Wednesday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Judd Legum discusses how Donald Trump's corruption includes such blatant market manipulation as buying stocks then using speeches to promote the companies involved. 

- Meanwhile, Samantha Michaels reports on the Trump regime's "full-blown occupation" of Memphis - as well as the lack of attention it's received due to a compliant state government and a difference in spin as to the purposes for militarizing a major city.  

- Sarah Cox reports on the warnings of environmentalists that Mark Carney is going far beyond anything proposed by Stephen Harper in treating species' extinction as an acceptable price for extractive development. Harry Glasbeck writes that if anything, Carney is demonstrating just how predatory capitalism tends to be. And Rishika Paridkar points out the denial, misinformation and spin around dirty energy in India - including the attempt to create an identity out of being uniquely adapted to the harms of polluted air. 

- Barry Saxifrage highlights how Canada has made little progress in transitioning away from fossil fuel dependency (and is actively going backwards under the Carney Libs). And Leonard Hyman and William Tilles report that utilities are starting to recognize the folly of pouring money into fossil gas as renewable energy and storage become far more affordable as well as healthier. 

- Finally, Luke Savage discusses how the proliferation of gambling as the primary lens for analyzing sports is now giving way to the commodification and gamification of everything. 

Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Paul Krugman writes that the U.S. is now the world's foremost petrostate - with disastrous results for it and for the world at large (with the exception of the group of countries including China who are leading the charge toward electrification). 

- Mary Stuart and Geoff Dembicki map out Gwyn Morgan's multimillion-dollar fossil fuel propaganda empire. And Amanda Bryant points out how the UCP has made a mockery of yet another supposed agreement with the Carney government by taking federal forbearance as an invitation toward unregulation methane pollution. 

- Niigaan Sinclair writes that spying on Indigenous peoples (invariably in the service of resource extraction) represents an intolerable threat to everybody's civil rights. 

- Katie Jagielnicka examines the misogyny behind the alt-right's relentless attacks on intellectualism. And Hanna Horvath writes that ubiquitous gambling is a demonstrable source of both intimate partner violence and social breakdown.  

- Finally, Victor Tangarmann examines the dangers of cognitive surrender in the face of authoritative-sounding-but-wrong directions from artificial intelligence. 

Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Adam King discusses several new studies showing that wealth inequality is only continuing to balloon in Canada. And Jared Walker and Silas Xuereb rightly question why Canadian corporate giants which extracted two-thirds of a trillion dollars in profits in 2025 are still being granted massive public handouts. 

- Meanwhile, Martin Lukacs talks to several movement organizers working on pushing back against Mark Carney's insistence on further entrenching corporate power. 

- Julia Simon notes that countries which have invested in solar energy and electrified transportation are far better positioned to deal with the oil shocks caused by Donald Trump's irrational attack on Iran. James Murray observes that European businesses are pushing to be freed from reliance on fossil fuels whose supply can be so easily disrupted, while David Fickling discusses how the plummeting price of battery storage (along with renewable power) is making dependence on oil and gas into a sucker's bet even from an immediate cost standpoint alone. But Drew Anderson's review of the state of clean energy development in Alberta highlights how the UCP has destroyed massive amounts of value and blocked needed investment as a sacrifice to the dirty oil gods. 

- Finally, Dave Levitan comments on the dangers of gambling on prediction markets. And Emanuel Fabian offers a personal account of the threats directed at a journalist for reporting accurate information rather than being pressured into assisting people who bet on the opposite outcome. 

Tuesday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Brian Beutler comments on the Trump regime's absolute lack of distinction between war and politics, and what that means for any hope of a peaceful transition to reflect electoral choices. And Robert Reich discusses the absurdity of the U.S. launching increasingly destructive wars without having the slightest clue what their endgame is in any of them. 

- Dave Levitan writes about the dangers of allowing people to gamble on choices and outcomes in war. 

- Meanwhile, Alexander de Croo points out that development is no less an exercise of hard power than military action - while providing a much-needed prospect of positive outcomes. 

- Surya Sakhar-Suot writes about the myriad benefits of remote work - and the concurrent folly of imposing return-to-office mandates. 

