On aftereffects

Macleans' Bull Meter assesses Jack Layton's concerns about reduced family-class immigration paired with increased use of temporary workers and finds them to be...entirely accurate.

By the same token, Stephen Harper's assertion that "we've been increasing (immigration) categories across the board" - coupled with a particularly smarmy "simply not true!" directed at the correct numbers from Layton and Michael Igantieff - would figure to earn an entire herd of bulls.

And the example makes me wonder about the unanticipated aftereffects of last night.

So far, the default assumption seems to be that Harper managed to get away with lying his way through the debate, both in terms of flat-out false statements of fact and in portraying his party's positions as being far more in line with Canadians than they actually are. (It takes something beyond mere acting to pretend that the Cons' reason for killing the NDP's Climate Change Accountability Act in the unelected Senate was that it didn't contain enough concrete measures, rather than because it would have put an end to the Cons' strategy of delay and obfuscation.)

But might the most important takeaway be less the tone of the debate itself than the subsequent checking of Harper's indignant statements of "fact" - so many of which don't stand up to even a modicum of scrutiny? And if Canadian hear enough that Harper's tone of defiance is based on yet another set of flat-out falsehoods, might that well make for a turn in the campaign?

The obstacles ahead

It's great news that Bill Siksay's Bill c-389 to protect transgendered rights has passed third reading in the House of Commons - leaving no democratic barriers in the way of its becoming law.

But that doesn't mean there isn't still a battle ahead. And the treatment of C-389 may serve as a litmus test as to just how urgent a need there is to rein in the Senate.

After all, it wasn't long ago that another major NDP bill which passed with the support of a majority of elected MPs was stalled then shredded by the Cons' unelected, unaccountable patronage appointees.

At the time, the Cons made implausible excuses about the bill following an unusual process in the Senate. But if they go back to the same bag of tricks to torpedo C-389 as well (notwithstanding that even a few Con MPs voted for it), then I'm not sure there's any possible conclusion but that the Senate is irreparably broken - and that Harper and company are determined to keep it that way.

The reviews are in

When the Harper Cons have lost Sun Media, you know they're in trouble. And their Senate abuses have lost Sun Media:

November’s vote killing a climate-change bill that had been passed by the House of Commons was the most noticeable foray in the Tories’ guerrilla war.

The Senate’s historic function of giving legislation a thorough once-over and public airing before it becomes law is on hold.
...
As a politician who hasn’t been able to break through and gain majority-inducing public support — somewhere north of 40% — Harper has to be careful about taking any path that alienates large numbers of voters.

But election concerns aside, he should not be undermining the purpose of one of the branches of Parliament.

Canadians are partial to consensus. Helping forge consensus is one of the Senate’s strengths, maybe its only one. Turning it into a Conservative bully boy might be legal, but it is wrong.

And even Senator James Cowan is less than pleased that his chamber is overriding the will of elected representatives with nothing but a single snap vote:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, refusing to recognize the limitations inherent in our parliamentary system of government, particularly in a minority Parliament, is turning the chamber of sober second thought into his personal back-stop by using it to defeat measures passed by the elected members of the House of Commons he does not agree with.
...
Bill C-311 arrived in the Senate on May 10, 2010, but for more than six months not a single Conservative senator rose to debate it. In response to a request by Liberals to either speak on this important initiative to help deal with climate change, or allow it to go to committee so that Canadians could have a chance to express their views before the Senate made a final decision about its fate, Conservative senators decided to simply kill it outright, and to do so immediately.

History was made that afternoon. Until that vote on Bill C-311, there had been an understanding spanning generations that there exist self-imposed limitations on a powerful appointed chamber in our parliamentary system of democratic government. Those limitations and that understanding have been erased by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who once again has shown little respect for Parliament or for Canadians who wish to be heard on the important issues of the day — in this instance, climate change.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday.

- Harron Siddiqui takes on the Cons, Libs and media alike for pushing Canada into an Afghanistan extension which most citizens don't want:

Harper’s flip-flops — won’t cut and run; won’t stay a day longer than July 2011; okay, will stay until 2014 — are functions of political posturing. Ignatieff’s position springs from his written conviction that the Afghan war was essential to Pax Americana, Empire Lite.

Regardless of motivation, Harper and Ignatieff are the eager errand boys of America in Afghanistan.

And much of our mainstream media are their cheerleaders — as they were for Bush’s war on Iraq. Good luck to the two-thirds of Canadians who oppose the Afghan war in getting fair news coverage.
...
NATO is on a treadmill going nowhere. But it won’t admit defeat, least of all Barack Obama. Battered in the midterm election, he cannot afford to give any opening to Republican and Tea Party warmongers. The 2014 deadline will neutralize Afghanistan as an issue in the 2012 presidential election.

