Up for debate

The NDP has released a first look at the prioritized resolutions from this weekend's #vancon2011 (PDF). And while most of them may not come as too much surprise (or appear particularly controversial), there are a few which look highly noteworthy in developing and refining the party's policies.

In particular:

Resolution 1-09-11, submitted by Davenport, proposes an Urban Worker Policy Initiative with a focus on addressing the challenges facing vulnerable workers both in accessing government programs and in treatment by contractors/employers. In effect the proposed initiative would look to bring together the concerns of several classes of workers in a common initiative - helping to build the types of numbers and connections needed to ensure that concerns are addressed.

Resolution 2-07-11, submitted by four B.C. ridings, calls for a "triple bottom line" approach (including environmental, social and economic effects) to policy development

Resolution 3-09-11, submitted by Ottawa Centre, calls for the development of a comprehensive national policy on mental illness and mental health.

Resolution 5-05-11, submitted by Trinity-Spadina, proposes that by-elections be called on a schedule set by the Chief Electoral Officer, ensuring that a Prime Minister can't delay as long as possible and leave seats vacant as the Harper Cons have done at every opportunity.

And in case there was any prospect of a merger with the Libs anytime soon, Toronto Centre's resolution 7-04-11 would reject that possibility - serving mostly to put what already figured to be the party's position in front of delegates for a formal discussion and vote.

While the above may make for noteworthy developments, I wouldn't expect them to cause much controversy. But two parts of the resolution list may lead to somewhat more of an internal debate.

First, resolution 5-09-11 (submitted by five B.C. ridings) calls for a strong federal role in both funding and delivering social programs. We'll find out shortly whether the proposal will be seen as controversial by the newly-strengthened Quebec contingent - which may serve as an important indicator as to whether there's actually real potential for internal dissatisfaction over the proper role of the federal government, or whether the party can come to a broad consensus.

And second, resolution 7-01-11 sets out a new constitutional preamble which eliminates the references to socialism which are the usual target for opponents' potshots, but replaces them with social democracy, "economic and social equality" and "ensuring that wealth and power are in the hands of the many and not the few". In general the proposal looks to be more a matter of modernization than a fundamental change in focus - but I'm sure we'll hear plenty of parsing of both the existing and revised versions to try to tease out any differences as the resolution is considered.

A week in review

I've figured for quite some time that the goings-on in the House of Commons probably deserve plenty more focus than they receive - and have highlighted at least some of them on this blog. But with the combination of the NDP wave and a Question Period which is covering more ground in the absence of constant heckles and interruptions, there now looks to be enough content to make it worth setting up a regular feature.

In the future, I'll likely figure on making the review a daily one. But for now, let's take a look at a few noteworthy moments from last week's Parliamentary debates which you may have missed.

- If you're looking for the NDP's main point of contrast against the Cons, Jack Layton's response to a question from Charlie Angus looks to set it out nicely:

The economic policy of the government essentially is predicated on the notion of sink or swim. That is too bad for someone who decides to go back to work after having worked all of his or her life in the mine. It is too bad for the individual and his or her co-workers who have to go back to work at age 68. Why not 75? Why not 85? The government's philosophy is that it is a tough world out there and one just has to make his or her own way.

We have a different view. We believe that together we can actually create instruments of policies, programs and strategies that can give us a dignified and secure retirement. Seniors are not looking to live high off the hog. I do not know any senior who wants to be able to live the life of luxury. All they are looking for is to be able to cover their housing and their food costs and be able to enjoy a little recreation and have something left over to give a gift to a grandchild every now and again.

We need to have a properly functioning Canada pension plan so that we are not held for ransom by the gamblers who want to roll the dice and take their bonuses and too bad if we lose money. They win either way.

And oddly enough, the Cons look to be playing into exactly that distinction. When questioned on pensions, the Cons have effectively done nothing to suggest they support anything other than the casino model of retirement investment. And while it doesn't seem to have received much notice, here's Ray Boughen's comment on what he thinks the budget will accomplish for seniors:

Also in support of seniors, we are proposing to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canada Labour Code to ensure that federally regulated employees across Canada will be able to choose how long they wish to remain in the labour force, based on their individual circumstances.

In other words, the Cons are planning to eliminate mandatory retirement ages in federally-regulated industries. So while the NDP looks for better conditions for retirees, the Cons are looking to reduce their numbers by keeping seniors in the workforce longer.

- Meanwhile, Helene LeBlanc's inaugural speech also looks to have nicely encapsulated the NDP's philosophy:

I am here to lend my voice to those who are not as fortunate as we are in this House. I am here for those who have been left behind by our society, those who are the most vulnerable. I hope to make my colleagues on the other side understand that they are here for all Canadians, whatever their origins or standard of living. The values we embody are those of social justice, sharing and mutual assistance. That is why I find it difficult to see any reflection of myself in this government’s program. Their priority is big business, to the detriment of small businesses and the people of my riding.

I remind members that the economy is a means, not an end. It is a way to organize our society. I believe the role of government is to ensure that all Canadians have a chance to succeed. I believe we are at the service of all citizens, from all walks of life.

- Peter Julian presented what looks to be the NDP's jobs message:

The Minister of Finance likes to point to the slight increase in the overall job creation, but the reality is over the last five years, given the growth in labour force, which is 1.5% a year, that the Conservatives have the responsibility of creating 300,000 additional jobs every year. How have they fared? StatsCan gives us the results. The results are that there is a million jobs deficit. Over the last five years since the Conservatives have been in power and where they needed to create about 300,000 new jobs or new people coming into the labour force every year, they needed to create 1.5 million. They have actually created about half a million jobs overall and these jobs have largely been part-time or temporary in nature, certainly not the permanent, family-sustaining jobs that Canadians are calling for from coast to coast to coast.

And for more from Julian, raising inequality as an issue in a question which seems to have left Con Dave MacKenzie utterly unsure what the problem was supposed to be.

- I'm not sure off hand how common it is for high-ranking cabinet ministers to take the time to participate in debates by asking questions of other parties. But judging from Matthew Kellway's schooling of Jim Flaherty on the lack of return on corporate tax slashing, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Cons' cabinet members removed from the fray altogether.

- Other issues worth noting: Glenn Thibault's criticism of high roaming fees; Ryan Leef's remarkable stand for research on climate change on behalf of a government which is normally hostile toward any mention of either; and a focus on social values including Paulina Ayala's mention of the social economy and Nathan Cullen's identification of a social deficit.

- Finally, while pointing out the messages I think deserve to be amplified, it's also worth noting the ones which look entirely out of place. So let's call a tie for the non sequitur of the week between Nina Grewal, answering a question about investment in aboriginal housing with an answer about manufacturing incentives, and James Bezan, who took the opportunity to use the federal House of Commons' time for a brief rant about Manitoba provincial politics.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Rhys Kesselman rightly points out how the populist message that propelled the Cons to power has given way to elitist policy-making:

Once the federal budget is balanced, the Conservatives plan to double the TFSA’s annual allowance to $10,000 and to permit income splitting for couples with children under 18. These are costly schemes, each running ultimately to billions a year.

While these proposals may appear to have wide appeal, most Canadians would gain nothing from them. The tax savings would flow disproportionately to the highest earners. Moreover, the ostensible goals of these proposals would be much better achieved by major changes to their structures.

Consider the proposed doubling of the TFSA annual limit from its current $5,000 level. Low and moderate earners typically can’t save even this amount, so any increase is worthless to them. For most middle-income earners, the tax savings from contributing to RRSPs trump those of the TFSA, and very few are using all of their allowable RRSP limits. Thus, few middle earners will gain from expanding the TFSA.

Only among the highest earners, above $125,000, are the full RRSP limits often used, so this group would be the primary beneficiaries from expanded TFSA access. And for this group, most of the additional TFSA room would be used simply to shield existing taxable assets with little inducement for new saving.
...
Now consider the proposal to allow income splitting by couples with children. One motivation might be the view that couples with the same total earnings should pay the same total tax. But this ignores the fact that a one-earner couple has more effective income (in the form of home-produced, untaxed services) than a two-earner couple with the same earnings. Moreover, this reason would not justify confining splitting to couples with kids.

