Accidental Deliberations

Musical interlude

2012-02-10T20:41:00.002-06:00

Matthew Good Band - Symbolistic White Walls

How bizarre

2012-02-10T16:43:00.004-06:00

A tweet responding to this week's column post raises a point worth plenty more discussion. So let's go into a bit more detail about how the Sask Party's response to should indeed be considered utterly bizarre - even if it may reflect standard operating procedure for right-wing political parties.

By any reasonable account, the most important development in the decision released Monday was the finding that the Sask Party's entire essential services bill was unconstitutional and thus had to be struck down. And after a couple of days of criticism from enough media outlets, even Brad Wall had to acknowledge that the decision reflected real failings on the part of his government.

Unfortunately, though, anybody reading the Saskatchewan Party's press release in hopes of figuring out what was happening in the province would completely miss that point.

Instead, the finding that the Sask Party's actual bill was found to be unconstitutional is mentioned once, then buried under an avalanche of "commitment to essential services". A passage from Mr. Justice Ball suggesting that essential services legislation could be valid if (unlike the Sask Party's bill) it involved some reasonable proportionality and dispute mechanism is treated as supporting the position of the same government which was found to have exceeded its authority. And even the one-year delay in implementation of the decision (standard in cases striking down significant legislation) and the fact that another bill met the bare standard of being found constitutionally permissible are somehow presented as victories for the Sask Party.

Now, I don't dispute that such a distortion is standard political operating procedure for parties who combine top-down messaging strategies with utter contempt for their audience. And indeed the Harper Cons do much worse on a daily basis.

But those of us who think public policy should be grounded in reality should indeed consider it bizarre (or worse) whenever we see such ridiculous spin from any government - as we'll never be able to keep our leaders honest in dealing with the public if we come to think it's normal for them to be self-delusional.

Friday Morning Links

2012-02-10T07:16:00.003-06:00

Assorted content to end your week.

- David Climenhaga marvels at the fact that the Fraser Institute manages to claim charitable status while serving as an entirely political organization:

The Fraser Institute is serious all right, although its research is not serious in the normal sense of transparency and lack of bias, no matter what it claims. But it surely is political. Indeed, the Fraser Institute is all politics, all the time.

As it turns out, this is important, because the Fraser Institute is also a registered charity, meaning that those Canadians who do pay taxes are in effect subsidizing its purely political operations. Indeed, to go a step further, we are also subsidizing those wealthy individuals, organizations and corporations that bankroll the Fraser Institute's propaganda efforts to work directly against the interests of ordinary Canadians.
...
When a charity files its annual income statement with the Canada Revenue Agency, it is always asked: "Did the charity carry on any political activities during the fiscal period." Yet in each year between 2000 and 2010, according to a recent Access to Information request by the Alberta Federation of Labour, the Fraser Institute answered "No."

"Any rookie observer of Canadian politics knows this is nonsense," the AFL wrote in its Jan. 17 submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance on Tax Incentives for Charitable Donations. "The Fraser Institute is actively involved in the Canadian political landscape. Any reporting or suggestion otherwise is a sham."

In 2010, for example, the Fraser Institute explicitly communicated to the public calls for laws to be changed, thereby engaging in politics as defined by the CRA.
...
(N)ever mind why the media treats the Fraser Institute's dubious findings with such respect, the question most often asked about this organization. That seems obvious enough considering who owns the media.

A better question is: Given its responses to the CRA, can Canadians have any confidence that the Fraser Institute is staying within the 12 per cent of its allowed limit for political activities?

Moreover, it is fair to wonder: Is anyone at the Canada Revenue Agency paying attention or even raising concerns about the Fraser Institute's constant political activities, let alone questioning its charitable status?

- Frances Russell summarizes the anti-social goals of the Harper Cons:

The 2008 federal budget provided a handy compendium of what the Conservatives consider "core" responsibilities -- national defence, public security and the economic union. Period.

Absent is any reference to the pillars of the Canadian postwar state -- equalization, pensions, medicare and employment insurance.

Instead, Conservative "nation-building" amounts to an array of expensive "boutique" tax cuts like the Children's Art Tax Credit, alone projected to cost $100 million in 2011-12. The Frontier Centre for Public Policy reports that more than 70 per cent of these "boutique" tax credits for everything from hockey and dance lessons to tools go to the 25 per cent of taxpayers earning more than $50,000 annually.
...
The Conservatives believe Canada cannot afford its public pensions. They commissioned Edward Whitehouse, an economist for the World Bank and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development to do a study. He reported that Canada "does not face major challenges of financial sustainability with its pensions" and "there is no pressing financial or fiscal need to increase pension ages in the foreseeable future." Nevertheless, the Conservatives persist they are too generous.

The forthcoming assault on pensions and Canada's social safety net is driven by Harper's libertarian "no tax is a good tax" ideology. Not reality.

- Meanwhile, Marc Laferriere calls out Con MP Phil McColeman in particular for fearmongering about Old Age Security with no basis in fact. And Leftdog notes that the Cons themselves claimed to want to defend Old Age Security against exactly the type of attacks they're now planning to inflict.

- Kady highlights the Cons' remarkable position that elected representatives from all parties are to speak only when a majority government tells them to, rather than having any place voicing the concerns of their constituents.

- And finally, Thomas Walkom describes the strategy behind the Cons' fake citizenship oath.

Leadership 2012 - Saganash Bows Out

2012-02-10T06:50:00.003-06:00

In my most recent leadership candidate rankings, I mentioned that I still saw a possible path to victory for Romeo Saganash. To expand slightly on what I'd planned to turn into a more substantive post, that view was based on the possibility that he could effectively put into practice Tarik Brahmi's theory of a Stephane Dion-style victory - with a stellar resume and strong issue focus combining to overcome the lack of a top-tier campaign organization and a lack of soundbite-friendliness in English. (And I'm not sure the comparison would have been a fatal one, as a party which recognizes the value of an opportunity to form government wouldn't have been as quick to throw a new leader under the bus as the Libs were with Dion.)

Now, Saganash is apparently set to announce that he's dropping out of the race. So what will effect will that have on the rest of the candidates?

The timing of Saganash's departure means that his campaign should have already managed to sign up most of the prospective members who had any interest in joining the NDP for the purpose of supporting him. And the result may be to significantly tighten the race among the top six candidates - as Niki Ashton and Nathan Cullen figure to be natural magnets for First Nations and rural votes to the extent they can keep Saganash's new members interested in the campaign.

Meanwhile, there's bound to be plenty of speculation about Saganash eventually backing Brian Topp (as rumoured before he entered the race initially). But whether or not that endorsement materializes, the biggest advantage for Topp in Saganash's departure may be the fact that he's now the only Quebec-based candidate left other than Thomas Mulcair. That figures to provide Topp with a unique narrative about bridging any gap between the party's new Quebec MPs and its longstanding national base as the leadership vote approaches - giving him a much better chance to emerge from the field than if voters concerned that the next leader should be from Quebec but uncertain of Mulcair had a third option.

New column day

2012-02-09T07:42:00.002-06:00

Here, on how the evolution of labour rights under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be traced directly to anti-labour overreach by right-wing governments - and how Brad Wall seems determined to push the limits yet again even as his first effort proved unconstitutional.

For further reading...
- The two cases discussed in the column are here (warning: PDF) and here.
- The Wall government's bizarre response to having been found to have acted unconstitutionally is here.
- Again, Murray Mandryk discussed the effect the decision will have on Wall's always-sketchy claim to moderation. And the Star-Phoenix muses about hard cases making bad law, while conspicuously refusing to suggest Wall bears any substantial responsibility for the case that developed.

Thursday Morning Links

2012-02-09T06:46:00.003-06:00

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Mind you, some of the stories are a couple of days old precisely because there's been an embarrassment of riches in the Con criticism department this week. Most of the time, stories about a government violating immigrants' privacy for the sake of a photo op, blatantly politicizing a gratuitously extravagant system of medal-awarding or going far over the top in claiming political disagreement means undermining a country's troops would rank relatively high on any weekly list of outrages.

- But instead, the Cons are reaching the cartoon-villain standard of pushing trans fats and torture.

- Yet even those affronts to reason and human decency may not quite say as much about the mindset of the party governing our country as the fact that the Cons are under orders to be needlessly disagreeable:

At the time, it was explained to me by a staffer that the snub was unintentional -- Conservative MPs are simply told to deny any request for unanimous consent not emanating from the government side.

- All of which is to say that whatever morality supposedly guides the Harper Cons doesn't figure to serve much purpose other than as an example of how to get it wrong.

- So what can we do to change matters? Well, George Lakey points out what peoples' movements were able to accomplish in Norway and Sweden.

- And in another great opportunity to work toward something positive at home, Alice discusses the impending Toronto-Danforth by-election, while Megan O'Toole notes that the Libs' oft-repeated promises of a star candidate have fallen by the wayside.

Ten More Days

2012-02-08T12:36:00.003-06:00

I'll post a quick reminder that the deadline to register for an NDP membership in order to be eligible to vote to elect a new leader is February 18 - ten days from today. And particularly for voters who supported the NDP in 2011 for the first time as the best alternative to Stephen Harper's Conservatives (as well as for younger Canadians who would have voted if they'd been able), the leadership election will represent a unique opportunity to set the direction of a strong and growing Official Opposition in the absence of decades-old factions and entrenched interests.

So I'll encourage anybody interested to read up and then sign up - as it'll take as many active citizens as possible to help turn Canada in a better direction.

Parliament in Review: December 5, 2011

2012-02-08T11:15:00.003-06:00

Monday, December 5 saw the House of Commons debate the NDP's motion on climate change. And while the Cons tried to put up a relatively brave facade on an issue where they've been fighting progress at any turn, they inevitably ended up showing their true colours.

The Big Issue

At the outset, it's worth noting that Megan Leslie's motion was worded in a way that wouldn't be at all objectionable to any party except to the extent one wanted to focus on a mention of the Kyoto Protocol:

That this House urge the government to: (a) play a leadership role in tackling global climate change and ensuring Canadian jobs aren’t lost as the rest of the world moves towards a new sustainable energy economy; (b) work in a leadership role at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Durban towards a binding climate change treaty with the goal of limiting average global temperature increases to 2°C; (c) recognize the real, science-based threat of global climate change, as well as respect and adhere to its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol and the Copenhagen Accord; and (d) take immediate action to lower net carbon emissions in Canada and increase Canadian trade with our major partners in a new sustainable energy economy.

But it shouldn't come as much surprise that the Cons opposed the motion in its entirety even while claiming to be meeting most of its objectives. Michelle Rempel suggested it's the duty of any patriotic Canadian not to accept valid criticism from abroad, though she had rather less to say in response to Pierre Nantel's observation that Cons actually applauded their own government for receiving fossil awards. Michael Chong took credit for provincial programs in his spin as to how much the Cons' current and planned programs figure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Stephen Woodworth rather undermined his party's "only 2% of global emissions!" line by listing off a grab bag of projects featuring such global-scale impacts as a 52-home development and batteries installed in two B.C. communities. And Brad Trost mocked the idea that a transit strategy could be useful in Saskatchewan, only to have Mike Sullivan inform him that in fact the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities is demanding the type of transit strategy that Trost's party can't be bothered to provide.

All of which goes to show that Francois Choquette's hope that a few Cons might be more open to action than they appeared was entirely misplaced.

Meanwhile, Leslie criticized the Cons' lack of interest in developing an economy that wasn't totally dependent on the fossil fuel industry. Kirsty Duncan and Leslie agreed on the grave dangers posed by increasingly severe weather events. Charmaine Borg and Hoang Mai noted that the costs of climate change are being foisted on future generations - making for a far more severe intergenerational transfer of wealth than the one the Cons have tried to invent when it comes to pension funding. Bruce Hyer noted that the Cons have been outright destructive rather than merely lax in dealing with climate change. Ted Hsu mentioned the jobs available in the green energy sector while wondering why the government wouldn't support further development. Jinny Sims challenged the Cons' jingoistic view that being Canadian means cheerleading for environmental damage. Francine Raynault noted that the Cons are two years behind their own promised schedule in regulating oil and gas sector emissions.

Finally, Linda Duncan deserves plenty of credit for a number of well-thought-out interventions. In her speech, she listed off the international commitments which the Cons have either outright broken or sloughed off - including ones made at Copenhagen and Cancun under the Harper government. In response to a question from Christine Moore, Duncan noted that it's perfectly possible to develop the oil sands within a reasonable climate-change policy framework - but that the Cons have no interest in bothering. And under fire from, she highlighted the Cons' hypocrisy in claiming that it's not worth engaging with developed countries to reduce emissions when China's emissions might increase, while simultaneously encouraging the export of bitumen which can only contribute to that very expansion.

Bottom Lines

The Cons have come under plenty of criticism for being willing to give away the farm in trade negotiations - including billions of dollars in increased prescription drug costs and most ability to support local economic development through procurement policies among other major giveaways. But Brian Masse pointed out one of the few concessions that the Harper Cons were seeking from a potential trading partner which signals where the government's priorities really lie:

Apparently it is not enough that the government dumps hundreds of thousands of tonnes of cancer-causing asbestos onto developing countries every year, now a trade official confirms that Canada wants India to drop its 10% duty on Canadian asbestos exports.

While other countries are banning or restricting the deadly material, the Prime Minister is actively seeking ways to profit even further from it.

In Brief

Pierre Dionne Labelle took a turn lamenting the increasing use of (and need for) food banks. Peter Julian highlighted the OECD's findings about growing inequality, while Louis Plamondon noted that Canada's unemployed were taking the brunt of the Cons' EI failings. Helene Laverdiere wondered why the Cons were still allowing Suncor to funnel money into Syria's repressive regime even while engaging in a display of fist-shaking for the cameras. Olivia Chow followed up on her safety theme by questioning the Cons on their failure to require terrain warning systems on airplanes. Maria Mourani introduced a bill to expand the availability of family leave, while Russ Hiebert tried again to attack unions through his own bill. Larry Miller was caught napping during the presentation of reports - but the opposition parties, unlike the Cons, were willing to allow him the courtesy of consent to making up for the mistake. And a take-note debate on organ donation led to the Cons evading responsibility by claiming the issue is beyond their jurisdiction, while Dany Morin repeatedly and effectively questioned the government as to how it could seek to inform the public about a need for organs while categorically rejecting them from anybody who had engaged in homosexual activity over the previous five years.

Wednesday Morning Links

2012-02-08T07:17:00.002-06:00

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- The New Democrat comments on the need to develop the NDP as a movement as well as a party. And a national movement to protect pensions looks like a great place to start.

- I'm generally in agreement with Trish Hennessy on the substance of what we can take from the utter failure of constant tax-slashing to do anything to help the economy. But while it's worth looking out for anti-union animus, I don't see how (a couple of isolated online comments aside) there's been any particularly effective effort on that front in the wake of Caterpillar's abandonment of its London plant. And indeed, the fact that even plenty of corporate actors are running from any association with Caterpillar looks like a compelling signal that nobody seems particularly prepared to defend the employer's callous disregard for its workers - leaving only the question of what ending to write for the stronger narrative on the workers' side.

- Meanwhile, Bruce Livesey wonders whether the business model is at the root of many of organized labour's current challenges.

- Sure, one might be tempted to file the Cons' embarrassing gaffe in getting their own by-election date announcement wrong under "mostly competent government". But in fairness, isn't it normally taken as a given by Harper and company that what really matters is the press release rather than the substance of any action?

- Finally, Lawrence Martin debunks the myth that the Cons have been anything but weak in managing either the economy or Canada's public finances.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

2012-02-07T20:19:00.001-06:00

Solar-powered cats.

Leadership 2012 Roundup

2012-02-07T16:53:00.002-06:00

A few leadership notes covering the gap between Sunday's informal debate and tonight's version in Saskatoon...

- Niki Ashton unveiled her justice platform, proposing a "judicare" program to ensure greater access to the legal system as well as soft drug decriminalization.

- Nathan Cullen took questions from Aaron Wherry, featuring his view that energy is the "elephant in the room" which isn't getting as much attention as he'd like in the leadership campaign.

- Paul Dewar earned a report from Tim Naumetz on his party-building plan, as well as a story from the Star.

- Thomas Mulcair strengthened his standing in Atlantic Canada with endorsements from multiple Nova Scotia MLAs, including Finance Minister Graham Steele.

- Peggy Nash talked to David Akin about the leadership campaign so far, including the fund-raising numbers released last week.

- Romeo Saganash appeared on CBC's C'est la Vie,

- Finally on the commentary side, Scott Stinson wasted plenty of space concern trolling over the fact that NDP leadership candidates haven't piled up money they wouldn't be allowed to spend before raising the slightly more relevant question of whether donor numbers might be an issue. And Ian followed up on some of the problems with Nathan Cullen's electoral cooperation plan.

Tuesday Morning Links

2012-02-07T07:04:00.002-06:00

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Geoffrey Stevens discusses the basic problem behind the Cons' insistence on cutting back actual help to people while wasting billions on prisons and fighter jets:

(I)f the government did have a weakness (which, as noted, it does not concede), it might be that it does not suffer fools gladly — “fools” being loosely defined as anyone who fails to applaud everything the Conservatives do. This is quite a large category, encompassing (or so pollsters tell us) two-thirds of the Canadian populace.

Not only does the government not embrace criticism, it does not trust experts. The overhaul of the old age security system that Harper announced, minus details, in Davos (safely removed from the fools in Parliament) illustrates the point. As Harper sees it, the changes — which apparently will require seniors to wait longer and accept smaller pensions — are needed to make OAS sustainable for future generations. But is that really the case?

Non-partisan experts argue that if the Conservatives factor in economic growth and increases in the working-age population though immigration, they will discover a quite different picture, and not a bleak one at all. One of those experts is Kevin Page, the parliamentary budget officer (and a troublesome fellow in Tory eyes) “We don’t have a long-term sustainability problem,” Page says. “I think he (Harper) is doing it for broader problems.”