- Finally, Ben Steverman discusses how the rise of 19th-century billionaire robber barons is being reflected in the emergence of the trillionaires of the near term. And Hugh Gusterson writes about the elite gifts and manipulations that tied together Jeffrey Epstein's network of influence and control. 

Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Bruce Boccardy writes about the continued centrality of class struggle. Melissa Ryan comments on the realities that "Epstein class" is by far the most apt description of the people currently in charge of the U.S. (and far too much else). And Nick Chater and George Loewenstein highlight how self-serving corporations and billionaires are trying to force individuals to bear the responsibility and consequences for systemic ills. 

- Meanwhile, Jason Koebler writes that the gamification of war crimes in Iran has turned into just another appalling example of the depravity economy. And Rana Foroohar discusses how the U.S.' increasing adherence to petrostate logic is making everybody worse off (other than a tiny number of the most exploitative tycoons).

- The Economic Security Project examines how we could be ensuring a dignified life for everybody - even while helping individual recipients' employment prospects - through a readily-affordable guaranteed income. 

- Finally, Isaac Callan and Colin D'Mello report on the Ford PCs' decision to just stop informing the public of the measured consequences of their policies. 

Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Adam Serwer points out the glaring contrast between real accountability for bad actors in other countries, and the U.S.' culture of absolute elite impunity epitomized by the Trump regime. And the Boston Globe reports on the Republicans' deliberate trashing of institutional knowledge which served to benefit the general public. 

- Norm Farrell weighs in on the reality that clean renewable energy is also far more affordable than dirtier sources. But Carl Meyer reports on the Moe government's determination to burn a billion dollars and large amounts of avoidable coal just to prove it's above the law - even as the Libs show little inclination to enforce it. 

- Alexander Gazmararian, Nathan Jensen and Dustin Tingley study the Biden administration's failure to promote or take credit for its green investments - making it far too easy for Republicans to both take power and reverse course. 

- Dean Baker discusses some of the factors which figure to cause the eventual bursting of the AI bubble. And in case public opprobrium wasn't already high enough on the list, Clare Duffy and Leah Eadicicco report on Anthropic's sudden dismantling of any binding guardrails against the misuse of its system.   

- Finally, David Dayen writes that Kalshi and other prediction markets are inadvertently conceding that their platforms create the potential for deliberate manipulation that far exceeds any innocent or neutral purpose. 

Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- David Lurie is rightly appalled by the Trump regime's nihilism, combining insatiable greed for whatever it can seize with a willingness to destroy anything it can't. But Harold Meyerson discusses how Minnesota has managed to force the most violent of Trump's minions into retreat. 

- Dharna Noor reports on Trump's handout to billionaire polluters in the form by making climate denialism official U.S. policy. Andrea Thompson discusses how public health will suffer as a result, while Molly Taft examines the policy chaos which will be created. And each of Katharine Hayhoe and Jonathan Levy et al. review the utter lack of any evidentiary support for Trump's idiocy. 

- Filippo Menczer examines how AI bots can pollute a political information environment to the point of threatening democracy. And Tom Chivers reports on the warnings - and in some cases resignations - of people working on artificial intelligence who see their employers choosing to endanger the public. 

- Alan Elrod writes about the reality that gambling on all manner of political and social outcomes is best set up as the next widespread form of addiction in the U.S. 

- Finally, Leigh Kimmins reports on the details of meetings between Alberta separatists and Trump officials eager to foment unrest and division. And Don Braid discusses both how many Albertans would choose to stay in Canada rather than  surrendering to the U.S., and how federalists are fighting back. 

Wednesday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Zoe Williams writes that Donald Trump is just the most egregious and unrestrained example of the vice-signalling which has become standard operating procedure among right-wing political parties - but that we're finally seeing a fight back on the side of decency. And Dave Karpf warns that Kalshi and other sites which encourage gambling on everything will inevitably foment addictions and manipulations which we'll come to regret. 

