bites - left the troubled agency yesterday, justifying her expenses and licking her wounds over the spending scandal.

"I billed what the policy told me I could do," Donna Strating told the Star, noting she often worked from 7 a.m. until 11 p.m.

"I didn't expense, you know, thousands of lavish meals and I, unfortunately, happen to like muffins and chocolate chip cookies. And so I bought those ... instead of sitting down at a full-course meal and dining."

Now recently I defended the notion of a $2,700 per day fee:

It's very reasonable. Here's why.

At a lot of consultancy firms, there is a large staff. Office staff, researchers, managers, interns, and so on. Only a small number of staff are actual on-site consultants.

This small group is collectively labelled billable. On the books, the customer is paying this this person to do the work. But it's not just this person. He doesn't get $2,750 a day. The $2,750 a day goes to the company. That money then gets redistributed to pay bills and salaries.

Including the salary of the consultant, by the way. He never sees $2,750 a day, or anything remotely close to it. He sees a far more reasonable amount, as do all the unbillable people back at the office. So when he sees his weekly paycheque consistent with someone who makes, say, $80,000 a year, then charging for food (as long as it is under the per diem guidelines) is perfectly appropriate.

As I pointed out, the billable employee (the consultant) is really charging an aggregate fee meant to pay for all the unbillable people back at the consultant's office.

But what if there is no office and no staff?

She's retiring to raise horses at her country property outside Edmonton, where she previously worked for the Capital Health agency.

"I needed to consider that, regardless of what they proposed to me, could I rebuild or feel that the credibility existed, quite honestly. Or would the press take one more stab at it and try and discredit any decision I made except, quite honestly, working for free," Strating said in a wide-ranging interview before repairing to her Summerhill apartment to pack for a flight home last night.

"And so my decision was I have a personal life and a husband and a future and I guess I'll go back to that if it's not respected what I did here," added the mother of two children in college.

A well-placed provincial source said it would have been difficult for eHealth to bring Strating on board full-time after the political firestorm created by the eHealth spending scandal without prompting more questions about financial management at the agency.

There is no mention of a consultancy firm, like Warren Kinsella's Daisy Group. Warren Kinsella can charge fees like that (I'm not saying he does, but he could) because those fees help pay the salaries of four or five other people (or more) who help behind the scenes.

There doesn't appear to be anyone behind the scenes in the case of Donna Strating.

So I have to join in with everyone else and wonder just who thought this level of compensation represented value for money?

Michael Dion and Stephane Ignatieff

2009-06-11T14:38:09-05:00

Is it just me, or are the signs pointing to Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff painting himself into a corner in the same way his predecessor Stephane Dion did, over and over again?

As leader of the Liberal Party, Stephane Dion could be counted on doing two things.

One was fawning over anything green, even though as environment minister he was an abject failure at keeping Canada's greenhouse gas emissions under control.

The other was waiting patiently as every other political party staked out their positions on important political questions, guaranteeing that the his party would be seen as hapless followers.

Michael Ignatieff, the new Liberal Party leader, is thankfully very un-green.

But it certainly seems like he is suffering from Stephane Dion's other critical failing.

Today Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have delivered their economic report card:

Roughly 3,000 infrastructure projects across the country are getting underway as part of the government's $22.7-billion stimulus plan, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Thursday.

That action is "no small feat only 72 days into a new fiscal year," Harper said in a speech to a town hall meeting in Cambridge, Ont. He added that 80 per cent of the plan's funding has already been allocated.

Michael Ignatieff has reacted, but without actually deciding anything:

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is slamming the federal government for failing to dish out stimulus dollars.

But he isn't talking yet about a possible summer election.

So as Michael Ignatieff pauses to consider, the NDP is out in front, staking a position that would force an election:

NDP finance critic Thomas Mulcair says there is nothing in the Conservatives' second economic progress report that would allow his party to support the minority government if the Liberals try to force an election.

Mulcair spoke shortly after Prime Minister Stephen Harper delivered the report Thursday in Cambridge, Ont., at a town hall-style event moderated by Senator Mike Duffy.

