#Elxn44 Roundup

News and notes from Canada's federal election campaign.

- Alex Hemingway writes about the need to tax the rich far beyond even the "unlimited zeal" reflected in the NDP's modest plans to secure additional revenue. And David Moscrop makes the case for far more discussion of systemic change in who owns and makes decisions about the forces that shape our lives. 

- Martin Olzynski and Sharon Mascher examine the environmental policies on offer. Ali Raza points out the need for more detailed and ambitious plans to wind down fossil fuel production in the wake of the global recognition that oil and gas will need to stay in the ground. But Brian Hill reports on the declaration by the Lib Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson's declaration that the TransMountain pipeline his government plans to build could keep shipping exported oil until 2060 or later. And Bob Weber reports that the Cons are going so far as to refuse to rule out the UCP's plans for new coal mining in the Rocky Mountains. 

- Meanwhile, Anjali Appadurai discusses the importance of electing climate champions. And Libby Davies interviews Tria Donaldson about her plans to ensure that climate change and other crucial issues are dealt with immediately rather than being kicked down the road. 

- PressProgress offers introductions to Con candidates who have labeled Black Lives Matter a terrorist group and tried to force conservative beliefs on elementary-school children.  

- Finally, Raisa Patel reports on the NDP's efforts to reach new voters and ridings based on the belief that people can be persuaded to vote for something better. 

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- CBC interviews David Wallace-Wells and others about the need for collective action as the only viable response to a climate crisis and the despair it would otherwise produce:

"Individual action simply can't get us to zero [carbon] emissions," [Wallace-Wells] told Tapestry host Mary Hynes. "Ultimately, those efforts are marginal compared to what can be achieved through policy and through politics, and that for me is why we need to focus on those levers."
...

"So for an individual to step out of that and really try to make sense of this very large threat to our societies and our ways of life  — especially if you have been raised to believe that this is a good thing or this is just life as you know it — is very difficult." 
But the University of Oregon associate professor [Kari Norgaard] says channeling energy into structural changes can help ease some of that anxiety.

"Climate change is very big, it's very scary. It's not something we can work on alone. As more people in each community begin to [mobilize], it not only makes it more pleasant and meaningful along the way, but it brings momentum to the whole."

- Perla Hernandez writes about the missed opportunity to address climate change in Newfoundland and Labrador's provincial election - though the resulting minority legislature will hopefully result in some needed ability to prod the government to action. Sarath Peiris points out that the bleating about an environmental assessment bill by Canada's Dirty Half-Dozen denialist right-wing leaders has no basis in fact. And Heriberto Aruojo writes about the threat Jair Bolsonaro's government poses to the Amazon rain forest with global implications.

- Robert Booth reports on Human Rights Watch's observations as to how the UK Cons' austerity caused large amounts of child hunger. And Mark Rice-Oxley and Patrick Butler write about the wider precarity facing workers in the EU.

- Trevor Hancock wonders why governments don't pay more attention to public health which would both produce improved social outcomes, and save public money. And a group of Ontario resident physicians highlights how Doug Ford's attacks on public health will harm their patients.

- Finally, Libby Davies offers a reminder that a strong progressive message is necessary for the NDP to succeed both in winning votes and seeing its values implemented.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- CBC News examines the state of consumer debt in Canada. Jake Johnson writes that despite the growing recognition of inequality as an issue, 2017 saw an unprecedented amount of money funneled into the fortunes of billionaires. And Owen Jones highlights the importance of requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share toward genuinely social programs, rather than relying on their charity to meet public needs.

- Meanwhile, Noah Smith comments on the danger of trying to demonize social benefits (or a Republican view of "socialism") based on the level of popular support for government spending to benefit citizens. Which goes a long way toward explaining Paul Krugman's observations about the Republicans' refusal to honestly debate policy choices.

- Sarah Boseley discusses the stark difference in mortality rates between wealthier and poorer regions of England.

- Finally, Chantal Hebert wonders whether British Columbia's referendum will represent the first step toward electoral reform across Canada. And Libby Davies and Katrina Pacey discuss the reasons why we'd be better represented as a result of that change.

