On historical echoes

Ontario's ongoing provincial election is presenting some interesting echoes from previous campaigns - particularly the 2015 federal election which similarly involved a seemingly vulnerable Conservative majority, an NDP official opposition and a Lib attempt to jump back into default-government status. 

At the outset, I'll reiterate my longtime view that contrary to conventional wisdom, the 2015 NDP strategy - which involved focusing largely on making the case to defeat the Harper Cons, and positioning Thomas Mulcair as a broadly acceptable option in the event voters reached the judgment Justin Trudeau wasn't ready for the job of prime minister - was neither entirely unreasonable nor unsuccessful. 

The first necessary step to achieve anything was to make the case for a change in government, and Mulcair's work prosecuting Harper and his record played a huge role in achieving that. And while Trudeau's performance was beyond the NDP's control, there was a plausible path to government if he'd failed to live up to expectations. (Of course, it ultimately helped Trudeau that dismissive messaging about him lowered the bar considerably.) 

To the extent that calculation failed to achieve all of the desired outcome, it's one that Andrea Horwath's Ontario NDP seems determined not to repeat: it's rightly keeping a focus on the continuity between PC and Lib policies as representing a series of failures that need fixing. But there are also a couple of other distinguishing factors which offer the prospect of a better outcome in Ontario. 

The first is the one which was entirely outside of the federal NDP's control: following Jack Layton's death, the leader whose popularity helped boost the party into Official Opposition status was no longer around to help it take the next step into government.

It's bizarre in that context to see commentary (mostly from Lib spinners, but somewhat from others as well) suggesting that Ontario's NDP should have jettisoned its leader voluntarily after achieving its best result in a generation. But for now, the party enjoys the advantage of Andrea Horwath's relatively strong approval ratings and consistent ability to boost the NDP's standing, while the Libs have a comparatively unknown leader who remains ripe for a campaign collapse.  

Of course, that leaves the major avoidable failing of Mulcair's federal campaign, being the lack of a strong pushback against the Libs' messages about the relative progressive positioning of the two parties. That allowed Trudeau to win over far too many voters with a claim to progressivity which was entirely unwarranted based on the parties' actual platforms. 

But while the Ontario Libs are trying to similarly claim to be challenging the NDP from the left, Horwath's team has done plenty to ensure that type of attack is neither plausible nor successful.

Indeed, if there's anything that's gone glaringly unmentioned in most coverage of the Ontario election, it's the deep policy work already done (and yes, promoted) by the NDP in areas where the Libs have spent the campaign hastily cribbing a platform for themselves. 

Want to see Canada's most populous province actually be a leader in implementing a Green New Democratic Deal? The NDP has worked out how to get there (PDF). 

Think a party's commitment to increasing housing supply should be backed by a meaningful analysis of how to get there, as well as specific plans to ensure homes are available for vulnerable groups? The NDP has it covered (PDF). 

A detailed plan to bring long-term care under public control and protect residents from the neglect set up by decades of Lib and PC privatization? That's been developed (PDF) as well.

Want to see a promise to provide universal mental health care which is actually supported by a road map to get there? That's been done too (PDF). 

In each case, the NDP's detailed plans - supported by significant research and analysis - have been copied in part by the Libs in two- to four-page platform entries. But there's little room for dispute both as to which party has the more progressive policies, and which has put meaningful thought and analysis into how to implement them. 

Unfortunately, those plans won't amount to much if the broader electorate isn't convinced to vote the PCs out and the NDP in. But that's where it's essential to let people know that there is a viable alternative - and that it's ready to fix the most important issues facing Ontario if given the chance.  

On performance reviews

Following up on this post, I'll weigh in with my own take on the federal NDP's leadership review - based primarily on the question of what Tom Mulcair seems to have taken away from the 2015 federal election, and how it will position the party in the years to come.

As alluded to in some previous posts, I'd sum up my expectations in the wake of the election to be roughly the following:
- to critically assess what happened in the previous election campaign to determine what lessons can be learned, both for better and for worse;
- to put to rest any (however implausible) question as to which is the most progressive party in Parliament;
- to prioritize MP empowerment and outreach over caution and discipline;
- to transition away from "default opposition" status toward a stronger focus on policies and values; and
- to focus on long-term and broad-based movement-building, including with a concerted effort to approach people who were excluded from involvement with the party.

And on all counts, I'd see Mulcair as having at least taken meaningful steps down the right path.

The NDP's interim report and final campaign review (PDF) has received plenty of attention. And both offer at least a useful high-level set of reflections and ideas. 

But some of the more noteworthy moves since the election also include significant issue-based initiatives by MPs, as well as a strong policy focus on inequality, precarious work and fairness for First Nations. And Mulcair's own pre-budget tour featured ample interactions with party activists and interested newcomers alike, while his pre-convention discussions have included some important recognition of the need to build from the NDP's membership base.