Harper and Ignatieff are happy to oblige. The rest is propaganda.

- Sometimes, the system works!!!

- You know a political party is in trouble when its supporters are reduced to arguing that one of its competitors somehow shouldn't want the influx of high-profile figures crossing party lines to join it.

- Finally, while Rick Mercer's rant this week has already received plenty of attention, it's well worth including here as well:



[Edit: fixed wording, added and removed Axworthy link.]

Friday Afternoon Links

This and that to end your week...

- While the Cons may have received more well-deserved attention for abusing unelected positions to overturn the will of the House of Commons, Susan Delacourt notes that's far from the only reason for concern with their political games this week based on their continued restatement of a story that's been proven to be false:

Once upon a time, the Commons was regarded as equivalent to a legal forum; people didn't deliberately tell mistruths in there. Contempt for political foes is one thing -- contempt for the institution is breath-taking.

And just to put the icing on the cake, Glover also used a government announcement yesterday to accuse Ignatieff of advocating marijuana use for young people, again, exploiting a cynical twist on partial quotes. Your taxpayer dollars paid for that news conference; you should be demanding that the Conservative party foot part of the bill.

I don't particularly care who wins the by-elections, but as a long-time observer of politics, I can tell you that this isn't business as usual. If this is the kind of campaigning that is allowed to stand, if we just shrug, Canada will get the base, cynical politics it deserves.

- Meanwhile, Tim Powers has the gall to try to pretend that the Cons' shredding of C-311 somehow reflects poorly on the party which shepherded it through the House of Commons as a failure to get things done, rather than serving as yet another outrageous affront to democracy by a government which seems eager to produce them at every opportunity.

- I wouldn't necessarily see the Canadian Health Coalition's social media efforts as anything new in Canadian politics: see e.g. the NDP's Twitter-based campaigns or the letter-writing campaign on copyright issues. But Bob Hepburn's column on the group's work is nonetheless worth a read.

- Finally, Chantal Hebert points out how his own party's supporters. And it's worth asking whether some of the nominal Lib voters already dissatisfied with Ignatieff really want to be putting their votes behind a party that's going to be under his thumb:

It is now clear that the decision to promote a three-year extension of Canada's military presence in the war-torn country was a top-down one, with caucus very loosely (if at all) in the loop.

The Liberal party is no stranger to a top-down approach but controversial stances dictated from on high have more usually been a feature of the life of the party when it was in power and rarely on a front as traditionally sensitive for the party as this one.

Even as prime minister, Ignatieff would have faced an uphill battle to bring his caucus and the party on side with the post-2011 military presence he has inspired the Conservatives to maintain.

Like his past support for the American-led Iraq war or Paul Martin's initial intent to sign on to the US missile defence shield, the move goes against the grain of a significant number of Liberal activists.

The adamancy with which Ignatieff and Rae have defended the government's decision to forego a vote on the new Canadian terms of engagement in Afghanistan is also awkward.

This is an official opposition that started off the year accusing Harper of contempt of democracy for proroguing Parliament for the winter. Now it is arguing that MPs need not vote on the country's signature foreign and defence policy.

At the very least, the events of the past week suggest that Canadians should no more count on the current Liberal leadership to restore and enhance the relevance of Parliament than on the ruling Conservatives.

The height of credibility

Memo to John Baird: now might not be the time to pretend that the House of Commons can pass on studying issues based on the expectation that the Senate will take them seriously.

On foreseeable results

By the way, in case anybody is wondering how we got to the point where the Cons would feel entitled to shred a bill that had passed among Canada's democratically-elected representatives, let's keep in mind that the issue has been building for some time. And rather than working on establishing a custom that the Senate would generally respect the will of the Commons while they had the ability to actually exert pressure on the Cons, the Libs chose instead to bow to Con pressure on government bills while doing precious little to get opposition legislation passed in return.

Given how the Cons have mostly been able to limit the flow of legislation even while in the minority in the Senate, it shouldn't come as much surprise that they're now using their dominant position to claim an upper-chamber veto over all bills. And unfortunately, the Cons' view that the will of elected representatives doesn't matter if there's some formal power that can be exerted against it will be even more of a problem following the next change in government.

Wednesday Morning Links

Assorted material for your perusal...

- On the down side of the current state of Parliament, we've now confirmed exactly how concerned the Cons are about having unelected, unaccountable Senators override the will of democratically-elected representatives. And the principle involved goes far beyond the procedural trick used to call a vote without any apparent notice.