- Patrick Wintour discusses Europe's growing realization that it needs to treat the U.S. as a threat rather than an ally or protector - as reflected in a report from the Munich Security Conference. And Ian Welsh writes that we shouldn't underestimate Canada's ability to be independent from the U.S. - particularly in the longer term if we avoid taking steps to further entangle ourselves with a dying empire. 

- Jack Flemming reports on a Rent Brigade analysis of the corporate price-gouging which added insult to injury in the aftermath of California's wildfires last year. 

- Meanwhile, Toula Drimonis discusses how funding to prevent evictions more than pays for itself in health and social service savings. And the Canadian Climate Institute highlights the need to prepare our infrastructure in advance of climate-related disasters. 

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Cathy Young and Cas Mudde each discuss how the Trump regime's "national security strategy" is based on pushing cronyism and bigotry over democracy and security - and seeking to impose that same prioritization on every country it can. 

- Meanwhile, Emmett MacFarlane writes that Trump has found an eager fellow traveler in Danielle Smith as she wields the notwithstanding clause at every opportunity to attack minority rights. And Saima Desai reports on the growing movement of unions and trans advocates fighting back against Scott Moe's discrimination against trans youth.

- Max Abelson et al. offer a detailed look at the documented connections between Jeffrey Epstein and numerous corporate and financial bigwigs. And Pema Levy discusses how Republicans are trying to give dark money even more power to manipulate American elections, while Phil Weiser and Javier Mabry note that it's possible to fight back through citizen intiatives at the state level. 

- Natasha Bulowski reports on Mark Carney's latest plan to hand power to the corporate class by allowing it to embed employees in the federal government, while Adrienne Tanner discusses how Carney has made a cynic out of her (and many more) in handing over climate policy to the fossil fuel sector. And Emma Arkell reports on Quebec's legislative attacks on the labour movement. 

- Rhoda Feng reviews Tim Wu's The Age of Extraction as a needed reminder of the rent-seeking business model behind the our tech overlords. And Judd Legum writes about the casino-fication of news as the next frontier of converting flows of information into profit centres. 

- Finally, James Hardwick writes about the reality of Canada's housing bubble - and the desperate need for large-scale social and not-for-profit housing to improve anything.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Robert Reich talks about the glaring gap between the wealthy elite who are being catered to by the U.S.' economy and the many who are being left behind - and how even businesses are beginning to notice people can't afford to spend the money they count on to make profits:

- Cara Ence Morse and Eric Lau examine how the wealthiest few are distorting American elections, while Dean Baker discusses their cultivation of other conflict (including between generations) to avoid answering for their own class warfare. And Josh Bivens writes that requiring the ultrarich to pay their fair share is a necessary first step in getting back to some semblance of democracy. 

- Meghan Bartels charts the course of carbon pollution and global warming since the signing of the Paris agreement. Jackie Flynn Mogensen and Henry Carnell ponder whether it's possible to achieve global progress in the climate fight when the U.S. and other petrostates are marshaling every available resource to maximize the damage, while Gabriela Calugay-Casuga points out that the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is continuing to short the future of humanity by pouring money into dirty investments. And Max Fawcett rightly calls bullshit on any spin about treating fossil gas exports to developing countries as compatible with responsible energy policy, while Jessica Clogg writes that the only product on offer in the Carney/Smith back-of-a-napkin pipeline deal is snake oil. 

- David Roberts interviews Georgia Lagoudas about the obvious room for improvement in indoor air quality practices. And Jenna Banfield reports on a push from dozens of Senators to ban sports betting advertising. 

- Finally, Markham Hislop discusses Danielle Smith's wholescale adoption of exclusionary and corrupt MAGA politics. And Sean Speer offers a warning about the dangers of accepting state-imposed conservative culture. 

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Oliver Milman and Damian Carrington report on Climate Action Tracker's recognition that we're headed toward 2.6 degrees of global warming without major policy changes - and that dirty fossil fuel emissions are continuing to increase. Nina Lakhani reports on a study showing that fossil fuel lobbyists outnumber every non-host delegation at the COP30 conference. And Ian Urquhart notes that the Mark Carney Libs are are among far too many governments serving as fossil fuel lobbyists rather than good faith actors - meaning that there's little reason for hope that Carney will take up the mantle of climate leadership as pitched by Shawn McCarthy. 

