Monday Morning Links

Assorted content for your Labour Day reading.

- Gregory Beatty discusses the class struggle as it's playing out in the time of COVID. Jim Stanford offers a reminder as to how collective action is more important than ever, while Jerry Dias discusses how the labour movement is exercising its strength. Megan Brenan writes about the combination of high approval for unions on a historical scale, combined with a low number of workers actually putting the desire for unionization into effect. The Philadelphia Inquirer's editorial board comments on the realities of a Labour Day in which millions are out of work due to the poorly-managed coronavirus pandemic. And Gil McGowan writes about the fight to ensure Alberta doesn't fall into full-blown Trumpist authoritarianism and kleptocracy.

- Meanwhile Hadeel Abdel-Nabi discusses the removal of Sandeep Lalli as president and CEO of the Calgary Chamber of Commerce for the crime of insufficient fealty to Jason Kenney and climate change denial. And Derek Craddock reports on the Kenney UCP's choice not to bother passing a federally-funded top-up along to essential health care workers.

- Pairs Marx reminds us that there's nothing inevitable or inescapable about a capitalist economy. And Yanis Varoufakis proposes true economic democracy as an alternative to a capitalist system which has manifestly failed to sustainably meet people's needs.

- Kim Siever writes that it's top-end tax cuts - not taxes themselves - that we should treat as a theft from our common wealth.

- Finally, Meara Conway and Dan LeBlanc write about the Saskatchewan Party's use of the power of the state to silence Tristen Durocher and other Indigenous voices, while Jeremy Simes reports on a petition to ensure space in Wascana Park is available for Indigenous ceremonies. Murray Mandryk writes about the Cons' embarrassing attempt to demonstrate in favour of genocide. And Angel Moore reports on the continued and flagrant racism in private RCMP social media groups.

On continued embarrassments

Abbas Rana's revelation that the Cons have decided to protect all of their incumbent MPs from any internal accountability seems to have received relatively little attention. But it's particularly worth paying attention to it given how many Cons have gone out of their way to demonstrate they're not up to their current jobs.

Surely voters should have at least some option other than to be stuck with a representative signing on to a grossly ignorant and inflammatory separatist manifesto.

Surely constituents should have an opportunity to challenge an MP trying to push anti-abortion legislation through Parliament, or undermining decades of progress in respect for the LGBTQ community.

And surely citizens should be able to question whether a failed leader reduced to ranting about children's TV shows deserves to represent them on the ballot.

But the Cons have declared they don't want anybody who to have better choices than the utter embarrassments currently in their ranks - whether based on what they've done so far, or what they continue to do while holding positions of public trust. And that should speak volumes as to the party's institutional unfitness for office.

New column day

Here, on how the criticisms which were used to push Andrew Scheer out of the Cons' leadership role in fact reflect the fundamental problems with a party built around selfishness as the sole ideal to be pursued.

For further reading...
- David Akin reported on Scheer's prolific spending when he was running for the Cons' leadership.
- David Pugliese listed some of Peter MacKay's most prominent scandals, including his use of a military helicopter for a personal fishing trip. Global News reported on the donor-funded (and publicly-subsidized) top-ups paid to Christy Clark and Brad Wall. And Adam Hunter reported on Stephen Harper's current ride on the Saskatchewan Party's gravy train (with whistle stops to boost the local nativist demogogues along the way).
- And Kevin Drum looked at another application of the view of conservatism as the practice of promoting selfishness.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Justin Fox writes that there are plenty of options available to push for the wealthiest few to pay their fair share toward a functional and compassionate society. And Christine Berry discusses the need for a progressive plan of attack to fundamentally restructure our economy to serve the interests of people rather than plutocrats.

- Meanwhile, Thomas Walkom suggests that Doug Ford's backpedaling should include revisiting his attacks on Ontario workers. Both David Climenhaga and Graham Thomson point out some of the glaring flaws in Jason Kenney's attempt to maximize the pain inflicted on public sector workers in Alberta. And Steven Greenhouse theorizes that the success of a widespread GM strike may encourage more collective action by workers.

- Michael Harris writes that it's obvious why Andrew Scheer should be done as the Cons' leader - but far less clear whether the Cons will actually be interested in avoiding the same problems in choosing a replacement. And Peter Loewen and Michael Bernstein note that the Con's refusal to offer any viable climate policy may have been a major factor in their election loss.

