Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Andrew Jackson discusses why attacks on Old Age Security - including the Fraser Institute's calls for increased clawbacks - serve no useful purpose:

The principled argument for not clawing back OAS benefits is that all seniors should be entitled to a bare-bones public pension as a basic building block of the overall retirement income system. The OAS benefit is very low and is added to a meagre Canada Pension Plan benefit that replaces just 25 per cent of average earnings up to a maximum of $12,144 a year.
...

Receiving the full OAS benefit – taxed at an already significant marginal rate – is a modest recompense for paying progressive income taxes over a working lifetime. And universality does not stand in the way of providing much more significant benefits to those who are most in need, as we do through the income-tested Guaranteed Income Supplement to OAS.

Experience shows that mean-testing previously universal benefits has undermined support for social security programs among the affluent. Certainly, the more narrowly targeted an income support program becomes, the more the political support for that program tends to evaporate.

Seen from this perspective, universality has benefits over and above the modest fiscal cost.

- Meanwhile, Erin Weir and Lana Payne highlight the effect of the Cons' destruction of EI for seasonal workers who need it most.

- Trish Hennessy takes a look at the numbers behind the Cons' pseudo-census.

- And Kevin Press provides an example of the type of evidence which the Cons are so eager to suppress - showing that the relative size of government actually grows more under nominally right-wing parties.Which nicely complements Bruce Stewart's rebuttal to right-wingers who ignore the NDP's track record of responsible government.

- Finally, Russ Ford sees the values behind Upstream as an example of how politics should work:

An increase in GDP historically meant that most members of society prospered.

We know that is no longer true. A strong GDP now means nothing to the lives of most Canadians.

Many have argued that our future health care system will find itself in crisis largely because people are living longer.  We have moved from a system that previously addressed episodic illnesses to one that is now focussed on chronic disease management.  But to suggest that this will be the iceberg that derails our health system is simply nonsense.

The money is there or at least it was there until governments started cutting our taxes literally taking billions out of the public treasury. The lost tax cut money can easily finance those costs and there will be even money left over to buy the military all the toys it wants.

No chronic disease will not be our undoing. Our undoing will be a failure to acknowledge and address the fact that our new economic order is causing more and more Canadians to be sick by creating more inequality.

The easy solution would be to enter our political parties into a rehab program to end their addiction to public opinion polls. Can you imagine how politics would be different if our parties stood for something, acted on principle rather than focussed on what the polls tell them we want to hear.

Doing politics differently means starting to say what needs to be said.

#skndpldr Roundup

Alongside yesterday's news of Erin Weir's withdrawal to support Ryan Meili in the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race (also discussed by Scott and Brian) came a few other noteworthy developments - not the least of which was the reaction of the other two leadership candidates (discussed here by Jason).

Meanwhile, Meili released a seniors policy incorporating Weir's proposal to backfill against federal cuts to Old Age Security.

Finally, John Warnock offered up his latest thoughts - though I don't see his overwhelming negativity about either Meili's chances in the leadership race or the future of the NDP under Broten or Wotherspoon as bearing much resemblance to reality.

On effective departures

Obviously Erin Weir's decision to withdraw from the Saskatchewan NDP's leadership race and endorse Ryan Meili looks to be one of the most important developments of the campaign. While there's still a wide range of possible outcomes among the remaining candidates, the movement of any substantial portion of Weir's support should nearly ensure that Meili appears on the final ballot - and also figures to boost Meili's odds of reaching 50% support on an earlier ballot.

But beyond the effect of Weir's endorsement, I'll also point out the shared policy statement which accompanies his support - which both highlights the importance of Weir's being involved in the campaign all along, and finds middle ground in some areas where Weir and Meili have sparred over the course of the leadership debates.

Throughout the campaign to date, all three other candidates have declined to commit to Weir's platform on resource royalies (even while often speaking of them as valuable contributions to a broader review). But Meili has agreed not only to close the loopholes identified by Weir, but also to support an overall review to shape the NDP's platform for 2015 - effectively avoiding the "blank slate" issue that Weir has highlighted throughout the leadership campaign.

Weir's other areas of obvious influence haven't been discussed in as much detail by the other candidates. But the concept of incorporating a universal child care program into existing school facilities and the idea of creating a provincial benefit to offset any federal cuts to Old Age Security have both been regular themes for Weir - and they've now been endorsed by Meili as well.

All of which means that beyond his impressive contributions to the debates, Weir's influence on the leadership campaign now also includes a significant shift in its anticipated voting outcomes along with a direct role in shaping another round of policy choices. And we'll find out before long what effect those contributions have on the final results.

Parliament in Review - May 7, 2012

Monday, May 7 saw another day largely dominated by debate on the Cons' omnibus budget bill.

The Big Issue

Plenty of MPs rightly focused on the Cons' move to combine so many disparate types of legislation into a single behemoth of a bill. Don Davies remembered his first instruction as an MP and wondered just when it was that Parliament ceased to have the job of scrutinizing legislation, while Nathan Cullen reminded Stephen Harper that he once professed to agree with that role for the House of Commons as well. A number of MPs expressed their mild relief at being among the few to get to speak about C-38 (while lamenting that more people wouldn't have some say).

Meanwhile, Scott Simms pointed out that businesses like the Port Union fish plant in his riding stood to suffer from the Cons' attacks on repeat EI recipients. Laurin Liu asked why the Cons didn't have any interest in green research. Ruth-Ellen Brosseau criticized the cuts and privatization that figure to make CFIA far less useful as a means of protecting Canadian consumers. Scott Brison mentioned that even the Cons' Senate caucus was willing to break up C-38 to ensure each part was discussed by an appropriate committee, and wondered how they could justify a lesser level of review in the House of Commons. Elizabeth May questioned whether large parts of C-38 were actually validly before the House given that they weren't mentioned in the associated budget - a particularly important point when the Cons are pointing to debate conducted before the bill was ever public as part of the review they claim has taken place. Davies pointed out how the Cons' past tax slashing created the deficit they now use as an excuse for attacking social programs. Ted Hsu wondered whether the Cons disagree with Milton Friedman's take on the importance of accounting for negative externalities; Robert Sopuck affirmed his agreement by pointing to the type of Mulroney-era environmental regulations that are being shredded by his party. Isabelle Morin reminded James Lunney of the different rules that his government has applied to funding in opposition-held ridings as opposed to that which gets approved under the "patronage" heading, while also highlighting the Cons' woeful record in managing public finances and the broader economy alike. Wayne Easter made the point that corporate Canada isn't lacking for money to invest, but has simply chosen not to invest it. Christine Moore noted that the Cons' OAS changes will significantly harm some Canadians aged 50+ who reasonably expected it to form part of their retirement income a decade down the road, while Ted Hsu took up the cause of lower-income workers who will face a later retirement age despite having not enjoyed any recent increase in lifespan. Kennedy Stewart lamented the anticipated expropriation and destruction of homes, schools and other buildings as the Cons force pipeline construction on an unwilling British Columbia public.

