Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has unveiled its alternative federal budget - which highlights the choice between the Cons' needless austerity, and the 200,000-300,000 extra jobs which could be created alongside important social improvements which could be brought about through well-placed public action.

- Meanwhile, Murray Dobbin worries that the use of interest rates alone as an economic growth strategy is feeding an unsustainable housing bubble - offering anpther indication as to why we should work on expanding socially productive activities rather than hoping that unfettered (and indeed exacerbated) market forces will somehow serve the greater good.

- Vincent Gogolek points out that the Cons are going out of their way to make it more difficult for Canadians to find accurate information about their government online.

- Craig McInnes expands on the B.C. Libs' attempt to erase any remaining line between governing and campaigning:

Citizens have a right to expect that governments separate activities that are rightfully supported by political parties and govern in the name of all the people. The Liberals acknowledge that line was crossed in the ethnic outreach memo.

But they don’t see any problem with using tax dollars to promote the interests of the government at a time when they are insisting that the Opposition has a duty to behave as though we are in an election.
...
As a journalist who often feeds off dysfunction, I’m happy to see a government that already has its full attention on election day. As a citizen and taxpayer, I think if the government wants to hear from the Opposition, it should shut down the legislature, stop using tax dollars to pay for ads and get on with a real campaign, funded by Liberals.

- Finally, Rob Bluey comments on the importance of effective data collection and analysis in Barack Obama's successful re-election campaign - and the lesson is one which Canadian progressives would do well to keep in mind.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Thomas Walkom discusses the meaning of the Ontario Libs' attempt to take collective bargaining rights away from teachers in the context of the wider labour movement:

The union movement is one of the last remnants of the great postwar pact between labour, capital and government.

That pact provided Canadians with things they still value, from medicare to public pension plans. Good wages in union shops kept pay high, even in workplaces that weren’t organized. Unions agitated for and won better health and safety laws that covered all.

True, union rules made it more difficult for employers to axe slackers. But they also ensured that when someone lost his job, it was for real cause — not because he or she had refused to sleep with the boss.

Some employers were content with all of this. Many were not and, as their profits came under pressure, demanded what they called greater flexibility — in wages, work practices and hiring.

Over the past 30 years, most Canadian governments have devoted themselves to eliminating anything that interferes with this flexibility.

So think of this latest foray against teachers as part of a package...

How can employees be encouraged to accept the discipline of this new world when they see some, such as teachers and other public sector workers, still making good wages?

The former Tory government of Mike Harris certainly tried to solve this problem and bring the teachers’ unions to heel. At one point it outlawed work-to-rule tactics and made it mandatory for teachers to coach sports after school. But in the end the Tories backed down.

Now it’s the Liberals’ turn. This government has given itself the power to set teachers’ wages and working conditions arbitrarily. It calculates that most voters will be envious enough of teachers that they will support its plans. It may be right.

- It's long past time for Stephen Harper's contempt for the provinces and social institutions alike to lead to some sustained backlash. And Robert Ghiz' comment about Harper sabotaging health-care talks looks like an important step in that direction.

- Meanwhile, Craig McInnes picks up on an obvious problem with the Cons' CPP obfuscation and delay tactics - as the longer we wait to implement a system which actually provides for a secure retirement, the higher the cost will be for the people working once a policy change is implemented.

- pogge notes that the rest of the world is well aware of Canada's turn for the worse under the Harper Cons - with a failing grade on human rights from Amnesty International serving as the most recent example.

- Finally, Andrew Potter's distinction between naive and cynical politics is well worth a read. But I'm not sure the proposed division actually represents much of a change from at least some conceptions of left/right politics: is there any meaningful difference between Potter's terminology and, say, George Lakoff's "nurturant/strict parent" model which includes more clear ideological content?

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Paul Boothe discusses the dangers of giving in to resource-boom hype rather than planning for sustainable development:

The resource roller coaster and the crazy things it causes us to do are not new. Remember the federal government's 1980 National Energy Program? It grew out of a forecast that Alberta's oil royalties were likely to grow so large that they would fatally destabilize the Canadian federation. Remember Alberta's 1992 deficit that reached almost one-quarter of total revenues? It resulted from a forecast that natural gas prices would rise and bring on another royalty bonanza.

Resource economies grow faster on average, so what is wrong with riding the boom-and-bust roller coaster? Economists happily assume that workers can glide costlessly from one place to another in search of their next job. The reality is quite different.