A more plausible motivation for allowing income splitting but restricting it to couples with children is the desire to give parents the option to spend more time rearing their children. High-earning parents already have this opportunity. Yet, the government’s proposal for income splitting would be of no benefit to couples where neither spouse earns above the bottom tax bracket of $41,500, partners with higher earnings but in the same tax bracket, and single parents. In fact, the largest beneficiaries would be couples with one very high earner – those in least need of aid.

- Which raises the question of how best to counter the Cons' plans. And while I don't agree entirely with Bruce Anderson's take on the state of Canadian politics, there's some reason for hope to the extent his message about the new Parliament takes hold:

(S)o far at least, the tone of this Parliament has changed. It feels like Question Period has gone off caffeine, taken up yoga, become almost Zen.

Questions are still pointed, but not as poison tipped. Response patterns from the government side have been re-engineered, letting ministers come off as smart, decent people. There’s no spiking the ball in the end zone, or other “excessive celebrations” as they say in football.

Watching Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird respond genially to a pertinent and precise question from NDP finance Critic Peggy Nash last week reminded me of how I felt when I was watching the courtly but very effective Liberal minister Allan MacEachen practice his craft in the House some 30 years ago. Any voter watching last week's Baird-Nash exchange would have come away feeling good about both politicians, I suspect.
...
Strong leaders, with clear ideas for the future, passionately argued: This is the recipe for the success enjoyed in the last election by Stephen Harper and Jack Layton, and on these criteria Michael Ignatieff and Gilles Duceppe fell short. In this Parliament, with Mr. Harper, Mr. Layton and Bob Rae, Canadian voters may see a pretty good contest of will, brainpower and communications talent – one of the best we’ve experienced in years. Based on the Prime Minister's speech to the Conservative Party convention in Ottawa this week, the policy choices of the Tories will provide plenty of room for other parties to differentiate themselves. While a competition on this level may seem less scintillating on a daily basis, it has a far better chance of reversing declining engagement than what has been tried for the past couple of decades.

- It took awhile after the initial report was released, but Postmedia's Doug Schmidt is catching up on the realities of wage theft.

- Finally, I'd consider it a general plus if the Regina Public Library and Globe Theatre end up joining forces in the development of a downtown Regina cultural centre. But to the list of follow-up concerns raised by Carle Steel about the RPL Film Theatre and Dunlop Art Gallery, I'd add a more fundamental concern: surely we'll want to make sure that any project is actually driven by the needs and best interests of the RPL and the Globe, rather than merely serving as an excuse to turn them into cash cows for a private building owner. (And the leaked possibility of a building consisting mostly of commercial space doesn't offer much reason for confidence.)

Not yet satisfied

Eric highlights Environics' polling as to how happy supporters of various parties are with last month's federal election results. And the findings look to bode about as well as possible for the NDP's prospects of expanding its reach over the next few years:

Conservative supporters felt very positively about the election result - and why not. Their party won a majority. Fully 82% are quite happy.

But New Democratic voters aren't as pleased as you might expect. Their party made a historic breakthrough in Quebec, won the most seats and votes in their history, and are now the Official Opposition. But only 27% of their voters are happy with the results.

Though it is somewhat surprising it is as high as it is, 13% of Liberal voters and 10% of Bloc voters feel positively about what happened on May 2nd. Thirty percent of non-voters are also pleased with the result.

As for having negative feelings about the election result, only 2% of Conservative voters have some regrets. That is miniscule. Surprisingly, only 21% of non-voters feel the same way (36% are, understandably, indifferent).

Despite their historic outcome, fully 42% of NDP voters feel sad or fearful about the election results. And despite being reduced to third party status, only 54% of Liberal voters feel negatively. It is a majority, but you'd expect Liberals to be a little more upset, along the lines of the 73% of Bloc voters.

Now, it's important enough that a substantial number of NDP voters were hoping for more rather than expressing satisfaction with the party's position. After it's surely easier to build a movement when supporters are concerned about the direction of the country and motivated to change it, rather than seeing reason to get complacent.

But the level of satisfaction with the election result among the opposition parties is especially significant when paired with the NDP's post-election polling boost. In effect, it looks like a number of the Lib voters who already looked like promising NDP targets have already made the jump - and are apparently finding a landing pad which fits their own attitudes about the election.

[Edit: fixed quote.]

For and against

Not surprisingly, the Cons are working feverishly to pretend that the message which won them a bare majority of seats in the House of Commons is of absolutely no consequence now that they hold them. So let's set the record straight as to why it's fundamentally dishonest for Stephen Harper and company to pretend that it's entirely insignificant that more than 60% of voters rejected them.

For upwards of two years prior to the election - as well as in the campaign itself - the Cons spent countless hours and millions of dollars repeating the message that the next federal election would be a choice between themselves, and a coalition of opposition parties with similar enough values to be lumped into one pile without distinction.

In effect, Harper spent years saying Canadians were either with them or against them. And in response to that choice, 60% of voters chose "against them", rejecting the Cons' dumb-on-crime, tax-slashing message when offered that as part of a binary choice.

Of course, given the distribution of votes among the other parties there may be limits on the extent to which any one party can claim to speak for the entire 60% - showing that there's some weakness to the premise in the first place. But that doesn't mean the Cons can get away with pretending that the message which won them a majority is entirely inoperative now that they've secured it.

In effect, unless the Cons are prepared to admit that the campaign which won them a majority was itself based on a fraud, they now have to live with the recognition that a strong majority of voters oppose their beliefs. And the more they try to operate in denial of that reality, the more likely they'll be to get turfed the next time Canadian voters get the opportunity.

On ripple effects

I've noted before that the main advantage for incumbents - and thus the main obstacle to substantial change - is the perception on the part of potential challengers that it's not worth mounting the effort to compete.

But it would seem to follow that when those potential challengers make the crucial decision as to whether or not to jump into a race, strong evidence that change is possible might serve to completely undo that usual incumbency effect. And it's a great sign that Ontario's provincial election will apparently have a far stronger NDP presence than expected now that the federal party has opened the door to gains:

Many have returned from the federal battles with tales of the most extraordinary wonders, of campaigns run on nickels and dimes that won, of Layton having pulled off the political equivalent of the loaves and fishes, of the wholly unknown vaulting to high office.

As a result, NDP nominations are now one of the hottest tickets in the political realm.

On Saturday, at the union hall of the United Association of Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 46, contested nominations were held to select candidates in two Scarborough ridings. Sunday, in the Toronto riding of Davenport, four contenders are vying to carry the orange banner in the Oct. 6 provincial election.
...
In Ontario this fall, “realistically now, the NDP can say, ‘Look, this is a three-way race for government,'” (candidate Bruce Budd) said.

“If we get 45 seats, 50 seats, we're going to be the biggest party. I don't think anyone would predict right now that we're going to get a majority. I think that's being unrealistic . . . But if there's a bit of a boost, where does it go?

“Together, we can keep the orange wave rolling!” he told the meeting. “Scarborough is there for the taking!”

Sunday Morning Links

A variety of content for your weekend reading.

- The Lethbridge Herald nicely points out who figures to have a problem with Stephen Harper's decision to have the Canadian public pay tens of thousands of dollars to send him to Game 4 of the Stanley Cup Finals:

(P)erhaps the flap over Harper's appearance at the game was a tempest in a teapot. Nevertheless, some Canadians saw it as a slap in the face; an unnecessary extravagance at a time when the government is looking to trim some $4 billion per year from federal programs and services. If you're one of the people who stand to be affected by those cuts, perhaps seeing the prime minister among the crowd in Boston was a galling reminder that some of us are having to tighten our belts while those in government can still enjoy the high life.