Mulcair also accused the government of failing Canadians who have lost their jobs during the recession by refusing to adopt changes to the employment insurance act called for by the three main opposition parties.

"There's nothing in this report to allow us to support the government," he said. "We don't trust them."

"The NDP's not going to be voting for these guys anytime soon."

But the NDP doesn't want an election. They would certainly lose seats, and thus funding, and in any case, aren't financially in a position to fight a campaign so soon after the election last fall.

So why make noises about an election? No one seriously thinks the Liberals are in any shape to fight an election right now, including Liberals:

[Michael Ignatieff is] gonna read the thing tonight and make a decision. Except all week I've been hearing from Liberals about their vacation plans. Those plans don't involve door-knocking and debate prep. So if this whole election thing is still a live option, somebody forgot to tell the party.

But if the NDP is in no better shape, then the the Liberals could have forced the NDP to back down:

Liberal MPs also don't want to continue propping up Harper and fending off NDP and Bloc Quebecois accusations that they're spineless and unprincipled.

Yet, Liberal insiders say senior advisers - including party pollster Michael Marzolini - are urging caution, fearing that voters won't pay attention during the summer and that the party's war chest is still relatively bare.

Insiders say Ignatieff may be prepared to risk a non-confidence vote on the assumption either the NDP or Bloc will vote against it.

Except that by waiting, and worse yet, announcing that he is waiting, Michael Ignatieff has allowed the NDP to force his hand. I suppose the Liberals could depend on the Bloc to back down...nope, too late for that as well:

"The Conservatives' stimulus plan is a complete failure, the number of jobless is on the rise," Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe said in French during question period. "We have no choice but to vote against . . . this bill."

So again, as happened over and over again with Stephane Dion, the Liberals are the last to decide, which means they have little capacity to make any decision at all. Michael Ignatieff's ponderous pace at decision making has allowed his nimbler opponents to establish the frame through which that decision will be judged. Unless Michael Ignatieff is serious about an election, he'll be the once forced to back down.

The NDP and the Bloc Quebecois can laugh at the Liberals, declaring them to be de facto allies of the Conservatives. Michael Ignatieff can shoot back about the government being on probation, which is only slightly less funny than those "markers" Stephane Dion whined about. You remember? When a handful of miserable Liberals would show up for a vote against the Conservatives, ensuring that the government would survive but insisting that their pitiful appearance represented a "marker" for a policy they would reverse once they would be returned to power?

Good times...

Anyway, is it a bad thing for Michael Ignatieff to take his time? Well, if he was actually reading the report, then of course not. But in all likelihood, he and his advisors are looking at polling numbers and bank account statements, wondering if they are in a position to fight a winning campaign. But that ought to be obvious already. If the Liberal Party was ready, then Michael Ignatieff would already be marshalling the troops (and the report above suggests that this isn't happening). If the Liberal Party isn't ready, then Michael Ignatieff ought to have gotten in front of Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe so as to frame their responses.

But he hasn't gotten ahead of them. They have taken the initiative, and the Liberals are being bluffed to stand down. Again.

By this time next week, we'll be hearing from Liberal apologists explaining why Michael Ignatieff is making the right decision to allow the Conservatives to remain in power.

Unless grassroot Liberals decide two Stephane Dions in a row is too much to bear. At least that would be an example of Liberals somewhere actually taking the initiative and getting front of a problem.

Ahead of the report card

2009-06-11T08:28:23-05:00

The Liberals under Michael Ignatieff are thinking about whether to trigger an election (assuming they can get the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois on board) based on a "report card" delivered by Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.

Of course, the Liberals will be looking at the polls and the party bank accounts. The report card? It's not a factor. Not one bit.

But for those Canadians who aren't in this for personal power, economic progress does matter. So ahead of the report card announcement to happen (here in Cambridge!), I'd like to give a very simple status report.

How has the economy performed? Well, it's gotten better. Not for everyone, but then that has always been true. During tough times, of course, there seem to more losers than winners, but what of the trends?

We'll find out later today, but for now, let's consider the Harperdex:

So if people listened to Stephen Harper, inasmuch as the stock markets are concerned, they'd be doing pretty good right now. A return of 11.3% is pretty good during good economic times.

