In plain sight

Robyn Urback is rightly concerned about the lack of discussion of Quebec's systematic discrimination by most of Canada's federal parties - only to gloss over the strong position taken by Jagmeet Singh and the NDP.

Matt Gurney laments the lack of a remotely reasonable climate debate between the Libs and Cons, while failing to mention the NDP's New Deal at all.

And Neil MacDonald complains about an election based on mudslinging between the Libs and Cons, while only noting in passing that the NDP is offering meaningful solutions to the social ills those parties are ignoring.

If only there were some pattern as to how this fall's election might produce results Canadians actually want - and how the media can advance the discussion past the cynical politics of Trudeau and Scheer.

Tuesday Evening Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Aditya Chakrabortty discusses how UK Labour is pursuing genuine and positive class politics by promising to ensure that workers have a share in both the decision-making and the spoils of major corporations.

- Duncan Cameron offers a reminder of the lack of any meaningful distinction between the Libs and Cons on many points, including their ultimate devotion to capital over people. And Tamara Khandaker discusses the Trudeau Libs' choice to sign on to a U.S. declaration renewing the deadly "war on drugs", even as the Global Commission on Drug Policy calls for responsible controls through legalization and regulation.

- Kelsey Litwin reports on new research measuring the effect human-caused ozone depletion and greenhouse gas emissions have had on the warming of Antarctic waters - and showing that their impact exceeds that of all other causes. Josh Gabbatiss reports on a new study documenting how lobbying funded by fossil fuel money has overwhelmed U.S. politics. And Carl Meyer notes that scientists haven't yet begun to quantify the damage Donald Trump is inflicting with his administration's climate-destroying policies, while Marieke Walsh writes that it's not too soon for Ontario's Environment Commissioner to weigh in on Doug Ford's destruction.

- Meanwhile, Trish Hennessy and Ricardo Tranjan highlight how a Ford-ordered report is purely an ideological excuse for austerity to come, rather than an honest or reasonable assessment of Ontario's finances.

- Finally, Paul Krugman discusses how Republicans aren't even pretending to be able to defend their policies.

New column day

Here, on how the Libs' criminal justice bill (Bill C-75) is aimed solely at speed rather than fairness - and seems likely to fail even by that insufficient metric.

For further reading...
- Others weighing in on the bill include Omar Ha-Redeye, Michael Spratt, Stephanie DiGiuseppe, Sarah Leamon and Joanna Smith.
- And it's particularly worth contrasting the lack of any action on minimum sentences (coupled with many increases in maximum sentences) against Jody Wilson-Raybould's apparent mandate.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Louis-Philippe Rochon writes that while American voters had to know what they'd get in casting their most recent ballots, far too many Canadians may have believed the Libs' promises of something else:

On this side of the 49th parallel, however, when Canadians elected Trudeau a little over 15 months ago, on Oct. 19, 2015, we were led to believe he was some sort of a progressive politician with respect to social and economic issues, which essentially is what got him elected.

What a difference a year makes.

In recent months Trudeau has behaved very little like a progressive economist and has instead embraced with great fanfare some oddly conservative policies. In doing so, has Trudeau revealed himself to be a conservative wolf in liberal clothing? If so, it would appear the fix is in: Canadians voted for one guy but got another.  It was the classic political bait and switch: the great Canadian hoodwink.
...
[Under a privatized structure,] any infrastructure project will easily cost twice as much over a 30-year period. In other words, for any project, Canadian taxpayers will end up holding the fiscal bag through higher fees and taxes, whereas the government could finance the project at much cheaper rates. This makes no economic sense, which raises the question, is the government doing this simply as a way of thanking their financial supporters?

There is a more sinister argument looming under all this, and it regards the role of public spending and the privatization of the state. Indeed, with all these musings about privatizing airports, ports and public spending, Trudeau is in fact championing the privatization of the state itself, robbing it further of its powers to create jobs and regulate unstable markets. This is clearly not what Canadians were expecting when they elected him last year.

