Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Jill Lawrence discusses how the Trump regime's combination of corruption, greed and poor judgment is tearing the concept of the heroic tycoon to shreds. David Sirota et al. note that the plutocrat-sponsored revolt against taxes is likewise becoming untenable as a matter of public opinion. And Rob Jowett writes that one of Mark Carney's key weaknesses is his being embedded in the work of exploitative capital. 

- Zachary Basu writes about DOGE's unblemished track record of ignorance and self-destruction, while Matt Ford is the latest to point out that all Americans are in jeopardy when it's state policy to disappear people without due process. And Jared Yates Sexton writes about the importance of taking advantage of the openings created by the incompetence of autocrats.

- Jared Wesley calls out Pierre Poilievre's attempt to echo Trump's attacks on anything deemed "woke" without providing any coherent definition or reason why inclusion and empathy should be considered to be negatives. And David Olive notes that Canadian businesses haven't shown any inclination to abandon their own DEI programs in order to appease MAGA loons on either side of the border.  

- Finally, Juan Vargas notes that aspects of a youth climate corps have made their way into multiple parties' election platforms - while also pointing out the stark difference between a Lib "pilot" and the full plans of the NDP and Greens. And Seth Klein writes about the need for a war footing against the U.S.' threats to include commensurate taxes to fund our fight and avoid profiteering. 

Canada 2019 - Election Notes

With Canadians going to the polls tomorrow, I'll offer a few thoughts on what to watch for on election day and beyond in a campaign whose early stability seems to have given way to some late shifts. 

First, a minority Parliament seems likely. But of all the predictions and expectations which can go awry based on unexpected late-campaign movement, few are more precarious than the balancing act required to create a minority situation. And 2015 offers a recent precedent where a seemingly close race turned into an unexpected majority.

By the same token, the seat projections which have shown effective ties for first and third place based on median expectations shouldn't be seen to make those into particularly likely outcomes in any event. The end of the campaign matters in ways which won't have been caught by earlier polling, and the default expectation should be that they'll be off somewhat (even if we can only make the most educated guesses possible as to how, with Frank Graves for one already reporting that a Lib majority might be in sight).

Second, if a minority does result from the vote, the next crucial question will be which party or parties hold the balance of power - or which might instead be dismissed as unworthy of any say due to being just short of the mark. (See Paul Martin, 2004.)

There, the most important swing factor is one which has received relatively little attention in mainstream coverage, even if it seems to be the subject of plenty of individual-level interest.

The Bloc has undoubtedly regained strength in Quebec compared to the previous two election cycles, with some models hinting at prospects of winning half the province's seats or more. But the NDP has pushed its way upward in the polls at the end of the campaign as it challenges the Bloc directly for the support of progressive voters.

That matters in two key ways: a relatively small shift may be decisive in Quebec seats with multi-party splits (as can be seen from the sharp turns at the end of both the 2011 and 2015 campaigns), while also determining who emerges with the larger caucus and the balance of power in Parliament as a whole. And for voters who want to see the Libs forced to act on the national progressive promises they're again trumpeting on the campaign trail after neglecting them in office, it's crucial for the NDP to be in a position to set the terms of any governing arrangement.

Plenty of other battleground regions could also substantially change the balance of power with relatively subtle swings. And most importantly, a strategic vote against another neoliberal majority now looks to involve ensuring that other, more progressive parties get the upper hand on the Libs wherever possible.

But particularly given the lack of much organization on that front, it doesn't appear likely that any attempt to be strategic will overcome the two main forces in the campaign, being the NDP's surge and the Cons' collapse relative to the Libs. And so the main questions for tomorrow seems to be which of those factors will have a greater impact in electing MPs.

New column day

Here, on the echoes of previous campaigns in Canada's federal election - including the possibility that the 1972 minority government scenario might be the best outcome of all.

For further reading...
- The column's discussion of public impressions of leaders is based on recent polling from Forum and Angus Reid  - with the latter also showing the NDP's strong opportunities for growth as a current second choice.
- Meanwhile, Duncan Cameron has also mused about the possibility of a minority government, while also pointing out the lack of a defining narrative so far. And John Ivison notes that the NDP's campaign against corporate excess represents another parallel between this year's election and that of 1972. 

