On shadow boxing

Aaron has already listed and commented on Thomas Mulcair's shadow cabinet assignments. But there are a few additional points worth adding into the mix.

First, while others have pointed out Nathan Cullen's promotion to House Leader, the exact choice of positions is very much worth emphasizing. As the leadership candidate whose message centred on how to approach other political parties, Cullen has been put in charge of...approaching other political parties, at least to the extent of managing business in Parliament. And if "cooperation to defeat Harper" continues to be Cullen's guiding principle, then it will be well worth watching whether that habit has some impact beyond Parliament Hill.

Second, the choice of Linda Duncan as critic for Public Works and Government Services may make for a neat bit of strategy. A strong Alberta figure charged with criticizing patronage, waste and mismanagement should serve to raise serious questions among the Cons' base- and that may not only help to shake loose populist votes on the prairies, but also put at least somewhat of a dent in the Cons' fund-raising and activist networks.

Third, while it's a bit surprising not to see Nycole Turmel assigned any particular policy area, her effectiveness in keeping the NDP's caucus united through trying times looks to fit nicely with her new role as whip.

Finally, it's worth noting which MPs have somewhat less responsibility in the shadow cabinet than one might expect based on their profile and experience - including Niki Ashton (assigned the Status of Women portfolio), Yvon Godin (who sees Labour removed from his responsibilities), Tyrone Benskin (moved from Heritage critic to deputy Official Languages critic) and Rathika Sitsabaiesan (going from Post-secondary Education critic to outside the shadow cabinet structure altogether). But there's plenty to be done in building toward government beyond criticizing the incumbents - and it wouldn't be surprising to see all given important organization-building responsibilities to accompany their work in Parliament.

Leadership 2012 Roundup

Yes, it's only been a couple of days since my last roundup post. But I'll let the pace of news determine how often I put them up - and the end of this week offered loads of material for discussion.

- Niki Ashton made a statement on LGBT equality in the course of her latest prairie tour, and earned a positive review from Olav Rokne for her earlier Edmonton stop.

- Nathan Cullen pitched his electoral cooperation plan in Saskatoon while serving as a key voice in criticizing the Cons' attempt to force the Northern Gateway pipeline on the residents who'll have to suffer its consequences.

- Paul Dewar unveiled two huge endorsements-plus: Linda Duncan endorsed Dewar and signed on as his Energy and Environment Adviser, while Charlie Angus offered his endorsement and was named as Dewar's deputy leader charged with organizing to win the additional 70 seats to put the NDP in power. But while the endorsements put two well-respected MPs in Dewar's camp, I'm not sure the choice of roles for Angus will be much of a plus for Dewar's leadership prospects: to the extent members are concerned about his ability to connect with francophone Quebec, the declaration that another anglophone Ontario MP will be his second in command will keep him from reserving that role for somebody who can address the perceived weakness.

- Thomas Mulcair was endorsed by Carl Pursey, president of the Prince Edward Island Federation of Labour - which may not swing a lot of votes on its own, but signals that Mulcair may be ahead of the rest of the contenders in moving into the Atlantic territory vacated by Robert Chisholm.

- Peggy Nash released an innovation plan which earned a positive review from Paul Wells, and also unveiled the endorsement of Ontario NDP stalwart Peter Kormos.

- Brian Topp released a policy paper on jobs (focused on small and medium-sized businesses), while picking up another Saskatchewan NDP endorsement from former deputy premier Clay Serby.

- And on the commentary side, plenty of media doomsayers offered their firm prediction that seven out of the eight leadership candidates would have no hope of holding onto the NDP's breakthrough seats in Quebec; sadly, the list of pundits making that claim wasn't cross-referenced against a list of those who once admonished that the NDP's Quebec breakthrough was impossible in the first place. Gloria Galloway rounded up the leadership candidates' plans to win government in 2015. And Cathy Dobson covered a well-attended Sarnia forum featuring Nash and Romeo Saganash.

[Edit: added introduction.]

Parliament In Review: June 14, 2011

With the debate over Libya taking up the time for debate, yesterday didn't see quite as much of a range of issues discussed as some previous days. However, there's still plenty of material worth noting from the day's events.

The Big Issue

Obviously, the main issue for the day was the extension of Canada's participation in the UN mission in Libya. But while most commentary seems to have painted the three official parties as having substantially the same position, the debate in fact featured both some noteworthy statements and some important differences.

