Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Aaron Wherry discusses the deadly-serious consequences of climate denialism which is driven by frivolous rhetoric. And Andre Mayer points out the numerous ways in which the climate breakdown is actually responsible for the increased cost of living which is being used as an excuse to stall what little action has been planned to try to combat change. 

- Sachi Mulkey reports on new research showing that methane from landfills represents just one more area in which we're spewing more carbon pollution than previously documented (or taken into account in climate change plans). And Ben Webster reports on a carbon capture project which ExxonMobil isn't bothering to complete after trumpeting it as an excuse for fossil fuel expansion.  

- Hugo Daniel reports on the misinformation and denialism from a major asbestos supplier which has continued to pollute information flows long after the dangers of asbestos use were widely known. And Maureen Tkacik discusses how Boeing purged its organization of people who knew how to build safe airplanes in order to maximize short-term profits. 

- Candice Odgers reviews Jonathan Haidt's The Anxious Generation - and in the process points out that anybody genuinely concerned about children's well-being should be working primarily on alleviating real-world stressors, rather than focusing solely and conveniently on social media. And Emine Saner discusses how Estonia's focus on fostering a supportive environment for children and teachers alike has resulted in better educational performance. 

- Finally, Katya Schwenk reports on how large corporates are funneling dark money into buying extreme firepower for police forces - making them both more likely to pursue extreme violence, and biased to direct it against people without the same level of wealth or power. And Doug Cuthand highlights how prisons have replaced residential schools as the main institution used to impose control on Indigenous people. 

Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Chris Walker discusses new research showing that over half of the increase in U.S. consumer prices over the past 6 months is pure corporate greedflation. And Michael Harris warns that Pierre Poilievre is planning to use discontent among Canadian voters as to a lack of affordability to further enrich the robber barons who are causing it. 

- Alan Semuels examines the consequences of leaving an important policy project (the installation of solar panels) to the corporate sector, as the goal of converting to clean energy is in danger of being swamped by the machinations of financialization.  

- Geoff Dembicki warns that Canada is on the verge of detonating one of the planet's largest carbon bombs by pushing and subsidizing fossil gas exports. And Nichole Dusyk notes that we no longer have the excuse that "everybody else is doing it", as the U.S. has set a needed example in prioritizing a habitable planet over dirty energy exports. 

- Matthew Rosza writes about new research showing that the spread of microplastics includes accumulation in the bodies of endangered Galapagos penguins. And Joseph Winters reports on a new study showing that while recycling schemes may do little to reduce plastic contamination, actual bans work wonders in reducing the number of bags discarded. 

- Zak Vescera reports on British Columbia's steps to reduce the extent and danger of exposure to asbestos in the workplace. 

- Finally, David MacDonald examines what's included - and what's still missing - in the first step toward a national dental plan. 

On discriminatory treatment

Following up on this post, let's take a look at Tom Parkin's other recent post which offers plenty of food for thought. Parkin's view broadly matches Guy Caron's position on Quebec's treatment of people who wear niqabs - but seems to me to fall short of making the case for deferring to Quebec's politicians when it comes to basic principles of inclusion and nondiscrimination.

At the outset, Parkin and Caron both disagree on the merits with legislation such as Bill 62 denying service to women based on what they wear. So the argument boils down to whether there's a particular reason to hold back in discussing harmful legislation - or offer artificial "respect" to a view which is both wrong in policy, and based in part on discriminatory intent - because of the nature of the body which has passed it.

And the NDP hasn't established a strict standard along similar lines before. For example, it worked on banning the mining and sale of asbestos in the face of a unanimous resolution of the National Assembly to continue the industry, and before any Quebec politician spoke out on the same side of the issue.

In addition to being on the right side of history on the merits, that action wasn't apparently seen as problematic based on the application of the Sherbrooke Declaration (PDF) - and certainly doesn't seem to have affected Jack Layton's strategy for building bridges in Quebec.

But is there something different in the combination of political and public views about the niqab? There, one has to ask whether any position is likely to hold up in the face of scrutiny. 