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Tom Rand and Mike Andrade point out that the Alberta tar sands wouldn't be sustainable economically even if people ignored their environmental effects. Bruce Livesey offers a reminder that Andrew Scheer's plans are built entirely around favouring dirty oil at the expense of other industries and future generations. And Sharon Riley talks to some of the workers already making the transition from the oil patch to the renewable energy sector.

- Meanwhile, Eric Roston reports on reduced river flows around the world as another alarming byproduct of a deteriorating climate and a propensity to overuse natural resources. Trevor Hancock points out that we can't ignore how those same factors threaten our planet's biodiversity. And Tom Phillips reports on the Bolsonaro-backed land raids attempting to violently drive Indigenous people from their homes and expose the Amazon for exploitation.

- Andrew Jackson comments on the Greens' odd juxtaposition of promising massive spending, while simultaneously fixating on balancing the budget to a greater extent than any other party this side of the PPC.

- David Hulchanski examines (PDF) the context for decisions about Canadian housing policy, including both a low rate of current taxation and revenue generation, and a set of subsidies distinctly weighted toward ownership rather than rental housing.

- Finally, Haydn Watters takes a look at the electoral reform plans on offer in Canada's federal election.

On abandoned responsibilities

The prelude to Canada's federal election campaign has brought several parties' views of human rights and government responsibilities under scrutiny.

Maxime Bernier has only exacerbated Stephen Harper's past anti-minority messages, building his PPC campaign largely on criticism of immigration generally.

Andrew Scheer has apparently recognized at least a political problem with broad attacks against refugees or minority groups. And so he’s taken to searching out targets one by one for his campaign’s two minute hate sessions, then challenging Justin Trudeau to join in denouncing them and declaring that they’ll be treated as non-people by the Canadian government.

And of course the Greens have been happy to welcome people motivated by religious bias and racism, as long as it offers a political wedge to benefit Elizabeth May.

But somehow, the current government hasn't been held to account for its disturbing response to the Cons' campaign theme.

The Liberals have been quick to point out that Scheer’s message about the likes of Jack Letts and Jon Venables has been inaccurate in fact, relying on tabloid gossip and idle speculation to assert non-existent connections between the Conservatives’ objects of hate and the Canadian government.

But in limiting their response that way, they’ve only reinforced Scheer’s underlying principle.

Others have pointed out that Canada is actually subject to both international agreements and moral obligations to address the actions of people abroad. But the Libs have brushed those aside - instead washing their hands of any responsibility to or for the people involved, and sending the message that they’ll readily treat some types of people as pariahs based on political considerations.

It shouldn't be acceptable for any party to quibble over where to draw the line in abandoning anybody. And it's doubly galling to see that message from a party trying to brand itself as a champion of human rights.

Fortunately, we've also seen an example of the right way to respond to attempts to exploit bigotry and hate for political gain. And we should be looking to support a government which is willing to challenge the exploitation of hate in all forms, not merely quibble with the accuracy of any particular attempt to invoke it.

Bottom lines and shifting goalposts

I noted last night that there's no validity to complaints about the NDP ruling out support for a Con government. But if anybody wants to point out which party's stance on supporting anybody else as a possible government does seem problematic, there's yet more odd spin coming from the Greens:

Hey. Just to correct the record, I never said that. I did say that the process in a minority parliament is to speak with all parties. Greens have a bottom line- "little bit" is not on the table. 1.5 to stay alive. And protect human rights. Period. https://t.co/VPxpdk8HKV

— Elizabeth May (@ElizabethMay) August 23, 2019

Needless to say, the bottom-line demand to "protect human rights" would be far more meaningful if Elizabeth May hadn't previously declared recognition of fundamental rights to be optional among her own candidates. And if the Greens were somehow to end up holding what would be at best a narrow balance of power, it's hard to see a way out for May which doesn't involve breaking some pre-election commitment if negotiations in a minority Parliament end up running into the issues raised by Bill 21, including the possibility of federal intervention.

On the one hand, May could try to whip her members on a subject where she's currently telling them they're free to do as they see fit. But in the process, she'd confirm that any promise of MP independence is illusory. 

Or more likely, she'd end up discarding one of her only two core commitments on the altar of expediency. But if it's easily foreseeable that one of her "bottom lines" will be erased at the first opportunity, progressive voters have every reason for concern about her judgment - especially when she sees supporting the Cons as an option to be left on the table.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Bob Rivett highlights the fact that climate protesters are motivated by the desire to save our world from the reckless corporations and politicians who are prepared to sacrifice it for short-term gain. The Associated Press reports that Chile's coast is the site of the latest uncontained oil spill, while Jimmy Thomson takes note of Constantine North's plans to contaminate Alaska's environment. Leah Stokes writes about Ohio's appalling combination of dirty fossil fuel bailouts and relaxed emission requirements. And Tom Phillips reports on Jair Bolsonaro's determination to destroy the Amazon and the Indigenous people who inhabit it.