Leadership 2017 Links

The latest from the federal NDP's leadership campaign as tomorrow's showcases approach - and as members begin to fill out their ballots.

- The Star's editorial board has been meeting with the candidates, resulting in articles about Niki Ashton's determination that the NDP not be outflanked by Liberal rhetoric on the left and Guy Caron's pitch as the candidate who can win in Quebec, as well as Martin Regg Cohn's column arguing that Jagmeet Singh stands above his fellow candidates. Canadaland is interviewing the candidates, beginning with Guy Caron. Andrew Autio reports on Charlie Angus' take on the campaign so far and his position as voting begins. And Joanna Smith discusses Jagmeet Singh's familiarity with racism (and the need to respond with grace and purpose).

- Caron has released his nation-to-nation platform for reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. And the Star's editorial board offers its support for decriminalizing drug possession as mentioned by Singh - though it neglects to note that both Ashton and Caron also expressed interest in the idea.

- Eric Grenier follows up on the significance of the endorsements made so far, while Campbell Clark picks up on Angus' surprising lack of support within the current caucus. Angus did add a potentially significant endorsement from Libby Davies as one of the NDP's most-admired voices from the left.  And Joel-Denis Bellavance reports on Alexandre Boulerice's decision to stay neutral - which is particularly interesting based on the view of one of the NDP's most prominent Quebec MPs that any of the candidates can succeed in his home province.

- Maura Forrest reports on a glitch which saw some members receive more than one ballot.

- Christo Aivalis offers his review of all of the candidates, while Alex Ballingall offers profiles from the Star.

- Finally, Ballingall discusses how the leadership candidates fit into the NDP's overarching goals as a party, while Jeremy Appel offers his take as to the impact of each candidate on the 2019 campaign. And Dennis Gruending highlights how the leadership campaign will affect Canada's broader political scene.

Leadership 2017 Links

The latest from the NDP's federal leadership campaign.

- The Canadian Press reports on Pat Stogran's official campaign launch. And Alex Ballingall highlights Stogran's criticism of Justin Trudeau's empty-suit governance, while Jeremy Nuttall focuses on his message about challenging politics as usual.

- Charlie Smith interviews Peter Julian about his "just transition" energy policy and its appeal to MPs from Quebec and elsewhere. Niki Ashton writes about the importance of economic justice - both as a campaign theme, and a focus for activism. Ben Leeson talks to Guy Caron about his plan for the NDP to set a different path and deliver on the change promised (but not delivered) by the Trudeau Libs. And Liam Casey reports on Charlie Angus' continued work to ensure a safe home for the Kashechewan First Nation in the wake of another evacuation.

- Tom Parkin argues that there's a need for the leadership candidates to tell a stronger story as to how many Canadians are being left behind by economic structures designed to benefit the few.

- And finally, Ian Capstick talks to Libby Davies about her experience working with Jack Layton as the NDP's leader, as well as her hopes for the new candidates to match both his authenticity and his interest in working with others.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Louis-Philippe Rochon chimes in on why Justin Trudeau's faux populism is entirely beyond belief when compared to his actions while in power:

Since coming to power, the prime minister has openly pursued policies that have only exacerbated the economic situation by raising corporate profits, and by contributing to the existing precarious job market.

For instance, his unflinching support of the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement is not all good news for Canadians. In a recent study using the United Nation's Global Policy Model, economists Pierre Kohler and Servaas Storm estimate that in the long run, CETA will actually cost Canadians jobs.

"CETA would lead to net losses in terms of employment, personal incomes, and GDP in Canada," the authors say.

Moreover, Trudeau has also mused publicly about privatization and deregulation, core ideas of the neoliberal model that exacerbated income inequalities and contributed to the great financial crisis in 2007.
...
But the oddest of contradictions is that after more than a year in office, Trudeau has done nothing, or very little, to alleviate the burden of the working class and reduce inequality.

After all, he is prime minister and there is much he can do. He has the ability to put an end to many of the ills he mentioned.

Don't like high corporate profits? Well, tax them, and raise corporate tax rates. Don't like low-paying jobs and precarious part-time jobs? Well, stop complaining and do something about it: actively pursue job creation or better yet, full employment.