- Finally, Scott Gilmore rightly questions whether it makes sense for Canada to be deepening its dependence on the U.S. when its administration has proven to be both capricious and incompetent around the globe.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your election day reading.

- Jagmeet Singh makes his case for Canadians to vote for what we believe in. Don Martin discusses how Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer have hurt their own causes as well as each others' by focusing on negative messages. And Nora Loreto discusses the need for traditional political parties to reinvent themselves to speak to and for people rather than merely reciting focus-tested talking points at them.

- Herman Rosenfeld discusses how free public transit is an essential element of any effective Green New Deal. And Angela Carter, Truzaar Dordi and Yonatan Strauch write that the federal election represents a crossroads for Canada's energy future (save for the incumbent trying to go in all directions at once).

- Katherine Scott examines what the federal parties have on offer to fight against poverty. Karl Nerenberg assesses their respective plans to address inequality. And the Tyee offers election readers on issues including pharmacare and dental care and electoral reform,

- Finally, Nav Persaud and Danielle Martin write about the cruel experiment being performed on Canadians who can't afford necessary medications - and the need for a universal pharmacare system to make sure nobody faces that predicament.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Paul Kahnert writes that tax cuts never lead to widespread prosperity - but do further entrench the wealth and power of those who already have the most. Andrew Jackson points out how the Cons' platform follows a familiar pattern of freebies for the lucky few and austerity for the many. And Nicholas Kristof argues that there's ample reason to instead require an increased contribution from the people who profit off of the general public:

That’s the rot in our system: Great wealth has translated into immense political power, which is then leveraged to multiply that wealth and power all over again — and also multiply the suffering of those at the bottom. This is a legal corruption that President Trump magnified but that predated him and will outlast him; this is America’s cancer.

We hear protests about “class warfare” and warnings not to try to “soak the rich.” But as Warren Buffett has observed: “There’s class warfare, all right. But it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
...
By raising taxes on the wealthy, we could end the lead poisoning that afflicts half a million American kids, we could provide high-quality preschool for all, we could offer treatment for all people with addictions and we could ensure that virtually all kids graduate from a decent high school and at least get a crack at college.

The wealthy would still have more money than they could ever spend: Jeff Bezos would have had $87 billion in 2018 if Warren’s wealth tax had been in place all along, rather than $160 billion, according to calculations of Saez and Zucman. But we would be, I think, a fairer and better nation.

So should we soak the rich? You bet we should.

- Meanwhile, Halena Seiferling writes that an election focused on the cost of living should pay far more attention to the need for higher wages.

- Travis Lupick laments the failure of the Libs and Cons to engage at all with the known solutions to an epidemic of drug-related deaths. And Emma Davie reports on the call of the Canadian Association of Pharmacists to end medication shortages.

- Daphne Bramham discusses why Canadian voters are rightly suspicious of Andrew Scheer. And Fatima Syed and Alastair Sharp comment on Jagmeet Singh's response to a flurry of issues of race and representation in the course of the federal election campaign.

- Finally, Christopher Guly writes that electoral reform advocates have rightly refused to accept Justin Trudeau's attempt to declare fair elections an impossible goal.

New column day

Here, on the echoes of previous campaigns in Canada's federal election - including the possibility that the 1972 minority government scenario might be the best outcome of all.

For further reading...
- The column's discussion of public impressions of leaders is based on recent polling from Forum and Angus Reid  - with the latter also showing the NDP's strong opportunities for growth as a current second choice.
- Meanwhile, Duncan Cameron has also mused about the possibility of a minority government, while also pointing out the lack of a defining narrative so far. And John Ivison notes that the NDP's campaign against corporate excess represents another parallel between this year's election and that of 1972. 

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Tom Rand and Mike Andrade point out that the Alberta tar sands wouldn't be sustainable economically even if people ignored their environmental effects. Bruce Livesey offers a reminder that Andrew Scheer's plans are built entirely around favouring dirty oil at the expense of other industries and future generations. And Sharon Riley talks to some of the workers already making the transition from the oil patch to the renewable energy sector.

- Meanwhile, Eric Roston reports on reduced river flows around the world as another alarming byproduct of a deteriorating climate and a propensity to overuse natural resources. Trevor Hancock points out that we can't ignore how those same factors threaten our planet's biodiversity. And Tom Phillips reports on the Bolsonaro-backed land raids attempting to violently drive Indigenous people from their homes and expose the Amazon for exploitation.