Boom-and-bust economies are enormously disruptive to families and destructive of social capital. Travelling back and forth across the country searching for work means more children raised by single parents, fewer people checking in on the stay-at-home elderly, fewer minor hockey and soccer coaches. These things are the glue that binds our communities together.

Are there ways of avoiding repeating the boom-and-bust errors of the past? Yes. We can choose not to put all of our economic eggs in the natural resource basket. We can stop listening to those who proclaim the promise of the current boom and ignore the volatility that is part and parcel of staking our future primarily on natural resources. Developing our natural resources in an environmentally and socially sustainable way makes good sense. Betting the farm on them does not.

- Naturally, the obvious merit to a broader view explains why the Cons' strategy is to "lie and lie again" to distract from their reckless gamble on resource prices - and Craig McInnes is just the latest columnist to call them out on their deliberate and brazen dishonesty.

- Paul Wells summarizes the massive scope of the latest draft version of the CETA, while Heather Scoffield focuses on the EU's demand that investors take precedence over health, safety, the environment and all other considerations.

- Michael Wolfson takes aim at the lack of social mobility in Canada, along with the Fraser Institute's sad attempt to pretend there's no issues to be dealt with:

If the analysis had been done fairly, looking at relative mobility as it claims, it would have used income groups for the specific population being studied – younger earners. Then, for every person moving up a relative position on the income ladder (e.g. from the the bottom 20 per cent to the top 20 per cent, as in the Fraser analysis), someone else must have moved down, there being a fixed number of rungs (or 20 per cent income groups in this case).

Fortunately, there is an analysis of the question of income mobility in Canada based on a more careful methodology which I co-authored a few years ago, using exactly the same income tax data base. Our results lead to quite different conclusions.
...
(T)he top 1 per cent and even the top 0.01 per cent had incomes that bounced around less than the incomes of the 25 per cent at the poorest end of the income ladder. A major reason: low earnings are often the result of “precarious” jobs which not only pay low wages, but are unstable.

Life at the top may be risky, but the real risks in life lie at the bottom of the income spectrum..

This reality of precarious jobs amongst the poor, and current research standards for unbiased analysis of income mobility, are ignored by the Fraser Institute as it tries to perpetuate the Horatio Alger, ‘rags to riches’ myth.

 - Finally, Errol Mendes wonders whatever happened to the Stephen Harper who once fought against omnibus bills and top-down control.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Peter O'Neil and Tara Carman report on the Cons' strategy of importing temporary foreign workers to drive down wages across Canada. And Craig McInnes juxtaposes that plan against the need for viable careers for young British Columbians in particular:

More than a quarter of (Canada's temporary foreign workers) are in B.C., where in October there were 148,000 people listed as unemployed in the Statistics Canada Labour Force Survey.

Meanwhile, 54,000 temporary foreign workers were in the province, working on farms, in construction, in trades, financial institutions, taking care of children and serving fast food.

Some of them are people with special skills that for some reason can’t be found here. That’s the argument for bringing in coal miners from China that has most recently shone a spotlight on the issue of temporary foreign workers in Canada.

But most of them are in jobs that employers say Canadians don’t want, either because of the nature of the work or where the work is.

Canadians include immigrants, of course, but the temporary foreign workers are not being invited to move to Canada, to bring their families and live the Canadian dream.

My question is why are the wages so low? Why is it that we encourage industries in this country that are so marginal they can’t produce a living wage for Canadians?

- And Lana Payne notes that we all stand to pay for the Cons' insistence on prioritizing corporate profits over all else:

In fact, the higher-than-forecasted deficit can be partly (some might say entirely) blamed on domestic decisions.

What we won’t hear about from the Conservatives is how their failed economic, labour market and tax policies have contributed to the higher deficit. It’s much easier to blame world economic conditions for all our woes.

But it doesn’t take a brilliant mathematician to deduct that a government that slashes taxes for super-wealthy corporations may end up taking in less revenues as a result. It also doesn’t take a genius to understand the link between policies and programs that suppress the wages and incomes of Canadians and how this just might impact on the amount of taxes they pay.

Billions of dollars in annual tax cuts to some of Canada’s biggest and most profitable corporations, including banks, oil and mining companies have certainly contributed to the deficit. And it doesn’t take a parliamentary budget officer to figure out that we all pay for these tax cuts to wealthy corporations.

