Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Shannon Gormley points out how the Cons' actions to strip voting rights from Canadians abroad sticks out like a sore thumb compared to an international trend of recognizing that citizenship doesn't end merely because a person crosses a border. And Peter Russell and Semra Sevi lament that it's too late to reverse the damage before this fall's federal election, while the Star makes the broader point that we should be encouraging rather than limiting voter participation.

- Andrew Nikiforuk exposes how the U.S.'s green light to fracking has led to far more dangerous "shallow fracking" than anticipated - though it shouldn't come as much surprise that a poorly-regulated industry would engage in more risky practices than it would if public safety was properly taken into account.

- Ben Makuch reports that Stephen Harper is spending hundreds of millions of dollars for its own Star Wars program even as he denounces any suggestion of using public money to actually help people.

- Meanwhile, Jo Snyder makes the case for pharmacare as a means of reducing inequality. And Don Cayo notes that it's equally viable as a matter of economic policy.

- Finally, the Star argues that the Cons' economic spin consists of nothing but smoke and mirrors, while L. Ian McDonald sees it as more of a matter of theatre. And the CP reports on yet another month of economic decline on Stephen Harper's watch.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Dr. Dawg highlights Peter Russell's take on the Cons' 2008 efforts to prevent a Parliamentary majority from actually exercising its right to vote down a government which had lost the confidence of the House of Commons. And Steven Chase follows up by noting the role that the Cons' smear machine may have played in subverting Canadian democracy.

- Meanwhile, Bruce Cox discusses how a longstanding democratic crisis has led us to the verge of environmental disaster. And as Scott points out, there's plenty of room for matters to get worse when our federal government is actively looking for ways to encourage and facilitate pollution - to which I'll add that the Cons' deliberate steps to avoid telling the truth about hazardous substances aren't hugely promising either.

- Nobel laureate Paul Krugman's blog and columns are among my must-reads - so I often presume that readers will be familiar with his take on economics. But for anybody looking for a handy starting point on Krugman's recent work, Heather Mallick provides it while reviewing End This Depression Now.

- Finally, Erin agrees with the take that we shouldn't let anybody siphon resource wealth out of Saskatchewan - but points out that it's the Saskatchewan Party's low-royalty, multi-loophole system that's actually draining money out of our province.

Saturday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Saturday reading.

- If it weren't for Stephen Harper's attempts to unilaterally rewrite Canada's constitution to fit his current political interests, we wouldn't need a reminder what the rules actually are in an election where no party wins a majority. But since a refresher is in order, Peter Russell provides it:

Until Parliament meets, we won’t know who has its confidence – and commanding the confidence of the House is the licence to govern in our system of parliamentary government. Mr. Harper has the right to carry on as Prime Minister whether or not his party has more seats than the Liberals but only as a “caretaker government” that can take no initiatives. It would be intolerable if Mr. Harper were to follow the example of Joe Clark, who, after the May 22, 1979, election, formed a minority Conservative government but then waited until Sept. 10, 140 days after the election, to test whether his government had the confidence of the House.

When the House does meet and no party has a majority, there are basically three ways of forming a government. First, the Conservatives can simply carry on as a minority government hoping to win support, issue by issue, from opposition MPs. Second, either the Conservatives or the party that finishes second in seat numbers can form a legislative alliance with one or more other parties that would agree to support them on the basis of a shared legislative program. Such an agreement between David Peterson’s Liberals (who finished second to Frank Miller’s Conservatives) and Bob Rae’s NDP gave Ontario a stable minority after the 1985 provincial election. In this option, the parties supporting a Liberal or NDP government would not have cabinet positions. The third option is a coalition government in which two or more parties form a government and share cabinet posts.
...
If the Conservatives don’t win a majority on Monday, Mr. Harper isn’t likely to try to form a coalition government or make a legislative alliance with any opposition party. So what would happen if his government fails to win the support of any opposition party when the House meets in late May or early June and is defeated on the Speech from the Throne?

At this point, constitutionally, Mr. Harper has two options. He could resign and advise the Governor-General to invite the leader of the party with the second-largest number of seats, either Michael Ignatieff or Jack Layton, to form a government. Or he could advise the Governor-General to dissolve Parliament and call another election.

It’s the second case that lands us in a “constitutional crisis” similar to the Byng-King affair of 1926. The principal that the Governor-General must be guided by in considering Mr. Harper’s request is that a prime minister’s advice (even if the prime minister has lost a confidence vote in the House) should be rejected only if doing so is necessary to protect the integrity of our parliamentary system. Calling an election, the fifth in seven years, just a few weeks after the last election when there’s a plausible alternative government that can command the confidence of the new Parliament may well be such a situation.

- Chandra Pasma nicely lays out the opportunity costs of continued corporate tax slashing:

Health care is at the top of the list for issues many Canadians worry about. If we invested $3 billion in health care, we could create more than 54,000 jobs, while the effect on GDP would be in the range of $4.8 billion. We would also have improvements in health care, such as possible reductions in wait times, more family doctors, and more access to specialized equipment.