- Andrew Jackson comments on the Greens' odd juxtaposition of promising massive spending, while simultaneously fixating on balancing the budget to a greater extent than any other party this side of the PPC.

- David Hulchanski examines (PDF) the context for decisions about Canadian housing policy, including both a low rate of current taxation and revenue generation, and a set of subsidies distinctly weighted toward ownership rather than rental housing.

- Finally, Haydn Watters takes a look at the electoral reform plans on offer in Canada's federal election.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Suzanne Moore is encouraged that Greta Thunberg is challenging - and upsetting - a privileged male ruling class. Jennifer Ellen Good picks up on Thurberg's theme that an obsession with growth at the expense of sustainability can only lead to disaster. And Ricochet documents the UN speech of Autumn Peltier - whose message is every bit as compelling as Thunberg's, even if she hasn't received the same notice yet.

- Cameron Fenton writes that we should follow on the inspiration of last week's climate strikes by electing genuine climate leaders. And Nsikan Akpan highlights how the world's worst carbon polluters need to reduce their harm to our planet - with Canada's refusal to transition away from fossil fuel extraction representing the area where we most need to change.

- Jim Stanford offers a preview of the results of Con-style climate policy, as Australia's equivalent has led to massive emission increases (after a carbon price had produced some actual reductions). And John Paul Tasker notes that Andrew Scheer has yet to develop any clue how to deal with the climate protestors trying to alert him to the essential challenge of our time. 

- Laurie Monsebraaten reports on a new study showing the $33 billion cost of poverty in Ontario alone. And Colin McClelland notes the financial precarity facing an increasing majority of Canadians.

- Finally, Justin Ling writes about the strong evidence supporting the decriminalization of drugs - representing another area in which the limited distinction between the Libs and Cons masks the need for far more radical action than either can be bothered to consider.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Grace Blakeley writes that class politics are making a sorely-needed return, raising the prospect that people might again start to make gains against corporate forces:

The reemergence of class politics is not a fad; it is a response to the material conditions created by the collapse of finance-led growth. After a recession caused by the reckless greed of the few was followed by an austerity programme that sought to impose the clean-up costs on the many, it is more obvious than ever that the wealth and power of the elite comes at the expense of everyone else. Or, to paraphrase Bernie Sanders, there has been a class war in this country for a long time – it’s time the working class won it.

In this new political context, economic policy is no longer a question of tinkering around the edges of a stable model: economic policy today is about power. As I argue in my new book, this is the moment for working people to seize back control of our most important institutions and rebalance power away from capital and towards labour.

The only way to bring about such a shift is to promote state, worker and community ownership of society’s most important resources. In an economy in which ownership is mediated by the finance sector, this requires a socialist government to take on the banks the way Thatcher took on the unions.

Finance-led growth emerged because its advocates used their control over the state to smash the organised power of working people and convince them that capitalism had won, once and for all. As the finance sector became ever more powerful, and the alternatives to capitalism faded further from view, it became extremely difficult to believe that there could be another way to organise the economy. Today, the greatest challenge for the left is to remind people that history isn’t over, that capitalism hasn’t won, and that we still have the power to change the world.

- Emma Teitel points out how Greta Thunberg and other climate activists are rightly forcing people to pay attention to devastating climate risks.

- But Fatima Syed and Emma McIntosh report that the forces who brought the world such catastrophes as Brexit and the Trump presidency are trying to push Canadian voters to accept continued negligence. And Charlie Smith writes that the Libs and Cons alike are serving their wealthy donors and patrons by trying to keep any option to transition away from fossil fuel extraction off the ballot, while Linda McQuaig calls out Justin Trudeau in particular for throwing money at pipelines while refusing to invest in clean transportation.

- Finally, Naheed Nenshi writes that Trudeau's history of blackface shouldn't draw our attention away from the ongoing and deliberate hatred being stoked in the federal election campaign. And Desmond Cole, Azeezah Kanji and Amar Wala go into detail about how racism is still reflected in public policy.

On private determinations

Paul Willcocks has previously pointed out why there's reason for skepticism about Andrew Scheer's attempt to play both sides as to whether or not the Cons will try to limit access to abortion. But it's worth looking at a case study as to how the Harper Cons flouted any distinction between private member's bills and government bills when it suited their purposes.