- Brian Topp is far too generous in describing handling of the Afghanistan extension. But he's absolutely right in noting the need for an honest debate:

If the truth is that Canada is recommitting to the Afghan war – despite fundamental misgivings – in service of our relationship with the United States, then let this be said, clearly and without weasel words, so that Canadians can think about its implications.

If the government has negotiated an arrangement with Mr. Ignatieff and the Liberal Party, then (to use some familiar words from our conservative friends) let it be done in the light of day for Canadians to judge – so that both the Conservatives and Mr. Ignatieff and his team can be held accountable.

The proper place for Mr. Harper to speak seriously and in detail about his war policy is in Parliament. The proper means for the Conservative government and its apparent Liberal partner to make this decision is by a vote in the House of Commons. I therefore couldn't agree more with my learned friend Norman Spector, who writes about these issues here.

The Prime Minister owes the people of Canada a detailed explanation that speaks to the real issues; a clear policy for the future; and a vote in their Parliament. We are governed by our Parliament, not by a king.

- Frances Russell nicely highlights the ultimate effect of free trade agreements.

- Finally, there's always reason to wonder whether progressives do more harm than good to their long-term interests by using conservative framing. But Paula Mallea's "tough on taxpayers" looks like a keeper when it comes to reversing the tide of gratuitous crime bills.

Tuesday Morning Links

A few items that have come to my attention...

- this magazine points out seven private members' bills that deserve to be enacted - and the list is well worth a read. But let's not forget what may be the most significant private members' bill currently in the pipeline: the Climate Change Accountability Act, which has already managed to pass among Canada's elected representatives but at last notice was being held up by Cons in the Senate.

- Unfortunately, Murray Dobbin's proposed Police State Watch looks like it's sorely needed based on his stark examples of how peaceful dissent is being treated as a matter of criminality or even pathology.

- If anybody thought B.C.'s anti-HST movement would slow down now that Gordon Campbell has offered a vote somewhere down the road on the Libs' preferred terms, that notion has been put to rest. Instead, the recall campaign looks to be moving at full speed ahead - and even having some fun in deciding which MLAs will bear the brunt of citizens' frustration with the Campbell government.

- Brian Topp points out how the PC Trust Fund controversy fits into Brad Wall's wider problems:

(T)he increasingly successful New Democratic opposition, led by former deputy premier Dwain Lingenfelter, have been handed a useful prop to demonstrate the direct link between Mr. Wall's government and Mr. Devine's former administration and record.

Mr. Wall seems to have a problem with money. His government made a $2-billion mistake estimating the province's revenues this year, patched over through a set of desperate expedients. He must be tempted to take the $3-million in that fund and burn it in the parking lot in front of the Legislature -- not unlike what he has done to the provincial finances. Instead, the fund is doing a slow burn inside the "Saskatchewan Party's" carefully-reconstructed brand.

- Finally, the Cons offer yet another example of what they believe deserves funding ahead of democratic diversity - spending a record $130 million to advertise themselves at public expense in 2009. (Which, for those keeping track at home, is four times the amount they want to axe in per-vote funding to political parties as being unnecessary for political promotion.)

The obvious deal

Following up on yesterday's post about the future of the Cons' dumpster budget bill in the Senate, here's one simple suggestion: what if the opposition majority agrees to make a regular practice of "bow(ing) to the will of the elected Commons, which has already approved the bill" just as soon as the Cons do the same?

On roadblocks

I've mentioned before that the greatest hurdles for the NDP's Climate Change Accountability Act figured to lie in the Senate rather than the House of Commons. So it isn't much surprise to learn that the Cons are indeed doing what they can to override the will of Canada's democratically-elected representatives.

But should it really be this easy for a single Senator to hold up a bill that's already managed to make it through two readings?

Bill C-311, drafted by NDP MP Bruce Hyer, would require the government to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 25 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050. It was supported in the Senate by Liberal Senator Grant Mitchell and has been read twice but has since been adjourned in the name of Conservative Senator Richard Neufeld. The legislation cannot move forward until he speaks to it.
...
Mr. Neufeld said on Wednesday that there has been no organized effort to keep the bill from being passed into law. If it is not addressed before the Senate rises, probably next week, it can always be raised in the fall, he said. “Our chamber has been pretty busy,” said Mr. Neufeld.

But the Liberals say they fear that the Conservatives are stalling until they obtain an absolute majority of Senate seats and can unilaterally kill the legislation - something that is likely to occur in November.