- Jonathon Gatehouse fact-checks the NDP's climate change plan and finds that it's entirely possible to deliver the 300,000 jobs in the process of transitioning to a sustainable society. And in contrast, Andrew Leach points out the implausible (and indeed outright contradictory) claims behind Elizabeth May's energy plans.

- Stephen Leahy points out the environmental dangers - and other avoidable difficulties - created by the spread of clamshell plastic packaging.

- Wanda Thomas Bardnard writes that prisons are only exacerbating the problems they're supposed to solve by failing to prepare residents for their eventual release.

- And finally, PressProgress warns that the UCP's attacks on social programs include slashing funding for school breakfasts to hungry children.

Juxtaposition

Some parties and leaders recognize the stakes in determining how to manage a minority Parliament:

I asked Mr. Duceppe what he thought would happen if the prime minister refused to accept such an ultimatum. He replied that a government defeat so soon after a general election meant the Governor General would have to turn "to one of us" to form a government. We both knew that meant Stephen Harper and his Conservatives. I asked Mr. Duceppe if he could accept such an eventuality. He was not only clear that he could, but he would.
...
Realizing immediately the full magnitude of what was at stake, I knew I had to walk away. I was not about to participate in any scheme cooked up by the Bloc and the Conservatives that would put the country in the hands of Stephen Harper.

And some, well...

With three months until Canadians vote in the next federal election, Green party leader Elizabeth May says her big hope for the final result is a minority government over which she can exert some influence.

In fact, May thinks that influence could even get the Conservatives to drop their dyed-in-the-wool opposition to carbon taxes if it means the difference for them between governing or spending more time in opposition.

"People change their minds when they see the dynamic of a way a Parliament is assembled and maybe think, 'Killing carbon taxes isn't such a good idea if the only way I get to be prime minister is by keeping them,' " May says.
...
Federally, May says she could support a minority government of any party but only if that party is serious about acting to stop climate change.

"We will negotiate with anyone, we will talk to everyone, but we won't compromise on climate action," she says.

Meanwhile, let's keep in mind that it's a single vote of confidence following the 2008 election that gave Stephen Harper the ability to stay in office rather than facing the consequences of pushing to exacerbate an economic meltdown with cuts and political attacks.

May might well be able to get the Cons to say they'll change their position on climate policy for the purpose of taking power. She'd have far less leverage in getting them to follow through when they have the option of running away from Parliament.

New column day

Here, on how the developing issue of plastic pollution has brought out the worst in both PR-focused Liberals and regressive Conservatives alike.

For further reading...
- The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has discussed the growth of giant oceanic garbage patches. And Alyin Woodward reports on new research showing how microplastics are accumulating in even larger masses in deep ocean environments.
- Elizabeth Royte discussed the previous uncertainty as to how microplastics might affect humans, while Michelle Ghoussoub reports on new research from the University of Victoria showing how many microplastics we consume.
- The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment has dealt with the plan to get to zero plastic waste here. 
- Charlie Smith previously reported on NDP MP Gord Johns' motion on ending marine plastic pollution, then offered that needed context for the Libs' announcement.
- CBC News reported on the Libs' recent announcement as well as Andrew Scheer's response.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Peter Eavis points out how U.S. CEOs are only seeing their exorbitant pay soar even further due to Donald Trump's tax giveaways. Kara Swisher interviews Anand Giridharadas about how "philanthropists" are bribing the public with small parts of the obscene concentrations money they've extracted from society at large.

- James Kurz highlights how the Trudeau Libs and a number of provincial governments are basing their climate policy on the perverse hope that Canada will fall far short of doing its share to avert the global climate crisis. Barry Saxifrage points out the distinction between the balance of Canada which is somewhere close to meeting its Copenhagen targets, and Alberta and Saskatchewan which are entirely undoing any progress - though it's worth noting that the federal government has chosen to emphasize continued oil development rather than administering a system capable of reaching our national targets. And the Associated Press reports on the deforestation of the Amazon which is only making matters worse.