Needless to say, the prime example on that front is the federal Bill C-51 - which was viewed as a political slam-dunk for the Harper Cons until they ran into principled opposition from the NDP. Within months, Canadians had turned against the bill and the government which introduced it, while rewarding the party which had the backbone to speak up.

To be sure, there's no guarantee that public opinion would similarly change on Bill C-62. But it's dangerous to assume that public opinion is set in stone, particularly when one side of an issue hasn't been given a full hearing on the merits. And there's plenty of reason to doubt that the politics of exclusion in Quebec are as much a winner as they're assumed to be.

Key precedents include both the Parti Quebecois' fall from power as it tried to run on its Charter of Values, and the fact that the top two vote shares in 2015 federally (covering 62% of the popular vote) went to parties which opposed the Cons' attempt to discriminate against people who wear a niqab.

Moreover, there's an obvious opening to introduce new policies based on NDP values to Quebec's political scene.

It's undoubtedly for members of the new Quebec-based party to decide what their priorities are, and the federal party should pay close attention one way or the other. But I'd suggest some of the most important opportunities for the NPD-Quebec involve areas where it's possible to stand apart from the existing parties - and Bill 62 is one example where unanimity among current politicians may not match the public mood, particularly if there's a distinct choice on offer.

And that could lay the groundwork for what I'd hope will be the NDP's long-term plans to retake progressive terrain from the Libs.

In 2015, the difference in the effect of the niqab issue between the Libs and the NDP arose from the fact that the former was never challenged as the loudest voice on the side of opposing discrimination, while the latter hadn't yet spoken up on similar cultural issues. But that effect could be reversed if there's a link between a federal NDP and a Quebec counterpart which both take a forceful position against discrimination, while the Liberal brand is split from one level to the other. 

To conclude, there's always reason for skepticism about the political choice to stay silent in the face of false conventional wisdom. And even from the standpoint of political calculation, the NDP is likely better served confirming that voters who care about minority rights can count on it, rather than answering fundamental questions with an awkward silence or a jurisdictional dodge.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Baratunde Thurston makes the point that even beyond income and wealth inequality, there's an obviously unfair distribution of second chances in the U.S. depending on one's race and class. Denis Campbell reports on the link between poverty and childhood obesity, while Jen St. Denis highlights how poverty can cause and exacerbate mental health problems.

- Kyle Bakx points out how a systematic effort to encourage people living in poverty to file their tax returns can result in help getting where it's needed most. And conversely, the Star 's editorial board writes that piling fines on people with no means to pay them serves no useful purpose.

- David Cay Johnston examines the U.S.' tax rolls and finds a large number of wealthy Americans paying no income tax at all:

In 2014, the latest year for which we have data, more than two million of the 148.6 million tax-filing households reported negative incomes. The number of such households has been rising for years. In 1994 it was 0.8% of income tax returns, but in 2014 it hit 1.4%. That's one in 73, up from one in 125.

Some of these households have one-time losses, usually from failed business. But many must be wealthy, too, benefiting from liberal tax avoidance laws set by Congress.

My detailed analysis of the official data shows that those who reported negative incomes on average are wealthier and enjoy more cash flow by far than the average American.

Some surprising facts:

• More than a fourth of these non-taxpaying households had paying jobs in 2014.
• These households had vastly more investment income than all but the top half of 1% of all households.
• One in three negative-income households reported receiving taxable interest, compared to 29% of all taxpayers. The average amount they reported was $6,939. For comparison, those making $75,000 to $100,000 in 2014 reported average taxable interest of just $860.

What we do not know is how many of these are people reporting negative income just once – and how many, like Trump, have reported negative income year-after-year, despite huge incomes that they collect free of income tax.
...
When you get to even richer households, Donald Trump territory, you still find negative-income taxpayers: The 410,300 tax households reporting incomes of $1 million or more in 2014 had an average income that was more than $3.3 million. But 444 of these million-dollar-plus households – about one in 900 – paid no income tax.

- Doreen Nichol rightly argues that children living on reserves shouldn't face continued systemic discrimination, while Jody Porter reports that First Nations residents needing medical travel are facing regular breaches of privacy compared to other patients. And CBC reports that the Idle No More movement is rightly demanding that Justin Trudeau live up to his promises, rather than pretending that rhetoric is enough to make up for continued unfair treatment.