Petty? Maybe. Perhaps it all depends on whether you're one of the haves or the have-nots.

But it's worth extending the have/have-not distinction a step further. For Harper, the $50,000 served as the different between watching a hockey game at home, and watching a hockey game from the rink. For have-nots far from Harper's line of view, the same sum of money could have served to bring multiple families out of poverty for a year.

And given that contrast, Harper's conclusion that his choice of location for a touching family moment can possibly takes precedence looks all the more inexcusable.

- Meanwhile, the Imagine What We Could Do campaign is raising some even more important either-or choices between handing free money to the corporate sector and funding social priorities, with a particular focus on Saskatchewan resource royalties.

- But as Ken Lewenza notes, after decades of stagnant wages and top-heavy development it'll take plenty of pushback to ensure that working Canadians share in any future economic gains.

- A proposed research project for Jim Flaherty or anybody willing to take up his latest tax-flattening crusade: identify a single person above Canada's bottom tax bracket who's wholly unmotivated to do additional work at current tax rates, but would leap to do more based on the marginal tax reduction of 3% or 4% that would result from bracket elimination.

Of course, we'll instead see Flaherty justify a more regressive tax system with nothing but faith-based assertions that such a thing exists. But my guess is we'll discover the confidence fairy before an actual example of the supposed rationale for what the Cons have in store.

- Finally, Bruce Johnstone points out the leading example of what we can expect to happen if the Cons follow through on demolishing the single-desk Canadian Wheat Board:

(N)umerous studies by agricultural economists have shown the CWB earns a premium price for producers through its market clout, timing sales to catch market peaks, ensuring both the quality and quantity of grain delivered and getting volume discounts on shipping and handling.

So, what happens on Aug. 1, 2012? Well, no one can say for sure, but the Australian Wheat Board, which lost its monopoly in 2008, provides a pretty good example.

Despite having been in operation for more than 20 years, within a year of the removal of the single desk, the AWB's share of the export market dropped to 23 per cent. Since then, the AWB was taken over in a $1.1-billion bid by Agrium, which sold the commodity marketing arm of AWB to Cargill for $175 million.

So, who benefits? Grain companies, for one.

Viterra CEO Mayo Schmidt said he supports the removal of the single desk by the Conservatives and "intends to actively participate in the process to promote an orderly transition with positive, sustainable change for the benefit of the Western Canadian agricultural industry."

Given the success of Viterra's takeover of the Australia's former barley marketing agency, ABB Grain, Schmidt must be licking his chops with the prospect of getting a piece of the CWB's business.

So, who loses? The majority of Western Canadian farmers who support the CWB, of course.

Exciting Crowdsourcing Opportunity!

With some people rightly wondering whether there's time to conduct a full and proper review of the Cons' budgetary plans before Parliament rises for the summer, now would figure to be an ideal time for some crowdsourcing work in digging through the Cons' plans. I'll be taking a look myself, but for those interested the main estimates (which weren't reviewed in detail after being introduced in March), supplementary estimates and departmental plans and priorities would all seem to be areas in need of some serious review.

[Edit: fixed links.]

You may not have noticed, but...

...the first vote on budgetary policy in Canada's new Parliament took place on Wednesday, with the parties taking their positions on the Libs' budget subamendment. And it may make for an interesting signal as to who's willing to work together in providing an alternative to the Cons that the NDP (along with Elizabeth May) voted in favour, while the Bloc (seemingly without explanation) voted against a motion speaking in favour of housing, health care and government services.

[Edit: Posted too soon.]

On shocking transformations

I suspect it'll be quite some time before we see an end to stories about how the NDP's Quebec breakthrough means that it'll have to radically change direction. But let's put the spin in perspective.

In their first opportunity to introduce bills as Official Opposition, NDP MPs have brought forward six - all of them reflecting bills introduced in previous Parliaments. And while the party has made announcements about other issues (e.g. bilingual Supreme Court justices), they've done nothing but continue policies promoted by the party before and during the election campaign.

That is, with one exception: there is indeed a high-profile action taken at the start of the NDP's isn't directly referred to in the NDP's platform or previous policy statements.

So who wants to be the first to dismiss the NDP's ban on heckling - and the resulting ability to deal with far more substantive issues in Parliament - as a Quebec-focused betrayal of the rest of Canada?

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Gerald Caplan has a modest suggestion to ensure the Senate doesn't do any more avoidable harm to Canada's democracy:

That we have no need for a second house of Parliament of any kind is the first proposition here; in today's world, no persuasive case for such a chamber, elected or appointed, can be made. There is no role for it that can’t be better played by others, whether the House of Commons or the provinces. If Canada was being created today, no one would think it needed two chambers, just as no Egyptian or Tunisian rebel has pleaded for a bicameral parliament.

What makes most sense in terms of both democratic theory and Canada's needs is to get rid of the damn place entirely before it scuppers more useful legislation. But abolition requires a constitutional amendment, which is also as likely as getting Tony Clement to show integrity. Still, the way forward is remarkably simple: Impose stringent term limits on sitting senators – I’m thinking Labour Day at the latest – and then just stop appointing new members. Before you could curse Mike Duffy, there’d be no more senators in the Senate.

- Andre Pratte may be right in theorizing as to why separatism is relatively popular among young Quebeckers:

Younger Quebecers are rarely exposed to passionate, intelligent arguments in favour of federalism and the Canadian experience. Most of what they hear from English Canada transmits, at best, indifference toward Quebec and the French language (witness the opening ceremony of the Vancouver Games). Having not lived through two referendums and endless constitutional debates, they don't understand English Canadians' hostility toward changes that would be advantageous to Quebec.

Meanwhile, separation is promoted by their professors, by the artists they admire and by brilliant politicians young and old. Two weeks from now, when tens of thousands of people attend the huge Fête Nationale shows in Montreal and Quebec City, they'll hear pop singers and rap groups yell “Vive le Québec Libre!” at the beginning or the end of their performance. At l'Université de Montréal, there is an annual “semaine de la souveraineté,” when students can listen to figures like Jacques Parizeau and Bernard Landry explain why separation would be in Quebec's economic and cultural interests. Needless to say, there is no “semaine du Canada.”

Nowadays, no one speaks to Quebecers, especially the younger generation, about Canada and the principles and values that are the foundation of the federation.

But it's far from clear that the imbalance can't be changed - particularly now that for the first time in over two decades, Quebec has elected a substantial number of MPs who actually have an interest in building links to the rest of the country rather than presenting or harping about a sovereigntist threat.

- Meanwhile, there's also an open question as to how the Harper Cons will handle Quebec. And at least some of the party's own members are rightly frustrated about a failure to engage with the province:

Of the approximately 2,400 delegates and observers in at-tendance, just 200 are from Quebec.

Among them is Peter White, a vocal riding association president in the riding of Brome-Missisquoi, who argues the party didn't invest the necessary resources in its Quebec candidates' campaigns in the May 2 general election and that many of them are upset.

"We didn't get much help from outside and we didn't get very good results, so naturally, we're disappointed," he said Friday.

"There wasn't much of a national campaign in Quebec."

For example, White said his rural riding didn't get its signs until a week after the writ dropped, and not a single high-profile party official stopped by during the fiveweek campaign.

- And similarly, Chantal Hebert notes that the Cons have reason to listen to Quebec as well if they hope to build a party capable of winning more than a single majority:

The excesses described in Thursday’s auditor general’s report on the G20 summit spending also suggest that the sense of entitlement that helped bring the Liberals to their knees is already running strong within the ranks of Harper’s government.

Finally, some Conservatives always feared that the price to pay for a majority would be a government beholden to Quebec. The tenor of the party’s recent victory put those fears to rest.

But if Quebecers do re-engage in federalist politics long-term, their absence from the Conservative table could become the party’s Achilles heel.

The early seeds of the deconstruction of the Liberal coalition were planted when the party gave up on Western Canada. Allowing Quebec to turn into a permanent black hole would be just as short-sighted on the part of the Conservatives.