- Meanwhile, Angella MacEwen discusses the consequences of the Cons' misplaced priorities - with the few jobs being created in Canada disproportionately falling into categories such as temporary work which provide no prospect of long-term career development.

- Adam Radwanski writes about Andrea Horwath's effort to offer Ontarians the chance to be heard in developing policy for the province (in stark contrast to her competitors' back-room decision-making):

Is it time to look seriously at raising taxes, perhaps on the corporate side, rather than just addressing program spending? Here she gives a little. “When you talk about taking a balanced approach, you look at both sides of the equation.” But that’s as far as she goes.
...
There are politicians who try to paper over their lack of policy specifics; Ms. Horwath wears them as a badge of honour. “I don’t necessarily believe that the way to do things is to sit in isolation, make up a whole bunch of policies based on internal brainstorming, and then sell that to the public,” she says. So she recently launched a “consultation on jobs,” which she identifies as her biggest priority, three-and-a-half years after winning the leadership.

It’s a marked contrast to the approach of Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak, who is putting out a series of “white papers” that float stridently right-of-centre positions on everything from tax cuts to labour policy to health care. And for now, Ms. Horwath’s low-risk approach seems to be working fairly well, with her party capitalizing on voter unrest as much or more than Mr. Hudak’s.

It’s not hard to see why. Mr. McGuinty is leaving office amid perceptions that he grew out of touch after too long in power, running a closed shop more concerned with self-preservation than Ontarians’ concerns. Mr. Hudak, after a poor introduction to voters in last year’s campaign, is struggling to shake an image as a typical politician willing to say whatever he thinks voters want to hear. Being open and accessible and not claiming to have all the answers has considerable appeal.

 - Finally, Charlie Smith suggests a simple policy change to end the constant stream of false attack ads by the Cons - proposing an effective regulator to take the place of ad industry self-regulation.

[Edit: fixed formatting.]

Monday Morning Labour Day Links

Assorted content for your Labour Day reading.

- The Star comments on the place of the union movement in the face of a determined push to silence workers:

Given the challenges ahead, and all the ground that’s been lost so far, it remains to be seen if the new union will succeed in building “a powerful social movement fighting for all working people.” But the takeaway is that on this Labour Day, unions still have the vision to imagine a better life for working people, and the will to try to bring it about. The long march continues.

 - Meanwhile, Craig McInnes recognizes how bleak a future where the corporate right manages to trash the labour movement would look:

Whether the decline in union membership is seen as a benefit or simply inevitable, what's often lost in the economic debate is the value of unions to the communities in which they operate.

There are the historical benefits that we take largely for granted that were achieved for everyone through long and difficult struggles - the weekend, for example.

But there is also the ongoing benefit of higher wages. Using data from the 2011 Census, the Canadian Labour Congress calculates unionized workers in Vancouver make an average hourly wage that is, at $27.09, almost $5 an hour higher than non-unionized workers. That benefit - seen as a negative by the Fraser Institute and other commentators who view life only through the business pages - makes life easier for unionized workers and their families.

...
If the demise of unions means ordinary working people can't aspire to be consumers, to achieve a reasonable standard of living, it's hard to imagine the communities we have built on that expectation can continue to thrive.

- And Judy Halven observes that what we need is to focus on creating good jobs for Canadian workers, rather than unstable, low-paying jobs for the benefit of multinational employers:

Thinking about Labour Day 2012, we need to turn our attention to limiting “bad” jobs and increasing “good” jobs. “Good” jobs have good pay, full-time hours, benefits, pensions and more. We can remind ourselves about the $260-million forgivable loan the Nova Scotia government gave to Irving Shipbuilding for the federal shipbuilding contract. While some “good” jobs will no doubt be created, they will go to semi-skilled and skilled tradespeople — mainly men. Though some women will get jobs on site, the majority of new jobs for women will be created in the restaurant, bar and service sector. These jobs usually pay minimum wage, plus tips, and could be considered “bad” jobs.

Wealthy people seem to know all about “good” jobs, as they tend to have them. The average income for the richest one per cent of Canadians was $405,000 in 2007. Between 1997 and 2007, the richest one per cent (246,000 people) took almost one-third (32 per cent) of all growth in incomes. In addition, the tax system is making them richer. In 1948, the top marginal tax rate on incomes over $250,000 was 80 per cent. In 2009, that rate was cut almost in half to 42.9 per cent for incomes above $126,264.