In the pleasant surprise department, John Baird's response to Paul Dewar's question is noteworthy in highlighting at least one difference between the Cons and their cousins to the south:

The issue of rape being used as a weapon of war I think is abhorrent to every Canadian. The government would like to put some effort not just on the social side of providing assistance to victims of this heinous crime but also at the International Criminal Court. We must send a message when this is coordinated as an act of war that the international community will hold those accountable. That is something every Canadian strongly believes in and which this government will work with the International Criminal Court to support.

Which makes for a nice contrast against the Republicans' reflexive abhorrence of multilateral institutions generally and the ICC in particular - even if its practical effect is unclear.

In addition, some kudos go to Chris Alexander for asking as reasonable a question as one could possibly hope for - querying the NDP's Hélène Laverdière based on her professional experience as to which organizations could contribute to the effort.

On the down side, the Libs staked out some rather stunning ground for themselves. Not only did they completely dismiss the NDP's concerns about Canadian corporations having a role in building prisons for the Gadhafi regime, but Stephane Dion managed to assert that we should consider the presence of corporations which worked with a repressive regime as an advantage in rebuilding following its ouster.

And another obvious difference in position arose on the question of how long the Libyan mission would be expected to last. For the NDP, Libby Davies questioned the Cons as to whether there was any exit strategy, while Joe Comartin set out the NDP position that the extension voted on yesterday should be the only one. In contrast, the Libs' positions ranged from advising against talking about pulling out, to demanding a commitment that Canada remain involved until the institution of "democracy and the rule of law in Libya".

Vote of the Day

Meanwhile, while the nature of the votes on the extension has been well documented (with Elizabeth May as the only MP voting against each of the subamendment, amendment and motion), it's well worth noting how the votes came about in the first place. After all, the subamendment had already passed on a voice vote - meaning that MPs whose side had already won the vote made the effort to require a recorded vote anyway.

Poor Planning of the Day

It's not at all uncommon for the Cons to answer an opposition question about an issue related to a single constituent with a dismissive "we can't talk about individual cases". But I'd think it's much less common for them to give the same answer to one of their own planted questions - as happened when David Wilks criticized a Federal Court decision.

In Brief

While the day's debates were limited to Libya, there was still a couple of other noteworthy content from the members' statements and question period. In the former category, Robert Aubin's opening statement in the House of Commons included a call for proportional representation, suggesting that at least part of the NDP's Quebec contingent which took advantage of the quirks of FPTP is nonetheless committed to electoral reform. And in question period, Linda Duncan raised what would seem to be a rather chilling issue of covert CSIS surveillance of First Nations activists.

Note that I likely won't get a chance to post Parliament in Review for the next couple of days due to some travel.

Wednesday Afternoon Campaign Links

Assorted campaign material.

- Patrick Brethour is right to note that tonight's French debate figures to offer a showdown between the NDP and the Bloc for votes which Gilles Duceppe has taken for granted in the past:

With NDP support continuing to grow in Quebec, Mr. Duceppe is now taking square aim at Mr. Layton – witness the Bloc Québécois Leader’s odd cross-examination of his NDP rival in Tuesday night’s English debates. The days when the Bloc could treat the NDP as a somewhat-sympathetic irrelevancy are gone.
...
(Duceppe's challenge to Layton on Bill 101) does point to an important dynamic in the Quebec campaign: the NDP is a credible – and perhaps lethal – threat to the Bloc.

The polls show historically high support for the NDP in the province. In the latest Nanos Research poll, the NDP is at 17.9 per cent, in third place, with the Bloc at 38.6 per cent. The NDP’s support is up nearly six percentage points from its 2008 results, although that increase is within the regional poll’s margin of error.

Other polls put the NDP in an even stronger position. An April 4-5 Angus Reid poll pegged Bloc support at just 34 per cent, with the NDP in second place, at 24 per cent. Were those numbers to show up on election day, Mr. Duceppe could bid farewell to any ruminations about becoming Quebec premier, not to mention having to worry about keeping his current job.

Whatever the numbers, the Bloc’s worry is clear. There is no obvious line of anti-federalist attack on the NDP.

- Con Ryan Hastman says he's losing in Edmonton-Strathcona. We can only hope he'll be proven right - but it's never a bad time to pitch in for Linda Duncan to help make it so.

