Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Plenty of commentators are rightly speaking out against the Cons' anti-democratic omnibus bill, including Tim Harper and the Star-Phoenix and Vancouver Sun editorial boards. And even John Ivison can't muster much more than "but the Libs did it too!" in defence of the Harper government's abuses.

- Rachel Mendleson reports on new research confirming the connection between inequality and worse health outcomes.

- Nobody should be particularly surprised that the Cons listed PR as one of the main reasons to suppress dissent when holding G8 and G20 meetings. But is "embarrassment" the right word to describe a government that's been training for ages to be incapable of shame or self-awareness?

- Finally, Hassan Arif nicely describes the need for long-term thinking that takes environmental concerns into account (rather than the Cons' "drill baby drill" level of economic planning):

Properly accounting for the ecological side of the equation can bring great monetary and quality of life benefits. An example that is relevant, even though not directly related to the tar sands, is the Greenbelt in Ontario where urban and suburban development is restricted in the greenbelt zone around Greater Toronto and the urbanized "Golden Horseshoe" along the western shores of Lake Ontario.

The purpose of this greenbelt is to protect forests, natural areas, and farm land from suburban sprawl. A report by the David Suzuki Foundation has estimated the monetary benefits of this green belt as being at $1-billion per year. In particular, watersheds protected by the greenbelt absorb and filter pollutants from waterways and drinking water sources as well as control the flow of water during storms.

Additionally, in curbing sprawl, the greenbelt promotes more sustainable urban development where there is less strain on infrastructure such as hydro and transportation where costs can become prohibitive with more spread out developments.
...
There needs to be a proper debate around economic development, and overall an approach to economic development that factors in ecological, public health, and quality of life aspects. However, this approach does not conform to the narrow and myopic world view of the Harper Conservatives. That they would not only ignore dissenting voices in this regard, but demonize and even suppress them, is especially worrying for our country as a whole.

Parliament in Review: November 2, 2011

Wednesday, November 2 saw the House of Commons debate two bills dealing with democratic reform. And the result was a remarkable gap between the values the Harper Cons presented in justifying their party's policy orders, and the ones they actually apply in practice.

The Big Issue

The bill which received the most public attention - due to the Cons' decision to ram it through Parliament - was the government's new seat allocation legislation. And it was on November 2 that the Cons served notice of their intention to shut down debate - even as they complained about the unfairness of locking new MPs into the deliberations of a previous Parliament when that served as an excuse to scrap potentially-critical committee reports.

But perhaps more interesting was the debate on Mathieu Ravignat's anti-floor-crossing legislation. After all, I'm not sure anybody can remember the last time a Harper Con dared to speak out publicly against his or her leader's actual efforts to suppress any independent thought by individual MPs. And yet, here's what Michelle Rempel had to say as to the dangers of a bill preventing floor-crossing:

This bill would seriously undermine the independence of members of this House and I do not think that is something we should encourage or support.

This bill would have some practical negative consequences. The bill would impose restrictions upon members who wish to express a different position than the one endorsed by a majority of their caucus. This bill would also impede members of Parliament in representing the interests of their constituents, which is one of the fundamental duties under our Constitution.
...
(T)he roles, rights and obligations of individual members of Parliament are well established in Canada's legislation whereby members of Parliament are central actors in our Westminster system of government. Practically, the caucus system in our Parliament is joined with, but distinct from, the registered party system.

Bill C-306 would go against existing rules and traditions by allowing the party machinery to take precedence over individual rights and responsibilities of each member of Parliament and their caucus choices. This does not correspond to our system of government. As I stated earlier, I believe Bill C-306 would have negative and undesirable consequences on the roles of members of Parliament.

And Scott Reid was similarly concerned with some theoretical MP independence which was wrung out of his own party long ago - without suggesting for a second that he or his party's majority caucus might have any interest in reversing the trend toward total top-down control.

Meanwhile, Ravignat discussed the need to build trust in elected officials. Peter Stoffer pointed out that the Cons had a rather different take on the legitimacy of floor-crossing when it was Belinda Stronach exercising what she saw as her individual prerogative to jump between parties. Kevin Lamoureux rightly noted that Manitoba's NDP government passed a bill based on the same principle. And David Christopherson cited the example of David Emerson as an affront to the ability of voters to make informed and meaningful choices:

If we accept that (party identification) is a legitimate, rationale, understandable and important reason for people to think about voting for a candidate, the platform or the party, if one then bails out, as did Mr. Emerson, which is the richest example, and I do not like to personalize, it takes one's breath away.

I do not think the writs were even returned. The ink was hardly dry on the ballots, and this man was already trotting across the floor to join another party. He believed that was the right thing to do, for him, but what about all those constituents who had a reason to believe that once elected, the member would actually go about enacting the platform and policies of the party that member belonged to?

By crossing the floor, in many cases a member is throwing away what he or she believed in to join a party that is 180 degrees in the other direction. How do we think constituents feel? They would sit there wondering what happened. Constituents went out and voted in good faith, as did all their friends, and they expected that the money they donated to that campaign and the sign that they posted were all to help get enough seats on a particular platform so that the way the constituent would have liked to have seen Canada shaped on a particular issue would have actually happened. Now that would be gone, because the member could just cross the floor in order to remain a cabinet minister. It really is problematic.

Withholding Consent

It was well reported that MPs from the Bloc Quebecois and Greens were denied unanimous consent to make a statement in honour of Canadian veterans. But somewhat less attention was paid to a bevy of motions on other topics which were also denied, including:
- Alexandre Boulerice's motion to introduce the materials he had referred to in noting concerns about money handed to the Perimeter Institute without proper allocation;
- Tom Lukiwski's motion to allow an NDP member to speak first to a government bill;
- Frank Valeriote's motion for committee study into the Canadian Wheat Board; and
- Sean Casey's motion on travel by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

And while it's not clear which of those MPs (if any) had reason to think other parties would agree to their requests, it's not hard to see how the Cons' tough line on statements by the Bloc and Greens may have set an unfortunate precedent.

In Brief

Tyrone Benskin both celebrated the 75th birthday of the CBC, and worried about the Cons' witch-hunt against it. Andrew Cash demanded answers as to the lack of accountability for police abuses at the G20 in Toronto. Jean Crowder pointed out the absurdity of saying "get a job!" as an answer to poverty when a significant number of food bank users are children, while Linda Duncan highlighted the problem of poverty for First Nations in particular. Nycole Turmel raised the concerns of Quebec, Ontario and B.C. alike at being stuck with the bill for the Cons' dumb-on-crime policies. Mylene Freeman questioned the Cons about Canada's poor performance in pay equity, only to be told by Tony Clement he's proud that women receive 73 cents on the dollar. Scott Simms introduced a private member's bill to remove the GST and HST from funeral expenses. James Moore's answer to a question seeking information about cuts to Canadian Heritage "broken down by employee status, by title, and by program activity" helpfully identified cuts of 578 jobs with no further information about what had actually been slashed. Yvon Godin pointed out that the Cons' job posting for the Auditor General position actually failed to include any aptitude in French as even a preference (let alone a requirement). And Brian Masse questioned the Cons' cuts to border communications at the same time they were funnelling what was supposed to be border funding into Tony Clement's pork-barrel projects.