Bill C-377, designed to impose reporting requirements on unions which don't apply to any other organization, was never included in any Con election platform. It was introduced as a private member's bill by Russ Heibert to make use of an advantageous draw in the order of priority, while avoiding the scrutiny that applies to government bills.

But the Senate returned it to the House of Commons with amendments. And at that point, the Cons made clear that it was Stephen Harper, not any MP acting on behalf of any constituents, who was dictating what to do with the legislation - and moreover that reintroducing it as a government bill was on the table:

Despite this being a private member’s bill, the Prime Minister’s Office has been moved to issue a statement.

We continue to support union transparency and the principles of the bill, which will be returned to the House as part of the normal process.
As per Parliamentary convention, we expect that the Senate will respect the will of the House of Commons should the Bill be returned to the Senate.

A Conservative source tells the Canadian Press that the bill will now be reintroduced as a government bill.

That didn't happen in the House of Commons. But it did eventually happen in the Senate, as Harper's Cons broke the Senate's rules to retroactively reclassify C-377 as a "government bill" to allow it to be rammed through in the final session before the 2015 election:

The government has powerful tools to push forward on "government business" — important legislation such as budgets. But C-377 falls under "other business" because it is a private member's bill from a Conservative backbench MP.

Carignan wanted to have C-377 declared a government bill so that he could force it to a vote. The problem is that it clearly isn't government business. The government itself introduced it as "other business."

A government motion would have retroactively redefined C-377 as a government bill. This was the motion Speaker Housakos declared was against the rules and undermined the traditions of the Senate.

By overruling Housakos, government senators can now use tools intended for government bills to push forward a private member's bill that many have warned is unconstitutional.

In light of that background, what does Scheer have to say about anti-choice legislation?

Scheer’s efforts to clarify his views on abortion just made things murkier. “I will not re-open this debate and I will oppose any plan to re-open this debate,” he told reporters.

But he also said Conservative MPs would be allowed to introduce legislation limiting access to abortion. And to vote for restricting access, if that was their personal view. And while he would expect cabinet ministers to vote against limiting access, he wouldn’t demand they do.

So Scheer's supposed acceptance of the continued availability of abortion is limited to personally opposing a move to "re-open" debate. But that can be done by any MP introducing a private member's bill. And Scheer has signalled his willingness to permit that step within a party which exercises strict control over those bills in the first place - meaning that he'll be providing tacit approval even if he feigns public dismay.

And once that step has been taken? Scheer won't demand that any of his MPs vote to preserve the right to abortion access. And based on his own words, any step after the first one has been left open.

There's thus every reason for concern that Scheer will follow his predecessor's playbook. And any promise to leave the Cons' dirty work to private member's bills should only be taken as a reminder that they've used that mechanism to grease the skids for controversial legislation before.

Update: And Scheer's declaration that he'll use the Senate as a tool to exercise strict partisan control certainly doesn't help matters.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Manfred Bienefeld writes about the gap between the urgent problems we face, and the sad excuses for policies on offer from the Libs and Cons as Canadians go to the polls. And Andrew Jackson discusses how little point there is to the tax tinkering at the centre of both of their platforms - particularly compared to the NDP's plans to expand and strengthen Canada's social safety net.

- Meanwhile, PressProgress points out the most counterproductive proposal yet, as Andrew Scheer is looking to reopen tax loopholes previously exploited by private corporations.

- Diarmaid McDonald discusses how UK Labour's plans to make prescription medication more affordable - including by producing drugs through a public manufacturer - would save lives.

- Bob Weber reports on the IPCC's latest study showing the devastating effect a climate breakdown will have on water supplies. And Kelly Crowe writes that the climate conversations we need to have are still being interrupted by manufactured doubt and self-serving denialism.

- Finally, Jacob Knutson discusses how inequality continues to grow in the U.S.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- George Monbiot argues that it's time to cap the amount of wealth any person can accumulate, while highlighting the importance of accepting that there's a point where we have enough.

- Donovan Vincent writes about the rental housing crisis in Toronto, while David Common reports on the stresses facing people in desperate need of affordable rental housing. But Aaron Hutchins points out that the Cons and Libs are instead focusing on non-rental housing with schemes that would drive prices even higher.