- The Cons are after Arab "ethnic costumes" for a photo op in Etobicoke - passing the invitation to (among others) an organization de-funded by Jason Kenney. Presumably plenty of fun is being had in responding; bonus points to whoever passes off the most absurd fake costume as an authentic staple of ethnic culture.

- Finally, Edmonton-Leduc NDP candidate Artem Medvedev earns some ink in the Journal - albeit in a Todd Babiak article that's far less serious than Medvedev's candidacy.

On archaic practices

Susan Delacourt reminisces about the days of yore when governments not only informed opposition members of Parliament of federal funding in their ridings, but actually allowed them to take credit for it.

How times have changed.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading...

- David MacDonald's CCPA report on the complete lack of any return on a decade of corporate tax cuts is worth a read in full. But his blog post offers the ideal summary:

I took Canada’s biggest public companies, those on the S&P/TSX Composite and tracked them over the past decade to see how their taxes and profits changed. At the same time, I also tracked how many employees they had and therefore the number of jobs they created. These are the companies that benefit the most from corporate tax cuts because they declare the largest profits.

There were 198 companies that had data from 2000 through 2009. What readers should find shocking is just how dramatic the transformation in corporate taxation has been in the past decade. The effective tax rate that these successful companies have paid has been cut in half. Imagine if as an individual your personal income taxes had been cut in half over the past decade, well that’s what happened in corporate Canada.

With such a dramatic change, it should be no surprise that compared to 2000, profits are up 50% while taxes paid are down 20%. The tab for corporate tax cuts for just these 200 companies is $12 billion a year in lost provincial and federal revenues. To give readers a sense of scale, that much money could buy us a national $10/day childcare program and wipe out poverty among seniors with money left over.

The bargain that Canada made with its most profitable corporations was that if we give them dramatic tax cuts they’ll use that money to create jobs. We’ve cut the cheque, worth $12 billion a year in 2009, so did we get the jobs?

The Canadian economy as a whole has increased the number of jobs by 6% since 2005. However, the 200 companies that are receiving the $12 billion a year tax break have only increased their job numbers by 5%, in effect they are pulling down the average.

Instead of creating jobs with those billions, they have merely increased their profits or are sitting on the cash. Canadians should expect vastly more for $12 billion a year.

- The hope for the current election is that Edmonton-Strathcona will be joined by one or more other Edmonton ridings in turfing the out-of-touch Cons. But that quibble as to the state of other Alberta races aside, Josh Wingrove provides an entertaining read on Linda Duncan's work to win her seat once again.

- Meanwhile, Joel-Denis Bellavance notes that the NDP's ascent in Quebec continues, including a strong second-place showing at 24% in the latest Angus Reid poll.

- Finally, while I don't agree with all of Mike Moffatt's proposals, they certainly look to offer a far wider range of policy ideas than we're seeing from a lot of parties in the current election campaign. And indeed, I'd be curious to see a leaders' debate focusing in on some of the ideas raised - particularly the merits of a GAI, and the harm done by the Cons' boutique tax credits.

Thursday Morning Riding Links

Stephen Harper will not be taking questions about any of the below.

- For at least a couple of election cycles, one of the names floated as a possible star NDP candidate in Quebec has been Romeo Saganash. And while it's probably not ideal to only have him in place in a campaign that's already underway (particular in an immense riding), his introduction as the NDP's candidate in Abitibi-Baie-James-Nunavik-Eeyou should nonetheless make the seat into another of the NDP's top targets in the province.

- Graham Thomson tees off on the Cons' disorganization and contempt for outsiders in Edmonton Strathcona:

It's still early in the election and a lot can happen in the next month. But at this point, the Hastman campaign is behaving like a campaign in trouble. For all the talk of a new, young candidate, Hastman is right now behaving like the same old politicians we've seen so many times before -unaccountable, silent, absent.

I suppose, if nothing else, he's displaying the necessary qualifications to be another backbencher in a Conservative government.

- And Murray Mandryk notes that at least some Cons in Regina aren't standing idly by while being silenced by their party:

Former Saskatchewan Party MLA Jason Dearborn -one of those once interested in the Regina Wascana nomination -has written a commentary raising concerns about the above process and wondering if this was a "direct attempt to suppress the democratic process...perpetrated by unelected party staff intent on controlling a tight message for national consumption."