Parliament In Review: October 31, 2011

Monday, October 31 saw a study in contrasts as two matters were debated in the House of Commons: a private member's bill which understandably saw broad agreement, and an opposition motion which should have but was instead met with a painful level of denial from the Cons.

The Big Issue

That of course would be Claude Gravelle's motion calling for Canada to end the mining, use and export of asbestos. But you'd never know it from the Cons' response - as the first two Con speeches stuck so dutifully to the party's talking points that they didn't even deign to mention the word "asbestos" once in dealing with the motion. Which surely speaks volumes as to how indefensible the Cons know it is to stick so stubbornly to their defence of the industry.

Mind you, the streak was finally broken in a response from Wladyslaw Lizon in defence of dangerous substances generally. And even that may not have been the most jaw-droppingly callous moment from the Cons, as Christian Paradis argued that we should keep encouraging the use of substances which have been proven to be unsafe by pointing to a lack of data about possible substitutes.

Not surprisingly, Pat Martin played a prominent role in the debate - highlighting the amount of public money and time the Cons have used to tar Canada with the reputation as the lone developed country which refuses to acknowledge the dangers of all forms of asbestos, duly mocking the lone study supposedly supporting the use of chrysotile asbestos on the basis that it's harmful enough to boost the immune system of those exposed to it, and proposing that the public money now going into propping up the asbestos industry instead be used to remediate buildings still laced with it. Elizabeth May questioned why the Cons are willing to ignore hundreds of thousands of asbestos-related deaths while shedding crocodile tears over much smaller humanitarian crises. May also pointed out the environmental damage that asbestos mining has inflicted in Quebec, while Anne Marie Day noted the health impacts of asbestos mining. Dennis Bevington countered the Cons' attempt to paint the motion as an attack on the mining industry as a whole by noting that we'll have a much tougher time exporting anything at all if we send the message that all of our products are as unsafe as asbestos - which figures to be a particular problem as the Cons turn Canada into an international pariah. Joe Comartin, Nathan Cullen and Francois Lapointe all noted the entirely justified concern expressed about asbestos by Cons past and present. And Cullen nicely summed up the the dangers when a government sees itself primarily as a lobbying arm of an industry (as the Cons are doing just as much for asbestos as for the tar sands):

I have some experience with this argument because I introduced a private member's bill in a previous Parliament to ban a certain type of chemical in plastics, a softener that was an endocrine disrupter and a known carcinogen. As it moved through Parliament, the government raised the same issues, as did industry. They said there were no good replacements. Government members said there were no known replacements and that any replacement they could find would be very expensive. This is exactly how industry, which is being targeted for exposing people to risky products, always responds. It is the same argument in reverse that the tobacco industry used for years. It asked for proof that smoking gave people cancer, said it could not be done, and said it would provide experts who would say otherwise.

Of course, industry is going to defend itself to the nth degree, because that is what it does, but the role of government is to defend the rights and interests of Canadians and, as a further extension, to stop promoting the use of something that we know kills people and at the very least to slap a label on it that says it is dangerous.

First Contact

Meanwhile, Con MP Patricia Davidson spoke to her legislation to regulate non-corrective cosmetic contact lenses - which received support from all parties who spoke to it. But it was hard not to suspect that if exactly the same bill had been introduced by an opposition member, the Cons would have received orders to vote against it en masse as an attack on Canadian jobs.

In Brief

Nycole Turmel mused that oil and gas is the only sector of Canada's economy that hasn't been stagnant under the oil-backed Con government. Cullen spoke against the Cons' determination to torch the data from the federal gun registry. Helene Laverdiere challenged the Cons to take the lead against the criminalization of homosexuality in the Commonwealth. Harold Albrecht's bill on an suicide prevention strategy received positive responses from all parties. Charlie Angus raised the e-mail in which Tony Clement directly stated that he'd be flowing funds to municipalities, only to be met with the usual change of subject from the minister not responsible. Jean Crowder questioned the Cons on their cuts to Service Canada. And finally, Rathika Sitsabaiesan's question about the lack of jobs available for new graduates struggling under the burden of massive student debt was met with the Cons' usual spin about providing tax breaks for those lucky enough not to face that problem.

Like that'll work

Sure, a reasonable government would have some shame over its obvious doctoring of Hansard. But isn't the most likely outcome of the NDP's new complaint for Clement's departmental officials to formally certify that no such committee hearing ever took place?

Update: Or that would make sense too - particularly if John Baird starts declaring that he's the minister responsible for the change in wording.

Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Barrie McKenna thoroughly debunks the claim that "financial literacy" alone is enough to put ordinary citizens on a level playing field with the financial industry:

Looking to financial literacy to fill the void is like asking ordinary Canadians to be their own brain surgeons and airline pilots. The dizzying array of financial products, mixed with chaotic and increasingly irrational financial markets, makes the job of do-it-yourself financial planning almost impossible – no matter how literate you are. The average credit-card agreement is as intuitive as quantum physics.

The financial services industry wants it both ways. It preaches literacy and it advises government on sound policy. Mr. Flaherty’s task force is headed by Sun Life Financial Inc. chief executive officer Donald Stewart and BMO Nesbitt Burns chairman Jacques Ménard.

But literacy isn’t particularly lucrative. Armed with hundreds of millions in advertising dollars, Mr. Stewart’s and Mr. Ménard’s industry is simultaneously selling another story to consumers. Canadians are constantly bombarded with pitches to take on more debt, whether it’s right for them or not. They’re often blindly steered toward high-fee products and complex financial instruments. The accompanying disclosure statements are written by, and for, lawyers.

Central banks aren’t much help, either. Their vows to keep interest rates near zero indefinitely have made us all a generation of reluctant speculators, desperately seeking a better-than-2-per-cent return.

Financial literacy is a smokescreen.

- The CP highlights a few of the more inexplicable numbers in a detailed review of Tony Clement's G8 porkfest. David Pugliese warns that the Cons' choice to hitch a ride with another failing U.S. program - this time on satellite communications - may be the next great boondoggle in the making. And Mike de Souza catches the Cons misleading Canada about the effect of ozone monitoring cuts.