Needless to say, the same lesson figures to apply to the NDP - and hopefully we'll see it making some inroads into the few areas where the party is still running third (notably Calgary and much of suburban Ontario).

Musical interlude

BT feat. Jes - Every Other Way (Armin Van Buuren Radio Edit)

Friday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- When Paul Wells tears into a story, you can be assured of results that are both entertaining and frustrating. This week, he's been hard at work pointing the complete lack of transparency and credibility in cuts which the Cons have already booked in this year's budget - which should tell us all we need to know about how much credence we should give to their deficit reduction rhetoric.

- Though at least the Cons are equal-opportunity cover-up artists, having made sure that their G8 debacle was funded without any written documentation at all.

- Which leads us to Susan Riley's latest:

On one hand, the new majority government has been promising judicious trimming of the federal bureaucracy, eliminating “inefficiencies,” stale-dated programs, redundant art curators — that stubborn “fat” that seems impervious to each periodic purge.

On the other, it stands accused in Thursday’s understated auditor general’s report on G8/G20 spending of the most blatant pork-barrelling in recent memory — essentially, two ministers, without benefit of bureaucratic oversight, carving up nearly $50 million in taxpayer money to prettify the Muskoka-area riding of then-industry minister Tony Clement.

The flimsy justification: some bored foreign reporter might have wandered father afield than the tightly constrained summit sight in Huntsville and needed to use a public washroom 20 kilometres away, or shelter from the sun in a pretty parkland gazebo.
...
It was Baird, as infrastructure minister, who approved the 32 projects only tangentially tied to the summit, dipping into an unrelated border infrastructure fund to pay for them — without telling Parliament. Odd behaviour from the father of the accountability act, but this was a rush job, he explained. No time, apparently, for a paper trail (sometimes known as accountability.)

This will be disquieting news to thousands of scrupulous public servants who now have to sign forms in triplicate, produce three witnesses, submit to a drug test and wait several months to be reimbursed for a $20 cab ride.

- Finally, John Gormley's sad defence of Stephen Harper's flight to is to declare that Harper is the decider - so that one he decided to attend the game he was entitled to saddle the public with any cost involved in that choice. Your principled fiscal conservatives at work!

Worth discussing

One of the few times when the NDP has always been able to count on pundit attention in the past has been its policy conventions, when commentators often churn out an easy column or post by gleefully mocking some of the resolutions put forward for debate. So now that the resolutions for the Cons' convention this weekend are available, it might be tempting to return the favour. (And yes, there are some glaring examples of proposals which would make the Cons appear thoroughly reactionary and out of touch with Canadians.)

But instead, let's stick with the theme of more positive politics by pointing out some of the ideas being put forward by the Cons' rank and file that deserve more attention than they seem to have received at higher levels within the party.

On health care, a number of Ontario ridings are proposing an explicit emphasis on preventative care (A-042), while another proposal (A-043) would set up a national palliative care strategy. Of course, neither of the latter suggestions would seem to fit with the party's usual hands-off approach - but either or both could go a long way toward ensuring that health dollars lead to the greatest possible benefit.

On democratic reform, Regina-Qu'Appelle's riding association is proposing that all votes other than the budget and estimates be treated as free votes (B-004).

On the economic side, Edmonton-Leduc is proposing improved "secondary, post-secondary and job-related education" as part of a strategy to increase productivity (C-018), while a number of Ontario ridings are proposing a small business development strategy that acknowledges the risk that foreign competition can stifle growth. In addition, two resolutions (C-021 and C-022) suggest formalizing a policy on foreign takeovers, while two more seek to promote growth in the North, including one on tourism (C-027) and one on "physical, regulatory and military" development (C-028).

On energy, the Labrador riding association is proposing an explicit emphasis on hydroelectric development (C-032), which is currently omitted entirely from the Cons' list of energy priorities.

On Internet policy, the Durham riding association has proposed that network neutrality form part of a general effort to ensure that access is widely available (C-063).

And perhaps most remarkably, the Yukon riding association wants to formalize the following policy on the CBC (C-062):

v) We believe the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has a duty to provide service to rural areas and the North, including maintaining AM Band Radio and television broadcast services.

Now, it remains to be seen whether any of these resolutions will even see the light of day at the convention, let alone be acted upon by Harper's central command. But at the very least, they surely serve as evidence of the value of listening to ideas developed by a party's grassroots - and if the Cons aren't prepared to work with their supporters who have put the ideas forward, the NDP and other opposition parties may have every reason to lead the way instead.

On incomplete reporting

Yes, it's a problem if the Cons are giving different answers about climate-change policy to different audiences. But I'm not sure how the difference between federal action making next to no difference and its making even less than that makes for a more significant story than the prospect that each set of numbers from the Cons excludes up to half of the emissions actually produced by the tar sands:

The department said its estimates on overall emissions from the oilsands were preliminary and subject to change based on ongoing work to assess and calculate the industry's carbon footprint.

An independent report released Wednesday by British Columbia researcher Michelle Mech also listed numerous sources of emissions in oilsands production that were not included in previous calculations and could double the estimate of its annual carbon footprint.

Of course, there's somewhat of a chicken-and-egg problem as long as the Harper Cons remain in power. After all, one can argue that it doesn't much matter what our future emissions path actually looks like as long as we're stuck with a government determined to do nothing to improve it, and willing to mislead Canadians in the process.

But from the standpoint of whether it's possible to trust the Cons' word on climate change, Mech's observations look at least as important as the differing federal reports. And based on the greater emission impacts involved, they're far more important in trying to develop a meaningful plan for a future Canadian government.

(For those interested, Mech's report (PDF) is well worth a read in summarizing numerous issues surrounding the development of the oil sands. And kudos to Mech for an important contribution to help shape the discussion about the oil sands over the next few years.)

On destructive suggestions

Lest there be any doubt, one of the most important ways an opposition party can have influence in a majority Parliament is by choosing issues to highlight, thereby creating a perceived safe space for the governing party to act if it so chooses.

Which is to say that now might be a great time for the Libs to permanently dissociate themselves from Alf Apps - before Stephen Harper spots just the opening he'd need to elevate property interests to the status of constitutional rights.

Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Chantal Hebert points out that the biggest difference resulting from the NDP's emergence as Canada's official opposition may have to do with gender rather than age:

A lot has been written and said about the youthfulness of the new Parliament but at first glance, it is the larger place that women are staking out in the House of Commons that strikes the eye.

The latter is a direct by-product of the advent of the NDP as official Opposition.

Layton’s caucus boasts more women than the past parliamentary average. At 40 per cent, the NDP is as close to parity as any federal party has ever come. The party also exhibits a greater willingness to walk the talk of gender equality.

In their previous incarnation as official Opposition, the Liberals did not lack for able women but ultimately the front line of the party was very much a boys club.

Under Michael Ignatieff, the high-profile portfolios of foreign affairs, health, finance and the environment were all held by male critics. Under the NDP, three of those roles — including finance — are now spoken for by women.

- The Bloc's decision to be seen as being onside with the Cons by supporting the budget wasn't surprising enough on its own. But the choice looks particularly odd when compared to the gratuitous obstruction the Bloc leveled at the NDP in scheduling around its convention. And it surely can't be a positive sign if the most substantial contribution the Bloc thinks it can make is to try to ratchet up the incivility level.

- While Greg's critique of Jean Chretien's conservatism is right on point, I'm not sure there's much reason to criticize Susan Delacourt's blog post - particularly when it includes this needed correction to several days worth of highly misleading headlines:

(T)here are some "values" I'd definitely associate more with Conservativism, especially Harper's brand. One of those is a greater emphasis on patriotism and the military. Another would be a belief that the private sector has better ideas than government. In those terms, Canadians' support for those values is actually waning, the poll shows. So how is it possible to say that this brand of conservatism is on the rise?