On the Cons' side, the theme of the day was an apparent desire by many MPs to serve as part of a provincial opposition rather than a federal government. Merv Tweed, Terence Young and Joy Smith all spent substantial parts of the time that could have been used explaining and justifying their party's actions attacking municipal and provincial governments who haven't served as puppets for the Harper Cons. But Andrew Cash responded that the Cons may be going past merely forgetting what jurisdiction they represent , and instead living in a different world:

Some days one imagines that all members on the government side come from Pleasantville. In their world no senior has a problem paying rent. In their world seniors have a choice of putting their excess money in a tax free savings account or buying a retirement home? That is the kind of conversation those members have.

But the line of the day went to Simms in response to a question from May:

I find (May's) situation in the House very similar to the Conservative party, and this is the only comparison I draw between the Green Party and the Conservative Party in the House; they are both a party of one. 

On Regulatory Gaps

In response to Hedy Fry's question, Denis Lebel acknowledged that there's currently no permitting process whatsoever for oil tankers operating out of facilities in Burnaby (except to the extent an export license is required). It doesn't appear much has been done on the obvious follow-up question: how in the world can it be possible to completely neglect the need for a full regulatory system - including a licensing system - for the handling and transportation of oil products by tanker?

In Brief

Gordon Brown's bill to rename the St. Lawrence Islands National Park didn't spark much disagreement on its face. But at least a few noteworthy points did emerge from the debate: Rathika Sitsabaiesan wondered what price tag would be attached to the name change, with Brown providing a far more clear answer than we've come to expect when it comes to actual government legislation. And when Royal Galipeau tried to defend the bill by pointing to the value of tourism and parks generally, only to be met with Francois Choquette's proper response questioning why the Cons are cutting funding in exactly those areas elsewhere.


Meanwhile, Stewart made a statement comparing a recent report in which Con MPs agreed that any environmental assessment changes should not "reduce the current public access to the review process" to a budget bill that does just that to the greatest extent possible. Christine Moore, Matthew Kellway and Jack Harris all expressed amazement that the Cons' plan to spend tens of billions of dollars on F-35s is being justified by a 160-word, marketing-heavy letter. Brosseau wondered why the Cons are wilfully blind to food insecurity in Canada. Pierre Nantel contrasted the millions of dollars being put into War of 1812 pageantry against the real losses in archives and historical information resulting from cuts to museums. Andrew Scheer issued his ruling concluding that government ministers could lie to the House of Commons with impunity as long as nobody could read their minds to prove they intended to do so. Helene Leblanc presented the NDP's supplementary recommendations to a report on e-commerce. Jean Crowder introduced a bill arising out of the "Create Your Canada" contest to limit nitrate levels to protect fish and other water-dwelling animals. Finally, in adjournment proceedings Cash questioned whether the Cons would ever both to develop a national transit strategy, Rodger Cuzner wondered just how much worse service EI recipients can expect as the Cons simultaneously slash the civil service and promise instant responses to corporate requests for foreign workers, and Ted Hsu asked why the Cons won't let federal scientists talk about their own research.

Parliament in Review: May 2, 2012

A combination of the one-year anniversary of Canada's 2011 federal election and a relatively short day in Parliament left little room for a lot of debate on Wednesday, May 2. But the day did see some serious questions raised about the Cons' rush to pass their budget without debate.

The Big Issue

Before debate actually started on Bill C-38, Scott Brison pointed out that a couple of different drafts of the bill had been circulated - making it unclear whether the bill introduced in Parliament was even the same one provided to the opposition parties. Nathan Cullen echoed that concern, only to be met with repeated declarations of "just trust us!" from a government that's gone out of its way to make sure nobody paying the slightest bit of attention feels safe taking its word for anything. And so it took confirmation from the office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to clarify just what was being debated in the first place.

Of course, it's probably fair to say that few MPs were going to be reading the bill as they went in order to debate it. But that only highlights the fact that the omnibus bill is designed to cram more content into a single piece of legislation than can possibly be scrutinized properly. Which made it particularly galling that before the end of the first shortened day of discussion about a bill whose contents hadn't even been confirmed, Peter Van Loan moved to close down debate.

Meanwhile, Peggy Nash questioned why massive environmental deregulation was being pushed through in a budget bill, then put that concern in context alongside the Cons' general distaste for accountability and debate. Brison pointed out the fact that Joe Oliver's selection as the Cons' lead speaker just highlighted how clear it was that the bill wasn't really budget legislation, and slammed the Cons' laughable insistence that handing money to the corporate sector will somehow serve to alleviate inequality. And Oliver kept up the we-know-best line by confirming that the Cons want to give Peter Kent the sole authority to determine what review will be carried out for any project.

In Brief

Alexandre Boulerice criticized the Cons' "aristocracy" for keeping limo drivers on standby up to 360 days a year while calling for everybody else to put up with austerity. Niki Ashton pointed out that the Cons' budget will do direct damage to Canadian women. Sadie Groguhe contrasted the treatment of Code Pink activists who were refused entry into Canada against the open arms extended toward Conrad Black. Robert Chisholm invoked the words of former Conservative fisheries minister Tom Siddon to question the gutting of fisheries regulation, while Fin Donnelly noted that the Cons' omnibus attack on fisheries legislation is being rammed through Parliament just months before we receive a key report on B.C.'s wild salmon fishery. Peter Julian summed up the NDP's dissent from the Cons' tar-sands boosterism through the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. And in adjournment proceedings Carolyn Bennett asked the Cons to explain their characterization of First Nations as "adversaries" in contrast to their "allies" in the oil industry (with little success), while Carol Hughes challenged the Cons' planned cuts to OAS.