- Aaron Wherry reminds us of a time when the Cons pretended to care about Parliamentary debate.

- Finally, the Globe and Mail slams the Cons for information suppression that's more consistent with the developing world than a modern democracy.

Parliament In Review: October 26, 2011

Wednesday, October 26 saw a rare opportunity for the opposition parties to set the agenda. And as a result, the big issue was one which the Cons prefer to discuss as little as possible - even if it's far more relevant to more Canadians than most of the Harper government's distraction tactics.

The Big Issue

And that issue is...transit, which was dealt with in a second-reading debate on Olivia Chow's private member's bill. Chow in particular pointed out that municipalities themselves aren't the least bit interested in having the federal government wash its hands of the issue:

Hazel McCallion was just ranked number one in a Canadian poll as the most popular mayor. Naheed Nenshi, the major of Calgary, is number two. He is the Prime Minister's mayor and he supports a national transit strategy. Gregor Robertson, the mayor of Vancouver, is number three and he too supports a national transit strategy. These mayors are all in touch with their constituents. They all know what is needed.

Here are some more words: “We would encourage all parliamentarians and all parties to support the creation of a national transit strategy” They are not the words of a big city mayor. They are the words of the mayor of Grande Prairie.

The mayor of Winnipeg said that this provides an excellent framework for a national transit strategy. He was talking about the bill.

On the east coast, the Charlottetown city council supports the bill for a national transit strategy. That endorsement is echoed in all parts of the country, the transit authorities of London, Ottawa, Kelowna, the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties , the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities which represent over 2,000 cities large and small, from coast to coast to coast.

Business groups such as the Toronto Board of Trade, and just today, the Victoria Chamber of Commerce, are on board.

There is a reason that all these great community leaders, business groups and ordinary Canadians are crying out for us to act. Transit is important; in fact, it is vital.

...which could only mean that the Cons were determined to do just that.

Meanwhile, Chow pointed out why the current general gas tax transfers aren't enough to ensure the development of well-planned transit systems. Elizabeth May seconded the bill and pointed out that Canada is the lone OECD country without a national transit policy. Kevin Lamoureux raised the idea of making transit free for seniors during off-peak hours. And Fin Donnelly pointed out the health and economic benefits of an effective transit policy.


The Race to Respond

Ralph Goodale raised a point of order as to why a Con spinmeister had been recognized to answer a question directed toward an opposition committee chair - a tactic which looks to be a sadly effective response to the idea of limiting the Cons' ability to provide non-answers in question period as long as the Speaker is so interested in giving the maximum possible speaking time to his party that he doesn't care in the slightest where a question is directed.

In Brief

Robert Aubin raised homelessness and housing in question period, only to have his call for a long-term strategy met with a statement that the Cons had already done plenty as far as they're concerned. Chris Charlton introduced a private member's bill to establish an oil and gas ombudsman. Jack Harris moved another motion to split up the Cons' dumb-on-crime legislation to allow the more problematic aspects to receive the scrutiny they deserve, while noting that the Cons' new bill left out amendments agreed to when earlier versions actually received some study. And in question period, Harris challenged Vic Toews on the differences between the Cons' previous gun registry bills and the one they're so determined to ram through now. Joe Comartin expanded on his ultimately-successful challenge to Russ Hiebert's anti-union bill. Alexandre Boulerice wondered whether the Cons' acceptance of the Auditor General's recommendations out of Tony Clement's G8 scandal included any willingness to allow Parliament to investigate, rather than taking Clement at his thoroughly-debunked word. Pat Martin pointed out another Con MP who campaigned on the idea of a vote on the future of the Canadian Wheat Board's single desk, rather than its destruction by fiat. And Rathika Sitsabaiesan called for an investigation into war crimes and crimes against humanity in Sri Lanka - only to be met with Deepak Obhrai's response that diplomacy works behind the scenes rather than in public. (Which surely needs to be passed along to whoever's been directing the Harper Cons' all-bloviation, all-the-time strategy on the Middle East.)

Parliament In Review: October 25, 2011

Tuesday, October 25 saw another day of discussion about the Canadian Wheat Board. But this time, the topic of debate was set on the opposition's terms, as the proceedings focused on Niki Ashton's motion calling to allow grain producers to vote for themselves as to the Wheat Board's future rather than having their single desk trashed by fiat.

The Big Issue

The passage of the day goes to Djaouida Sellah on how Ashton's motion fits into the Cons' broader contempt for democracy:

The motion asks the government to do three things: consult, step back and accept. The government needs much more practice in order to excel at these activities. I hope it will start practising right now.
...
I was not joking when I said I was rising to defend democracy. In case the government has not noticed, people are currently demanding their right to speak. They want their voices to be heard. A stunt like this only fuels public cynicism about our respectable institutions. The government has to listen to reason and hear the voice of the people. It has to take a step back and accept the verdict handed down by the farmers.

This government has to stop showing contempt for the public. It has to stop looking down on those who do not share its views. Democracy is much more than just winning elections. Democracy is about holding ongoing discussions with the public. I do not mean it is about controlling the message, as the Prime Minister's Office does; it is about listening to the needs and opinions of the public.

And Linda Duncan wondered what happened to the Cons' one-time claim to care about transparency and grassroots democracy.

Meanwhile, Jamie Nicholls questioned the Cons' use of "life, liberty and property" (see e.g. Brad Trost) as reflecting a deliberate change in Canada's social values, while Pierre Dionne Labelle listed a few examples of the Cons' efforts to destroy collective institutions. Kennedy Stewart pointed out that the Cons' actions were contrary to both the outcome and process of democracy. Frank Valeriote criticized the Cons' anti-democratic "resistance is futile" message. Wayne Easter noted that the other cooperative institutions (such as provincial wheat pools) which once offered the collective benefits of the Wheat Board have since been thoroughly corporatized. Carol Hughes asked about the effect on food security of undermining the Wheat Board, while also expressing concern about the continued erosion of family farming and wondering about the effects of granting yet more power to international megacorporations. Ted Hsu noted that the business sector often sets up what amount to single-desk structures as a means of achieving the best possible price for a product.

And on the Cons' side, Mike Lake cited the Cons' election results in a few ridings as the only votes the Cons needed to justify trashing the Wheat Board. But it can't escape notice that one of the ridings he pointed to was Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette - home of MP Robert Sopuck and his criticism of exactly what the Cons are doing:

The Tories have tried to eliminate the single desk and rejig how wheat board directors are elected, but Sopuck said only farmers should decide what happens to the wheat board.

"There's a lot of support for the wheat board over all parts of the political spectrum from left to right," said Sopuck.