The most important question for me is then whether those steps should be seen as a temporary nod to the base in light of the impending leadership review, or the starting point in building the movement needed to elect a truly progressive federal government. And I see both reason for optimism that Mulcair himself recognizes the need for a change in course following the election, and another opportunity to address any continued shortcomings at the next NDP policy convention.

When the generally positive direction in a new political environment is combined with the strengths Mulcair has always brought to the table, I'm looking forward to seeing what he can work on building given the opportunity. And so I'll be voting to support Mulcair in Edmonton - with both the hope and the expectation that we'll see more sustainable party renewal without a leadership race than with one.

On evaluations

I've written previously about my view as to how NDP members should approach the review of Thomas Mulcair's leadership at the upcoming federal convention. And in the face of a blizzard of commentary which does little but to echo knee-jerk election post-mortems, I'll offer a couple of questions for discussion (before providing my own answers in a later post).

First, what should members expect and hope to see from Mulcair as leader of the third party?

And second, how have his actions since the 2015 election compared to those expectations?

While I'm interested in readers' views on those points, they can also be applied as a filter to expose punditry which doesn't deserve much attention. After all, anybody unwilling to think about what the NDP should be doing as a party - or to pay attention to what it's actually done - should probably be treated with skepticism in pronouncing judgment on either side as to Mulcair's leadership.

On rebuilding steps

I've posted before about the NDP's strong progressive stance since the October election - which looks to be a positive move in terms of principles and politics alike. 

But there's also a great deal of work to be done on the party side. And I'll suggest a couple of points which strike me as important in advance of the spring convention where Tom Mulcair's leadership is up for review.

First, there's the seemingly simple matter of the party's policy book (which I believe is found in an updated PDF here) and other member-generated documents.

As a reminder, the policy book was originally developed as part of Jack Layton's effort to professionalize the party - providing a statement of core values which could then form the foundation for platform development (while being general enough to allow plenty of room for maneuvering).

Nothing has been done to make the policy book any less authoritative than it ever was in reflecting the policy set by NDP members. And it would thus seem important both as a standing expression of values, and a starting point for resolutions which riding associations may want to develop.

But the policy book was removed from the NDP's website in advance of the election based on what still strikes me as a dubious rationale. And it doesn't seem to have been replaced since; in fact, the party's website no longer seems to point to any of the party documentation which was once available.

At best, that might be explained based on the party's priorities falling elsewhere in the immediate aftermath of the election. But if the issue was once one of a perceived lack of urgency, an impending resolution deadline for the convention surely makes it worth letting people know where party policy stands now. (And I'd also argue it's worth making sure that far more of the party's history in action, including convention resolutions past and present, is preserved and made available.)

Second, there's the concern about the central campaign's treatment of important parts of the progressive social movement - which arose both in candidate vetting, and in the message sent to some candidates during the campaign.

There's little way for the party to know what it can (or can't) accomplish by reaching out to the people who were refused a place within the election campaign. But at the very least, it should make the effort to do so on the basis that winning back past supporters and strengthening ties with the activist left need to be top priorities following a disappointing election.

If some of the key individuals who were turned away directly or who spoke out at the time can be brought back into the fold, that would go a long way toward confirming that Mulcair can win over some of the people who tuned out the NDP in 2015 and lead a movement-based party toward power. But even if Mulcair didn't find a receptive ear, he and the party would be better off for recognizing the need to try.

Movements and moments

Let's continue this line of thought about the federal NDP's most recent election campaign with my slight twist on one of the more familiar questions which has faced the party (in various forms) over a period of decades.

I'll start by drawing a distinction between two related goals which are bound to figure in a political party's plans. Any party with the foresight to last more than an election cycle will put meaningful effort into building a movement over the longer term; any party wanting to accomplish anything during an election cycle will likewise prioritize the goal of capturing the moment when it counts most during an election campaign.

And while I'll question the respective allocation of resources between those two goals in hindsight, there are certainly precedents the NDP could point to in focusing largely on a "capture the moment" philosophy.

The 2011 Orange Wave resulted in no small part from a phenomenal amount of movement-building work by Jack Layton and his team. But it also concluded with a crescendo of support which went far beyond what would have been expected based on the the party's infrastructure.

And the NDP's provincial election wins in Nova Scotia and Alberta can also be taken as triumphs of a "capture the moment" philosophy in different ways - with Nova Scotia being based on stronger party infrastructure but less appeal to activists (and likely serving as the model for the 2015 federal campaign), while Alberta reflected the converse.