You want cities to adopt a living wage? Then call a meeting of mayors in Canada and spearhead the policy. Show them the benefits of such a policy and how it would help working families, single mothers and young Canadians.

Don't like corporations not paying their share of taxes? Then close those loopholes that allow them to have offshore accounts that rob the government of billions of dollars in revenue.

- And Miles Grant highlights why the prescriptions to deal with poverty and inequality from the neoliberal centre are utterly useless.

- Stephanie Ross discusses the growth of precarity both in work and in life. And Jason Hickel points out the role a basic income could play in reducing its effects on both fronts - provided it's seen as a matter of rights rather than charity. 

- The Economist analyzes the potential effects of a tax on automation both to fund needed social supports, and to ease anticipated technological adjustments. 

- Finally, Martyn Brown argues that John Horgan's success in this year's British Columbia election depends on his taking a strong stance in favour of a people's agenda. And Libby Davies offers similar advice to the next federal NDP leader, while also highlighting several of the policy areas which look ripe for development.

On healthy proposals

Paul Wells seems quite disappointed not to have received more attention for his recent piece on Thomas Mulcair's speech to the Canadian Medical Association. So let's take a closer look at why the angle Wells took didn't seem like much of a revelation - and what might be more significant in Mulcair's plans.

At the outset, I don't see much basis for surprise that after consistently and rightly criticizing the Cons for their health-care funding choices, Mulcair would follow up by saying he'd act differently if he had the power to do so. Which means that the headline promise highlighted by Wells is best seen as the flip side of the NDP's oft-used policy currency, not some significant new discovery. 

Now to be fair, we may not be able to take for granted that a party's opposing a policy in opposition represents a commitment to reverse it while in government (see: cuts, GST, and their omission from subsequent opposition party platforms). And indeed the Libs are following that same pattern when it comes to Harper's health-care slashing: they won't hesitate to criticize the Cons' funding cuts explicitly and implicitly, but they apparently don't want to commit to doing anything differently.

But it's hardly news that the NDP has questioned the combination of cuts to anticipated health care spending, and the Cons' less equitable distribution of the money they'll deign to put into the health care system. And Mulcair is calling only for a return to the exact level of increases already offered by past Libs and Con governments alike - which, even if continued, still figured to do little more than restore the federal government to half of its past role in funding the existing health care system.

In other words, if we've defined a "big directional policy announcement" downward to the point where incrementally-increased federal funding qualifies (particularly if accompanied by no expectation of associated policy outcomes as suggested by Wells), that would say far more about how little we've been trained to expect from our federal government than about any drastic impact from Mulcair's speech.

Fortunately, it's not clear that Wells has any basis to suggest that Mulcair's plans don't involve some meaningful policy choices beyond turning on the funding taps slightly more:


Or for those who want part of the speech in writing, here's Barbara Sibbald's report from the same speech:

An anticipated budget surplus in 2015 should be used to cancel proposed cuts to health care, maintained Mulcair.

While money may not be the solution for problems facing health care, it is "definitely a necessary precondition," he said. "Mr. Harper, it's time keep your word to protect Canadian health care."

In keeping with an underlying theme of the annual meeting, Mulcair pointed to seniors care as a primary health care challenge and later told reporters that he favours a Royal Commission on physician-assisted suicide. The NDP is the only federal party with a national strategy for seniors care, including a policy on aging and palliative care.

In his speech to CMA, he quickly moved on to other challenges, criticizing federal cuts to refugee health as "cruel and thoughtless."  

He also decried the "awful" state of some First Nations' reserves and food security in Canada. "It's totally unacceptable… that 800 000 children go to school each day without having eaten." The NDP is the first federal party with a pan-Canadian food strategy.

On the topic of military health, Mulcair slammed the government for shutting down nine Veterans Affairs service centres this year and pledged to reopen them if elected. 

So no, Mulcair isn't talking about handing over more money to the provinces while otherwise following in the Cons' laissez-faire footsteps. Instead, he's treating increased funding to the provinces as only a "precondition" to systemic improvement - pointing specifically to Libby Davies' report which discusses how federal investments can be used to change health care delivery for the better by agreement with the provinces.