- Meanwhile, Jillian Ambrose and Fiona Harvey report on the IEA's recognition that a clean energy transition is inevitable - meaning that the people shilling for fossil fuel interests are only exacerbating both the climate breakdown, and the severity of an eventual economic crash. And Jameson Dow discusses how a corporate media narrative of electric vehicle denialism bears no relationship to reality. 

- George Monbiot discusses how the control of media by the ultra-rich is fueling an epistemic crisis. Timothy Caulfield notes that the normalizing of anti-vaccine ideology (which is resulting in the reemergence of diseases like measles which had previously been contained) is a direct result of political calculation by right-wing actors looking to undermine the concept of the public good at every turn. Jon Cohen examines how the Trump regime is actively destroying humanity's capacity to respond to the next pandemic. And Grey Moran exposes how Tyson Foods used Palantir surveillance to develop plans for the known results of the uncontrolled spread of COVID-19 - but not to actually lift a finger to keep its workers healthy. 

- Cora Lewis writes about the spread of online sports betting, as well as the obvious risks which have been foisted on the people least capable of managing them. And John Herrman points out how both gambling and resulting patterns of media coverage are spreading into the political sphere.

- John Stapleton points out the absurdity of the Libs trying to claim "inefficiency" as a reason for ending taxes on the wealthy while it pursues grossly disproportionate litigation to recover tiny amounts of social benefits. 

- Finally, David Moscrop joins the group of voices recognizing that it's absolutely futile for Canada to pursue a trade deal with a U.S. which is utterly incapable of being trusted either to accurately portray what's being negotiated, or to honour any deal which might be announced. And Dan Gardner writes that it's long past time for Canada to move past the "safe" position of deferring to the U.S., and instead take a leadership role in shaping the world we want. 

Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Catarina Saraiva and Jaewon Kang warn that the U.S. economy is a Jenga tower in which pieces needed to support the middle class are being systematically removed. Bloomberg's editorial board examines the national scope of the U.S.' gambling problem - with sports betting as just part of the drain on workers. And Public Citizen traces the connections between Donald Trump's ballroom bribe solicitation and hundreds of billions of dollars in federal contract awards. 

- Meanwhile, Rebecca Schneid discusses how Zohran Mamdani has offered a vitally important reminder that oligarchs can't buy elections in the face of public organization. Emma Goldberg and Benjamin Oreskes highlight how Mamdani recognized and responded to the young voters who have been facing a loneliness crisis. Ian Welsh views Mamdani's focus on affordability - coupled with positive solutions  based on collective power rather than mere finger-pointing - as the model Democrats need to seize upon. And Moustafa Bayoumi writes that Mamdani was rewarded for defending his values, while Moira Donegan implores the rest of the Democratic Party to learn from his success. 

- Climate Action Tracker's latest evaluation of Canada's climate policy finds that we're headed in the wrong direction under the Carney Libs even as the cost of inaction becomes ever more stark. Markham Hislop discusses the dangers of letting the oil industry's false assumptions and empty promises take precedence over planning for an affordable and sustainable future. And Bob Weber examines how the UCP has set out to stick the public with perpetually more cleanup costs in order to ensure oil companies  operating in Alberta can escape responsibility for the messes they're making. 

- Finally, Katie Kavanagh offers a reminder that COVID-19 is still around even as basic measures to track and control it have long since been abandoned. And Michael Le Page reports on a new study showing that exposure to COVID raises the risk of heart issues in children - in contrast to the protective effects of vaccination. 

Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- The UN sets out Antonio Guterres' New Year's message calling for us to divert course from the road to climate ruin. Hannah Osborne examines some of the grim impacts of the climate breakdown in 2024 (which only figure to get worse as action is delayed), while Julia Jacobo reports on the multi-trillion-dollar cost of climate disasters in a single year. But then Mark Olalde exposes how fossil fuel giants are determined to avoid paying any of the environmental costs they're creating for everybody else. 