- Christopher Majka highlights how Justin Trudeau's choice to break a core promise on electoral reform can only be explained by his taking Canadian voters for fools, while Scott Baker and Mark Dance write that it's bound to fuel voter cynicism. Tom Parkin discusses Trudeau's dishonesty on the issue, while Lawrence Martin emphasizes the damage the decision will do to Trudeau's core brand. And Karl Nerenberg points out how the retention of first-past-the-post is a gift to the right wing.

- Meanwhile, Michael Taube rightly observes that the Liberals' choice to nix electoral reform doesn't mean the issue will disappear. And Michael Morden and Michael Crawford Urban comment on the need for improved voter turnout as a means of ensuring better governance.

- Jugal Patel reports on a giant crack in Antarctica's ice shelf as yet another vivid reminder of the drastic effects of climate change.

- Finally, Andre Picard rightly questions why the Quebec City mosque massacre hasn't led to a discussion of gun control.

New column day

Here, on how a recent spate of announcements signals that contrary to their campaign commitments in both theme and detail, there's been little difference between the Trudeau Liberals and the Harper Conservatives in substance.

For further reading...
- The point is one being made by plenty of other observers as well in various contexts, including Ross Belot, Karen Mahon, Terry Milewski, Jeremy Nuttall, Lawrence Martin and Tom Parkin.
- By way of a reminder, the Libs' election platform is here (PDF), and my review of it is here.
- For more on the individual stories, Laura Payton reports on the Libs' decision that Stephen Harper's emission targets are good enough for them, as well as on Jane Philpott's announcement that the Cons' health funding levels won't be revisited. And on the former point, Derrick O'Keefe laments the Libs' liquid natural gas "carbon bomb", while on the latter the Council of Canadians calls out the lack of action toward a national prescription drug plan.
- Andrew Kuraja reports on the Site C permit approval, while Jorge Barrera contrasts that position against Jody Wilson-Raybould's supposedly committed activism against the very same project.
- Kristy Kirkup reports on the Libs' delay in complying with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's orders on services for on-reserve children.
- And finally, Alison Crawford reports on Wayne Smith's decision to resign as Statistics Canada's Chief Statistician due to political meddling in its operations.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Saqib Bhatti and Stephen Lerner point out that the struggle for power between labour and capital is far from over, and that the next step may be to engage on wider questions of economic control:

For too long most unions defined their mission narrowly as winning higher wages and benefits for unionized workers without challenging how companies were managed or how capital was invested and controlled. Unions accepted that it was management’s job to run companies and the broader economy, and that the unions’ primary job was to get as much as possible for their members.

This still dominates labor’s thinking: we focus on income inequality but not wealth inequality; we focus on how to raise the bottom, but not how to stop wealth from concentrating at the top; we deal with our direct employers, but not those who really control the broader socioeconomic conditions in which our members work and their families live.

We have bought into the notion that the boss is entitled to endless profits and should be allowed to have control of the business and the economy as long as our members win incremental improvements in every contract. But that bargain no longer works.
...
(U)nions don’t typically enter into negotiations with the investors. They deal with their direct employer, even though in many major companies investors, even the CEOs, are ultimately constrained by the pressures put on them by investors.

Unions need to start looking to these actors higher up the food chain, to the people who control the money in the public sector as well as the private sector.

In the public sector, state and local officials accurately decry the fact that there is not enough money in public coffers to properly fund public services. However, the reason why there isn’t enough money is that corporations and the wealthy have waged a sustained war on taxes over the past forty years to avoid paying more.

Increasingly, these corporations are owned by Wall Street investors seeking to cut taxes in order to increase their return on investment. These wealthy few have a large part of their wealth tied up in the financial sector.

By trying to squeeze pennies out of public officials while letting the billionaires and bankers off the hook, public-sector unions are fighting with one hand tied behind their back.

- Gabriel Winant also offers a noteworthy look at the state of the U.S.' labour movement. And Tom Parkin points out how a larger self-identified working class may be an increasingly important force in Canadian politics, while Sid Ryan comments on the state of the relationship between Canadian labour and the NDP.