- In a similar vein, Nathan Cullen discusses the need to hold the Libs to their promise of electoral reform. And Tavia Grant reports on the Libs' failure to follow through on a commitment to ban the use of asbestos.

- Finally, Judith Lavoie comments on the need for renewed anti-SLAPP protection to allow people to participate meaningfully in public debates about the issues that affect them. And Michael Geist offers his suggestions for the future of Canadian journalism.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Lucy Shaddock offers a response to the Institute for Fiscal Studies' report on poverty and inequality in the UK, while McKinsey finds that hundreds of millions of people in advanced economies are seeing their real incomes stagnate or decline. And Mariana Mazzucato and Michael Jacobs provide their take on what the UK needs to reduce inequality:

Can May succeed in building an economy of broadly shared prosperity? Only if she is willing to govern with the revolutionary zeal seen in that speech. To address the problems she identified will require a complete departure from Osborne’s failed plans. But more than that, it will require a departure the orthodox economics that shaped them.

Policymaking over the past half-century has relied on a narrow school of economic thought, dominated by a simplistic idea of “markets” and “market failures”, of “competition” and “shareholder value”. May’s new agenda will need to draw on a much richer palette.

...(M)arkets are not external forces that bind firms to inevitable choices. They are created by the decisions made inside private and public institutions, as well as pressures from civil society. So not only can policymakers fix “market failures”, but they can also actively reshape and create markets for better ends.

- Andre Picard rightly argues that global targets to reduce the spread of AIDS can't be met without a thorough effort to fight poverty and prejudice.
 
- Chris Hatch weighs in on the need to revamp how Canada evaluates and regulates pipelines and other environmental risks. Will Horter notes that there's no reason for optimism based on the Libs' attempt to paper over the National Energy Board's failings. And the Toronto Star criticizes the Libs' lack of follow-up on a loud announcement about removing and banning asbestos.

- Jim Bronskill reports on the Communications Security Establishmen's newfound refusal to provide even statistical data about the sharing of information which may lead to torture.

- Finally, Marc-André Miron, Marie-Claude Bertrand and Cym Gomery point out that the typical talking points against proportional representation lack any basis in reality.

Thursday Evening Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Daniel Marans reports on Bernie Sanders' push for international action against austerity in Greece and elsewhere. And Binoy Kampmark documents the anti-democratic and antisocial ideology on the other side of the austerity debate.

- Noah Smith writes that while there's no discernible connection between massive pay for CEOs and actual corporate performance, there's a strong link between who an executive knows and how much the executive can extract.

- The CP reports on UNESCO's push to study the impact of the tar sands on Wood Buffalo National Park. And Tavia Grant breaks the news that Health Canada is just getting around the acknowledging the long-recognized dangers of asbestos.

- Stephen Maher comments on the Cons' manipulations of the Canada Elections Act to limit voting among poor Canadians. And Michelle Ghoussoub reports on the Council of Canadians' fight to reverse the restrictions.

-Finally, John Baglow notes that the Cons' especially villainous run of recent actions looks to reflect the death throes of Stephen Harper's government. Steve Sullivan calls out the Cons for seeking to terrorize Canada's electorate. And Michael Harris argues that Harper is a tyrant in the true sense of the word, while Andrew Coyne writes that Harper is truly alone as the federal election campaign approaches.

On consensus-breaking

Having earlier dealt with Stephen Harper's attempt to justify war by building up hatred and hype toward ISIS, I'll note the other main rationale on offer from the Cons - which can generally be described as government by wrong answer to a rhetorical question:

If Canada wants to keep its voice in the world…and we should since so many of our challenges are global…being a free rider means you are not taken seriously.
...
And when our allies recognize and respond to a threat, that would also harm us, we Canadians do not stand on the sidelines. We do our part.

Or in shorter form:

Canadians: If your friends jumped off a cliff, would you do the same?
Harper: Of course. In fact, I take pride in following along.

So what's wrong with the "but everybody else is doing it!" argument?