- Oliver Milman reports on a new study showing the connection between car dependency and unhappiness in the U.S. David Zipper discusses how the U.S. is exporting its propensity for needlessly large and heavy vehicles. And Ricky Leong points out some recent Calgary examples as to how cities designed to privilege drivers over anybody else can be catastrophic for pedestrians. 

- Rob Csernyik reports on the rapid expansion of gambling in Canada - as governments consistently accept easily-foreseen social damage in exchange for their own hit of short-term revenue. 

- Jason Sattler offers a reminder that whatever other schisms might appear in the Musk-Trump administration, their shared hatred of workers will serve as a consistent organizing principle. And Annie Lowrey discusses the challenges facing parties confronted with anti-labour populism which speaks to grievances and false promises rather than any interest in workers' well-being. 

- Finally, Christopher Holcroft writes that the ultimate question in the 2025 federal election is whether Canada will be able to hold off an invasion by U.S. oligarchs. 

New column day

Here, starting from Nattavudh Powdthavee and Andrew Oswald's study to discuss on how people have trouble telling the difference between luck and merit (particularly when they're enjoying the benefit of the former) - and how we should take that gap into account both personally and politically.

I'll add here one point omitted from the article. I'm skeptical in general of the all-too-common trend of public institutions like hospitals, libraries and schools being forced to rely on fund-raising lotteries rather than being funded directly. But the study hints at a hidden side effect - as a "successful" lottery which provides a large number of wins to a large number of people may itself serve to undermine popular support for sustained public funding.

For further reading...
- The study is summarized here, and accessible in full here (PDF).
- And for more on the "lottery winners going bankrupt" phenomenon, see here and here.

New column day

Here, on how Brad Wall's casino sell-off gambit might provoke a needed discussion of Saskatchewan's relationship with First Nations - even while highlighting that Wall himself isn't up for the public consultation needed to make that process work.

For further reading...
- The original casino story was broken by the NDP caucus here, and subsequently reported on here.  
- SOS Crowns weighs in on Wall's desire to sell off Saskatchewan's casinos (and anything else that isn't locked down through the NDP's Crown preservation legislation).
- And lest anybody think the Sask Party considers its standard practices to be acceptable coming from anybody else, Ken Krawetz doesn't like ultimatums from the federal government.

Deep thought

I've written before about the dangers of government by manufactured crisis - which is all too familiar under the Harper Cons and the Wall Sask Party alike.

But in light of recent events, I feel compelled to add that an inexplicable "you must accept our plan NOW! NOW! NOW!" only gets worse when followed by a gleeful "MWAHAHAHAHA!!!".

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- David Macdonald takes a closer look at a Fraser Institute study on income mobility, and finds strong evidence that there's a significant lack of mobility at both the bottom and the top of Canada's income distribution:

What should be very shocking to people is that in the shorter term panels, 50% of the poorest people in 2002 were still in the poorest category five years later (table 3).  That’s a pretty stunning conclusion.  For the second poorest category, a shocking 69% either ended up in the second poorest category or the poorest category (making even less).  So about 60% of the people in the bottom poorest categories were stuck there between 2002 and 2007.  That’s a lot of people living on very little income.  They are a bit mobile, but they are mobile between very poor and poor.  That’s not really the kind of mobility we should be looking for.

While the study focuses on the low end, there are some very interesting things going on at the upper end.  Take a look at table 6 for the top 20%.  The table does a “where are they now?” analysis over 19 years from 1990 to 2009.  For people that were in the top 20% in 1990, how many are still in the top 20% in 2009?  The answer is a whopping 64%.  Six out of 10 people that were in the top 20% in 1990 are still there today, two decades later.  Over a 10 year period between 1990 and 2000, almost 80% of the wealthy stayed at the top.

This is the opposite of income mobility, if you manage to slip into the exclusive club of wealthy Canadians it looks like you get a 10, if not a 20-year membership.  None of the other income groups are anywhere near that level of exclusivity.