If we'd listened to Michael Ignatieff, it's hard to say, if only because Michael Ignatieff has no fixed opinions or positions.

But we can be certain than when the economic report card is delivered, the Liberals will toss it aside immediately, unopened and unread, and study carefully the polling numbers and their financial statements to see if it makes sense to attempt to force an election.

Jasmine MacDonnell is the daughter of Liberal Party fundraiser Ralston MacDonnell

2009-06-10T09:21:30-05:00

Jasmine MacDonnell, the former communications director for Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt, is responsible for the grief Raitt has been suffering this week.

Jasmine MacDonnell is the daughter of Liberal fundraiser Ralston MacDonnell, with close ties to party leader Michael Ignatieff.

For some people, the connection is extremely interesting.

Let me be clear. It is not interesting, except inasmuch as it shows Ralston to be a dad who has been successful in raising a daughter who decided to have a career in public service.

Good for him. I know he's having a tough week watching as his daughter finds herself is in the eye of a storm. He's struggling to be strong for his daughter.

I get it. It's a dad thing. Politics has nothing to do with it, and it never did.

In the story about the Lisa Raitt tape, it has been pointed out on blogs, but also in the main stream media (The Toronto Star in particular) that the former communications director responsible for leaving the material behind, Jasmine MacDonnell, is the daughter of Liberal fundraiser Ralston MacDonnell.

There have been some attempts to draw a connection here. Somehow, the thinking goes, Jasmine is a Liberal mole.

OK, for people who have suggested this line of attack, I'm not here to attack you. You bring up a fact (Jasmine is Ralston's daughter) and then attempt to draw an inference from that. That's not a problem.

But this particular inference? No, I don't buy it, and moreover, I think we need to step back, take a deep breath, and look a bit closer at ourselves for going down this route, even if just a tentative step or two.

Ralston MacDonnell has helped raise a daughter who has decided to become involved in politics. Good for him. The more people are engaged, regardless of what party they support, the better for all of us.

I don't know Ralston MacDonnell, but I am a dad, and I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Ralston MacDonnell is proud of his daughter's success in becoming a communications director for a cabinet minister.

And I'm going to be even more presumptuous and assert that Ralston's pride in his daughter's accomplishments would have been no more or less if she was working for a Liberal MP.

The idea that a dad would encourage his daughter to throw her career away in order to generate a scandal is just nuts. I don't know that anyone has directly said that this was what happened, but the suggestion is clear.

So let's say that Jasmine's mistakes were her own. She wasn't put up to it by the Liberals, nor were her family's links to the Liberal Party a factor. The mistakes were truly mistakes, and she's paid a steep price.

Does anyone think Ralston MacDonnell is feeling any less bad for what his daughter is going through because it is the Conservative Party that is taking the heat? Does anyone think when Jasmine phoned her dad seeking some comfort, that Ralston MacDonnell congratulated her and told her to not feel so bad, because her pain and embarrassment is a small price to pay if it means the Conservatives have a tough week in exchange?

Or is it more likely that Ralston told his daughter that no matter what happens, and no matter what she decides to do next, including going back to the Conservative Party in some capacity in an attempt to rebuild her career, that he'll be there for her and that he'll support her?

Clearly the Conservative Party doesn't have a pur et dur policy that states that senior cabinet staffers have to be third generation conservatives. Clearly the Conservative Party does not want the party to become an oligarchy of tightly knit families, freezing out people like Jasmine MacDonnell for the crime of having the wrong dad (because in all likelihood Ralston MacDonnell is a great dad, his politics being irrelevant).

Like I said, take a deep breath, think before you speak, and maybe take a moment to think about your own dad. For most of us, his politics is one of the last things we think about.

I'm pretty sure our dads never gave much thought about our politics when we needed his help.

Lisa Raitt's most excellent tape

2009-06-08T22:04:07-05:00

At first I winced. Then I paused. Then I thought about it some more, and I realized that the Lisa Raitt tape was just so much nonsense.

Except for the bit about Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff being shoved around by bankers. That was interesting.

That was worth listening to the rest of this inconsequential stuff.