- Mersiha Gadzo identifies plenty of the ways in which Justin Trudeau has combined a sunny disposition with the same dark actions we'd expect from the Harper Cons. But Nora Loreto argues that progressive activists will need to develop new strategies to address Trudeau rather than Harper.

- Finally, Sir Michael Marmot discusses the social causes of economic inequality, while pointing out the need to ensure a greater focus on all social determinants of health.

Sunday Morning Links

Assorted content for your Sunday reading.

- Louis-Philippe Rochon highlights why we need governments at all levels to be working on stimulating Canada's economy, not looking to cut back:

The bank was referring to what economists call "secular stagnation": a long-period of very low growth, with all its obvious consequences on unemployment and income inequality. Secular stagnation is receiving increasing attention amongst academic economists, and rightly so; and it is something Canada should try avoiding at all costs.

Secular stagnation is like quicksand: the longer we stay in it, the more difficult it is to get out of, especially with governments insisting on cutting back spending.

...

Economies are driven by demand, and yet, in the last few years, in Canada and elsewhere, governments have persistently adopted policies that purposely deflated demand, thereby condemning our economies to secular stagnation.

So the answer to both questions is the same: fiscal policy. This is why it is more important than ever that the government in Ottawa undertakes fiscal spending on a much larger scale. Yet, my only concern is that the proposed spending will likely not be sufficient: there is a general inability of the new government and technocrats to truly understand the serious nature of what is going on. It will require more than tinkering with fiscal policy. What we need is a full-fledged fiscal attack.

Combating secular stagnation will be difficult. Clearly, Canada cannot do it alone. It will require a concerted, international and sustained effort for several years.

What we need is a New Deal for this decade and beyond.

- Will Grice reports on Finland's work on implementing a national basic income - and the high level of support it's receiving from the public. And Matthew Yglesias points out that the gap between the corporate elite and the rest of the U.S. population was far smaller just a few decades ago than it's become since then.

- albertarabbit reminds us that there isn't much reason to expect a difference between the Libs and the Cons when it comes to putting corporate interests ahead of people.

- Meanwhile, Martin Patriquin too finds little evidence of change when it comes to the Libs' refusal to accept any criticism whatsoever. And Cathy Guill highlights the issues we should be addressing as a result of this week's news about the Trudeau family's publicly-funded nannies.

- Finally, Rachel Notley explains her government's much-needed efforts to ensure the safety of Alberta farm workers. And Naomi Lakritz writes that anybody protesting the effort has reason to be ashamed.

How to destroy the climate in three easy steps

1. Abandon all previous targets and commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
2. Set a new target which one intends to ignore.
3. Make clear to the world that developing policies to actually meet the new target is somebody else's problem, no matter how obvious it is that the result will be failure.

Of course, we recognize how asinine and ineffectual that combination is when it originates with Stephen Harper. Who's willing to do the same when it's the Anointed One?

On permanent campaigners

Plenty of people have pointed out other pieces of Paul Wells' interview with Justin Trudeau. But one exchange seems particularly telling in defining Trudeau's perception of leadership and politics:

Q: What do you have to get done when Parliament comes back?

A: Continue to do what we’re doing, which is build the team, build the plan. Draw in great, credible candidates from across the country and put together a set of solutions and policies that are going to give this country a better government.

Q: So the campaign’s already begun?

A: I think the way politics is done these days—certainly, if you look at the attack ads that started the day after I won the leadership—yeah, the campaign started a long time ago.

In other words...

Faced with a direct and simple question, Trudeau can't name a single thing he wants to accomplish in Parliament, whether in terms of policies which can be pursued now or areas where the Cons should be held to account. Instead, when asked specifically about the fall session of Parliament, his answer is that he intends to keep ignoring how Canada is actually being governed today in order to work exclusively on next year's election campaign.

And Trudeau also doesn't have any interest in changing the absolute worst practices the Cons have inflicted on Canadian politics. Instead, somebody supposedly pitching a transformation from Harper's modus operandi is nonetheless fully prepared to allow him to dictate "how politics is done these days" - and match him in treating politics as a game where the only question is who wins the prize of holding government power.