Money Is No Object

I'm sure Peter MacKay thought he was sticking to his ideological guns in defending his party's insistence on pushing ahead with the purchase of F-35s even as other countries are backing off in droves. But his exact response to questions about the value for money involved in the purchase is probably worth framing for future reference:

Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, this minister has no answers.

His “just trust me” approach has gone from incredibly hopeful to ridiculously irresponsible as the government moves ever closer to blowing the budget on these jets that do not even work.

The independent Parliamentary Budget Officer has already pegged the cost overruns at a staggering $53 million per plane. How many more millions is this minister planning to spend to get working radios on these things, and how much more is he going to spend so that they can land?

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, there is the difference. This is a government that is prepared to spend millions on important equipment that saves lives and provides mission success for members of the Canadian armed forces. That is the difference.

So the answer to how much more the Cons will spend to force through the purchase seems to be...whatever it takes to be able to claim to have bought something. Which looks like an ideal way to ensure that the Canadian public will be utterly ripped off - and all while failing to do more to support Canada's military than could be done through a remotely rational purchasing process.

In Brief

At the same time as the Keystone XL pipeline earns headlines on both sides of the border, Pierre Jacob questioned the Cons about a pipeline leak in his own riding. Nycole Turmel asked about Peter Kent's involvement in Tony Clement's G8 patronage scandal. Tyrone Benskin pointed out the Cons' concerted effort to avoid recognizing the CBC's 75th anniversary. Joy Smith spoke to her private member's bill, which (unlike the Cons' government-based attack on refugees) actually cracks down on human trafficking rather than immigration generally - and earned opposition support as a result. Joyce Murray provided evidence that the Cons' dumb on crime strategy is destined to be a miserable failure, only to be met with the Cons' unwillingness to countenance anything of the sort. In response to Francoise Boivin's question, Diane Finley went into some detail about the Cons' plan to shift social priorities into the big-money charitable sector. And Matthew Dube noted the debt burden and lack of opportunity facing new graduates.

[Edit: fixed date.]

Too close to home

Yes, the threat of a slander suit probably had something to do with Gerry Ritz' desperate retreat after attacking the Canadian Wheat Board. But more important is the significance of Ritz' allegation based on what his own party has done: if one considers it theft to use quasi-public money for unapproved purposes and to promote political ends, then surely the Cons would qualify as a full-on criminal enterprise.

Parliament In Review: October 20, 2011

The main topic of debate on Thursday, October 20 was the Canadian Wheat Board - with extensive discussion in Parliament of both the Cons' steps to shut down debate, and the substance of what should happen with the Wheat Board.

The Big Issue

The passage of the day goes to Niki Ashton, linking the Cons' choice to both stifle debate and refuse to conduct a required plebiscite to a general unwillingness to hear from Western constituents:

The loss of the Wheat Board is a loss for all of us across this country. Today's debate also amplifies the fact that the government's agenda is not just about the dismantling of the Wheat Board, but about the silencing of our voices.

Just some short weeks ago, the results of a plebiscite administered by the Canadian Wheat Board came out. That plebiscite showed that a majority of Canadian western farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta believe that the single desk ought to be maintained. The government not only ignored that plebiscite but is also ignoring section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, which states that farmers must have a say in any proposed plans to alter the operation of the Wheat Board.

Today is a dark day, given that we are not just hearing about the government's plan to dismantle a successful institution that has supported the livelihoods of so many farmers and so many rural communities across western Canada, but that once again the government is not allowing westerners to have their voices heard through our Canadian democracy.

Peter Julian echoed the theme, while expressing due incredulity about the Cons' claim that they've never met anybody who disagreed with their plans to torch the Wheat Board. And of course several calls for a genuine expression of the desires of Wheat Board members through a plebiscite - including those of Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, Pierre-Luc Dussault and Kevin Lamoureux - fell on typically uninterested ears. Robert Aubin connected the Wheat Board to co-operative movements as means of pooling labour and value. All of which led Sadia Groghue to point out a pattern of the people who are most affected by Con policies being excluded from any input.

Meanwhile, Groghue noted that the Australian "success story" which the Cons present as their vision for the Wheat Board's future involved farmers going from receiving a $99/tonne premium to a $27/tonne loss for their wheat. Alex Atamanenko highlighted Gerry Ritz' explicit promises not to demolish the Wheat Board "arbitrarily" without consulting farmers. In response, Ritz himself expressed the view that MPs don't really represent voters in any poll which didn't support them, while Rob Merrifield made clear that he has no clue how Saskatchewan's political ridings are drawn by asserting that there's no wheat or barley farming in any opposition-held prairie riding - including the urban-rural split riding of Wascana which Merrifield helpfully placed in "downtown Regina". Helene Leblanc and Atamanenko discussed the food security implications of losing the Wheat Board. Ralph Goodale reviewed the market failures and power imbalances that led to the Wheat Board being established in the first place. And Lee Richardson made clear that the Cons' goal for the Wheat Board is "full private ownership", signalling that effectively none of the public role of the current institution is even intended to survive.

Time Allocated

Meanwhile, following Peter Van Loan's motion to limit debate on second reading of the Cons' Canadian Wheat Board demolition bill - leading to this entirely justifiable response from Joe Comartin as to what the parties could expect in discussing the maneuver:

(B)efore I ask my question, I would suggest that you should probably not let the minister answer anything so we can use up some of the time on meaningful comments rather than the responses we will get from him.

Meanwhile, Helene Leblanc pointed out the interest of new MPs in speaking to issues which they haven't had a chance to address before. Phil Toone pointed out several examples of Stephen Harper criticizing closure when imposed by the Libs. And Andre Bellavance criticized the Cons' bulldozing tactics.

In Brief

Anne Minh-Thu Quach rightly questioned the Cons' refusal to participate in a global conference on the social determinants of health, only to be told by Leona Agglukaq that the Cons' focus is on Canadian investors. Marie-Claude Morin called attention to the need to address poverty and homelessness. Hoang Mai called for the Cons to match the U.S.' interest in tracking down tax cheats. Alexandre Boulerice wondered whether Tony Clement's "open government" announcements would include any of the still-hidden details of his G8 scandal. And John McKay pointed out that the choice of countries to bail on the F-35 program (and understandably so) would only raise Canada's costs if the Cons obstinately push ahead.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Stephen Maher nicely summarizes Tony Clement's sad committee appearance yesterday:

The evidence shows that Clement chose the projects himself, in some kind of mysterious process in his riding office. He has steadfastly denied that, and even helpfully pointed out to reporters in September why that would have been wrong.

“If I was the decision-maker, if I had set up a parallel process — and created a situation where the auditor general did not know, that’s their accusation — I’d be resigning right now and turning myself into the local police office.”