Lisa Raitt is the Minister of Natural Resources. It is one of those ministries that seems to have two strikes against it before getting out of the dugout. First of all, natural resources is a provincial responsibility, so you know as minister that much of what you could do, you can't.

I mean, so much of it is really someone else's job.

Second, it's boring as dirt. Literally. Dirt, rocks, stones, and such.

Except for oil and energy - those bits are cool.

Sexy cool.

Lisa Raitt gets that. She knows what the media finds sexy:

Ms. MacDonnell said the isotope issue is hard to control, "because it's confusing to a lot of people."

"But it's sexy," says Ms. Raitt. "Radioactive leaks. Cancer."

"Nuclear contamination," says Ms. MacDonnell.

That's the point. Lisa Raitt knows what the media tracks. She could work tirelessly for weeks on resource boundary issues, and not get a sentence of coverage in the media.

But some pipe springs a leak in a reactor, and suddenly every newspaper needs a photo of Lisa Raitt being ministerial.

Lisa Raitt discusses this media reality with her communications director. Um, that makes sense, actually.

Honestly, the whole thing is so ridiculous. A politician being a politician and discussing what earns coverage in the media on the lookout for dramatic stories to scare readers with.

No, the real story comes later, when Lisa Raitt discusses Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff's encounter with bankers:

Later in her conversation with Ms. MacDonnell, Ms. Raitt tells the man driving them around Victoria that Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff had backed down from defeating the Conservative government on a budget a few days earlier because he got a message from Canadian bankers.

"They did it at the Canadian Council of (Chief) Executives, there was three presidents of major banks who stood up in the room - and this is not from cabinet so I can talk about it - stood up and said, 'Ignatieff, don't you even think about bringing us to an election,'" said Ms. Raitt.

"'We don't need this. We have no interest in this. And we will never fund your party again.' That was very powerful. So he heard it from very powerful people in the industry. He was definitely muzzled."

Well, since the campaign finance reforms brought down by Jean Chretien, and then enhanced by the Conservatives, donations can only come from individuals. The Liberals have done poorly when it comes to this, and so they've depended on the one loophole in the campaign financing: loans.

According to the election returns, the Liberals spent $14,519,926 on the last election. In the nine months leading up to the election, the Liberals pulled in less than $4 million in donations. That money had to support party operations up to the election, so something south of $4 million was somehow transformed into $14 million almost overnight.

That must have happened with bank loans, or repayable loans from other business interests. That was the only way it could have happened.

So it seems very reasonable to expect that angry bankers would be able to tell Michael Ignatieff exactly what was what.

John McCallum (who himself got himself taped laughing about a "national housing strategy" in a private meeting) issued a non-denial:

Liberal finance critic John McCallum, who was present for the closed-door Jan. 20 meeting with about 100 executives, says they were against the coalition and an election, but there was "not even a hint of a veiled threat," and bankers would never make such a threat in a meeting with so many people present.

"That's absolutely ridiculous," he said. "Can you imagine a bank president standing up in a room like that with more than 100 people in the room and saying something like that? It makes no sense."

Actually, I can imagine it. I makes a lot of sense to me. Not even a hint of a veiled threat? But they had already said they were against the coalition and an election, so they weren't afraid to confront Michael Ignatieff.

So John McCallum thinks it is reasonable to believe that bankers and other businessmen looking to protect their investments and livelihoods would have said no to an election and no to the coalition but would then have demurred from putting conditions on when they would be willing to provide access to their money?

Go on. Tell me another one.

Lisa Raitt has had a private conversation revealed publicly. Yeah, it's embarrassing. Yeah, she'll have to mend fences with Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq (whom Lisa Raitt called "such a capable woman", so the apology won't be too hard to make). And yeah, she'll take heat from the media for being smart enough to know what the media considers sexy.

But if she can hold out for 48 hours, this fluffy nonsense will dissipate, and maybe we can ask some harsh questions of just how ongoing Liberal financial woes are torquing Liberal decision making.

If there is going to be an election this summer, it'll be because bankers have decided to give the Liberals the permission to call one.

Calm down! Geez, this was the tape that prompted a court action to block? I thought it was something bad.