After 2011, the federal NDP faced the task of converting its sudden increase in votes, seats and public opinion into other gains, including the development of a broader movement. And lest there be any doubt, it took some important steps to do so.

Not only did Tom Mulcair put in double duty personally to match his opponents' travel schedule while also serving as an ideal leader of the opposition in Parliament, but the NDP also started engaging members in the type of ongoing issue-based outreach which hadn't been seen in some time. And indeed, the NDP's success in 2015 was founded in no small part on the combination of parliamentary work and activist engagement around Bill C-51.

But the effort to build activist support was complicated by Justin Trudeau's arrival as the Libs' leader - which bumped the NDP from its place at the top of the polls, and prevented the NDP from being seen as the lone magnet for Harper opponents. Hence the rise of the "promiscuous progressive" whose support remained in play through most of the 2015 election campaign. 

Trudeau's rise represented a factor beyond the NDP's control. But the party also took numerous steps (including focusing on MP and candidate "discipline" as well as rejecting candidates for questionable reasons) which narrowed its range of acceptable supporters and dampened enthusiasm within its usual base - presumably with the goal of remaining acceptable to a wider range of voters in the hope of capturing late deciders.

That on its own was problematic enough. But coupled with a choice to focus relatively little on values and policy definition during the campaign, it set the NDP up for failure in the battle to be seen as the alternative to the Cons - or at least, took the shape of the campaign out of the NDP's hands.

To be fair, it's entirely possible that the commentariat would now be lauding the political brilliance of Prime Minister Tom Mulcair and his far-sighted team if Trudeau had fallen down during the campaign, leaving the NDP as an inoffensive alternative to clean up the anti-Conservative vote. But the NDP's election plan didn't work against a Lib campaign which ran smoothly - and the appeal to default status is certainly outdated now that the Libs are back in power.

Fortunately, if the above analysis holds up as to what went wrong, the election result on its own should push the NDP in the right direction out of necessity. A leader who can't rely on being perceived as the default alternative is bound to make the case for his own values; a smaller caucus will inevitably have to focus more on outreach and advocacy than on discipline; a party with less parliamentary resources will need to put proportionally more work into its base of volunteers and donors.

Those are thus the measures I'll be looking for in assessing Mulcair's continued leadership. While it's important to offer effective opposition in Ottawa, it's more clear than ever that the NDP's future success depends on its ability to foster and tap into an active progressive movement. And it's by developing that popular base over time (and keeping it all the more engaged during a campaign) that the NDP can best position itself to win overall voter support when it counts most.

On purposes

There are plenty of questions which the NDP is rightly asking in the wake of this fall's federal election results. But Susan Delacourt is uncharacteristically far off base in her view as to what the main question is.

By way of contrast, the question of "What’s the point of the party anyway?" was a highly relevant one for the Libs after 2011 precisely because the longstanding answer seemed like it might no longer apply. A party whose historic base of support was built around the willingness to take on and discard principles in the name of power brokerage figured to have a great deal of trouble establishing a raison d'etre if it held no realistic prospect of actually winning power. And while I'd have been interested to see what the Libs would have come up with if forced to hash out a coherent ideological base, their remaining forces lined up as readily as they did behind Justin Trudeau precisely because his star power relieved them from any need to answer that question. 

In contrast, the NDP has always had a distinct identity as Canada's labour-based, egalitarian party which has held up through good times and bad. And while it may have spent large (and perhaps undue) amounts of time in the past election trying to reach voters who weren't motivated by those principles, there's no reason to think the NDP will have any trouble fortifying and building on its historical foundation.

And in case there was any doubt, the party's policy messages since the Libs' election win reflect exactly that philosophy - making Delacourt's hand-wringing about the NDP's positioning look like little but a symptom of a failure to pay attention.

So while there are questions about how the NDP can best pursue the goal of exercising and influencing power for the benefit of the many, there's no reason at all to question what its purpose actually is.

On balancing acts

For those wondering, I'm indeed following up on these posts and working my way through some of the factors in the NDP's federal election result. (For more on the subject, see the latest from Lawrence Martin, and Desmond Cole talking to Cheri DiNovo.)

I'll turn now to what's often been labeled the most important turning point of the campaign - that being the NDP's promise to balance the federal budget, in contrast to the Libs' commitment to run deficits. But the problem looks to me to have been less that the NDP took an unreasonable position, than that it didn't do enough otherwise to win what's come to be labeled the "progressive primary".

While I don't see DiNovo's comments in particular as accurately presenting the NDP's message (no, "austerity" was never on the table), they do reflect how the Libs managed to spin the NDP's position. And that's largely because the NDP's messaging early in the campaign was aimed at maintaining the party's consideration set with warm-and-fuzzy messages about Tom Mulcair and challenges to the Cons, sometimes at the expense of appealing to a progressive base which was apparently waiting to decide on its direction.