In other words, the Manning spin about a country moving to the right isn't just unfounded based on a single data point, it's outright false based on past polling. Which goes a long way toward explaining why the Cons are so afraid to defend the bulk of their policies.

- Finally, Alex Balingall comments on the value of humour in getting citizens engaged in politics:

“This generation has a lot of skepticism,” says Boler. “They have a very different political world and a different sort of political sensibility.” That could be why shitharperdid.ca garnered more than four million page views in its first three days, the vast majority of which, says Devlin, came from people under 35. Journalism students at New York University also recently went for laughs by producing a music video for My Water’s On Fire Tonight (The Fracking Song), which aims to bring attention to the practice of creating fissures deep underground to loosen up fossil fuels for extraction. The song has a funky, hip-hop feel and includes lines such as, “Frack baby frack till the break of dawn.” So far, the video has been viewed nearly 100,000 times on YouTube. “In all the elections past, we’ve never really had anything aimed specifically at our generation,” says Lisa Lagace, a 25-year-old editorial and marketing assistant. “It’s just been the same old thing: a bunch of old guys talking.”

Boler says this disaffection is fed by a “crisis of faith in truth,” something she sees as an American cultural import. “There’s hardly anyone any longer who has an idealized notion that those in power—or those with economic power—have our best interests at heart,” she says. “The public has lost trust in government, in politicians, in media, in people running Wall Street.” And, she adds, “this generation is growing up in a very grim world,” where laughs are appreciated as a way of tempering the bleakness. Boler also argues that political satire can create an avenue for political engagement—even if that doesn’t always mean turning out to vote. Her proof: the 400,000 who came out for the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, led by American satirists Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart last fall.

And while both Devlin and Boler say political satire is on the rise, they also see it as a revival of something “almost ancient.” Comedians have traditionally used satire to express dissent and hold leaders accountable.

New column day

Here, on how Saskatchewan has avoided the usage-based billing dispute that's caused so many problems elsewhere in Canada - and how strong and creative Crowns are an essential part of that advantage.

See Christopher Walsh for a rough summary of the changes which have seen Shaw become the first major national provider to offer what we've enjoyed for ages. And for more on usage-based billing, see among others David Beers, Tim Wu, and of course Michael Geist, passim.

Just wondering...

...but can anybody else remember a case of proportional representation being used as a boogeyman outside of an actual electoral reform referendum?

I ask only because Peter MacKay's plea to keep the Cons' party constitution as is seems to go way over the top in assuming that party supporters will consider it a disastrous possibility to be opposed at all costs:

Equality of Ridings is also our best argument against our political opponents' push for Proportional Representation. Elizabeth May and Jack Layton are already calling for proportional representation in our electoral system.

Conservatives must stand together and oppose the proportional representation system being proposed as a "compromise". If we adopt this system in our party constitution how can we legitimately oppose it as a government?

And I'm not entirely sure we shouldn't be picking up on MacKay's argument, if only to use the Cons' amendment vote as a springboard toward exactly the PR discussion that MacKay seems to fear.

On regional effects

The NDP's provincial surges in Canada's Atlantic provinces has received some attention already. But it's particularly worth noting how the provincial numbers figure to relate to the recent federal election results.

On the one hand, it does seem that the federal campaign managed to catch the attention some voters who otherwise weren't considering the NDP as a possibility - with at least some of those voters now expressing their support.

But perhaps more noteworthy is the fact that the NDP's provincial results in each province other than Nova Scotia still have a ways to go to catch up to the party's federal vote share. And if a higher profile nationally can make those numbers converge, then it looks entirely possible that the NDP could emerge as the leading challenger for government throughout a region that's historically been almost entirely barren territory.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your midweek reading.

- The Star skewers the Cons' insistence on pushing ahead with bad budget choices:

As the Star argued during the election, Canada needs progressive economic vision in the form of strategic investments in scientific research and innovation, health care, a national child-care plan and improving the Canada Pension Plan for younger workers and the elderly poor. Measured by these needs, this budget, like its predecessor, is a bust.

Moreover, it remains packed with dubious spending, including an unwarranted $6 billion corporate tax cut and a smattering of other giveaways. And the Conservatives’ profligacy won’t end there. They are on an imprudent course to spend untold billions on F-35 fighter aircraft and prison-building, as other priorities go unmet.

Apart from its fundamentally skewed agenda, the budget is built on an unstable platform of rosy optimism that may not survive the gathering economic storm. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty readily acknowledges that “the global economic recovery remains fragile.” Even so, he says he can eliminate the $32 billion deficit by 2014/15 by trimming spending by 5 per cent. Yet Ottawa’s anticipated revenue growth could be dragged down by a variety of factors: the weak American economy, $100 a barrel oil, Europe’s debt woes, slowing growth in China and India, or Japan’s tsunami fallout. Anything less than an optimal outcome could force Ottawa to cut more deeply than the $4 billion a year it has earmarked to balance the books.

- And Thomas Walkom also notes the problems with Harpernomics:

When Finance Minister Jim Flaherty tabled his budget this week, he used precisely these kinds of calming words.

Sure, we’ll be doing a bit of cutting here and there, he said. But don’t sweat it. We’re only talking about trimming up to $4 billion a year from $80 billion worth of direct program spending. That’s just 5 per cent. Chill out.

Yet the reality of his plan is quite different.

First, he’s not planning to cut just $4 billion. He’s planning to cut up to $4 billion every year for four years. As his budget document points out, the cumulative total of these as-yet-unspecified cuts is $11 billion.

But that’s on top of the cuts that the government announced in past budgets but that have not yet kicked in. The cumulative total of these, according to Flaherty’s own figures, is at least $9.7 billion.

Add the two together and you get more than $20 billion in planned cutbacks between now and 2015. That’s not 5 per cent of federal direct program spending. It’s closer to 25 per cent.

Which is radical surgery.

So what gives?

The most obvious explanation is that the government is being dishonest.
...
Harper and his finance minister are taking a gamble. Taking a leaf from the Jean Chrétien Liberals, the Conservatives are using the deficit as an excuse to continue dismantling the parts of government they’ve already signalled they don’t like — such as health and safety regulation, veterans’ disability pensions and job training.

This would move Canada in the direction Harper wants it to go. But I suspect the Prime Minister knows his cuts could also threaten jobs and income should the world economy take another turn for the worse.

In that sense, the government’s careful rhetoric is more appropriate than its actions. This is a time for caution. It’s not a time for massive spending cuts, no matter how ideologically attractive the right might find them.

- No, it shouldn't be much of a surprise that the Bush administration saw Stephen Harper's Con government as a useful tool from day one. But it's striking how both the U.S. and the Cons seem to have overestimated the value of the softwood lumber debacle in giving Harper room to sell out Canada's interests further:

“That said, I see a real opportunity for us to advance our agenda with the new government,” Mr. Wilkins wrote. “I recommend early on that we look for an opportunity to give Harper a bilateral success story by resolving an irritant such as the Devil's Lake filter system or entering into good faith negotiations to reach a solution on softwood lumber. Press reports here indicate a growing willingness across Canada to get back to the table. Early success on a bilateral issue will bolster Harper and allow him to take a more pro-American position publicly without as much political risk.”

Less than four months later, Canada and the US reached an agreement on softwood lumber, with the Americans returning 80 per cent of the $5.3 billion in duties it had collected on lumber imports over the years.

However, if the deal was supposed to give the Conservative government an accomplishment to show the public it could stand up for the country and defend Canada’s interests in dealing with the US, it badly backfired.

A large number of softwood lumber industry groups, the BC government and the federal Liberals and NDP strongly opposed the agreement, declaring that the Harper government had in fact sold out to the Americans. The Conservatives retaliated by describing it as the best agreement possible and made the deal a confidence motion.

- Paul Krugman sums up how fiscal policy designed for the benefit of current creditors ends up harming the general public. [Update: And then highlights exactly who stands to gain as a result.]