This Labour Day, we need to work to eliminate the obstacles for the 99 per cent who want to make a decent living in this province, obstacles such as low wages, part-time work and large handouts to corporations. The Occupy movement’s message — “We are the 99 per cent” — is as true for us today as it was a year ago.

- But on the bright side, Dean Baker notes that Canada can still serve as a positive example of the value of organized labour - at least, compared to our neighbour to the south:

When the Employee Free Choice Act was debated in 2008, the anti-union groups argued that majority sign-up (which was a major provision) would lead to workers being stuck with unions they didn't want. Their story was union thugs would intimidate workers into signing union cards against their will. 

The differing experience in Canadian provinces over time gives us a simple way to test this claim. If workers were intimidated into signing cards, then we would expect to see a higher rate of de-certifications in provinces after they have put in place laws allowing for majority sign-up. 

In fact, there is no evidence at all that there was a rise in de-certifications after majority sign-up was adopted. In several provinces the de-certification rate fell after majority sign-up was allowed. This would seem like pretty solid evidence against the "union thug" story. 

All of this matters because if we chose, we could make US labour law closer to Canada's. That might over time bring us somewhat close to Canadian unionisation rates. 

People who care about inequality should have this at the top of their agenda. In our bag of tricks to reverse the upward redistribution of the last three decades, higher unionisation rates should rank near the top.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Mitchell Anderson discusses the Ten Commandments that have ensured that Norway's oil wealth is preserved for the benefit of citizens. But it's particularly worth contrasting Norway's philosophy surrounding non-renewable resources against the frenzy to extract everything today at any price (which of course currently dominates western Canadian politics):

Norway was in no rush to develop their oil resources, and determined that it would only be on their own terms with a clear benefit to Norwegians. So strong was this sentiment that an all-party parliamentary white paper itemized "10 commandments" (see sidebar) for oil development, later enshrined into the Norwegian Petroleum Act.
...
When global oil prices shot up in 1974 after the Middle East oil embargo, the Norwegian government decided that a major tax increase was needed to ensure that oil companies would not realize windfall profits at the expense of the Norwegian taxpayer.

Professor Einar Lie at the University of Oslo researched the history of this period and describes how the government used the newly formed Statoil to gather intelligence on how far they could push foreign companies.

"The Norwegian civil servants wanted to squeeze this lemon to the maximum but they did not want to foreign oil companies to leave. So they talked extensively with Statoil, which had a lot of informed contacts with the other oil companies to find out just how much they would be able to take without the foreign companies leaving Norway. They were extremely pragmatic on how to get the maximum taxation."

- Karen Foster points out the gap between the reasonable expectations of younger workers about their ability to retire after putting in several decades of hard work, and the public policy direction set by the Cons and others to ensure that retirement is delayed and rendered less secure.

- Common Dreams documents how workers in the UK have been placed on a private employment blacklist based on suspicions of citizen activism.

- And finally, neither Thomas Walkom nor Craig McInnes buys the Cons' spin that a decision on the Northern Gateway pipeline will be anything but a political calculation by an oil-soaked government.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Lana Payne sees reason for hope in the sheer breadth of citizens who are protesting against the Harper Cons:

Scientists. Doctors. Nuclear engineers. Academics. Researchers. Stephen Harper has a big problem.

He has ticked them all off. And they are not suffering their grievances or concerns for informed, fact-based public policy and decision-making, the environment, the health of Canada’s most vulnerable citizens and the safety of all of us in silence.

No. Instead they are protesting, marching, disrupting government news conferences. They are mobilizing.
...
(T)his is a prime minister and a government who have mobilized Canadians to take action, to protest, march and speak out. Canadians who would not normally do so. Canadians who care about the country, who care about how we treat the most vulnerable among us: the poor, the elderly. Who care about facts.
...
(T)he provinces have power. The premiers just need to figure out how they want to use it and whether they can agree among themselves how best to do so. This won’t be easy, but it is not impossible.

It will require courage and leadership and an understanding that Canada is truly great when we are more than the sum of our parts.

It’s time for the premiers to start fighting back. And when they do, Canadians, the vast majority of us, will be with them.

- But then, we can't assume that all provinces are particularly interested in hearing about the needs of Canada's most vulnerable citizens either - as sadly demonstrated by the Sask Party's decision to de-fund Equal Justice For All.