Common sense would suggest that the Conservatives acknowledge that independent experts just might have a point worth considering (by a royal commission perhaps?). At very least, the public deserves a more convincing explanation and some reassurance before the best finance minister on the planet attacks a pension system that has served the country well over the years.

- Bea Vongdouangchonh reports on Joe Comartin's efforts to make Parliament more open and democratic.

- Sixth Estate laments the embarrassment of riches in trying to choose a single weekly Flack Award.

- Last week's column looks to have been particularly well-timed, as word gets out that the Wall government is trying to recruit some of the same people taken in by Ireland's false promise of an economy built on corporate giveaways to help build a similar set of bubbles in Saskatchewan.

- Finally, kudos to the team of labour activists which succeeded in demonstrating that the Wall government's essential services legislation was unconstitutional. And Murray Mandryk nicely sums up how Justice Ball's findings that the Sask Party's essential services legislation was the most draconian in the country serve to undermine the Wall government's pretense at moderation.

Parliament in Review: December 2, 2011

2012-02-06T20:16:00.004-06:00

Friday, December 2 saw the final day of debate in Parliament on the Cons' omnibus crime bill. And for at least a moment, the proceedings took a perhaps surprising turn.

The Big Issue

As debate wound down on C-10, Irene Mathyssen questioned why the Cons insisted on delaying the passage of greater sentences for child abusers in order to keep them tied to other, less explicable parts of the bill. Francoise Boivin pointed out that the Cons' campaign of fear hadn't actually managed to keep Canadians from feeling safe in their communities - meaning that the supposed need for the bill was entirely lacking. Boivin and Irwin Cotler then compared notes on the Cons' stubborn refusal to so much as listen to opposition amendments, a theme discussed as well by Guy Caron in the final speech on the bill. In a lovely example of translation, Con MP Robert Goguen was quoted calling for a "more repressive justice system". And Gordon O'Connor claimed that the Cons have no control whatsoever over what Stephen Harper's Senate toadies might do to amend the bill.

But the passage of the day came from Alain Giguere in pointing out that the Cons had also been rather selective in their omnibus legislation by focusing on low-level individuals rather than systemic problems:

(T)his omnibus bill always makes me think of the late Italian anti-Mafia magistrate Giovanni Falcone. Before he died, he said that there were three kinds of policies: those that work for the Mafia, those that work against the Mafia and—the most dangerous of all—those that let the Mafia be.

There are a lot of measures in Bill C-10, but there are a lot of things missing too. It does not address the serious crime of money laundering. Where are the regulations against money laundering in this bill? Is there special punishment for people who import cocaine in containers? Will police officers be assigned to the fight against serious crime? The bill does not talk about that.

The government is increasing prison sentences for petty criminals, for people who sell drugs. We all agree that criminals must be punished. But we should start by going after organized crime, after the people who commit crimes, who bring in containers and order assassinations. I would like to know this will affect organized crime, when we know that any small-time drug dealer is easily replaced.

When all was said and done, a voice vote on the bill led Andrew Scheer to conclude...that the "nays" had it, as the opposition parties were apparently more fired up to oppose the bill than the Cons were to voice their approval. And so matters stood - at least until the inevitable recorded vote.

In Brief

Annick Papillon highlighted the positive example of transit in Quebec City, while Jose Nunez-Melo noted the urgent need for much more similar development with federal support. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain asked whether the Cons had bothered following up in the slightest on departmental visits to Attawapiskat. Caron and Philip Toone pointed out the climbing unemployment rate even as the Cons try to take credit for implementing their vision for Canada's economy. Laurin Liu mentioned a lament from one of Nelson Mandela's cabinet ministers about hardly recognizing Canada under Stephen Harper; while nothing on the record reflects Rob Anders responding with a hearty "filthy commie!", we can only assume it was said. Djaouida Sellah demanded answers as to whether CETA will indeed result in billions in giveaways to big pharma. Rodger Cuzner compared the standard 85% occupancy for a properly-managed call centre with the appalling 99% level at Service Canada (which the Cons only want to exacerbate by further slashing jobs). Manon Perrault wondered whether yet another international commitment - this time the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities - would ever be followed by action. Glenn Thibeault proposed a bill to require the development of a universal charger for cell phones. And Jean Rousseau, Thibeault and Manon Perreault spoke to the NDP's seat redistribution bill at second reading

Monday Morning Links

2012-02-06T07:34:00.005-06:00

Assorted content to start your week.

- Tim Harper comments on the Harper Cons' collusion in a war against Canada's middle class:

Under the Investment Canada Act, (foreign) takeovers are supposed to demonstrate a “net benefit” to Canada, but, in fact, are acting as an anvil on wages, living standards and the prosperity of communities in central Canada.

MacDowall says breaks should only be offered to small or medium companies that actually want to set up shop and create jobs here.

Both opposition parties in Ottawa have called for a review of the Investment Canada Act, which has been exposed time and time again as a paper tiger by foreign corporations in this country.

The NDP says tax credits to companies should be tied to job creation — the credit would only kick in when the jobs are created.

Federal Conservatives largely ran for cover but the few who were brave enough (or ordered to) face the cameras Friday were quick to engage in buck-passing.
...
Every politician, federal or provincial, who stood by and watched this performance — where a 50 per cent pay cut was somehow described as an “offer” rather than the threat it was — has to answer for their neglect.

- Meanwhile, David Olive rightly criticizes Caterpillar's bad-faith actions as just a particularly galling example of the type of corporate-dominated economy the Cons are trying to push.

- And Sixth Estate nicely demonstrates another facet of that utterly unbalanced business-first ideology in challenging one of the more ludicrous examples of Fraser Institute astroturfing - this time in the form of a claim that thousands of preventable deaths from air pollution should be considered acceptable if they serve the cause of corporate profits.

- CfSR catches Vic Toews claiming a need for secrecy over information that's available on a public website in order to avoid answering for his government's actions.

- Finally, Andrew Jackson answers the nonsensical line that the existence of Old Age Security somehow prevents anybody from working past 65 as a matter of choice by pointing out that actual data proves otherwise. Elizabeth Thompson breaks down seniors' income by geography and gender to point out who stands to lose the most in attacks on retirement income. (Who would ever have guessed that the Cons might make women take the brunt of their ill-advised policies?) And Robert Brown suggests putting any debate about the OAS on a factual foundation - though when (as Brown notes) those facts are that the current system is entirely sustainable and the Cons' anticipated change would be deliberately and gratuitously regressive, the question of what should be done answers itself. [Update: see also Dave and Owen]

On rush jobs

2012-02-06T07:17:00.005-06:00

I'll avoid making too much of the Cons' machinations around the Toronto-Danforth by-election.

But it does seem worth noting that the announcement comes in advance of the six-month deadline to call the by-election by roughly the two-week gap between the by-election and the NDP leadership convention. And that's a change in pattern from the last Parliament, where Harper consistently moved toward calling by-elections as late as possible.

So why might Harper have changed course? Well, the earlier by-election call and date will throw a couple of curves at the NDP: first by requiring it to divert resources from the leadership campaign to the by-election, and second by making sure that the party's new leader can't point to personal momentum from the by-election results.

That said, any ultimate effect from those factors looks to be minor at best - as there was bound to be some overlap between the leadership campaign and the by-election writ period in any event. And hopefully the NDP will be able to use the publicity offered by the simultaneous by-election and leadership campaign to draw in new participants who can play an important role in both.

Parliament in Review: December 1, 2011

2012-02-05T17:48:00.004-06:00

In the midst of a week of acrimonious debate over both the substance of the Cons' dumb-on-crime legislation and the government's procedural maneuvers to prevent even improvements which it recognized as necessary, December 1 served as a comparative beacon of cooperation (as noted specifically by Don Davies).

The Big Issue

That's because the government bill under discussion was C-26 on self-defence - which largely paralleled Olivia Chow's private member's bill from the previous Parliament by allowing for citizen's arrests in circumstances other than the moment when a crime was being committed.

Which isn't to say there weren't some noteworthy points of concern and clarification. Jack Harris wondered why the new provision would allow for a proportionality element only in defence of people rather than property - a question which was finally answered by Kerry-Lynne Findlay in a rare moment of Con recognition as to which ought to be treated as a more important priority:

In the case of self-defence or defence of another, these defences allow for the use of intentional deadly force, depending on the circumstances. This is because it is a life that is being threatened. It is only reasonable for individuals who face a serious threat from another person to protect themselves. If the nature of the threat is such that it is reasonable to counter that threat with deadly force, that may be acceptable, depending on the circumstances.

Threats to property are not the same. Human life always outweighs our interest in property. So when the situation is one where damage or destruction of property must be balanced against the determination of human life, the property interest must give way to the greater interest in human life.

Libby Davies expressed concern that the citizen's arrest power would be disproportionately applied to rid stores of targeted individuals. Helene Leblanc noted that in the Lucky Moose case cited as the impetus for the legislation, it was a reasonable judicial decision that resulted in a fair outcome - signalling the need to respect the judiciary rather than box it in as the Cons have so often done with mandatory minimum sentences in particular. Malcolm Allen discussed the importance of community policing generally. Tyrone Benskin worried that the bill might encourage vigilantism. And Sean Casey questioned the Cons' obsession with crime even while signalling his general support for the bill.

Unfortunately, the Cons did manage to fit in one example of jaw-dropping callousness. In raising a question after Irwin Cotler's speech, Blaine Calkins had the gall to joke about Cotler's impending retirement - turning his own party's unconscionable false robocalls into Cotler's riding into a matter of personal amusement.

Name That Party

An MP offered a member's statement about environmental concerns surrounding a project in his riding. Guess who had this to say about the need for a serious environmental review:

Mr. Speaker, the Highland Companies group, backed by a Boston-based hedge fund, proposes to dig a 2,300-acre limestone quarry on prime farmland in Melancthon Township in my riding....

The company wants to dig down 200 feet, well below the water table. The end result is that 600 million litres of water per day, enough for over one million (people), would have to be pumped out, treated, stored and injected back into the local aquifers. The project proponents say this procedure would pose no risk to the local environment.

(The area) is home to the headwaters of four major river systems flowing in all directions. To claim that there would be no effect on the headwaters and beyond stretches the realm of possibility.

I call upon the Minister of the Environment to order that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency conduct a full environmental assessment. The residents of my riding and of Canada deserve no less.

Naturally, the MP expressing that entirely valid concern was...Con David Tilson. And it'll be well worth watching whether he has any interest in similar concerns nationally as his government seeks to short-circuit environmental review processes for oil pipelines which could have far more severe consequences than a single local quarry.

In Brief

Marie-Claude Morin highlighted the gap in life expectancy based on income as an example of inequality which demands action. Guy Caron expanded on the list of Con-connected appointees to the Immigration and Refugee Board, while Don Davies noted that even the screening committee was worryingly Con-heavy. Nycole Turmel slammed the Cons for sending auditors to Attawapiskat instead of actual help, then pointed out that a 50% gap in social program funding ($9,000 per person on the reserve compared to $18,000 nationally) figures to be one of the main explanations for the community's difficulties. Peter Julian criticized the Cons' lack of cooperation with B.C. in developing a process to remove the HST after citizens voted it down. Mark Eyking and Anne Minh-Thu Quach wondered when the Cons' promises on AIDS funding would result in their actually sending a dime. John McCallum pointedly questioned why the Cons had shifted money out of green infrastructure funding to other departments without authorization, only to be told by Denis Lebel that Industry Canada's 2011-12 Report on Plans and Priorities was authority enough. Irene Mathyssen noted that hundreds of thousands of seniors aren't receiving benefits to which they're entitled. Roxanne James spoke to her private member's bill to limit complaints by prisoners - only to be told by Candice Hoeppner on behalf of her own party that it didn't go far enough in silencing anybody who raised concerns about prison conditions, even as Sylvain Chicoine pointed out that there's a good reason why a large number of complaints might originate with a few relatively well-educated inmates. And finally, Glenn Thibeault wondered why the Cons' promises to create a real code of conduct for credit cart providers had come to nothing.

Leadership 2012 Candidate Rankings - February 5, 2012

2012-02-05T16:25:00.004-06:00

Since it's been a little while, I'll offer another of my periodic caveats that these rankings are intended to reflect my perception as to how likely a particular candidate is to win the NDP's leadership rather than my own preferences. So has anything changed on that front since last week?

1. Thomas Mulcair (1)

Well, the top of the rankings hasn't changed at all as long as I've been putting together these rankings. And with Mulcair starting to build a national labour base to rival that of any other contender, it may take either a serious scandal shockingly disappointing Quebec membership numbers to drop him from the top position at any point in the campaign.

2. Peggy Nash (2)

And similarly, two smooth policy launches and a strong video release keep Nash comfortably in second place.

3. Brian Topp (3)

Here's where it starts getting somewhat more interesting. I'll leave Topp in the #3 position thanks to a combination of impressive fund-raising numbers and what's continued to be a mostly solid campaign. But the controversy around a campaign worker misrepresenting Romeo Saganash's ability to speak French might offer the start of a dangerous narrative for a candidate whose appeal is based largely on organizational ability.

4. Paul Dewar (4)

By all accounts Dewar has continued to impress over the past couple of weeks. But I'll need to either see him hold his own in French or conclude that Topp is running into an equally significant obstacle in order to move Dewar up.

5. Nathan Cullen (6)

So here's the change for this week. Cullen's organization has matched up nicely with the top tier of candidates from the start of the race in terms of fund-raising, and he's starting to pull in a substantial amount of earned media attention.

6. Romeo Saganash (5)

Meanwhile, Saganash's weak fund-raising numbers look to offer a definitive "no" to the question of whether he had some initial organization strength that wasn't showing up in traditional political channels. And while I still think he has a path to victory, it's getting late to start making up ground compared to his competitors.

7. Niki Ashton (7)

And in fact, Ashton may not be far from eclipsing Saganash - particularly if she has any more MP endorsements left to follow Carol Hughes' nod this week.

8. Martin Singh (8)

This was actually a very positive week for Singh, as he not only released his first policy plank in ages, but also showed that he's doing better than both Saganash and Ashton on the fund-raising front. But while I'd probably take an even-money bet that Singh won't be in last place on the first ballot, these rankings are still based on the likelihood of victory - and there seems to be little chance of Singh assembling enough down-ballot support to come out on top.

Sunday Morning Links

2012-02-05T11:20:00.004-06:00

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Vivian Belik looks at the long-ignored outcomes from a guaranteed income experiment in Dauphin, MB - and finds that the positive results of of providing a secure income to all citizens were well worth the investment:

(T)he Mincome program was conceived as a labour market experiment. The government wanted to know what would happen if everybody in town received a guaranteed income, and specifically, they wanted to know whether people would still work.

It turns out they did.

Only two segments of Dauphin's labour force worked less as a result of Mincome—new mothers and teenagers. Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay at home longer with their babies. And teenagers worked less because they weren't under as much pressure to support their families.

The end result was that they spent more time at school and more teenagers graduated. Those who continued to work were given more opportunities to choose what type of work they did.

- Thomas Walkom notes that the current focus of business and government alike is instead on attacking workers to the greatest extent possible, as epitomized by the Caterpillar shutdown in London.

- Roland Paris criticizes the Cons' strategy of fomenting fear wherever they go.

- Meanwhile, Bruce Cheadle reports that federal public servants have reason to fear they'll be punished for telling the truth rather than parroting government talking points. And that lack of trust looks to be a natural corollary when fraudulent PR stunts - like the false citizenship oath staged for the benefit of Sun TV - get singled out for praise.

- Finally, Murray Mandryk rightly slams the Sask Party for barring Saskatchewan PC leaders from the legislative building on the basis that their speaking to the media makes them a "security risk".

Leadership 2012 Roundup

2012-02-05T09:50:00.005-06:00

Thanks to an end-of-week conference it's been a few days since I've done a general roundup on the NDP leadership race. And based on the pace of activity, it looks like we're into the home stretch as candidates enter the last couple of weeks in which to sign up new members.

- Niki Ashton unveiled the support of MP Carol Hughes before participating in the National Student Day of Action.

- Nathan Cullen earned a column's worth of discussion from Chris Selley, albeit with the conclusion that his electoral co-operation plan likely won't fly.

- Paul Dewar unveiled a plan for women's equality, then used the profile of the leadership campaign to host a fund-raiser for locked-out Caterpillar workers in London just before the plant's closure was announced.

- Thomas Mulcair won endorsements from UFCW Canada and Howard Hampton.

- Peggy Nash released policies on post-secondary education (featuring both dedicated transfer payments and reduced interest on student loans) and northern issues. And she also launched a slick video to boot.

- Romeo Saganash set out his plan to work toward peace in the Middle East - earning plenty of points for ambition in the process.

- Martin Singh released his environmental policy, featuring a noteworthy choice to implement a carbon-pricing system without offsets.

- And finally, Brian Topp unveiled his plan to build the NDP (with a particular focus on increasing participation at all levels of the party), while also warning against trying to outshout the Cons.

[Edit: added second Topp link.]

Parliament in Review: November 30, 2011

2012-02-04T20:11:00.003-06:00

After the previous day's debacle in which government-sponsored amendments to the Cons' dumb-on-crime bill were ruled out of order, one might have expected at least some acknowledgment of fallibility on the part of the Harper Cons.

The Big Issue

But Wednesday, November 30 saw nothing of the sort, even when the Cons were questioned directly. Instead, Rob Nicholson responded to entirely valid questions by claiming that his party still supported "every measure in this bill" even after it had tried unsuccessfully to amend the bill. But Nicholson's general grasp on reality seemed to be lacking generally, as he railed against "(e)very time the opposition parties, in the last five years, got together and forced an election on the Government of Canada" - by which he presumably meant exactly once.