Clement’s logic is plain: since choosing the projects himself would have been wrong, he obviously did not do so. He must deny it, forever and with great sincerity, which is what he spent Wednesday doing.
...
New Democrat MP Charlie Angus, the fiery former punk singer from Timmins, Ont., made a strong argument on Wednesday that Clement should get a new assignment.

“This is about your fundamental competence,” he said. “It gets to the question of how you do business, when the auditor general says you broke the rules.”

Clement — who is now president of the Treasury Board, the minister in charge of interpreting and administering the spending rules for the federal government — admitted he made mistakes.

“The auditor general said she was concerned about the lack of documentation,” he said. “I take that to heart. The paperwork for this was not perfect.”

“Not perfect?” Angus interrupted, incredulous. “It doesn’t exist.”

“I take my share of responsibility for that and certainly I have learned that there are different ways and better ways to provide these kinds of intake processes, and I commit myself to using them,” said Clement.

Angus was not mollified.

“When people started asking questions, you said, ‘I’m sorry, the dog ate my homework. I’ll do better the next time.’ What are you doing at Treasury Board?”

It’s a good question.

- Meanwhile, Vic Toews helped Clement out by offering his own jaw-droppingly ignorant spin, criticizing the NDP's Joe Comartin for having acted as a defence lawyer.

- Yes, it's true enough that a series of provincial elections likely cut into the federal NDP's fund-raising efforts. But I'd still think the third-quarter numbers present a clear indication that the party has a long way to go in making sure that its fund-raising and other member involvement catch up to its vote and seat totals - and we'll have to keep a close eye on how the numbers change over the next two quarters when the base should be fully involved.

- Finally, Paul Gingrich examines the state of post-secondary education costs in Saskatchewan, and finds that the Sask Party's tuition hikes have undone much of the good accomplished by the NDP' previous freeze.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- I'd think it's long past the time where any informed observer could cling to hope that the Harper Cons see good government as a goal worth pursuing. But Dan Gardner points out the role that Parliament should play if they actually did have some interest in that result:

Of course one may complain about the hypocrisy of Stephen Harper and other senior Conservatives who furiously denounced the Chrétien government when it did precisely what they are doing now. (Well, not "precisely." Harper has imposed time limits at a much higher rate than Chrétien did, even at his most imperious, and he is on track to set an all-time record. But let's not get distracted by trivia, as the PMO flack would say.)

Or one may complain that it's undemocratic. And contemptuous. One may note that almost one-third of MPs have never debated these issues in the House of Commons and, if Parliament is to be something more than a fig leaf covering the prime minister's naughty bits, parliamentarians must have the right to stand up and debate as long as they damned well want.

But these arguments are based on principle and respect for parliamentary tradition. Think that's going to wash with the Harperites? You might as well make your case by quoting the Koran.

There is, however, another reason for thinking this is a terrible mistake. It's one that even Conservatives may care about.
...
(I)t is not reassuring that the minister intends to change something whose existence he and his staff were unaware of until critics forced them to see it given that the government is determined to push heaps of complex legislation through Parliament with little opportunity for other critics to find other concerns that other ministers need to know about.

And, no, this isn't just about catching drafting errors. It's about different perspectives, new ideas, reconsiderations, modifications, additions. It's about all the reasons why we have a Parliament, and why the name of that institution comes from the Old French "Parlement," meaning a place to talk.

It's about good government. Conservatives are in favour of that, right?

- Greg Weston has some important questions for Tony Clement on his G8 scandal. But given the Cons' anti-CBC paranoia, I'm sure the fact that Weston has raised them will result in a new set of talking points as to how they're utterly illegitimate.

- No, it's not surprising that the Saskatchewan Party has more attacks in store for the province's workers. Instead, the only surprise is that Brad Wall allowed part of that reality to slip out before the election - in contrast to 2007, when he claimed no interest in imposing an essential services law before making it one of the first acts of his new government.

- Finally, Andrew Jackson points out that after decades of calculated wage suppression by business and government alike, higher wages may be a necessity as part of an economic recovery.

Tuesday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your afternoon reading.

- Lawrence Martin argues that with an NDP Official Opposition at the same time as the effects of inequality and greed continue to send shockwaves across the globe, there's no time like the present for Canada to debate higher taxes as the price of needed public services:

As the official Opposition party, the NDP for the first time has a megaphone. When the party speaks of social justice, it no longer speaks from the margins. Interim leader Nycole Turmel is not a strong performer, but in Mr. Topp, in Thomas Mulcair, in Peggy Nash and others they have an impressive set of leadership candidates who are unflinching. Throughout the recent downturn, the Conservatives have had the great cover-all rationale working for them, it being that Canada isn’t doing as badly as other countries. They trumpet the splendid economic fundamentals, many of which – an example being the regulation of the financial sector – were put in place by previous governments.

While the country is doing better than others, the New Democrats have no shortage of ammunition. A society in which the gap between the wealthy and the rest is continually widening is a retrogressive, not a progressive, society.

In contrast to their southern neighbours, Canadians have a history, until recently at least, of accepting higher taxation levels as the price for a more just and egalitarian society. Mr. Topp and his fellow travellers must remind them of that.

- And Linda McQuaig has some suggestions as to how to make inequality obsolete:

Adding a new marginal tax rate of 60 per cent to those earning over $500,000 a year, and a 70 per cent rate to those earning over $2.5 million a year — rates that would simply restore the progressivity that existed during Canada’s booming postwar decades — would raise almost $8 billion a year, according to Osgoode Hall tax professor Neil Brooks.

Yet this $8 billion interests Flaherty so little that he can’t be bothered to collect it.

Compare this to Flaherty’s relentless pursuit of spending cuts, no matter how tiny the saving. He’s refused to back down for instance on closing the St. John’s maritime rescue centre — which answers hundreds of distress calls annually — even though its closure will save less than $56 million, a pittance compared to $8 billion.

Flaherty has assured us that, while Americans have legitimate concerns about inequality, Canada has a “very progressive tax system.”

But it’s Flaherty who’s got the dreamy ideas here. Our tax system as a whole — including sales, excise and property taxes as well as income taxes — isn’t actually progressive. A study by Marc Lee of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives showed that when all taxes are included, the poorest 10 per cent of Canadians — those earning less than $13,500 a year — paid fully 30.7 per cent of their tiny incomes in tax, while the top 1 per cent — with incomes above $300,000 — had a slightly lighter burden, paying 30.5 per cent of their incomes in tax.

- Jesse Lafleur documents some of the pieces of Saskatchewan's proud CCF/NDP legacy which have already been destroyed by the Wall government.