Parliament in Review: April 30, 2012

Monday, April 30 featured discussion of two opposition motions dealing with the federal government's responsibility to ensure the safety of Canadians. And on both fronts, the Cons went out of their way to disclaim any such role for our public servants.

The Big Issue

Jack Harris started off the safety theme with a motion to the effect that Canada's search-and-rescue capability should meet an international standard of 30-minute readiness. But perhaps Harris' most important point (particularly in light of recent developments) came in response to a typical Con "why'd you vote against our budget? huh?" straw man:

I hope all Canadians are listening to that kind of nonsense. We are getting a little sick and tired of hearing those kinds of remarks. We voted against our own salaries. We voted against your salary, Mr. Speaker. When we vote against the budget on a matter of confidence, which is what we do, it because we do not agree with the Conservatives' approach to the whole running of government. We vote against every item in that budget. It has nothing to do with picking out a particular thing and voting against it. The government and the member, I am sorry to say, have fallen into that same trap of illogic and disrepute, frankly, by trying to accuse the opposition of not supporting things that are good for Canadians, when people know full well that we want to see search and rescue given sufficient and better priority than it has been given. Nobody puts that on the floor for a vote, except we are doing it right now and we will see how that member votes when the time comes.

Chris Alexander answered by claiming that the international standard pointed to by Harris doesn't exist, and suggesting that it's not the place of Parliamentarians to question whether our search and rescue system can be improved. And that debate - continued by Ryan Cleary and Mark Strahl - made for the less contentious of the two safety discussions.

What came next was Bob Rae's motion on food safety comparing the Cons' CFIA cuts to the reckless slashing that led to Ontario's Walkerton debacle - with Hedy Fry discussing the parallels in detail, while Andrew Cash expressed his amazement that the Harper Cons were defending the Harrisites' failures (when as Kirsty Duncan noted, even Harris himself apologized after the fact). And Guy Caron nicely summed up the Cons' own sorry history of regulatory demolition by reviewing their listeriosis outbreak.

But the discussion expanded to general regulatory issues - with the Cons looking even worse on those. Elizabeth May noted that the Cons see the federal role in environmental protection as being limited to fish and migratory birds, while Pierre Dionne Labelle highlighted the fact that a reduced set of criteria will inevitably lead to important points being missed. Pierre Nantel mused about the sheer naivete behind the Cons' belief that corporate self-regulation would address safety concerns. Peggy Nash pointed out the Cons' plan to simply adopt "industry regulations" without anybody looking at the public good. Ted Hsu met the Cons' attacks on research and data collection by pointing out that "what gets measured gets done". And on the Cons' side Pierre Lemieux nicely echoed the difference in schools of economic thought, suggesting that the real issue is whether the public has confidence in our food supply whether or not that confidence has any basis in fact, while claiming that eliminating services and forcing provinces to build up regulatory systems of their own isn't actually a "cut".

Us vs Them

The Cons have regularly made it clear that mere ordinary Canadians arrested abroad can expect as little legal assistance as they can get away with providing. But in response to Paul Dewar's question about corruption and fraud charges against key officials at SNC-Lavalin, Bob Dechert clarified that corporate criminals have his government's full support.

In Brief

Nathan Cullen gave notice of the NDP's intention to raise the standard of debate in the House of Commons, while Charlie Angus slammed the Cons for making Parliament subservient to the whims of a controlling executive. Hoang Mai questioned cuts from the Canada Revenue Agency when it has an obvious need for internal investigation to go with its responsibility in revenue collection. Romeo Saganash was dumbfounded at the Cons' cuts to aid for the world's poorest countries, while Bev Oda replied that her idea of productive aid is creating profits for businesses rather than saving lives. Robert Chisholm rightly pointed out that water systems are interconnected, making it entirely dishonest to claim (as the Cons do) that regulators can safely ignore everything other than major waterways. Libby Davies wondered why the Cons had chosen not to follow up on a campaign promise to help the parents of gravely ill children. Judy Foote noted that the community access program being slashed by the Cons is still a vital source of internet access. May wondered why a Prime Minister who once went ballistic over a single definition change in a past budget bill was now scrapping an entire regulatory regime among other parts of an omnibus attack on the environment. And in adjournment proceedings Philip Toone wondered if the Cons had bothered to figure out how many costs would be downloaded to the provinces in cutting the OAS (spoiler alert: "no"), while Andrew Cash criticized the complete neglect of housing in the Cons' budget.

Parliament in Review - April 27, 2012

Friday, April 27 saw another day of relatively non-contentious debate on the main bill up for discussion in the House of Commons. But there was plenty of reason to question why the focus would be as narrow as it was.

The Big Issue

That main bill was the Cons' elder abuse legislation, intended to add a new factor in criminal sentencing where the victim was vulnerable due to age. And both of the opposition parties fully endorsed the bill in substance.

But once again, the Cons' focus on sentencing raised larger issues as to why they wouldn't put more effort into preventing crime in the first place. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet noted that the justice system itself may be intimidating for seniors, Laurin Liu highlighted the effects of poverty and social exclusion in making seniors vulnerable, Elizabeth May expressed her concerns about institutional abuse and Francois Lapointe discussed how telemarketing and pressure sales tactics could target seniors. Liu contrasted the Cons' criminal-based philosophy against her own bill to automatically enroll eligible seniors to receive the GIS. Judy Sgro criticized the Cons' focus on ad campaigns rather than community organizations.

Meanwhile, the debate also led naturally to talk of the Cons' efforts to slash OAS benefits. Alain Giguere rightly observed that exactly the same issues were raised during Brian Mulroney's stay in power with Mulroney claiming that the system we can afford today absolutely had to be slashed back at that time. And Robert Goguen provided a remarkable answer to Wayne Marston's question on that point:

Mr. Wayne Marston: 
Mr. Speaker, when the government gave its reasons for the changes to OAS, $36 billion a year is what it cost, escalating to $109 billion, there is no argument there. We agree with the government on that, but the assumptions the Conservatives are using do not take into account an average of 2% growth in the GDP, as projected by their own Minister of Finance over the next number of years. That would pay for it.