Meanwhile, Mulcair also highlighted a far more significant role for the federal government in meeting its own responsibilities. And he connected health funding to a number of other related issues which the Cons tend to keep in their own silos, reflecting the NDP's recognition that public health necessarily involves more than hospitals and doctors' offices alone (including a direct mention of studying the social determinants of health).

Which is to say that while restored transfer payments may reflect bigger headline numbers, they're far from the only departure from the philosophy of Canada's federal governments, in some cases dating back several decades or more. And if there's a clear point of distinction we should draw from Mulcair's speech, it's the NDP's belief that the federal government can and should play a positive role in creating a healthier society.

#mtlqc13 - Day 2 Review

Aaron Wherry has been documenting the resolutions passed at the NDP's convention in Montreal - and so I haven't seen much need to comment on them in detail. But the most noteworthy development in today's policy debates came from a resolution which wasn't passed - but which nonetheless signalled the NDP's willingness to tackle difficult but important social issues based on members' input.

The following resolution was pushed up the priority list in the resolution panel, and came to the floor for debate this afternoon:

6-31-13
Resolution on Upholding Sex Workers’ Rights to Life, Liberty, Security, and Equality Submitted by Vancouver East
WHEREAS Canadian values include respect for human and labour rights of all persons, including the right to life, liberty, security, equality and freedom of expression and association as set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;
WHEREAS Canadian courts, the Parliamentary Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws and the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry concluded that criminalization of sex workers increases the violence perpetrated against them and decreases their access to police and other legal and social protections.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT we, the NDP, support the repeal of sections 210, 211, 212(1), 212(3), and 213 of the Criminal Code of Canada in order to improve the health, safety, equality and social citizenship of sex workers.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT we, the NDP, do not support the enactment of legislation that prohibits the purchase or sale of sexual services or sex workers’ ability to work with others.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT while the prostitution laws remain in force, we, the NDP, call on all Canadian police departments to immediately halt enforcement of ss. 211, 212(1), 212(3), and 213 and, instead, ensure sex workers have equal access to police protection and the justice system when they are the victims of crime.

Now, the resolution didn't pass. But that wasn't a matter of it lacking support on the convention floor: instead, after one strong speech favouring the resolution, Libby Davies moved that it be referred to federal council with instructions that it return a formal policy later this year. And that motion, combined with the obvious support of the convention for the cause of ensuring that sex workers are recognized as citizens rather than stigmatized, looks to ensure that the NDP will present an unprecedentedly inclusive policy in the years to come.

The other major development today was Tom Mulcair's speech to members following a successful leadership evaluation. And while I raised some questions about his past speech-making in yesterday's review (based in large part on an address to Saskatchewan's leadership convention which was generally strong on content, but rushed and wordy), he hit the mark today - combining his characteristic intelligence with a far better connection to the audience than I've seen from him in the past. And both that and the review vote bode extremely well for his prospects in holding and building on the NDP's current coalition in the face of a new Liberal leader.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Aaron Wherry takes a look at how the NDP caucus has responded to Jack Layton's death and the resulting outpouring of public sympathy:

After Jack Layton had departed Parliament Hill for the final time last week, his flag-draped casket loaded into a waiting hearse and driven away as a large crowd applauded, those NDP MPs who had gathered to see him off fanned out to greet and thank the well-wishers and mourners. “What I kept on saying to people over and over again,” says Libby Davies, one of Layton’s two deputy leaders, “without even thinking, it was just instinct, was, ‘Don’t worry, we’re going to keep working.’ ”

While they mourned their leader, New Democrats could hardly ignore the many questions left in his absence: about their viability, direction and meaning as a party without the man who seemed to define them. But if, in the wake of Layton’s passing, there was a certain fear for the future of the NDP—raised by any number of pundits who now deem the party doomed—New Democrats themselves claim only resolve.
...
A sense of solidarity was already said to have taken hold amid the June filibuster that delayed passage of back-to-work legislation for Canada Post employees. The loss of their leader and inspiration is now said to have united the caucus all the more. “When you go through a tragedy like this—it’s that old saying, ‘What doesn’t kill you is going to make you stronger,’ ” says Comartin. And in this case, there is, strengthening that resolve, a clear sense of responsibility. “Every single caucus member that I’ve spoken to, there’s the same absolute, resolute feeling that we are united, that we’re together, that we have to carry on Jack’s work,” says Davies.