- Finally, if Tony Clement is right in suggesting that Vern Freedlander is completely off base in the advice he gave to the town of Huntsville, doesn't that only serve as all the more evidence of Clement's own bad judgment in pushing for his hiring?

Parliament In Review: October 17, 2011

Monday, October 17 saw the Cons cut off debate on second reading of their budget bill. Not surprisingly, the day thus focused in large part on the economy - including some noteworthy pushback against the brand the Cons have spent hundreds of millions of public dollars to promote.

The Big Issue

That's right: as the Cons continue to try to wrap themselves in "Canada's Economic Action Plan" branding, the NDP went to work by directly challenging the Cons' claim to have any plan or vision whatsoever. Among the MPs making that point were Megan Leslie, Jasbir Sandhu, Sadia Groghue. But have no fear, Cons, as Wladyslaw Lizon helpfully explained the plan in full as involving...having been re-elected.

Another consistent theme saw the NDP challenge corporate giveaways which weren't attached to results. Hoang Mai and Francois Choquette made the point when it came to general corporate tax rates, while Paul Dewar made a similar point with respect to research and development in particular.

Hoang Mai pointed out the combination of a glaring need for infrastructure investment and the greater efficiency of public works in stimulating demand when compared to corporate tax slashing - a point which looks even stronger in comparing the infrastructure deficit and the glut of money sitting unused in corporate coffers. And in response to another of Mai's questions, Joe Daniel helpfully pointed out that the Cons are putting five times less money into the investment that produces five times as many results.

Meanwhile, Kevin Lamoureux and Leslie agreed on the importance of housing as both a short-term stimulus and an investment in long-term infrastructure. Mathieu Ravignat argued that inequality is reaching crisis proportions. Don Davies offered a few kind words about the budget before pointing out why it ultimately fails to meet the standard we should expect. Scott Brison expressed concern about the spotty nature of any economic recovery while noting that full-time jobs are actually down even in raw numbers since August 2008. John Williamson asserted that we should be trying to make sure that greater tax breaks are dedicated to those who need them least. And Ray Boughen actually conceded a "discrepancy" in his party's insistence on non-refundable tax credits, while promising a look at the problem that we can rest assured will be ignored by his partymates.

Pop Quiz

Guess which MP said this:

Mr. Speaker, last week a reprehensible crime took place here in Ottawa, but we will not have to bring in CSI Ottawa to find the guilty party. Organized labour in this country was bludgeoned by the Conservative government and the Minister of Labour's fingerprints are all over the weapon.

If you figured it out, well done. But I'm guessing not.

In Brief

Nycole Turmel questioned how Stephen Harper can remain oblivious to growing inequality and protest when even Mark Carney is publicly expressing his sympathy. Robert Chisholm pointed out the Cons' woeful record of giving away the farm every time they sign a foreign trade deal, while Terence Young responded to Marc-Andre Morin's question on the softwood lumber sellout by proudly taking credit for a deal which preceded the shutdown of five sawmills in Morin's riding. Mathieu Ravignat criticized the CETA prescription-drug giveaway (only to receive a thorough non-sequitur of an answer from Gerald Keddy). Kirsty Duncan called for a national school meals plan. Pierre Dionne Labelle slammed the Cons choice to repeat the all-too-regular pattern of governments outsourcing to the point where they lack any capacity to evaluate whether anybody is delivering on their contractual commitments. And Charlie Angus reminded the Cons that the Auditor General said that it's Parliament's job to investigate Tony Clement's G8 scandal - despite their efforts to prevent any such thing.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Marc Lee reminds us that income disparities are only a small part of the picture of an increasingly unequal economy - with wealth inequality looking far worse:

These numbers are striking, with 58% of wealth in the hands of the top 10%. But we hit a bit of a wall when it comes to looking further up. There does tend to be a bit of fractal pattern that happens with distribution, so if the top 10% get 58% of the wealth, a rough estimate is that the top 1% would get 58% of the income of the top 10%, so about one-third of the total wealth. Meanwhile, the bottom half of households have a teensy 3% of total wealth, with the bottom 10% completely underwater (liabilities greater than assets, or negative net worth).

- Dr. Dawg documents the Cons' latest Parliamentary abuses:

Closure is not a new measure, but using it on the very first day of debate, as it was last evening, is uncommon, and using it so routinely is, I believe, unprecedented.

Parliamentary committees, too, have been effectively shut down by the ruling Conservatives: in the past, when they were in a minority, the tactic was maximum disruption.

And the war on various independent watchdogs/agencies continues apace. One after another, they have been hobbled or neutered. Dictatorship, after all, doesn’t require independent assessment.

Harper’s Conservatives—elected by only 39% of those who voted—have shown themselves to be literally contemptuous of parliamentary tradition, and the rule of law.

In a nutshell, the Conservatives hate democracy. Canadians are just beginning to realize, I think, how viscerally and deeply this hatred runs.

- In the department of taking good news where we can get it, at least one Con MP is willing to discuss climate change as a problem. But while Michael Chong deserves full credit for joining the multi-party climate change caucus, it surely speaks volumes that the rest of his party-mates can't be bothered.

- Finally, Stephen Maher unloads on Tony Clement and the party that's keeping him in Cabinet:

Clement's defence is that the mayors made the recommendations, which they didn't, and that Baird made the decision, which he didn't.

We need to know why there was no paperwork for the auditor general, because we are up Muskoka River without a paddle if politicians are able to hide their files from the auditor general, the only official with the power to pierce the veil of secrecy in Ottawa.

Clement's explanations are gibberish, and he does not appear to have the judgment necessary for his current job as president of Treasury Board, the minister in charge of enforcing spending rules.
...
Clement owes his seat and his job to Harper, and he seems to do whatever the prime minister asks, cheerfully acting as Harper's smiling spear carrier on ugly files, such as the government's unsuccessful push to shut down Vancouver's Insite program for drug addicts, and the successful push to kill the mandatory long-form census.

Prime ministers need loyal servants, so even though Clement's G8 shenanigans show that he is farcically ill-equipped to carry out his job, Harper is unlikely to move him or to force him to fully account for the rule-breaking porkfest in Muskoka.

Parliament In Review: September 30, 2011

The Harper Conservatives' choice to talk about everything but the economy continued on September 30, with the day's debate taken up by the Cons' anti-refugee bill as well as a first look at the latest incarnation of Senate reform.

The Big Issue

Let's give top billing to Senate reform, if only because Tim Uppal's introduction of his bill so nicely highlighted the problems with the Senate that Stephen Harper has gone out of his way to exacerbate over the past few years:

(S)enators are selected and appointed through a process that is neither formal nor transparent, with no democratic mandate whatsoever from Canadians.
...
Taken together, the Senate lacks any essential democratic characteristics. Its effectiveness and legitimacy suffers from the democratic deficit.