Meanwhile, Andrew Cash reminded Nicholson that there were plenty of non-contentious parts of the bill which the opposition would have been happy to have passed already if the Cons didn't insist on tying them to poison pills, while Alexandre Boulerice noted in particular that provisions to address worker exploitation shouldn't be lashed to evidence-free policy on drugs and other justice issues. And Cash and Megan Leslie discussed the racialization of both poverty and crime.

But in the end Peter Van Loan pushed ahead in yet again cutting off debate, with the Cons again forcing through both the cloture motion and the unamended bill.

In Brief

Nycole Turmel and Charlie Angus returned from Attawapiskat to demand that the Cons declare a state of emergency (or at least show their faces in the community). Don Davies listed off many more Con-connected appointments to the Immigration and Refugee Board than Jason Kenney was willing to admit the previous day. Christine Moore pointed out the latest Con misadventure in acronyms, as the Air Force's French acronym following the Cons' re-insertion of "royal" matched that of a Colombian terrorist group until somebody pointed out the association. Davies introduced a private member's bill to lower the voting age to 16, Chris Charlton proposed to allow Parliamentary staff to unionize, and Alex Atamanenko presented a bill to establish a Department of Peace. Olivia Chow noted that the imposed vote on C-10 was cutting into promised time for committee questioning on infrastructure. Jamie Nicholls polished his futurist credentials by successfully predicting that an adjournment question on G8 patronage would be answered with mindless talking points. And Guy Caron followed up on issues of corruption in corporate tax enforcement at the Canada Revenue Agency.

On uncertain measurements

2012-02-04T13:44:00.004-06:00

Patrick has assembled an interesting response to Eric Grenier's work in quantifying the effect of endorsements in the NDP leadership race. But while I can understand the instinct to try to put together a measurement system for endorsements as a whole, I'd think it's worth being careful about simply adding up numbers, rather than looking at them in context to see which might most plausibly have the greatest effect on the course of the campaign.

Let's start with the seemingly noncontroversial statement that any candidate will have natural constituencies of supporters.

Of course, endorsements from within those anticipated support groups are certainly better than a lack thereof. But it isn't particularly news that Thomas Mulcair has a leg up among Quebec MPs, Peggy Nash within the labour movement, Paul Dewar within the current Manitoba NDP and Brian Topp among Saskatchewan's recent NDP legislators.

As a result, endorsements fitting the expected pattern don't figure to do much to change our baseline expectations for a campaign. And that goes doubly when they essentially duplicate existing endorsements of a particular type. (No offence to Lorne Calvert, but the cachet involved in Topp's claiming the support of a past Saskatchewan premier was substantially reduced when Roy Romanow had already provided exactly that.)

Coversely, a few endorsements loom as particularly significant in shaping the outcome of the NDP's leadership race in ways which may be missed by efforts to categorize by number without considering how they've challenged existing perceptions of candidates.

Most obviously, Brian Topp's ability to point to endorsements from Ed Broadbent and Francoise Boivin gave his campaign instant credibility from the start of the leadership race. And he's combined that initial endorsement from two high-profile political veterans who might not have been expected to support an outsider with an effective media strategy to get himself labeled as a top contender in a contest where his lack of history as an elected official might otherwise have been seen far more of an obstacle.

As for other endorsements with potentially massive impacts on the trajectory of the campaign which might not be captured in any metric, I'd point to:
- Pierre Ducasse's support for Peggy Nash, allowing a candidate who started the campaign without an obvious Quebec base to benefit from Ducasse's role in getting the NDP's progress started in the province that delivered its electoral breakthrough. For those eager to develop metrics, that might signal a need to account for "authoring major party documents" (or perhaps "name drops" based on Nash's frequent references to Ducasse in debates), but I'd consider Ducasse more an example of the difficulty developing meaningful objective criteria in the first place.
- Libby Davies' endorsement of Topp, which may have substantially affected the composition of the race to the extent it split urban B.C. support which Peter Julian may have needed to see a viable path to the leadership.
- Linda Duncan's support for Dewar and Don Davies' for Mulcair, both of which added regional balance from highly-respected members of the NDP's existing caucus to campaigns which otherwise lacked a great deal of visible support west of Manitoba and Ontario respectively.
- And most recently, the UFCW's recent nod to Thomas Mulcair - which signals that the front-runner is moving beyond the endorsements of individual union leaders to bring substantial parts of the labour movement onside.

Once a candidate has locked in a few endorsements of a particular type, though, I'd expect additions to the list to result in diminishing returns - meaning that I'd be skeptical of assigning equal weight to later examples. About the only exception to the greater potential impact of early endorsements is then to be found in rare cases which again arise only based on a candidate's particular circumstances: for example, a campaign that's facing a scandal or otherwise perceived to be on the downswing may be able to generate a new sense of momentum with a major endorsement or two regardless of whether it involves a new category of supporter.

All of which is to say that while it's great to see some effort to measure the state of the NDP's race through endorsement counts, they (like fund-raising totals and polling based on non-members' preferences) figure to show only a small part of the picture. And so we shouldn't be too quick to use them as a proxy for the state of the campaign.

Saturday Morning Links

2012-02-04T09:09:00.003-06:00

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Mike Ward nicely describes the "Orwellian reverie" being used by the Cons to try to manipulate the public into acceding to the every wish of the oil sector:

In what other world could the delivery of jobs, profits and unrefined oil to a totalitarian foreign government be considered an act of patriotism? In what other sphere could dirty oil be called "ethical," and a fragile pipeline, strung across 700 rivers before spilling its contents into balloon-skinned tankers, be eulogized as enlightened?

Unless peace is war, how can First Nations peoples be cast as alien-controlled enemies of the state; unless ignorance is strength, how can a paltry 200 jobs justify the endangerment of 200,000?

- Jeff Davis unfortunately misstates what Dick Harris' private member's bill on Employment Insurance figures to accomplish. (And of course, plenty of right-wing mouthpieces are entirely eager to repeat the inaccuracies.) So let's set the record straight.

No, the current EI system doesn't allow an incarcerated individual to "collect double the (EI)" of anybody else. Instead, it provides for an extension on the time limit in which to apply for precisely the same amount of EI benefits which would otherwise be available. And that makes some sense based on the fact that a person who's incarcerated won't have a need to start collecting EI to meet living expenses until after being released.

Of course, it's fair enough to suggest that other applicants with a valid reason for not applying immediately shouldn't be worse off for waiting. But Harris isn't doing anything in the slightest to help anybody else; instead, he's merely looking for an excuse to vilify and exclude people who paid into EI and meet all other qualifications to receive it.

- Meanwhile, Susan Riley offers some suggestions as to what the NDP can propose as an alternative to the Cons' mean-spirited and inefficient government. Gerald Caplan wonders when we'll see a stronger extraparliamentary opposition develop. And the NDP offers up a useful image to help build the outrage the Cons have so determinedly earned.

- Finally, there seems to be plenty of reason for concern that decisions have been made about the future of the Regina Public Library's downtown home with cursory "consultation" to happen only after it's too late. And a wall of silence from the RPL board certainly isn't helping matters.

Musical interlude

2012-02-03T21:05:00.000-06:00

Andy Moor - Halcyon

Friday Morning Links

2012-02-03T06:00:00.004-06:00

Assorted content to end your week.

- Yes, the fraudulent collaboration between the Harper Cons and Sun TV should offer nothing but reason for suspicion about both portions of the right-wing noise machine - and Dr. Dawg, Heather Mallick, Simon Houpt and the Star have all had plenty to say. But let's add a third major problem to the dishonesty on both sides: shouldn't a government supposedly committed to efficiency (and preparing to take an axe to numerous departments as a result) expect its civil servants to have something better to do than to act as props for a photo op?

- I'll have to take issue with Dan Gardner's column on OAS by offering a reminder that the "but retirements are getting longer!" doesn't exactly apply across the board:

(T)hose working but in low income will lose a hefty portion of the OAS/GIS benefits that would otherwise have been paid to them.

It is all too often forgotten that, notwithstanding rising longevity, many of those in lower income groups still die relatively young.

...(T)here is a big difference of probability of survival to age 75 by income group, and also by aboriginal status.

So for Gardner or anybody else who's actually concerned about ensuring parity in retirement time, the answer is to make sure that OAS and other benefits are available to lower-income seniors at a low enough age to allow for a reasonably comparable period of retirement - while withdrawing the Cons' handouts to the wealthy from people who don't need them.

- Meanwhile, David Climenhaga notes that the Cons' attacks on pensions shouldn't come as any surprise. And Stephen Maher comments on the Cons' starve-the-public strategy:

Reagan put it this way in 1982: "There were always those who told us that taxes couldn't be cut until spending was reduced. Well, you know, we can lecture our children about extravagance until we run out of voice and breath. Or we can cure their extravagance by simply reducing their allowance."

It's known as "starving the beast." Rather than doing the politically painful work of cutting spending, you cut taxes and increase public debt to the point where it is necessary to cut spending to keep the repo men at bay.

Unlike Reagan, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has never publicly discussed his "starve the beast" plan, but it's pretty clear that that's what he's doing.
...
Last month, (Harper) told Calgary radio host Dave Rutherford to expect "fairly aggressive action" to "position this country for growth over the next generation."

That sounds like more radical surgery than the inefficiencies he blandly discussed during the campaign.

It may mean cuts to Employment Insurance and equalization.

Having starved the beast, Harper may now be ready to climb into the cage and take on the weakened creature more forcefully.

- Finally, Carol Goar theorizes that the Cons should work with the public on contentious issues rather than ramming through zero-consultation bills without debate.

And I'd agree entirely from the perspective of providing remotely responsive and competent government. But I suspect the fact that the Cons have so resolutely refused to allow any meaningful discussion speaks volumes about the outcome they'd expect if they had to defend their ideological positions by doing anything more than repeating talking points - making a concerted effort to shut out the public an inevitable part of their plans to trash Canada beyond recognition.

New column day

2012-02-02T07:49:00.003-06:00

Here, on the Wall government's insistence that public-sector cuts are the answer no matter what the question - and the cautionary tale we should draw from their Irish model.

For further reading...
- The CP documents Wall's latest demand for austerity at any price.
- Paul Krugman has done plenty of work showing where Ireland has gone wrong in both its initial economic model and its subsequent austerity program. See posts here, and especially here among others.
- And for more on the IMF's admonition that governments not engage in gratuitous cuts if they can afford not to, see the BBC and Stephen Gordon.

Thursday Morning Links

2012-02-02T06:53:00.002-06:00

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Carol Goar notes that the Cons' decision to mess with retirement security may be just the type of issue to rouse voters who had been lulled to sleep by promises of stability - which seems more plausible than Chantal Hebert's theory that the Cons can reasonably expect to benefit politically by focusing attention on exactly the kind of cuts they can only get away with in relative silence. Meanwhile, Ellen Roseman points out that an increase in the eligibility age makes no sense at all and Trish Hennessy runs the numbers on how cuts to OAS might play out.

- Meanwhile, in the "accountability for thee but not for me" department, the Cons want to stoke outrage over CBC salaries while jealously hiding what we're paying Stephen Harper's PMO spinners. And the Cons are also making the stunning claim that e-mails sent in response to media questions can't be quoted.

- But in fairness, encounters with reality have had a tendency not to end well for the Cons.

- Finally, Paul Moist weighs in on the NDP's leadership campaign by pointing out the wider role the party needs to play in speaking for workers.

On close competition

2012-02-02T06:30:00.005-06:00

Alice has taken a thorough look at the 2011 Q4 fund-raising totals in the NDP's leadership race and mused that fund-raising may serve as a proxy for first-ballot support. But I'll follow up on a couple of points.

Let's start with a couple of reasons to take yesterday's numbers with a grain of salt. After all, they don't particularly match the one source of information we already had on exactly the same point, as Nathan Cullen's reported fund-raising to the end of December involved an extra 100 donations totalling $24,000. And I'm curious to hear how that divergence in reporting came about.

But even if yesterday's data is in fact the better source as of the end of 2011 than reports from campaigns themselves, it's still a month out of date at a point where the campaign is just emerging into the public eye.

That said, we can certainly glean some useful information from the 2011 numbers, as there's far more parity in candidate fund-raising this time out than there was in 2003. Five candidates look like they'll have absolutely no trouble raising something close to the limit, and Martin Singh is also doing remarkably well to boot - with only Romeo Saganash and Niki Ashton lagging behind what they might plausibly have planned for.

Of course, it could be that nobody is running up the score on fund-raising simply because there's little advantage to be gained in going beyond the spending limit. And if that's the case, then the theory about using fund-raising as an indicator of support will fall by the wayside. But if it's true that fund-raising can be considered a proxy for first-ballot support, then the 2011 numbers suggest there's little enough separation between over half the field to ensure that the winner will need plenty of later-ballot support as well.

Update: It's been pointed out by a couple of readers that there may be an explanation for my uncertainty above. Here's the part of Tobi Cohen's story that makes it unclear what time frames are covered:

Candidates were required to submit an interim financial statement to the party on Jan. 12 and Cullen was the only candidate who agreed to share some of the information, namely his list of donors, with Post-media News.

The disclosure offers a first glimpse into the sort of money involved in the campaign, as candidates don't have to publicly disclose their expenditures with Elections Canada until four weeks before the March 24 vote.

According to the data, Cullen received some 550 individual donations up to the end of December totalling more than $111,000. He's raised another $24,000 since, officials close to the campaign said.

The most plausible interpretation looks to be that Cohen's "up to the end of December" line - which I took at face value - describes what were in fact donations up to the January 12 reporting date, with Cullen then raising the additional $24,000 in the first couple of weeks of 2012. And if that signals a faster pace of fund-raising in the new year, then there's even less reason to think most of the candidates will have any trouble matching each other dollar-for-dollar up to the cap.

Parliament in Review: November 29, 2011

2012-02-01T20:23:00.003-06:00

Tuesday, November 29 saw debate at third reading on the Cons' omnibus crime bill. And with even some Cons starting to recognize the desperate need for amendments, the government's obstinate refusal to allow for any real consideration of the bill stood out all the more.

The Big Issue

At the start of debate, Andrew Scheer ruled as to the validity of a number of amendments to C-10. And notably, the amendments which he ruled out of order included some originating with the Cons after they carelessly voted them down at committee - providing a rather compelling indication that everybody recognized some need to improve the bill rather than ramming it through.

Which naturally means that Peter Van Loan took the opportunity to announce his intention to once again cut off debate on the bill. This time, his motion was met by a reply from Jack Harris seeking the study which the bill so obviously needed - but naturally that effort to favour intelligent policy-making was shot down.

Meanwhile, Harris noted that the Cons' bill is actually even more strict than the U.S.' failed tough-on-crime legislation in allowing no flexibility on minimum sentences. Elizabeth May observed that the main effect of mandatory minimums would be to force parties toward plea bargains on lesser counts. Irwin Cotler pointed out the obvious danger in allowing governments to determine as a matter of political calculation which groups to expose to lawsuits under the terrorism lawsuit provisions of the bill (which as he noted had never been debated before). Dany Morin challenged the Cons' determination to force provinces to cut social programs to pay for prisons. Jean Crowder highlighted research showing that we can get seven times as much crime prevention (to say nothing of additional social benefits) by investing in social development rather than burning the same money on prison construction, while Bruce Hyer compared the costs of incarceration to those of education. Isabelle Morin challenged the Cons' position that the public is uniformly behind it by pointing to several specific constituent concerns about the bill. Anne-Marie Day asked Kyle Seeback whether he honestly considered a citizen growing 6 marijuana plants to be a drug lord who should be subject to the same mandatory minimum as a major cocaine trafficker; remarkably, Seeback answered with a resounding "yes". Linda Duncan raised concerns about the disproportionate effect a dumb-on-crime policy will have among aboriginal communities. And Daryl Kramp lamented the state of Canadian prisons, while conspicuously failing to mention how tossing thousands more inmates into them for no particular reason would help matters.

Resentment as Policy

Dick Harris spoke to his private member's bill to eliminate an EI access period for convicted criminals. Needless to say, the bill epitomizes the Cons' focus on taking away from people they don't like rather than ensuring more equitable access for people who need it - as Claude Patry promptly pointed out.

In Brief

Chris Charlton proposed that public holidays be harmonized between industries under federal jurisdiction and the home province of workers. Crowder called on the Cons to finally act on Parliament's long-held unanimous agreement to put an end to child poverty. Peter Julian wondered whether the Cons were willing to acknowledge the reality of deteriorating economic forecasts. Brian Masse pointed out that Con negotiations with the U.S. have led to disastrous results, and wondered what nasty surprises were in store for Canadians' privacy. Justin Trudeau criticized the Cons for spending less to deal with climate change at the federal level than Quebec alone invests as a province. Don Davies noted that over half of the primarily-Con-appointed members of the Immigration and Refugee Board either failed the qualifying exam or were screened out for incompetency; Jason Kenney replied by saying the Cons are apparently proud to have rejected many better applications than the ones they accepted. John Williamson managed to ask a question that had so little to do with government administration that even Scheer couldn't allow a Con minister to deliver a scripted answer. Anne Minh-Thu Quach wondered why the Cons were missing in action in a global conference on the social determinants of health. And Megan Leslie's adjournment questions on ozone were met with the same bare-bones talking points Michelle Rempel would normally deliver in question period when the response time is actually limited - serving perhaps as an indication that Rempel's hype as the Cons' new up-and-coming female is destined for the same fate as that which once surrounded the likes of Rona Ambrose and Lisa Raitt.

Wednesday Morning Links

2012-02-01T11:11:00.003-06:00

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Paul Wells points out that despite the Cons' best efforts to get Canadians to panic over the state of our retirement system, the truth is that we're actually better positioned now than was projected 20 years ago. (And for those looking inexplicably for middle ground between the status quo and the Cons' apparent plans: no, a mere modest increase in seniors' poverty isn't a positive outcome.)

