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.
Echo
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Leadership 2012 Roundup
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.
- 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.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Parliament in Review: November 25, 2011
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:
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:
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:
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.
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,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.
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.
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
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.
- 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.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Parliament in Review: November 24, 2011
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.
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
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.
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
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):
- 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.
- 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.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Leadership 2012 Roundup
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.
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
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.]
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
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.
- 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.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Friday Afternoon Links
Assorted content to end your week.
- Jack Knox comments on how the rest of the world sees Canada under the Harper Cons:
- 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.
- 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.- 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.
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.
- 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
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.
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, January 26, 2012
Thursday Evening Links
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.
- 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
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:
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:
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.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.
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--
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
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.
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
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.
- 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, January 25, 2012
Wednesday Afternoon Links
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:
- 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.
- 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.- 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.
“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.
- 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)