- Fortunately, at least some others are picking up the slack in documenting how people are affected by uncaring decision-makers. For example, Rob Rainer and Linda Silas discuss how inequality is making Canada sick.

- And the CAW looks into the job market facing laid-off manufacturing-sector workers, and finds that there's plenty of reason for concern:

A groundbreaking study tracking a group of laid off workers in Ontario shows that they continue to struggle to find decent jobs amidst the turmoil of the current labour market.

The final phase of the CAW's Worker Adjustment Tracking Study released earlier today shows that many laid off workers are forced into lower quality and more precarious jobs (including temp agency work), with a significant reduction in pay following the loss of good full-time employment.
...
Other study highlights include:
- Over 1 in 5 reported being without income for longer than one year;
- 31% reported their general health has deteriorated as a result of layoff;
- 48% reported they had done without something they needed in order to pay the rent or mortgage;
- Employment and job characteristics for most workers are poorer than in their previous jobs;
- Nearly 60% of those who completed job retraining programs found related employment.

 - Finally, Craig McInnes is the latest to weigh in on how Enbridge's utter irresponsibility in causing its Michigan spill should make us wary of its intentions in ramming through a Gateway pipeline.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- If there's any good news in the Cons' constant attacks on labour, it's the growing recognition that workers need to fight back with no less a concerted effort than they're facing from a hostile government. And the possibility that the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada might tie itself into the wider labour movement looks like a huge step on that front.

- Craig McInnes follows up on Canada's drop in global Human Development Index rankings and points out the link to increasing inequality:

With echoes of Occupy Vancouver, Canada's ranking in this year's United Nations Human Development Index was knocked down by a statistical portrait of an unjust society.

For a country that prides itself as a land of equal opportunity, that's a bit hard to take.
...
For most of the 1990s, we held bragging rights to the top spot in the annual rankings based on access to education, long and healthy lives and livable incomes.

For the past decade we've slipped a bit, with oil-rich Norway dominating first place and Canada floating around the top 10. That slippage doesn't mean much since the top countries are tightly bunched together, especially compared with those farther down the list.

Canada is ranked sixth this year, up two spots from last year. But we tumble seven notches when our base rating is adjusted for inequality - that is, how well-off Canadians are doing compared with those at the bottom of the pile. We drop even farther - to 20th, when our ranking is adjusted for gender inequality.

- Erik Loomis highlights an all-too-typical example as to the real effects of free trade agreements:

With free trade agreements, we recreate Gilded Age labor and environmental conditions in the developing world. We have simply exported all the negatives of the Industrial Revolution. We were promised cheap goods and information economy. They were promised jobs. Instead, we are mired in an economic slump without a foreseeable end and a failed information economy while they live in endemic poverty and suffer environmental poisoning.

- Finally, the NDP's closing argument in the Saskatchewan election campaign nicely sums up what's at stake:

Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Joel-Denis Bellavance notes another noteworthy piece of the latest Quebec polling, as CROP shows the NDP's recently-increased support as being no less solid than that for any other party:

Mieux encore, les appuis au NPD se solidifient. Pas moins de 77% des personnes sondées qui comptent appuyer les troupes de Jack Layton ont «certainement» l'intention d'aller voter le 2 mai, jour du scrutin. Les électeurs qui comptent appuyer le NPD sont plus mobilisés que ceux du Bloc québécois (75%) et autant que ceux qui comptent donner leur appui au Parti conservateur.

Enfin, Jack Layton domine outrageusement tous ses adversaires fédéralistes quand on demande aux répondants d'identifier quel chef de parti ferait le meilleur premier ministre. En effet, 38% des personnes sondées choisissent Jack Layton et seulement 11% optent pour le chef conservateur Stephen Harper et 8% jettent leur dévolu sur le chef libéral Michael Ignatieff.

- It's probably too late to make the difference I'd hoped for. But the Tyee fact-checks each of Stephen Harper's outraged declarations of "that's simply not true!" from the leader's debates - and finds that Harper flat-out lied about three, while declaring clarity on a muddled issue for the fourth.

- Craig McInnes asks when compromise became a dirty word. But the more appropriate question seems to me to be where compromise is a dirty word - and the answer seems to be among Kool-Aid-addled Cons, but far less of the general public than they think.

- Finally, Bruce Campbell issues a challenge to Canada's wealthiest 0.1% to stop putting their short-term interests above the long-term health of Canadian society.