All of which seems to confirm that Trudeau is offering no difference at all from Harper's contempt for democratic institutions, nor his cynical and self-serving view of the role of leaders. And we'd best recognize how Trudeau plans to offer more of the same with a red backdrop before anybody falls into the trap of handing him power based on the promise of change.

Same old story, slash-and-burn edition

So can Canadian progressives agree that eliminating environmental regulators is generally a short-sighted move which prioritizes a foolish focus on slashing government gratuitously over a society's long-term well-being?

Of course, I ask for no particular reason.

On lose-lose choices

I suppose nobody can claim there's no difference between the Cons and Libs when it comes to climate change. After all, the Cons are countering the Libs' emission reduction plan with no meaningful targets by offering up...emission reduction targets with no meaningful plan.

(That is, other than to claim that their much-promised but never-delivered regulatory scheme "is working" - despite the hitch that it doesn't actually exist.)

Same old story, non-cooperation edition

The Cons' budget was rightly shot down after arriving alongside this cynical sales pitch:

When Jim Flaherty stands up in the House of Commons, he is expected to unveil a financial plan that has taken a number of expensive ideas from the wish lists of other federal leaders, particularly the NDP’s Jack Layton.
...
Mr. Harper enjoys his job too much to risk losing it. The NDP leader will have to decide whether he has won enough little victories to justify propping up the Conservatives.

Fortunately, the NDP was smart enough not to buy the spin. And the Cons' play-acting at having any interest in listening to anybody outside their own party was exposed as entirely empty when the NDP's efforts to improve the budget were met with a flat refusal.

So Canadians are getting the chance to decide whether or not they want more Harper-style politics, where a smug, self-righteous government pretends that other parties should be satisfied with a pale imitation of their policy priorities.

Now, we'll have to hope that voters are similarly intelligent in dealing with the Libs' equally callous attempt to paint mentions of a couple of lifted platform planks as a substitute for meaningful cooperation:

The whole document is framed as an appeal to those who might be tempted to support other parties too -- take a look at the Green-friendly and NDP-friendly policies within it. Last year, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said that his answer to all the coalition talk would be the reply: "Liberals *are* the coalition." This platform is his attempt to cast the party in that light, and should probably be measured that way.

But the takeaway isn't so much that the Libs are offering a meaningful form of cooperation, as that they're trying to put a slightly less adversarial face on the same lack of willingness to actually work with other parties. And so anybody looking for a real change - rather than another Harper government dressed in red - will need to look elsewhere.

Friday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Paul Wells posts the definitive epilogue to the Cons' hijacking of Rights and Democracy:

Today the audit was released — not through a formal process, but because somebody leaked it to the Globe‘s Daniel Leblanc. You can read it here. (Well, the main narrative of the audit, anyway. Thousands of pages of annexes, including lengthy email correspondences, time sheets and so on, remain unreleased.)

It shows what Beauregard’s defenders have long asserted: that the agency was run without scandal, and without unusually lax management, even before his arrival; that he was taking clear steps to improve its management; and that specific claims against him and his staff from Gauthier and others hold no water. In short, that Rémy Beauregard died while fighting back against an unfounded witch hunt perpetrated by scoundrels who today stand unmasked and humiliated. The government of Canada under Stephen Harper and his minister Lawrence Cannon today continues to support those scoundrels, to its shame and ours as citizens.

But it's worth asking as well whether there's anything to the story that figures to actually motivate citizens to take action. And on that front, surely Beauregard's treatment should end any illusion that merely doing one's job effectively and without doing anything which could possibly be seen as an affront to the Harper government (which after all appointed Beauregard in the first place) serves as any protection from the danger of a political witch hunt.

- Susan Riley is frustrated with the lack of popular outrage over the Cons' F-35 money pit and other issues - but points out why the public has reason to be cynical when it comes to both the Libs and the Cons:

Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom have all postponed, or reduced, their initial orders without noticeable penalty.

Not Canada. That isn't the way the Harper government does business. It decides on a course -- in this case, an impetuous and counter-intuitive course -- and then accuses critics of disrespecting the troops. From a distance this may pass for decisive leadership; up close, it looks weak.