- Meanwhile, Allison Jones reports on a Campaign 2000 study pointing out that it's possible to end child poverty in Canada by redirecting assorted tax credits. But I'd note that the contrast between universal benefits and the most narrow focus possible only serves as a means of pitting the currently-poor against the nearly-poor who are likely to lean heavily on the universal benefits - meaning that the real takeaway should be that it's possible to muster enough resources to end poverty in one form or another.

- Anne McGrath suggests applying a seven-generation test to Canada's international agreements, and finds the Cons' planned investor privilege pact with China to be sorely wanting by that standard:

The Iroquois had a rule: when making a major decision, consider its effects on the next seven generations.

It’s a good rule, one the Conservatives would do well to adopt. The reluctance of this government to submit the Canada-China FIPA (Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement) to parliamentary analysis and oversight deepens the apprehension many Canadians feel about the way we are pursuing trade and investment with China. Despite the government’s assurances, many remain unconvinced that the FIPA will be good for Canada in the long-term. Even its supporters acknowledge that further study and debate would be beneficial.
...
Given that under the current government Canada has gone from a $26 billion trade surplus to a $50 billion trade deficit, we cannot simply take it as gospel that a trade deal exempt from parliamentary scrutiny is in this country’s best interest.

Critics argue that FIPA promotes corporate rights at the expense of Canada’s democratic, environmental and social rights and may have negative consequences for this country for years to come. In the agreed terms, FIPA cannot be terminated for 15 years. What’s more, any investments made prior to the date of termination will stand for a further 15 years.

The North American Free Trade Agreement, in contrast, can be cancelled with six months’ notice. The impact of FIPA will be felt well beyond its 31-year duration and Canadians deserve to know it in detail.

 - But unfortunately, the Cons look to be applying a rather different lens to their dealings with the world.

- Finally, Bill Curry reports that the Senate is determined to remind people of its existence (and make a wrong-headed claim to relevance) by trashing a bill passed by Canada's actual elected representatives.

On executive decisions

My post yesterday on the Senate's choice to remind Canadians of its existence by blocking a bill passed by the House of Commons has sparked plenty of discussion. But I'll highlight one of the more stunning arguments being made in favour of the Senate's actions.

Here's Dale Smith in his own comments section:

The Senate is almost never going to turn down a budget bill because they’re confidence measures, and the Senate is not a confidence chamber.

And another commenter, James Bowden, in more stark terms:

There is no legitimate constitutional argument why the Senate should not be able to kill this private members’ bill. It is certainly not a matter of confidence and did not require the royal recommendation. The Senate poses no threat to the primacy of the Commons by voting against a frivolous private members’ bill.

So the pro-Senate line is that a private members' bill which happens to win the support of a majority of elected members can be killed without any reason to think twice - just so long it's the result of mere elected MPs debating and voting on a bill on their own, rather than the approval of the executive branch. (And the fact that the bill under discussion didn't receive a lot of debate has everything to do with the reality that very little time is allocated to private members' business compared to government business.)

By that account, the limits of Senatorial authority would be seen to begin and end with a declaration that a bill is a priority for the sitting government (as a budget or confidence measure). Which looks to me to entrench all the more power in the hands of the PMO - even as the Harper Cons have given us nothing but reason to worry about the control our current executive exercises over both MPs as a matter of party discipline, and parliamentary procedures as a matter of preventing inconvenient votes.

Suffice it to say I consider it rather questionable that a constitutional relic intended to limit democratic decision-making from day one should be accepted as a reason to treat the legislative process in the House of Commons as being no more significant in deciding on the fate of a law which meets with the disapproval of a chamber of appointed hacks than a straw poll of the Parliamentary kitchen staff. And if our goal is to make sure that MPs do their jobs better, we'll accomplish far more by asking them to justify their their actions directly than by declaring that we're just fine seeing their work rendered meaningless by unelected Senators.

On bad bets

It's been glaringly obvious to those of us paying attention that the Cons have set up plenty of means to keep dictating the terms of Canadian politics from beyond the political grave - with the most obvious being their continued stacking of the Senate which will put at least a formal roadblock in the way of any future government for many years to come.