Mr. Robert Goguen:
That is very interesting, Mr. Speaker. According to the hon. member, this system is sustainable. The question I would ask him is, in the following 20 years, how many people will have dialysis? How many people will have cancer treatments? How many people will have medical treatments which will go well into the future because Canadians continue to live longer and health care goes up?

 

These two things run in tandem. We have no way of predicting exactly how much medical treatment will be needed. We know it will increase. We know the demography of the Canadian population is becoming significantly older. With age comes medicare. With age come health costs. We are taking steps to protect seniors in the future.

So rather than relying on actual forecasts as to the costs of Canada's retirement system (which take into account exactly the costs that can be reasonably projected), Goguen's argument was based on two premises: first, that the future is constantly in doubt; and second, when in doubt, slash benefits. Which doesn't offer much reason for confidence that more needed programs won't be gratuitously attacked in the future.

Predictable

While the media paid plenty of due attention to the mocking response to Stephen Harper's "soft on Hitler!" gaffe, it largely missed an even more telling exchange in members' statements. After reading off some of the more hilarious #harperhistory Tweets, Dan Harris offered this suggestion to the Cons:

I hope the Conservatives take this humour in stride and do not respond with more of their humourless anger.

Needless to say, Scott Armstrong followed with...about the most humourless and angry statement one could imagine, which deliberately repeated Harper's ludicrous message.

In Brief

Peggy Nash, Kirsty Duncan and Elizabeth May opened what's become a major debate about the elimination of environmental protection in the Cons' toxic budget, while Guy Caron pointed out the failure of the Cons' much-touted CCS projects in the oil sands. Rosane Dore Lefebvre questioned the Cons' decision to eliminate the CSIS inspector general, while Dennis Bevington wondered why funding for the aboriginal justice strategy had been allowed to expire. Francoise Boivin challenged the budget bill's attacks on employment equity. Alexandrine Latendresse pointed out how many municipalities had already expressed justified concerns about the secretive CETA negotiations. And Joy Smith's bill on trafficking in persons passed with all-party support.

Parliament in Review - April 26, 2012

Thursday, April 26 saw ample discussion of private members' business - and if the Cons are now cracking down on such debate, the results of the day's proceedings might give us some clues as to why.

The Big Issue

While it didn't receive as much media attention as another issue which was debated for substantially less time, Irene Mathyssen's motion to reverse the Cons' attacks on OAS produced plenty of noteworthy discussion. Mathyssen pointed out how the move would increase poverty rates among senior women in particular. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe noted that private pension plans might not be designed to account for OAS not being available at age 65, while Mike Sullivan pointed to a similar issue with provincial benefit plans. Linda Duncan asked who if anybody the Cons had consulted. Stephane Dion observed that the OAS is already fairly stingy compared to other countries' programs, while Eve Peclet mused that a fairer tax system would allow for far better income security and Don Davies highlighted the fact that the Cons' frequent and frivolous tax slashing had created the budget deficit they now claim to want to fix on the backs of retirees. Paulina Ayala observed that it's younger Canadians who will suffer from the change, while Mylene Freeman both worried about the fact younger Canadians don't have spare money to put aside to make up for a destroyed social safety net (a point echoed by Alexandre Boulerice) and recognized that lower- to middle-class seniors will suffer most from an income perspective. Dan Harris quipped that "ample notice about getting hosed does not change the fact that we are getting hosed", while Wayne Easter described the cuts as "grand theft" from workers under 54. And a number of speakers including Judy Foote, Fin Donnelly and Davies pointed to the Cons' campaign promise not to cut individual benefits which was broken by the attack on OAS.

Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre hearkened back to the good old days when the average senior would die before receiving a nickel in OAS. But perhaps the more interesting contribution from the Cons was Kellie Leitch's emphasis on the OAS changes not affecting CPP eligibility or benefits based on that program being "fully funded for the next 75 years at current contribution rates" - which might be worth filing away for future reference if that becomes the next form of retirement security to meet with the Cons' budgetary axe.

The Settled Issue

Meanwhile, Stephen Woodworth's abortion motion was the other main topic of discussion. But while Woodworth made a fool of himself by confirming that he wasn't prepared to accept the most likely outcome of exactly the study he claimed to want, plenty of speakers from all parties - including Francoise Boivin, Hedy Fry, Gordon O'Connor and Niki Ashton - made it clear that Woodworth's regressive stance wasn't going to get him anywhere. (Though contrary to what so many people said at the time, O'Connor's seems to have been one of the less impressive of the speeches.)

In Brief

In response to Malcolm Allen's order paper questions on a Crop Logistics Working Group, Gerry Ritz helpfully pointed out that the group hadn't accomplished anything and didn't plan to report back to anybody other than Ritz himself. Niki Ashton questioned the Cons' elimination of the Women's Health Contribution Program. Nathan Cullen's Thursday question included a request for an update on the Elections Canada motion the Cons reluctantly accepted a couple of months earlier. Guy Caron again asked for some explanation of the Cons' move to shift an EI processing site from Rimouski to Thetford Mines, and again received nothing approaching a meaningful answer. And Anne Minh-Thu Quach asked why the Cons are doing nothing about obesity as a public health issue.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- No, there was never any doubt that any statement which could possibly be interpreted as insufficiently jingoistic in favour of the oil industry was going to give rise to a backlash from the Cons' oilpatch base. But it's well worth noting that Thomas Mulcair has had little trouble defending his argument that the cost of environmental damage needs to be priced into all industries - and the "polluter pay" principle looks to be one which can stand up to even the most well-orchestrated spokespuppet attack.

- Which stands in stark contrast to the Cons' brand of controversial policy proposal, where we've just learned that they've been suppressing facts for years in an effort to sell unjustified cuts to seniors' retirement security.

- Public Radio International discusses the fair tax movement in Canada, while Barbara Ehrenreich notes that the poor are all too often preyed upon as cash cows rather than human beings as part of corporate calculations.

- Impolitical highlights what looks to be one of the next frontiers in the Cons' oil obsession: offshore Arctic drilling, with all the environmental dangers that figures to create.

- Finally, Bruce Cheadle discusses a report released by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada on the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by political parties.

Parliament in Review - April 23, 2012

Monday, April 23 was the first day back in the House of Commons following the Easter break. And it featured some of the most lively and telling discussion we've seen yet on the Cons' anti-refugee legislation as the second-reading debate reached its end.