Not surprisingly, part of the NDP's response included challenging the Cons' own unelected and illegitimate Senators who blocked climate change legislation which was passed by a majority of elected MPs in the House of Commons. Even less surprisingly, the Cons took no responsibility for having done so.

Meanwhile, the opposition parties had plenty more to say about the current Senate. David Christopherson highlighted the fact that the Senate's purpose was explicitly anti-democratic, having been based on a desire to ensure "that the unwashed masses did not run amok", and also noted that an elected Senate would likely prove even more partisan than the current version. Christopherson and Stephane Dion agreed on the dangers of gridlock arising out of an elected Senate. Niki Ashton noted that under the Senate's age restrictions, she and nearly 20 other elected NDP MPs would be prohibited from seeking election. Marc-Andre Morin warned that a greater role for the Senate would provide a means for Stephen Harper to govern from beyond the political grave long after voters had definitely rejected his party.

Finally, Alexandrine Latendresse pointed out that the title of the Senate reform bill is explicitly aimed at "the selection of senators", being an issue where provincial consent is constitutionally required. Which will make for a particularly noteworthy observation given the significance the Cons attached to the name of their other bill up for debate...

Unfriendly Welcomes

Once again, the opposition parties presented plenty of strong critiques of the Cons' anti-refugee bill. Philip Toone traced the origins of the international refugee treaties violated by the bill back to the attempts of refugees to flee Nazi Germany. Marie-Claude Morin pointed out how gratuitous restrictions on reunification attack the family unit as a vital source of support for potential immigrants.

But rest assured that the Cons had at least one ace in the hole, as newly-elected MP Costas Menegakis proudly told the opposition that it should ignore the fact that the bill itself attacks refugees alone based on the fact that its title mentions human smugglers. If only the Cons could be counted on to actually apply the standard of debating only the title of any given bill rather than its substance, just think of the private members' bills the opposition could pass under the title of the Praise Be to Our Strong and Glorious Leader Stephen Harper Act.

In Brief

Joe Comartin questioned the Cons on giving away futile corporate tax breaks which perfectly match their structural deficit, while Guy Caron challenged their insistence on PBO costing of private members' bills while refusing to allow the same for their own legislation (including their plans to trash the Canadian Wheat Board). Bruce Hyer called for a focus on passenger rail, while Olivia Chow introduced her private member's bill on transit and tested the Cons' reaction. Mathieu Ravignat took up the NDP's cause of legislation to prevent floor-crossing. And Andrew Cash kept the pressure on Tony Clement by asking that any additional business e-mails sent from his personal address to escape detection be released.

Parliament In Review: September 26, 2011

Monday's session in the House of Commons was dominated by the debate over another military extension in Libya.

The Big Issue

Once again, the Cons were able to win a vote for perpetual military action with the support of the Libs and Bloc. But it wasn't for a lack of trying - and indeed some success - by the NDP in pointing out the gap between the Cons' explanation for an extension and what Canadians expect from their government.

Indeed, in response to Jack Harris' question, Peter MacKay made it clear just how open-ended a standard the Cons have to apply in order to convince themselves that military action is still needed:

Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I will have an opportunity to make a speech shortly but I want to ask the minister whether he agrees that the situation today is far different from what was facing the United Nations on March 17 in the House? It passed the first resolution when Colonel Gadhafi was the regime in power in Libya and was actively threatening to effectively massacre civilians. We now have the opposition, the National Transitional Council, having taken Libya's seat at the United Nations. The regime no longer exists. Therefore, Canada's role can be entirely different from what it was in March of this year.

Hon. Peter MacKay:

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that the conditions have improved. However, the work that is yet to be done remains. We need to be clear. Civilians are still being attacked by the Libyan regime as recently as this weekend. There is still capacity in place that permits Gadhafi to control a certain element. There is a certain following in the country who have access to weapons that can be used against civilians.

Which of course leads to a pop quiz: what countries on the face of the globe don't have some armed "following" that could conceivably harm civilians, such as to demand Canadian military intervention if the same standard were applied?

But the Cons would look worse before the day was out. Philip Toone went a step further and caught Nina Grewal with no clue what purpose there could be in maintaining a no-fly zone as a means of an enemy without an airforce. And Dean Allison contributed a double dose of embarrassment: completely whiffing on Pierre Nantel's seemingly simple question about the current capacity of Gadhafi forces, then making the statement that the Cons' sole idea of democratic development is freezing and unfreezing oil money.

Meanwhile, NDP speakers including Paul Dewar and Charlie Angus pointed out that Canada and others helped contribute to the Gadhafi regime which is now being pointed to as an enemy which demands military intervention. Jack Harris noted that Norway for one has already transitioned away from a military role, then pointed out that the Cons' supposed commitment to the prospect of popular emancipation raised by the Arab Spring hasn't been reflected in actual nation-building work. And Rathika Sitsabaiesan spoke from her own experience in a war zone in pointing out how humanitarian development matters far more than military intervention.

Unanswerable

Of course it's an embarrassment that the Cons are continuing to treat Tony Clement's G8 porkfest (the steady stream of new revelations included) as beneath anything approaching a reasonable response. But one could hardly blame them for being too frightened to move beyond nonsensical talking points in the face of some of the biting questions which met them yesterday. Here's Thomas Mulcair:

Mr. Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year the Prime Minister released an important documented entitled “Accountable Government: A Guide for Ministers and Ministers of State”. Could the Prime Minister tell us if it is within the guidelines for a minister to run government funding out of his constituency office? Is it within the guidelines to have inaccurate and incomplete information provided to the Auditor General? Also, is it within the guidelines to have ministers interfere in spending reviews?

Mulcair again:

Mr. Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, according to the minutes from meetings on the G8 legacy fund, the President of the Treasury Board told local mayors “...budgets in addition to the basic G8 Summit Management Office Budget must first be determined by the Prime Minister's Office”.

Can the Prime MInister tell us how his office was the one determining budgets for a local slush fund? How was his office involved in diverting money from the border fund to help the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka get re-elected?

And Charlie Angus:

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the Muskoka minister had many schemes for funnelling money into his riding under the pretext of the G8.

One scheme involved building a massive hockey arena and then telling everybody it would be used as a media centre. When the OPP raised questions about this pet project on security grounds, what was his reaction? The minister told local mayors that it was good news that the Prime Minister was filled with fury at police for daring to raise questions about security at an international summit.

Will the member explain why the Prime Minister was so furious at officials who were not willing to rubber-stamp his every whim?