When it came time for McGrath to sign one of the books of condolences for her departed boss—a man she had spoken to nearly every day for the last three years—she chose to put her commitment in writing. “I love you, I miss you, I know what you want from us,” she wrote, “and we’re going to do it, you can count on us.”

- And Linda McQuaig notes that Stephen Lewis' eulogy has resonated well beyond the NDP's caucus and membership:

Allowing Layton a state funeral was probably Stephen Harper's most generous prime ministerial act. But it led to a nationally televised scene that will likely haunt him and surely inspire progressives for years to come: Stephen Lewis, the iconic elder statesman of Canada's social democratic movement, standing in front of Canada's most right-wing prime minister ever, speaking truth to power.

Determined that the event be more than just a tribute to the goodness of one man, Lewis used the heft of the occasion, as Layton would have wanted, to drive home Layton's social democratic vision for the country.

With the Conservatives' new hammerlock on power — accomplished with a mere 40 per cent of the national vote — here at least was one joyous moment in which we could watch the country's most powerful orator confront a prime minister who had no choice but to stand every time the rest of the room rose in rapturous pleasure at Lewis's inspiring call for a more equal and generous Canada.

- Meanwhile, Erika Shaker theorizes as to the source of the Cons' constant rage:

I think the rage comes from a place of fear. I think the Conservative bunker mentality requires their constant vigilance to squash anything that vaguely resembles a differing point of view, or even a reminder that although the election is over, the opposition is not going away. Because when that opposition is coherent, passionate, and persuasive, and is accompanied by action…that’s when things get scary. Particularly when those unpredictable youth are involved.

And when political awareness and action is an ongoing process rather than the equivalent of something that resembles a cross between Groundhog Day and Leap Year (you know, when Canadians crawl out of their houses once every four years, haul themselves down to the polls to do their civic duty, then return home to shake their collective heads about how the old boss looks an awful lot like the new boss…but hey, whatareyagonnado?); when those whose sense of order relies on low voter turnout and an uninformed electorate realize that, for a lot of people, democracy is a way of life and not just a spectator sport….then it’s time to panic.
...
(Layton's) vision as he articulated it was powerful; it resonated because it felt authentic, and because it was expressed authentically. His closing sentence has already become a mantra because it speaks to a vision of Canada, a way of life, and a set of priorities that people see in their best selves. Within hours, love, hope and optimism blew the “Conservative Values are Canadian Values” ad campaign out of the political and social water.
...
Words to strike fear into the hearts of those who like their politics predictable, their youth apathetic, and their worldview uncomplicated by all this “making a difference” or “democracy is a way of life” nonsense. And I think being confronted with a different set of political and social principles that resonates deeply and authentically among a variety of communities only feeds the fear that drives the fury.

- Finally, Nik Nanos points out both why any talk of an NDP/Lib merger misses both the impossibility of completely combining the two parties, and the lack of any particular need to do so.

Wednesday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Libby Davies weighs in on what comes next for the NDP:

(Jack Layton) had a vision for Canada that was about inclusivity and fairness, and he was willing to work with others to make this happen.

However, talking mergers (as they do in the corporate world) is not a way to realize this vision -- and is not something I'm in favour of. What I believe can bring this vision to fruition is doing the hard work of reaching out and engaging Canadians in a more participatory democratic political process. Let's stand down the elites and move up the grassroots. Let's acknowledge that we do live in a classed, racialized, and gendered society, and that our political work should open up and embrace bold change that transforms power towards a society that is more equalized, sharing, and compassionate.