The Big Issue

As part of the refugee bill debate, Craig Scott made his first speech as the NDP's MP for Toronto-Danforth. And he wasted no time in showing what he'll add to the NDP's caucus:

One huge difference is that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act requires that a person be a permanent resident before the person is able to sponsor family members, such as the person's spouse, children, or parents, to immigrate to Canada. Thus, under Bill C-31 irregular refugees would have no hope of reuniting with family in Canada for at least five years.

 

Currently, family class applications in this country are often processed at a snail's pace. It is not uncommon for it to take three years for a child or a spouse to be admitted and sometimes up to six years for parents. It is no stretch to say that a refugee who started out as a designated foreign national may have to wait 10 years for family members to join him or her.

 

If that is not enough, a designated foreign national refugee will not even be able to travel outside Canada to spend time with family, for example, in a country other than the country of origin which the refugee fears going back to. Why is that? Bill C-31 decrees that such a refugee will not be given travel documents until he or she becomes a permanent resident, that is, until at least five years have passed, despite the fact that the refugee convention requires that travel documents be issued to refugees once they are “lawfully staying” in the host country. Fortress Canada thus becomes prison Canada for the designated foreign national refugee. If he were still alive, Kafka could not have written Bill C-31 better if he tried.

Other speakers including Kevin Lamoureux also questioned why the Cons are so determined to keep families apart for a period of up to a decade. Kirsty Duncan pointed out how quickly patterns of human rights abuse can emerge and render obsolete the "safe country" designations the Cons want to use to attack refugees' rights. Guy Caron and Andrew Cash criticized the Cons' pattern of placing large amounts of power over individual rights in the hands of unaccountable ministers. Caron also lamented the politicization of refugee claims. Libby Davies highlighted the fact that organizations familiar with refugee issues were lining up against C-31, then observed that the bill would allow the Cons to retroactively attack refugee status if circumstances changed in a new immigrant's country of origin. Elizabeth May asked about the cost of locking up refugees rather than allowing them to contribute to Canadian society. Jinny Sims queried how refugees would take the Cons' admonition to play by the rules seriously when the 300,000 who did so in the current skilled worker program queue are being arbitrarily deleted. Anne Minh-Thu Quach and Massimo Pacetti pointed out that there's plenty of reason why refugees can't be expected to meet the ridiculous requirements placed on them by the Cons.

Meanwhile, for the Cons, Jason Kenney took umbrage at any suggestion that his party wanted to get tough on refugees - only to admit that part of the bill's purpose is deterrence to keep them from coming to Canada. And while Patrick Brown offered a boilerplate defence of a plan to require biometric information from new immigrants, Dan Harris rightly criticized the fact that the Cons were refusing to hear from a committee already assessing the use of biometrics.

But as tends to be the case, the Cons simply decided to ignore every valid criticism of their legislation, and voted down the NDP's proposed amendment before forcing the bill through.
 Pop Quiz

Caron received a response to his order paper question (#489) as to the criteria used to decide to close a processing centre in Rimouski and set one up for the primary benefit of Christian Paradis in Thetford Mines and the reason why the change was made. Your challenge: spot anything in the answer that amounts to an explanation of the decision beyond "because we damn well said so, that's why".

In Brief

Merv Tweed spoke to his bill to prevent Canada Post from hiking rates on books delivered between rural libraries. And the idea received multi-party support - though it's worth asking how Tweed's initial can be reconciled with the Cons' constant demand that Crowns be run as revenue-maximizing businesses or sold off to be turned into just that.

Meanwhile, Malcolm Allen offered a statement on cuts to food inspections through both the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Canada Border Services Agency, then followed up in question period. Francoise Boivin served notice that the NDP won't hesitate to defend a woman's right to choice. Megan Leslie wondered about the minders being sent to accompany civil servants to a conference and report on their activities. Irene Mathyssen's question about how much money was being cut out of OAS was met with Diane Finley's response that her government's attacks on seniors' standard of living have nothing to do with deficit reduction. Carolyn Bennett slammed Leona Aglukkaq for singling out aboriginal health for massive cuts. And Caron asked adjournment questions about the Cons' lack of a realistic plan to foster research and development in Canada, while Jack Harris wondered what exactly the Cons plan to do with the influx of prisoners created by their dumb-on-crime strategy (especially as they indicated they planned to close some facilities).

On tectonic shifts

I haven't spent much time discussing the spate of recent polls showing the NDP with a modest lead on the Cons, as those top-line results can easily enough be considered an expected consequence of a tired government trying to force through controversial legislation against a popular new leader. But CARP's latest member polling demands some comment - as it reflects that the NDP isn't merely holding roughly the level and type of support it had around the time of the 2011 election, but instead adding a potentially decisive new set of voters to its camp.

By way of comparison, even at the height of its campaign support in 2011, the NDP faced a double-digit deficit compared to the Cons among older voters. In effect, the election came down to a clash of younger and change-oriented voters on the side of the NDP against older, stability-oriented voters on the side of the Cons - and a turnout advantage among the latter group allowed the Cons to emerge with a majority.

But now, CARP's poll shows the NDP with a lead approaching double digits among its members (who were substantially more aligned with the Cons as of 2011 than older voters in general). And if the NDP can add that group to its 2011 edge among younger and newer voters, then there may be rather little support left for the Cons to pursue.

And what's more, a strong majority of CARP respondents are outright expecting a change in government in 2015. Which means that even leaving aside the doubts respondents have about the Cons' choice of policies and tactics, the case for "more of the same" looks likely to fall flat among the voters who accepted it just a year ago.

Of course, I'm sure the Cons will come up with some new strategy to scare voters back into their corner. But the fact that the senior base is even in play looks to be awfully dangerous for the Cons - and may serve as the first particularly strong signal that the NDP is in fact well ahead of where it was a year ago.

Parliament in Review - April 3, 2012

Tuesday, April 3, 2012 saw the final day of debate at second reading of the Cons' budget - and once again featured plenty of work by Peter Julian to introduce the types of perspectives the Cons would never tolerate if they could avoid it.