To be fair, the NDP may have expected its past messaging and policy work to have accomplished that task already. After all, both other major parties took the opposite side of issues including C-51, child care, and the minimum wage among others, while the Libs had seemed to run right more than left until the campaign began.

What's more, the NDP did plenty to earn the support of people who were paying attention to positions on specific issues. And while its platform didn't receive the attention it deserved (due in no small part to the party's choice to release it late and with little fanfare), it included plenty worth promoting.

Ultimately, I don't see the Libs as actually having earned the title of "more progressive" among any but a narrow subset of voters. But they did manage to confuse matters enough to ensure that values-based positioning wasn't a significant advantage for the NDP, particularly in terms of motivating its base supporters along with unaligned progressives. And that helped the Libs immensely when it came time for voters to settle on a choice based on affinity and electability.

To the extent the problem was one of muddied waters rather than clear distinctions, I have my doubts that following the Libs and announcing a willingness to run deficits would have radically changed the campaign, particularly if it seemed to be the result of calculation rather than commitment.

Instead, the problem seems to have been a single-minded focus on keeping remote connections to soft voters at the expense of motivating progressives - particularly when the primary goal should arguably have been a focus on the latter in order to facilitate the former closer to election day. And in my next post, I'll tie that choice to what looks like the core lesson to be taken from the NDP's successes and failures alike over the past few years.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Karen Brettel and David Rohde discuss how the cult of shareholder value is destroying the concept of corporations actually making anything useful. And Deirdre Hipwell writes that the financial-sector workers pushing aside a real economy in favour of a paper one are miserable and envious as a result.

- Andrew Jackson points out that whatever one makes of the budget hole being claimed by the Libs, it could be easily filled with more fair and progressive taxes - with corporate taxes, capital gains and needless credits all offering ready sources of revenue.

- Or alternatively, the Libs could follow the Brad Wall strategy of pulling money directly from vital services (most recently schools) to paper over fiscal mismanagement. But before doing that, they might want to take note of the connection between public-sector cutbacks, low wages and economic stagnation.

- Nick Falvo offers some insights on the problem of homelessness in Canada and the readily-available options to address it. And David Ball points out that a well-designed housing program can take us a long way toward fighting climate change as well.

- Finally, Adam Radwanski, Frédérick Guillaume Dufour, Marc Zwelling and Jocelyn Maclure each offer their take on the NDP's election campaign and next steps.

New column day

Here, on the opportunity posed by the change in Canada's federal government - as well as the risks involved in letting the moment pass without an activist push for meaningful change.

For further reading...
- Nora Loreto makes much the same point with a particular focus on Canada's labour movement.
- Susan Delacourt notes that Justin Trudeau is going so far as to ask for public involvement in at least some areas - though the more important ones for activism may be those where he isn't willing to make a public appeal.
- And as I noted in this post, data on voter turnout is here for this year's election, and here for previous ones.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Remembrance Day reading.

- Roderick Benns interviews Robin Boadway about the results of past basic income studies which have shown that economic security helps rather than hinders individual participation in the workforce:

Benns: What about a basic income guarantee makes it a social justice issue?

Boadway: To me, freedom from poverty and satisfactions of basic needs are fundamental human right. They are also a prerequisite to participating meaningfully in society. As well, as I have mentioned, those of us who are more affluent than average owe our success in good part to luck rather than merit: where and when we were born, our native abilities, our family backgrounds, the opportunities made available to us, and so on. We owe it to the less fortunate to share our good fortune.

Benns: The most common concern is about implementing a basic income guarantee is that too many of us would choose not to work. Why do you believe this won’t be the case?

Boadway: Evidence from guaranteed basic income experiments indicates that those who receive basic income grants do not squander it. Some use it to provide better outcomes for their children. Others use it to support improving their own skills. Very few simply become idle and live off the grant. This is not surprising. Basic income is not designed to give recipients a luxurious life. There will always be a desire to earn income over and above the basic income guarantee level in order to achieve personal and family fulfilment. Existing welfare programs are not good indicators of behaviour under a basic income. They are rife with stigmatization and impose strong penalties to work and save. To the extent that one worries about disincentive effects, it is possible to design the system so that recipients retain an incentive to undertake productive activity, including work, entrepreneurship and education. Moreover, one cannot underestimate how social norms can be influenced by a well-designed and non-intrusive basic income system.

- Meanwhile,  Ken Battle, Sherri Torjman and Michael Mendelson make the case that Canada's federal government needs to get serious about fighting poverty, including by implementing a basic income. And Nick Hanauer and David Rolf also weigh in on the importance of individual economic security to allow people to make meaningful and positive choices.