- Meanwhile, Mia Rabson reports on the Greens' odd position that they're eager to see new fossil fuel infrastructure built as long as any development is done on a sufficiently nationalistic basis. Michael Laxer calls out the Cons for a literal scorched-earth policy on climate change. And Andrew Coyne offers a reminder that the only argument against carbon pricing is bare climate denial.

- Finally, Christo Aivalis offers an apparently-necessary reminder of the legitimacy of coalition governments:

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Ian Austen discusses how Justin Trudeau plans to offer nothing but more of the same broken promises and favoritism for the Libs' corporate benefactors. And Mike Smyth examines what's set to be unearthed in British Columbia's money laundering inquiry - which of course never would have existed if the Libs' provincial cousins had clung to power.

- Vik Adhopia reports on the Libs' participation in a "national pharmacare program" forum which in fact consisted solely of corporate lobbying against universal prescription drug coverage. And Robert Jago points out what's missing - and misleading - in the Greens' outdated Indigenous policies.

- The UN points out how a climate breakdown will threaten food production around the globe, while Gaia Vince writes about the need for immediate and drastic steps to limit the damage from our climate crisis. Thomas Walkom discusses Jagmeet Singh's strong stance advancing a just transition toward a clean energy economy in Canada. And Kevin Griffin points out the immediate benefits of converting to electric vehicles, while CBC News reports on the development of zero-emission transport trucks in Alberta as a result of the Notley NDP's climate policy.

- Finally, CBC News also reports that like his predecessor, Scott Moe is insistent on energy sources which involve digging up hazardous substances with no regard for the lack of a safe disposal system - even if that means converting fossil fuel power production to nuclear (and in the process ignoring the public backlash against the Saskatchewan Party's previous attempt to pitch nuclear power).

[Edit: fixed formatting.]

New column day

Here, on how the historical competition between the NDP and the Greens hasn't precluded cooperation where it counts in British Columbia - and how the governing accord there might offer an example of cross-party collaboration for all levels of government.

For further reading...
- Martyn Brown wrote about the danger the Greens might have posed to a change in government early in the election campaign.
- Nancy MacDonald documented the post-election negotiations on all sides, including the common ground between John Horgan and Andrew Weaver once they got to talking. And Andrew MacLeod reported on what Horgan's NDP and Weaver's Greens were able to agree to.
- Finally, Andrew Coyne discusses Justin Trudeau's contempt for the public which has helped smooth over any differences between the NDP and Greens at the federal level. And the Greens' adoption of a preference for a mixed-member proportional electoral system offers an area where it may be possible to translate agreement between the two parties into policy change.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Yanis Varoufakis makes the case for an international progressive political system to ensure that social progress doesn't stop at national borders:

(T)raditional political parties are fading into irrelevance, supplanted by the emergence of two new political blocs.

One bloc represents the old troika of liberalization, globalization, and financialization. It may still be in power, but its stock is falling fast, as David Cameron, Europe’s social democrats, Hillary Clinton, the European Commission, and even Greece’s post-capitulation Syriza government can attest. 

Trump, Le Pen, Britain’s right-wing Brexiteers, Poland’s and Hungary’s illiberal governments, and Russian President Vladimir Putin are forming the second bloc. Theirs is a nationalist international – a classic creature of a deflationary period – united by contempt for liberal democracy and the ability to mobilize those who would crush it. 

The clash between these two blocs is both real and misleading. Clinton vs. Trump constitutes a genuine battle, for example, as does the European Union vs. the Brexiteers; but the two combatants are accomplices, not foes, in perpetuating an endless loop of mutual reinforcement, with each side defined by – and mobilizing its supporters on the basis of – what it opposes. 

The only way out of this political trap is progressive internationalism, based on solidarity among large majorities around the world who are prepared to rekindle democratic politics on a planetary scale. If this sounds Utopian, it is worth emphasizing that the raw materials are already available. 

Bernie Sanders’s “political revolution” in the US, Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the UK’s Labour Party, DiEM25 (the Democracy in Europe Movement) on the continent: these are the harbingers of an international progressive movement that can define the intellectual terrain upon which democratic politics must build.

- Katie Allen reports on a new study estimating the cost of public services arising out of poverty in the UK at $78 billion every year.

- Ross Finnie, Kaveh Afshar, Eda Bozkurt, Masashi Miyairi and Dejan Pavlic examine (PDF) the earnings of Canadian post-secondary education graduates, and find a gender gap in every single field studied. And Sarah Kliff discusses how the gap can be traced in substantial part to the existence of inflexible or uncertain hours of work.