- Lest there be any doubt, it's well worth researching personalized health assessment - so kudos to the Cons for planning to fund the idea. But of course it'll be worth keeping an eye as to whether the plan turns into an excuse to devolve payment to the individual level. And in also in the department of credit where due (though only to the extent due), Brad Trost's musings about MP independence deserve some support even if his own plans figure to be even worse than the Cons' Harper-dictated policy and talking points.

- Of course, we'd have a lot more confidence the Cons didn't have ulterior motives if they weren't so insistent on governing in secret. Or if they could provide an honest and relevant answer to even the most direct of questions. Or if they didn't suddenly announce the end of programs without warning.

- Finally, Rob Rainer writes that the answer to reducing inequality is simple enough - if only we didn't have a federal government determined to go in the wrong direction:

As the London-based Equality Trust states, there are two compatible options:

• Reduce the differences in employment income before tax; and
• Increase the redistribution of income through tax and benefit systems...

(T)he more effective option for combating inequality is for governments to, first, rebuild greater fairness into our systems of taxation and, second, increase the distribution of income from the "top" to the "bottom." In 1948 there were 19 personal income tax brackets in Canada, and the top marginal tax rate was 80 per cent on incomes over $250,000 ($2.37 million in 2011 dollars). Today, we have but four brackets and the top rate is but 29 per cent, kicking in on earnings over $132,406.

The key to solving inequality seems pretty clear. Have we the public will now to support the political will for a fairer, better society?

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

2012-01-31T20:50:00.000-06:00

Luxuriating cats.

Parliament in Review: November 28, 2011

2012-01-31T20:14:00.003-06:00

Monday, November 28 saw the final day of debate in the House of Commons on the Cons' legislation to trash the single-desk Canadian Wheat Board. And not surprisingly, the result was a particularly focused set of concerns about the bill - though those were waved aside yet again.

The Big Issue

The line of the day went to Carol Hughes on the empty promise of "freedom":

Perhaps the Conservatives are correct in a sense in that they are giving our farmers more freedom. However, what they are doing is freeing our farmers from the protection that the single desk provides. They are giving them freedom from financial stability, freedom from proven risk management, freedom to be bullied and bought by big agriculture. They are now freed from a guaranteed decent price on the global market.

Meanwhile, the Cons decided not to stay seated for the debate. Instead, David Anderson kicked off proceedings by hearkening back to the 1920s as his apparent ideal for agricultural marketing systems. Pat Martin again asked for any evidence whatsoever as to the anticipated impacts of demolishing the single desk, only to receive no answer even from the parliamentary secretary responsible. Alex Atamanenko and Frank Valeriote tested whether the Cons had paid any attention to the disastrous effects for farmers when the Australian Wheat Board was similarly torched. Atamanenko also criticized the replacement of an elected board of directors with a set of undemocratic political appointees. Wayne Easter wondered why the Cons were effectively taking the side of the U.S. and its agribusiness giants against Canadian farmers. Randy Hoback described what he would see as a fair voting process based on acres farmed, but didn't bother to explain why his party hadn't bothered to conduct that kind of plebiscite rather than overruling the only votes ever actually taken. Niki Ashton remarked on the helpful declaration by Gordon O'Connor that she could count on being attacked by the Board-bashers brought into Parliament by the Cons. And Alain Giguere pointed out that plenty of institutions beyond the Wheat Board itself stand to be affected by the Cons' attack.

But all the arguments in the world were ultimately for naught, as the Cons voted down any amendments (including the ones limited to preserving some semblance of democracy in the Wheat Board) and rammed through the bill.

Dumb on Crime 33 1/3: Too Dumb to Count

Meanwhile, some time was also taken debating David Wilks' bill to increase the mandatory minimum sentence for the kidnapping of a child by a stranger. Needless to say, the Cons' speeches didn't present the slightest justification for the bill other than their usual stream of declarations of (paraphrased for greater eloquence) "tough! good! criminals! bad! tough! good!". Jack Harris responded by imploring the Cons to take into account the exhortation to make good laws and wise decisions. Sean Casey nicely discussed the need for proportionality based on the facts of a particular case. And Jonathan Genest-Jourdain focused on prevention on the basis that the minimum sentence was nothing more than a sideshow.

In Brief

Peter Julian decried the Cons' environmental vandalism in reneging on Canada's commitment to the Kyoto Protocol and standing in the way of any meaningful replacement. Robert Aubin again pointed out the absurdity of the Cons' unfunded, unplanned and unfocused committee on French language rights in Quebec workplaces. Rodger Cuzner highlighted the disastrous results of Con neglect and austerity when it comes to processing EI claims. Anne Minh-Thu Quach questioned what Canada would have to show for billions in extra prescription drug costs based on CETA. Kennedy Stewart wondered why the Cons led the City of Calgary on for three years before declaring that recreation centres weren't eligible for P3 funding. Olivia Chow reiterated her call for legislation requiring side guards. Chris Charlton introduced a bill to bring Canada into compliance with an ILO convention against child labour by raising the minimum age requirement for workers, while Atamanenko proposed to allow conscientious objection to the use of tax dollars for military purposes. Linda Duncan asked the Cons to lift the 2% cap on aboriginal education funding. And Francois Lapointe asked an adjournment question about the opportunity to transition away from asbestos mining at a time when nobody is actually employed in the industry, only to receive an extra-long version of the Cons' greatest denial hits from Jacques Gourde.

Tuesday Morning Links

2012-01-31T07:36:00.004-06:00

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Kady points out that the Cons are back to their old tricks in trying to push as much committee work as possible behind closed doors.

- Susan Delacourt theorizes that the Cons are likely to use anger rather than fear as their basis for imposing cuts. I suspect the rhetoric will vary from issue to issue (and indeed the OAS message has been based squarely on the latter, echoing the Republican Social Security line that it's necessary to attack social programs in order to save them) - but it won't come as much surprise if the Cons' usual fabricated enemies are indeed on the receiving end of the worst of the slashing.

- The Ottawa Citizen recognizes that OAS is the wrong place to cut, while Andrew Jackson notes that Canadians in lower income groups aren't enjoying the lengthy retirements being cited by some as justification for raising the OAS eligibility age. Which means that when Brian Lee Crowley says "we" should all put off retirement, he doesn't have any interest in sharing the burden evenly with mere working stiffs. And indeed Crowley's entire column is an absolute howler to the effect that OAS somehow forces people to retire before they really want to.

- But if the Cons are confirming their desire to rob from the poor to give to the rich, then a few sources to highlight the gap such as economicinequality.ca should be an important addition to Canada's public debate.

- Finally, Christin Milloy points out an appalling regulation introduced by the Cons which would theoretically ban transgendered individuals from flying in Canada. Thankfully it doesn't seem to have been applied yet in practice - but if the best one can say for the Harper Cons is that nobody takes their bigoted and ill-advised decrees seriously, that's hardly a vote of confidence.

Leadership 2012 Roundup

2012-01-31T06:56:00.003-06:00

The NDP's leadership campaign has been relatively quiet in the day-plus since Sunday's debate as the resumption of Parliament offered other fodder for political discussion. But let's follow up on the debate and what has happened since then.

- Aaron Wherry live-blogged the debate, then rounded up debate reactions so the rest of us don't have to. [Update: And as a bonus, Aaron also profiles Brian Topp.]

- Barbara Yaffe suspects that the Cons' attacks on pensions will offer an ideal opportunity for the leadership candidates to start building awareness past the NDP's traditional membership. And Thomas Mulcair for one is taking up the opportunity.

- Peggy Nash unveiled endorsements from three Nova Scotia MLAs, signalling that her Atlantic strength goes beyond her early nod from Alexa McDonough.

- Tim Harper theorizes that Mulcair is ahead of the pack in his ability to step in immediately as leader of the opposition, while Lawrence Martin points to a Mulcair/Cullen combination as a strong base to work with.

- And finally, a few more candidates will be turning up on This Hour Has 22 Minutes tonight.

Parliament in Review: November 25, 2011

2012-01-30T20:19:00.004-06:00

Friday, November 25 saw the House of Commons debate two NDP ideas: one to allow for meaningful debate and consideration of legislation in Parliament, the other to give effect to a principle the Cons are looking to punt to a committee in the apparent hope that it'll never surface again. And not surprisingly, the combination gave rise to some rather jaw-dropping contradictions.

The Big Issue

Just guess which MP had this to say at one point in the day's proceedings:

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to hear the (member opposite) talk about wasting time. Taking a close look at an issue before making a decision is not wasting parliamentarians' time.

That would of course be...Maxime Bernier, telling NDP MP Pierre Nantel why the Cons are setting up a committee on what I'm sure is a never-before-studied question of language matters in Quebec (rather than supporting the NDP's bill to harmonize language requirements between the provincially- and federally-regulated sectors in Quebec). And yes, Jonathan Tremblay picked up on the Cons' sudden interest in delay as soon as anybody else's ideas were at stake.

But let's move back to the first motion of the day: Joe Comartin's proposal to amend or delete the time allocation rules being so merrily abused by the Cons:

That, in the opinion of the House, the thorough examination and debate of proposed legislation on behalf of Canadians is an essential duty of Members of Parliament, and that the curtailment of such debate limits the ability of Members to carry out this duty and constitutes an affront to Canadian democracy; and, therefore,

that the Speaker undertake a study and make recommendations to amend the Standing Orders with respect to closure and time allocation, such that: (i) a Minister would be required to provide justification for the request for such a curtailment of debate; (ii) the Speaker would be required to refuse such a request in the interest of protecting the duty of Members to examine legislation thoroughly, unless the government’s justification sufficiently outweighs the said duty; (iii) criteria would be set out for assessing the government’s justification, which would provide the Speaker with the basis for a decision to allow for the curtailment of debate;

that the Speaker report to the House no later than February 6, 2012;

that a motion to concur in the said report may be moved during Routine Proceedings, and that only when no Member rises to debate the motion, the Speaker shall interrupt any proceedings then before the House and put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the motion; and

if no motion to concur in the report has been previously moved and disposed of on the 20th sitting day following the presentation of the report, Standing Orders 57 and 78 shall be deemed to have been deleted.

Comartin also made clear that unlike the Cons, the NDP will be prepared to stand by its principles once it forms government. Charlie Angus and Jinny Sims commented on the contrast between a Westminster system based on the supremacy of Parliament and the Cons' message box politics, with Sims then setting Lois Brown straight as to what was actually decided in the May 2011 federal election. Sean Casey agreed with the NDP's concerns by pointing to Jay Hill's once-firm belief in the problems with closure, but Massimo Pacetti waffled as to his party's position on the actual motion.

Meanwhile, Colin Mayes tried to do math. Hilarity would have ensued if it hadn't been so painful - or been followed by Harold Albrecht claiming in short order that the use of accurate numbers was "manipulation".

Language Barriers

The other topic of debate was the NDP's private member's bill on French in federally-regulated Quebec workplaces. Robert Aubin described the bill as a concrete action based on the recognition of a Quebecois nation within a united Canada. Yvon Godin pointed out that the steps required to comply with the bill wouldn't be the least bit onerous for the businesses which fall under federal jurisdiction. And Matthew Dube noted that the result would simply be the type of harmonization between requirements from different levels of government that the Cons normally push at every opportunity.

Finally, Aubin wondered in question period whether there was any substance to the Cons' promise of a committee to deal with the subject - only to receive nothing but laugh lines from Bernier. And here's another one for the road:

As regards the legislation, our government always passes laws that are based on facts.

Once again, one could hardly ask for a more galling juxtaposition with the insistence that Canada be forced to accept dumb-on-crime legislation without debate or amendments.

In Brief

Isabelle Morin saluted Global Buy Nothing Day. Peter Julian lamented the Cons' push toward lower-quality jobs. Comartin wondered whether we'd ever see any accountability under the existing health care accord. Christine Moore and Matthew Kellway challenged the latest dodgy math on F-35s, this time wondering how plausible it was to suggest (as the Cons did) that we'll pay half what Norway does for the same planes. Jinny Sims asked why CIDA seemed more interested in photo ops than actual assistance under the Cons, only to be told by Brown that it's simply more focused in its efforts. Randall Garrison questioned the Cons' efforts to gum up the works when it comes to HIV/AIDS funding. Kennedy Stewart asked Joe Oliver to commit to government-to-government talks with First Nations on the Gateway pipeline, only to be told that Stephen Harper will be the decider once he's determined that he's tired of hearing from dissenting voices. And Irwin Cotler introduced a private member's bill to ensure all Canadian citizens receive their country's support abroad.

Monday Morning Links

2012-01-30T07:21:00.003-06:00

Assorted content to start your week.

- Susan Delacourt wonders whether the Cons plan to launch an attack on the environmental movement to match the schism which helped the Libs and the Bloc to divide up the Quebec political pie over sovereignty. But it's worth keeping in mind that even with multiple parties eager to keep the national question as the main point of contention, the polarization over sovereignty eventually collapsed - making for much of the reason why the NDP was able to emerge as a party which wasn't constantly seeking to reinforce the divide.

- Meanwhile, at least some federal officials are paying enough attention to know that the Cons' stubborn refusal to address greenhouse gas emissions from the tar sands is a serious problem both environmentally and economically.

- Lana Payne is the latest to note that citizen engagement is an absolute must in order to move past the Cons' cynical brand of top-down politics.

- The Star's editorial board notes that the Cons' dumb-on-crime approach is looking worse by the day as a strong majority of Canadians believe in prevention over the Cons' punishment-only approach.

- Finally, the discussion paper on the future of Canadian labour from the CAW and CEP is well worth a read. But lest anybody think there wasn't already some good news to report, CUPW can point to at least one finding that the Cons' back-to-work legislation last year was invalid in law.

Parliament in Review: November 24, 2011

2012-01-29T16:33:00.004-06:00

The main topic of debate in the House of Commons on Thursday, November 24 was again copyright - and once more, the Cons couldn't be bothered to try to defend their own legislation.

The Big Issue

But that left plenty of time for opposition speakers to raise the level of debate while pointing out that the Cons' choices figure to cause serious problems for creators and consumers alike. Marc-Andre Morin, Denis Blanchette, Helene Laverdiere and Francois Lapointe all noted that media conglomerates look to be the sole beneficiaries of a regime built around the supremacy of digital locks. Mylene Freeman noted that the new legislation would take us from a grey area as to consumer rights, to a black-and-white system where many seemingly ordinary activities would be criminalized. Mike Sullivan revisited the history of copyright, and particularly how the licensing-for-airplay model developed. Isabelle Morin expressed disbelief that the sentences the Cons want to impose for copyright violations are far more severe than those applicable to serious crimes. Charlie Angus discussed the dangers of locking down content, then noted that the Cons' attack on royalties amounts to taking away the capacity of many artists to earn a living. And Jonathan Tremblay raised the point that increased public reliance on electronic storage of information makes it all the more problematic for media giants to be able to control access.

Meanwhile, a couple of Cons did get involved in asking questions of NDP MPs. MP Joyce Bateman asked an eminently reasonable question about the plus side of providing for mandatory licensing for the perceptually disabled. But particularly considering their obstinate refusal to consider a levy-based model in general, one has to wonder whether the Cons would have met exactly the same response from an opposition party by alleging that the result is a "braille tax" (particularly since Mike Lake raised the "iPod tax" talking point yet again). And Brad Trost responded to Pat Martin's musing about allowing income averaging for artists in particular by locking onto the concept as a general means of cutting government revenue.

Trade-Offs

The other government bill discussed was C-14, dealing with the Agreement on Internal Trade. Lake deigned to speak to the content of the bill, but somehow dismissed Guy Caron's valid questions about the effect of the AIT as irrelevant to a bill designed to alter it. Caron then discussed the difference between desirable harmonization of standards and unacceptable intrusion on a province's ability to legislate in the interest of its citizens, while Dennis Bevington noted that northern regions are particularly vulnerable to having easy work skimmed off by outside bidders (leaving no local capacity to do needed work).

In Brief

Chris Charlton introduced one private member's bill to allow CPP claimants to receive arrears for more than the current limit of 11 months, and another to make public information about Stelco's acquisition by US Steel. Charlie Angus highlighted the information commissioner's warnings about the Cons' interference in access to what should be public information. Nycole Turmel raised a proposal for health-care discussions with the provinces which the Cons obviously decided to ignore, while Libby Davies wondered why no progress has been made on prescription drugs as promised when the last 10-year agreement was signed. Jack Harris pointed out that the lone source the Cons have pointed to in support of their train wreck of an omnibus crime bill had in fact criticized their heavy-headed approach. Alexandre Boulerice compared the patronage appointment of Jean-Pierre Blackburn to the history of Alfonso Gagliano and other Lib outrages. Yvon Godin questioned Con MP Bernard Valcourt's position that any worker without a grade 12 education should be ineligible for EI benefits. Joe Comartin called for the answer to the traditional Thursday scheduling question to be less politicized - to no avail based on Peter Van Loan's spin-heavy response. Leon Benoit introduced a motion on CCSVI treatment for MS, with Anne Minh-Thu Quach taking care to ensure any further action is based on evidence before indicating the NDP's agreement. Rathika Sitsabaiesan asked what the Cons are doing to try to rein in student debt, and was informed by Kellie Leitch that the plan is...to raise the amount of debt permitted under the federal student loan program. And John McKay questioned whether the Cons cared in the slightest about the rule of law when it came to the execution of Moammar Gadhafi - with Deepak Obhrai's response raising more questions than it answered.

Leadership 2012 Candidate Rankings - January 29, 2012

2012-01-29T15:02:00.004-06:00

With one exception, the NDP's Halifax leadership debate looks largely to have largely reinforced the previous positions of its leadership candidates. But there could be plenty more changes in store if a few developments from the debate hold up in the weeks to come.

1. Thomas Mulcair (1)

As the front-runner, Mulcair naturally took the most fire in the question-period format (which incidentally made for a highly worthwhile addition to the debate). And Mulcair's response to Paul Dewar - featuring both righteous indignation and substance without going over the top - offered a nice hint as to what we can expect when he faces outside challenges.