- On the bright side, CBC reports that Alberta's NDP government has wasted no time in establishing a new child benefit to reduce poverty for that province's parents.

- But George Monbiot points out that the UK Conservatives represent just one example of a right-wing government with no clue how cuts to social programs affect the communities they're supposed to represent.

- Finally, Samara Canada offers (pdf) a first thorough review of Canada's 2015 election.

On turnout

Daniel Schwartz reports on the final vote count from last month's federal election. And given the record vote total and unusually high turnout based on the percentage of eligible voters, it's particularly worth noting what's changed since previous, lower-turnout elections.

Since 2011, the Conservatives eliminated the per-vote subsidy, which provided political parties with a direct financial incentive to seek out votes even where they were less likely to flip seats. To the extent Canada's political parties included the subsidy in their election planning, we'd thus have expected a lower turnout this time out.

Since 2011, the Conservatives also eliminated Elections Canada's authority to promote voting, while also restricting access to the ballot box through multiple amendments to Canada's electoral law. And that too would have been expected to reduce turnout.

Of course, the other difference from the perspective of the parties since 2011 is that we aw an unusually large number of parties targeting enough seats to form government for years in advance of the 2015 election. And it's possible that led to a greater amount of work persuading people to vote than might have existed otherwise.

(Anybody looking for support for that theory might look to the point at which turnout dropped after 1993.)

But it's worth recognizing that the choice of more people to participate seems to have outweighed the systemic changes the Cons put in place to limit voting. Which means there's room for growth to the extent the Cons' voter suppression tactics are reversed - but also real danger of slippage if we can't maintain the interest that pulled people to the polls this time.

On open questions

I've previously criticized the attempts of outside commentators to push Thomas Mulcair out the door as NDP leader. By the same token, though, I'll note that it's equally inappropriate to try to immediately declare that there won't be any review of Mulcair's leadership before the next federal election - which seems to be the spin some people are putting on the aftermath of this fall's election (if not exactly the party's own message).

To be clear, it's fine for Mulcair to make a personal commitment to run given the opportunity to do so. But it's ultimately up to NDP members to decide. And the party's ability to hold the Libs to account and win progressive policies in the new Parliament - reflecting its adaptation to a new political environment under Mulcair - figure to be the decisive factors in that choice.

On definitions

The post-mortems on the NDP's federal election campaign continue to roll in. And it's particularly a plus to see that there will be a systematic effort within the party itself to review the choices which led to the election results - both for better and for worse.

In the meantime, I'll continue pointing out my own view of the campaign with another of the crucial pieces of the puzzle - that being the NDP's handling of Justin Trudeau.

At the beginning, the process of jockeying for position between the opposition options dating back to Trudeau's election as the Libs' leader featured the NDP taking a dismissive view of Trudeau.

That position largely dovetailed with the "not ready" theme presented in various forms by both the Cons and the media - and it might have made for an efficient use of resources compared to trying to develop a stronger unique critique of Trudeau if it had stuck.

But counting on a message largely beyond the NDP's control created risks as well, leaving the door open for Trudeau to outperform expectations merely by memorizing and repeating talking points during the election campaign. And the main opportunities to expose Trudeau's actual weaknesses wound up being either missed or forfeited.

Again, focusing on leadership and betting on Trudeau to slip up under the pressure of a campaign may have represented a reasonable call at the time. But there's no question that it proved a losing choice in the end. And the result was that the NDP entered the home stretch of the campaign without a well-developed core argument as to why voters should prefer their brand of change over the Libs' - even though there was no lack of material available on that front.

By way of comparison, remember the "Ottawa Is Broken" theme which worked so well for the NDP in 2011 as a challenge to multiple parties on multiple fronts with a single core statement. It served as a message of opposition not only to the Cons as the party in power, but also to the Libs as a historical governing party and the Bloc as an entrenched obstacle to change.

In 2015, the NDP's primary message of "Change That's Ready" instead offered little distinction from the Libs - particularly in light of the Libs' own concerted effort to take the mantle of "change".

The end result was that relatively minor shifts in public views of Mulcair and Trudeau (which were entirely consistent with how both had been seen over the previous year) left the NDP vulnerable to losing voters to the latter despite remaining relatively popular with the electorate. And the end result was the late-campaign shift which allowed the Libs to push into majority territory.

Of course, the same issue shouldn't be even a possibility by 2019 when it comes to Trudeau in particular, as no sitting PM figures to be underestimated or left undefined during the course of a campaign. But it's still worth taking away the lesson that it's not safe to hope for any opponent to defeat itself - and that a party should think carefully before letting somebody else take the lead in defining any of its key competitors.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Jim Stanford examines what Canada's federal election says about our attitudes toward economic choices:

(P)rogressives need to advance our own economic agenda, to fill the vacuum left by the failure of the Conservative vision. The modest infrastructure spending and small, temporary deficits that form the centerpiece of the Liberal macro plan certainly do not constitute an alternative agenda. So we have a lot of work to do.