Other Conservatives are -at least privately -far more pointed, talking about the Darth Vader-like control of Harper and the nastiness of the staff that surround him. "They're just a bunch of mean buggers," said one Conservative, seeking anonymity for fear of retaliation.

- Finally, if you're looking to figure out which parties are actually involved in races in various regions of the country rather than buying into the false assumption that only the Cons and Libs matter, Alice charts the two-way races that actually took place across the country in the previous four election cycles. And perhaps the most noteworthy change is that the NDP has entirely lived up to its promise to challenge the Harper Cons at every turn: while its 2004 two-way races involved 45 against the Libs to only 24 against the Cons, by 2008 those numbers had changed to 30 and 70 respectively.

Tuesday Morning Riding Links

With #elxn41 in full swing, let's take a quick look at a few noteworthy developments at the riding level.

- First, the sudden retirement of Lib MP Raymonde Folco may result in a fascinating riding battle in Laval-Les Îles - a seat which was nearly won by the Bloc in 2006, and saw substantial improvements for the NDP and Cons in 2008. With the Libs starting from scratch in the middle of a campaign (and the Cons also apparently without a listed candidate), the Bloc might be a slight favourite to start - but it's not hard to envision a true four-way race which leaves all parties guessing until election day.

- There's much less doubt who's in contention in Palliser. And it's worth noting that Jack Layton's Regina and Moose Jaw stops yesterday were both in the riding - signalling that it's rightly at the top of the NDP's list of Con seats which can be won with a strong local effort.

- Meanwhile, the Cons' attempt to target Linda Duncan in Edmonton Strathcona has taken a turn for the embarrassing, as disgraced former staffer Sebastien Togneri is taking a break from being the subject of an RCMP investigation to lend his services to Ryan Hastman's campaign. I only hope we'll also get to see Hastman live-tweet about door-knocking with Bruce Carson.

- Finally, just in case we needed a reminder as to whose side the Cons are actually on, it shouldn't pass without comment that the Cons are apparently entirely happy to recruit a military procurement lobbyist to carry their banner against NDP MP Carol Hughes in Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing.

Seconded

For all the time I've spent wondering why on earth the Libs are working so hard to undermine any prospect of replacing the Harper government, I'll echo pogge's criticism of Linda Duncan as well. Simply put, the combination of a Con message machine bashing the idea of a coalition full-time coupled with an opposition attempt to avoid the issue is a recipe for disaster - so far better to respond by comparing the pluses of cooperation to the Cons' weaknesses, rather than wasting any time in the media merely denying the Cons' frame.

(Edit: fixed wording.)

Uncooperative

The Hill Times tracks down exactly why the environment committee wasn't able to finalize a report on the tar sands, and notes that at least one of the members actually worked to develop a joint report despite the Cons' intransigence:

"I listened to some other people the same day I spoke and I know [the committee] got a lot of negative material. I'm sure that's why there's no write-up," said Prof. Schindler last week from his Edmonton office. "To me that's a violation of the principles of democracy, and I'm very angry about it."

He said: "I think that the Conservatives don't want any negative side cast on the tar sands because they're afraid now that the U.S. will shut them down now because of their policies on dirty oil."

Another witness, Andrew Nikiforuk author of Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent, also blamed the Conservatives.

"I think the Tory government was afraid of what U.S. Congress, what U.S. customers, oil customers in general, investors and Canadian taxpayers might have to say about our record of regulatory neglect in the tar sands," he said.
...
(NDP MP Linda) Duncan recognized that witnesses such as Mr. Nikiforuk and Prof. Schindler are disappointed in the study's result.

Ms. Duncan said she approached other opposition members about writing a report together but was turned down.

Liberal member Francis Scarpaleggia's (Lac-Saint-Louis, Que.) assistant Gweneth Thirlwell told The Hill Times that he said his party would write its own, to be finished likely before fall. Mr. Scarpaleggia was the MP who originally called for the study in January 2008, and last month accused the Conservative committee members of blocking the final report so as not to release a document that could include information on the negative effects of the oil sands that could hurt the government.

"I think Francis Scarpaleggia and probably Linda Duncan actually have very similar views on what's wrong. I think partisan politics has separated them," said Mr. Nikiforuk.

Mr. Scarpaleggia did not respond to questions verbally, but in a statement to The Hill Times said "Other parties are free to [write their own reports]. Nothing is lost from that perspective."