2. Peggy Nash (2)

The one problem for Nash in today's debate was that she followed up Mulcair's question to Nathan Cullen with a less-effective version of the same concern about his non-competition plan. But otherwise she again more than held her own on both content and style.

3. Brian Topp (3)

Topp has eliminated a few of the tics that made for difficult viewing in the first official debate, signalling some positive progress throughout the campaign. But perhaps the best gift he received today was Romeo Saganash's question about income taxes: where Saganash had positioned himself to Topp's left on a number of issues, the comparison between Saganash worrying what the Cons would say about income tax increases and Topp's response as to the need to win the argument in the general public made for an ideal moment to highlight Topp's central message.

4. Paul Dewar (4)

In the absence of any stumbles ahead of him Dewar doesn't move up the rankings this week. But he delivered a far more passionate English performance than we've seen from him in previous debates - and if he can keep that up in debates to come, he'll have a much better chance of convincing members the party can allow some time for him to develop his skill in French.

5. Romeo Saganash (5)

The flip side of the above comment on Topp is that Saganash may have missed out on a path which held out plenty of promise for him. And while I still see at least some available path for Saganash to emerge victorious, it figures to a much more complex route if he can't rely on "go left" to make room for himself.

6. Nathan Cullen (7)

Yes, Cullen once again showed far more humour than any of the other candidates in today's debate to go with at worst a draw in commanding the crowd. But the outside factor which may actually help him most is that his central proposal is becoming less and less plausible.

With plenty of (however inaccurate) headlines trumpeting a Lib revival, there doesn't seem to be much reason for leadership voters to see a willing partner for non-competition. And that may make it easier for members to evaluate Cullen on his personality and other policy proposals.

7. Niki Ashton (6)

Her drop in the rankings is more the result of another strong performance by Cullen than any problem with Ashton. But it's not clear she'll have much chance to move up if the rest of the campaign is largely framed around a debate format where she seems to be having trouble standing out from the crowd.

8. Martin Singh (8)

Once again, the big question for Singh is whether he's willing to move past his few areas of policy specialization toward more general discussions. And while he was plenty comfortable in front of a hometown crowd, he still stuck more to his areas of familiarity than he can afford to if he wants to overtake any of his competitors.

Sunday Morning Links

2012-01-29T09:59:00.005-06:00

This and that for your weekend reading.

- Stephen Maher reminds us that the Harper government now lecturing us about the need to attack social programs because of a federal deficit is the same incompetent group that caused the deficit in the first place through reckless tax slashing and vote-buying trinkets. But then, Bruce Johnstone points out that the cost of Old Age Security (which the Cons want to cut) is lower than that of similar programs in nearly any other comparable country, while Thomas Walkom also notes that cost of OAS can easily be met by a government which isn't determined to pull the rug out from under its citizens.

- Susan Delacourt points to Martin Goldfarb's observation about the state of the Cons (which doesn't look to have changed much in the past year):

Harper is still searching for the big idea that will establish his brand promise for himself and his Conservative party.... A series of attributes unconnected to a big idea, or a brand promise, will not attract people.

And presumably we'll see that change over the next few years as the Cons face both ample time in which to define themselves, and a primary opponent which doesn't lack a coherent vision of its own.

- And no, repetition of the word "major" doesn't figure to count - though it will likely signal what the Cons ultimately select. Meanwhile, putting trade above all else probably qualifies as a brand promise, but I'm not sure the Cons will want to have to defend it against an alternative based on individual equality.

- Finally, Rafe Mair tears into Joe Oliver over his contempt for anybody concerned about the Gateway pipeline, while Marc Lee documents the odious profits that look to be paired with environmental degradation as the two main effects of having it built.

Leadership 2012 Roundup

2012-01-28T17:32:00.002-06:00

In the lead-up to tomorrow's official debate in Halifax, the end of this week saw plenty of developments in the NDP leadership race - including both the familiar combination of endorsements, videos and policy releases from the campaigns themselves, and an increase in outside reporting that took coverage in a few perhaps-unexpected directions. So let's take a look at what's new.

At the outset, Abacus' first polling of the campaign received radically different interpretations in the media. But the key takeaway looks to be that experience as an MP hasn't translated into name recognition for the likes of Nathan Cullen and Niki Ashton, while Brian Topp's media blitz has managed to get him known as well as anybody else in the race. (Of course, that doesn't mean that familiarity necessarily translates into votes based on Forum's polling so far - and I wouldn't be surprised if Topp's warm and fuzzy family videos reflect an effort to close that gap before anybody else knew it existed.)

Meanwhile, Glen McGregor started a tempest in a teapot with his story about past donations to the NDP by the candidates.

As for the candidates themselves...

- Nathan Cullen released a food security plan. And he then highlighted his campaign's volunteer leaderboard - which may make for a means of motivating some types of supporters which the party will want to replicate in the future.

- Paul Dewar received two more MP endorsements and released a set of family policies which ambitiously seeks to build a more caring Canada.

- Thomas Mulcair unveiled the support of MP Ryan Cleary, adding another to his list of prominent Atlantic endorsers.

- Peggy Nash released a child care plan designed to pay for itself, while also receiving some positive press from Le Devoir.

- Romeo Saganash offered a reminder of the need to protect Canadian families from the Harper Cons' business-first agenda.

- Brian Topp released a family support policy including a national child nutrition program, while also taking some questions from Aaron Wherry.

- Finally, on the commentary side, Dr. Dawg wondered whether Topp's lack of a seat in Parliament should be seen as a major negative. Nelson Wiseman noted that the NDP's membership-driven approach means that we shouldn't expect leaders to be able to plan to dictate party policy to the same extent we'd anticipate from the Libs or Cons. Tim Harper highlighted Mulcair's message that the NDP has plenty more work to do to build strength in Quebec. And John Wunderlich released a well-received open letter on the factors he considers important in choosing the NDP's next leader.

On unequalization

2012-01-28T10:43:00.005-06:00

As usual, the Cons' latest attack on social programs - this time the Old Age Security which has played a key role in lifting Canadian seniors out of poverty - is supposedly based on some inescapable lack of fiscal capacity to provide a reasonable standard of living. But the truth is that there's a rather simple choice to be made as to what priorities to fund - and the Cons are squarely on the wrong side of it.

Let's consider the Harper spinmeisters' doomsday scenario as to what OAS might cost by 2030. The Cons' estimated total cost is about $108 billion. But based on Statistics Canada's medium-case demographic estimates, seniors ages 65 and 66 will make up only 11.5% of the total population aged 65 and up as of 2031.

So if OAS is relatively evenly applied across the age spectrum, the savings from pushing back the retirement age for Canadians in general will amount to 11.5% of $108 billion - or just over $12 billion per year.

At the same time, the Cons plan to push through general income splitting and increases to tax-free savings accounts. And those plans - targeted squarely at large-single-income households and those wealthy enough to have $10,000 to sock away every single year - will cost...just under $12 billion per year. And unlike the Cons' numbers for OAS, that's without taking into account any growth in the size of the tax base in the meantime.

So no, cutting the OAS by applying a higher retirement age isn't a matter of necessary fiscal prudence. Instead, it's half of a large-scale plan to redistribute wealth from those who make little enough to qualify for the OAS, to those who already have money to burn. And there's no way the Cons should be allowed to balance the budget on the backs of would-be retirees without answering for the fact that their goal is to hand that same money to those who need it least.

Update: Dave and Jymn have more.
[Edit: fixed wording.]

Saturday Morning Links

2012-01-28T09:01:00.002-06:00

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- The CCPA offers up a handy infographic on the diverging economic paths of the ever-wealthier 1% and the rest of Canadians.

- Once again, the Cons are claiming that nobody should take their own internal documents seriously - this time when it comes to the statement that the supposedly-neutral National Energy Board is an ally in ramming through the Gateway pipeline, while anybody interested in the environment is an enemy. But the good news is that the Cons' attacks have produced a much-needed counterweight as Canadians reinforce the environmental groups standing up to the oil industry and its Con puppets.

- pogge points out the latest example of Con transparency, as eight out of the first ten committee meetings following the return from a parliamentary break were pushed in camera to avoid allowing the public to know what its elected representatives are doing.

- Apparently the "mostly competent government" meme is set to fit just as well in Saskatchewan as on the federal level. Just this week, news broke about a helicopter ambulance program rendered useless by a lack of helipads. And then there's the outsourcing deal that will see SaskTel pay twice its internal cost of installation work to a B.C. contractor.

- Which is to say that even if the Wall government had any interest in dealing with skyrocketing housing costs and vanishing availability of rental units, we can rest assured that any "solution" would involve massive giveaways to the corporate sector which accomplish nothing.

- But then, it isn't just Saskatchewan's cities facing a massive housing crisis which is being utterly neglected by the levels of government which can afford to address it - as Judith Lavoie reports on the appalling conditions facing many First Nations reserves.

Musical interlude

2012-01-27T21:01:00.000-06:00

Delerium - Heaven's Earth (Key South Remix)

Friday Afternoon Links

2012-01-27T12:39:00.006-06:00

Assorted content to end your week.

- Jack Knox comments on how the rest of the world sees Canada under the Harper Cons:

A week after bleating about foreign radicals slowing the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal, you have to figure Joe Oliver just wishes he had kept his cakehole corked.

Instead of turning public opinion against the interference of well-heeled American environmentalists, Stephen Harper's natural resources minister succeeded mainly in A) awakening Canadians to the growing extent of Asian influence in the Alberta oil patch and B) alerting the rest of the world that the Canadian cowboy now wears a black hat.

When did the Americans sell us to China, Canadians asked.

When did Canada become a global bad boy, asked the foreign media.

- In "mostly competent government!" news, Jeffrey Simpson notes that the Cons are paying more "information officers" to release as little information as possible. Greg Weston questions the ongoing funding being thrown into supporting a public appointments commission which doesn't actually exist. And most importantly, the Cons are just now backtracking on months of assurances that they didn't need to think about alternatives to spending tens of billions of dollars on F-35s.

- Which is to say that Susan Riley is exactly right in observing that Harper's electoral success looks to be based largely on voters getting lulled to sleep.

- Stuart Trew updates us on the latest developments surrounding the CETA.

- Finally, Christine McLaughlin discusses the dangers of the Cons' bill to criminalize anonymous protesting.

On responsible management

2012-01-27T07:28:00.004-06:00

Tobi Cohen's report on fund-raising in the NDP's leadership race ends up serving largely as an analysis of Nathan Cullen's position and fund-raising to date due to his willingness to provide a donor list before it's required. (Which nicely signals the value of working with media on that type of story.)

But let's connect the dollar figures from the NDP's campaign to the ones involved in the last national leadership race.

As a starting point, the Libs' leadership candidates in 2006 ended their campaigns over $4 million in debt - meaning that their expenditures exceeded their campaign fund-raising by that amount.

For the NDP's contenders, that cumulative level of debt is simply impossible. The expense limits for the eight candidates would total $4 million if every candidate spent the maximum - which is itself a questionable assumption. But every dollar fund-raised reduces the amount of debt that could possibly be left. And Cullen's data looks like a useful data point on that front.

While I'm curious to see whether I've missed anything, I don't recall his campaign doing much on the fund-raising front that the other contenders haven't. And yet even at a stage of the race focused more on membership sales than fund-raising (which will of course change after next month's membership deadline), Cullen has managed to reach approximately a third of the total he could possibly be allowed to spend.

We can compare that number to the proportion of the Libs' ultimate expenses which they had raised by a later point in their 2006 leadership race, being the first mandatory reporting deadline 4 weeks before the vote. And the numbers show a couple of patterns which look to be radically different for the NDP's candidates.

First, the Libs' front-runners didn't have much trouble fund-raising from the start of the race, but ran into problems later due to their high spending totals. Michael Ignatieff had fund-raised over a million dollars by the first reporting period, but spent slightly over twice that for the campaign as a whole. Bob Rae raised just below a million, but spent about three times that. And likewise Gerard Kennedy, who raised just over $400,000 by the first reporting period, spent about three times that.

The pattern was relatively similar for the next tier of candidates. Martha Hall Findlay was only at about a quarter of her ultimate expense total; Ken Dryden was somewhat below the one-third threshold as of the first deadline and never got caught up; and Joe Volpe was just around the one-third level as well.

Meanwhile, Scott Brison had raised over half of his total expenditures by the first reporting deadline. And Hedy Fry, Maurizio Bevilacqua and Carolyn Bennett all dropped out of the race, with Bevilacqua the lone candidate to incur particularly large debts before doing so.

And then there was Stephane Dion. By the first reporting deadline, he had raised just over $270,000 - only to spend over seven times that in winning the race.

So what can we take from that comparison? Well, based on the NDP's spending limit Cullen is at a better place in terms of fund-raising his possible final spending total than any of the Libs' 2006 candidates except Brison in raw dollars, or Brison and Ignatieff in terms of percentages. And that's with another month left before the first reporting period used as the point of comparison for the Libs.

At the same time, based on the amount of money raised by the Libs' front-runners without seemingly breaking a sweat, there should be little doubt that the NDP's front-runners will have no trouble raising their total spending limit or more during the course of the campaign. (Though of course we'll have to confirm that when the first disclosures are made.) And unlike Ignatieff, Rae and Dion, the Mulcairs and Topps of the NDP's race won't be able to get into a multi-million dollar spending war that leaves them with debt despite strong early-campaign fund-raising.

So the NDP figures to see its front-runners easily cover their costs. And Cullen and anybody else fund-raising reasonably well from a trail position should also have relatively little trouble breaking even for the campaign period. What's more, even if a candidate somehow spends the maximum without raising a dime, the downside is roughly the average debt incurred by the Libs' candidates.

Now, none of the above should be a huge surprise based on the spending limit set by the NDP. But it's worth highlighting to show how the NDP's choice of rules nicely closed off any risk of having to spend years fund-raising to made up leadership debts - and Cullen's example suggests that the candidates themselves may be slightly ahead of even the pace we'd have expected based on that low-risk choice.

Thursday Evening Links

2012-01-26T20:47:00.003-06:00

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Andrew Jackson notes that the IMF is telling countries in Canada's position to hold off on gratuitous austerity. And Trish Hennessy wonders why so many Canadians seem to have forgotten what happened last time budget-slashing was in vogue.

- Meanwhile, Erin documents how Ontario's corporate tax giveaways have produced zero return in terms of investment. And Martin Regg Cohn wonders whether a government eager to take on bullying in schools and communities has any interest in applying the same principles when it's being pushed around by shameless corporate bullies.

- Kev notes that the Cons are giving away far more than they have to in order to complete a free trade deal with the European Union by comparing a similar deal being negotiated by India. But is there much evidence that the Cons aren't actively looking for excuses to, say, hand over another pile of free money to big pharma?

- Laura Ryckewaert points out how the NDP's planning in buying its headquarters has helped to position the party for the longer term. But I do think it's a bit speculative to suggest that the building will make a big difference in election financing: is there any evidence to suggest that any party has had any trouble securing loans for national party financing, with or without real estate to pledge as collateral?

- Finally, Greg Marchildon rightly argues that we should be looking to complete the final phase of Tommy Douglas' vision for health care - rather than looking for excuses to trash it as so many want to do.

Parliament in Review: November 23, 2011

2012-01-26T16:57:00.003-06:00

Wednesday, November 23 saw the last votes in the House of Commons on the dismantling of the single-desk Wheat Board. And to who thought there might be some suspense as to the Cons' determination to impose their agenda without listening to anybody, it's always great to welcome new readers.

The Big Issue

Of course, the passage of the Cons' Wheat Board bill started with Peter Van Loan's latest time allocation motion. Joe Comartin warned Van Loan that the NDP had plenty of material available to show the Cons once considered exactly that type of action to be profoundly antidemocratic, and Niki Ashton, Alexandrine Latendresse, Matthew Kellway and Pierre-Luc Dusseault made good on the promise.

Meanwhile, Scott Simms managed to get Gerry Ritz to admit that at least one other single-desk marketer is on the chopping block. And Garry Breitkreuz argued that the fact he's been telling constituents that the Cons planned to ram through the bill immediately and without debate somehow served as reason for them to go ahead and do so.

Once debate resumed on the bill proper, Lynne Yelich broke the Cons' streak from the previous couple of days by deigning to speak in favour of the Wheat Board bill. But she may also have proven why the Cons are less than eager to bother, as Ralph Goodale pointed out that the position of processors that they expect better prices in the absence of a single-desk Wheat Board can only mean that less money is going to farmers. Niki Ashton highlighted the total lack of study and planning as to the actual effects of torching the single desk. And Don Davies called for the Cons to let farmers decide whether they support the bill.

But sadly, the Cons rammed through motion and the unamended bill.

Consider the Source

Kirsty Duncan cited both a departmental briefing note to Peter Kent and his own written submission in response to a question as evidence that there was no duplication in ozone monitoring to be cut - only to be informed by Kent that she should "use more reliable research". Which led in turn to this before Duncan was cut off by Andrew Scheer for reasons not apparent:

Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of the Environment a question and cited a response to an order paper question signed by the minister himself. The minister's response was that I should use more reliable sources. The minister's answer suggests that the minister's order paper response is wrong and has misled the House.

To give him the benefit of the doubt, I suppose the minister either misled the House in his order paper response or he is misleading the House now--

And that wasn't the only odd intervention by Scheer, who also responded to a point of order about a blatant breach of privilege by Gordon O'Connor by commenting that he agreed with a later point by Ed Holder about the behaviour of visitors.

In Brief

Don Davies and Chris Charlton both raised the desperate need to alleviate poverty in members' statements, while Jean Crowder followed up in question period. Elaine Michaud noted that concerns about the appointment of a unilingual Auditor General extended to at least a couple of prominent Cons. Nycole Turmel and Jack Harris challenged the Cons to provide some evidence that their dumb-on-crime plan would accomplish anything. Olivia Chow wondered about the rationale for slashing airline safety inspections while spending millions on little-used jets. Scott Brison nicely questioned the Cons' stimulus priorities:

How could the Conservatives use GPS to track action plan signs and not bother to track how many jobs were created?