In conclusion, I believe that the power of progressive economic ideas has become modestly stronger in Canada. The federal election campaign both reflected progress that was already underway (on issues like inequality and climate change), and incrementally contributed to that progress (through the way that some key issues, like deficits and pensions, were addressed by the competing parties and received by Canadians). Of course, the new Liberal government has a modest agenda, it will be receptive to business demands, it will compromise and abandon key promises, and its vague commitment to “change” will soon be tarnished. Alex Himelfarb, speaking to the Ontario CCPA’s excellent post-election roundtable, summed it up perfectly: This government will do less harm, and be open to more good, than the last one. But how much good it does, depends totally on how much it is pushed by us.

My judgment on whether the election advanced or undermined progressive economic ideas is not based on who won, so much as on how economic discourse among Canadians – so-called “common sense” – has evolved and is evolving. That is more important in the long run. The end of the election is just the beginning of our continuing work as advocates on all of those issues, as we continue to engage in the ongoing “battle of economic ideas.” But I am somewhat more optimistic about the prospects of that work than I was a year ago.

- Karen Ho examines how the myth of meritocracy serves only to lock in entrenched privilege. John Bingham reports on new research showing that the gap in life expectancy between the rich and the poor is growing rapidly in the UK, while Geoff Leo reports that cardiac rehabilitation in Regina is being limited to the people who can afford to pay for it. And Desmond Cole makes a compelling case against giving in to the threats of the rich who don't want to contribute to a stronger society.

- Meanwhile, Glen Pearson makes the case for a basic income to ensure everybody has some measure of income and life security. And Tom Cooper discusses the spread of living wages as another way to ensure economic progress is shared more widely.

- Ashley Renders and Hilary Beaumont confirm that Justin Trudeau doesn't plan to bring anything more than Stephen Harper's climate change plan (or lack thereof) to the Paris conference this month. And Jenny Uechl reports on the sorry state of environmental regulation in Canada by looking at the treatment of whistleblowers who have raised concerns about pipelines with the National Energy Board.

- Finally, Andrew Mitrovica offers some suggestions to create oversight under Bill C-51 - though his most important point is that the proper solution would be to scrap it entirely.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Lana Payne surveys some of the glaring warning signs about the Trans-Pacific Partnership for anybody who thinks a government's job is to further the interests of citizens rather than corporations:

These deals are no longer about free trade. Rather, as I pointed out in my last column, they are about negotiating “managed investors’ rights” deals on behalf of the world’s most powerful corporations.

Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winning economist, has pointed out these new trade agreements “are becoming particularly bad. It used to be that trade agreements were negotiated over tariffs … the consumers gained. The new agreements are about getting rid of regulations. We’re talking about regulation over the environment, safety, economy, health. The consumers, who are not at the table, get screwed.”

So why are our governments doing this? Why would they trade away some of their own power to enact laws that protect the citizens of their respective countries or weaken their ability to act in the best interests of their countries?

It is clear that too many governments have been co-opted by global corporations. The question is will Canada’s new federal government act to change this, or will its record mirror that of the government they just replaced who, despite signing multiple trade agreements, had the worst exports record of any government since the Second World War?

- But sadly (if predictably), Justin Trudeau has decided to ignore serious concerns about the loss of democratic authority and citizens' interests, and instead cheerlead for the TPP.

- Meanwhile, Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Robert Gebeloff offer a detailed and revealing look into the use of arbitration clauses to prevent consumers from having any realistic avenue of relief against corporate abuses.

- Andrew Jackson, David Climenhaga and Naomi Lakritz each look at the Alberta NDP's first budget and find a far more responsible government than the province ever had under the previous PC dynasty.

- Raquel Fletcher reports on the continued scourge of poverty in Saskatchewan (which still isn't being addressed by the Wall government). And Kirsten Downer offers a look at what life looks like in Sweden compared to less equal countries, while Henry Aaron points out how a more progressive tax system can rein in inequality while also boosting social outcomes.

- Finally, for a few more noteworthy takes on the NDP's federal election campaign (if not necessarily ones with which I agree entirely), see what Duncan Cameron, Bill Tieleman, Nora Loreto, Fraser Needham and Tom Parkin have had to say.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Mike Barber highlights how Canada's federal election campaign was dominated by messages pushed from the top down rather than citizens' concerns. Erna Paris recognizes that we can't afford to be complacent about the place of outright bigotry in shaping voters' decisions. And Christopher Flavelle writes that the ensuing election result represents a major test for progressives to see whether an ambivalent Liberal government can be pushed toward positive change:

If Canadians accept a few new tax breaks for the middle class, vague pledges on climate change and some symbolic shifts — letting in more Syrian refugees, perhaps, and dropping the previous government’s efforts to ban niqabs in citizenship ceremonies — as the fulfillment of the Liberals’ promise of change, then the complaint that Harper was holding the country back will look hollow.