- Andrew MacLeod compares the prescription drug promises on offer from the NDP, Libs and Greens. And Thomas Walkom writes that we shouldn't confuse Justin Trudeau's back-of-a-napkin sketch of insufficient funding for an actual pharmacare plan.

- Finally, Aaron Wherry discusses how Andrew Scheer is offering nothing more than stale reruns from the Harper era. Bill Henderson writes that Justin Trudeau's duplicity and poor judgment were well established long before the blackface scandal emerged, while Chris Selley notes that young voters in particular have every reason to demand better than Trudeau's empty promises. Andrew Coyne contrasts the Cons' bad policy against the Libs' lack of any meaningful plans at all. And Karl Nerenberg comments on Jagmeet Singh's strong start to the election campaign.

On abandoned responsibilities

The prelude to Canada's federal election campaign has brought several parties' views of human rights and government responsibilities under scrutiny.

Maxime Bernier has only exacerbated Stephen Harper's past anti-minority messages, building his PPC campaign largely on criticism of immigration generally.

Andrew Scheer has apparently recognized at least a political problem with broad attacks against refugees or minority groups. And so he’s taken to searching out targets one by one for his campaign’s two minute hate sessions, then challenging Justin Trudeau to join in denouncing them and declaring that they’ll be treated as non-people by the Canadian government.

And of course the Greens have been happy to welcome people motivated by religious bias and racism, as long as it offers a political wedge to benefit Elizabeth May.

But somehow, the current government hasn't been held to account for its disturbing response to the Cons' campaign theme.

The Liberals have been quick to point out that Scheer’s message about the likes of Jack Letts and Jon Venables has been inaccurate in fact, relying on tabloid gossip and idle speculation to assert non-existent connections between the Conservatives’ objects of hate and the Canadian government.

But in limiting their response that way, they’ve only reinforced Scheer’s underlying principle.

Others have pointed out that Canada is actually subject to both international agreements and moral obligations to address the actions of people abroad. But the Libs have brushed those aside - instead washing their hands of any responsibility to or for the people involved, and sending the message that they’ll readily treat some types of people as pariahs based on political considerations.

It shouldn't be acceptable for any party to quibble over where to draw the line in abandoning anybody. And it's doubly galling to see that message from a party trying to brand itself as a champion of human rights.

Fortunately, we've also seen an example of the right way to respond to attempts to exploit bigotry and hate for political gain. And we should be looking to support a government which is willing to challenge the exploitation of hate in all forms, not merely quibble with the accuracy of any particular attempt to invoke it.

In plain sight

Robyn Urback is rightly concerned about the lack of discussion of Quebec's systematic discrimination by most of Canada's federal parties - only to gloss over the strong position taken by Jagmeet Singh and the NDP.

Matt Gurney laments the lack of a remotely reasonable climate debate between the Libs and Cons, while failing to mention the NDP's New Deal at all.

And Neil MacDonald complains about an election based on mudslinging between the Libs and Cons, while only noting in passing that the NDP is offering meaningful solutions to the social ills those parties are ignoring.

If only there were some pattern as to how this fall's election might produce results Canadians actually want - and how the media can advance the discussion past the cynical politics of Trudeau and Scheer.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Seth Klein summarizes new polling showing that Canadians are eager for far stronger action to fight climate change than the Libs or Cons will even consider. And Andrew Leach points out that the Cons' excuse for a climate plan is a study in vagueness whose few discernable elements are contrary to Andrew Scheer's apparent goals.

- Meanwhile, Jason Warick reports on the potential for severe water shortages caused by a climate breakdown - including in much of Saskatchewan.

- Ann Carlson discusses why oil companies are trying desperately to avoid answering for their deception about the dangers of carbon emissions. And Sam Levin exposes how Monsanto has tried to attack and smear anybody who dares to share factual information about the connections between its products and health risks including cancer.

- Alex Drummond reports on the safety risks of Ontario's underresourced emergency rooms.

- Finally, Will Hutton is optimistic that the exclusionary right-wing world order is approaching its expiry date. But Stephen Maher writes about Quebec's Bill 21 as a vivid example of the cost of bigotry as long as it's allowed to reign supreme.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- The Washington Post reports that July 2019 set new records as the hottest month ever measured on Earth. David Suzuki offers a reminder of the catastrophic consequences of failing to put and end to our climate breakdown. And Roger Harrabin warns against exploiting and abusing the land we rely on.