- Finally, Nik Nanos' advice to the NDP may not be particularly surprising, but it nicely summarizes the message the party will need to develop:

“What’s always risky for a party is when it does things that seem to be inauthentic,” Mr. Nanos said. “Your guys and gals are going, ‘Hey what’s this all about now,’ now that we’re in the opposition people will expect certain things from the New Democrats.”

Mr. Nanos added: “I would say that the best way for the New Democrats to try to consolidate second spot is to deliver what people would expect from New Democrats, which is a socially progressive agenda that’s very compassionate, fighting for the little guy and gal.”

On accountability

Aaron Wherry picks up on a new theme in the Cons' rhetoric on health care. But since it seems to be drastically out of step with their actions since taking office, let's ask the question: how can any province be seen as "accountable" for its actions when it faces no enforcement of the rules linked to federal funding?

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Cats and plastic.

Moved to action

It remains to be seen how far the NDP will get in pushing for all parties to engage in meaningful discussion about policy. But if you're wondering whether there's already evidence of progress in the first days of the new session of Parliament, look no further than the Libs' budget subamendment.

By way of comparison, the Libs' budget amendment strategy since the 2008 election had ranged from not even bothering to present one, to procedural nit-picking which left the Cons' policy direction untouched, to serving up content-free disapproval which they weren't even willing to back up with votes.

Now, the Libs actually seem to have put some effort into finding policy areas not covered by either the Cons' budget or the NDP's main amendment, and taking the opportunity to bring them up for debate. (And there's little reason for the NDP to disagree with the amendment the Libs put forward - just as the Libs figure to have every reason to back the NDP's more general amendment.)

On recruitment tactics

So that's the Cons' long-term economic action plan...

A Conservative MP recently nominated by the federal government to sit on a secretive Canada-U.S. committee on continental defence told U.S. officials he was hoping a downturn in the economy would lead to increased recruitment for the Canadian army, according to a “confidential” U.S. diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks to APTN National News.

Edmonton Centre Conservative MP Laurie Hawn said he saw “hope” that the rising numbers of unemployed would lead to an increased in army recruits, according to the diplomatic cable from March 12, 2009.
...
“He expressed the hope that rising unemployment rates at home on one hand, and the welcome new deployment of U.S. troops in Kandahar on the other, would help the Canadian Forces to recruit and retain troops, at least in 2009 and 2010,” the cable said, which was based on a March 4, 2009 conversation.

Needless to say, many of the Cons' economic choices make a lot more sense if their goal is to drive unemployed Canadians into the military. But it still leaves a few open questions about their other priorities: after all, what happens when potential military recruits instead find plenty of jobs waiting in the Cons' new prisons?

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- With health care once again receiving plenty of attention on the U.S. political scene thanks to the Republicans' plan to dismantle publicly-funded Medicare, the differences between Canada and the U.S. are once again serving as a major point of discussion. And Aaron Carroll has posted a neat defence of Canada's universal system from the standpoint of patients and health practictioners alike.

- Megan Leslie highlights the Cons' continued failure to do anything meaningful on the climate change front - which looks all the more glaring when even oilsands operators are crying out for a clear and predictable system rather than another half a decade of delays and uncertainty.

- For all the talk about opposition parties' votes now being irrelevant in Parliament, it's noteworthy that the Bloc is planning to vote for the Cons' budget - even after the party had declared earlier this year that the HST money for Quebec which reflects the main change from the budget rejected in March wouldn't necessarily be enough to earn its support.

That would figure to mean the Bloc sees so little prospect of achieving much in the years to come that it has no choice but to paint the HST money as its main accomplishment for the next little while. Which may be an entirely reasonable conclusion - but seems to suggest that a Bloc resurgence is a long ways away.

- Shorter Murray Mandryk, serving up as embarrassing a sop to Brad Wall as one could imagine this side of John Gormley:

(insert Saskatchewan Party advertisement here)

- Finally, Rob Rainer nicely counters the perennial anti-tax spin from the Fraser Institute (which the Cons are working feverishly to promote) with a suggested Tax Benefits Day:

(H)appy Tax Benefits Day 2011! A day to remind ourselves that, far from being “bad” – as even Prime Minister Harper is on record as believing – taxes and our willingness to pay them make possible our democratic institutions and the many public goods and services that Canadians value.
...
(O)f all the recommendations of McQuaig and Brooks, the most important may be to “strive to bring about a change in social attitudes toward taxation and its essential role in a democracy.” Hence the inauguration of Tax Benefits Day – to fall on the day immediately after the Fraser Institute’s Tax Freedom Day, to counter the misguided view that taxes are bad.

One of these things is not like the others

One of these things just doesn't belong. See if you can spot the difference in the following single-election results - and consider what it might mean for each party's future strategy...

Vote Share	Seats	Provinces w Seats	Provinces under 20%	High Prov%	Low Prov%	Rebates
30.6%	103	8	2	42.9%	15.4%	306
25.5%	66	5	5	58.9%	3.9%	182
30.2%	103	9	1	52.5%	15.3%	283
29.6%	99	8	1	61.7%	8.8%	251

For those wondering, the parties who posted those totals are respectively the NDP in 2011, the Canadian Alliance in 2000, the Libs in 2006, and the Cons in 2004. And of course, each party served as the official opposition following the listed general election.

So let's ask the rhetorical question: is there an obvious reason why one of those parties might have had both a glaring need to pursue a merger, and an obvious opportunity in doing so?

And conversely, is there an equally obvious reason why the other three might see fit to work from an existing national base, rather than pursuing wrenching structural changes?

On flattering comparisons

Yes, it'll take time to break the habits that have formed over the past few years - and it may well be that the Harper Cons will continue to stonewall and distort no matter what they face from the Official Opposition. But if this turns into a consistent theme to Question Period coverage in the Parliament to come - comparing the NDP's substantive questions and civil tone to the Cons' lack of willingness to engage in reasonable discussion - doesn't that offer about the best possible chance to push for change for the better?

Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Brian Topp's initial observations on the new sitting of Parliament include this note on the Libs' interim leader:

(A)s a footnote, Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae was also interesting in these exchanges. He too noted the small sum being invested in alleviating seniors’ poverty, and asked: “Why would there not be more, as has been proposed by the opposition parties?” As his first words of substance in the new House, this was not without interest. It spoke to some of the common themes on the broader opposition bench that led the parties there, only a few short years ago, to think seriously about building and supporting a progressive government together.

Of course, we shouldn't presume that Rae's every signal of agreement with the NDP means that he wants to pursue a merger. But it's well worth keeping an eye on whether the Libs want to be part of a united front to push policies that the Cons would sooner ignore - and it's surely for the best if they keep moving in that direction.

- Can there possibly be a more sure sign that the Cons' bloated cabinet is purely a matter of patronage rather than need or merit than the fact that the group is too unwieldy to actually make decisions?

- It's well and good that Pat Davidson recognizes the problems with the Cons' continued funding off (and shilling for) the asbestos industry. But wouldn't her efforts figure to be far better directed at working with MPs from other parties who agree, rather than shouting into internal channels where they're easily ignored?

- Finally, Peter Chernoff spots the trend in Saskatchewan politics which voters will need to break this fall:

Years ago, we elected as premier Ross "The Boss" Thatcher. The media raved about his first term, so we elected him to a second. The result, you recall, was utter disaster! He was thrown out in the next election; things were fixed up and turned around eventually.

Then we elected Grant Devine. Again, the media raved about how well things were going during his first term. We forgot our history and elected him to a second.

Total and complete disaster - we are still paying off that one. In fact, we had to jail some MLAs!

Now, we are being told that our economy will be fantastic forever if we just vote right-wing again. Forget history!

On responsibility

Shorter Con instructions to ministers:

If your underlings break the law based on your instructions, it's their own damn fault for taking orders. So go nuts!

Burning questions

Since when does a faction of the Cons get to declare that Denise Savoie should stand down as a candidate for speaker for their own benefit?