Not the only one: Adam Radwanski agrees that this is no big deal.

One tough cookie: Lisa Raitt is a minister that is faced with a challenge and is eager to take it on. An aggressive woman who looks for opportunities amidst a crisis. I can see why a lot of people, that is, men, would be threatened by this. Now we'll see if these pansy men are mostly found in the Liberal Party. I expect that the demands for the resignation of this intimidating woman will come from Liberal benches. I hope (and cautiously expect) that Conservative colleagues (men and women both) will recognize top talent being tempered by this experience.

Gender test leads to tough abortion questions

2009-06-08T11:38:19-05:00

People are concerned that the right to abortion might be misused. Frankly, these people are morons. Either abortion is a grave evil (that's a Roman Catholic term) and is, by definition, a misuse of medical knowledge every time it is done, or it is an absolute right of all women, and so no one has any business passing judgment on the reason an abortion is performed.

So what exactly are these people worried about? They are worried that new in-home off-the-shelf gender testing means an increase in girls to be aborted. Apparently when it was a crapshoot whether a boy or girl would die, it didn't matter.

From Australia, concerns over a home test that can reveal the gender of a fetus:

To use the new test, a pregnant woman mixes her urine with the kit's chemicals in the supplied container. If it turns green or black, the fetus is a boy; orange or yellow indicate a girl.

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is worried about what the test might lead to.

"The concern we would have is that people would then terminate pregnancies on the grounds of sex selection," said college president Dr Ted Weaver.

I can't imagine why this would be of any concern to people who are committed to providing easy access to abortion on demand. If a fetus is not a person, then the question of gender is just an abstraction. If a woman has the absolute right to terminate a pregnancy for any reason whatsoever, that has to include things like (a) a baby would put a crimp in her lifestyle, (b) children are a burden on the environment and she is doing what she can to help fight global warming, and (c) culturally boys are more valuable than girls.

So that last reason is a cultural attitude from some parts of the world. So what? If the right to privacy is what creates a right to abortion, then we can't be judging the reasons.

Nevertheless, everyone knows that gender selection as a determining factor for deciding to terminate a pregnancy is going mean an increase in aborted girls.

Well, not girls, per se, but female fetuses. I can't be caught making a fetus sound like a person, now can I?

Damn, I've hit that non-person-with-a-gender problem. Let's just say that blobs of cells with only X-chromosomes are likely to be targeted for abortion.

Again, so what? They're not people, they have no rights, they can be thrown away at a whim. Is a valueless female fetus somehow less valueless than a valueless male fetus?

But then we all know a fetus is a person, don't we? Obviously that's true. And so if we let women who belong to certain cultural communities check gender and so decide to abort girls, then there will be fewer girls.

Isn't that the ironic end point of the drive by women's groups to ensure that woman can have access to abortion on demand?

And here's the rub. These same women's groups could agitate to have these tests taken off the market. Why? Because, presumably, some women will misuse this new knowledge, using the wrong reason to seek an abortion and so abort girls just for being girls (whereas aborting a baby for just being a baby is acceptable).

That leads to two questions:

If we've broached the question of whether there are good reasons and bad reasons for an abortion, can we review all reasons to seek an abortion and have a discussion about what reasons are good and what reasons are bad? Can we then compel women to justify their decisions against this list of good and bad reasons?
Would we even be having this discussion if we all knew that gender selection culturally favoured girls over boys in cultures in which one gender is favoured over another?

The answer to the second question is, of course, no. You could take issue with that, and it is true that I am speculating, since there is no such culture (at least none of significant size) so no way to be certain.

But it is clear that this issue is being raised only because one gender is likely to be favoured over another, and we know that this means boys over girls. That has these people worried. As long as death was shared out randomly to both boys and girls, these people didn't seem concerned at all.

I guess this is what they call the banality of evil. Oh wait, that phrase was invented by Hannah Arendt in discussing the Holocaust. That was a totally different sort of thing, identifying a helpless minority in society, stripping of them of their rights, and subjecting them to death for no crime other than being an inconvenient presence.

Sorry for confusing one thing for the other. My understanding of human rights is not as sophisticated as it should be.