This means understanding the structural changes that are required -- such as electoral reform and fairer taxation. It also means emboldening our principles and actions: to defend public services, to stand for a principled position against war and oppression, and uphold basic human dignity and social and environmental justice. It means realizing that those at the top don't have a monopoly on deciding what needs to be done. Let's look to real life experience, the energy of youth, and the collective wisdom manifested in strong local communities, where many amazing changes are taking place that must be supported and sustained.

- The first rule of reporting on Stephen Harper is that you do not report on Stephen Harper.

- Your entirely credible Saskatchewan Party government at work trying to explain its efforts to deny the vote to First Nations citizens:

Justice Minister Don Morgan said the government had not adopted the attestation of residence for First Nations because there had been situations in the recent federal election where a band officer or chief had issued forms for all First Nation members en masse without knowing whether the individuals actually lived on the reserve.

Diane Benson, a spokesperson for Elections Canada, said Friday the organization had found no problems with attestation of residence in the spring election nor were any complaints raised about its use as an identification.

- And finally, Don Gunderson nicely pegs the Sask Party's excuse for economic management:

A "fair share" for our resources is the highest price the market will bear, in the same way that a "fair share" for a person's home is the highest price they can sell it for. It's based on the principle that the people of the province own the resources, not the developers or the government. It's based on a cost/benefit analysis using market realities, not ideology or political self-interest.

What evidence is there that we are receiving a fair share? Lots of investment? That's like a shyster realtor putting your $500,000 house up for sale for $100,000 and then bragging "what a good realtor I am. Look at all the buyer interest I generated."

Sunday Morning Links

Selected text for your weekend reading.

- Edmund Pries points out how the right sees wasted public money and gratuitous tax slashing as tools to force cuts to programs which actually serve a valuable purpose:

During the Reagan era, a friend and former colleague, a professor of American history, was invited to the deliberations of a Washington think-tank that provided policy direction for the Republican Party. As they discussed growing the debt and increasing the deficit, he was flabbergasted: “Are you not the party of balanced budgets and debt elimination?” The reply was unequivocal, “Our goal is to grow the deficit as much as possible in order to create political space to eliminate government-funded programming. Until then, we want high deficits while lobbying for a balanced budget — and promoting social program cuts as the only solution.”

To create this useful deficit, tax cuts to wealthy individuals and corporate sectors would be dramatically increased, especially to the banking, energy and military segments. In short, one would implement a transfer of the state’s revenue supply obligations from the wealthiest to the poor and middle classes in order to permit an even greater transfer of wealth from the middle classes to the rich thereafter.

The only trick was to convince the poor and middle classes to “buy in” via a mixture of patriotism and structural necessity so that they would vote in favour of cutting the very programs that benefitted them.
...
Some have pretended that the budgetary crisis is real and not manufactured. Let us be clear: our relative wealth is greater than at any time in our history. Our collective ability to build a strong, caring and inclusive society in which everyone can participate has never been greater. This also holds true for the community of nations: we have the capacity to build a just global society.

Our preparedness to do so, however, seems utterly lacking, for an extreme individualism has taken over the mindset of many. We believe, falsely, that we are best served by hoarding as many resources as possible and letting others fend for themselves. The opposite is true. We are best served when we build a society together where all, including each reader of this article, can benefit through the building of community-wide programs.
...
Have we really lost our sense of the common good? Or is each person now on his or her own? There is no apocalyptic budgetary crisis other than of our own making. The crisis is in our orientation.

- Meanwhile, Sixth Estate notes that even the corporate-friendly Conference Board of Canada doesn't buy the right-wing spin that tax slashing pays for itself.

- I'm not sure she had any reason to defer to Jason Kenney when it came to doling out sarcasm. But Tabatha Southey's warning about Kenney's attacks on Amnesty International is still worth a read:

You're excused if your first reaction on reading of the minister's “joy” is, “Who died and made you the Minister of Sarcasm?”

The concerns cited by Amnesty International are that by using the immigration system to deal with suspected war criminals – deporting them instead of charging them – Canada may allow them to escape prosecution.

In addition, “Canada's international human rights obligations are clear,” Amnesty's letter said – “no person should be deported if he or she faces a serious risk of such grave human rights violations as torture, extrajudicial execution or enforced disappearance.”