Let's start by noting that the issue isn't one of other countries actually requesting Canada's military participation at all. Instead, the best evidence is that even as Harper falsely claimed to be responding to U.S. requests for help, he was instead positively begging to be dared to join in.

But more fundamentally, Harper can't claim to value the common views of other countries with any consistency.

In fact, he's consistently thumbed his nose at the rest of the world on issues ranging from climate change to asbestos to indigenous rights to financial regulation, ensuring that risks far more severe than ISIS would go unaddressed. And in those cases, his contempt for consensus actually stood in the way of international action - unlike in the case of Iraq, where some military intervention would almost certainly go ahead regardless of what Canada does.

Of course, the other common thread is that in those cases, Harper's determination to thwart arose out of the Cons' service of corporate interests, with a particular focus on the resource sector.

But surely that confirms that Harper doesn't value multilateralism as a general principle, only as a means to the ends which he wants to pursue anyway. And in this case, that means using allies as excuses to drag Canada into war for its own sake.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Lana Payne discusses the need to address inequality through our political system. But that will require significant pressure from exactly the citizens who have decided they're not well served by today's political options - and Trish Hennessy's look at Canadian voter turnout reminds us of the desperate need for improvement.

- Meanwhile, Tim Harford points out just how far we've gone in focusing on dollars over all other considerations - as even Scotland's referendum on independence is being spun mostly as a matter of dueling fiscal projections rather than community, culture or other policy questions.

- Tavia Grant's report on the deadly legacy - and continued danger - of asbestos is well worth a read, particularly for this reminder that the Cons' offical policy is to promote the material which serves as Canada's largest source of workplace deaths:

In asbestos policy, Canada is at odds with other developed countries, almost all of which have both banned asbestos and launched national campaigns to educate their citizens on its dangers.

Regarding exports and imports, Canada’s long-standing position is that “safe and controlled use” of the mineral poses little risk to human health.

Health Canada’s website maintains that chrysotile (the form of asbestos mined in Quebec) is safer than other types of asbestos, and that asbestos poses risks only when its fibres become airborne and “significant quantities” are inhaled. It plays down the causal relationship between asbestos and some forms of cancer. The website does not inform Canadians that asbestos is the No. 1 cause of work-related deaths. (In contrast, the U.S. Acting Surgeon General, Boris Lushniak, reminded the American public in April that there is no known safe level of asbestos exposure.)

Between 2006 and 2011, Canada was the only developed nation to oppose bringing asbestos under the control of the Rotterdam Convention, a United Nations-sponsored treaty, signed in 1998, that requires the exporters of hazardous substances to disclose the risks.

Indeed, the Conservative government has been a stalwart friend of the industry. “Only the Conservative party will defend this industry here and everywhere in Canada,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in Quebec on the campaign trail in 2011. While the Tories were fighting international efforts to restrict trade in asbestos, the government was simultaneously spending millions to remove asbestos from the Parliament buildings and the prime minister’s residence.

- In a similar vein, PressProgress finds that the Cons' cheerleading for the oil sector has reached the point where they're trying to paint the extraction and burning of dirty fossil fuels as a win for the environment. Mitchell Anderson discusses Canada's massive subsidies to big oil (as well as the Cons' pathetic attempts to pretend they don't exist), while Mike de Souza finds that the National Energy Board is spending twice as much moving its offices into a sinkhole as it could muster for new pipeline monitoring, and the CP finds that Alberta's new environmental policy for fracking is "do what you want". And Bruce Johnstone writes that the Cons can't be taken seriously on climate change.

- Finally, David Dayen discusses the astroturf effort to challenge Elizabeth Warren's work in making student loan payments more affordable.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Derrick O'Keefe calls for a mass movement to stop the Harper Cons in their tracks now, rather than waiting for 2015:

Thoughts of ousting Harper in 2015 are well and good, but not nearly sufficient at this perilous moment for democracy and social justice in Canada. Given Bill C-38 and the events of the past few months - think about the "robocalls" scandal and the F-35 cost fiasco, for starters - nothing less than an unprecedented mass movement in the streets will suffice to push back and change the correlation of forces in political life in this country.