And if Lee Richardson and his supporters were genuinely concerned about Andrew Scheer's inexperience (rather than merely wanting to make a power grab at the NDP's expense), wouldn't they logically have voted for Savoie themselves on the final ballot?

On dominance

Meanwhile, the obvious potential for growth in NDP support figures to have some rather important effects on the Cons' strategy as well. After all, their current coalition of support left them little room for error even with a split opposition - and if the NDP can win over the Lib votes that figure to be most readily available (resulting in something approaching an equal 40%/40% split), then there's little reason to think the Cons' longtime goal of demolishing the Libs' brand will actually position them as a default governing party.

On fading reasons

There's plenty to catch up on in Canadian politics from the past week, and I'll try to cover the biggest news over the next couple of days. But let's start with one polling tidbit that looks even more important than the NDP's improving support totals:

Respondents were asked which party they voted for in the May 2 federal election, and those who voted were asked their main reasons for their party choice (on an unprompted question which allowed any response). A majority of Conservative voters (54%) say they liked the party’s performance in government or the party’s philosophy or promises, followed by the party leader (Mr. Harper, 12%) and liking their local candidate (10%). Similarly, Bloc Quebecois voters also focus on that party’s philosophy (66%) as the main reason for their support.

Reasons for supporting the other two parties show a rather different profile. New Democrat voters are divided in their reasons between liking that party’s philosophy (34%) and a desire for change (28%). Given the considerable media attention paid to the importance of Mr. Layton, fewer New Democrat voters than expected (10%) mention him as their reason to vote for the party. Liberal voters emphasize stopping the Conservatives (33%) and this party’s philosophy or promises (27%) as their main reasons, with a significant number mentioning their local candidate (20%).

Comparing the three numbers, one gets a sense as to just how fragile the Libs' continued support figures to be (which also seems to be confirmed by later polls). The leading reason for Lib votes is one which might foreseeably evaporate completely if the NDP is able to make itself the leading voice opposing Harper in the lead up to the next federal election campaign. And another chunk of the Libs' support - adding up with the "stop Harper" factor to total more than half of the already-reduced vote share for the party - is based on local candidates rather than anything to do with the national party, presumably signalling votes which might also switch easily if the NDP can parlay its increased strength into higher-profile candidates.

(Granted, the Libs also benefited from another factor not mentioned in the commentary: "longtime party supporter", which accounted for 9% of Lib support compared to 3% for the other national parties. But I doubt that number offers much solace.)

In contrast, the NDP's most important factors are ones which only figure to be strengthened as the party both raises the profile of its own policy priorities, and makes the case for change in the next election. Which means that there's plenty of reason for optimism that 2015 will see the strongest possible anti-Harper coalition uniting in the NDP's camp.

New column day

Blogging may be on hold for the week, but columnizing isn't. Here's my latest, on the Cons' disaster response and the broader question of what we expect from our elected leaders in a time of crisis.

Light blogging ahead

Off to a couple of undisclosed locations for the next week, with little to no blogging in the meantime. But let's note one point worth watching as Parliament reconvenes.

While I don't think there's much room for dispute that the Cons have tried to move Canada as far right as possible, they've seldom been brave enough to actually defend their ideological positions when there's been any available means of deflecting from substantive debate.

Throughout their stay in office, the Cons' regular response to questions about social issues has focused extensively on the Libs' previous time in government - either based on a failure to address issues substantively (climate change, child care, etc.) or outright cuts (to health care and education). Which may have made for a valid point in assessing the Libs' credibility, but hardly serves to defend the Cons' own failings.

And for the past two-plus years, the other consistent mantra from the Cons has been coalition, coalition, coalition - representing another decidedly substance-free complaint to distract from real policy choices.

Now, both of those default responses will be entirely obsolete.

With that in mind, even if the NDP can't get anywhere in securing meaningful answers to its questions, it's well worth watching what the Cons adopt instead as their standard talking point in responding to the NDP's choice of issues to highlight. And it's entirely possible that an attempt to extend the "high tax vs. low tax" question that made for the lone response during the campaign may end up backfiring in a genuine debate over the funding of public services.

Sunday Morning Links

Assorted content for your Sunday reading.

- John Allemang's profile of Jack Layton is well worth a read in full. But after a campaign where any show of support can easily be written off as a matter of party scripting, it's well worth noting the spontaneous reaction Layton continues to generate even now that the election is over:

Jack Layton and his partner in life and politics, Olivia Chow, were hardly the most recognizable faces at the benefit for the Stephen Lewis Foundation: Alicia Keys, Rufus Wainwright, K'naan and Harry Belafonte were among the celebrities at the AIDS fundraiser, drawing more than 3,000 people. It should have been easy for a couple of downtown politicians to blend into the crowd.

The crowd wouldn't let them.

Mr. Layton, 60, was moving slowly, still showing the effects of his hip surgery. Maybe his measured pace drew attention to his presence. “People were clapping, and at first I wasn't sure what it was for,” Ms. Chow says. “And then I realized it was for Jack.”

What had started as a typical evening of socially aware partying for the New Democratic Party leader suddenly turned into a celebration of the hopes his electoral achievement had raised: People cheered, shouted encouragement, even teared up as they rose in a standing ovation.

“It was very special, actually,” Mr. Layton recalls. “There was a wonderfully warm, spontaneous reaction. … I'm sure not everybody there voted for us, but there was a good feeling about what happened in the campaign.”
...
He's on his way to Ottawa. He's a politician. That's his job, his purpose and, more and more, his life.

But when the people stand up and applaud, it's for something else entirely.

- Which means that strong appeals like this one are all the more likely to resonate:

Asked what he can do to help the people, Layton said: “I’ll tell you one thing, I wouldn’t tell the army to go home as the flood waters are rising.

“It seems every time the flood waters rise, the federal government pulls back. It should be the opposite.

“And the idea that they don’t want to interfere with the private sector ... what is this? You want to promote the private sector to make money off the misery of people.

“What kind of an attitude is that? Is that the beginning of the attitude we’re going to see on the privatization of health care and the privatization of all kinds of things which should be done by the government?

“That, I think, should worry every Canadian."

- And the message that people need to pay attention to the gap between their priorities and the Cons' focus on profit should encourage plenty more organization on both the citizen and labour fronts.

- But then, pogge is absolutely right in pointing out that the most damaging end result of the Toronto G20 abuses may be to create disincentives for people to get involved:

There are the individual stories of abuse, injury and injustice, some of which continue to receive attention. But beyond that there is the story of a security establishment — including both law enforcement and the justice system — flexing its muscles and showing the citizenry who's boss, whether it was done consciously or it was just a reflex, an authoritarian impulse looking for an outlet and seeing an opportunity.

And so far efforts to bring that security establishment to heel and remind it that it's the citizens who are actually supposed to be in charge haven't gotten very far. It seems the last thing the powers that be want is an inquiry that would encourage a broader look and a serious discussion.

Saturday Afternoon Links

This and that for your weekend reading.

- In case we didn't already have enough examples of the Wall government's contempt for voting, James Wood notes that it's dragging its heels on authorizing any enumeration before the official writ period. That figures to work wonders in making it more difficult to accurately identify voters - but raises the question of why a government which is supposed to be able to coast to re-election feels the need to throw as many wrenches into the works as possible.

- We shouldn't be surprised to find out that most corporatist spin is based on blind belief in mythical concepts ranging from confidence fairies to magical wealth creators. But Sixth Estate highlights a particularly egregious example, as Stephane Dion's newest buddies are declaring that we can wish natural resources into existence.

- Meanwhile, in the real world, the consequences of that type of blind faith in markets can be readily observed - even as the Cons double down in their fervour:

As in many other countries, Canada is witnessing a phenomenon in which the most wealthy are enjoying stunning increases in their income while the rest of society stagnates. It’s something that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is likely to hear about in no uncertain terms in the parliamentary debate following the tabling of the budget on June 6.