In Brief

Charlie Angus made a statement on the Cons' continued failure to ensure that children on First Nations reserves receive anything approaching the educational opportunities their fellow Canadians enjoy elsewhere. Laurin Liu commented on the environmental dangers of the Keystone XL pipeline. Peggy Nash asked why Canada's economic policy shouldn't be based on actually rewarding job creation, rather than giving away free billions based on the desperate hope that they might someday result in economic development where previous decades of the same policy have failed. And Wayne Marston questioned whether Canadians want to gamble their retirements in the stock market rather than being able to rely on a stable CPP.

[Edit: fixed typo.]

Parliament In Review: September 23, 2011

Friday's session in the House of Commons saw a few themes discussed which figure to be hot topics of discussion for the next little while - with the continued focus on the Cons' anti-refugee bill partially giving way to economic and foreign-policy issues.

Focus on the Economy

While the Cons' legislative agenda of course has nothing to do with the economic issues at the top of mind for Canadians, the NDP's question period focussed nicely on what the Cons' economic choices actually mean. Thomas Mulcair pointed out that no private-sector actor would wilfully pass up low-cost investment opportunities like the possibility of putting money into infrastructure at rock-bottom interest rates, leading to this exchange with Shelly Glover:

Mr. Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, NDP):
...
Will the Conservatives stop making excuses and start investing in the projects that will restore falling infrastructure while putting Canadians back to work and strengthening our economy?

Mrs. Shelly Glover (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what this country cannot afford to do.

Meanwhile, Laurin Liu pointed out the economic and environmental costs of pushing ahead with a plan to extract and export as much raw material as possible from the tar sands. And Mathieu Ravignat highlighted the absurdity of paying premium private-sector prices to do what can be done publicly.

No Refuge

John Rafferty offered up what may be the best summary yet of what the Cons' anti-refugee bill will do, while Irene Mathyssen and Peggy Nash catalogued some of the groups who would be caught by the Cons' desire to target refugees. Alexandrine Latendresse challenged whether the bill would have any hope of being found to comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And Kevin Lamoureux and Matthew Kellway were able to agree that the bill needlessly targets the most vulnerable immigrants to Canada.

But perhaps the most noteworthy contribution was this from Helene Laverdiere:

We know that people who fish have developed nets with which they can catch tuna and let dolphins go free. In this bill, we get the impression that if the smugglers are the dolphins and the refugees are the tuna in this analogy, then the government is casting a large net to catch refugees and let the smugglers go free.

War vs. Peace

Two foreign policy issues also found their way into the discussion - with the results of one nicely serving to frame the other.

In question period, Paul Dewar pointed out that the Cons' assurances that Canada's troops in Afghanistan wouldn't be involved in combat had predictably proven to be false. And that typical gap between promise and reality looks like an important part of the backdrop for the discussion of Libya which is set to take place tomorrow.

Instructions from On High

In principle, there shouldn't have been much basis for Yvon Godin's question about the Cons' handling of committee motions to be dealt with in question period. But given that the Cons responded in substance rather than pointing out any difference between government instructions and MPs' actions, it would seem that questions about what the Cons do in committee are fair game.

In Brief

Helene Laverdiere questioned why the Cons are preventing Tunisian nationals now resident in Canada from having a voice in that country's elections. Irene Mathyssen introduced a bill to ensure that benefits under the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security are indexed to a senior consumer price index. And Deepak Obhrai apparently believes that the Auditor General's G8 report - which was of course not officially released until after May's election - has been officially superseded by the campaign where the Cons consistently declared it to have been off limits for discussion.

Saturday Afternoon Links

This and that for your weekend reading.

- For those looking to paint foreign investment as a panacea for economic development, Paul Krugman offers up (via Kash Mansori) what should be a chilling correlation between capital imbalances and economic disaster in Europe. But of course, we know the actual response will merely be a declaration that the countries now suffering for buying into the corporatist mantra really just needed to go even further in that direction.

- The NDP is rightly focusing attention on the latest developments in Tony Clement's G8 scandal, as Clement looks to have influenced one of the mayors in the thick of the patronage into hiring a Clement acquaintance on request.

- Meanwhile, the Cons' claims not to have paid a ransom to kidnappers to free two diplomats in West Africa looks to have been entirely false. But have no fear: as far as Canadians are concerned, nothing happened which the Cons are prepared to discuss:

A spokesman for Mr. Harper’s office said on Friday that the government does not comment on leaked documents.

- Finally, Bruce Johnstone questions why the Cons are in such a hurry to demolish the Canadian Wheat Board:

Another huge issue is the fate of producer car loading sites - railroad sidings where farmers can load their own grain into railcars, bypassing the grain companies. From 700 sites 10 years ago, there are only 300 today, but they handle 12,000 railcars a year - four times as many as a decade ago. For farmers, those producer cars mean savings of about $1,200 per railcar.

Without the CWB handling producer car logistics for farmers, who will? The grain companies? The railways? Not on your life.

There are a host of issues that hinge on the single desk: the fate of the Port of Churchill and the Canadian International Grains Institute, to name two. One farm group said "the elimination of the single desk may well be the biggest change to agriculture on the Prairies in over 100 years."

So why is the federal government rushing into such a momentous change with its ideological blinkers on?

Parliament In Review: September 21, 2011

Despite a typically short sitting day on Wednesday, we nonetheless saw an important preview of how one of the most contentious issues on the Canadian political scene will be dealt with over the next few years.

The Big Issue

The main point of discussion was the Cons' new omnibus crime bill, with various opposition speakers trying to introduce some rational analysis to the discussion in a number of ways. Those included Don Davies, who went out of his way to start his speech with a set of principles that all parties could agree on; Elizabeth May, who tried to convince the Cons to allow the various parts of the bill to actually be studied separately rather than being rammed through in a single, take-it-or-leave-it package; and Sean Casey, who went a step further in saying there were parts of the bill he'd support if they were dealt with separately.

Of course, those entreaties were met with the usual wall of Con accusations that any concern about cost or effectiveness meant the speaker was on the side of thugs against victims. Which is why the most important opposition intervention was likely Joe Comartin's inaugural response, nicely framing the battle of persuasion that figures to play out of the next few years. And the points raised on that front included Peter Stoffer's appeal to recognize the harm a lock-'em-all-up approach may have on mentally ill offenders, and Jasbir Sandhu's prime example as to how the Cons' posturing has nothing to do with a principled approach to which offences deserve more severe penalties.

Message Tracks

Two NDP MPs celebrated the International Day of Peace with actual approval of the concept. But since peace isn't such a great fit for the Cons' foreign policy message, Shelley Glover elected to celebrate the occasion by changing the subject.

In Brief

Charlie Angus kept up the heat on the Cons' G8 patronage and subsequent cover-up. And Randall Garrison reintroduced a private member's bill to provide for gender identity rights.