The Big Issue

Once again, Julian focused largely on bringing forward comments and concerns from Canadians on the Cons' budget, featuring such apt observations as this:

I particularly agree with your opposition to raising the retirement age to 67. I am 39 and really hadn't given this issue much thought until I heard you present your case. I've worked in the distribution side of the flooring industry for 17 years. I am not an installer, but many of my customers and friends are. Many flooring installers walk with limps at 45 years old, let alone 67.

They literally spend their workdays on their knees and it takes a toll on their bodies. Most of them are too busy working to get involved in politics. I'll definitely take the time to bring this to their attention. Believe me, just because flooring industry workers look at the floor when we walk into a room doesn't mean we're shy. I always love to hear a compliment on a job well done and always try to thank others for one well done today. The NDP's chances of forming government are greatly bolstered with members like your caucus who all work together with experienced members working as mentors to the younger members of your caucus.

That encouragement for the NDP's effort to ensure that different voices be heard was echoed by plenty more comments. Meanwhile, other citizens noted that he hadn't had a chance to save enough for retirement to make up for the Cons' OAS slashing (in part due to the economic failings of provincial Conservative governments), and worried about how the OAS changes would drive seniors into poverty. Other correspondents emphasized that the Cons don't speak for all Albertans in pushing unregulated oil development as their sole economic priority while criticizing their refusal to listen to constituents; slammed the anti-democratic instinct to have the most important decisions about Canada's future made behind closed doors with no public input, as well as the cuts to Elections Canada in the wake of Robocon; spoke to the value of Katimavik (including the disappointment of students who had planned to participate this year until the Cons pulled the plug); lambasted the Cons' combined attacks on the environmental movement and complete lack of climate change funding or action, while also noting that First Nations and other affected citizens were being left out of their rubber-stamping process; pointed out that we'd be better off eliminating Deficit Jim Flaherty's sea of red ink by encouraging economic growth rather than throwing civil servants out of work;

Meanwhile, Jinny Sims sought consent to table the correspondence the NDP had received and read into the record; needless to say, that was shot down as the Cons tried to hide from Canadians and their concerns as much as possible. Robert Chisholm cheekily suggested that since the budget didn't actually address jobs and development, those concerns probably shouldn't be part of the budget debate. And Julian highlighted the regional job impacts of the Cons' civil service cuts, as well as the dangers of attacking food inspection.

Finally, Julian finished by discussing the CCF/NDP's proud record of pushing for positive social change long before any other party would countenance it, then moving the NDP's budget amendment. And it's surely a sign that the NDP covered all of the important bases that Scott Brison's subamendment was limited to criticizing a lack of cuts to Stephen Harper's pension and office, rather than any policy actually affecting Canadians directly.

Not My Jurisdiction

Andrew Scheer delivered his ruling on Helene Laverdiere's point of privilege on the Cons' refusal to answer written questions (accompanied by a questionable promise to answer at some point in the future). And while he predictably refused to actually do anything about the problem, at least a couple of his observations look like rather compelling indictments of his party's failure to answer the question as it's ostensibly required to:

In the case before us, I can appreciate the member’s frustration with the reply provided. That said, the authorities are clear: the Speaker's role in such matters is extremely limited.
...
(T)he hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie clearly feels aggrieved by the insufficiency of the response she received. I would therefore invite her to raise her concerns about our practice with regard to written questions with the Standing Committee and Procedure and House Affairs as that committee continues with its study of the Standing Orders. Indeed, as your Speaker, in light of the various complaints that have been voiced in the chamber with regard to written questions, from both sides of the House, I would encourage the committee to look closely at our current rules and to assess whether improvements can be made to our current practice to better serve the needs of the House and its members.

In Brief

NDP MPs introduced four private members' bills: Carol Hughes to create a registry of accidents and occupational disease incidents; Jinny Sims to meet Canada's longstanding commitment to foreign aid funding of 0.7% of GNI; and Joe Comartin to reintroduce judicial discretion in the face of mandatory minimums and to modernize our laws against cruelty to animals.

Meanwhile, Scott Simms spoke to his bill to allow bi-weekly payment of CPP and OAS benefits. Alain Giguere noted that the absence of an increase in benefits would limit what the bill would do for seniors, but Wayne Marston indicated the NDP's support for choice as to how benefits would be delivered - even if that was largely moot given the Cons' refusal to countenance any benefit to seniors which might involve public service jobs.

Rosane Dore Lefebvre highlighted Invisible Work Day as a much-needed opportunity to recognize how much important work doesn't count in GDP figures. Dan Harris discussed the links between the Cons, their sketchy American election contractors and their lack of interest in questioning corporate think tank funding gathered by those exact same operators. Olivia Chow questioned cuts to airline safety, while Irene Mathyssen pointed out that the elimination of the National Council on Welfare figures to cover up the consequences of the Cons' attack on OAS and Laverdiere asked why Rights and Democracy had been trashed rather than being restored to its pre-Con level of respect and prestige. And finally in adjournment proceedings Mathyssen pointed out the Cons' sad track record of gender disparity in judicial appointment committees (and subsequent appointments), while Andrew Cash highlighted that "why don't they just buy a house of their own?" isn't a valid answer to Canadians who can't find or afford rental housing?

Parliament in Review - April 2, 2012

Monday, April 2 saw the second day of Peter Julian's extended budget speech. And perhaps the point most worth noting is how many Canadians outside of Parliament took the opportunity have their voices heard in the budget debate.

The Big Issue

So let's focus this review on some of the input Julian received from across the country about the Cons' budget, including this on the demolition of the National Council on Welfare:

Another, from Sault Ste. Marie, wrote, “Very sad, as a statement at home and in the world. They also shut down the National Council of Welfare because they do not want anyone reporting on how much poverty there really is. This is amazing, to think they will actually get away with this. First, the dissolution of Stats Canada, then an attack on organizations, both at home and internationally, that actually advocate on behalf of those at risk. Now substantial cuts to aid and the demise of the National Council on Welfare.”

Mr. Speaker, if you are wondering why we are spending hours criticizing the mean-spirited decisions by the government, I think that particular Facebook posting shows to what extent Canadians feel the same way. The decisions are ideologically based. They are not based on the character and values that Canadians share.

That commentary in turn led into Julian's own entirely justified criticism of the Cons' attacks on research organizations.