C-311 Roundup

It took a couple of days for the media to catch up with the Cons' use of unelected senators to override the will of democratically-elected MPs. But now that it's started to notice, the Cons are taking plenty of fire for both definitively demolishing any pretense to wanting to do anything positive about the Senate, and reaching new lows in their disrespect for the will of Canadian voters.

Here's Craig McInnes:

As recently as three years ago, Harper argued it would be intolerable for unelected senators to defy elected members of Parliament.

It was a message that resonated with many Canadians, especially here in the West where disdain is particularly acute for the institution that many see as the ultimate symbol of patronage and pork-barrel politics.

That was before Harper abandoned his promise never to appoint a senator and stuffed the Senate full of his own yes-men and yes-women, before what used to be abhorrent became first tempting, then convenient.
...
What we have learned in the meantime is that Harper is not the reformer he pretended to be. He has no more interest than any prime minister before him in creating a Senate that has the ability to independently represent Canadians, that can, in fact, operate as a chamber of sober, second thought. What he wants and what he created by offering what are still among the juiciest patronage plums available is another partisan tool to do his bidding.

The Edmonton Journal editorial board:

The elected representatives of the Canadian people created this bill, debated it, voted on it and it passed. That it was then killed by an unelected body -- not delayed, not modified, not put over for more debate, but flat-out killed -- goes against the core principles of the movement that brought Stephen Harper to power.

The early Reformers split from the Progressive Conservative party for many complicated reasons. But one core grievance was always the democratic deficit.
...
With the Senate now controlled by

his party (thanks to the power of appointment), Harper had a chance to set a new precedent. He could have instructed his senators to advise and debate, but not block legislation passed by the House.

Instead, by having them kill a duly passed bill, he may well have made legitimate a whole new level of senatorial interference. For however the former Liberal senate majority may have slowed things down with assorted parliamentary moves, it never actually never voted down a piece of legislation.

The underlying principle is this: Democracy is not a cudgel to be wielded when the people don't pick you. It's a principle, a belief that the voters get the final say, whether you agree with them or not.

The Toronto Star editorial board:

Harper, who used to rail against Liberal senators second-guessing the work of the Commons, stoutly defends this act of parliamentary sabotage as a way to spare the country from legislation that “sets irresponsible targets . . . throwing hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of people out of work.”

In fact, the bill was largely aspirational in content, setting out long-range targets to reduce carbon emissions. It did not bind the hands of government, although it would have required regular reports to Parliament. In other words, this bill would have held the government to account. Not any more, thanks to the pre-emptory move by Conservative senators.

The Globe and Mail editorial board, making a point that's worth some further discussion:

The Conservative senators were fully entitled to vote against the Climate Change Accountability Act on Tuesday, but the power of the Senate to reject Commons bills should be limited, in the same way that the British House of Lords is restrained.
...
(In Britain), the solution was essentially to let the House of Commons pass a bill again in a subsequent session of Parliament, without further assent of the upper house – so that the Lords could significantly delay, but not definitively veto.

In Canada, an equivalent reform would require a constitutional amendment. Despite the understandable dread of “reopening the Constitution” ever since the Charlottetown Accord referendum of 1992, amendments have been passed in recent years, secularizing school systems in Quebec and Newfoundland. A constitutional change giving the Senate a suspending, not a final, veto ought to be equally uncontentious, being based on a widespread consensus of the supremacy of the House of Commons.

The Winnipeg Free Press editorial board:

Where Mr. Harper has been less consistent, however, is in his position on the Senate. He has, as Mr. Layton pointed out, always opposed it as an unelected and undemocratic institution that can thwart the will of the House of Commons on a whim. This week, Mr. Harper used his new majority in the Senate to thwart the will of the House of Commons because his party opposed the legislation in question, and invited Mr. Layton to join the Tories in reforming this unelected Senate.

But Senate reform, it seems, is merely a merry-go-round of hypocrisy, and no major political party appears willing to get off it. That's a pity, because an unelected Senate can be abused, but it cannot be truly useful or convincing as a chamber of sober second thought.

And finally, John Ivison:

Stephen Harper used to campaign on the phrase “promise made, promise delivered”. Now, his application of principle is so flexible, he would be in danger of being re-branded as the Rubber Man of Canadian politics...

The Prime Minister, having stacked the Senate with his own partisans, knows that they will vote for his agenda. But, on occasion, this means they will overrule the will of the elected House – something he used to consider an affront to democracy.