- Lawrence Martin comments on the Libs' broken promise to do anything at all to ameliorate the attack on civil rights found in Bill C-51, while noting that the inaction may arise out of pure political cowardice. And the Toronto Star's editorial board makes a strong case for immediate action to rein in the excesses of the surveillance and disruption state.

- Finally, Tom Parkin points out that the Greens' cynical spreading of misleading poll information represents just one more example of the warped incentives created by a first-past-the-post electoral system.

On strategic choices

Christopher Kam's series of posts on political parties' strategy surrounding electoral reform is definitely worth a read. But I'll stand by the view that there's another alternative interpretation of the likely outcomes - particularly based on the likely alignment of any coalition between parties:

The configuration of parties’ preference orderings over electoral systems suggests two nascent coalitions**:

1. An ideological coalition of the Liberals, NDP, and Greens versus the Conservatives;
2. A coalition of the large (Liberals and Conservatives) against the small (NDP and Greens).

The first coalition could come together around a high-district magnitude STV system, but not around MMP. The second could come together around AV or low-M STV.

Frankly, I just don’t see the first coalition as all that viable. Here’s why:

1. The Liberals enjoy a majority; they can impose their own choice on the country;
2. The Liberals are also the only party that’s common to both coalitions; quite apart from their majority, they are pivotal on this issue;
3. The Conservatives actually have some leverage vis-a-vis the Liberals in the form of a (temporary) Senate majority. Even if the Liberals were to stack the Senate, the Conservatives could mount a fairly effective blockade of the legislation.
4. Let’s say that the first coalition threatens to crystallize around high-M STV (or, due to some surprising event, around MMP), the Conservative could concede AV to the Liberals.  This offer i) gets the Liberals exactly what they want with ii) the support of their main ideological opponent (all the better to rebut charges of self-interest), and iii) AV’s district magnitude of 1 preserves the disproportionality that that Conservatives need to do well; and iv) it removes electoral reform from the agenda for decades.
5. To repeat, MMP just doesn’t serve the Liberals’ interests as well as AV or low-M STV.

For these reasons (and especially the last), a coalition of the Large versus the Small seems more likely to me.

Now, it's certainly possible that the parties' decision-making could reflect Kam's theoretical analysis. But even leaving aside the points I've made as to how the Cons may have some incentive of their own to prefer a more proportional system, there's also reason to think the "ideological coalition" may have more legs than Kam thinks.

As Frank Graves for one has repeatedly pointed out, the Libs' election victory was based largely on support from exactly that coalition: the decisive group of voters was one of "promiscuous progressives" who had relatively little preference as to which party took power so long as it replaced the Cons. And indeed, it remains the case that the NDP and Thomas Mulcair are seen positively - just not as much so as the party basking in the glow of winning power.

From that starting point, there would seem to be no more sure way to lose the approval of many of the voters who put the Libs in power than by breaking a clear election promise, giving in to the demands of the Cons, and perpetuating the system which allowed Stephen Harper to win majority power with minority support. In other words, there's an obvious practical reason why first-past-the-post should be taken off the table.

Kam raises the possibility that the Cons and Libs might instead agree on AV as an alternative. But that analysis leaves out the possibility that the Cons might not play along - meaning the Libs would have the choice of going it alone on AV and facing attacks on all sides, or seeking common ground on MMP or other more proportional systems.

And even if the Cons are willing to participate in a "Large" coalition backing AV, there's still significant political risk in acting with their support alone.

That type of insiders vs. outsiders dynamic can be exactly what an outsider party needs to boost its support beyond what's previously been seen as possible, particularly if the Libs' cooperation with the Cons alone is seen to disqualify them as "progressive". And an AV election where voters inclined toward the NDP, Greens and Bloc all find common ground in disapproving of the Libs' choice of electoral systems might result in some highly unpleasant surprises for Trudeau.

One can fairly make the argument that the factors mentioned by Kam will still win out in the end. But if they do, it's not for lack of some significant countervailing forces - and the Libs will want to be careful how much they feed into an argument that they're merely reinforcing what they've promised to replace.

On decision points

I've previously challenged any attempt to pressure Thomas Mulcair to abandon the NDP's leadership. And I'll take a moment do so the same in response to Scott Gilmore's admonition to Elizabeth May.