The rapid spread of protest actions - both with the Occupy encampments last fall, and the Casseroles in solidarity in Quebec these past weeks - illustrates, I think, a yearning for unity and mobilization amongst everyone opposed to Harper and the corporate agenda. It's been incredibly inspiring to watch, for example, how quickly the idea of 'Casseroles Night in Canada' spread. These moments are signs that there is a hunger for real, substantive change. 

The experiences of Occupy and the Casseroles, however, have also revealed the limits of our capacities at present. Mobilizations spread quickly, but participation is fickle and large protests fleeting - this is inevitable without the backing and active support of big organizations, and without widespread politicization in general. 

The strength of Quebec's student and social movements has been built up over years of base-building, and exist in the context of a much more developed progressive political culture than the rest of Canada. To admit this is not to give up, but rather to take a longer-term perspective to the task at hand - it's a war of position, not an insurrection.

- Meanwhile, Jason Fekete confirms that the Cons' push for resource extraction at all costs bears no resemblance at all to what Canadians want to see. And John Geddes points out that the list of radical environmentalists who expect carbon pricing to play a part in the global economy includes the likes of the CEO of Royal Dutch Shell.

- In the "just behind the curve" department, Chris Selley speculates that a political party might be able to succeed in Quebec while challenging the sacred cow that is the asbestos industry. This surely comes as news to all concerned.

- Finally, Steve V rightly wonders how the influence of corporate advertising dollars may affect media coverage.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Dr. Dawg highlights Peter Russell's take on the Cons' 2008 efforts to prevent a Parliamentary majority from actually exercising its right to vote down a government which had lost the confidence of the House of Commons. And Steven Chase follows up by noting the role that the Cons' smear machine may have played in subverting Canadian democracy.

- Meanwhile, Bruce Cox discusses how a longstanding democratic crisis has led us to the verge of environmental disaster. And as Scott points out, there's plenty of room for matters to get worse when our federal government is actively looking for ways to encourage and facilitate pollution - to which I'll add that the Cons' deliberate steps to avoid telling the truth about hazardous substances aren't hugely promising either.

- Nobel laureate Paul Krugman's blog and columns are among my must-reads - so I often presume that readers will be familiar with his take on economics. But for anybody looking for a handy starting point on Krugman's recent work, Heather Mallick provides it while reviewing End This Depression Now.

- Finally, Erin agrees with the take that we shouldn't let anybody siphon resource wealth out of Saskatchewan - but points out that it's the Saskatchewan Party's low-royalty, multi-loophole system that's actually draining money out of our province.

Parliament in Review: May 1, 2012

Tuesday, May 1 saw more debate on a couple of relatively non-contentious bills - along with a prime example of the Cons' blinkered focus on mandatory minimum sentences.

The Big Issue

In continued debate on the Lucky Moose self-defence bill, the NDP pointed out some of the ways the legislation could have been improved if the Cons had been willing to listen. Wayne Marston pointed out that some more recognition of battered spouse syndrome in particular would have been appropriate, while Guy Caron noted that in general some greater discretion in assessing the circumstances of a given event would be a plus.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth May criticized groupthink within parties - and Alex Atamanenko agreed as to the need to listen to voices outside one's own caucus. Linda Duncan highlighted the importance of not using the weight of the legal system to criminalize poverty. And Andre Bellavance confirmed the Bloc's support for the bill in advance of its passage.

Railroaded

Pierre Poilievre did his best to make debate on a railway safety bill into an ideological and partisan battle by using a tired trope about the "few legitimate roles of government" amidst a paean to the minister giving him orders about the bill - earning some well-deserved criticism from Pat Martin. But Olivia Chow and Mike Sullivan expressed support for the bill despite noting that it falls far short of dealing with the need for improved rail service - while Philip Toone highlighted the latter point.

Meanwhile, Duncan raised questions about environmental cleanup and reclamation of railroad beds. And Martin called for a specific project to deal with Winnipeg's rail yards, while also pointing out that railroad cost is just as big an issue as safety for prairie farmers.

