Leadership 2017 Platform Analysis - Guy Caron

If Niki Ashton stands out in having received relatively little attention for her policy development, Guy Caron looks to be on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Having justifiably portrayed himself as the policy wonk candidate and built his campaign largely around a basic income proposal which continues to provoke important discussion, Caron hasn't faced much attention in other policy areas. And so he's been able to avoid answering for what's otherwise been a fairly thin policy agenda.

Aside from the basic income, other points distinct to Caron include:
- specific refugee protections for climate migrants;
- a 7-hour work day for jobs within federal jurisdiction;
- a list of new revenue options including taxes on foreign e-commerce profits and limiting RRSP contributions; and
- Quebec-oriented commitments including the application of Bill 101 language requirements to federally-regulated industries in Quebec along with a bilingualism requirement for Supreme Court judges.

But Caron largely stops at his areas of specific strength: his Quebec policy is his lone effort at outreach to a specific segment of the progressive movement (in stark contrast to the range of proposals developed by Niki Ashton and Jagmeet Singh), and his strict avoidance of matters within provincial jurisdiction leaves him with little room to offer proposals on social programs aside from the basic income.

Now, one can argue that the result is that Caron's overall policy package is internally consistent and easy to judge in terms of his personal priorities. (And lest there be any doubt, Caron has expressed his personal support for additional progressive ideas during the course of the debates, while identifying the impossibility of implementing them solely at the federal level.) But it remains to be seen whether members will want to be bound by Caron's limited scope of operations.

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.]

Parliament In Review: October 7, 2011

Friday, October 7 was the last day in the House of Commons before the week-long Thanksgiving break. And there was plenty to chew on as MPs left their final mark before heading home.

The Big Issue

The main point of debate was once again the economy as the Cons pushed to ram their budget bill through Parliament. And once again, there was plenty of strong clash between the opposition parties and the Cons on the point - best exemplified in Paul Dewar's criticism of an economic policy directed at funneling money to those who need it least, which was met with Pierre Lemieux' response that the Cons aren't much interested in helping the lot of the poor other than through the jobs that haven't materialized from their tax slashing.

Mathieu Ravignat and Eve Peclet both pointed out that more equal societies experience more stable growth than one which buy into trickle-down rhetoric. Randall Garrison highlighted the $10/hr gap between B.C.'s minimum wage and the cost of basic food, shelter, clothing and transportation, and observed that it was the Cons' market-first model that caused the bubble and crash that have left the global economy reeling. Peter Stoffer noted that food bank use is up by roughly 50% since the Cons took office, while Kirsty Duncan pointed out the glaring need for improved child nutrition programs. Rosane Dore Lefebvre called for the Cons to ensure that Canadians can rely on secure pensions, rather than instructing workers to gamble their savings in the stock market if they want to have any hope of retiring, and Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet highlighted just how insecure stocks have been as an investment over the past quarter. And Ted Hsu recognized that his own success is made up of equal parts hard work and luck in noting that he doesn't object to funding opportunities for everybody.

Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre made it clear in response to questions about the Champlain Bridge that the Cons are happy to apply a P3 toll model to any new infrastructure development. And he naturally had nothing more to offer even in response to Jamie Nicholls' entirely justified followup as to why the Cons haven't accounted for transit needs in their bridge announcement. But perhaps the most remarkable scripted response from Poilievre was his joint argument with Dean Del Mastro from a lack of evidence in pretending that a country can't have both effective government and economic development.

History Rewritten

While Poilievre would normally be the favourite, though, the award for the most creative (if completely detached from reality) Con spin of the day goes to Paul Calandra:

To make matters worse, when the NDP had an opportunity to stop a Liberal government from slashing funding for health care, for social programs and education what did it do? It cut a deal with that same Liberal government to keep it in office as opposed to throwing it out.

For those paying attention at home, the one time the NDP "cut a deal with (the) Liberal government" was in 2005, a decade after the Libs' earlier cuts. That agreement was to secure additional funding for education and infrastructure investments in education and social programs - money added on top of a budget which Calandra's party had previously supported in full, while the NDP rejected it as insufficient. And the Libs' government then fell only when it refused to make improvements to health care requested by the NDP. But aside from those entirely minor quibbles, the historical accuracy of Calandra's criticism is above reproach.

Accountability Acts

Meanwhile, the other major topic of discussion was accountability in light of the Cons' moves to shut down debate in the House of Commons and investigations in Parliamentary committees. Wayne Easter noted that the Cons had refused to allow any questions about the U.S.' "buy American" policy in committee, while Guy Caron similarly criticized the Cons' choice to shut down any accountability through committees. Lise St. Denis called for the Cons to respect the need for normal public and Parliamentary debate rather than slashing per-vote funding. And Pat Martin pointed out that it's an interim Auditor General with experience investigating the Libs' sponsorship scandal who saw the Cons' G8 cover-up as unprecedented.

In Brief

Jasbir Sandhu called out Stephen Harper for his anti-Muslim rhetoric. Dan Albas highlighted his private members' bill to permit wine to cross provincial borders. Thomas Mulcair pointed out Quebec's expectation of being reimbursed for the costs the Cons are downloading through their dumb-on-crime policies. Marc Garneau noted that as a result of tendering its jet purchase, Japan was able to secure better terms for assembly than the Cons are going to get in their F-35 debacle. Both Megan Leslie and Kirsty Duncan asked the Cons to list the "responsible journalists" who are permitted to speak to Environment Canada scientists. And Robert Aubin's question about French-language rights in Quebec workplaces was met with a remarkably positive response from Jacques Gourde.

On entry barriers

Following up on this post drawing some first outlines of the NDP leadership race, I'll deal briefly with one of the points that has surfaced in most media coverage: namely, whether candidates should have to be bilingual.

For the most part, every three-line summary of a candidate who isn't bilingual has seen fit to mention that fact in connection with the NDP's need to maintain its support in Quebec. And that's an understandable link to draw, particularly before we've seen much out of any of the candidates.

But ultimately, it's the NDP's members who will need to vote as to who's best suited to lead the party - with bilingualism serving as a factor worth taking into account, but hopefully not a disqualifying one for candidates who have other desirable qualities. And if any unilingual candidate can win over a majority of the NDP's members (including a new contingent from Quebec) even in the face of media hand-wringing, then that should speak well of the candidate's ability to lead the NDP into government after three years to get better acquainted with a second language.

Connect the dots

The opening ceremonies at the Vancouver Olympics proceeded on the concept that francophones should be seen but not heard.

Stephen Harper lavished effusive praise on the opening ceremonies at the Vancouver Olympics.

Therefore, Stephen Harper has lavished effusive praise on the concept that francophones should be seen but not heard.