In the mildest terms, it urged the minister to “reassess” the government's approach.

That's part of Amnesty's mandate. And far from “squandering the moral authority accrued” in campaigns that Mr. Kenney sees as legitimate, the group would more likely lose some credibility if it failed to raise this issue.
...
The tone of Mr. Kenney's letter to Amnesty, which was posted prominently on his ministerial website (yet is oddly signed only in his capacity as an MP, not as a minister), never gets less sarcastic. It feels personal. It reads like the kind of letter we sometimes write when we feel wronged, but then delete before sending. The tone makes sense only if Mr. Kenney recently broke up with Amnesty International. Prior drafts may well have contained the line, “And Violet Hill was never ‘our song' – it's my song.”
...
He could simply have said, as he sort of did – although not simply, never simply – that prosecuting these accused criminals in Canada would be too costly, complicated and likely ineffective (this may well be the case).

Instead, he called Amnesty's position “poppycock” and claimed that their professional, innocuous letter contained allegations that are “sloppy and irresponsible” and “precisely the slander you wrongly accuse the government of directing at the deportees.”

It doesn't. But what the letter does contain is a request that the government be tougher on war criminals. It's strange that this suggestion, made to a tough-on-crime minister, didn't merit a restrained, less caustic answer.

- Finally, with housing looming as a major issue in this fall's Saskatchewan provincial election, let's note that the Tyee has been going into detail on the issue from a Vancouver perspective - and coming up with some suggestions which the federal Cons unfortunately want to ignore:

Both the City of Vancouver and Dickie's CFAA expressed support for Bill C-304, a private member's bill introduced by NDP MP Libby Davies in 2009, calling for a national housing strategy. Such a strategy, the Vancouver MP says, would establish long-term funding for housing.

But while the last election may have advanced the NDP to Official Opposition status, the party that won a majority in Parliament seems to believe it already has a housing plan.
...
Groups like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities raised concerns that funding for AHI and RRAP expired on April 1, 2011. The federal, provincial, and territorial ministers responsible for housing officially announced continued funding for those programs on July 4, when they announced a $1.4 billion investment under a new Affordable Housing Framework for 2011 to 2014.*

To Davies, long-term, stable federal assistance is necessary when the private market fails to provide housing people can afford. "The reality is that the marketplace, even when it's operating at full tilt, even when it's doing everything that it's meant to be doing cannot meet 100 per cent of the need that there is for housing," she says.

Parliament In Review: June 15, 2011

Yes, the spring session of Parliament has come to an end. But with much less news popping up on the political scene, I'll take the opportunity to take a look back at the days I didn't get to through my Parliament in Review posts - starting with Wednesday, June 15.

Theme of the Day

The most obvious theme from the NDP was that of poverty - including both pointed questions from Jean Crowder immediately following Jack Layton's opening of Question Period, and a budget speech from Anne-Marie Day which nicely summarized both the limited progress made in addressing poverty and the long ways left to go:

There is nothing in the government's proposals to improve the living conditions of Canadian families. Poverty exists in Canada and increases every year. All experts agree that, for the past few years, the gap between rich and poor families in Canada has been widening. Inequalities persist rather than diminish.

However, there have been some small steps forward. In 1989, Canada's poverty rate was 10.2%; in 2008, it was 9.4%, a reduction of 0.8% in 20 years. In 1989, the poverty rate for those under 18 was 11.9%; in 2008, it was 9.1%, a reduction of 2.8% in 20 years. Canada can do much better for its people, and we cannot be pleased about such a small decrease in poverty.

Our youth are in a precarious position. In 1981, 31.2% of young workers between 14 and 24 had a low-wage job. In 2000, the proportion had risen to 45%, a sharp increase in 20 years.
...
Poverty in a rich country is not an inevitability; it is the result of poor policies. Therefore, the government must propose a real agenda to eradicate poverty and inequality.

Cold Comfort

In response to Libby Davies' questioning asking why Canada - unlike the U.S. and the EU - doesn't require that drug manufacturers disclose testing results as to the effect of drugs on children, Colin Carrie had this to say:

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member and Canadians that we are up to speed. We encourage manufacturers to submit pediatric information and to introduce an additional six-month data protection for drugs if they are filed for pediatric indication.