Another comment focused on the different standard being applied to the oil sector compared to most other parts of Canada's economy:

A person from Ontario says: “Why do believers in free market continue to feel that oil companies need subsidies from their own government? Somehow, I don't think that environmental assessments are going to stop the oil companies from taking their equipment and going home. Let them work on their own dimes and make sure that they are responsible to the environment and there are adequate environmental assessments”.

A couple of correspondents from the Cons' Alberta home base criticized the Harper government, one for its impending cuts to Old Age Security and the other for its poor economic management:

A constituent in Calgary said, “At its worst, this new policy really is a massive insult to seniors. A cynic might even say that the statisticians have crunched the numbers and realized that a few hundred, or even a thousand, people may die between 65 and 67 while waiting for their pension, and they like that idea. Then Canada would not have to pay them pensions at all. It's like saying 'cross my heart and hope you die'. Nobody knows how long they will live, but it is odd to have a government betting on you delaying reaping benefits for all those years of your earnings to the point that maybe you won't be able to reap any benefits at all”.

The actuarial tables show, tragically, the rate of passing on between the ages of 65 and 67 does go up. It is true that as a result of the government's decision for future seniors, seniors who have worked all their lives to retire at 65 will either live in poverty from ages 65 to 67 because they have no other source of funding and cannot get their pension, or they may pass on. That is just the sad reality.

A constituent in Lacombe, Alberta said, “The budget points to the Prime Minister's great fear of anything that looks like work. I can agree with the Prime Minister that Canada may be financially better off than Greece; however, I would temper that joy with the reminder of how far behind we are of countries like Finland, Norway and other involved Nordic countries. We have fallen far behind. Those who voted for the Prime Minister with expectations of the good fiscal management he suggested he possessed must be very disappointed when cutting spending rather than growing the Canadian economy is his answer for the Conservatives to continue to hold power”.

A paramedic expressed disbelief at the expectation that citizens engaged in difficult physical labour could be expected to keep working until age 67:

A paramedic in Ontario, wrote, “I am a paramedic. I serve the public. That's my life, for the good and the bad. I carry sick people down multiple flights of stairs. I get their respiratory illnesses. I put my life in harm's way for Canadians so they may live longer and with less pain and agony. Do you have any idea what I do in an average day of work? I've been in the business for 21 years now. At the present age of 45, I dream of retirement and hopefully may be able to do so with my health still intact. Prime Minister, you have just made that dream slip further into the future, raising the retirement age to 67. So at the ripe age of 66 and 11 months, I will carry many people younger than I down several flights of stairs. I will get ill from them, with less ability to recuperate at that age, and will still put myself in harm's way. Many other public-based occupations of the same nature and some with less adverse outcomes, the police and fire and even prison guards, are the workers who can retire, but I'll work 42 years in my occupation, thanks to you. Before this last budget it was only 40 years. How can I express my gratitude with you?”

He says that ironically. This paramedic knows now that as a result of the government's actions he will be forced to work two years longer. This is the point we have been making all along. The government is forcing those in manual occupations to work longer. Whether they are paramedics, carpenters or manual labourers, they have given for years and years and years. They have given all they can and they are looking to that date when they can finally put their body into retirement and heal from years of manual work.

A Conservative constituent in Nepean-Carlton expressed equal concern about the increased retirement age:

I would like to go to Nepean-Carleton since we are staying in the Ottawa region. A constituent in this Conservative-held riding say this: “OAS will leave me pretty much in the same boat. Not been working and contributing to CPP due to raising children and then due to a disability, I am a person that will need the OAS. My long-term disability through a private insurer will come to an end at age 65. I don't qualify for Ontario disability benefits. I just heard on CBC that I said to contact the nearest NDP MP. My MP is a Conservative. My question is about the delay of CPP. Currently I am receiving long-term disability benefits until I reach 65 but I didn't qualify for CPP disability. Now I won't be eligible for CPP until 67. How am I supposed to live two years with very little income? How many others will be in my situation? Thanks to the NDP for allowing me to reach out to someone other than my own MP”.

Another citizen noted that while the Cons point to increased retirement ages elsewhere, they conveniently omit the fact that Canada's retirement age is set to be pushed far higher than in comparable countries around the globe. Plenty wrote in with their own stories, experiences and discussions as to the impact of Katimavik (which the Cons of course plan to trash). And perhaps the most succinct question about the Cons' overall philosophy can be found here...

Another (person) writes, “Since when do we accommodate poverty as opposed to try to prevent it?”

So what was the point of Julian's extended address, featuring in particular plenty of concerns from constituents of Con MPs who may not see any hope that the government will listen to them? Well, here's his own explanation:

It is no secret that what we are trying to do is to make the case against this budget step by step, brick by brick, by raising constituents' concerns in ridings that are represented by Conservative MPs. I do not think anything could be clearer than to have all of these letters, tweets and Facebook comments flooding in, all of which address Conservative members of Parliament. In all cases, they are saying, “My Conservative MP is not representing me if he or she votes for this budget”. I think that is a very important thing to underscore, that what we are doing through the course of this debate is establishing the case that, effectively, Canadians living in Conservative ridings are making their voices known.

 

If I were a Conservative MP, with a bad budget like this that will guarantee fewer jobs, less growth, less prosperity, I would think twice and say, “Hold on. My constituents are reacting. They are reacting to all of the various components of this agenda. Maybe I have to think twice”. Perhaps we will see, over the course of the debate, Conservative MPs standing and saying, “I'm going to represent my constituents. I'm going to vote against this budget because this budget is not good for families in my riding and not good for the country”.

 

Maybe we will see that. As we read out these letters coming from across the country from Conservative-held ridings, maybe we will see Conservative MPs standing and saying, “We're going to vote for what's good for the country. We're voting against this budget. We're going to vote for a budget that actually creates jobs”.

 

One might say that is absurd and that a Conservative MP would never do that. However, when we think back, a few years ago no one would have said there would be 102 strong NDP MPs representing constituents right across this country from coast to coast to coast. It was not impossible because we believed that we could get things done and represent our constituents strongly.

In Brief

In the other main debate of the day, Elaine Michaud moved a motion on TCE groundwater contamination caused on the Valcartier military base and the municipality of Shannon. Chris Alexander agreed in principle as to the problem while claiming that talking about it made for sufficient action, while Francis Scarpaleggia tied the motion into wider water issues. And Alexandrine Latendresse discussed the history of TCE use - which should serve as a reminder as to why dumping chemicals into the environment without knowing about their potential effects is a dangerous path.