Canada currently has an affordable-housing emergency, as identified by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Housing. Investing $3 billion in affordable housing could result in more than 47,000 new jobs and a $4.5-billion increase in GDP. Many of the 1.5 million Canadian households in core housing need (with housing that does not meet standards of adequacy, affordability, and suitability) would also have access to safer, more appropriate, and more affordable housing.

More than one in 10 Canadians live in poverty. In 2008, the poverty gap – the amount of money needed to bring everyone in Canada up to the poverty line – was $13.1 billion. If the $3 billion were transferred directly to low-income Canadians through the tax system as a guaranteed annual income, it could generate nearly 56,000 new jobs and a $5.1-billion increase in GDP. It would also reduce poverty by nearly 25 per cent, bringing new-found dignity and security to the lives of many who struggle with the day-to-day challenges of putting food on the table and paying the rent.

Now it is true that the Finance Department, like Jack Mintz, suggests that the benefits of corporate tax cuts will kick in over the long term. But remember, tax cuts happen annually. So this $3 billion investment is not a one-time thing – we are choosing where to invest our $3 billion every year. So while we are waiting for our 100,000 jobs to materialize from business tax cuts at the end of seven years, we could have invested $21 billion in physical or social infrastructure.

- Meanwhile, Erin highlights the conclusion of the Conference Board of Canada that our past corporate tax cuts haven't produced the investment benefits that are supposed to justify their existence. And thwap is rather less restrained in calling out the corporatist spin.

- Trish Hennessy releases a special version of her Numbers in advance of Monday's election.

- Finally, the Leader-Post editorial board weighs in on the importance of voting:

The best reason to vote is not out of fear or starry-eyed idealism (though that is not unimportant), but out of enlightened self-interest.

Many Canadians fought long and hard in the past to widen the franchise because they understood the desirability of having a government chosen by as many people as possible, rather than a few. Canadians defended this concept, even at the cost of their lives.

Put simply, this country and its political system work best when as many Canadians as possible take a part in the construction of future governments.

Canada bestows many benefits on its citizens. Paying it back by voting is a small price to pay for what we have been given. Voting is a good thing for a citizen to take.

But embarrassingly enough, George Jonas and Lawrence Solomon are both working hard to suppress the vote.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted material for your Friday reading.

- The latest in great polling news: EKOS has the NDP building on its previous support levels, making 30% nationally and 40% in Quebec into the new normal. Nanos suggests the highest NDP vote share yet at 31%, with the possibility of moving much higher if the party can break a statistical tie with the Libs in Ontario. And CROP has the NDP winning multiple seats from the Cons' Quebec base in Quebec City, and even reaching a dead heat in the Louis-Saint-Laurent riding where Josee Verner has previously won up to 58% of the vote.

- Chris Cobb offers an explanation for the NDP's orange crush:

(T)he pundits all underestimated the Tao of Jack and his Walking Stick — the crutch that has become a Churchillian-like symbol brandished with increased frequency in Layton's public battles against his political enemies.
...
"He struck an emotional chord just by the way he faced up to his setbacks and went about his work. He appeared in the House of Commons after his hip surgery and showed he was a fighter. People developed an emotional relationship with him that wasn't there before."
...
Crucially, added Gauthier, the walking stick has helped Layton differentiate himself from other leaders, especially Stephen Harper.

"In many ways, he has become the foil to Harper," he said. "His body language is different, his appearance is different, and his voice and language is different.

"You have one leader (Layton) reaching into crowds and talking to people versus another whose handlers have barricaded him. The contrast in image between the two is quite remarkable."

- All of which helps to explain why it's being noted that the Cons can't beat the NDP on personality. (Though the Cons' efforts to avoid demonstrating any may have something to do with that as well.)

- Meanwhile, John Geddes highlights an Innovative Research poll to the effect that the NDP has done nothing but bolster its standing both on individual issues and on general appeal to the middle class:

Early in the election, 31 per cent rated the Conservatives “somewhat better” or “much better” for the middle class, 25 per cent preferred the Liberals, and 23 per cent the NDP. By the Easter long weekend, the Tories were down slightly to 29 per cent, the Liberals off about five points to 20 per cent, and Layton’s NDP up a very substantial 10 point to 33 per cent—vaulting into top spot.
...
On impressions of Layton’s underlying attributes, Quebecers also seem to have warmed to him the most. On which leader they associate with “strong leadership,” Layton’s score rose to 31 per cent in Quebec from 14 per cent near the start of the campaign. In the rest of Canada, the climb was to 22 per cent from 14 per cent. Similarly, Layton’s image on attributes like “having the best plan” and “caring about people like me” rose smartly in Canada as a whole, but more markedly in Quebec.

When it came to probing voter attitudes on specific issues, the NDP made big gains during the campaign on protecting the middle class—a major thrust of Latyon’s stump-speech rhetoric and his party’s TV ads—and on understanding the needs of “people like me,” maintaining high ethical standards, and health care.

- The Star offers a pre-endorsement of its own, rightly concluding that the Cons shouldn't receive another term in government.