Now, this is far from the first time that the Cons have made use of procedural shenanigans to control the flow of legislation originating with other parties. But it seems downright absurd that a single Canadian Senator would hold the ability to single-handedly stop the progress of a bill simply by refusing to continue an adjourned debate on it - combining the worst of the U.S. Senate's stifling conventions on comity which allow a single member to hold up action with the inherently undemocratic nature of Canada's upper chamber.

But then, that power would also seem to give rise to an opportunity to do the same to Con bills to make sure that C-311 actually receives due consideration before the Cons have had a chance to fully stack the deck. And it'll be worth watching whether anybody uses the same trick to put pressure on the Cons to allow climate change accountability to become the law of the land.

On matters of substance

It's a plus to see Chantal Hebert point out some of the interesting private member's business dealt with in the House of Commons this spring. But I have to wonder about her choice of topics to discuss: shouldn't the passage of the Climate Change Accountability Act or the presentation of a plan for the federal government to deal with poverty across Canada (with all parties but one participating or agreeing) make for more important points of discussion than some of the failed or stalled bills or motions on her list?

Now comes the hard part

Needless to say, it's great news that notwithstanding the earlier Lib roadblocks, the NDP's Climate Change Accountability Act has passed in the democratically-elected chamber of Parliament. But does anybody want to bet against the Cons using their unelected, unaccountable Senators to prevent the bill from ever becoming law?

In order of importance

Following up on yesterday's votes in the House of Commons, Elizabeth May and the Greens are absolutely right in noting which environmental vote carries the most potential significance. And hopefully the Libs will cooperate with the other opposition parties in getting Bill C-311 passed into law (including by emphasizing the importance of a Con-dominated Senate following the will of Canada's elected representatives), rather than continuing to highlight their own non-binding motion.

Glad we're in agreement

There's some reason to quibble with the relative importance being assigned to some of the measures passed in the House of Commons today. But for now, let's give kudos to all opposition parties for positive outcomes on four key votes. And the fact that both Jack Layton and Michael Ignatieff also chose today to take a national stand on health care user fees is just gravy.

Damage done

It's great to see a healthy movement afoot on Twitter to push the Libs to vote for the NDP's Climate Change Accountability Act on Wednesday rather than dragging their heels as they've previously done with Bill C-311.

But it's worth noting that thanks in large part to the Libs' previous delay tactics, the toughest work on the bill is yet to come. After all, the Cons have never been shy about rejecting the will of elected officials when it comes to avoiding action to fight climate change. And now that they hold a plurality in the Senate, it's anybody's guess as to whether there's any prospect of the bill finding its way into law even if it clears tomorrow's key vote in the House of Commons.

On common interests

I've seen a few rhetorical questions asking where the Greens have been when it comes to the NDP's effort to get Bill C-311 and its real greenhouse gas emission targets passed in time for the Copenhagen summit. So let's leave no doubt about the matter: to their credit the Greens both called for the Libs to support the bill prior to this week's vote, and criticized them for failing to do so.

But it's worth taking a closer look at where the Greens figure to stand in relation to the other federal parties going into the next federal election campaign. And it looks to me like the vote on C-311 is just the beginning of a realignment of the Greens' messaging which may ultimately bear fruit for both them and the NDP.

In the last federal election campaign, the pact between Stephane Dion and Elizabeth May had an obvious impact on the Greens' messaging. Rather than presenting the Libs as part of the problem in Canadian politics, May explicitly endorsed Dion for Prime Minister against the Cons, while echoing the Libs' criticisms of the NDP on climate change policy and other issues. And that made plenty of strategic sense for a leader trying to get elected in a riding where the Cons and NDP had previously ranked as the top two contenders (and where the Libs weren't bothering to oppose her).

But now, May's focus is a riding where the Cons and Libs ranked well ahead of the pack in 2008, and where a Lib opponent with fairly significant environmental credentials has been less than shy about attacking May personally. And that figures to make for radically different incentives.

Now, any hope of getting May elected depends on the Greens mustering an effective attack on both of the two largest national parties - presumably by linking the two together as holding up any action on climate change. Which means that the main message which May needs to convey - not just in her riding, but nationally to set out the foundation for her argument in Saanich-Gulf Islands - will be a familiar "same old story" theme which highlights how even Libs with some seeming personal interest in the environment vote against it for partisan purposes. (Needless to say, C-311 looks to serve as one of the main examples in favour of such an argument.)

And it won't just be the Greens with an obvious inclination to work with that line of messaging. After all, the Bloc has already put together an ad campaign painting the Cons and Libs as "two parties, one outlook". Which again makes perfect strategic sense, as each time Gilles Duceppe has taken aim at only one of the Cons or Libs as his main opponent during the course of an election campaign, the other has managed to increase its Quebec support by election day.