Meanwhile, Thomas Mulcair asked for a yes-or-no answer as to whether the Cons would use what they had said were sufficient tools to save jobs at Aveos; Peter Van Loan wasn't willing to admit that "no" is the Cons' response. Libby Davies criticized cuts to Health Canada, while Helene LeBlanc questioned why the National Research Canada was being turned into a Business Depot. Marc Garneau was incredulous at the Cons' attacks on Elections Canada. Megan Leslie asked the Cons to admit that they have no interest in a real hearing into the Gateway pipeline, while Romeo Saganash pointed out that the anticipated refusal to deal with concerns about development would only create years of litigation to come. Peggy Nash wondered why the Cons lost interest in a non-partisan Public Appointments Commission after having funded it for years, while Alexandre Boulerice noted that the move eases the way for yet more patronage from the Cons themselves. Glenn Thibeault and Pierre Dionne Labelle slammed an anticipated increase in pay phone rates at the behest of Bell. Carol Hughes followed up on Julian's budget speech by questioning why the Cons are determined to hide the findings of the National Council on Welfare showing that investment to reduce poverty would more than pay for itself.

Finally, in response to Peter Kent's claim that we don't need groups like the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy due to other groups providing similar services over the Internet, Kirsty Duncan helpfully queried whether Kent could name just one. Needless to say, Kent could not.

Parliament in Review - March 29, 2012

There's been much ado about the NDP's position on trade agreements based on the Cons' recent publicly-funded cheerleading for free trade at any price. But for anybody looking for the NDP's actual view on trade, the House of Commons debates from March 29 offer a rather thorough indication.

The Big Issue

That's thanks to a Parliamentary debate on the Cons' legislation to implement a free trade agreement with Panama. And the NDP made clear that it's willing to reasonably review and support trade agreements in general - but that it won't be bullied into backing deals that give preferential treatment to tax havens and serve to attack international labour rights.

Hoang Mai and Laurin Liu emphasized the former concern when it came to Panama. Helene Laverdiere focused on the Cons' refusal to insist on a tax information exchange agreement as part of the package, while noting that the NDP didn't have similar concerns about a deal with Jordan. (Incidentally, Con MP Mike Wallace recognized that distinction as well - which only shows how dishonest the Cons have been in their recent push to claim the NDP opposes trade of any kind.) And Jinny Sims rightly pointed out that if we're interested in doing anything about tax havens, we need to incorporate that concern into a free trade agreement at the outset - rather than rewarding a bad actor with preferential treatment then hoping for something to change without our doing anything.

On the labour side, Lois Brown pointed to a checklist of as labour rights attached as an unenforceable schedule as justifying pushing through the deal without any further review. But Chris Charlton rightly shot back that a statement of principles isn't the same thing as the binding investor rights forced into the agreement. Jean Crowder pointed out that workers in both countries stand to suffer from the deal, while Dennis Bevington lamented the Cons' determination to lead a race to the bottom.

But the best overall statement of the NDP's position came from Don Davies:

Trade allows goods and services that are within the productive capacity or local expertise or resources of one country to be exchanged with those of another. That is why I can say certainly on behalf of the New Democrats that we believe trade is good. We believe it is desirable. We believe it is critical to our economy.

 

The question that should be raised with respect to any trade deal is the terms on which that trade ought to be conducted. Are there any principles, policies or rules that should be applied when Canadians consider the exchange of goods and services out of our country and the entrance of goods and services into our country?

...

(W)e believe that we should have a policy that pursues well-managed trade, not free trade, not a closed approach to trade, but fair trade. That is the approach to trade this party has taken every since the free trade debates opened up in this country some decades ago.


Why do we take this position? We believe that Canadians do not want goods and services that use child labour to enter Canada. We do not want goods and services that are the product of destructive environmental practices to enter this country. Canadians do not want goods coming to this country from countries that have very poor human rights records. Canadians do not want goods and services to enter this country when those goods and services come from an economy that is so fundamentally different from ours, with such lower standards that it actually hurts Canadian employers' ability to compete.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth May noted that the Panama deal figured to influence only a minimal amount of trade, then commented on the dangers of investor-state provisions which allow wealthy corporations to dictate government policy. Megan Leslie wondered whether the dealings between Canada and Panama would set up an exploitative relationship. Pat Martin observed that to the extent there is a disparity in influence, Canada's clout should allow it to help to elevate conditions in the smaller country rather than accepting that our employers will have to compete with Panama's wages and living conditions. Mathieu Ravignat noted that some Canadian companies have exploited workers and countries around the world, and that there's no value in defending the indefensible based on misplaced patriotism. Crowder criticized the Cons' secrecy in negotiating free trade agreements generally. Sims proposed a focus on multilateral rather than bilateral trade agreements. And Chris Charlton neatly summed up the Cons' position as "having espoused the principles of...robber barons".

In Brief

The other legislation debated on the day was the Cons' military justice bill. Jack Harris pointed out that the Cons had once again shredded agreements reached between multiple parties in the previous Parliament in order to dictate the terms of the legislation, while Chris Alexander then had the nerve to demand that the NDP approve the unilaterally-dictated legislation without debate. And Raymond Cote raised a concern about summary trials for minor offences resulting in a criminal record, while the Cons' "dumb on crime" posturing - including a refusal to distinguish between military and civilian crimes - apparently took precedence over "support the troops" when it came to their position on the rights of military defendants.

Meanwhile, Sean Casey rendered Steven Blaney redundant by anticipating his talking points to try to excuse repeated violations of veterans' privacy. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe and Wayne Marston both noted that the OECD, the PBO and the Government of Canada's chief actuary had all rejected the Cons' spin that there was any need at all to cut Old Age Security, and asked why the Cons would plunge seniors into poverty by choice. In light of the Cons' plans to push through a pipeline owned by PetroChina, May asked when we could expect a national security test for foreign investment. Joe Comartin's Thursday question nicely framed a few of the bills which hadn't found their way before Parliament for some time. And finally, while Jim Flaherty's budget speech received plenty of attention, his attempt to excuse OAS cuts based on their being "far away" rather than, say, remotely justifiable as a matter of public policy looks to have deserved a bit more.