In fairness, I suppose it would indeed be worse if the government were outright discouraging big pharma from providing relevant pediatric information. But Carrie looks to have made it clear that the Cons' plan is to let the corporate sector decide what information should be available about the effect of medication on children - which hardly figures to be reassuring for parents.

Question of the Day

Within the budget debate, Kennedy Stewart raised an issue which cuts to the core of the Cons' economic policy:

Madam Speaker, I have been reading through the budget and paying careful attention, but I have some questions about the base statistics on which your work is done.

Most specifically, I am interested in what is commonly reported in the U.S. as the natural rate of unemployment. The U.S. Federal Reserve says that the current natural rate of unemployment in the U.S. is about 6%. Former finance ministers here have said it is about 8%.

What natural rate of unemployment are you basing the budget projections on, and can you tell me whether that natural rate is increasing or decreasing?

Not surprisingly, Shelly Glover didn't see fit to actually answer the question. But it's well worth pressing the Cons as to how many Canadians they plan to see out of work in the years to come, as well as on how to ensure that workers ticketed for structural unemployment can maintain a reasonable standard of living nonetheless.

In Brief

Dany Morin raised a question about violent hate crimes against the GLBT community - with Peter Van Loan unable to bring himself to even repeat the terms "gay" and "lesbian" in response. And Randy Kamp asked what looks to be one of the more bizarre questions imaginable - in effect using his own government's lack of openness to suggest that the NDP shouldn't be concerned about budget cuts, since when nobody but the Cons can say exactly what programs will be affected.

Change for the better

In case there was any doubt whether the NDP was looking to improve on the performance of past opposition parties, Mitchel Raphael's overview of the party's strategy looks to confirm that it's ready to take on the Cons on all fronts.

To start with, after years of the Cons setting and manipulating the rules (all too often abetted by other parties willing to see how their changes played out), the NDP is ready to fight back:

Since they have always been an opposition party (though now with a huge increase in resources), NDPers have fine-tuned every trick in the book to force delays and fight procedural wars on issues dear to them. Toronto NDP MP Olivia Chow says her party, over the last four years, helped delay the free trade deal with Colombia and a transportation bill. However, NDP deputy leader Libby Davies says watch for the Conservatives to work hard to erode their ability to challenge bills within the current system.

And more importantly, the NDP looks to recognize that its place in the spotlight can best be used to challenge the Cons on values rather than merely looking to prod them about the scandal du jour:

NDPers also say to watch for a different kind of question period. After the G20 in Toronto, the Liberals hammered the government over items such as the infamous “fake lake,” while the NDP went after the Conservatives on the trampling of civil rights. Re-elected NDP MP Don Davies, who was his party’s public safety critic last session, says he expects there will be more focus on substantive issues in QP rather than simply a bunch of scandal questions, a strategy the Liberals had turned into an art form. Former Liberal MPs told Capital Diary in the past they were literally harassed by their own party to help when mud throwing was needed.

Of course, it remains to be seen how well those principles get applied in practice. But for now, the plan looks to be exactly what's needed both to establish the NDP as the leading alternative to the Cons in the longer term, and to help define the territory where future elections will be fought.

Support Libby Davies

When it was merely Rob Silver and a couple of other bloggers wilfully misrepresenting Libby Davies then demanding that she be fired for their dishonesty, I figured it best not to give the matter any more attention than it deserved. But now that even a Prime Minister who should seemingly have better things to do is taking the time to join the fact-free pile-on (while some of Davies' defenders are unfortunately going somewhat off the rails themselves), I'm not sure it can pass without comment.

So without any further ado...what Murray Dobbin said. And Pogge, Alison and Cliff are worth a read too.

Update: Dr. Dawg's post is also worth a look.

On recorded votes

It looks like the Globe and Mail's story on Libby Davies' successful campaign to make parliamentarians' votes more accessible to Canadians went live before the feature itself. But kudos to Davies for one more step toward improved transparency and accountability in federal politics - and hopefully there will be more to follow.