If, however, the Liberals feel compelled by public opinion to tackle, early on, the more controversial issues they ran on — achieving a meaningful price on carbon, rolling back Harper’s tough-on-crime policies, reforming drug and prostitution laws, changing the way members of Parliament are elected — then the argument that Canada is a progressive country at heart, long thwarted by a prime minister who wasn’t, will acquire some meaning.

The country’s big problems haven’t been solved. We’re about to see how much Liberals, and Canadians in general, want to try.

- Open Canada offers a noteworthy list of foreign policy hopes for the new federal government. And Mike Blanchfield observes that even Stephen Harper's seeming ideological allies in Germany are joining other countries in relief that the Cons are no longer around to obstruct climate change talks and other international actions.

- Peter Henderson reports on the potentially alarming effects the TPP's copyright rules could have on Canadians.

- Melissa Dahl discusses the dangerous effects of excessive work - including its tendency to make people perform worse at the tasks they're overdoing.

- Finally, Delphine Nakache and Leanne Dixon-Perera examine the lives of Canada's temporary foreign workers, with particular emphasis on the dangers of abuse when workers know their legal stay in Canada is limited. 

On missed opportunities

As mentioned here, I'll be adding over the next little while to an already-substantial set of views on the NDP's choices which led to last week's federal election results. But I'll start by expanding on a point which I made briefly earlier in the campaign (at a time when it was far from clear how the choice would play out).

I noted then the dangers of playing it "safe" by limiting the number and type of debates early in the campaign - particularly for a party with a well-liked leader, but relatively few mouthpieces in the media to carry its message. And as the actual campaign played out, the lack of any debate at all in the two weeks before election day left no opportunity for Tom Mulcair to challenge Justin Trudeau from the same stage or otherwise test his message when it mattered most.

Of course, it's possible that a different campaign might have produced different results - particularly if the NDP had remained the main target for all other parties by the time it came around.

But even then, I'd rather have seen the NDP rely on Mulcair's ability to defend himself as the main target among the opposition leaders (a factor which may not have applied in the usual comparison to UK Labour), rather than giving away what could have been a platform to set the message for the end of the campaign. And that goes doubly when one of Mulcair's most prominent - and hardest-earned - titles was that of being willing to engage with anybody anywhere.

With that in mind, hopefully one of the NDP's main takeaways will involve recognizing the need to preserve and enhance its opportunities to reach Canadians during a campaign period.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Les Leopold takes a look at the underpinnings of Bernie Sanders' unexpectedly strong run for the Democratic presidential nomination. And Sean McElwee discusses the type of politics U.S. voters are rightly motivated to change, as big donors have been successful in dictating policy to both major parties.

- The Edmonton Journal comments on the unfairness of first-past-the-post electoral politics both in allocating power across a political system, and in determining regional representation within it.

- Murray Mandryk calls out the Wall government for its contempt for public money when it comes to handing over billions of dollars to P3 operators.

- Finally, Stuart Trew offers his take on the meaning of Canada's federal election. And Doug Saunders offers his take as to how the Libs are likely to exercise authority through new "delivery units" - which serves as a warning as to the need to identify and advocate to non-traditional power structures:

Members of Mr. Trudeau’s staff say they are drawing on a set of ideas that emerged in Britain more than a decade ago under Tony Blair’s prime ministership and applied in a different version in Ontario under the Dalton McGuinty government, with results that pleased insiders but have left a questionable legacy. (It is no coincidence that Mr. Trudeau’s two top aides, Gerald Butts and Katie Telford, were products of the top-level machinery of that Ontario government.)

It is a system which, in its most complete form, uses high-level “delivery units” to push key goals across the entire public service, sometimes bypassing the hierarchy of cabinets, departments and administrations, putting multiple government departments under the watchful eye (and sometimes forceful hand) of new organizations that report straight to the prime minister and impose their own goals and measures on the workings of government.

Their plans are likely to disappoint officials hoping to see a return to the sort of cabinet-driven government of the Lester B. Pearson years, where powerful ministers were given the autonomy and trust to shape their departments and legacies on their own. It is also likely to disappoint those who wish for a complete turn away from the top-down, prime minister-centred approach of Stephen Harper. 
...
(T)he delivery approach has its skeptics. They include Prof. Savoie, who sees them as yet another level of complication for public servants who already have far too many layers of oversight.