Laurin Liu questioned the Cons' lack of interest in investing in clean energy, while Megan Leslie pointed out the consequences of dirty oil when it comes to trading partners' perceptions of Canada. Francois Lapointe noted that not a single employee is currently being paid to mine asbestos in Canada, and wondered why the Cons continue to shill for the industry rather than looking for alternatives for workers. Carol Hughes introduced a bill to establish medals for military service during the Cold War, while Davies followed with a proposal to extend voting hours in federal elections. Francis Scarpaleggia spoke to his bill on water exports - with a particularly odd intervention seeing an objection to Elizabeth May's request to co-second the bill, while the Cons managed to find excuses to oppose action to prevent bulk water exports. And Sean Casey presented a petition calling for all junk mail to be made out of hemp paper.

New column day

2012-01-26T07:36:00.003-06:00

Following up on this morning's roundup, I comment here on how the NDP's group of leadership candidates includes loads of possibilities to take up Jack Layton's mantle of negotiation and cooperation.

As a brief bit of further reading, it was Dan Gardner who asked whether Stephen Harper had ever engaged in serious negotiations with parties outside his government. And it doesn't look like anybody had a single example to suggest.

Finally, for anybody interested in finding out more about the NDP's leadership candidates, the candidates' sites are accessible through my reference page among other sources.

Leadership 2012 Roundup

2012-01-26T07:04:00.002-06:00

Yes, Alice comes as close as one can to distilling the entire NDP leadership race into a single post. But there's still plenty going on as the field becomes official - so let's take a look at what's new over the past couple of days.

- Niki Ashton released a statement on foreign policy, calling in particular for the fight against poverty to be Canada's top priority around the globe.

- Nathan Cullen announced that he'll be taking time during the campaign to present at the Gateway pipeline project review panel in February.

- Paul Dewar added Maher Arar to his list of endorsements focused on human rights, while also presenting a plan for public service employment.

- Peggy Nash unveiled several more labour endorsements, while also earning Bill Tieleman's nod.

- And Romeo Saganash responded to this week's First Nations summit by pointing out the need for trust in relations between aboriginal groups and Canada's federal government.

- In more general news, last night's forum in Montreal drew five candidates, along with coverage from Anja Karadeglija and Les Perreaux. ENDProhibition released candidate responses to its questions about drug policy - with Saganash standing out in calling for "full legalization, regulation and taxation" of marijuana. And Ish Theilheimer collected explanations from key endorsers for five of the candidates.

Wednesday Afternoon Links

2012-01-25T12:20:00.004-06:00

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Nycole Turmel offers a reminder that we shouldn't allow the Cons and their proxies to distract anybody with shiny objects when they're so obviously wrong on the core issues facing the country:

In taking aim at the Conservatives’ priorities, Ms. Turmel criticized Mr. Harper for his seeming preoccupation with MPs’ lucrative pension plans rather than ensuring secure pensions for all Canadians.

“He thinks the most pressing issue right now is MPs’ pension, not the retirement security of millions of Canadians,” she charged. “Maybe it’s because I’m a long, long way from having an MP pension. But I’m here to fight for better pensions for all Canadians.”
...
As part of the government’s search for cuts in government spending – the Harper Conservatives have vowed to find $4-billion in annual savings – Treasury Board President Tony Clement has said that reforms to the MP pension plan are on the table. In fact, Mr. Clement has suggested there are no sacred cows and everything is being considered for the cuts.

Ms. Turmel’s argument – and that of her party – is that this simply a smokescreen to avoid dealing with issues such as helping Canadian families.
...
The Prime Minister recently dropped a 10-year health-care accord on the laps of premiers – saying take-it-or-leave-it.

Ms. Turmel called out Mr. Harper for again failing to show leadership on this file – and offered the premiers to join with the NDP as partners on fighting for good health care for all Canadians.

“We are New Democrats ... we will not let our health care wither and die,” she said.

- Terry Milewski points out that Stephen Harper's talking points from the free-market playbook are now out of place even among the elite gathered in Davos - meaning that they're even further from the reality actually facing most Canadians.

- The Canadian Labour Congress highlights a Corporate Tax Freedom Day as of February 1. And reporting on the same study, Elizabeth Thompson takes note of the fact that corporate tax cuts have led to massive piles of hoarded capital rather than the investment that's been promised.

- And finally, Ryan Cleary suggests that the viability of seal products should be measured based on market demand rather than a stubborn insistence on preserving the hunt. Predictably, the result is a wave of attacks from the Harper Cons, and zero defence from any free-marketeers.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

2012-01-24T21:05:00.003-06:00

Rugged cats.

On consistent distortions

2012-01-24T17:18:00.004-06:00

Of course, we shouldn't be spending too much time watching polls four years away from the next federal election campaign in the first place. But is it really too much to suggest that an eight point drop for the governing party and a near-total lack of movement get reflected in the headlines, rather than having two separate outlets put together equally-overwrought declarations that NDP movement within the margin of error is the end of the world?

On distorted outcomes

2012-01-24T12:24:00.008-06:00

Having apparently decided that two levels of government and the health systems under their control (along with multiple propaganda tanks funded by who-knows-how-much-money contributed by we're-probably-not-even-allowed-to-ask) make for an insufficient number of mouthpieces for health-care privatization, Murray Mandryk continues to take on the role for himself. But let's see what's missing from both his latest column, and the health-care debate generally.

To start off with, I'll note that the primary care clinic touted by Mandryk today is rather less offensive than some of the other, more corporate-controlled facilities which he's so eagerly lumped together as "innovation!".

As I noted in this column, though, any effort to actually test the relative efficiency of the private and public sectors should involve some basis for a fair comparison between the two. But instead, it's hard to imagine a more distorted set of incentives than the one pushing all parties toward leaving the new clinic to private physicians.

After all, in setting up a separate clinic, the health professionals involved can count on a reliable source of patients whose treatment can be billed under the provincial health insurance plan - representing a nearly-guaranteed flow of new funding for the structure that allows for private profit. And the proximity to a publicly-funded facility to deal with tougher cases who are more trouble than they're worth from a profit standpoint is an added bonus.

But if the Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region were to set up a publicly-administered community clinic to carry out exactly the same tasks, it would receive...not a dime from the provincial government beyond its existing funding envelope. Which means that *given a lack of willingness to consider publicly-administered options*, the best the health region can hope for is to push as many patients as possible toward private clinics to reduce its own backlog.

And that's a shame, because it's entirely plausible that the health region could do better managing a clinic and integrating it into our broader health-care needs if it received an equal amount of funding to do so. But the odds of that happening are of course zero.

In other words, the reason why a private clinic carries any particular appeal is that our system makes additional direct funding available for privately-delivered medicine, but not for publicly-delivered medicine. And while I'll readily acknowledge that the overall system has been in place under governments of different stripes, the Saskatchewan Party's obsession with privatizing as much as possible and refusing to fund public facilities looks to be making matters far worse.

Once again, then, the push for a private clinic to reduce ER times suggests less that privatization is the right answer than that the Saskatchewan Party won't accept any other answer. And citizens should expect better, rather than buying the Wall spin that "innovation" means moving as much care as possible toward private delivery.

[Edit: clarified wording.]

Leadership 2012 Roundup

2012-01-24T07:05:00.002-06:00

A quick look at just a couple more days of developments in the NDP's leadership race...

- Niki Ashton proposed an increase in immigration, particularly when it comes to family reunification.

- Paul Dewar challenged Thomas Mulcair to take a position on bulk water exports, provoking at least somewhat of a contentious exchange between various camps.

- Meanwhile, Mulcair released a plan on women's equality to ensure equal representation on the boards of public institutions and push toward the same end in the private sector. And tonight he'll appear on This Hour Has 22 Minutes in a sure sign that the leadership campaign is starting to sink in with the general public.

- Peggy Nash put to rest any doubt about her ability to rally a crowd in a post-protest speech in London.

- Finally, Brian Topp unveiled the endorsement of Bill Siksay - a notable addition to the extent it goes beyond the perceived NDP establishment to include an MP who was disciplined by Jack Layton for not going along with a vote for a Con crime bill. And Topp also made the point that the NDP shouldn't want to copy the Cons' voter suppression - though that would seem to make for a fairly obvious contrast to the extent limited turnout is seen to benefit right-wing parties.

- On the commentary side, Tim Harper compared the NDP's campaign to the Republican presidential primaries - and it's indeed worth noting that we have much less data to work with in analyzing the NDP's race than pollsters and pundits can sift through in the latter. And Joel French offered more thoughts on three candidates who made recent appearances in Edmonton.

Parliament in Review: November 22, 2011

2012-01-23T20:54:00.003-06:00

Tuesday, November 22 saw the Cons' refusal to debate their own government bills reach absurd levels, as Con MPs spent more time arguing against a single opposition private member's bill than they did defending some of their supposed key priorities.

The Big Issue

But then, one can hardly blame the Cons for having been distracted, as the Auditor General's report gave the opposition parties plenty of material for question period. Peter Julian pointed out the utter lack of any evidence that the Cons' much-advertised economic plan actually accomplished anything, then noted that even basic management skills involve at least some element of setting and measuring goals which the Cons completely overlooked. And Alexandre Boulerice highlighted what may be the defining feature of the Cons' government:

(T)he Auditor General's report has confirmed what the NDP has been saying for quite some time. The Conservatives have a habit of being opaque. They ignore evidence, reject the advice of experts and are not accountable to Canadians. The Auditor General said “that poor information is a widespread, chronic problem in the federal government.”

Meanwhile, John McCallum presented a grab bag of critical AG quotes. Hedy Fry and Libby Davies pointed out the failure of Health Canada to act on drug safety issues. Christine Moore criticized an evidence-free military-industrial complex. And Malcolm Allen observed that a program intended to cut down on tobacco farming had actually boosted production at a cost of $300 million.

Silent Treatment

Two government bills were up for debate. And in both cases, the Cons couldn't be bothered to actually speak up for their own legislation - a point which Mike Sullivan and Irene Mathyssen made explicitly. But the good news is that the Cons' choice not to spout talking points left plenty of time for substantive discussion of both issues.

On Senate reform, the NDP's main theme - discussed by Francois Pilon and Glenn Thibeault - was that there's a relatively easy means available to limit the cost and damage that the Senate can do as matters stand now. Here's Thibeault:

I recall one of my constituents, Craig, telling me that he did not support a triple-E Senate. He supported a single-E Senate, and that single E stands for empty.

Pilon also noted that the Cons' plan looks to have been designed to make senators accountable to nobody before being handed massive pensions at a time when MPs' own pensions are in the spotlight. Denis Blanchette observed that Senate elections held concurrently with provincial or municipal elections to save money could result in exactly the type of voter confusion the Cons seem to want to encourage. Claude Gravelle highlighted the Senate's sad legacy of bagmanship which the Harper Cons have taken to new lows, while Marc-Andre Morin mused about its other function as a recycling ground for failed Con candidates. Pierre Dionne Labelle worried that the couple of bills passed by actual elected representatives which have already been shredded by unelected Cons may only be the tip of the iceberg, while Claude Gravelle wondered whether asbestos could be the next issue to see an unelected body block a bill which could win majority support in the House of Commons. Elizabeth May went into law wonk mode in noting the mushy language intended to allow prime ministers to ignore the results of any Senate election. Alex Atamanenko mused about how the Senate could be somewhat less of a blight if it wasn't so blatantly abused for partisan purposes. Andre Bellavance made clear that the Bloc is fully onside for Senate abolition. And Fin Donnelly worried about the unintended consequences likely to come from a partially-elected body facing even more questions about its legitimacy than the Senate already does.

On copyright, honours for the line of the day went to Olivia Chow:

It will be illegal to remove a lock, even if done so for a lawful purpose. If someone locks himself or herself out of the house, we do not drag them off to jail for trying to enter his or her locked property; why should digital property be any different?

Meanwhile, Rathika Sitsabaiesan also pointed out the Cons' obsession with locks and prisons. Peter Julian contrasted the NDP's call for constructive engagement against the Cons' utter refusal to listen to anybody other than their own spinners. Scott Simms answered the Cons' usual blather about how the right time for debate is anytime but the present by pointing out that a second-reading vote would prevent any significant changes in principle. Elizabeth May looked at the positive in the bill while pointing out the desperate need for amendment when it came to digital locks. Matthew Dube expressed concern about the bill's impact on libraries. And Kennedy Stewart drew a comparison to Mulroney-era patent reforms which made loads of money for big pharma without doing any good for most Canadians.

In Brief

Nycole Turmel called for public input into the future of health care funding just before Harper decided to rule out any such possibility. Megan Leslie wondered when the Environment Minister would notice that his government is doing nothing but harm on his assigned file, while Laurin Liu pointed out the economic risks of being a laggard on climate change. Marie-Claude Morin used National Housing Day to highlight the Cons' failings on the issue, only to be met with the response that 1.5 million Canadians with inadequate housing should be satisfied knowing that one percent of that number of residents received renovation tax credits for their existing homes. Peter Van Loan announced the latest time allocation motion, this on the single-desk Wheat Board demolition bill. Denis Coderre spoke to his bill to improve some EI benefits, only to be instructed by Mike Wallace that opposition parties should stick to presenting non-binding motions rather than bothering to try to improve legislation. Brian Storseth pretended that his bill to attack protections against hate speech was something other than a top-down, Harper-approved initiative, while Francoise Boivin noted the problems with the bill. Jamie Nicholls questioned why successive Con ministers responsible for infrastructure have all failed to show any interest in planning past the next media cycle. Malcolm Allen reiterated the need for a stronger CPP as the base of Canada's retirement system. And Francois Lapointe called out Con MPs who oppose asbestos exports for their cowardice in sticking to the party line.

Monday Morning Links

2012-01-23T07:17:00.002-06:00

Assorted content to start your week.

- Erin nicely challenges Brad Wall's efforts to tilt the playing field against poorer provinces when it comes to Employment Insurance and equalization.

- But I'm not sure we can expect much change to EI in any event. After all, as Dr. Dawg notes, the current Harper-created financing board may be the ultimate non-functioning public agency to reflect the Cons' inclination toward ineffective government.

- Philip Boffey points out that the source of the U.S.' disproportionate health-care costs is precisely its reliance on market pricing that so many are eager to introduce in Canada. And Tom Tomorrow rightly notes that the U.S. health-care system isn't lacking for Wall-style innovation.

- David Akin points out a striking correlation between voting locations and outcomes.

- Finally, Daniel Lick theorizes that Canada spends roughly twice as much on corporate welfare as direct social welfare.

Parliament in Review: November 21, 2011

2012-01-22T15:55:00.002-06:00

Monday, November 21 featured the final day of debate on the Harper Cons' omnibus budget bill.

The Big Issue

Not surprisingly, the final day of debate on budget legislation gave rise to plenty of clash, with Peter Julian offering up the best summary of the contrasting positions:

What the Conservatives are saying is that the tens of thousands of seniors living in poverty in the country need to continue living in poverty because it wants to bring in more corporate tax cuts. It is saying to the one million Canadians who rely on food banks just to get through the month that they will need to keep going to food banks because it wants to bring in more corporate tax cuts. It is saying to the 72,000 Canadians who lost full-time jobs in the month of October, almost half of whom will not have access to employment insurance, that it needs to cut their benefits so that it can bring in this further corporate tax cut.
...
It is the middle-class and poor Canadian families who are paying the price for the government's irresponsible attitude when it comes to fiscal policy in the country.

Julian likewise contrasted continued tax giveaways to the corporate sector against the Cons' imposition of austerity on actual citizens, while Wayne Marston added up the cumulative effect of Lib and Con corporate tax cuts over the course of over a decade. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet and Alain Giguere noted that the Cons' gratuitous cuts are turning Canada toward the Greek Syndrome that the government is supposedly trying to avoid. Scott Brison criticized the Cons' tax credits for being targeted to avoid anybody who actually needs help, while Alain Giguere added that needlessly complex application processes will keep hundreds of thousands of seniors from receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement. Kirsty Duncan proposed children's nutrition funding as a far better investment than the Cons' trinkets and baubles. Alexandre Boulerice pointed out that even the IMF has recognized inequality as a serious issue that demands action, while lamenting the Cons' focus on short-term political interests rather than long-term planning. Marston and Francois Choquette pointed out that a job creation tax credit would do far more for Canadian workers than the Cons' unfocused tax hacking. Marston also called for a boost to the Canada Pension Plan, while noting that the Cons chose not to bother when there was plenty of provincial demand for action. Raymond Cote rightly criticized the Cons' now-defunct transit tax credit as having been utterly useless when it came to actually providing transit, and suggested that we shouldn't turning our economy over to the Gordon Gekkos of the world. Nycole Turmel suggested that the Cons pair their new regulatory requirements with desperately-needed investment in infrastructure. And Jean Crowder pointed out that the Cons' "jobs! jobs! jobs!" spin is far from a full answer to economic issues when the jobs actually created aren't enough to keep a worker or family out of grinding poverty.

For the Cons, Colin Mayes honestly seemed to think Julian would be able to do nothing but proclaim the Cons' brilliance in mentioning their softwood lumber sellout - only to be met with the reality of 50,000 lost forestry jobs as a result. Royal Galipeau made it clear that as far as he's concerned, Canadians should expect to fend for themselves. And Cheryl Gallant delivered a remarkable paean to the hundreds of millions of dollars the Cons have thrown into AECL even while selling it off.

Finally, Elizabeth May attempted one last time to challenge the Cons' choice to attack per-vote funding rather than exceedingly generous donation tax credits that disproprotionately help the Cons, only to be told by Randy Hoback that it had been decreed thus from on high - and in keeping with that theme, the bill passed at third reading.