Not that the Ignatieff Liberals -- who are calling for an open competition to replace the existing CF-18s -- would necessarily do better. They signed the original memorandum launching the F-35 program and seem as eager to join the U.S. military-industrial complex as their rivals.

What ever happened to the Presbyterian penny-pinchers of old, the careful Scots, the austere Prairie preachers and dust-bowl farmers, the Reform populists who didn't only rail against government waste but tried to respect "the taxpayer dollar"?

They live on, but only in myth. Not that anyone appears to notice.

- Fortunately, the heirs to the austere Prairie preachers do live on. But can they do more to claim a governing place on the federal scene than their predecessors? Let's check with Brian Topp:

What are Mr. Layton’s strengths? Clearly, as set out in many public-domain opinions polls, Canadians genuinely like Mr. Layton and appreciate his open, collaborative and sunny commitment to getting some positive things done. Mr. Layton’s bout with illness has caused Canadians to take a second look at him, to his benefit. And Mr. Layton’s extended experience with the balance of power in Parliament has matured him as a politician and a statesman in the eyes of the public. He is no longer prone to over-the-top statements rooted in the absolute necessity, early in his term, to be visible on the federal stage. Instead, Mr. Layton is an increasingly thoughtful and substantive contributor to the national debate – and has proved to be right on many issues. Canadians are responding by finding it increasingly easy to imagine him as (Prime Minister), a journey they have also made with Mr. Harper. Interestingly, in particular, Mr. Layton has developed substantial appeal among soft Liberals, of whom there are a generous supply these days.

What are Mr. Layton’s weaknesses? Canadians remain to be convinced that his agenda hangs together or that his party can win. Mr. Layton can cure the first problem by articulating a clear, coherent and responsible plan – including, in compelling terms, when people are paying attention to the details at election time. Mr. Layton can cure his second problem – perhaps – by speaking directly and credibly to how modern multi-party Parliaments can be made to work for Canadians. And by having a healthy dose of that essential ingredient in all winning campaigns, continuing luck in his opponents.

If anything, Topp may undersell the degree of public support for the NDP's policy agenda as they understand it. But there's little room for doubt that the "Libs as default alternative" factor is the main obstacle standing in the NDP's way.

- Finally, it shouldn't be much surprise that Bill Siksay's retirement has some opponents trumpeting the possibility of winning Burnaby-Douglas away from the NDP for the first time in over two decades. But let's note that the incumbent advantage is normally traced to opponents putting up something less than the toughest possible challenge - so given that the NDP has been outspent by one or both of its competitors in all but one of the elections where it's held Burnaby-Douglas, there's little reason to think the dynamics that have seen the NDP hold the seat will change.

Same old story, unaccountability edition

The Hill Times focuses on the chief electoral officer's recommendation to make sure that at least one party responsible for reviewing parties' election expenses is actually able to check whether they're valid:

Canada's chief electoral officer says a gap in Canada's elections law means his office reimbursed the five main federal political parties $29.2-million after the last election without being able to check the accuracy of the expenses on which those reimbursements were based.

Marc Mayrand wants to close a loophole in the Canada Elections Act that means he receives documentary evidence support the financial returns of candidates, leadership and nomination contestants, but not political parties.

Registered parties are eligible to get public subsidies, partly through a 50 per cent reimbursement of their election expenses. But before the receiver general cuts a cheque, the chief electoral officer has to certify that he's satisfied the party has met Canada Elections Act reporting requirements. Taxpayers shelled out $29,182,448.51 to parties after the 2008 election.

"Despite the considerable funding given to registered parties, the chief electoral officer does not receive any documentary evidence of the expenses reported in the election expenses return. Nor does the Act provide the Chief Electoral Officer with the authority to request that a party provide such evidence," Mr. Mayrand wrote in a post-mortem report on the 2006 and 2008 elections. "[The chief electoral officer] has no means to verify the accuracy of the reported expenses on which the reimbursement is based."
...
Currently, independent auditors review parties' returns to ensure accuracy and transparency, but they don't make sure the parties have followed political financing rules set out under the Canada Elections Act. For instance, they don't have to check whether an amount claimed as an election expense eligible for reimbursement is, actually, an election expense as defined by law.