The trend (long summarized as “the rich get richer while the poor get poorer”) is so pronounced globally that Angel Gurria, head of the industrialized world’s main think tank, is warning that income equality is becoming a “serious threat.”
...
In a 2008 study of 30 OECD countries, Canada was singled out as one of the member nations that has witnessed the worst widening of the wealth gap.

Inequality and poverty declined in Canada for 20 years before the late 1990s, the OECD study said, but since have gotten much worse.
...
And some analysts say the economic strategies being pursued by a re-elected Harper will only make matters worse, leading to a further expansion of the income gap between the very rich and others in Canada.

The crux of the issue concerns the Conservatives’ plan to continue implementing corporate income tax cuts and to eventually bring in other tax breaks, such as expanding deposits in Tax-Free Savings Accounts and allowing two-income couples with children younger than 18 to split their income for federal tax purposes.

While these measures have been promoted as ways of creating jobs or helping average Canadians, some economists say the benefits to the rich from these tax breaks will far outweigh anything seen by other members of society.

- Finally, Don Martin points out one noteworthy consequences of the NDP's surge:

Funny thing, but the more...under-30 MPs you meet, all of them unexpectedly elected in the orange wave of the NDP surge, the more you sense they will be a future asset, not a long-term liability, to leader Jack Layton.

They talk beyond their years, think quickly and most have an academic grounding in what federal politics is all about.
...
I'm only met half a dozen or so, but I suspect it'll be great fun watching them spring in parliamentary action next week.

Thanks to them, the average age of Canada's 308 MPs has dipped below 50 for the first time in history.

Granted, that still leaves the average age in the House of Commons somewhat higher than in the general population. But as with other measures such as womens' representation, the NDP can at least claim proudly to have made Parliament more representative of Canada's population than ever - and hopefully the result will be a political conversation that better reflects the concerns of the general public.

On credibility gaps

Since I haven't yet seen this story linked to the spin which seems to have made it necessary, let's put two and two together.

The professionals responsible for maintaining the solvency of the Canada Pension Plan have made it clear that the CPP is capable of expanding its operations if Canadians decide they'd prefer to have more of their retirement taken care of through a near-universal public program:

The investment arm of the Canada Pension Plan is prepared for any expanded role, if that's what the government wants, president and chief executive David Denison said Thursday after reporting that the fund's assets rose to a record high last year.

"We're not advocating one way or another on reforms, but if it does translate into CPP expansion and we're asked to manage it — we can do it," Denison said.
...
Any expansion would give the CPPIB more money to manage, but Denison said there wouldn't be much change in strategy because it is already preparing for growth in the multibillion-dollar fund.

The CPP Fund's assets under management reached a record high of $148.2 billion at the end of its most recent fiscal year, compared with $127.6 billion at the end of fiscal 2010, it said in its annual report Thursday.

In contrast, the ideologues dedicated to destroying social programs at every turn are declaring that they're really only motivated by a desire to save the CPP in demanding that its reach be as limited as possible.

So who figures to be a more credible authority on the viability of an expanded CPP: the people who have managed it effectively and responsibly to turn it into the most reliable part of Canada's retirement system, or the corporate interests whose goal is to undermine any reliance on public programs?

On consensus-building

Kady's post on the composition and chairing of committees notes that there's some risk the Cons could try to use their majority to rewrite the rules. But it's worth pointing out that there doesn't look to be much precedent for that step in recent decades.

One of the first orders of business for any Parliament is the approval of committee composition and mandates. And in every single post-election Parliament since 1994 (which of course also involved a new majority government), those issues have been seen as a matter of negotiation and consensus rather than partisan strongarming - such that each of the motions has been passed with unanimous consent. See the relevant journal dates from 1994, 1997, 2001, 2004, 2006 and 2008.

And indeed all MPs - whether party members or not - presumably need to have been at least be willing to accept the process used to set the rules in order to develop that record of unanimous consent.

Of course, we can't ignore the possibility that the Cons might try to either sneak some changes into the Standing Orders with the other parties' acquiescence, or thumb their nose at the apparent convention in order to impose their will on a vote. But it's well worth noting that there doesn't seem to be much precedent for either of those courses of action. And I'd have to figure the Cons would be careful about suddenly tearing up procedures and customs which have been the subject of all-MP consensus for at least the last couple of decades - including during their previous terms in office.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- The McGill Institute's Election Content Analysis includes plenty of interesting information on how this month's federal election was covered. But the most noteworthy point looks to be the lag time between developments in the public and coverage by the media: the key developments in the polls for the NDP - reaching rough parity with the Libs around April 21, and passing them early in the week of April 25) - were followed by a roughly proportional boost in first mentions and overall mentions only several days later. (And indeed, even the last week of the campaign saw the Libs getting more overall mentions than the NDP.)

Of course, it's also worth noting that the lag time also offers an indication that we shouldn't be unduly concerned with the volume of media coverage: after all, the NDP's surge built up without any particular help on that front.

- And the NDP should anticipate that it'll mostly need to keep building outside the corporate media as well - a point which looks all the more clear in light of Sixth Estate's analysis of opinion-page content.

- Meanwhile, much of the punditocracy's response to the NDP's rise was to declare that it was out of touch with a perceived consensus on issues such as, say, its willingness to revisit Canada's constitution to secure Quebec's support. Too bad nobody thought to ask the public until now:

After almost two decades of constitutional peace, The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey indicates a majority is now willing to risk re-opening the constitutional can of worms to accomplish some specific goals.

For instance, 61 per cent said they're prepared to re-open the Constitution to reform or abolish the appointed Senate.

And 58 per cent said they're willing to offer constitutional amendments in a bid to finally secure Quebec's signature on the Constitution. That includes 66 per cent of Quebecers and 55 per cent of Canadians outside the province.

Fifty-eight per cent also said they're willing to open up the Constitution to change the country's electoral system.

- Finally, Jim Stanford rightly slams the corporatist line that executives should be entitled to take credit for "creating value":

But my bigger point has to do with his claim that he “created value” for investors. This self-important shorthand is regularly invoked by business leaders to justify whatever it is they are doing. But do CEOs really “create value,” even if the share price of whatever organization they are in charge of happened to increase in a certain time period? A more accurate and neutral statement would be that Mr. Underwood was in charge of this REIT during a year when the market value of its unit price increased. Does this mean he “created value”? Of course not.

The market value of those units could increase for all kinds of reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with Mr. Underwood’s talents: like a renewal of low-interest credit creation being used for speculative purchases of real estate-related financial assets (gee, I’ve seen that movie before, and it doesn’t end nicely), overall investor sentiment, the impact of low interest rates on capitalized real estate prices, the impact of tax loopholes on the value of income trusts (indeed, Mr. Underwood’s firm would not even exist where it not for the enormous and blatant tax loophole for income trusts which the federal government is finally now partially closing), and other macro factors.

The only people in Mr. Underwood’s industry who actually “created value” are the workers who actually build and maintain the structures which his firm owns, operates, and markets. Needless to say, the compensation for these genuine value-creators did not increase by 475% last year.

Musical interlude

Andre Visior & Kay Stone - Sunrise

On questions and answers

Lawrence Martin's theory on how the NDP can start making Question Period more substantive looks to be a good start. But I'll add that there's one more consideration worth taking into account - especially in the early days of the new Parliament.

After all, the bulk of the Cons' cabinet has been under Stephen Harper's thumb in previous sessions. And I'm not sure we can expect bad habits to be broken all that quickly, no matter how reasonable the NDP is in seeking substantive answers to reasonable questions.

But two ministers (both in roles which do figure to be a focus of NDP attention) weren't around for Harper's past clampdown, and thus might not be quite as prone to dispensing empty talking points. And so in trying to establish a more positive tone, it might well be worth the NDP's while to direct questions particularly at Peter Penashue and Joe Oliver early on in the new Parliament - not because they're new to government, but to help set a standard that other Cons will start to adopt for themselves.