Tomorrow's News Today

Once again, the NDP identified a significant story months before the media seems to have caught on, as Jasbir Sandhu and Sylvain Chicoine both questioned the politicization of RCMP communications months before the story found its way into the press. But in fairness, I'm sure plenty of media observers were once again too busy writing about how little they've seen from the NDP opposition to notice what was actually happening.

In Brief

Helene Laverdiere wondered whether the Cons' call for strong action against Syria would include any limitations on the business done there by Suncor - and Bob Dechert's answer strongly suggested otherwise. Peter MacKay answered a question from John McKay by stating that there's no expectation of reaching initial operating capability with F-35s anytime before 2020 - calling into question why there wouldn't be time to properly consider Canada's options before then. Don Davies introduced a bill to remove federal sales taxes on energy-efficient products. Dan Harris provided a few current cabinet ministers' greatest hits decrying closure and time allocation under past governments before they became Canada's leading offenders in that department. Ruth Ellen Brosseau highlighted the increase in food bank use under the Cons. Andrew Scheer issued his ruling on the Cons' refusal to respect judicial independence, choosing to punt the issue back to committee rather than addressing the problem. Tyrone Benskin called for the Cons to recognize the value of crime prevention rather than focusing stubbornly on punishment, while Francis Scarpaleggia questioned whether officials from municipalities who can't afford new wastewater requirements might be joining the new crowd in Canadian prisons. Peter Stoffer spoke to his private member's bill to stop pension clawbacks for Canadian veterans. Tarik Brahmi tried again to get some answers about the Cons' failure to do anything to rein in credit-card gauging, only to be told by Eve Adams that tax slashing for the wealthy is basically the same thing as consumer protection. Charlie Angus and Alexandre Boulerice questioned some of the new revelations about Tony Clement's G8 porkfest. Anne Minh-Thu Quach wondered why the Cons chose to have health funding studied by unelected non-representatives in the Senate rather than a Commons committee. Justin Trudeau tested whether Peter Kent would go off message long enough to demonstrate basic knowledge about ozone issues; needless to say, Kent failed miserably. Julian suggested the Cons stop asking Canadians to play retirement roulette. And Turmel called out the Cons for forcing the provinces to pay the price for so many of their policies.

Leadership 2012 Candidate Rankings - January 22, 2012

2012-01-22T13:34:00.004-06:00

For all that's happened over the past week, the ultimate result has been largely to confirm the relative placement that the NDP's leadership candidates have faced all along. And in cutting through the increasing volume of activity, this week's rankings look to be drifting back toward the first set of candidate perceptions from November - with the exception of one key development that seems to have been confirmed over the last week.

1. Thomas Mulcair (1)

Lest there be any doubt, an outburst of media kvetching over Mulcair's dual citizenship doesn't figure to affect his standing within the leadership race - and indeed, the prospect of outside attacks may be just what he needs to get other candidates' supporters working in his defence. But it's somewhat more worrisome for Mulcair that at least one competitor has somewhat validated the concern for NDP members by echoing the theme.

2. Peggy Nash (2)

Because of the need to discount for her home-field advantage, I couldn't see Nash's debate performance as hugely improving her position. But she did more than enough to maintain her position as the most likely challenger to Mulcair on a final ballot.

3. Brian Topp (4)

This week nicely encapsulated the entire campaign for Topp. His debate performance was strong in substance but lacking in audience engagement; he pulled off an effective policy release that doesn't seem likely to advance his cause all that much; and he unveiled a couple of big-name endorsements, but in the process raised questions as to whether he's reached anybody beyond his pool of immediate colleagues. But he does still climb in the rankings thanks to...

4. Paul Dewar (3)

The main question for Dewar remains his ability to communicate in French. And his Toronto forum performance wasn't a positive sign on that front, as the outcome of what was supposed to have been a concerted effort to improve in his second language over the holiday break came up wanting. At best, one might theorize that more frequent debates will ultimately help Dewar find his sea legs - but it has to be worrisome for a candidate's best hope to involve getting comfortable in a language during the home stretch of a leadership campaign.

5. Romeo Saganash (6)

In terms of visible organization, Saganash would rank a couple of spots below this. But he's put in some highly visible work to get in front of audiences beyond his core supporters - and as long as he's within shouting distance of the candidates below him for organizational strength, Saganash's resume and personal story still figure to give him the upper hand.

6. Niki Ashton (5)

Ashton didn't stand out from the crowd this past week as she did in the first official debate. And at this stage of the campaign, she can't afford to blend into the background.

7. Nathan Cullen (7)

Yes, his new caucus endorsements help. But it's still an open question as to where Cullen can possibly accumulate later-ballot support - and the Toronto response to his cooperation proposal signals that there's still plenty of concern about his primary message.

8. Martin Singh (8)

One final note that I didn't include about the Toronto forum was that Singh's performance was much improved from the first official debate: rather than sticking as carefully to his chosen themes he engaged with the other candidates on a variety of issues, and he seems to have received a positive response in doing so. Which still leaves him a long way from contention, but raises the possibility that he could assemble enough later-ballot support to play a major role at the convention.

[Edit: fixed formatting.]

Parliament in Review: November 18, 2011

2012-01-22T10:25:00.004-06:00

Friday, November 18 saw two pieces of legislation discussed. And the contrast couldn't have been much more stark between an opposition effort to develop better legislation, and a government focused on nothing more than sticking to talking points regardless of whether they made the slightest sense in context.

The Big Issue

The main topic of discussion was the Canadian Wheat Board, including debate on the opposition's amendments to at least eliminate the Cons' plan to take a wrecking ball to the elected board of directors. But predictably, the Cons offered no defence of those particular provisions - stubbornly repeating their "delay" talking point even though the bill would obviously take no longer to pass amended than unamended.

Meanwhile, Robert Sopuck's speech deserves special note as an example of a Con deliberately pretending that everything that led to his election never happened. Sopuck won his seat based in part on his firm statement that the Wheat Board should be defended - only to use his opportunity to stand up for his riding by doing nothing but spouting the same anti-Wheat Board talking points we've heard dozens of times before, including by saying that voters had already decided the issue by electing him.

Needless to say, Pat Martin eagerly pointed out the fact that plenty of western voters had taken the Cons at their word that the Wheat Board wouldn't be torn down without some opportunity to be heard, while Don Davies discussed his grandfather who was both a Conservative voter and staunch defender of the Wheat Board. Anne-Marie Day criticized the Cons' trampling of a democratically-operated institution in favour of direct political appointments and silencing affected parties, while Claude Gravelle wondered why the Cons are so eager to take Canada's farmers for granted. And Wayne Easter noted that the single-desk Wheat Board is highly efficient compared to other marketing mechanisms while also returning all surpluses to farmers (at least until the Cons decreed otherwise), while also noted that the same "producer freedom" arguments repeated ad nauseum when it comes to the Wheat Board would apply with equal force to supply management which the Cons plan to maintain.

Flag Football

The other bill debated was the Cons' first foray into literal flag-waving, as John Carmichael spoke to his private member's bill to make it a criminal offence to limit the flying of the Canadian flag. Tyrone Benskin and Guy Caron raised concerns about the heavy-handed punishment included in the bill. Scott Simms wondered whether Carmichael's bill might have served as a means to prosecute Danny Williams in the course of his anti-Harper protests. And Royal Galipeau asked a cryptic question about "civil society organizations that receive public subsidies, money from Canadian taxpayers, and refuse to fly the Canadian flag" - signalling that explicit loyalty tests may be coming in the relatively near future if he has his way.

Evolving Traditions

Lib MP Mauril Belanger made a novel request, asking that Gerald Keddy table an iPad which he had referred to in answering a question. And at the very least Keddy was willing to table the text he was referring to - meaning that the Cons aren't yet using advances in technology as an excuse to completely negate all historical disclosure obligations.

In Brief

Jack Harris and Helene Laverdiere both praised the Cons for taking at least one step to allow for proper debate and analysis of C-10, only to be met with a response that they had no interest in doing anything more. Rosane Dore Lefebvre questioned the Cons' reliance on risky and inequitable voluntary savings programs - only to receive a response from Shelly Glover highlighting the riskiest and least equitable choices the Cons have made. Francoise Boivin and Alexandrine Latendresse challenged the Cons' attacks on pay equity. Glenn Thibeault noted that a voluntary consumer protection system (which the Cons chose in favour of actual regulation) is falling apart as TD Bank pulled its previous participation. Jason Kenney demonstrated that his math tutoring from Jim Flaherty is going about as well as could be expected. Claude Gravelle asked when the Cons would bother to proclaim their long-promised emission reduction regulations for the oil sands, only to be told that the Cons don't believe anybody should even ask the question. Ryan Cleary pressed the Cons on increasing EI processing times which keep money out of the hands of workers when they need it most. Jean Crowder and Anne-Marie Day challenged the Cons to do something about poverty. And Randall Garrison questioned why the Cons are withholding funding needed to restore rail service on Vancouver Island.

Sunday Morning Links

2012-01-22T09:15:00.004-06:00

Miscellaneous material to end your weekend.

- As Thomas Walkom notes, it's an open question as to who will take up the cause of defending universal public health care in Canada - but easy to figure out who poses the greatest threat to it:

Writing in The Globe and Mail this week, political scientist Flanagan attacked the very idea of Ottawa spending money in areas of provincial jurisdiction like health. He lauded Harper for moving “incrementally” towards a more classic form of federalism, where aberrations such as national medicare would not exist.

Programs like medicare, Flanagan wrote, “create the illusion for both levels of government that they are spending something less than 100-cent dollars” and thereby lead to more debt.

All of this suggests we are in for a grim few years on the health-care front.

Don’t expect the Harper government to attack medicare directly. It’s too popular with voters.

But what we can expect is a hands-off approach from Ottawa, which, when coupled with federal transfer cutbacks, will encourage cash-strapped provinces to search for more privately funded alternatives — from user fees to private-pay clinics.

- I for one can't imagine how placing a national police force under the strict political control of a government could possibly go wrong.

- Nancy Macdonald rightly points out that the largest questions about the Gateway pipeline are being raised by First Nations in B.C. - not the foreign boogeymen being invented by the Harper Cons. But we should fully expect that the Cons will try to tie the historical occupants of the land into their spin about unworthy interlopers.

- Meanwhile, it's becoming glaringly clear who views a government which exists primarily in service of the tar sands as a enemy - and which dubious characters see that as the definition of an ally.

- And Andrew Nikiforuk highlights one of the dirty truths about the oil industry, as it provides a woefully small number of jobs for the amount of GDP generated - with the Keystone XL pipeline only figuring to make matters worse:

(For the record, the oil industry is not a jobs machine. It is the world's most capital-intensive industry and earns more than 10 per cent of the world's GDP. But it only employs less than one tenth of one per cent of the world's workers. In Canada it accounts for but 1.8 per cent of the workforce.)

No matter. TransCanada's immodest economic models, for example, piped out job estimates 13 times greater (199,000) than those done by U.S. State Department (5,000 to 8,000) over a three- year period.

A 2011 Cornell University Global Labor Institute report crunched the numbers too and revealed that the project's construction would inject no more than $4-billion into the U.S. economy and only create between 2,500 and 4,650 jobs.

Unlike Canadian Tories, the Cornell study pointed out that the pipeline, by exporting raw bitumen to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries, would steal good jobs from Canada. Every time Canada exports 400,000 barrels of raw bitumen, economists calculate that the nation sends approximately 18,000 upgrading and refining jobs abroad and reduces Canada's GDP by 0.2 per cent.

- Sixth Estate documents how the Cons have sent every important report generated under their government down the memory hole.

- Finally, Andrew Jackson points out that the roots of inequality are largely political rather than a matter of inherent economic structure - no matter how feverishly some corporate apologists are working to pretend otherwise.

Leadership 2012 Roundup

2012-01-21T17:40:00.003-06:00

Yes, we're at the point in the campaign where we can't go a couple of days without plenty of developments - even in the absence of formal debates or other major events. So let's take a look at how the week ended on the campaign trail.

- Niki Ashton received a glowing review (if not quite an endorsement) from Joe Comartin in the course of a visit to Windsor - while also drawing what may be a noteworthy contrast to Thomas Mulcair as to her choices about citizenship.

- Nathan Cullen is fitting a request for online pledges of support into an interesting multipurpose page which may serve as a poll as well.

- Paul Dewar showed plenty of determination in fighting his way through a snowstorm for an event in Peterborough, before heading to Thunder Bay today.

- Mulcair sent out what may be the most compelling fund-raising pitch we'll see in the leadership campaign, promising to devote valuable leadership resources to a Quebec membership push in advance of next month's deadline.

- Brian Topp unveiled his arts policy. And along with that, he continued his strong endorsement push from the arts community with a video from Colin Mochrie.

- On the pundit side, a disturbing amount of ink and time was wasted on Thomas Mulcair's citizenship - with little worth repeating other than Chris Selley's take to show for it. Jeffrey Simpson offered his take on the race generally. And Gerald Caplan focused in on some of Simpson's earlier comments on what comes next for the NDP once the leadership campaign is done, while indirectly refuting a few of Barbara Yaffe's doubts about the party's future.

Saturday Morning Links

2012-01-21T09:56:00.005-06:00

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Jim Stanford highlights a trend of employers forcing work stoppages in order to force massive concessions out of their employees - and notes that the Harper Cons seem to be entirely in favour of that kind of economic disruption as long as it's workers who stand to lose out:

(B)usiness leaders have warmed to work stoppages. In the current bargaining environment, companies (especially multinational firms) hold the best cards. And executives are increasingly willing to precipitate their own work stoppages – through management lockouts – to enforce demands for lower wages and benefits.

Two New Year’s Day lockouts highlighted this strategy. U.S.-based Caterpillar Inc. locked out 450 locomotive builders in London, Ont., demanding wage cuts of more than 50 per cent. The same day, Rio Tinto, the U.K.-based mining giant, locked out 755 smelter workers in Alma, Que. That company’s demand to outsource all future bargaining-unit openings would ultimately achieve an even larger reduction in wages. In both cases, the future of middle-class incomes in our manufacturing and resource sectors is at stake. And in both cases, executives are willing to lock the doors until workers swallow their pill.
...
The popularity of lockouts reflects the dramatic tilting of the labour relations playing field in recent years. With unions on the defensive, management is eager to go for the jugular. Government has stood back or, worse, egged on the lockouts (as Ottawa did with Canada Post). Multinational firms are especially aggressive, given their ability (underwritten by free-trade agreements) to shift production and capital seamlessly between jurisdictions.

This trend is troubling, for macroeconomic as well as ethical reasons. As employers ratchet down compensation, income shifts from consumers (who spend every penny) to corporations (which sit on a growing pile of uninvested cash). That undermines aggregate spending and weakens the recovery. And the more employers succeed in driving down wages, the greater the danger of setting off a cycle of deflation in wages and prices (such as the one that bedevilled Japan for a decade).

- Meanwhile, Paul Krugman cuts through Mitt Romney's spin about the tax rate Romney pays personally to raise a deeper point about the main excuse proffered for constant corporate tax slashing:

(I)t’s kind of peculiar to see conservatives jumping up and down to say that Mitt Romney does too pay reasonable taxes if you include the profits taxes on the corporations in which he invests. Because if memory serves me, just a few years ago conservatives were denouncing the “flypaper theory” of tax incidence, arguing that much of the burden of corporate taxes really falls on labor, not on stockholders. Is it just my imagination?

No, it isn’t. They really did make this argument. Repeatedly.

And the truth is that I always took this argument semi-seriously...

(T)here is a strong sense of trying to have it both ways. When people raise questions about big tax cuts for corporations, we’re told not to worry, because corporate taxes mainly fall on labor, not on stockholders. When people raise questions about low taxes on the very rich, we’re told not to worry because once you include all the taxes corporations have paid on their behalf as stockholders, their taxes aren’t really that low.

Funny how that works.

- The NCC's attacks on Bob Rae have a few of the country's better-informed political observers thinking about how to address the ability of big-money donors to exert disproportionate influence on Canada's political debate. Kady O'Malley and Scot Reid suggest that the problem can be dealt with through disclosure requirements, while Andrew Coyne proposes that third-party groups should be subject to the same pool of funds as political parties (with a cap on individual donations applying to both).

- Finally, Andrew Potter considers the Cons' latest blather about "red tape" to be just the latest example of Tony Clement being instructed to introduce policy targeted toward the non-thinking:

How does one-for-one help us determine what regulations are good, and which are bad? This emphasis on the absolute numbers of rules, as opposed to their relative effectiveness, is just as brainless as the old Soviet practice of treating hours worked or widgets produced as the mark of economic growth. Who cares what the work was on, or whether anyone wanted any widgets.

To see how confused this is, try applying the one-for-one rule to everything else the government does. How about, for every new law the government wants to enact, it has to eliminate one. For every criminal it wants to imprison, it has to release one. For every tax it wants to cut, it has to increase another. For every cabinet member it wants to add, it has to fire another.

This could actually be a fun little parlour game, but it is no way to run a country. Except it is the same brand of bucktoothed libertarianism that has become this government’s signature approach to public policy. Whether it is about treating drug abuse, dealing with crime, running a statistics agency, or engaging in just about any of the other routine tasks of keeping a G8 country going, the Conservatives have made a habit of giving Canadians policy cooked up by people who can’t figure out whether they have a bigger crush on Robert Heinlein, or Ann Coulter.

This isn’t just some amusing little fanboy fugue. It has real consequences for the country and for our ability to make sensible and effective laws and policy.

[Edit: fixed attribution for last column.]

Musical interlude

2012-01-20T20:28:00.001-06:00

Yes, some of us will eagerly await the dance mix. But the original is well worth a listen too.

Garfunkel and Oates with Weird Al Yankovic - Save the Rich

Friday Morning Links

2012-01-20T06:58:00.004-06:00

Assorted content to end your week.