Needless to say, I eagerly await the next "principled" Lib effort to single out Duncan for particular criticism while glossing over the Libs' deliberate choice to prioritize "partisan politics" above working with anybody on shared goals.

Cowering

Needless to say, the Edmonton Journal's article on the Cons' funnelling of money from Calgary to other ridings (and fondness for extremists like Rob Anders for their contribution to the effort) is worth a read. But perhaps the most interesting bit of information is that even a Con candidate who's trying to pretend to be connected to voters is in fact no less bubble-wrapped than the most controversial socons paraded out under the Cons' banner:

(Ryan) Hastman, who was born and raised in Edmonton and attended the University of Alberta business department, declined to return The Journal's phone calls.

The Conservative Party office in Edmonton also declined to provide a phone number for Hastman or any names of constituency officials. That's private information, they said. Hastman's various phone numbers, provided on websites, end up in voice mail.

Now, it's worth noting that it's patently wrong to claim that information about constituency officials is "private information", considering that it's available through Elections Canada's public database of riding associations.

But leaving aside that the Cons are dead wrong in fact, what's more important is the principle behind their actions. Rather than offering any direct connection to the public, they're in fact pushing new limits in refusing to talk to anybody other than on their own terms. And apparently that rule now applies to seemingly bland candidates like Hastman no less than inflammatory candidates along the lines of Gloria Kovach - which either suggests that the strategy is being extended, or that there's more to the likes of Hastman than the Cons are willing to make public.

Of course, they're presumably counting on being able to paper over that glaring weakness with paid blasts of advertising along with the numerous dubious photo-ops they've given to Hastman as an unelected non-representative. But this looks to be just one more indication that Edmonton-Strathcona voters can count on being served poorly if at all by Hastman - and all the more incentive to put their effort behind a positive alternative.

Edit: Fixed link; comments deleted on request.

Important public notice

To residents of Edmonton-Strathcona: any vote for the Cons' Ryan Hastman will be interpreted as justifying Rob Anders' existence. Govern yourselves accordingly.

Compare and contrast

It's great to see the Star reporting on the latest invasion of the Cons' Pod People. But there's another interesting new piece of information from the story which nicely highlights the relative priorities of the NDP's MPs compared to those of the Cons.

Remember that when Con MP John Duncan received an e-mail which wasn't intended for him, the result was his party surrepetitously dialling into and then leaking a private telephone call for political gain.

In contrast, the Star reveals that when NDP MP Linda Duncan received an e-mail which wasn't intended for her, the result was...the newfound knowledge being used to help her constituents:

In Edmonton-Strathcona, the only Alberta riding the Conservatives do not hold, local Tory candidate Ryan Hastman has participated in at least five government announcements over the past few months, while the local NDP MP, Linda Duncan, says she has been excluded from all of them. Hastman boasts of his participation in pictures on his Facebook page.

Duncan, who calls the "whole process offensive," says it becomes doubly irritating when a Conservative candidate claims credit for funds she helped to get for the community, as the duly elected MP.

"What I find reprehensible about all this is that they just can't seem to accept the fact that Edmonton-Strathcona voters elected me, not a Conservative," Duncan said.

Hastman was on hand, posing for pictures with Labour Minister Rona Ambrose, when the Conservatives gave a $14.8 million cheque to the GO community sports centre in Edmonton in September, for example.

Duncan had worked with the centre to get the application into the government before the deadline elapsed earlier in the year – and says she only found out about that deadline because someone accidentally sent her an email directed to the Alberta Conservative caucus.

Now, there's plenty of reason for concern about how the Cons themselves apparently tried to keep the funding deadlines to themselves. (And it's probably worth some followup as to whether that might help to explain the glaring gap between stimulus funding for Con-held ridings and that for the rest of the country.)

But Linda Duncan's response also highlights the fact that there are indeed MPs to be found whose main focus is working to serve their constituents rather than taking credit for what others are doing. And the fact that Duncan's main challenger has that set of priorities exactly backwards should give Edmonton-Strathcona voters ample reason to keep Duncan in Parliament.

Update: And lest I forget, you too can help out the cause.