In Brief

Alexandrine Latendresse introduced a bill to require that officers of Parliament be bilingual. Thomas Mulcair made a statement for International Workers' Day, while Alexandre Boulerice questioned how they could possibly justify forcing unemployed Canadians to desperately accept "any old job". Megan Leslie slammed the Cons' cuts to Parks Canada, Helene LeBlanc followed up questioning their attacks on research and data collection, and Randall Garrison pointed out that the loss of the Canadian Emergency Management College may prove disastrous for communities who count on it to train emergency workers. Parm Gill spoke to a private member's bill imposing new mandatory minimums for gang recruitment, with Pierre Jacob and Irwin Cotler signalling a willingness to study the bill further but wondering whether it actually figures to serve any useful purpose. Anne Minh-Thu Quach asked adjournment questions about the Cons' shameful asbestos boosterism, leading to Jacques Gourde's stunning response that his own government's refusal to apply international hazardous substance standards somehow served to justify continued promotion of the industry. And Andrew Cash called out the Cons for a particularly egregious non-response from Jim Flaherty on a question about housing which was met with what appears to have been a verbatim recitation from Rob Ford's campaign material.

[Edit: fixed introduction.]

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Michelle Lalonde notes that despite continued giveaways from both the federal and provincial governments, Quebec's asbestos industry may soon fade away due to a lack of any economic case for private funding.

- Jessica Bruno reports on major cuts to the federal public sector which have been inflicted without any particular accountability so far - including job losses among the civil servants responsible for key areas like employment insurance, immigration and health.

- Meanwhile, that is indeed Canada's public safety minister getting rebuked yet again by the courts for improperly denying the rights of Canadians abroad.

- Steve rightly notes that the media's lack of interest in the NDP leadership campaign has much more to do with its own shallow political coverage than any shortage of interest within the party.

- Nancy Peckford points to Sana Hassainia's example as a case of our political institutions utterly failing to take into account the needs of new parents and others whose voices are all too often shut out.

- Finally, Stephen Maher reminds us why Stephen Harper has silenced his party's members for so long - as the first few outbursts under a majority government have been on the ugly side.

Parliament in Review: December 6, 2011

Tuesday, December 6 saw a day devoted primarily to debating the Cons' seat redistribution bill. And the result was some interesting interplay between the three official parties in the House of Commons - if no lack of contradictions as well.

The Big Issue

In effect, the debate on C-20 saw three different positions clashing strongly throughout the day - with the lone agreement among parties being a concurrence of opinion between the NDP and the Bloc on the NDP's alternative proposal.

The NDP's take - presented first by David Christopherson - was that seat allocation should be treated as one of the most important real applications of the House of Commons' unanimous recognition of a Quebecois nation. Guy Caron criticized the Cons' total lack of consultation before imposing their preferred seat distribution on the provinces, while Pat Martin discussed his own participation in consultations on the constitution. In response to the cost argument raised repeatedly by the Libs, NDP MPs pointed out repeatedly that the cost of an unelected, unrepresentative Senate is far greater than the price of enough seats in the House of Commons to combine that principle with additional seats for growing provinces. And Bruce Hyer, Libby Davies and Jinny Sims noted that seat allocations should themselves be seen as a far less important issue than proportional representation and the ability of elected MPs to do their jobs without being stifled by a government which tolerates no dissent.

Meanwhile, the Cons and Libs limited their argument to the exact number of seats which should be divided up with substantially equal percentage allocations. Tim Uppal argued that any reductions in seats for a province would reflect "picking winners and losers" and needlessly inflaming tensions - making for a standard well worth applying to the Cons' own decisions on funding for programs and transfer payments. The Libs pointed to a quote from Stephen Harper suggesting that Canadians already have too many elected representatives, and also argued that it was percentages rather than raw numbers that really defined the relative weight of provinces. (Of course, they utterly abandoned that position in their attacks on the NDP for defining its policy in terms of proportions rather than specified seat numbers - and both Matthew Kellway and Alexandrine Latendresse rightly highlighted the contradiction.)

Finally, in what may have been the most stark difference of the day, Jamie Nicholls pointed to George Brown's one-time theory that representation by population would serve to entirely extinguish French Canadianism - only to be followed in short order by Michael Chong's proud invocation of Brown as the historical model for the Cons' bill.