- Meanwhile, Amnesty International announces that it has joined the fossil fuel divestment movement based on its recognition that dirty fuel dependence is antithetical to the preservation of human rights. And Damian Carrington reports that the public is more concerned about the environment in the UK than it's ever been before.

- Juliet O'Neil reports on the Kenney UCP's publicly-funded campaign to silence Tzeporah Berman and other advocates for a healthy planet.

- The Star's editorial board rightly slams the Ford PCs for going out of their way to make life worse for Ontario's poorest residents. And CBC News reports that as part of Jason Kenney's Summer of Concealment designed to avoid forcing Andrew Scheer to answer for his government's actions, the UCP has cut off access to scholarship applications until long after students' tuition comes due.

- Finally, Paul Krugman rightly points out that violence and terrorism are inevitable end results of politicians choosing to foment hatred in order to cover for their discriminatory policy choices.

New column day

Here, on how the meat and dairy industries alone are offering far too many examples of how entrenched corporate interests are using both government power and their own clout to hide basic facts from the public.

For further reading...
- K. Annabelle Smith wrote about the history of veggie burgers. But more to the point, Kelsey Piper discusses the spate of anti-fact laws being used to try to legislate them out of existence as soon as they offer a viable alternative to meat products.
- Olivia Condon reported on the Weather Network's forced reversal after it dared to mention reducing beef consumption as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
- And Ryan Flanagan reported on Andrew Scheer's attacks on a Canada Food Guide based on scientific knowledge (along with basic disclosure of unhealthy foods) when the alternative is complete subservience to industry.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Niki Ashton writes about Justin Trudeau's glaring failure to understand the importance of parity in services and genuine nation-to-nation recognition as core elements of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.

- Helena Hanson points out that voters are entirely unsatisfied with both Trudeau and Andrew Scheer as electoral options. Karl Nerenberg explores the ramifications of Elizabeth May's willingness to back Scheer - particularly as it would allow Scheer to use effectively unfettered executive power. And Laura Nguyen discusses the hope Jagmeet Singh offers for racialized voters in an environment of increasingly loud bigotry and xenophobia.

- David Climenhaga writes about Calgary's appalling choice to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to further enrich Murray Edwards and the Flames while slashing basic services in the name of austerity.

- Tristan Hughes discusses Jason Kenney's war against the environment and its defenders. Matt McGrath writes that keeping greenhouse gases at anything below catastrophic levels may require a major change of course as soon as the end of 2020. And Anthony Davis points out some of the mental barriers to the change we urgently need to make.

- Finally, Jonathan Watts discusses a push to treat environmental damage as a war crime.

Juxtaposition

Some parties and leaders recognize the stakes in determining how to manage a minority Parliament:

I asked Mr. Duceppe what he thought would happen if the prime minister refused to accept such an ultimatum. He replied that a government defeat so soon after a general election meant the Governor General would have to turn "to one of us" to form a government. We both knew that meant Stephen Harper and his Conservatives. I asked Mr. Duceppe if he could accept such an eventuality. He was not only clear that he could, but he would.
...
Realizing immediately the full magnitude of what was at stake, I knew I had to walk away. I was not about to participate in any scheme cooked up by the Bloc and the Conservatives that would put the country in the hands of Stephen Harper.

And some, well...

With three months until Canadians vote in the next federal election, Green party leader Elizabeth May says her big hope for the final result is a minority government over which she can exert some influence.

In fact, May thinks that influence could even get the Conservatives to drop their dyed-in-the-wool opposition to carbon taxes if it means the difference for them between governing or spending more time in opposition.

"People change their minds when they see the dynamic of a way a Parliament is assembled and maybe think, 'Killing carbon taxes isn't such a good idea if the only way I get to be prime minister is by keeping them,' " May says.
...
Federally, May says she could support a minority government of any party but only if that party is serious about acting to stop climate change.

"We will negotiate with anyone, we will talk to everyone, but we won't compromise on climate action," she says.

Meanwhile, let's keep in mind that it's a single vote of confidence following the 2008 election that gave Stephen Harper the ability to stay in office rather than facing the consequences of pushing to exacerbate an economic meltdown with cuts and political attacks.

May might well be able to get the Cons to say they'll change their position on climate policy for the purpose of taking power. She'd have far less leverage in getting them to follow through when they have the option of running away from Parliament.