As a result, any opposition party with an ounce of foresight would know better than to send the message that unelected Senators should consider themselves free to overrule elected Members of Parliament - particularly when a bill has been passed unanimously among the representatives chosen by Canadian voters.

Unfortunately, the Libs' legacy Senate appointments still seem happy to show the short-sightedness that's decimated their party as an electoral force. And if we don't see an immediate move from the Libs' few remaining elected representatives to reverse that position, the result may be to tighten the Harper Cons' grip on power even past their removal from office.

Parliament in Review: November 1, 2011

Yes, a couple of the Cons' more odious bills have already made their way into law. But let's at least resume a look back at the arguments they so flippantly ignored in pushing through their first set of legislation - with the November 1 debate on the gun registry offering plenty of cases in point.

The Big Issue

Once again, the main topic of discussion was the Cons' choice to trash the gun registry and the underlying data - with particular emphasis on the Privacy Commissioner of Canada's public statement that the gun registry data could be shared with a province by agreement. Both Dennis Bevington and Pierre Jacob questioned the gap between the Cons' privacy spin and the public position of the Privacy Commissioner, and Kevin Lamoureux, Anne Minh-Thu Quach and Rosane Doré Lefebvre noted that the effect of destroying the gun registry data was to impose utterly gratuitous costs on the provinces who have stated an intention to create their own versions. But of course, those points were met with precisely no substantive response - even when Quach posed her question to Peter Penashue, whose role as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs would seem to make him the cabinet member with direct responsibility to deal with the provinces on such issues.

Meanwhile, Mike Sullivan countered another of the Cons' lines of spin (about not being responsible for deregistering sniper weapons since they hadn't changed the classification structure) by pointing out that the classification structure itself was only becoming relevant due to the choice to scrap the long gun registry, while Carol Hughes pointed out that the bill was sorely lacking for consequential changes to patch over obvious holes in Canada's gun control system. Pierre-Luc Dusseault wondered why victims of gun crimes apparently don't rate any consideration as part of the Cons' usual spin about concern for victims. Quach noted the importance of the gun registry in border enforcement. Elizabeth May was appalled by the Cons' mockery of the importance of archiving and data preservation. Nathan Cullen lamented the gun registry bill as an example of wedge politics, and criticized the Cons for neither knowing nor caring what it would cost to destroy the data from the existing registry.

On the Cons' side, Lynne Yelich made an interesting statement about how she came to be elected:

On how many calls have come into my office, when we were elected, I would venture to say that 99.9% of my votes were what mandated us to end the gun registry alone. That is how many calls I received. People told us to get ride of the gun registry now that we had a majority government. They said that that they had sent us to Ottawa to get rid of it and that if we did not, they would start their own party and get rid of it.

Needless to say, the assertion that Yelich was elected solely to get rid of the gun registry would look to be a rather useful concession anytime the Cons try to claim a mandate to do anything else at all.

But in the end, the Cons voted down the NDP's proposed amendments and forced through the bill as written.

Hunger for Action

The other main theme of the day arose out of new data on food bank use - with Sean Casey and Jean Crowder focusing on the overall 26% increase since 2008, while assorted NDP MPs highlighted the even more drastic increases in food bank use among people with disabilities, seniors, Quebeckers and northerners and criticizing the Cons' utter lack of interest in addressing the deprivation that's led to those shameful figures.

But the Cons did make clear what type of social priority they do value - as Shelly Glover responded to questions about increasing food bank use by chastising the NDP for failing to support non-refundable tax credits carefully crafted to offer as little as possible to the families who might actually need to use one.

In Brief

Another bill also found its way to committee, as Joe Comartin's bill to eliminate a Criminal Code prohibition against single-event sports betting won all-party support on its way to passing at second reading. The Cons and Bloc voted down the NDP's asbestos motion. Romeo Saganash's question on the oil and gas sector received several remarkable answers, including that Natural Resources Canada hasn't bothered to conduct the slightest bit of analysis either as to how a carbon price would affect natural gas use, or as to how natural gas use might affect Canada's ability to meet its greenhouse gas emission targets. And Don Davies introduced a private member's bill to provide for a renewable energy development strategy.