Needless to say, the Cons couldn't allow that type of substantive debate among elected representatives to go on for long. And so in the name of democracy, Peter Van Loan again gave notice of his intention to shut down debate.

Do Unto Others

Pierre Poilievre lashed out at the opposition parties for denying a request for unanimous consent to split his time. Yes, that would be the same Pierre Poilievre who's served as parliamentary secretary to a Prime Minister who has publicly ordered his party never to consent to anything the opposition requests.

In Brief

Joy Smith presented a petition calling for use of the Nordic model on prostitution (which would criminalize purchasing rather than selling). Justin Trudeau had an intervention shut down due to his failure to wear a tie in the House. Nycole Turmel, Alexandre Boulerice and Nicholls all raised questions about political influence exerted by Con insiders Dmitri Soudas and Lou Housakas in the Montreal port authority. Charlie Angus, Linda Duncan and Jonathan Genest-Jourdain pointed out a complete lack of investment in tolerable living conditions in Attawapiskat and other First Nations across Canada. On the anniversary of the Ecole Polytechnique massacre, Francoise Boivin questioned why the Cons were removing controls on exactly the type of weapon used in the shootings. Megan Leslie pointed out that after deferring any action on climate change by saying they'd get around to it just as soon as China, India, Brazil and South Africa went first, the Cons were still standing in the way of agreement even after all the major developing countries were on board. Jean Crowder highlighted that the Cons were keeping EI cheques out of the hands of workers who needed them by refusing to properly staff Service Canada. Francois Lapointe again noted that Quebec's asbestos mines were shut down, and wondered when the government would bother planning an economic transition for the affected region rather than clinging to a dying industry. Alex Atamanenko pointed out a gruesome and unsanitary horse slaughter video as an example of the type of issue the CFIA should be equipped to address. Mylene Freeman noted that the Cons are doing effectively nothing to help 1.6 million women living in poverty. And Raymond Cote spoke to a private member's motion on the importance of the port of Quebec.

Parliament in Review: December 5, 2011

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

The Big Issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bottom Lines

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

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

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

In Brief

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

Parliament in Review: November 28, 2011

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

The Big Issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Brief

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

Parliament in Review: November 22, 2011

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

The Big Issue

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

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

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

Silent Treatment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Brief

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

Parliament in Review: November 4, 2011

Friday, November 4 saw another day of spirited question period debate on the economy. But for once, the main theme was total cooperation - even if much of the day was spent lamenting its absence.

The Big Issue

The main bill up for debate was the Cons' legislation dealing with military judges. But while the Cons tried and failed to get the bill passed in one fell swoop, it was Lib John McKay who seemed most frustrated about the idea of bothering to discuss and debate the legislation - at least until he declared that the Cons had brought non-cooperation upon themselves.

But then, there may well have been some reason for further discussion. After all, the Cons themselves noted that any urgency about the bill was based on a court decision issued June 2 - leaving no obvious reason why the bill was only introduced in mid-October. Jack Harris offered both a summary of where the bill came from, and a few other issues worth dealing with in the military justice system (including an arbitrary age limit which would seem to be up the Cons' alley to address). And David Christopherson and Harris rightly noted that it's the official opposition's job to make sure that the government's potentially-flawed assumptions are duly tested.

In case that wasn't enough cooperation for one day, though, the Cons' bill to implement a marine agreement with the Crees of Eeyou Istchee passed by unanimous consent.

In Brief

Francois Lapointe pointed out that AECL is costing $800 million to sell off as part of $21 billion in total costs, while Christine Moore kept up her questions about the minimal return on what look to be obscene prices for the F-35s the Cons can't bear to reconsider. Chris Charlton wondered whether a jobs plan is ever going to be forthcoming. Glenn Thibault noted that the TD Bank is withdrawing from a voluntary ombudsman which of course serves as the Cons' substitute for actual public regulation. Mathieu Ravignat questioned Maxime Bernier's links to an individual facing international drug trafficking charges. Tony Clement's failure to answer any questions about his G8 scandal was explained by his being busy waiting for opportunities to raise points of order to bash donations to former Lib leader Michael Ignatieff (while setting up a chill for all public servants who might think about exercising their right to donate to any party). Andrew Scheer delivered his ruling finding Russ Hiebert's anti-union bill to be out of order. And Lapointe pointed out the few Cons who avoided voting for continued unrestricted asbestos exports, while calling for more MPs to join the anti-asbestos side.