As in the case of every party, the Greens should have every reason to evaluate whether they're achieving their goals. But there's no reason why getting rid of a current leader should be seen as either necessary or sufficient as a means of improving a party's standing.

And as the Greens decide what to do, May's track record is one which offers plenty of fodder for discussion on either side.

My personal impression is that May and her party spend an inordinate amount of time lobbying other parties and the media for debate positions and other attention, rather than building the type of broader popular support which would make exclusion impossible. And there's reason for question about results as well as strategy given the Greens' fading vote shares.

But the reality is that May is the only Green candidate to manage to get elected to Parliament (providing the party with resources it never would have had otherwise), and has done important work while she's been there. And more importantly, the upcoming Parliament offers her first chance to try to advocate for issues like environmental action and proportional representation before a government which isn't actively hostile to them.

In sum, there's a strong case to be made that May deserves the opportunity to show what she can do in a political climate which isn't defined by Stephen Harper. And it should be for her and her party to decide whether she's achieving more than a potential replacement could - not for outsiders to try to push her away.

#elxn42 - Election Day Resources

For all the time spent on Canada's federal election, it's now time for voters to have their say. And anybody looking for basic information on where and how to vote should start with Elections Canada or a trusted local campaign.

For anybody wanting to read up on the factors which may help determine how to vote...
- As always, I'll strongly recommend that people vote for what they want, not merely against what they don't. To see which party best matches your vision for Canada, you can find the major parties' platforms at the following links: Conservative - NDP - Liberal - Green. I've reviewed the first three here, here and here respectively. And for a look at how third parties have assessed the platforms, see again my compilation here.
- Meanwhile, those inclined to vote strategically (in the face of the usual warnings) can see among other sources Pacific Gazette, Rabble, Strategic Voting or Vote Together - or look to the projections and predictions from Too Close to Call, Three Hundred Eight, the Globe and Mail's Election Forecast and David Akin's Predictionator with appropriate adjustments for what's happening in your community.  
- And if you want to see everything I've written and linked to about the campaign, feel free to peruse this tag. 

But most importantly, be sure to get out and vote, and encourage those around you to do the same. And hopefully Canada will be on a course for change for the better by this time tomorrow.

The fundamental issue

Naomi Klein and Maude Barlow weigh in on the need not to let sideshows distract us from what should be the most important issue of the federal election campaign. And as referred to here, the Pembina Institute reminds us where the major parties stand in advance of the Paris summit which may determine whether we're ever able to establish an international commitment to rein in catastrophic climate change - and why we can't afford to wait any longer:

Canada’s [greenhouse gas emission target] has been deemed inadequate by international experts: it is not consistent with Canada’s equitable contribution to a two-degree warming limit. No federal government attending the Paris negotiations with this INDC can say its actions align with the United Nations’ negotiating text, in terms of both ambition and timeliness.

On the issue of improved targets, it’s unclear how the Liberals could update Canada’s inadequate INDC without releasing new emissions reduction numbers in advance of the Paris summit. Both the NDP and the Greens, however, would be well-positioned to update Canada’s INDC to align with their emissions targets.

For all voters who recognize climate change as the most important collective action issue of our time, the Libs' regression should be a decisive factor as to which major party can possibly offer an alternative to the Cons in time for the next round of international climate negotiations. Simply put, an NDP government will come to the table with something constructive to offer; a Liberal government will not.

Without a target to meet or a plan to meet it, Canada will be in a position to do nothing more than make excuses for inaction. But Justin Trudeau's election promise on climate change is actually to avoid having either when the meetings take place beginning next month - as even the Cons' insufficient targets get thrown out the window in favour of kicking the can down the road. And the perception that Canada remains a fossil as it has been under the Harper Cons will only provide an excuse for other countries to drag their heels.

Nor is there any reason to put up with Trudeau's main excuse about waiting to set a target until the provinces are all onside.

If Brad Wall is a veto point for federal action on climate change, that fact alone will prevent any target from ever being set. And we should expect a national leader to ensure that Canada as a whole makes and keeps commitments by applying federal authority where necessary - not to take the position that national standards and commitments are limited to what the worst of our premiers will accept.

Simply put, there are two unequivocally wrong answers among Canada's three main parties when it comes to climate change. And if voters don't realize that fact, then we may once again bear the shame of being a major obstacle in our most important global policy fight.