Pod People II: In Their Own Words

Lest it get lost in the Twittersphere, Kady has pointed out a myriad of examples of Ryan Hastman, the Cons' unelected non-representative for Edmonton-Strathcona, appearing at government funding announcements - all while elected NDP MP Linda Duncan has been frozen out. So is there any discernable difference between this and the original Pod People scheme other than that the Cons' "shadow MPs" aren't being formally named?

On cabinetry (Part I)

Needless to say, the prospect of the first ever federal cabinet ministers from the NDP is one to look forward to. But the question of who should be included and in what roles looks to be an interesting one - and there's a case to be made that any of the obvious frontrunners might be best off not actually seeking a cabinet position. I'll limit this post to what seem to me to be the three sure things for inclusion within a coalition cabinet, then follow up with some discussion about the further possibilities later on.

Starting at the top, it's virtually certain that Jack Layton will end up in cabinet in a relatively high-ranking role. But purely from a party-building standpoint, I'd think one of the smartest strategic plays the NDP could pursue would be to keep Layton out of the cabinet.

After all, as a party leader, he's the lone NDP MP who can be assured of press coverage whether or not he's in a ministerial position. So the incremental gain in profile from having Layton in cabinet would be less than that acquired from having another MP at the cabinet table with Layton still holding the party leader's profile.

Moreover, a cabinet role risks narrowing Layton's public image. To the extent Layton comes to be associated with specific policies within a single portfolio, it may require extra work to put together an election campaign which once again presents him as prime ministerial.

That said, there are strong reasons for including Layton as well - not the least of which is that he's better placed than anybody to broker multi-party agreement for government policies. And of course there shouldn't be much doubt that Layton would be a strong performer in whatever role he takes on.

The other apparent gimme is Thomas Mulcair. Again, there shouldn't be much doubt about his ability to handle any role he gets put into - and both he and the party would presumably love to see him get more national face time.

But having pointed out the upside of having NDP members like Mulcair able to make inroads into new territory from their current seats, I'd see at least some risk that the time and effort required to run a ministry would reduce Mulcair's availability for party-building. And the cross-incentives with the Libs may be worth watching, as they'd presumably be happy to make sure Mulcair is away from Montreal and unavailable to represent the NDP as frequently as possible.

While she hasn't been mentioned as quite as much of a sure think, I'd think the third lock would be Linda Duncan, despite her not matching the previous governing experience held by Layton and Mulcair (and sharing Mulcair's difficulty in being the main focus for building NDP support in her region).

After all, Duncan is the coalition's only option for an Alberta MP within the cabinet - meaning that there would need to be some awfully compelling reason not to include her. And since she instead seems to be extremely well suited to handle a cabinet role, she would figure to be included.

On multitasking

Can anybody remember the last time a federal leader turned a campaign flight into more than just a means of getting from point A to point B? Because it looks like the NDP managed to make Jack Layton's flight to Fort Smith into an opportunity for the press on board to find out just what kind of environmental damage is being caused by the Alberta tar sands:

In a pitch that seemed more in tune with voters in environmentally sensitive Central Canada, particularly Quebec, Layton vowed to shut down further expansion of Alberta's tarsands development.

He is also promising to force big oil companies to clean up and reclaim vast swaths of land that has been strip mined for petroleum production.

"This development has to be brought under control, otherwise we're going to have a legacy for the next generation that's too toxic to clean up," Layton said as his campaign plane swooped low over a portion of the 47,832 hectares of land ripped up by tarsands development.

With the national media already a captive audience, Layton saw the flyby as a perfect opportunity to make a point...

Over the cabin speaker, Linda Duncan - the party's candidate in the riding of Edmonton-Strathcona and a long-time environmentalist - gave an aerial guided tour of the scarred earth below. She pointed to gaping brown holes in the landscape and huge, inky-coloured, man-made lakes of waste water...

Duncan said the gouging of the ground isn't the worst environmental damage. Oilsands development requires a huge amount of water that eventually ends up in gigantic toxic holding ponds that communities downstream from the development say are polluting their waterways.

Of course, there's only so much awareness a party can raise with a direct audience limited to its campaign plane. But it's still a creative and worthwhile move to ensure that the media covering Layton's campaign gets a close-up look at some of the most immediate dangers which his environmental message is intended to deal with. And if the rest of the campaign is similarly well-planned in highlighting the New Democrats' causes even during what would normally be idle time, then the press closest to Layton may be far more inclined to see the party as ready to take on the responsibility of governing the country.