Parliament in Review: November 1, 2011

Yes, a couple of the Cons' more odious bills have already made their way into law. But let's at least resume a look back at the arguments they so flippantly ignored in pushing through their first set of legislation - with the November 1 debate on the gun registry offering plenty of cases in point.

The Big Issue

Once again, the main topic of discussion was the Cons' choice to trash the gun registry and the underlying data - with particular emphasis on the Privacy Commissioner of Canada's public statement that the gun registry data could be shared with a province by agreement. Both Dennis Bevington and Pierre Jacob questioned the gap between the Cons' privacy spin and the public position of the Privacy Commissioner, and Kevin Lamoureux, Anne Minh-Thu Quach and Rosane Doré Lefebvre noted that the effect of destroying the gun registry data was to impose utterly gratuitous costs on the provinces who have stated an intention to create their own versions. But of course, those points were met with precisely no substantive response - even when Quach posed her question to Peter Penashue, whose role as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs would seem to make him the cabinet member with direct responsibility to deal with the provinces on such issues.

Meanwhile, Mike Sullivan countered another of the Cons' lines of spin (about not being responsible for deregistering sniper weapons since they hadn't changed the classification structure) by pointing out that the classification structure itself was only becoming relevant due to the choice to scrap the long gun registry, while Carol Hughes pointed out that the bill was sorely lacking for consequential changes to patch over obvious holes in Canada's gun control system. Pierre-Luc Dusseault wondered why victims of gun crimes apparently don't rate any consideration as part of the Cons' usual spin about concern for victims. Quach noted the importance of the gun registry in border enforcement. Elizabeth May was appalled by the Cons' mockery of the importance of archiving and data preservation. Nathan Cullen lamented the gun registry bill as an example of wedge politics, and criticized the Cons for neither knowing nor caring what it would cost to destroy the data from the existing registry.

On the Cons' side, Lynne Yelich made an interesting statement about how she came to be elected:

On how many calls have come into my office, when we were elected, I would venture to say that 99.9% of my votes were what mandated us to end the gun registry alone. That is how many calls I received. People told us to get ride of the gun registry now that we had a majority government. They said that that they had sent us to Ottawa to get rid of it and that if we did not, they would start their own party and get rid of it.

Needless to say, the assertion that Yelich was elected solely to get rid of the gun registry would look to be a rather useful concession anytime the Cons try to claim a mandate to do anything else at all.

But in the end, the Cons voted down the NDP's proposed amendments and forced through the bill as written.

Hunger for Action

The other main theme of the day arose out of new data on food bank use - with Sean Casey and Jean Crowder focusing on the overall 26% increase since 2008, while assorted NDP MPs highlighted the even more drastic increases in food bank use among people with disabilities, seniors, Quebeckers and northerners and criticizing the Cons' utter lack of interest in addressing the deprivation that's led to those shameful figures.

But the Cons did make clear what type of social priority they do value - as Shelly Glover responded to questions about increasing food bank use by chastising the NDP for failing to support non-refundable tax credits carefully crafted to offer as little as possible to the families who might actually need to use one.

In Brief

Another bill also found its way to committee, as Joe Comartin's bill to eliminate a Criminal Code prohibition against single-event sports betting won all-party support on its way to passing at second reading. The Cons and Bloc voted down the NDP's asbestos motion. Romeo Saganash's question on the oil and gas sector received several remarkable answers, including that Natural Resources Canada hasn't bothered to conduct the slightest bit of analysis either as to how a carbon price would affect natural gas use, or as to how natural gas use might affect Canada's ability to meet its greenhouse gas emission targets. And Don Davies introduced a private member's bill to provide for a renewable energy development strategy.