On conversation pieces

Following up on this post, the stretch run of the election campaign (particularly a holiday weekend with advance polling already underway) is exactly the time when our messages in talking to unpersuaded voters will matter most in shaping the results. And I'll offer a few suggestions as to how to argue for both a new government, and the best possible alternative.

First, the main theme should be the need for change - putting the focus squarely on the Cons' failings and the need for a new government to reverse them. But as I've noted before, that doesn't mean implicitly or explicitly insulting people who have voted for the Cons in the past; instead, it means making a case as to why any past reasons for supporting the Cons longer apply.

On that front, it's worth highlighting the contrast between Con promises/branding and actual outcomes: promised wait time guarantees gave way to the abandonment of any health policy whatsoever; promised emission reductions gave way to climate obstructionism; promised honesty and accountability gave way to a corrupt and secretive party and PMO; promised economic competence gave way to stagnation and uncertainty. And whether or not a voter gave the Cons the benefit of the doubt in the past, the important point is to ensure that doesn't happen now.

Second, in differentiating between the opposition parties, it's important not to reinforce Con messages. And since the Cons have been abundantly clear about their three primary themes (economy, security, bigotry), it should be easy enough to avoid reinforcing Harper's messaging on any of them.

Finally, I'd suggest that due to the dangers of voters giving up on the possibility of change, it's not helpful to argue that any national opposition party is unable or unwilling to deliver change of some sort - and conversely, it's important to point out how change can occur across party lines.

To be clear, that leaves ample room to make the case that one party is more desirable than another in the contents of its platform and/or the likelihood of delivering on it. But I'd draw a distinction between saying another party is too similar to the Harper Cons - which at least leaves the Cons isolated as the worst of the lot - and saying that it's no better than the Harper Cons, which opens the door to arguments between supporters of different opposition parties which may leave observers thinking there's nothing to choose between any of the parties.

There's still plenty of room for the campaign to shift - either for better or for worse. But it's possible to make sure that our own messages lead to improvement in terms of both support for our preferred parties, and a wider case for change in this election and beyond.

On basic questions

The National Post's editorial board offers the latest reminder as to how confidence is won and lost in Canada's Parliament. And it only highlights the need for our candidates - particularly those promising change - to offer a clear indication as to their post-election plans.

But while it's worth discussing what types of agreement might be possible between various combinations of opposition parties, there's one set of questions which doesn't require any agreement at all. So let's see what our opposition leaders and candidates have to say about these:

A. Will you commit to voting non-confidence in Stephen Harper at the earliest opportunity?
B. Will you commit to voting confidence in a government led by the leader of a current opposition party at the earliest opportunity?

Obviously, the answer to A should be abundantly clear for anybody offering change from the Cons. And since the answer to B may well determine whether the Governor-General can expect to find a replacement after a vote against the Cons, we'll have reason to be wary about anybody who's more interested in scoring points against another opposition party than making a clear statement on it.

On cooperative options

I've previously excoriated the Libs for the connection between their refusal to talk about cooperation with other parties and their complete lack of any idea what they supposedly stand for. And nothing in the campaign to date changes that analysis.

By the same token, I'll give credit where due to Elizabeth May for being up-front about her test for support for a new government. And it's particularly noteworthy that the conditions - most notably the repeal, rather than tweaking, of C-51 - are ones which the NDP will be far better positioned to meet than any other potential governing party.

That said, I'll also point out that in her effort to blur the lines between the opposition alternatives, May distinctly rewrites some history:

Trudeau has already said he won’t form a coalition government. But May said that’s just election politics, and that math at the end of election night may be more convincing to Trudeau and Mulcair.

“He doesn’t want to be a junior player to Mulcair in the midst of an election campaign. If the roles were reversed and Trudeau was ahead in the polls, Mulcair would be saying no coalition,” she said.

The apparent theory that the senior partner in a coalition would support the possibility and the junior one would oppose it is rather hard to square with the parties' positions in 2008 and (pre-Orange Wave) 2011 - and as May's wont, serves to give Trudeau an excuse that he's done nothing to deserve. 

 

In fact, the parties' track record is this. The NDP is open to cooperation to replace the Cons with a better government no matter what the party standings say, while the Libs have refused to acknowledge the possibility at every turn. And between that reality and the policy conflict which seems to have arisen between the Greens and the Libs, May's declaration only serves to confirm that Canadians wanting change should ensure that the NDP is in a position to deliver it - with Green support if necessary.