But the more important detail seems to be that the Cons and Libs have no interest in backing up their spending, and are apparently working together to make sure that oversight doesn't happen:

The Conservatives and Liberals disagreed with its newest incarnation.

The status quo, an independent auditor's report, should be good enough evidence of the expenses listed in the return, John Arnold, Liberal Party senior director of regulatory compliance and administration, told the committee.
...
In their written report, the Conservatives argued: "By taking the audit function 'in house,' Elections Canada is removing its own objectivity and ability to act as the overseer and second check on the auditor."

Though in fairness, I'm sure both are too busy trying to figure out how they'll defy the public again on Afghanistan to offer up full information around electoral financing.

Monday Morning Links

Assorted material to start your week...

- The Hill Times' report on pre-budget consultations is all the more sad for the complete lack of any ideas coming from the two main federal parties. Even if there's no much chance of any "ask" coming to fruition under the Cons, it would be for the best for interested groups to at least keep the pressure on as to what could be done if we had a government willing to do its job - but instead it sounds like the Cons' distaste for any original thought is spreading to the groups presenting options directly to Canada's MPs.

That said, it's worth noting that if the Cons indeed plan on using the cost of their photo-ops as an excuse to turn off the taps for essential programs, then the same groups will have absolutely no reason to play nice in the future.

- For those who missed pogge's Quote of the Day from Cenk Uygur, it's worth another look:

If we continue to let special interests, corporate interests and lobbyists buy our politicians, there's no hope on any of the issues. Then Obama is right, the best we could hope for is a little bit of change in the different fields. If you accept that false premise, then Obama did the best he could do within those constraints.

But we didn't elect him to accept that premise, we elected him to change that premise. That was the change we were waiting for - and didn't get.

- For all the effort by the NDP to paint the Libs and Cons as one and the same, the message still doesn't seem to have sunk in far past the New Democratic base. But the Libs' efforts to channel Rob Ford certainly can't hurt matters when it comes to convincing people that there's no difference.

- Finally, Sasha Issenberg's article on behavioural politics is well worth a read.

Same old story

Susan Riley tries to find any meaningful policy distinctions between the Cons and the Libs - and finds that there's nothing to speak of:

(T)he two parties disagree, notionally, on corporate taxes. But there remains a similarity that trumps all other distinctions: neither can be trusted to follow through. The bank lobby might convince triumphant Liberals to change course (remember that Brison used to be a Tory). The Conservatives might decide they can't really afford those cuts, after all. Switcheroos are hardly unprecedented.
...
On Afghanistan, Harper appears adamant about withdrawing all troops by 2011, but no one believes him. Ignatieff and Bob Rae appear reluctant to cut and run, especially if NATO wants us to stay. Either way, it sounds like a mission extension.

As for cleavages on the environment, it is a contest between Harper and Ignatieff over who loves the oilsands more. On human rights, both men deplore China's freedom-hating regime and both are willing to smooth over differences in the interests of trade. Neither can stand to be in the same room as anti-Semitic nut-bar Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and both look the other way when Israel's government betrays its own values.
...
Given the daily shouting, hissing and harrumphing, there must be profound disagreements between our two major parties. Uncovering them probably just requires more sophisticated instruments.

On selloffs

Greg Weston's piece on Michael Fortier's involvement in directing millions of dollars in consulting fees to his friends at Canada's big banks is well worth a read. But lest anybody be under the mistaken impression that the Libs would be any less likely to sell off Canada's public assets while well-connected corporations take a chunk of the value, he also offers up this reminder:

Fortier also had close political ties to two employees of the winning bidders — Rick Byers, then an expert in government privatizations for the Bank of Montreal, and Michael Norris, an equally qualified investment banker at the Royal Bank.

At the time, Byers had been a prominent Conservative fundraiser, organizer and provincial candidate with links to Fortier dating back to the 1998 Progressive Conservative leadership race.

All three investment bankers also worked on Scott Brison’s campaign for the PC leadership in 2003 — Byers and Fortier were his campaign chairmen; Norris was one of the chief fundraisers.