But while the Greens and the Bloc have obvious reasons to push a "same old story" message against the Cons and Libs out of self-interest, there can't be much doubt that it's the NDP that will benefit most to the extent that theme takes hold. In fact, a campaign where both the Greens and the Bloc reinforce the NDP's argument for change would provide absolutely ideal conditions for the NDP to raise its own share of popular support just in time for voters to head to the polls. And if the Greens and Bloc perceive that the NDP is in a position to make the jump ahead of one or both of its national rivals, that may provide all the more reason for them to keep working in tandem to deliver real change.

On denial

For those interested, here's a comprehensive list of blog posts on Liblogs and Liberals Online about their party's choice to vote with the Harper Cons against any binding greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in advance of the Copenhagen climate summit:

(crickets chirping)

Update: It's worth going into a bit more detail as to what the Lib supporters' non-response to their party's actions means. On the one hand, it's obvious that there's nobody among the Libs' grassroots supporters willing to speak up for the environment against the party's political calculations - signalling that the party's previous attempt at greenwashing has been thoroughly rejected in favour of Michael Ignatieff's cheerleading for the tar sands.

But even more significant is the lack of anybody willing to come to the Libs' defence on an issue where the party was in the headlines. I'm sure in some cases that's a matter of supporters concluding they'd simply rather ignore the issue - but among the more rabid partisans it figures to reflect a calculation that climate change not only isn't enough of a priority for the Libs to try to anything done, but isn't even important enough for the Libs to pretend to care by trying to justify their actions.

I stand corrected

So much for my expectation that the Libs would at least want to be seen doing what they could to pass the NDP's Climate Change Accountability Act - a bill they'd supported multiple times before - in time for the Copenhagen summit. Instead, they're now making excuses to join with the Cons in stalling the bill, and thus ensuring that Canada won't have an expression of the majority of Parliament to take to the world:

Federal Liberals say they won't support the NDP in its effort to push a private member's climate-change bill through the House of Commons on Wednesday.

The proposed legislation, called Bill C-311, the climate change accountability act, sets strict targets for greenhouse gas emissions and is currently being considered by a House environment committee.

The committee has asked for an extension of 30 sitting days to review the bill, a request that will be considered Wednesday when the House sits.

But New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton said the delay would undermine efforts to have the bill passed into law before the Copenhagen summit in December.
...
The bill has passed through two readings in the House of Commons since it was introduced by NDP member of Parliament Bruce Hyer, receiving support from the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois.

Liberal environment critic David McGuinty, however, said the committee needs more time to study the implications of the bill.

"We need to hear more about the American position, the European position, the Chinese position" before considering the bill, McGuinty told CBC News.

Needless to say, that raises some serious questions for the Libs to answer. For example, why on earth did they pass the same bill before if there was any need for "more time to study (its) implications"? What do the Libs think we don't yet know about the positions of other parties at Copenhagen, and why haven't they been doing any work to find out? And even if it would be ideal to have more information before making efforts to pass the Climate Change Accountability Act, isn't it a worse trade-off to wait for that information in exchange for losing any ability to act on it through Parliament?

Mind you, matters only figure to get worse from there. Remember that the hold-up on previous incarnations of the bill has been the Senate's delay in passing legislation which had already received the approval of the House - with delay being the best the Cons could do at the time since they were in the minority in the Senate. But with Harper's patronage-fest on the verge of flipping control of the Senate, it won't be long before the Cons have the numbers to vote down any environmental bills entirely.

Which means that a vote to delay C-311 now may do more than just eliminate the prospect of the bill's passing before Copenhagen; instead, it may allow the Cons to bottle up any action on climate change until the Harper government is removed from power (and indeed beyond if Harper's senators stay loyal to him after the House changes hands). So now is indeed the time for a push to force the Libs to put up or shut up on climate change - and to permanently brand them as Harper's accomplices if they choose to make sure nothing gets done.

Update: Devin has the definitive commentary on what the Libs' vote means.

On last chances

It's undoubtedly for the best that the NDP is highlighting the need to get its Climate Change Accountability Act passed to set out the position of Canada's democratically-elected MPs before the Copenhagen summit.

But I do have to wonder if an apparent focus on a Con vote to delay the bill figures to be a particular good use of the NDP's efforts. Is there a lot of risk that the Libs - who have voted for the same bill and its predecessors before - are suddenly going to line up on the opposite side of the issue? And if not, shouldn't the NDP be doing most of its work on getting the bill through the Senate (which is where it's stalled before) and having it respected by the Con government, rather than on votes which should be relatively easy ones?