On ticking clocks

Governing inevitably involves a combination of setting the agenda to the extent possible, and responding to events to the extent necessary. And while there's a great deal of doubt as to where the Libs' priorities will lie, it's possible to identify the areas where they'll have little choice but to make decisions very quickly.

To be clear, we shouldn't confuse urgency with importance - and in later posts I'll discuss the issues which deserve the most sustained action over a four-year term. But let's start by quickly surveying a few of the policy areas where the Libs will face external deadlines from the moment they take power.

Climate change

Most obviously, the Paris climate change conference in November will require the new government to take a seat at the international table to deal with the most important issue facing our planet (where the Harper Cons did nothing but obstruct any progress during their time in office). And the voters looking for meaningful change will surely want to see Canada become a leader rather than a fossil.

Unfortunately, the odds of this one resulting in anything positive based on any Canadian contribution look rather low. So far, Trudeau is using the conference as an opportunity to showcase process over substance - crowing about who else he's inviting, while taking no steps to actually bring targets or plans to the table. And that means Harper's pattern of denial and delay stands to win out barring some major change in course. 

Long form census

While there's likely no official end date to decide what to do with next year's census, this week's news suggests that time is running out to administer anything but the Cons' more costly, less effective version. And there have been at least some rumblings about using a different mechanism to collect public data.

In the longer term, we should absolutely expect a review as to how best to collect the information needed to make policy choices for Canadians. But if there's just enough time to implement a functional long-form census if a decision is made immediately - and not enough time to sort through other a myriad of other possibilities first - then we should expect a new government to go down the former road and resume illuminating as much as possible.

Union rights

The Libs have promised to undo some of the Cons' attacks on Canadian trade unions, including the draconian (and probably unconstitutional) reporting requirements under Bill C-377. But they haven't yet signalled that the promise is going to be a priority - which could cause serious problems for Canadian unions.

After all, Bill C-377 requires unions to be able to report on its activities in for the time period starting on January 1, 2016, and to start making that information available for public dissemination six months after that. So if there's any doubt at all whether the Libs will follow through immediately on their promise (including pushing legislation through a Conservative-dominated Senate), unions will face plenty of cost in the meantime developing internal processes to comply with a law which the Libs themselves recognize as undesirable.

Assisted suicide

It was on February 6, 2015 that the Supreme Court of Canada declared the existing Criminal Code provisions on assisted suicide to be unconstitutional, while suspending the effect of that declaration for 12 months to allow the federal government to develop alternative legislation. Which means that once again, there's a legislative timeline looming.

But in this case, the Libs could buy themselves some time by relying on the terms of the Supreme Court's decision. The existing provisions have been struck down only to the extent a patient consents to assisted death based on intolerable suffering - and that standard could be applied as a stopgap until such time as the issue is considered in more detail by Parliament.

Of course, there are plenty of other areas where there are immediate imperatives to act which aren't so clearly tied to specific dates - from the humanitarian crisis giving rise to the need for refugee settlement, to the long-overdue nature of an inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women, to the potential for widespread civil rights abuses by a secret police force under C-51, to the numerous areas where the Cons' cuts to regulations and services have put Canadians at risk. And in that context, the Libs' apparent focus on tax tinkering and political symbolism looks like a questionable place to start.

But we should pay particularly close attention to the Libs' inclination (or lack thereof) to act in the areas where they're facing timelines which have been well known in advance.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- I'll start in on my own review of the NDP's election campaign over the next few days, focusing on what I see as being the crucial decisions as the campaign played out. But for those looking for some of what's been written already, I'll point out recaps and analysis from Charlie Demers, Tim Ellis, Hassan Arif, Evan Dyer, Jenn Jefferys, Christopher Majka, Gerald Caplan, Jim Quail, Elizabeth McSheffrey and Paul Dechene - while noting that I'll be challenging and/or expanding on some of their analysis in my future posts.

- Scott Leon, Kwame McKenzie and Steve Barnes comment on how the Trans-Pacific Partnership stands to put our health at risk in the name of corporate control. And Janyce McGregor notes that it will open the door to dairy products from cows receiving growth hormones which are currently banned in Canada.

- Dr. Dawg challenges any attempt to treat the Harper Cons' abuses as anything but a natural - if extreme - outgrowth of a conservative ideology.

- Finally, Andrew MacLeod reports on the B.C Libs' deliberate practice of destroying information or ensuring that it was never recorded in the first place. Gary Mason notes that the revelations confirm that any claim to open and accountable government was a sham - though the Clark government doesn't seem to have any shame about having been caught. And Vaughn Palmer sees the Libs' response as being nothing but empty words.