Brison lost the leadership, but defected to the Liberals in time for their 2004 federal election victory. He then became public works minister in Paul Martin’s government.

Almost immediately, Brison announced the new Liberal government wanted to get out of property management and would consider selling off billions of dollars of federal office buildings to private operators.

The first phase of the project was to have been a $3-million study of all federal real estate, followed by a possible sale of buildings.
...
The project was resurrected when the Conservatives came to power in 2006. Fortier was appointed to the Senate and named public works minister.

Six months later, Fortier’s department awarded a $250,000 contract to two winning bidders — RBC and BMO — to study which federal properties should be sold.

It also gave the two banks the right to broker the actual real estate sales for hefty additional commissions.

The final deal involved nine properties that sold for $1.35 billion and generated about $10 million in commissions: $3.75 million each to BMO and RBC, and another $2.5 million to Deutsche Bank Securities, which was brought in by Public Works to vet the final sales.

Shocking

Who could have guessed that both beneficiaries of an unfair and antiquated electoral system would shoot down any talk of changing it?

Summer reruns

As a sure sign of the kind of vision and creativity we can expect from his summer tour, Michael Ignatieff's inspiring appeal for anybody who's working for something better within the NDP (or the Greens) is...hold your nose and vote Liberal.

Because it's worked so well the last half-dozen times the Libs have built their message around it!

On common interests

I've seen a few rhetorical questions asking where the Greens have been when it comes to the NDP's effort to get Bill C-311 and its real greenhouse gas emission targets passed in time for the Copenhagen summit. So let's leave no doubt about the matter: to their credit the Greens both called for the Libs to support the bill prior to this week's vote, and criticized them for failing to do so.

But it's worth taking a closer look at where the Greens figure to stand in relation to the other federal parties going into the next federal election campaign. And it looks to me like the vote on C-311 is just the beginning of a realignment of the Greens' messaging which may ultimately bear fruit for both them and the NDP.

In the last federal election campaign, the pact between Stephane Dion and Elizabeth May had an obvious impact on the Greens' messaging. Rather than presenting the Libs as part of the problem in Canadian politics, May explicitly endorsed Dion for Prime Minister against the Cons, while echoing the Libs' criticisms of the NDP on climate change policy and other issues. And that made plenty of strategic sense for a leader trying to get elected in a riding where the Cons and NDP had previously ranked as the top two contenders (and where the Libs weren't bothering to oppose her).

But now, May's focus is a riding where the Cons and Libs ranked well ahead of the pack in 2008, and where a Lib opponent with fairly significant environmental credentials has been less than shy about attacking May personally. And that figures to make for radically different incentives.

Now, any hope of getting May elected depends on the Greens mustering an effective attack on both of the two largest national parties - presumably by linking the two together as holding up any action on climate change. Which means that the main message which May needs to convey - not just in her riding, but nationally to set out the foundation for her argument in Saanich-Gulf Islands - will be a familiar "same old story" theme which highlights how even Libs with some seeming personal interest in the environment vote against it for partisan purposes. (Needless to say, C-311 looks to serve as one of the main examples in favour of such an argument.)

And it won't just be the Greens with an obvious inclination to work with that line of messaging. After all, the Bloc has already put together an ad campaign painting the Cons and Libs as "two parties, one outlook". Which again makes perfect strategic sense, as each time Gilles Duceppe has taken aim at only one of the Cons or Libs as his main opponent during the course of an election campaign, the other has managed to increase its Quebec support by election day.

But while the Greens and the Bloc have obvious reasons to push a "same old story" message against the Cons and Libs out of self-interest, there can't be much doubt that it's the NDP that will benefit most to the extent that theme takes hold. In fact, a campaign where both the Greens and the Bloc reinforce the NDP's argument for change would provide absolutely ideal conditions for the NDP to raise its own share of popular support just in time for voters to head to the polls. And if the Greens and Bloc perceive that the NDP is in a position to make the jump ahead of one or both of its national rivals, that may provide all the more reason for them to keep working in tandem to deliver real change.