- And finally, as many others have noted, Peter Russell goes much further in condemning the Harper Cons for their belief that Parliamentary crime pays:



[Edit: Added Nanos result.]

On alternative avenues

I don't remember hearing this particular theory from Peter Russell (cited in Lawrence Martin's Harperland at p. 158) before Stephen Harper pulled the plug on Parliament to precipitate the 2008 federal election. But it seems to be worth noting in light of the possibility of the Cons breaking their fixed election date law once again:

A heap of criticism was visited upon the PM (for calling the election), especially from those who knew the details of the legislation. Others, however, concluded that because his was a minority government, the fixed-election law couldn't really apply. Some constitutional experts believed the governor general could have refused to grant Harper the election call. That would have been especially true, observed Peter Russell of the University of Toronto, if the opposition parties had been prepared to offer a coalition alternative. They weren't, however, and so Michaelle Jean acquiesced to the PM's wishes.

Canada held hostage

While I don't share the concern others have with Peter Russell's revelation that Michaelle Jean decided to grant Stephen Harper's 2008 prorogation request only after securing key promises from Harper, today's news about some of the other considerations taken into account looks to be downright scary:

In fact, though, Jean did believe there was a Plan B and that it did involve going over the head of the governor general — not to the Queen, but to the Canadian people, as loyal Harper cabinet minister John Baird had warned in a CBC-TV interview. Plan B, Jean and her constitutional advisers believed, would involve a direct, public-relations assault on the legitimacy of the governor general and her decision. That, and not an appeal to the Queen, was far more concerning to Jean on Dec. 4, 2008.

Peter Russell, the distinguished constitutional scholar at the University of Toronto, was one of the experts summoned to Rideau Hall that day and one of the rare ones to say publicly that he was there.

In the back of his cab, coming from the airport to Rideau Hall, Russell only needed to look out the window to see Plan B in action. Demonstrators, holding signs denouncing the coalition, had amassed outside Jean's residence while she was meeting with Harper.

“You can imagine how that would have escalated,” Russell said in an interview this week. “It would have embroiled the country in a constitutional crisis” — one that would have tested Canadians' faith in the entire system of government, including the institution of governor general. The Conservatives' use of the term “coup d'état” was especially worrying, Russell said.

Russell said this wasn't the only consideration in Jean's decision to grant Harper's request, but it was an important part of the context — one that hasn't been discussed publicly so far in the wake of the prorogation.

Now, it would be problematic enough if the small number of paid Con staffers who showed up to "protest" at the GG's residence were able to exert any meaningful influence on a determination as to whether or not Canada's elected representatives would be permitted to carry out a confidence vote. But from Russell's current take, it sounds like the fears went far beyond that, with Jean making her decision in order to avoid an assault on her own position as well as the Cons' promises of chaos if they didn't get their way.

Which might be defensible if the fears were based on any outcry actually originating in the general public, rather than the Cons' strategy of whipping up as much of a frenzy as possible. But as events played out, a party which lied to Canadians about the nature of their democratic system and threatened to make the country unliveable if it faced a democratic vote in the House of Commons was ultimately rewarded for its willingness to tear Canada apart. And it's hard to see how the temporary conflict avoidance achieved by Harper's prorogation - whether framed in terms of the role of the GG alone or the wider threat of party-based protest - is worth the long-term cost of a precedent that a governing party which lacks legitimacy can cling to power by threatening to torch the country.

On conditional reprieves

It's a definite plus to see both the advice Peter Russell gave to Michaelle Jean during the Con-fabricated 2008 constitutional crisis, and the fact that Jean was able to secure at least a couple of concessions from Stephen Harper - including a commitment to reconvene Parliament quickly rather than ruling by fiat while shuttering the House of Commons indefinitely:

(Peter) Russell said Harper made at least two important commitments: that Parliament would return soon, and that his government would then produce a budget that could pass.
...
Russell, a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Toronto, said the prime minister's promises had a large influence on Jean, and he cautioned Canadians against seeing her decision to grant Harper's request for prorogation as a rubber stamp.

"I think they were extremely important in her weighing all the factors on both sides of the question," Russell said.

"For instance, if Mr. Harper had made no pledge to meet Parliament early, if he said well, he thought his financial position, which had been so badly received in the House, was terrific and he wasn't going to make any changes, I think she would have probably had to make the decision the other way."
...
Russell's revelation suggests the meeting that day was a negotiation in which the Governor General wielded considerable power.

"She made it clear these reserve powers of the Governor General may sometimes be used in ways that are contrary to the advice of an incumbent prime minister," Russell said.

"Because if the contrary was the case, any PM could, at any time, for any reason, not only dissolve Parliament, but prorogue it for any length of time for any reason. We wouldn't have parliamentary government. We would have prime ministerial government."

But I have to wonder whether Russell's revelation sheds some light on the events of the following winter as well. Might Harper's late-2009 request for prorogation by phone then have served not only to create a precedent in favour of the prime ministerial government which Harper is so eager to impose, but also as a form of personal payback for Jean's earlier message that she wouldn't give total deference to the PM's anti-democratic whims?