- Environics' polling on inequality shows over 80% of Canadians wanting to see governments reduce the disparity between the rich and the poor - even as the current federal government moves as far as possible in the opposite direction:

More than eight in 10 Canadians suggested their governments have a responsibility to do something to reduce the gap between the wealthy and the rest of Canadians.

When asked whose job it is to address income disparities, a clear majority agreed strongly (52 per cent) or somewhat (30 per cent) that governments should actively find ways to shrink the gap.

- Meanwhile, Matthew Yglesias checks the evidence rather than taking corporatist dogma for granted, and finds that capital gains tax levels look to have little if any effect on actual investment:

Germany started charging capital-gains tax in 2009 and implemented a 25 percent rate on new investments. This seems to have changed nothing at all...

My bottom line is that while I'm not generally a deficit hawk, cutting the capital-gains tax rate without any budget offsets, as the Bush administration did in 2003, is incredibly irresponsible. Capital-gains tax cuts are extremely regressive, so if you really are a big believer in the growth-sparking impact of lower rates, the reasonable thing to do is offset the budgetary impact of the cut with a big progressive hike in ordinary income tax rates. If you're not willing to do that, then you're really just offering rich people a giveaway. Incurring the massive direct dissavings involved in a deficit-financed tax cut in exchange for some very-possibly-not-there incentive effect is crazy.

- And speaking of free money for those who don't need it: yes, the Cons are still planning to funnel an extra billion dollars per year in health-care funding toward Alberta at the expense of other provinces which need it more. And there's absolutely no way the change should be allowed to happen without some serious outcry from the regions that stand to lose out.

- Jennifer Ditchburn points out that the Cons have turned their usual smear tactics toward environmentalists and premiers, while Tim Naumetz reports on the attack ad launched by their "non-partisan" alter ego against Bob Rae.

- Finally, Dan Gardner points out the concept of fundamental attribution error as a reason to take a look at how international relations look from Iran's side.

Leadership 2012 Roundup

2012-01-19T17:13:00.003-06:00

Last night's Toronto leadership forum has received plenty of attention, including media coverage as well as personal takes from Ian Welsh and Progressive Proselytizing. Subject to the below my own take on the candidates didn't change much from what I saw in December's debate, but a few points do seem worth noting: Niki Ashton wasn't quite the standout she was in the first official debate; Nathan Cullen continues to impress in a comparative environment except when he's trying to pitch his electoral co-operation plan; Paul Dewar's French remains a major question mark; and Romeo Saganash was certainly more energetic in English than in the first official debate, but still had some issues with pacing and (which again aren't a problem for him in French).

So what were the candidates up to over the last few days?

- In what I can only take as a response to the comment about his lack of endorsements in my last candidate rankings, Cullen unveiled the support of Alex Atamanenko and Fin Donnelly. I now suggest that Brian Topp perform a soft-shoe routine to prove his versatility in entertaining audiences.

- Dewar won several more endorsements, including three more Manitoba MLAs as well a former mayor and MPP in Toronto.

- Thomas Mulcair unveiled endorsements from a former MP and MPP in Northern Ontario.

- Peggy Nash released a green cities and jobs plan. And particularly noteworthy after the last few years is her proposal to set up an inventory of pre-approved infrastructure projects which could be started immediately when stimulus is needed - which would nicely avoid the obviously ludicrous focus on shovel-readiness over long-term value in the Cons' stimulus program.

- Saganash earned some positive press in a visit to Waterloo.

- And Topp unveiled new endorsements ranging from the cheeky to the more conventional.

- Finally, on the commentary side, Malcolm offered up his personal candidate rankings. Joanna Smith assembled her own roundup of policy proposals so far. And John Ivison's placement of Mulcair in the race's pole position may not be much of a surprise, but his inclusion of Dewar in an eventual camp alongside Mulcair and Nathan Cullen is a bit more interesting.

Thursday Morning Links

2012-01-19T07:14:00.002-06:00

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- I'd planned to post on the sheer arbitrariness of the Cons' insistence on eliminating a regulation for any new one they implement. But Erin gets there first:

At best, this rule is a gimmick. At worst, it will delay or prevent the implementation of needed public-interest regulation.

The issue is not, of course, the sheer number of regulations. It obviously makes sense to review existing and proposed regulations. But an honest review should be open to the possibility that more regulations are warranted, if that is what the evidence indicates.

The One-for-One Rule will create perverse incentives for federal regulators. They will maintain and husband unnecessary regulations so that they have something to remove when they need to introduce new regulations.

- Frances Russell somewhat underestimates the exact number of citizenship types being created by the Cons by not taking into account the non-voting and employment-privileged/above-the-law versions. But she's absolutely right to be concerned about the fragmentation of Canada.

- So who had "quick flip to a media conglomerate" in the pool of possible outcomes after SCN was sold off for a fraction of its value?

- Finally, Murray Dobbin asks us to visualize the first giant oil spill of the coast of northern B.C. - and rightly questions how any government interested in the good of anybody other than oil barons could be as determined to see that day come as the Harper Cons have been.

New column day

2012-01-19T06:55:00.002-06:00

Here, on how the rewriting of Rob Ford's budget by Toronto's City Council should serve as a reminder that legislators at all levels of government can do more than merely rubber-stamp the whims of the executive.

For further reading, see the Star's report on the Toronto budget, and compare to the outcome of the council budget discussion seen in Regina last month.

Wednesday Morning Links

2012-01-18T11:45:00.002-06:00

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Seth Klein somewhat jokingly offers up 10 reasons for upper-class tax increases. But particularly paired with the Cons' fixation with tax-free savings accounts to further hand free money to the rich, this part looks like it's worth some further focus:

#4: The maximum RRSP deduction for 2011 is a whopping $22,450.

That’s the ceiling for an annual contribution (for which people receive an extremely generous tax deduction — comes right off one’s taxable income) and does not include any unused room from previous years. Who the hell has $22K in extra income to tuck into this highly publicly-subsidized savings plan? A minimum-wage earner working full-time all year would have an entire annual income of only $19,798. The RRSP is one of the most expensive and inequitable social programs in Canada. The program costs the public treasury about $10 billion a year in foregone revenues. Yet, according to the CCPA’s Alternative Federal Budget, while more than two-thirds of those making over $100,000 a year contribute to RRSPs, less than a quarter of those making less than $50,000 find themselves able to contribute.

- Donald Gutstein points out the inevitable consequences of the Cons' corporations-first economic policy:

Is Stephen Harper's goal for Canada the United States of today?

That would mean a nation in which somewhere between a half and a third of its citizens have fallen into poverty or are hovering just above, in low income. This according to latest data released by the U.S. Census Bureau. Meanwhile, 400 Americans are worth more than $1 billion.

And the divide will likely worsen, as Congress and Republican-controlled state legislatures continue slashing programs and benefits, firing workers, and further weakening health, safety and environmental protections to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, if that is even possible.
...
(At a Fraser Institute lunch, Peter Van Loan) reminded his audience of the "fierce debates about North American free trade and the voices from the fringe telling us that it would somehow erode our sovereignty." Van Loan declared that "we need to continue building a broad base of support for the importance of a competitive, globally engaged Canadian economy of the future." He ended with an invitation: "So let's work together to continue convincing Canadians... of the importance of economic freedom."

And as Canada's standing on the economic freedom index rises, so do the number of billionaires and the ranks of the poor and struggling.

- Dan Gardner discusses the Libs' identity crisis:

The Liberals had a core identity once: “The party that governs.”

There was no fixed ideological content. There didn’t need to be. Political beliefs came and went but the Liberals were always in the centre, espousing the conventional wisdom of the day, and governing the country. “The Liberal party should be understood not as a centre-left party,” Tom Flanagan and a certain Stephen Harper wrote in 1996. “Rather, it is a true centre party. ... It avoids definite ideological commitments and brings together people simply interested in exercising power and dispensing patronage.” That last bit is too harsh. But generally, Flanagan and Harper were right.

So what happens when “the party that governs” no longer governs? It no longer has an identity.

Interim Liberal leader Bob Rae frankly acknowledges that he hears this all the time. But he insists there is a Liberal identity.

“We are who we are,” he declared in a speech to the Liberal caucus last week. Rae was passionate. The speech was masterful. But “we are who we are” comes uncomfortably close to Popeye’s “I yam what I yam,” and is about as meaningful.

- And TC Norris notes that Libs pointing to past periods when they held Official Opposition status are missing the real significance of their current position - since the "default alternative" status that's normally worked to the party's advantage no longer applies.

- Finally, Paul Hanley suggests that an obsession with developing the tar sands at maximum speed reflects "uneconomic growth".

On constructive alternatives

2012-01-18T06:57:00.004-06:00

Yes, plenty of key websites will be going dark today - and for good reason based on the U.S. legislation being protested.

But today also marks one month from the February 18 membership deadline in the NDP's leadership race. So today may be a good time to sign up to elect the leader of Canada's Official Opposition - and to encourage others who recognize the dangers of regressive technology policy to do the same.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

2012-01-17T20:40:00.001-06:00

Cats taking over furniture.

Repetition for effect

2012-01-17T12:33:00.004-06:00

Since Aaron Wherry has rightly connected the NDP's response to Lise St-Denis' floor-crossing to its efforts to engage constituents on other issues, I may as well offer a similar bit of reiteration. So here's what I had to say last time it was noted that the NDP was working on connecting voters to MPs whose choices they oppose:

(T)he NDP's work to get constituents involved in letting the Cons know what they think looks like a rather significant break from the top-down messaging we're accustomed to seeing from most parties...

Of course, the effect of the call is also to let the Cons know about an unhappy constituent while setting up a conversation between a rival party and an interested voter. But the NDP's choice to treat a direct message to the Cons as a plus in terms of influence rather than a minus in terms of keeping one's cards close to the vest looks to offer an important signal that the new Official Opposition is working on changing the game rather than playing by Harper's rules of message control and secrecy.

And needless to say, a chorus of Libs taking the opportunity to shriek "dirty tricks!" about the idea of voters being heard says much more about their continued expectation of never having to answer to the public than it does about the NDP's effort to change that operating assumption.

Update: Dr. Dawg has more.

Tuesday Morning Links

2012-01-17T08:13:00.003-06:00

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Alex Himelfarb nicely summarizes the price of austerity:

Let me be clear that I share in the broad consensus that we must be fiscally prudent. But let’s pause on what fiscal prudence really means: It means spending wisely, reducing waste, collecting sufficient taxes to pay for the public goods and services we want, and keeping debt coming down, at least during reasonably good times.
...
Today’s austerity, however, is not primarily about fiscal prudence. If it were it wouldn’t be proceeding in tandem with large, unaffordable and unnecessary tax cuts for the most affluent among us. These tax cuts make deeper program cuts inevitable.

The persistent emphasis on low taxes and cuts to services and public goods looks more like ideology masquerading as fiscal common sense. In this light, austerity seems rather to be about cutting back the state and rolling out the free market agenda. Less public, more private; less collective, more individual. It is, in other words, the fulfillment of the neoliberal counter-revolution rather than an economic plan for the future.
...
I, for one, would propose that inequality, not austerity, be the defining issue for us now. Income inequality is growing fast in Canada and even the traditional deniers are coming on board. The gap is simply too big, the risks too high to ignore. Indeed, extreme inequality will continue to grow in an agenda dominated by austerity and tax cuts, an agenda that reduces our capacity for mutual aid and for collective solutions to our major challenges – our low productivity, climate change and environmental deterioration, and declining political participation.

Of course we ought to be fiscally prudent and that means asking of each cut and each expenditure, including every tax cut: will this help reduce inequality or will it make things worse?

Let’s make inequality in all of its manifestations – child poverty, the reemergence of elderly poverty, the squeeze on working Canadians and students, and the excessive incomes at the top – a national priority.

- Paul Waldie documents the results of the Cons' insistence on demolishing the single-desk Wheat Board with no consideration of the resulting consequences. And predictably, the outcome looks to be plenty of damage and confusion rather than any of the supposed benefits the Cons have been claiming.

- Meanwhile, the Cons are also working on making Canada's food supply less safe. And don't take my word for it: here's what their own spinners said in adding the jobs the Cons are now cutting:

The new investments being announced today will improve the Government's ability to prevent, detect and respond to future foodborne illness outbreaks. Among other improvements, the Government will:
-hire 166 new food safety staff with 70 focusing on ready-to-eat-meat facilities...

So if the hirings were an improvement to the "ability to prevent, detect and respond to future foodborne illness outbreaks", then surely the firings have to be the opposite. Right?

- Frances Woolley posts about the effect of moral hazards in allocating health care resources. But while the principle is worth discussing, I have to seriously question how much of a problem is demonstrated when the sole example of actual gratuitous consumption of health care comes from Homer Simpson.

- Finally, Linda McQuaig criticizes the Cons' preference for foreign capital over Canadian workers:

Ironically, the Harper government has complained forcefully about “foreign” interference from outside environmentalists protesting a proposed pipeline across the Rockies. But when it comes to foreign companies stripping Canadian workers of half their wages and then moving operations out of the country, the government hasn’t a negative word to say.

Harper is of course staunchly pro-capitalist, and has aggressively lowered corporate tax rates, while refusing to link lower taxes to investment or job creation.

But his anti-union stance, evident in disputes at Air Canada and the post office last summer, has been particularly provocative. He seems determined to turn Canada into an anti-union paradise — prompting the Ontario Federation of Labour to call for a mass rally at the Caterpillar plant in London this Saturday.

As the PM gears up for his coming battle against federal public sector unions, he will no doubt draw inspiration from Mitt Romney’s stirring words: “I like to be able to fire people who provide services.”

Leadership 2012 Roundup

2012-01-17T06:54:00.002-06:00

No, I won't claim to have entirely comprehensive coverage of the NDP's leadership race. But I do try to catch the developments that strike me as significant for each candidate and the race as a whole...so let's take a look at what's new over the past few days.

To start off with, the Laurier–Sainte-Marie debate on Sunday received one major media story as well as being live-tweeted by Alice and Justin among others. The main storylines look to have been another strong performance by Nathan Cullen and a call by Thomas Mulcair to emphasize asymmetric federalism - but I'll reserve judgment until I have a chance to watch the debate for myself, particularly since the in-debate commentary included conflicting takes on a couple of key points.

Meanwhile...

- Niki Ashton made a push for peace, highlighting the Harper Cons' attacks on Islam in particular being ill-advised. But more broadly, the use of military force may actually make for an issue to watch if the leadership contenders are pressed as to when they'd see fit to use Canada's armed forces to meet foreign policy goals.

- Paul Dewar expanded on the "Next 70" theme introduced last week while earning a supportive column from Peter Thurley.

- Mulcair became the first candidate to receive the full-on Sun Media treatment - though we can expect that there's plenty more where that came from. (And for the record, here's my take from last time the citizenship question came up.)

- Peggy Nash answered questions from CBC viewers, including one on what the NDP can do for western Canada.

- And finally, Romeo Saganash's Ontario tour featured both a new blog post on how the Cons value corporate profits over taking care of people, and some positive press from the Star.

On new challenges

2012-01-16T08:14:00.004-06:00

Every so often, it seems to be necessary to remind the pundit class that there isn't a reset button that will magically restore Canadian politics to where they were three or four election cycles ago. So let's take a look at the theory that the Bloc should be the favourite to re-emerge as the main force in Quebec federal politics.

During the election campaign, I discussed how the Bloc ended up where they were for the past two decades. But a quick refresher may be in order.

As of 1993, the three major federal parties had essentially lashed themselves together on the major issue discussed in the previous term of office. And that gave the Bloc a chance to emerge by running against effectively the entire Canadian establishment.

Once the 1995 referendum was in the rear-view mirror, however, the Bloc recognized that it would need to stand for more than sovereignty alone. And so it developed a strategy of running hard against the government of the day (which was always its strongest Quebec opponent) and serving as an opposition on behalf of Quebec alone.

That strategy was highly effective at stoking frustration against sitting governments. But in the last few election cycles, it proved somewhat vulnerable when competing opposition parties entered the picture: in 2006 the Cons did better than anticipated as the Bloc hammered away at Lib scandals, and in 2008 the Libs managed to gain ground as the Bloc launched its culture war against Stephen Harper.

And then there was 2011. For entirely rational reasons, both the Libs and Cons largely took a pass on trying for major growth in Quebec - leading the Bloc to think it might have a particularly easy election. But this time, the Bloc's focus on Harper proved all too successful, establishing a need for change on behalf of a party which couldn't plausibly offer it.

Naturally the Bloc tried to change course - first by running against the NDP, then by changing the subject back to sovereignty. But it nearly got wiped off the map despite those efforts, and has shown no sign of regaining any momentum.

But that isn't even the worst of the Bloc's problems. Instead, it's this: the strategies that worked for the Bloc in the past now figure to be entirely off the table.

No, the Bloc can't just run against the government of the day - since the NDP (and indeed the Libs) figures to benefit at least as much from dissatisfaction with the Cons.

What about a 1993-style assault on the federalist parties and system generally? Well, to get any traction, the Bloc will have to put together a narrative that involves agreement or non-differentiation between the Cons, NDP and Libs on issues controversial enough to get the Quebec public riled up. And while anything can happen, it's hard to see how that scenario is about to develop with the Cons looking to impose their will through a majority government, the NDP looking to distinguish itself as the opposition and the Libs looking for unexplored terrain of their own.

In effect, the Bloc has always succeeded by overwhelming a single national opponent which bears the burden of government in a one-province, one-front battle. But there's no way they're avoiding a multi-front challenge in 2015 - and starting from a tenth of their former caucus size and a dwindling membership will only make that challenge all the more difficult.

Again, a lot can change in four years, and I wouldn't rule the Bloc out by any means. But in ranking the threats to the NDP's current Quebec seats, I'd be hesitant to rank them any higher than second (behind a Con government using the spoils of power to pursue new target groups) - and would think it's at least as likely that the Bloc will give up the ghost entirely as that it'll hold the largest Quebec caucus after 2015.