What is a reasonable consultancy fee?

2009-06-08T09:06:15-05:00

I haven't written much about the eHealth scandal in Ontario, but in reading some of the news on the weekend, I need to point out that some of the numbers don't seem so out of whack. It really depends on the nature of the consultancy firm.

As many readers are aware, there are serious problems at eHealth:

The top executive at eHealth Ontario, removed from her job after the agency was embroiled in a spending scandal involving untendered contracts and rich consultancy fees, will pocket almost $317,000 in compensation.

But opposition critics said yesterday the removal of CEO Sarah Kramer is not enough, and they will not be satisfied until Health Minister David Caplan is fired.

"This is only half the puzzle. The other is the removal of the health minister who has been unable to handle this scandal," New Democrat Leader Andrea Horwath told the Star. "He is incapable of being decisive and to take firm action."

I want to zero in on one of the problems in particular:

An eHealth consultant billed for tea and a dessert square while earning $2,700 a day.

Another consultant, being paid $2,750 a day, collected $75 a day for expenses and flew home to Edmonton 31 times in five months at a cost to taxpayers of $21,000.

Wow, $2,750 a day? That's outrageous!

Actually, it isn't. It's very reasonable. Here's why.

At a lot of consultancy firms, there is a large staff. Office staff, researchers, managers, interns, and so on. Only a small number of staff are actual on-site consultants.

This small group is collectively labelled billable. On the books, the customer is paying this this person to do the work. But it's not just this person. He doesn't get $2,750 a day. The $2,750 a day goes to the company. That money then gets redistributed to pay bills and salaries.

Including the salary of the consultant, by the way. He never sees $2,750 a day, or anything remotely close to it. He sees a far more reasonable amount, as do all the unbillable people back at the office. So when he sees his weekly paycheque consistent with someone who makes, say, $80,000 a year, then charging for food (as long as it is under the per diem guidelines) is perfectly appropriate.

I'm not trying to minimize the problems at eHealth, because clearly there are serious problems. But when I see consultancy fees of $2,750 a day, I'm not at all shocked, because I've done this sort of work at these sorts of rates. The media needs to confirm that these consultants are part of a larger consultancy firm with a large unbillable staff to support. If there is not a firm behind the consultant to justify these rates, then of course there is a problem, and if there are questions about the value of work delivered (large firm or not) then the media and opposition politicians needs to pursue them.

But let's not throw up what seems to be an outlandishly large consultancy fee and says that this is proof that things are out of control.

Why consultants? Who would pay $2,750 a day for a consultant? If he only sees the equivalent of $350 a day ($90,000 a year), why not just give him a raise to $110,000 and hire him permanently? That would be less than $450 a day. The reason is that the cost of hiring, maintaining, and firing a permanent employee is prohibitive. Blame the social safety net, with employer paying EI and CPP and other employment taxes, plus benefits of different kinds. For many employers, it actually costs less to pay $27,500 a day for six months than the true cost (salary plus all the other stuff) of hiring a permanent employee for several years. You can fire the consultant at any time, and certainly at the end of the contract. A full-time permanent employee doesn't disappear that easily.

When you combine all those hidden costs of hiring permanent employees, paying for a consultant to fly home on the weekends (again, not at all unusual in this line of work) is a bargain by comparison.

Angry in the Great White North

My prediction for a difficult fall for Michael Ignatieff

Michael Ignatieff continues to be vague, undercutting his own EI panel appointees, and threatening nothing in particular

The Liberal riding service package: A bag of pure magic

The choice that dooms Michael Ignatieff

Liberal Senators and the suspicious Voter Activation Network software

Michael Ignatieff: A man of answers?

Was CityTV tricked by Liberals over Ruby Dhalla exclusive?

Liberals continue to execute their retreat plan

eHealth consultancy fees out of whack

Related articles by Zemanta

Michael Dion and Stephane Ignatieff

Ahead of the report card

Related articles by Zemanta

Jasmine MacDonnell is the daughter of Liberal Party fundraiser Ralston MacDonnell

Lisa Raitt's most excellent tape

Gender test leads to tough abortion questions

What is a reasonable consultancy fee?